HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 - Appendix J Part 1APPENDIX J
CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL
RESOURCES
GI0[ _
C O N S U L T I N O ,
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
NEWPORT BANNING RANCH
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for City of Newport Beach
Planning Department
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92663
Prepared by BonTerra Consulting
151 Kalmus Drive, Suite E -200
Costa Mesa, California 92626
T: (714) 444 -9199 F: (714) 444 -9599
February 16, 2010
Ranch
TESTING AND EVALUATION OF THE CULTURAL
RESOURCES OF NEWPORT BANNING RANCH
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for
City of Newport Beach
Prepared by:
BonTerra Consulting
151 Kalmus Drive, Suite E -200
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Authors:
Christopher Drover, Ph.D., RPA
Patrick Maxon, M.A., RPA
Mark Roeder
Tony Kuhner
Ranch
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
Ranch
Page
1.0 Management Summary .....................................................................
..............................1
1.1 Purpose and Scope .....................................................
..............................1
1.2 Dates of Investigation ..................................................
..............................1
1.3 Findings of the Investigation ........................................
..............................1
1.4 Investigation Constraints .............................................
..............................2
1.5 Recommendations .......................................................
..............................2
1.5.1 CA -ORA- 839 ....................................................
..............................3
1.5.2 CA -ORA -844 Locus B ......................................
..............................3
1.5.3 CA -ORA- 906 ....................................................
..............................4
1.5.4 Cultural Resources Monitoring .........................
..............................4
1.5.5 Human Remains ..............................................
..............................5
2.0 Undertaking Information / Introduction .............................................
..............................5
2.1 Contracting Data ..........................................................
..............................5
2.2 Regulatory Setting .......................................................
..............................5
2.2.1 State .................................................................
..............................6
2.2.2 Federal .............................................................
..............................5
2.2.3 City of Newport Beach ....................................
............................... 8
2.3 Undertaking ................................................................
.............................10
2.4 Project Site .................................................................
.............................10
Project Site Map ....................................... ...............................
(Follows) 10
2.5 Project Personnel .......................................................
.............................11
3.0 Physical Setting ...............................................................................
.............................11
3.1 Cultural Setting ...........................................................
.............................11
3.1.1 Prehistory ........................................................
.............................11
3.1.2 Ethnohistory ....................................................
.............................14
4.0 Research Design .............................................................................. .............................15
4.1 Theoretical Orientation ............................................... .............................15
4.2 History of Research .................................................... .............................16
4.3 Hypotheses, Test Implications, Data Requirements ... .............................18
4.3.1 Chronology ...................................................... .............................19
4.3.2 SettlementlSubsistence Systems ................... .............................22
4.3.3 Trade and Exchange ....................................... .............................25
4.3.4 Lithic Technology ............................................ .............................27
4.3.5 Site Structure ................................................ ...............................
28
5.0 Methods ............................................................................................ .............................28
5.1 Field Methods and Procedures ................................... .............................28
5.1.1 Site Boundaries ............................................... .............................29
5.1.2 Data Sampling and Excavation Procedures ... .............................29
5.1.3 Screening, Washing and Laboratory Methods and Procedures.. 30
5.1.4 Cataloging ....................................................... .............................30
R \Projects \Newport \J015 \Technical Repotls \CulturaMrchaec Tech Rpt (pub) - 021610 doe I Table of Contents
6.0 Results ..................
Ranch
......................... ............................... 31
6.1
Prehistoric Sites ..........................................................
.............................31
6.1.1 CA -ORA- 148 ...................................................
.............................31
6.1.2 CA -ORA- 839 ...................................................
.............................34
6.1.3 CA -ORA- 843 ...................................................
.............................42
6.1.4 CA -ORA -844 (Locus A + 8) ..........................
............................... 44
6.1.5 CA -ORA- 845 ...................................................
.............................47
6.1.6 CA -ORA- 906 ...................................................
.............................48
6.1.7 CA -ORA- 1599 .................................................
.............................51
6.1.8 CA -ORA- 1600 .................................................
.............................53
6.2
Historic Sites ...............................................................
.............................54
6.2.1 CA- ORA- 1601H ..............................................
.............................54
6.2.2 CA- ORA- 1602H ..............................................
.............................56
6.2.3 CA- ORA- 1610H ..............................................
.............................57
7.0 Discussion ........................................................................................
8.3 Human Remains ......................................................... .............................68
.............................60
7.1
Eligibility Determinations .............................................
.............................60
8.0 Management Considerations .......................................................... .............................60
R: \Projects \NewpoOIJ015\Technical Reports\CUlturalWchaec Tech Rpt (pub)- 021610.tloc II Table of Contents
8.1 Recommendations /Mitigation ..................................... .............................60
8.1.1 CA -ORA- 148 ................................................... .............................60
8.1.2 CA -ORA- 839 ................................................... .............................61
8.1.3 CA -ORA- 843 ................................................... .............................62
8.1.4 CA -ORA- 844 ................................................... .............................63
8.1.5 CA -ORA- 845 ................................................... .............................65
8.1.6 CA -ORA- 906 ................................................... .............................65
8.1.7 CA -ORA- 1599 ................................................. .............................66
8.1.8 CA -ORA- 1600 ................................................. .............................67
8.1.9 CA- ORA- 1601H .............................................. .............................67
8.1.10 CA- ORA- 1602H .............................................. .............................67
8.1.11 CA- ORA- 1610H .............................................. .............................67
8.2 Cultural Resources Monitoring ................................... .............................67
8.3 Human Remains ......................................................... .............................68
9.0
References ........................................................................................ .............................69
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Pa e
1
Results and Recommendations of the Study for Each Archaeological Site ......................2
2
Cultural Sequence for Orange County ............................................... .............................13
R: \Projects \NewpoOIJ015\Technical Reports\CUlturalWchaec Tech Rpt (pub)- 021610.tloc II Table of Contents
Figure
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
LIST OF FIGURES
Ranch
Page
ORA -148; Van Horn's Test Unit Locations ......................................... .............................32
ORA -148 Recorded Site Location ...................................................... .............................33
ORA -839 Aerial View; Note Surface Disturbance and Barrow Pit North of Locus C.......35
New Test Units ORA -839 Locus B ..................................................... .............................37
ORA -839 Locus B Van Horn ( 1980: 56) .............................................. .............................38
Feature 1 Locus C ORA -839; 14C ..................................................... .............................39
CA -ORA -843 Remnant Midden Areas ............................................... .............................43
ORA -844 Locus A and B — Remnant Middens ................................... .............................45
ORA -906 Sidewall Profile ................................................................... .............................49
ORA -1599 and ORA -1600 ................................................................. .............................52
Site Locations ORA -1601, 1602, and 1610 ........................................ .............................55
Costa Mesa Battery; Note Omega Shaped Concrete Anchor ............ .............................58
ORA -1610; Note Omega- Shaped Concrete Anchor in the Center Right ........................59
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit
Location
Overview....................................................................................... ............................... Appendix C
1 -6 Cultural Sites ..................................................................... ............................... Appendix C
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix
A Personnel Qualifications
B Fishbone and Faunal Analyses
C Cultural Sites: Unit Excavation Locations
D Catalog
R: \Projects \NewpoOIJ015\Technical Reports\CUlturalWchaec Tech Rpt (pub)- 021610.tloc111 Table of Contents
Ranch
This page intentionally left blank
R: \Projects \NewpoOIJ015\Technical Reports\CulturalWchaec Tech Rpt (pub)- 021610.tloclV Table of Contents
Ranch
SECTION 1.0 MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
BonTerra Consulting completed a Phase II test excavation and evaluation of archaeological
sites CA -ORA -148, CA -ORA -839, CA -ORA -843, CA -ORA -844, CA -ORA -845, CA -ORA -906,
CA -ORA -1599, CA -ORA -1600, CA -ORA -1601 H, CA- ORA- 1602H, and CA- ORA -1610H for the
proposed Newport Banning Ranch Project located in the City of Newport Beach and
unincorporated Orange County, California, within the City of Newport Beach's Sphere of
Influence. All work was completed under the cultural resources provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City of Newport Beach. This study would be a
technical appendix to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) being developed by BonTerra
Consulting for the Project. The study was also done to federal level standards (Section 106 of
the National Historic Preservation Act [NHPAj) because of the possibility of a future federal
nexus.
This Phase II report addresses the disposition and significance of the 11 unevaluated
archaeological sites on the Project site. They are being evaluated for their eligibility for listing on
the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), and by extension, on the National
Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Eligible sites warrant further consideration in the planning
process. The format of this report follows Archaeological Resource Management Reports
(ARMR): Recommended Contents and Format (Office of Historic Preservation 1990).
Data collected through survey, controlled excavation, and archival research was analyzed and
used to evaluate the significance of each site. Pursuant to Section 15064.5(a)(3) of the CEQA
Guidelines, a site is considered historically significant if it meets one of the four criteria for listing
on the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) (see "Regulatory Setting" below).
Archaeological sites are typically evaluated under Criterion D, which assesses the potential of
each site to yield information important in the State's prehistory.
Therefore, the primary goal of site testing at Newport Banning Ranch is to establish the
dimensions, chronology, density, diversity, and integrity of the archaeological sites and to
compare them to other local and regional sites in order to determine whether any meet the
statutory requirements of significance under CEQA.
1.2 DATES OF INVESTIGATION
BonTerra Consulting Archaeologists Patrick Maxon and Christopher Drover, PhD, both
Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA), completed an initial site walk to formulate
excavation plans on May 13, 2009. Site excavations were conducted under the direct
supervision and direction of Dr. Drover from May 27, 2009 through June 26, 2009. This report
was completed in August 2009.
1.3 FINDINGS OF THE INVESTIGATION
Hand excavation of a varying number of Shovel Test Pits (STPs) and 1 x 1 meter units at 10 of
the 11 archaeological sites on the Newport Banning Ranch Project site resulted in cultural
material recovery and permitted significance evaluations. Table 1 summarizes the results and
recommendations of the study for each archaeological site.
R: \Projects \NewportU015\Technical Reports\CUlturalWchaec Tech Rpt (pub)- 021610.tloc 1 Archaeological Resources Assessment
Ranch
TABLE 1
RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE STUDY FOR EACH
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE
1.4 INVESTIGATION CONSTRAINTS
Much disturbance has occurred throughout the property. The Newport Oil Company has
developed and drilled on the property for many years. These activities have heavily disturbed all
of the recorded cultural resources on the Project site. Disturbances that have affected cultural
resources include road building; quarrying; maintenance; preparation, closure, and rehabilitation
of drilling pads; and other activities. Fill soil /sediment, acquired over time from numerous
locations on the property, was often used to create roads and pad sites in the lower wetlands. In
some cases, these disturbances have resulted in isolated cultural loci within sites as
consequences of grading rather than cultural activities.
1.5 RECOMMENDATIONS
BonTerra Consulting recommends that CA -ORA -839; CA -ORA -844, Locus B; and CA -ORA -906
be deemed eligible for listing in the CRHR or NRHP. Locus A of CA -ORA -844 and the
remaining eight archaeological sites on the Project site are recommended not eligible for listing
and require no further study aside from observation during grading.
The CEQA Guidelines ( §15126.4[b][3]) directs public agencies, wherever feasible, to avoid
damaging historical resources of an archaeological nature, preferably by preserving the
resource(s) in place. Several possibilities suggested by the CEQA Guidelines include
(1) planning construction to avoid the site; (2) incorporating the site into open space; (3) capping
the site with a chemically stable soil; and /or (4) deeding the site into a permanent conservation
easement.
R: \Projects \NewportU015\Technical Reports\CulturalWchaec Tech Rpt (pub)- 021610.tloc2 Archaeological Resources Assessment
CEQA/Section 106
Eligibility
Site CA-
Description
Condition
Prior Testing
Current Testing
Recommendation
ORA -148
Shell scatter
Destroyed
Van Horn
None
Not eligible
(1982)
ORA -839
Minor residential
Good
Van Horn
8 Control Units
Eligible
base
(1980)
ORA -843
Shell scatter
Poor
Van Horn
8 STPs
Not eligible
(1982)
Minor residential
Locus A:
1 Control Unit;
ORA -844
base
Satisfactory
No
10 STPs
Eligible (Locus B)
Locus B: Poor
ORA -845
Shell scatter
Poor
Van Horn
(1982)
10 STPs
Not eligible
ORA -906
Major residential
Good
No
1 Control Unit
Eligible
base
ORA- 1599
Lithic scatter
Poor
No
6 STPs
Not eligible
ORA -1600
Lithic scatter
Poor
No
7 STPs
Not eligible
ORA -1601 H
Trash scatter
Poor
No
2 STPs
Not eligible
ORA -1602H
Trash scatter
Poor
No
1 STP
Not eligible
ORA -1610H
emplacement
I Destroyed
No
None
Not eligible
STP: Shovel Test Pits. An approximately 40 -cm by 40 -cm hand - excavated unit used to detect presence /absence of resources.
1.4 INVESTIGATION CONSTRAINTS
Much disturbance has occurred throughout the property. The Newport Oil Company has
developed and drilled on the property for many years. These activities have heavily disturbed all
of the recorded cultural resources on the Project site. Disturbances that have affected cultural
resources include road building; quarrying; maintenance; preparation, closure, and rehabilitation
of drilling pads; and other activities. Fill soil /sediment, acquired over time from numerous
locations on the property, was often used to create roads and pad sites in the lower wetlands. In
some cases, these disturbances have resulted in isolated cultural loci within sites as
consequences of grading rather than cultural activities.
1.5 RECOMMENDATIONS
BonTerra Consulting recommends that CA -ORA -839; CA -ORA -844, Locus B; and CA -ORA -906
be deemed eligible for listing in the CRHR or NRHP. Locus A of CA -ORA -844 and the
remaining eight archaeological sites on the Project site are recommended not eligible for listing
and require no further study aside from observation during grading.
The CEQA Guidelines ( §15126.4[b][3]) directs public agencies, wherever feasible, to avoid
damaging historical resources of an archaeological nature, preferably by preserving the
resource(s) in place. Several possibilities suggested by the CEQA Guidelines include
(1) planning construction to avoid the site; (2) incorporating the site into open space; (3) capping
the site with a chemically stable soil; and /or (4) deeding the site into a permanent conservation
easement.
R: \Projects \NewportU015\Technical Reports\CulturalWchaec Tech Rpt (pub)- 021610.tloc2 Archaeological Resources Assessment
Ranch
In this analysis, the location and nature of each identified eligible archaeological site was
compared to the proposed Newport Banning Ranch development plans. Mitigation measures
were developed for all the sites' resources, but particular attention is given to those sites that
could potentially suffer substantial adverse change or adverse impacts as a result of the
proposed Project.
The following is applicable for the three sites deemed eligible for listing on the CRHR or the
NRHP as historical resources. Only CA -ORA -839 is also considered a unique archaeological
resource. Mitigation is the same for both types of resources.
1.5.1 CA -ORA -839
It appears that CA -ORA -839 would suffer no direct impacts as a result of the proposed
development (Figure 4). Although the construction of Bluff Road to 19`h Street would extend
north into the vicinity of the site, the road would be constructed along the bottom and to the west
of the bluffs, while the site lies on the bluff top to the east. In the event that Bluff Road is not
constructed, no direct impacts to CA -ORA -839 are anticipated. Direct impacts from the removal
of oil field infrastructure, however, could impact the site, and the increased population on the
site as a result of future development, could cause further damage to the site over time. With
respect to site development, it should be possible to preserve the vast majority of the site in
place in perpetuity to avoid further disturbance to it.
It should be possible to preserve the vast majority of the site in place in perpetuity to avoid
further disturbance to it. However, it appears that the planned removal of oil field infrastructure
may impact portions of the site. In that event, the site shall undergo a data recovery excavation
of those areas that will be impacted. Data recovery shall be sufficient to collect a representative
sample of site constituents, including organic materials, to permit additional absolute dating of
the deposit.
In addition, secondary impacts (e.g., increased foot traffic, erosion) could occur at the site after
the Project has been constructed; therefore, the site shall be capped with chemically stable soil
to preserve it in perpetuity. During grading operations, excess dirt shall be placed on the site to
a sufficient depth to protect the deposit, but not cause unintended damage to it. Shallow- rooted
vegetation (such as native coastal sage scrub) may be planted on the new surface. To ensure
the integrity of the archaeological deposit, the current ground surface shall initially be covered
with some form of horizon marker (e.g., by Mirafi, a polypropylene geotextile) to prevent the
deposit from mixing with the covering material and to serve as a marker of the site if the
covering is ever removed. The capping methodology relies on guidance provided by the
National Park Service's Brief #5 Intentional Site Burial: A Technique to Protect Against Natural
or Mechanical Loss (NPS 1989, revised 1991). Refer to Recommendation /Mitigation
Measure 8.1.2.
CA -ORA -8448 is located on a hillside transected by two erosional cuts exceeding six feet in
depth. The western side of the site is absent due to oil pad construction. These factors have left
little midden from the original site intact at this location, but a surprisingly robust sample was
recovered through the test excavation.
CA -ORA -8448 is not expected to be directly impacted by development (Figure 9). Oil
infrastructure removal activities that would occur prior to grading are expected to adversely
impact portions of the site. Indirect impacts from additional erosion of the unstable surface and
increased population in the vicinity of the site as a result of the future development could cause
further damage over time.
R: \Projects \NewportU015\Technical Reports\CUlturalWchaec Tech Rpt (pub)- 021610.tloc3 Archaeological Resources Assessment
Ranch
Both capping and data recovery excavation are viable options for treating the site; however,
because it has been disturbed by erosion and oil extraction activities, capping the deposit would
be difficult and possibly more expensive and time consuming with less desirable results, than
data recovery excavation. Considering these circumstances, two options are provided:
(1) successful capping of the site, while likely difficult to accomplish, would be designed to
protect the site in perpetuity or, preferably, (2) data recovery shall be undertaken prior to
grading to collect the scientifically consequential data that is present in the site since it appears
that only a small, yet important, portion of the site remains. Because of the limited size of this
site, this option would be able to remove and analyze the site in its entirety. Refer to
Recommendation /Mitigation Measure 8.1.4.
1.5.3 CA -ORA -906
CA -ORA -906 would be directly impacted as a result of development as well as oil infrastructure
removal. The site would likely be completely destroyed by construction of Bluff Road. Data
recovery excavation at the site shall be completed prior to Project grading and shall be designed
to recover the consequential data present in the site and to remove the site constituents.
Mitigation shall be in the form of data recovery excavation to collect the scientifically
consequential data that the site retains prior to its destruction by Project grading. Refer to
Recommendation /Mitigation Measure 8.1.6.
1.5.4 Cultural Resources Monitoring
Section 21083.2(i) of the CEQA Statutes and Section 15064.5(f) of the CEQA Guidelines
provide for the accidental discovery of historical resources during construction. Based on the
fact that prehistoric, historic and modern peoples made use of the property, it is clear that
cultural resources still exist within sites on Newport Banning Ranch, and it is not unlikely that
previously undetected cultural material and unknown archaeological sites could remain in the
subsurface of the Project site. Therefore, it is recommended that a qualified Archaeologist who
meets the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Archaeologists (NIPS 1983) and Native
American Tribal Monitor(s) of the local Juaneno and /or Gabrielino tribal groups (identified by the
Native American Heritage Commission [NAHCj), who have historical ties to the Project area
monitor mass grading for the Newport Banning Ranch Project.
In the event that cultural resources are exposed during construction, the monitor must be
empowered to temporarily halt construction in the immediate vicinity of the discovery while it is
evaluated for significance; construction activities could continue in other areas. If the discovery
proves to be significant, additional work (such as data recovery excavation) may be warranted.
A Registered Professional Archaeologist should, at minimum, supervise any monitoring
activities.
Prior to the issuance of the firest grading permit and /or action that would permit Project site
disturbance, the Contractor shall provide written evidence to the City of Newport Beach
Planning Director that the Contractor has retained a qualified Archaeologist to observe
grading /site disturbance activities and to salvage and catalogue archaeological resources, as
necessary. The Archaeologist shall be present at the pre -grade conference; shall establish
procedures for archaeological resource surveillance; and shall establish, in cooperation with the
Contractor, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling,
identification, and evaluation of the artifacts, as appropriate. If the archaeological resources are
found to be significant, the Archaeologist shall determine appropriate actions in cooperation with
the City and Contractor for exploration and /or salvage. These actions, as well as final mitigation
and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Director.
Based on their interest and concern about the discovery of cultural resources and human
R: \Projects \NewportU015\Technical Reports\CUlturalWchaeo Tech Rpt (pub)- 021610.tloc4 Archaeological Resources Assessment
Ranch
remains during Project grading, a Native American Monitor shall be retained to observe some or
all grading activities.
1.5.5 Human Remains
In accordance with Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, if human remains
are found, the County Coroner shall be notified within 24 hours of the discovery. No further
excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie
adjacent remains shall occur until the County Coroner has determined, within two working days
of notification of the discovery, the appropriate treatment and disposition of the human remains.
If the County Coroner determines that the remains are or believed to be Native American, s /he
shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) in Sacramento within 48 hours.
In accordance with Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code, the NAHC must
immediately notify those persons it believes to be the most likely descended from the deceased
Native American. The descendents shall complete their inspection within 48 hours of being
granted access to the site. The designated Native American representative would then
determine, in consultation with the property owner, the disposition of the human remains.
With implementation of the mitigation program summarized above, potential impacts to
archaeological resources would be reduced to a level considered less than significant.
Disposition of Data
This report would be filed with the City of Newport Beach, the Project Applicant, BonTerra
Consulting, and at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) at the California State
University, Fullerton. All field notes and other documentation related to the study are on file at
BonTerra Consulting.
SECTION 2.0 UNDERTAKING INFORMATION /INTRODUCTION
2.1 CONTRACTING DATA
The City of Newport Beach contracted BonTerra Consulting to conduct a cultural resources
Phase II Evaluation of 11 sites on the Newport Banning Ranch Project site, and to complete a
technical report that details the findings of the investigation and provides management
recommendations.
2.2 REGULATORY SETTING
This section contains a discussion of the applicable laws, ordinances, regulations, and
standards that govern cultural resources and that must be adhered to prior to and during
construction of the proposed Newport Banning Ranch development Project. Federal and State
regulations are included, as it is possible that both CEQA and NHPA regulations would apply.
The report is intended to satisfy the requirements of (1) State CEQA regulations (14 California
Code of Regulations [CCR] §15064.5 and PRC §21083.2); (2) Section 106 of the NHPA
(36 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 800); and (3) a review by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) and State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) relative to a possible Clean
Water Act (CWA) 404 Permit for the proposed Project.
2.2.1 Federal
Cultural resources are considered during federal undertakings chiefly under Section 106 of the
NHPA of 1966 (as amended) through one of its implementing regulations (36 CFR 800,
R: \Projects \NewportU015\Technical Reports\CUlturalWchaec Tech Rpt (pub)- 021610.tloc5 Archaeological Resources Assessment
Ranch
Protection of Historic Properties) and under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to Native Americans are considered
under Section 101(d)(6)(A) of the NHPA. Other federal laws include the Archaeological Data
Preservation Act of 1974, the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA) of 1978, the
Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, and the Native American Graves Protection
and Repatriation Act of 1989, among others.
Section 106 of the NHPA (16 United States Code [USC] 470f) requires federal agencies to
(1) take into account the effects of their undertakings on any district, site, building, structure, or
object that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the NRHP and (2) afford the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation (ACHP) a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings
(36 CFR 800.1). Under Section 106 of the NHPA, the significance of any adverse effect on
cultural resource is assessed, and mitigation measures are proposed to reduce the impacts to
an acceptable level. Significant cultural resources are those resources that are listed in or are
eligible for listing in the NRHP per the criteria listed at 36 CFR 60.4 below.
The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology,
engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and
objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship,
feeling, and association and that:
(a) Are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the
broad patterns of our history; or
(b) Are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or
(c) Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of
installation, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high
artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose
components may lack individual distinction; or
(d) Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or
history.
2.2.2 State
CEQA requires a lead agency to determine whether a project may have a significant effect on
one or more historical resources. A "historical resource' is defined as a resource listed in, or
determined to be eligible for listing in, the CRHR ( §21084.1); a resource included in a local
register of historical resources ( §15064.5[a][2]); or any object, building, structure, site, area,
place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant
( §15064.5[a][3]).
Section 5024.1 of the PRC Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, and Sections 21083.2 and
21084.1 of the CEQA Statutes were used as the basic guidelines for the cultural resources
study. PRC 5024.1 requires evaluation of historical resources to determine their eligibility for
listing on the CRHR. The purposes of the CRHR are to maintain listings of the State's historical
resources and to indicate which properties are to be protected from substantial adverse change.
The criteria for listing resources on the California Register were expressly developed to be in
accordance with previously established criteria developed for listing on the NRHP.
Section 15064.5(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines states that "[g]enerally, a resource shall be
considered by the Lead Agency to be 'historically significant' if the resource meets the criteria
R: \Projects \NewportU015\Technical Reports\CUlturalWchaec Tech Rpt (pub)- 021610.tloc6 Archaeological Resources Assessment
Ranch
for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources' (PRC §5024.1; 14 CCR §4852),
including if the resource:
A. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of California's history and cultural heritage;
B. Is associated with lives of persons important in our past;
C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of
construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or
possesses high artistic values; or
D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or
history.
The lead agency shall concurrently determine whether a project will cause damage to a unique
archaeological resource (as defined in PRC §21083.2[b]) and, if so, must make reasonable
efforts to permit the resources to be preserved in place or left undisturbed. Section 21083.2(g)
of the California Public Resources Code defines a unique archaeological resource as an
archaeological artifact, object or site about which it can be demonstrated that without merely
adding to the existing body of archaeological knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets
any of the following criteria:
1. Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions
and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information.
2. Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the
best available example of its type.
3. Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or
historic event or person.
To the extent that unique archaeological resources are not preserved in place, mitigation
measures shall be required (PRC §21083.2[c]).
Using the information outlined above, the first level of evaluation is to determine whether a
resource on a site is a historical resource and /or a unique archaeological resource that would be
considered eligible for the CRHR and, therefore, significant.
Impacts to significant cultural resources that affect those characteristics of the resource that
qualify it for the CRHR or adversely alter the significance of a resource listed on or eligible for
listing on the CRHR are considered a significant effect on the environment. Impacts to cultural
resources are considered significant if a project (1) physically destroys or damages all or part of
a resource; (2) changes the character of the use of the resource or physical feature within the
setting of the resource that contributes to its significance; and /or (3) introduces visual,
atmospheric, or audible elements that diminish the integrity of significant features of the
resource.
The purpose of the current study is to evaluate the eligibility of 11 sites on Newport Banning
Ranch for listing on the CRHR and the NRHP.
R: \Projects \NewportU015\Technical Reports\CulturalWchaec Tech Rpt (pub)- 021610.tloc7 Archaeological Resources Assessment
Ranch
California Coastal Act
The California Coastal Act of 1976 (California Public Resources Code § §30000 et seq.)
establishes policies guiding development and conservation along the California coast.
Consistent with Section 30001 and the basic goals of Section 30001.5, and except as may be
otherwise specifically noted in the Coastal Act, the policies of Section 30200 of the Coastal Act
constitute the standards by which the adequacy of local coastal programs and, the permissibility
of proposed developments subject to these provisions are determined.
2.2.3 City of Newport Beach
The City of Newport Beach has adopted archaeological guidelines that govern the identification
and evaluation of cultural resources and are used to guide the development or redevelopment
of lands within the City. The discussion below is adapted from the City Council Policy Manual
Guidelines.
The archaeological guidelines, Policy # K -5, adopted on January 13, 1975, amended on
January 24, 1994, and corrected on March 22, 1999, are summarized below:
A. The City shall, through its planning policies and permit conditions, insure the
preservation of significant archaeological resources and require that the impact
caused by any development be mitigated in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act.
B. The City shall prepare and maintain sources of information regarding
archaeological sites and the names and addresses of responsible organizations
and qualified individuals who can analyze, classify, record, and preserve
archaeological findings.
C. If determined to be necessary by the Planning Director, it shall be the
responsibility of a landowner or developer prior to the commencement of land
development to cause the proposed site to be examined to determine the
existence and extent of archaeological resources. The examination shall be by
qualified observers, approved by the City. The observers shall prepare and
submit to the City a written report describing findings and making
recommendations for further action. The report shall discuss both positive and
negative aspects of the effects of the proposed development on archaeological
resources. The report shall be considered as part of the CEQA review process
and, if appropriate, the recommendations shall be included as mitigation
measures and conditions of approval for the project.
D. Based on the report and recommendations of the observers, the City shall take
such steps as are necessary to assure that any findings or sites are recorded,
preserved and protected. These steps may include requiring the landowner or
developers to incur reasonable expenditures of time or money, encouraging the
involvement of appropriate volunteer or non - profit organizations or acquisition of
the sites by public or private agencies. Provision shall be made for the deposit of
scientifically valuable archaeological materials which are removed from the site
with responsible public or private institutions. In all cases, the City shall seek
responsible scientific advice and make the necessary decisions consistent with
the public interest.
R: \Projects \NewportU015\Technical Reports\CulturalWchaeo Tech Rpt (pub)- 021610.tloc8 Archaeological Resources Assessment
Ranch
Procedures
The following procedures shall be used in examining and reporting on possible
archaeological sites. If determined to be necessary by the Planning Director,
there shall be a walk -over site survey and, if warranted, a pregrading conference
prior to the commencement of any land alterations.
A. Procedures and Findings.
1. Records. Demonstration shall be made that a records check was
completed and the results stated in the text of the final report.
2. Background. Background information shall be provided summarizing the
significance of scientific, cultural and historical perspectives to the project
area. Sources must be referenced.
3. On -Site Survey. The following descriptions shall be made in sufficient
detail to allow verification of work:
a. Methods of reconnaissance:
i. surface
ii. sub - surface
b. A list of personnel and affiliation
c. Date and location of research
d. d. Condition of area surveyed which may have effect on
archaeological findings
e. Observations and data - description of archaeological resources found
f. Location of material and data collected
g. Notification of professionals in related disciplines where necessary,
such as historians and paleontologists
4. Evaluation of impact (direct and indirect):
a. Description of impacts
b. Significance of impacts
B. Development Alternatives.
1. Methods to achieve site preservation.
a. Revision of construction or development plans in the event of
exceptional site, worthy of preservation and /or nomination to the
National Registry (Historic Preservation Act of 1966).
b. In the event that development ensues in areas adjoining the site that
would involve potential impact by virtue of this proximity, steps should
be taken to:
i. protect the site by adequate means, such as fencing or other
approved measures
ii. stabilize where indicated
R: \Projects \NewportU015\Technical Reports\CUlturalWchaeo Tech Rpt (pub)- 021610.tloc9 Archaeological Resources Assessment
Ranch
iii. restore damage occurring as a result of proximity of the source of
impact
c. Restoration where applicable
2. Archaeological excavation.
a. Full- scale, research - oriented excavation, properly planned and
organized, adequately funded, and with sufficient time, is the
preferred method of partial mitigation. The consultant's proposal to the
City, included in the EIR, should contain, in detail, costs, procedures,
time required and a statement of the importance of the work to be
performed. This proposal may then be included in a conditional permit
or be required prior to the issuance of a permit.
b. Emergency salvage excavation is the least preferred method of partial
mitigation. The result of poor planning, salvage techniques of
excavation constitute an adverse impact or archaeological resources
and represent the irreplaceable loss of a site.
3. Qualification of Consultants.
Provisional to professional licensing, minimum qualifications for
consulting archaeologists shall be satisfied by their listing in the Directory
of Archaeological Consultants, available from the Society for California
Archaeology, or the list of certified archaeologists maintained by the
County of Orange. Verification regarding qualifications shall be made by
the Planning Director.
2.3 UNDERTAKING
The proposed Newport Banning Ranch Project would allow for the development of the 401 -acre
site with residential, commercial, hotel, and recreational uses. The Project includes open space,
parks, and infrastructure to support proposed land uses and future residents. Approximately
252 acres (approximately 63 percent) of the 401 -acre site are proposed for natural resources
protection in the form of open space and third -party habitat restoration. Of these 252 acres,
approximately 20 acres would be used for interim oil operations until this area converts to open
space use. Approximately 52 acres are proposed for active and passive park uses. The Project
proposes up to 1,375 dwelling units (du). Of the 1,375 du, up to 730 du and up to 75,000 square
feet (sf) of commercial uses would be constructed on approximately 21 acres of the site as a
part of a mixed -used component of the Project. Up to 558 du would occur on approximately
65 acres of the site. Additionally, a 75 -room resort and up to 87 du are proposed on
approximately 11 acres. Roadways and infrastructure would be constructed. As an active oil
field, remediation of the site is required.
2.4 PROJECT SITE
The Project Site Map shows a portion of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5- minute
Newport Beach, CA quadrangle, which depicts the specific location of the Project site with an
inset map showing the general vicinity of the study area. A majority of the site is located in
unincorporated Orange County within the City of Newport Beach's Sphere of Influence. As a
part of the Project, these unincorporated areas would be annexed to the City of Newport Beach.
R: \Projects \NewportU015\Technical Reports\CulturalWchaec Tech Rpt (pub)- 021610.tlociO Archaeological Resources Assessment
Ranch
2.5 PROJECT PERSONNEL
The cultural resources study was managed and directed by Mr. Maxon, who meets the
Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology (NIPS 1983) for prehistoric
archaeology and is an Orange County - certified Archaeologist. Dr. Drover functioned as the Field
Director and Principal Investigator for the study and was the principal author of this report. Tony
Kuhner analyzed the material from the historic sites and provided analysis for the report. Mark
Roeder analyzed the faunal material. The excavation crew consisted of Dr. Drover, Mark
Roeder, Tony Kuhner, Dave Alexander, and Bill Dochnahl. A representative of the Juaneno
Band of Mission Indians, Acjachemen Nation, Dennis Sommers, monitored all field work.
Dr. Drover and Mr. Maxon completed this report with input from Mr. Kuhner. See Appendix B,
Personnel Qualifications, for resumes.
SECTION 3.0 PHYSICAL SETTING
The Project site is located west of the current Newport Bay at the northwestern edge of the San
Joaquin Hills, approximately one mile southeast of the mouth of the Santa Ana River. The
Newport Banning Ranch Project site sits on the uplifted coastal bluffs surrounding the bay.
The Project site is located on the northern end of the Peninsular Range Geomorphic Province.
These rocks are composed of pre- Cretaceous (more than 65- million— year -old) igneous and
metamorphic rock with limited exposures of post- Cretaceous sedimentary deposits. However,
these sedimentary deposits in coastal Orange County are considered to be some of the most
important fossil - producing formations in the world (Strudwick & Goodwin 2008).
Surface deposits on the Project site consist of exposures of marine Quaternary terrace deposits
with a mixture of terrestrial components. Underlying this, and exposed in the cliffs below the
terraces, are the marine Late Miocene Capistrano and Monterey Formations. All have produced
fossils in the Project vicinity (McLeod 2009).
The Project site has been heavily disturbed by oil and natural gas extraction operations since
the 1940s, which continue today. The mesas that surround the Project site were, at one time,
more extensive than they are today. Several mesas that previously extended nearly to West
Coast Highway have been largely removed, leaving evidence of quarrying and remnants of the
mesa (uplands) on the site. It is unknown if these removals were solely a result of oil operations.
3.1 CULTURAL SETTING
3.1.1 Prehistory
Archaeologists and ethnologists have long pondered over the cultural sequences that occurred
before Spanish contact. The two most currently accepted schemes are those proposed by
Wallace (1955), who interpreted the prehistory of coastal Southern California through temporal
horizons, and Warren (1968), who viewed cultural differences not as temporal distinctions, but
as local traditions. Wallace (1955) saw four temporal horizons along the Southern California
coast: Early Man, Milling Stone, Intermediate, and Late Prehistoric.
Early Man Horizon
Spanning the period from the end of the Pleistocene to approximately 8,000 years before
present (YBP),' archaeological assemblages attributed to this horizon are characterized by
large projectile points and scrapers. The limited data available suggests that prehistoric
' "Years Before Present" assumes that 1950 is "present," so in this case 8,000 YBP would be 6,050 BCE.
R:\ Projects \NewportU015\Technical Reports \CUlturalWchaeo Tech Rpt (pub)- 021610.doct 1 Archaeological Resources Assessment
Ranch
populations focused on hunting and gathering and moved about the region in small nomadic
groups.
Milling Stone Horizon
Characterized by the appearance of handstones and millingstones, this horizon tentatively dates
to between 8,000 YBP and 3,000 YBP. Assemblages in the early Milling Stone Horizon reflect
an emphasis on plant foods and foraging subsistence systems. For inland locales, it has been
assumed that grass seed exploitation formed a primary subsistence activity. Artifact
assemblages include choppers and scraper planes, but generally lack projectile points. The
appearance of large projectile points in the latter portion of the Milling Stone Horizon suggests a
more diverse economy. The distribution of Milling Stone sites reflects the theory that aboriginal
groups may have followed a modified, centrally based wandering settlement pattern. In this
semi - sedentary pattern, a base camp would have been occupied for a portion of the year, but a
small population group seasonally occupied subsidiary camps in order to exploit resources not
generally available near the base camp. Sedentism apparently increased in areas possessing
an abundance of resources available for longer periods of time. More and inland regions would
have provided a seasonally dispersed resource base, restricting sedentary occupation.
Intermediate Horizon
Dated to between 3,000YBP and 1,350 YBP, the Intermediate Horizon represents a transitional
period. Little is known about the people of this period, especially those of inland Southern
California. Sites assemblages retain many attributes of the Milling Stone Horizon. Additionally,
Intermediate Horizon sites contain large stemmed or notched projectile points and portable
mortars and pestles. The mortars and pestles suggest that the aboriginal populations may have
harvested, processed, and consumed acorns. Neither the settlement- subsistence system nor
the cultural evolution of this period has been well understood due to a general lack of data. It
has been proposed that sedentism increased with the exploitation of storable food resources
(acorns); the duration and intensity of base camp occupation increased, especially toward the
latter part of this horizon.
Late Prehistoric Horizon
Extending from the year 750 to Spanish contact in 1763, the Late Prehistoric Horizon reflects an
increased sophistication and diversity in technology. This is characterized by the presence of
small projectile points that simplified the use of the bow and arrow. In addition, assemblages
include steatite bowls, asphaltum, grave goods, and elaborate shell ornaments. Use of bedrock
milling stations was widespread during this horizon. Increased hunting efficiency and widespread
exploitation on acorns provided reliable and storable food resources. These innovations
apparently promoted greater sedentism.
By contrast, Warren's (1968) cultural traditions were more restricted spatially. Warren's scheme
accounted for the cultural variability particularly evident within Wallace's late Prehistoric
Horizon. Warren's traditions include the San Dieguito, Encinitas, Campbell, Chumash,
Shoshonean, and Yuman.
The San Dieguito tradition occurs within Wallace's Early Man Horizon, but is restricted to San
Diego County. The Encinitas equated to Wallace's Milling Stone, but was longer in time,
encompassing Wallace's Intermediate Horizon. Warren saw no new tradition developing in
northern San Diego and Orange Counties during this time period.
The Campbell and Chumash traditions are farther north in Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties.
In Los Angeles, Orange, and North San Diego Counties, the Shoshonean Tradition began about
R: \Projects \NewportU015\Technical Reports\CUlturalWchaec Tech Rpt (pub)- 021610.tloci2 Archaeological Resources Assessment
Ranch
1300 YBP and represents the intrusion of Shoshonean speakers from the interior (Warren
1968). In contrast, the Yuman Tradition in southern San Diego County, just as the Chumash
Tradition to the north, is thought to have developed from previous local traditions, whereas the
Shoshonean Tradition is the result of intrusion into a previous tradition (Mason 1991:95).
Koerper (1981) and Koerper and Drover (1983) have taken the horizon system proposed by
Wallace and have applied it more specifically to the prehistory of Orange County.
Koerper (1981) and Koerper and Drover (1983) adapted Wallace's four horizons using artifacts
and associated radiocarbon dates from two Orange County sites: CA- ORA -64 and CA -ORA-
119-A. The authors argued that the transition between the Milling Stone and Intermediate
Horizons was marked by the appearance of the mortar and pestle. The primary projectile point
type changed from the Milling Stone "Pinto Basin" to the stemmed and side- notched forms. The
beginning of the Late Prehistoric Period occurred roughly with the appearance of the smaller
"Cottonwood" points, suggesting the introduction of the bow and arrow, and also with the
abundance of shell beads and ornaments, use of steatite for pipes, bowls, and ornaments and
arrow shaft straighteners. Pottery may or may not appear at the end of the late Prehistoric
Period or the Historic period ( Koerper and Drover 1983).
Mason and Peterson (1994) have proposed subdividing Wallace's Milling Stone Horizon into
three subdivisions, and the Intermediate, and the late Prehistoric into two. These temporal
subdivisions are based entirely on radiocarbon age determinations that correspond to some
degree with changes in settlement (Mason and Peterson 1994:58). In contrast, they note that
temporal subdivisions traditionally have been defined on supposed differences in cultural
content or traits as presented by Wiley and Phillips (1958:22). Mason and Peterson found little
difference in the cultural content of their three Milling Stone subdivisions (Table 2).
TABLE 2
CULTURAL SEQUENCE FOR ORANGE COUNTY
Cultural Period
Radiocarbon Dates
Paleo - Coastal Period
PC
Prior to 8000 YBP
Milling Stone Period
MS1
8000 to 5800 YBP
MS2
5800 to 4650 YBP
MS3
4650 to 3000 YBP
Intermediate Period
INT1
3000 to 2300 YBP
INT2
2300 to 1350 YBP
Late Prehistoric Period
LP1
1350 to 650 YBP
LP2
650 to 200 YBP
Source: Mason and Peterson 1994 and Drover 2001a:17.
During the Newport Coast Archaeological Project, the Intermediate Horizon was not subdivided
because only ten radiocarbon dates were available. They were confident that the Intermediate
Horizon could also be subdivided once calibrated dates were available from a wider region of
the Newport Coast (Mason and Peterson 1994:58), and for that matter, all of Orange County or
Southern California. The authors argue that although their temporary subdivisions do not
correspond with changes in stylistically defined artifact types, they may correspond with
changes in settlement systems (Mason and Peterson 1994:58). The Intermediate Horizon was
R: \Projects \NewportU015\Technical Reports\CUlturalWchaec Tech Rpt (pub)- 021610.tloc13 Archaeological Resources Assessment
Ranch
subdivided in Roger Mason's report on CA -ORA -225 (Mason 1997b). Mason defined 3 periods
based on 18 radiocarbon dates. These three divisions are Late Intermediate (1700 -1350 YBP),
Middle Intermediate (2300 -1700 YBP) and Early Intermediate (3100 -2300 YBP). Due to the
small sample of radiocarbon dates, Mason notes that the Intermediate subdivisions could only
be applied to CA -ORA -225 and not regionally. As a result of the Bonita Mesa Archaeological
Project (document in progress), the Intermediate Period was redefined. A total of
72 radiocarbon dates from 6 sites were used to redefine the Intermediate. The Intermediate was
divided into two periods: the late part of the Intermediate or INT2 (1350 -2300 YBP) and the
early part of the Intermediate or INT1 (2300 -3000 YBP).
3.1.2 Ethnohistory
At the time of European contact in 1769, the Santa Ana plain was occupied by the Gabrielino
Native Americans, so called by the Spanish after the nearby Mission San Gabriel Archangel.
According to Bean and Smith (1978:538), the Gabrielino are, in many ways, one of the least
known groups of California native inhabitants. In addition to much of the Los Angeles Basin,
they occupied the offshore islands of Santa Catalina, San Nicolas, and San Clemente.
Gabrielino populations are difficult to reconstruct; however, at any one time, as many as 50 to
100 villages were simultaneously occupied. Like the prehistoric culture before them, the
Gabrielino were a hunter /gatherer group who lived in small sedentary or semi - sedentary groups,
termed Rancherias, of 50 to 100 persons. These Rancherias were occupied by at least some
people all of the time. Location of the encampment was determined by water availability. Within
each village, houses were circular in form and constructed of sticks covered with thatch or mats.
Each village had a sweat lodge as well as a sacred enclosure (Bean and Smith 1978). Their
subsistence relied heavily on plant foods, but was supplemented with a variety of meat,
especially from marine resources. Food procurement consisted of hunting and fishing carried
out by men, and gathering of plant foods and shellfish by women. Hunting technology included
bow and arrow use for deer and smaller game, in addition to stick - throwing, snares, traps, and
slings. Fishing was conducted with the use of shell fishhooks, bone harpoons, and nets. Seeds
were gathered with beaters and baskets. Food was stored in baskets. It was prepared with
manos and metates, and mortars and pestles. Food was cooked in baskets coated with
asphaltum, in stone pots, on steatite frying pans, and by roasting in earthen ovens (Bean and
Smith 1978).
Although the earliest description of the Gabrielino dates back to the Cabrillo expedition of 1542,
the most important and extensive accounts were those written by Father Geronimo Boscana
circa 1822 and Hugo Reid in 1852. Major Gabrielino villages south of the City of Long Beach
apparently included Lukpa and Kengaa, also known as Gengara. Moyoonga is another place
name cited by Kroeber (1907), but it is unclear if this was a community or a geographical
designation (McCawley 1996:72). According to mission records, Kengaa may have been
occupied as late as 1828 or 1829 (Merriam 1968). The place name was still used as late as
1853 identifying Newport Bay as "bolsa de gengara". Archaeological evidence suggests that
CA- ORA -119A or CA -ORA -111 may be the remains of this important village. The other village,
Lukpa, was, according to one of Kroeber's Native American informants, located in the City of
Huntington Beach. One possibility is the Newland Site excavated by Winterbourne in the 1930s
and more recently by other investigators.
During the early 1900s, important ethnographic studies were conducted by several researchers
including Alfred L. Kroeber, John P Harrington, C. Hart Merriam, W. D. Strong, and
J.W. Hudson. Each of these men was able to interview members of the Gabrielino who had
living experience with the Mission period when the group was in transition. Central Orange
County was shared by both the Juaneno (another Native American tribal group so named
because of its association with Missin San Juan Capistrano) and Gabrielino. The three place
R: \Projects \NewportU015\TechnimI Reports \CUlturalWchaec Tech Rpt (pub)- 021610.tloc14 Archaeological Resources Assessment
Ranch
names associated with central Orange County are Genga, Pasbengna, and Hutuknga. Genga
was located at CA- ORA -58 in what today is Fairview Park in the City of Costa Mesa.
Pasbengna was located along the Santa Ana River approximately where the City of Santa Ana
is today, and appears on the 1846 map drafted by Alexander Taylor. The third site, Hutuknga, is
located where the City of Yorba Linda exists today (Earle and O'Neil 1994).
The Gabrielino are frequently thought to have been the dominant ethnohistoric group in Orange
County (e.g., Kroeber 1925). Earle and O'Neil have determined that sites along the Santa Ana
River afforded pivotal political exchange and social interaction between the Gabrielino and
Juaneno (1994). Based on Mission marriage records, the villages along the Santa Ana River
apparently consisted of multi- ethnic populations (Earle and O'Neil 1994). Among the more
significant sites along the northern coast of Orange County was the complex of sites
surrounding Bolsa Chica, including CA- ORA -83, known as the "Cog Stone" site or the "Griset
Site ". As with Bolsa Chica, Newport Bay also is surrounded by a number of prehistoric sites.
The sites along the southern Orange County coast in the San Joaquin Hills include the
multi- component complexes at Bonita Mesa, Pelican Hill, and Shady Canyon.
SECTION 4.0 RESEARCH DESIGN
The research design consists of three sections. The first, Theoretical Orientation, provides an
overview of anthropological hunter /gatherer theory and focuses on what have been the most
appropriate avenues of current theory motivating modern North American archaeology. The
next section, History of Research, informs the reader of the general approaches scholars have
taken in this region to define cultural prehistory. The final section here is entitled Hypotheses,
Test Implications, Data Requirements. This section contains summary data for five
archaeological research domains: chronology, settlement/subsistence, trade and exchange,
lithic technology, and site structure. Within each of those domains, current local issues are
discussed and pertinent research questions posed, followed by a brief discussion of the data
necessary to address the questions.
4.1 THEORETICAL ORIENTATION
The study of archaeology is comprised of three basic paradigms: culture history, cultural
reconstruction, and processual archaeology (Dunnell 1978). At a gross level, one can view the
study of past cultures in terms of three basic components: time -space systematics (i.e., the
situation of past cultures in time and space); reconstruction of past human behavioral patterns
(lifeways); and the explanation of the culture process or culture change (see Bettinger 1982,
1989, 1991; Thomas 1979, 1983, 1989). Time -space systematics, especially chronology
building, is a critical component of the study of more complex questions, especially ones of
culture process. Unfortunately, much of Southern California archaeology suffers from an
inadequate chronological framework. However, reconstructing chronology for an area is
basically atheoretical, and stating that one is interested in prehistoric lifeways and culture
change expresses only a very vague theoretical perspective.
The specific field of interest here involves two contact period populations in Southern California:
the Gabrielino and Juaneno. The antecedents of both groups conform to the "boundary" region
that has been identified for the hunter - gatherer populations that comprise the Late Prehistoric
and Ethnohistoric time period(s), and is reflected in the cultural activities of these groups. It has
been understood through analysis of the regional ecology and possible changes in both the
patterns and trends associated with human adaptation over time based in the archaeological
record. Key elements in characterizing settlement- subsistence systems that were operative
during the different periods of human occupation can be modeled based upon the expectations
and data matches in the archaeological record.
R: \Projects \NewportU015\Technical Reports\CUlturalWchaeo Tech Rpt (pub)- 021610.tloci5 Archaeological Resources Assessment
Ranch
The history of Orange County archaeology has largely been concerned with the role of social
organization. Evolution in the development of the past settlement systems, begun at the turn of
the 20th Century with Kroeber (1907), has formed the core of such research. Yet the beginnings
of cultural reconstruction in California archaeology started with Julian Steward (preceded by
Kroeber), giving impetus to the field commonly known as either cultural ecology or ecological
anthropology (i.e., Moran 1982). Steward (1938, 1955, and 1977) emphasized very basic
relationships between technology and environment and other aspects of culture. The level of
technology and the nature of the physical and biological environment helped determine the
organization and scheduling of work in basic resource procurement and processing tasks.
These factors, in turn, affected the general nature of overall social, political, and religious
aspects of society. These factors formed what he termed the "culture core ". Steward's approach
is most useful for understanding and explaining relatively simple cultures with relatively limited
cultural history.
Later cultural ecologists, such as Roy Rappaport, have approached societies from the
perspective of systems theory standpoint, which views cultural subsystems as central and
interactive (Rappaport 1968; Vayda and Rappaport 1976). Equilibrium between various cultural
subsystems is viewed as the primary research goal, and was achieved through negative
feedback between subsystems. The basic problem with the model is that it assumed that
societies are basically adaptive, shifting the burden of culture change to external forces and
minimizing the potential importance of competition, conflict, and technological innovation within
a society.
Marvin Harris (1968, 1979) developed a more dynamic cultural ecological model. Drawing from
Materialist concepts, Harris emphasizes the importance of societal infrastructure, which he
describes in terms of modes of production and reproduction. Production deals with the
relationships between technology, the environment, and the organization of work and
reproduction focuses on demography and population control. This principle asserts that the
infrastructure is the basic foundation of sociocultural life and that cultural selection favors
societies' structure (politics, class structure, and other factors). Then the structure asserts a
strong influence on the nature of the societies' superstructure (religion, philosophy, ideal, and
other features). Harris' cultural materialistic approach states that domestic and political
economies as well as the ideological superstructure associated with them are directly derived
from a society's infrastructure.
Unfortunately, the archaeological record is a material one, and while inferences regarding social
organization can certainly be made from this record, archaeology has been strongly influenced
by Harris. It is the only approach that has been proven to be successful, as demonstrated by
such important works by Steward (1938), Binford (1978), and Bettinger (1980).
This is not to say that ideological and historical factors are not important, but there is generally
no way to test for their effects using the archaeological data from hunter - gatherer sites. These
can be considered, however, when predictions or expectations based on the adaptive ecological
model are not met. One could then entertain the possibility that the unexpected results are due
to the influence of unknown ideological and /or historical factors. Maladaptive behavior appears
to some extent in all cultures but may not explain general, long -term human behavior.
4.2 HISTORY OF RESEARCH
The study of Orange County prehistory was started well before the advent of radiocarbon
dating, obsidian hydration, effective tree -ring studies, and most forms of absolute dating
techniques. Nevertheless, a large number of major advances were made between the original
participation on behalf of the Work Projects Administration (WPA) (Winterborne 1938) and the
more formalized period of academic work initially associated with Wallace (1955). A set of well
R: \Projects \NewportU015\Technical Reports\CUlturalWchaec Tech Rpt (pub)- 021610.tloc16 Archaeological Resources Assessment
Ranch
defined cultural sequences pertaining to different cultural areas within Southern California were
developed in the ensuing years, such as Malcolm Rogers' San Dieguito and Yuman
chronologies (1939; 1945); those defined by D. L. True (1966) regarding the surrounding San
Luis Rey River valley; the prehistoric La Jollan cultural phases (Moriarty 1966 1969); and
subsequent ecological models defining demographic relationships existing between the coastal
and inland desert regions of Southern California (i.e., Warren 1964). Although these proposed
relationships continue to be improved in view of the more recent Carbon 14 (14C) dates and
regional studies that have since been conducted, most of the early models for human settlement
shifts and migration to the coastal areas of San Diego and Orange Counties were developed
during a time when radiometric chronology was limited.
Unlike more recent research efforts (i.e., Koerper, Mason, and Peterson 2000), the kinds of
large -scale radiocarbon data sets that exceed between 500 and over 1,000 individual,
calibrated 14 dates (see Peterson 2000) did not exist when such cross - regional comparisons of
human occupation were originally hypothesized. The application of more accurate and robust
radiocarbon dating of sites, as part of an a priori database on which to formulate working
hypotheses, is only one element that is new to archaeological endeavors following the late
1980s to the present. Current techniques, pollen cores, and advanced environmental
reconstruction studies are now seemingly commonplace elements that go into the advancement
of any given set of theoretical relationships and that were simply not available during the earlier
investigations of Orange County history.
Due to radiocarbon upwelling calibration, a number of hypothetical relationships can now be
tested based on the correlation between variables (such as sea level versus social diversity, or
total range of Holocene - Pleistocene occupation as a function of cultural uniformity, compounded
by geographic restrictions). Most recent archaeological developments in Orange County have to
do with either solving for a set of causal agents that have included settlement and subsistence
over time at a macro - scale, or the application of archaeological science techniques used to
better illuminate the intricate structure of individual archaeological sites at the micro -scale
(Grenda et al. 1998). Nearly all developments in Method and Theory have been influenced by
the paradigmatic shifts from culture history to cultural reconstruction that originated along with
the entire Ecological Paradigm (see Catalano 1986).
The apparent split in the application of cultural reconstruction is most evident when examining
the work produced by C. W. Warren (1964; Warren et al. 1991) as a larger and more
systemized view of understanding the archaeological record through reconstructing past cultural
systems on the basis of prehistoric settlement- subsistence systems. There was a strong
movement towards understanding the past environment (as cause, not determinism) on the
basis of the paleo - climatological and biotic changes likely to have changed past human
settlement (as illustrated by Drover 1979, Drover et al. 1979, and Drover et al. 1983); the focus
also shifted towards the more integrated socio - ecological constructs that likely influenced
culture, such as was modeled by H. Koerper (1981). Many of these ideas regarding settlement
analysis, including optimal foraging theory, predictive modeling (i.e., Bettinger 1980), catchment,
carrying capacity, and locational analyses indirectly stemmed from the original work of Julian
Steward (1938, c.f. 1977). Additional work evolved from the theoretical roots associated with the
eventual third paradigm, or Processual Archaeology (see Binford 1983), or with the notion of
Formation Processes (see Schiffer 1972), both of which further impacted local -area research
designs and work.
The complexity of the different influences of advanced methods and impacts from these various
theoretical influences are reflected by most of the recent work that has taken place since the
Newport Coast Archaeological Project (Mason and Peterson 1994). Each project incorporated
more comparable and internally consistent means to quantify functional and stylistic artifacts
R: \Projects \NewpoOIJ015\Technical Reports\CUlturalWchaec Tech Rpt (pub)- 021610.tloci7 Archaeological Resources Assessment
Ranch
within discrete units of analysis that are subject to standards of temporal classification.
Measurement scales were defined that fit logically within item -class variable definitions (an a
priori definition of the variables and how each is to be operationalized), along with sampling
criteria that fit within the hierarchy of the archaeological record. All of these analytic
requirements are comprised of defining an intrasite structure based on the application of
advancements in archaeological science in addition to the capacity to use the various spatio-
temporal units to distinguish how a given set of data have been operative as site components
within a larger settlement- subsistence system.
Only three comprehensive models of past settlement- subsistence system(s) are known to have
been hypothesized for the Newport Bay /San Joaquin Hills region within the past 20 years. The
work conducted by Warren (1964; 1968; Warren at aI. 1991) and the notion of a
settlement- subsistence focus was a fundamental precept regarding all past coastal and littoral
regions of the Southern California and Orange County regions following the 1980s. However,
few investigations to date followed the broader regional model proposed by Warren (1964).
Starting with Hank Koerper (see Koerper 1981), the notion of cultural materialism and resource
intensification became a primary focus within the Orange County region due to changes in the
past environment. Through a blend of both approaches to the archaeological record expressed
through culture history and cultural reconstruction, Koerper (1981) set out to explain how
different resource zones would have been exploited as part of a seasonal round within the
Newport Bay /San Joaquin Hills Region during prehistory in relationship to changes within the
outer and emergent inner bay. The settlement model proposed by Koerper (1981) suggested
that changes in substratum and salinity as the back bay and fresh water marsh developed over
time was related to an increased use of the San Joaquin Hills (during the Intermediate Period)
following a general pattern of intensification. The general habitation and settlement- subsistence
model is one wherein changes in Newport Bay, combined with population pressure, forced local
area inhabitants to seek resources located farther up into the San Joaquin Hills for the purpose
of obtaining Quercus agrifolia (coast live oak), Quercus chiysolepis (canyon or maul oak),
and /or Quercus wislizenii (interior live oak) resources. The latter is limited to a fall harvest only,
although summer and fall exploitation were possible for the former two oak species. The
Quercus engelmanii (Engelman oak) was also available during the summer and fall months.
The model proposed by Koerper was based on a combination of protein dynamics and the
general constructs associated with cultural materialism (i.e., Harris, 1968; 1979). Later work
conducted by Mason and Peterson (1994) set out to define more closely how change was
related to differences in specialization according to site type on the basis of functional variations
in the proportion of artifact types using proportional differences in tool types. The later work was
aided by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) study regarding how to apply a
marine calibration correction curve to terrestrial versus marine organics to form a larger and
more complex set of 14C age determinations.
4.3 HYPOTHESES, TEST IMPLICATIONS, DATA REQUIREMENTS
The purpose of the Newport Banning Ranch test investigations is to determine whether any of
the 11 archaeological sites present on the property are eligible for listing on the CRHR or the
NRHP, and if they would thus warrant further consideration in the planning process. To achieve
this goal, the data collected through survey, controlled excavation, and archival research is
analyzed and used to evaluate the significance of each site. Pursuant to Section 15064.5(a)(3)
of the CEQA Guidelines, a site is considered historically significant if it meets one of the four
criteria for listing on the CRHR. Archaeological sites are typically evaluated under Criterion D,
which assesses the potential of each site to yield information important in the State's prehistory.
Therefore, the primary goal of site testing at Newport Banning Ranch is to establish the
dimensions, chronology, density, diversity, and integrity of the archaeological sites and to
R: \Projects \NewportU015\Technical Reports\CUlturalWchaec Tech Rpt (pub)- 021610.tloc18 Archaeological Resources Assessment
Ranch
compare them to other local and regional sites in order to determine whether any meet the
statutory requirements of Criterion D.
Beyond basic chronological and other physical data regarding the sites, the testing makes no
attempt to answer broad - ranging research questions, but merely demonstrates that each site
does or does not possess sufficient diversity, density, and integrity of cultural deposits to
warrant additional investigation. Therefore, this research design is focused on evaluating the
Newport Banning Ranch sites' potential to address local and regional research questions.
Within each of the five research domains presented in this section, general overviews of current
archaeological progress within the region have been provided.
While the important research issues in coastal Orange County prehistory revolve around
reconstruction of settlement- subsistence systems and change in these systems over time, the
Project site is relatively unknown chronologically and culturally, and was focused on its own
riverine- estuary unrelated to Newport Bay. Given the scarcity of knowledge of west Newport
cultural resources, the Newport Banning Ranch Project site is in need of basic chronological
sequencing and description. Especially important is the comparative shift to sedentism and
territoriality that appear to be associated with increasing population density during the late
Intermediate -Early Late Prehistoric Periods in areas surrounding Newport Bay. The related
topics include chronology, the effects of environmental changes in Newport Bay, and trade and
exchange. The following research themes, questions, and data needs are generated from the
San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SJHTC) Treatment Plan approved by the California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans) (Mason 1994) and the Bonita Mesa Archaeological
Project (BMAP) (Drover et al. [in progress]). While these questions are not intended to be
comprehensive, they do provide a structure for the general research orientation.
The following discussions provide general information regarding the research domains for the
region and specific information related to the study area.
4.3.1 Chronoloov
Radiocarbon
Radiocarbon dates are necessary to determine the time periods and subperiods during which
the sites were occupied in order to address the settlement- subsistence research questions
discussed below. Where possible, charcoal or samples from single shells would be submitted
for dating. Sampling would prefer features while "aggregate" samples would be avoided. As a
result of a study performed in conjunction with the Newport Coast Archaeological Project, local
correction factor (Delta -R) has been derived for the effects of upwelling on marine shell dates
(Mason and Peterson 1994) and would be incorporated into the analyses.
Radiocarbon dating can also be used to address questions dealing with the age of particular
artifact types and materials, especially projectile points, beads, and obsidian. Prior to a
discussion of specific research questions and problems, it is important to summarize the
temporally sensitive artifacts that have been found in Orange County prehistoric sites
Projectile Points
Projectile points have been considered as especially important time markers in Orange County.
Koerper and Drover (1983), using desert types and types of their own creation, hypothesized a
sequence of styles that emphasized when a particular kind of projectile might have flourished in
Orange County. However, their data were from only one site, CA -ORA- 119 -A. More recently,
Koerper, Schroth, and Mason (1994) have determined that most dart points, formerly thought to
be chronological indicators with fairly narrow time ranges, co -occur during the Milling Stone
R:\ Projects \NewportU015\Technical Reports\CUlturalWchaeo Tech Rpt (pub)- 021610.tloci9 Archaeological Resources Assessment
Ranch
period. This study was based on 8 Newport Coast Archaeological Project Milling Stone Period
sites with 79 radiocarbon dates.
The most common arrow points in coastal Orange County belong to the Cottonwood series. The
majority of Cottonwood points in Orange County fall into what Eberhardt (see Marshall 1979:24)
termed the Coast Cottonwood series (Koerper 1991: 1 83). Koerper and Drover (1983: 15 -19,
Figures 1, 5, 7 -8, Appendices A —B) reviewed this point series for coastal Southern California.
They suggest that `large" (greater than 3.5 grams) Cottonwood triangular and Cottonwood leaf -
shaped points are generally more common at an earlier time (750 Common Era [CE] or
1200 YBP or even 500 CE or 1450 YBP) than are "small' (1.0- to 3.5 -gram) points of the same
types (Koerper and Drover 1983:11; Koerper et al. 1988). More recently, Koerper (1991: 184)
has suggested that leaf- shaped Cottonwood points had their fluorescence prior to the
Cottonwood triangular points (Finnerty et al. 1970:15). Koerper and Drover (1983) also
suggested that "extremely small' (less than 1.0 gram) Cottonwood specimens were in vogue
toward the termination of the Late Prehistoric Period. What Koerper and Drover (1983) call
Sonoran projectiles shows affinities with Hohokam points of a later date, and thus they regard
them as very late, Late Prehistoric Period time markers in Orange County, perhaps related to
Lake Cahuilla desiccation and the subsequent population dispersion.
Although Koerper and Drover (1983) placed Elko -eared and Elko corner - notched points in the
Intermediate Period, the Newport Coast Archaeological Project data showed that these point
types also occur in the Milling Stone Period. The transition from dart points to arrow points is
thought to have occurred by the end of the Intermediate Period. If single- component, late
Intermediate sites are discovered, it should be possible to determine when the transition from
darts to arrows occurred.
Obsidian Hydration Rates
Coso and Obsidian Butte are the principal sources of obsidian found in Orange County.
Calibrated hydration curves have not yet been fully developed for the County. Koerper et al.
(1986) proposed a logarithmic hydration curve for Coso obsidian found in Orange County.
Further evaluation of the hydration rate depends on obtaining more hydration measurements
from samples associated with radiocarbon dates. Although obsidian does not occur in great
quantities at Orange County sites, past experience suggests that some specimens of Coso
obsidian would be available to test the logarithmic curve. In addition, late sites may contain both
Obsidian Butte and reused Coso specimens that could help elucidate the poorly understood
lower micron range of any hydration curve. Locally, the Coso obsidian hydration rate suggested
by Koerper et al. (1986) is a logarithmic function whose curve is described by the equation
y= a +(b)(In X), where a is -13.69 and b is 2.6. Alternatively, better fits of the data might be found
in the works of Ericson (1977), Meighan (1978), Friedman and Obradovich (1981), or Drews
and Elston (1983).
It is important to note that there is a proliferation of hydration rates, a fact highlighted in Koerper
et al. (1986). For Coso material, Ericson et al. (1989) noted that at least 11 published rates exist
(Koerper et al. 1986; Gilreath et al. 1987; Erlandson et al. 1987). Although researchers have
attempted to control their data in terms of association and several variables, there has been a
proliferation of rates, not an improvement in the accuracy of hydration rates, for Coso volcanic
glass.
The problem is linked to attempts to create a universal hydration rate for Coso obsidian. What
are needed are regionally specific rates that are tied to regional ambient temperature regimes.
Obsidian hydration data from a given locale frequently indicate that areal - specific hydration
rates do have a certain stability (cf. Wallace et al. 1989; Langenwalter et al. 1989). Obsidian
Butte specimens are expected to be more abundant, and they might be used to build a
R: \Projects \NewportU015\Technical Rep rNkGulturalWchaec Tech Rpt (pub)- 021610.tloc2O Archaeological Resources Assessment
Ranch
hydration rate for that material. Koerper et al. (1986:52) proposed a very tentative
110 years /micron rate for Obsidian Butte volcanic glass from CA -ORA -855 that should be tested
with additional data.
Shell Beads and Ornaments
Shell beads recovered from Orange County sites are thought to follow King's (1990) shell bead
chronology for the Santa Barbara Channel area, but this remains unverified. It is likely that shell
beads used by the Gabrielino were made on Santa Cruz Island where Arnold (1987) found
evidence for the manufacture of shell bead money; to date, no definitive evidence has been
found of their manufacture locally. It is likely then that the Gabrielino obtained their shell beads
from the Chumash. If so, then one would suppose that King's (1990) Chumash bead chronology
would also be accurate for Orange County. However, trade relationships may not be constant
over the years, and the Gabrielino may have preferred only certain types of shell beads. As a
result, there may not be a direct correlation between bead temporal frequencies in Orange
County and King's (1990) shell bead chronology. Evidence exists that early Milling Stone bead
manufacture occurs at CA- ORA -64 (Macko 1998). The results of the Newport Coast
Archaeological Project showed a good correlation between bead types indicative of various time
periods in Santa Barbara County and radiocarbon dates (Gibson and King 1994). However,
beads front time periods not represented by radiocarbon dates were often present in small
quantities.
Chronology Questions and Data Requirements
Are there several means to determine the age and duration of occupation of the sites?
Can the various Cottonwood series projectile forms be used as temporal indicators in the
Intermediate and Late Prehistoric Periods?
Are there dart point forms that can be used as temporal indicators for the intermediate
Period or subperiods within the Intermediate Period?
Does obsidian exist in enough quantity and in a short time span of occupation to
contribute to hydration rate research?
Are shell or stone beads present at the sites? Do the types fit the existing bead
chronologies?
Are features available where scrutiny of shell detritus may indicate bead production
activities?
Cottonwood series projectiles are frequently found in Late Prehistoric sites. If these projectiles
are found during the Newport Banning Ranch Phase II investigation, then the question can be
addressed for the Late Prehistoric Horizon.
Large samples of dart points from single- component sites in association with radiocarbon
dates — preferably from charcoal or single shell dates —are also required. Should dart points be
discovered during the Phase II test at the site, the question can then be addressed.
This Phase II test evaluation would determine whether obsidian is present at the sites. Although
the testing may not yield sufficient quantities of obsidian for all tests, it would demonstrate the
presence of the material at the site. The Phase II would likely result in insufficient quantities of
obsidian for hydration and source analyses that, when correlated to radiocarbon dates, would
R: \Projects \NewportU015\Technical Reports\CUlturalWchaec Tech Rpt (pub)- 021610.tloc2l Archaeological Resources Assessment
Ranch
provide adequate data for advanced studies regarding temporal placement and source of
obsidian trade through time.
4.3.2 Settlement /Subsistence Systems
Ethnohistoric and archaeological evidence suggests the intense occupation of the San Joaquin
Hills began no later than the Milling Stone Period and extended into the Late Prehistoric Period
through to initial contact with Europeans. Among the primary explanations for this long -lived
concentration of settlement was the diverse and abundant supply of natural resources available
in the local environment. Archaeologically, differential site preservation may also be an
important factor.
By comparing archaeological, ethnohistoric, topographical, and biological data from the Newport
Coast, it is possible to reconstruct the biotic habitats that once existed on and near the San
Joaquin Hills. This would have included not only the terrestrial habitats of the mesa and San
Joaquin Hills, but also the rich and diverse marine habitats of Newport Bay and the outer coast.
Fluctuations of the resource base and physiographic changes during the middle to upper
Holocene may have directly contributed to some past interpretations (e.g., Mason) of
Intermediate Period "abandonment' (Mason et al. 1992:332).
The Late Prehistoric Period sites investigated as part of the Newport Coast Archaeological
Project were all approximately the same distance from Newport Bay (5 to 7 kilometers [km]),
and there were no Intermediate Period sites present. The Bonita Mesa Archaeological Project
provided the opportunity to investigate 7 sites, several of which are placed in the Intermediate
Period along Bonita Creek within 15 km of Newport Bay. The Newport Banning Ranch
archaeological sites allow for a different perspective on resource procurement and settlement as
the sites are farther from the upper Newport Bay, the freshwater marsh at the University of
California, Irvine, the interior San Joaquin Hills, and the rocky open coast of Corona del Mar and
Crystal Cove.
Intermediate Period
As a result of the Newport Coast Archaeological Project, progress has been made toward
understanding the Late Prehistoric Period settlement system in the San Joaquin Hills and its
relationship to the wider system that includes the village of Gengara. However, very little is
known about the Intermediate Period when (as previously discussed) major settlement shifts
from a more mobile seasonal round system to a more sedentary territorial system is believed to
have occurred. Various scenarios have been suggested as to whether the Intermediate Period
represents abandonment, retooling or intensification, or whether it is simply part of an existing
period. Sites that appear to be residential bases were located near water sources within three
km of Newport Bay by the end of the Horizon. Until the recent work related to the Bonita Mesa
Archaeological Project project (Drover et al. [in progress]), very little was known about this
transition because material from few sites in the Newport Bay area had an Intermediate Period
component. Only CA -ORA -119 -A and CA -ORA -116 had been comprehensively analyzed and
reported (Koerper 1981; Grenda et al. 1998). The analysis and interpretation of the Intermediate
Period component of CA -ORA -119 -A suggest that it was a multi- season (possibly year- round)
major residential base (Koerper 1981). However, 11 of the 13 radiocarbon dates are from after
2000YBP, indicating that the transition to increased sedentism may not have occurred until the
later part of the Intermediate Period. Interpretation of the CA -ORA -119 -A Intermediate Period
component is complicated by the fact that the site also has Milling Stone and Late Prehistoric
Period components. These are somewhat segregated vertically and horizontally, but it is not
certain that any individual artifact can be assigned to the Intermediate Period component.
R: \Projects \NewportU015\Technical Reports\CUlturalWchaec Tech Rpt (pub)- 021610.tloc22 Archaeological Resources Assessment
Ranch
Due to recent research, the Intermediate Period sites in the San Joaquin Hills now include two
subperiods: Intermediate I and Intermediate II (Drover 2001:45). It might be assumed that a shift
from single- season residential bases prior to 2000 YBP to multiple season or year -round major
residential bases after 2000 YBP took place. Specialized activity loci may also appear after
2000 YBP In order to test this model, all Intermediate Period sites discovered need to undergo
the same kind of analysis as the Newport Coast Archaeological Project and Bonita Mesa
Archaeological Project sites. Site type should be determined, seasonality indicators should be
obtained, internal site structure should be investigated, and it should be determined whether
evidence for subsistence intensification is present. In addition, chronological data are required
to determine when multiple- season residential bases first appear. However, new data resulting
from research efforts associated with CA -ORA -116 (Grenda et al. 1998) and the Bonita Mesa
Archaeological Project (Drover et al. [in progress]) allow for clearer insights into Intermediate
Period settlement patterns. While yet to be published, the findings of the Bonita Mesa
Archaeological Project may be further tested depending on the chronological age of the subject
sites.
Environmental Changes in Newport Bay
There may be a link between the relative lack of habitation sites during the early Intermediate
Period and environmental change in the Newport Bay region. Radiocarbon data in Schroth
(1983:79) show a near absence of radiocarbon dates for the period between 3000 to 2500 YBP
More recent data in California Radiocarbon Dates (Breschini et al. 1990:98 -99) show
10 radiocarbon dates for this period. Most of those dates are from CA -ORA -378 (Christ College
Site in the City of Irvine) located southeast of the upper end of Newport Bay. As discussed
previously, a settlement shift may have occurred during the Intermediate Period. However, the
small number of sites during the early part of the Intermediate Period may also be related to an
environmental change in the San Joaquin Marsh at the head of Newport Bay. In addition, results
of the BMAP research further indicate distinct cultural /biological changes at the onset of the
Intermediate Period (Drover at al. 2001).
Information on changes in the marsh comes from the study of a 687- centimeter (cm) pollen core
extracted from an undisturbed area of the marsh (Davis 1992). The pollen core was dated with
five radiocarbon dates. The findings are summarized as follows:
From circa 7000 to 4500 YBP, the site was a freshwater marsh, trees were more
abundant than today, and grassland was the regional vegetation. As the sea level
rose, salt marsh gradually invaded the site. Brief periods of freshwater marsh (3800,
2800, 2300, and after 560 YBP) correlate with episodes of global cooling during the
Neoglacial (Davis 1992:89).
The post -560 YBP period correlates with the Little Ice Age and with reduced
sea - surface temperatures in the Santa Barbara basin (Pisias 1978). The freshwater
events (2800 and 2300 YBP) match two Recess Peak advances (Scuderi 1984), and
these events appear to be very rapid, large -scale climatic fluctuations. Many sites in
Western North America appear to record cold -wet climate at this time (Davis
1992:97).
Davis also shows that while these freshwater intervals peaked for relatively brief periods, the
duration of the freshwater phases was relatively prolonged during the overall saltwater phase
(i.e., from circa 4000 to 3500 YBP, 3000 to 2,500 YBP, and 2400 to 2300 YBP). After 2300
YBP, there are no further freshwater phases prior to the Little Ice Age (post -560 YBP). In short,
during most of the Early Intermediate Period (circa 3000 to 2300 YBP), the San Joaquin Marsh
was dominated by fresh water, whereas during the Late Intermediate and most of the Late
Prehistoric Periods, the marsh was dominated by salt water. If one assumes that Upper
R: \Projects \NewportU015\Technical Rep rNkGulturalWcbaec Tech Rpt (pub)- 021610.tloc23 Archaeological Resources Assessment
Ranch
Newport Bay, which once extended northward to include the San Joaquin Marsh, was not
suitable for brackish (salt water) shellfish during these freshwater periods, its attractiveness as a
place for settlement would have greatly diminished. This might explain the relative lack of
settlement during the early and middle part of the Intermediate Period. Conversely, the return of
saltwater marsh conditions would clearly indicate brackish conditions in Upper Newport Bay
suitable for brackish water shellfish. There is a concomitant increase in settlement during the
Late Intermediate and Late Prehistoric Periods.
Questions and Data Requirements
What site types are represented by the sites?
Are these sites similar in type and function to other sites in this part of the San Joaquin
Hills?
Were the local marine resources exploited similarly to sites closer to the coast?
Did these sites rely more on terrestrial faunal and floral resources than marine
resources?
With refined radiocarbon studies from the data recovery at this site, can
contemporaneous occupation be demonstrated between these and other sites in the
area?
During which season(s) was the site occupied? Is there a correlation between this and
other sites in the region with respect to seasonality?
Can these sites address the question of intensified occupation during the Late
Prehistoric?
What were the local subsistence procurement strategies by habitat?
Is there a correlation between changes from predominantly freshwater to saltwater
conditions in the San Joaquin Marsh during the site(s) occupation?
The Newport Coast Archaeological Project and Bonita Mesa Archaeological Project results
show that site type is best determined by multivariate analysis of the proportions of functional
artifact types. Therefore, the tools must be classified functionally along with other artifacts, such
as beads and ornaments, to address this question. Also, variations in the proportion of artifacts
at different depths in different horizontal locations at a site may, when dated chronologically,
indicate that the site type has changed with time. An analysis of the subsistence remains and
tool types may indicate specific environmental factors responsible for the changes in the
functional use of the site.
A comparison of specific classes of data between sites must be conducted. Data classes that
may be compared include chipped stone, shellfish, animal bone, and functional artifact types.
Additionally, methods for establishing site type have not been standardized in this region;
therefore, analyses specific to this question may not have been conducted uniformly at other
sites.
Additional radiocarbon analyses at the archaeological sites would refine the chronology of the
site. Comparisons of established site chronologies could be made to establish whether rock
shelters in the region were occupied contemporaneously. Time - sensitive artifacts such as
R: \Projects \NewportU015\Technical Reports\CulturalWchaec Tech Rpt (pub)- 021610.tloc24 Archaeological Resources Assessment
Ranch
projectiles and beads, both of which were found during the test, may also facilitate temporal
comparisons between sites.
Seasonality indicators available in this area include identified charred seeds, faunal remains,
and fish otoliths (inner -ear bones). Most of the plants whose seeds have been found in area
sites produce seeds in known seasons. Recovery of these seeds can therefore be used to
obtain seasonality determinations. It should be noted that there are few, if any, plants in the
area that produce seeds in the winter and early spring. Charred seeds are recovered from
flotation of soil collected from around fire - affected rock features and column samples.
Analysis of faunal remains may indicate what species of animal were procured, and, in the
instance of some migratory birds or certain juvenile specimens, the season of procurement.
By sectioning the otolith (which have annual growth rings), it is possible to determine the degree
of development of the last growth ring, and thereby the season during which the fish died. Use
of otoliths to determine seasonality has limitations. Most otoliths recovered from previous
investigations are those of near -shore ocean fish. However, the most numerous fish used for
food by the prehistoric inhabitants of the area come from the ocean kelp bed zone and from
Newport Bay. Kelp bed fish are not represented because they have small, fragile otoliths.
Cartilaginous fishes from the Newport Bay, such as bat rays and shovelnose guitarfish, are not
represented because they do not have ear bones. Therefore, most otoliths recovered from
archaeological sites only provide information on the seasonality of near -shore ocean fishing.
Visual analysis of shellfish growth bands to determine seasonality has been determined not to
be a reliable method in this area ( Cerreto 1992; Koerper, Cerreto, and Reitz 1984). Oxygen
isotope analysis of shellfish growth rings appears to be a valid seasonality technique (Killingley
1981), but is not cost effective because of the large number of samples required from each
individual shell to produce a reliable result. Ample numbers of bird and terrestrial fauna and
otoliths could be required for the site(s) to be able to address this question.
Additional studies of the diversity and abundance of subsistence remains may yield data
specific to the question of intensification during this period. Additional radiocarbon analyses may
indicate the presence of earlier occupational periods as well.
Floral, faunal, and shellfish remains and lithic debitage may each contribute to the identification
specific exploited habitats. Different species populate the various habitats local to the site, and a
quantitative analysis of the remains may indicate procurement strategies by habitat. Lithic
manufacturing debris, groundstone implements, and chipped stone implements may suggest
modes of procurement and preparation specific to one or more habitats. The data recovery
would provide adequate data regarding artifactual and ecofactual materials to suggest
procurement strategies.
4.3.3 Trade and Exchange
Archaeological information about trade and exchange comes mostly from exotic lithic materials.
These are materials with no known local source that must have been obtained from elsewhere
through trade or exchange. One of the most studied exotic materials is obsidian.
Sources of Obsidian
It is only recently that regional patterns of obsidian exchange have received systematic study in
Orange County. Koerper et al. (1986) offered the hypothesis that most obsidian in Orange
County came from the Coso source in Inyo County until the beginning of the Late Prehistoric
Period. A hiatus in the availability of obsidian from any source was followed by an influx of
R:\ Projects \NewpoOIJ015\Technical Reports\CUlturalWchaeo Tech Rpt (pub)- 021610.tloc25 Archaeological Resources Assessment
Ranch
obsidian from the Obsidian Butte source on the southeastern shore of the Salton Sea in Imperial
County. It is suggested that the water level in Lake Cahuilla (now the Salton Sea) receded at
this time, exposing the Obsidian Butte source that previously had been submerged and
inaccessible. Thus, the end of the Late Prehistoric Period was dominated by material from the
Obsidian Butte source. Ericson et al. (1989) suggested that if the hypothesis is correct,
hydration measurements of obsidian from Obsidian Butte should be less than 2.5 microns and
hydration measurements of Coso obsidian should be greater than 4.5 microns.
Sourcing and hydration measurements of Newport Coast Archaeological Project obsidian
samples showed that the situation is more complex. Obsidian Butte specimens with hydration
measurements between 6.0 and 7.8 microns were found in Milling Stone Period sites. It was
also found that obsidian from Coso and Obsidian Butte co- occurred during the Late Prehistoric
Period with no hiatus separating the availability of obsidian from the two sources. Late
Prehistoric Obsidian Butte hydration readings ranged from 1.0 to 4.2 microns, while Coso
obsidian hydration measurements ranged from 1.0 to 9.7 microns. Additional samples are
necessary to verify these trends in obsidian exchange.
Obsidian Exchange
The amount of obsidian at Orange County sites is generally small, even at village sites. It is not
clear how this obsidian got into Orange County. Was it through formal exchange mechanisms
such as the use of trade partners? Was it the result of occasional forays into other territories by
Gabrielino and /or Juaneno /Luiseno individuals? Was it the result of curating or husbanding tools
that were transported by incoming peoples? Was it a form of "down- the -line exchange" (Ericson
1981)? Whatever the mechanism, knowledge of the form in which obsidian arrived in Orange
County may provide some clues.
Study of obsidian specimens recovered from Newport Coast Archaeological Project sites
(Mason and Peterson 1994:296) showed that obsidian comprised only 0.2 percent of the
analyzed debitage from Milling Stone Period sites and 0.4 percent of the analyzed debitage
from Late Prehistoric Period sites. Tertiary (cortex [original surface] flaked away) flakes
comprised up to 90 percent of the Milling Stone Period obsidian specimens, and there were very
few decortication flakes and no cores. The absence of cores suggests that all obsidian pieces of
sufficient size were used for tools; none were wasted. During the Late Prehistoric Period, the
proportion of bifaces and biface thinning flakes increased compared to the Milling Stone Period.
There is a slightly higher proportion of decortication flakes, and one core is present that
indicates obsidian in larger, less reduced pieces was somewhat easier to obtain. The greater
number of obsidian flake tools also indicates this.
Questions and Data Requirements
What types (sources) of obsidian were traded into the Project area and when?
Does the obsidian at these sites enhance our current understanding of hydration?
In what form did obsidian arrive in Orange County?
Do the obsidian specimens provide any evidence for secondary use?
The test must demonstrate that obsidian is present at the archeological sites before a complete
analysis can be anticipated following a data recovery phase. If sufficient quantities are
recovered during data recovery excavations, sourcing, hydration, and transported forms can be
addressed. An analysis of the kinds of obsidian debitage and cores or core fragments recovered
from sites may indicate the initial form in which obsidian arrived at the San Joaquin Hills sites.
R:\ Projects \NewpoOIJ015\TechnimI Reports\CUlturalWchaeo Tech Rpt (pub)- 021610.doc26 Archaeological Resources Assessment
Ranch
Samples of obsidian large enough to provide good surfaces for hydration measurements may
provide data regarding obsidian as a temporal indicator. Radiocarbon dates would also be
required to date the deposits from which the obsidian was recovered. It should be noted that the
gradual acquisition of data from a number of sites may be necessary to address hydration
calibration and reduction /transport strategy. Because the amount of obsidian from any one site
would be small, the results from one site would not answer the research question but would
contribute to the regional database.
4.3.4 Lithic Technology
Lithic analyses provide data regarding site function and settlement- subsistence patterns
primarily through the temporal identification of technology and technological changes, and trade
and exchange of materials used in prehistoric lithic technology. The classes of Iithics that may
be recovered include chipped stone artifacts, battered tools, milling implements, and ground
tools. The appearance of these classes of lithics at any given site is temporally defined from
comparisons with lithic assemblages from known contexts that have been validated through
radiocarbon dating. The classes of tools we would expect to find would correlate strongly with
the Newport Coast Archaeological Project conclusions regarding classes of functional tool types
versus site type. Major residential sites in the vicinity, such as CA- ORA -64, CA -ORA -106,
CA- ORA -119a, CA -ORA -220, and CA -ORA -223, would yield a wider range of all classes of
tools since more activities occurred there. Smaller extractive or seasonal sites would yield
proportionally fewer classes since the activities conducted there required fewer tools.
An analysis of lithic debitage, by kind and material, if sufficiently large enough, could provide
information on reduction strategies and the degree of preparation of materials prior to transport
from the source to the site. Preferences for material types and reduction techniques or other
manufacturing techniques may be defined from a larger data recovery sample.
Milling implements, where present, suggest subsistence procurement strategies and may be
useful for defining site type.
Questions and Data Requirements
What classes of Iithics are at the sites and can the site types be demonstrated from
them?
Are there exotic lithic materials present at the sites, and, if so, can the sources be
identified?
Can subsistence practices, such as seed milling, be demonstrated from milling
implements found at the sites?
Are there any temporally sensitive projectile points at the site? If so, can that be
supported through radiocarbon or obsidian hydration analyses.
The test and evaluation sample should be sufficiently large to provide adequate data regarding
each class of Iithics present at the sites. Data should indicate the presence or absence of
materials and provide a representative sample of the kinds and types of Iithics used through
time. Some rare items such as obsidian, projectile points, or shaped objects may not be
recovered from the test.
R: \Projects \NewportU015\Technical Reports\CUlturalWchaec Tech Rpt (pub)- 021610.tloc27 Archaeological Resources Assessment
Ranch
4.3.5 Site Structure
The horizontal placement of various classes of cultural materials within a site may indicate the
kinds of activities that were conducted there. Discreet loci of food preparation, lithic reduction,
refuse, house pits, or other kinds of activities may be represented at the sites. These features
may vary in complexity, kind, and depth as well, suggesting potential variations in site type
through time. However, the degree of bioturbation, both from recent plowing and from the
presence of rodents at the site, needs to be considered when feature -like materials are
encountered. Hearth clean -outs or other secondary depositional events such as refuse piles,
sub - midden caches, and human reburials can complicate the archaeological record and hamper
a final interpretation of the event. Every feature investigated is considered a discreet unit of
analysis or synchronic event, and analyzed accordingly.
Questions and Data Requirements
Are features present at the sites?
If features are not found during the test, are there materials present at the sites that are
typically associated with features?
Is the site stratified temporally and are there variations in materials through time
suggesting different activities occurred there or that the site type has changed through
time?
If features are not found during the test, their presence may be suggested through careful
scrutiny of the cultural materials contained in the sample. Sufficient quantities of burned and
unburned bone, shellfish, beads, burned rocks, and Iithic implements may indicate the presence
of an intact or disturbed feature at the site. If features are encountered, the possibility of an
extant living floor or house pit should be considered when implementing the feature excavation
procedures.
SECTION 5.0 METHODS
The results of the field and laboratory investigations of the Newport Banning Ranch
archaeological sites are summarized in this section. Each site is treated separately with the
same categories of information, where applicable. The heading Field Methods and Procedures
and Data Sampling and Excavation Procedures contains (1) a detailed description of each site's
excavation layout; (2) unit and posthole excavation procedures; (3) field preparations of
excavated sediments; and (4) maps and photographs of the site. The section entitled Laboratory
Methods and Procedures describes how the matrices were treated in the Laboratory. The
Results section begins with a table indicating the artifact classes, kinds, and types recovered
from the soil matrix of each site. The section Unit Profiles has a brief description of the sediment
stratigraphy. The last section, Site Integrity, is a description of the general integrity of the site.
This section also contains site photographs.
5.1 FIELD METHODS AND PROCEDURES
This section reports on the field preparations and data recovery methodology that were
implemented during the fieldwork at sites CA -ORA -839, CA -ORA -843, CA -ORA -844, CA -ORA-
845, CA -ORA -906, CA -ORA -1599, CA -ORA -1600, CA -ORA -1601, CA -ORA -1602 and CA-
ORA -1610; CA -ORA -148 was not subjected to excavation. The preliminary fieldwork consisted
of site relocation; site boundary delineation; brush clearing; construction of a data sampling grid
R: \Projects \NewportU015\Technical Reports\CUlturalWchaec Tech Rpt (pub)- 021610.tloc28 Archaeological Resources Assessment
Ranch
at each site; the excavation of postholes and /or one meter - square units; matrix screening and
washing; surface collections; unit profiles; and site photographs.
5.1.1 Site Boundaries
The site boundaries for several sites were very difficult to delineate based on the observable
surface distribution of cultural materials and topographic limitations. The most salient materials
at the sites were shellfish remains. While site boundaries were identified primarily from the
surface distribution of shellfish remains, all other possible cultural materials such as bone,
debitage, and fire - affected rocks were also considered when the boundaries were identified. Pin
flags were used to demark the furthest extent of the surface artifacts and initial unit locations
(shovel test pits or control units).
5.1.2 Data Sampling and Excavation Procedures
Shovel Test Pits (STPs)
STPs were excavated with a circumference of 40 cm in 20 cm increments, then the matrix from
each level was dry screened through '/ -inch mesh for specific classes of material, including
stone tools, debitage, groundstone tools, miscellaneous lithics (e.g., ochre, asphaltum), non -fish
and fish bone, bone tools, charcoal, fire - affected rock, or historic material. Shell hinges and
apices were collected, counted, weighed, and speciated. Aside from the historic sites, historic
materials in STPs provide evidence of recent disruptive activities that occurred at the sites, such
as pot hunting, and contribute to the general understanding of bioturbation processes at the
sites. Based on the results of the STPs, sub - surface control units would be implemented to
recover comparative, quantified data.
Control Units
Archaeological sites where surface manifestation may have appeared to be sparse but where
STPs showed significant subsurface data warranted the excavation of control units for purposes
of eligibility determination (cf. CA -ORA -844 Locus B). Easily definable archaeological sites such
CA -ORA -839 were subject only to control test units to determine eligibility. Control units 1 x 1
meter in size were primarily utilized to generate cubic density data for comparison with the
Newport Coast Archaeological Project site type criteria (Mason and Peterson 1994). Control
Units were excavated in 10 -cm increments and each level was wet screened and sorted through
1/8 -inch mesh for specific classes of materials, including flaked stone tools; debitage;
groundstone tools; miscellaneous lithics (e.g., ochre, asphaltum); bone tools; otoliths; shell;
shell beads and ornaments; charcoal; fire - affected rock; historic material; and non -fish and fish
bone.
The shellfish sample from each 1 x 1 meter unit was sorted from the matrix and identified by the
lab technicians. Shellfish identification consisted of determining the genus (and species, where
possible) of all non - repetitive shell elements (hinges and apices). Non - repetitive elements were
then counted. If non- repetitive elements for a particular taxon were not found, the sample was
referred to as "sp. ", but not given a count. The shellfish from the postholes were speciated, and
the count of fragments was taken.
All stone tools; groundstone tools; miscellaneous lithics (e.g., ochre, asphaltum); bone tools;
otoliths; and beads /ornaments were separated from the matrix and weighed, bagged, and
labeled individually. The weight and count of fire- affected rocks was collectively recorded for
each unit level by material type and discarded. Charcoal was collectively weighed, bagged, and
labeled for each unit level.
R: \Projects \NewportU015\Technical Reports\CUlturalWchaec Tech Rpt (pub)- 021610.tloc29 Archaeological Resources Assessment
Ranch
Some archaeological sites received only STPs. Archaeological investigations had been unable
to relocate several archaeological sites on the property subsequent to Van Horn's work in 1974.
Such sites (e.g., CA -ORA -843, and CA -ORA -906) had been subsequently recommended for
STPs to determine whether the site still existed and, if warranted, control pits to evaluate the
deposit (Drover and Smith 1999 and LSA 2008). Because of the extended effort and access to
Van Horn's original research document of (cf. 1982), the present effort was able to relocate all
original site locations. While original site locations could be verified due to photographs and
accurate descriptions, several sites, such as those noted above, had been heavily impacted,
often scraped by earth- moving equipment into nonexistence. In such sites, STPs alone were
sufficient to determine insignificance.
Archaeological sites where surface manifestation may have appeared to be sparse but where
STPs showed significant subsurface data warranted the excavation of control units for purposes
of eligibility determination (cf. CA -ORA -844 Locus B). Easily definable archaeological sites such
CA -ORA -839 were subject only to control test units to determine eligibility.
5.1.3 Screening, Washing and Laboratory Methods and Procedures
After the matrix recovered from each level of each posthole and unit was water - screened
through' /6 -inch mesh in the field, the washed matrix remaining in the screen was dried, bagged,
labeled, and brought to the laboratory for sorting and identification. In the lab, each unit level
was screened through ' /o-inch mesh screen, effectively separating the larger matrix fraction that
was greater than 1/4 inch in size from the smaller matrix fraction that was less than 1/4 inch in
size. The % -inch mesh was used only to separate the larger items from the smaller items to
facilitate the sorting process. Laboratory sorters then sorted all cultural materials from the
screened matrices by separating items by class. The remaining non - cultural material was
discarded.
5.1.4 Cataloging
All artifacts (chipped -stone tools, groundstone tools, shell artifacts, bone tools, obsidian, otoliths,
beads, and ornaments) were identified in the laboratory and assigned individual catalog
numbers. The remaining cultural materials were separated into classes consisting of fish bone,
non -fish bone, speciated shell elements (shell was not speciated for the postholes), fire - affected
rock by material type, lithic debitage by material type, and charcoal.
Catalog entries for tools included provenience, identification of artifact type, material, weight,
and count. Catalog entries for fish bone, non -fish bone, and speciated non - repetitive shell
elements include provenience, weight, and number of specimens by unit level. Entries for
debitage included material type and type of break. All bags of catalogued material contain this
coded information on paper labels.
All fish bone and non -fish bone were identified and cataloged by Mark Roeder (using the
catalog numbers from the initial database). All bone was identified by species, bone element,
and symmetry. The catalog sheets were then entered into an Excel database. Mr. Roeder
analyzed the data for all vertebrate remains and produced a report (see Appendix B).
Mr. Kuhner investigated and evaluated the historic materials described in archaeological sites
CA -ORA -1601 and CA -ORA -1610.
All cataloging was recorded on 11- by 27 -inch cataloging sheets using codes from the TKCI
cataloging codebook. Coding was derived from the University of California, Santa Barbara
coding system. The cataloguing sheet had 26 column categories and 42 rows for individual
catalog entries. The column categories included catalog number; lot number; unit number;
northing; easting; feature number; feature item number; unit type; sample type; level start and
R: \Projects \NewportU015\Technical Rep rNkGulturalWchaec Tech Rpt (pub)- 021610.tloc30 Archaeological Resources Assessment
Ranch
end; screen type; quantity; weight; material; class; objects 1 and 2; modifications 1 through 4;
element; cortex; symmetry; and comments. The data from the catalog sheets were entered into
a Microsoft Excel 7.0 database for sorting capability.
SECTION 6.0 RESULTS
Project cultural resources and testing activities and results would be described in this section.
The oil lease activities on Newport Banning Ranch have in some ways protected some
resources from potential impacts that may have occurred through the years. However,
earth- moving activities associated with oil lease production have greatly disturbed all of the
recorded cultural resources on the Project site. Disturbances that have affected cultural
resources include road building, quarrying and preparation, closure, and rehabilitation of drilling
pads. Fill, acquired from numerous locations on the property through time, was often utilized to
create roads and pad sites in the lower wetlands. In some cases, these disturbances have
resulted in isolated cultural loci within sites as consequences of grading rather than cultural
activities (see CA -ORA -839, Figure 5). The fact that disturbances have occurred to most sites
does not diminish their scientific value in light of the general lack of knowledge regarding the
prehistoric occupation of the Santa Ana River mouth estuary.
6.1 PREHISTORIC SITES
6.1.1 CA -ORA -148
The site was first recorded in the SCCIC in 1964 by McKinney; however, according to Van Horn,
the site was claimed to have been first noted or recorded by Strand in 1935 (Van Horn
1982:25). Hall revisited the site in 1979 and, aside from noting fossil shell on the surface mixed
with an occasional historic shell, did not find any evidence of a midden or subsurface deposit
(1975:1). Van Horn tested the site in 1982 and excavated 19 postholes between 15 and 100 cm
deep, which were analyzed for artifacts, pH tested, and examined for soil color (Figure 1). While
pH testing suggested a one -time midden deposit, the general results warranted neither
avoidance nor further mitigation (LSA 2008:55). Drover and Smith (1999) found no evidence of
shellfish or midden and believed the site had been severely impacted both by oil pads and later
by closure of the pads and cleaning of the area. Drover and Smith further contended the surface
topsoil consisted of exposed bedrock formations and recommended no further work at the site.
(See Appendix C, Exhibit: Overview.)
The site was visited during the current study, and conditions are the same as reported by LSA
(2008) and Drover and Smith (1999). No work was undertaken. The site area is depicted on
Figure 2.
It is difficult to determine what depth any original cultural deposit may have had. Most of the
"soil" on the site actually consists of Qtm or Quaternary Marine Terrace, with grading having
disturbed the past top soil or potential cultural deposits (cf. GMU 2080).
The poor physical integrity of this site and resulting lack of cultural data available renders it
impossible to provide any of the data requirements to address questions presented in the
Research Design section above.
R: \Projects \NewportU015\Technical Reports\CUlturalWchaec Tech Rpt (pub)- 021610.tloc3l Archaeological Resources Assessment
Ranch
FIGURE 1
ORA -148; VAN HORN'S TEST UNIT LOCATIONS
FIGURE NOT INCLUDED FOR REASONS OF CONFIDENTIALITY
RiFrojects \Newport\IO15�TechnicaI Ropons�cuimreiwrchaoo Tech Rpt (pub)- 02161Ilboc32 Archaeological Resources Assessment
Ranch
FIGURE 2
ORA -148 RECORDED SITE LOCATION
FIGURE NOT INCLUDED FOR REASONS OF CONFIDENTIALITY
RiFrojects \Newport\IO15�TechnicaI Ropons�cuimreiwrchaoo Tech Rpt (pub)- 02161Ilboc33 Archaeological Resources Assessment
Ranch
6.1.2 CA -ORA -839
SITE SUMMARY: CA -ORA -839 (LOCI A —E)
Site Summary: CA -ORA -839 (Loci A -E)
Beads
1 spire - lopped Olivella; 1 spire - lopped Conus (same Unit,
Locus A); shark centrum vertebra (Locus B)
Bone
See Appendix B
Debitage
196 specimens (30/m3); 170 gm.
Fire - affected Rock
Fishbone
See Appendix B
Obsidian
4 pieces tertiary thinning flakes
Projectiles
Possible fragments
Radiocarbon
1 shellfish date -3960 +/- 80 BP; 3040 cm.; MS3 Period
Shellfish
2645 non- repetitive elements (NRE) (4061m') ; representing
3 habitats
Tools
0.61/m3
Control Units
8 excavation units
Elevation
40 ft
Shovel Test Pits
0
Site Area
Ca. 3,500 m2 existing: originally 4.3 acres
Site Depth
60 -120 cm
Time Period
Paleocoastal ( ?) (see Van Horn 1980); MS3 Late
Millingstone -early Intermediate
Surface Collection
NA
Volume Excavated
6.5 m3 (eight 1x1 m units)
cm= centimeter
ft =feet
gm =grams
m =meter
M2-square meters
m3 =cubic meters
(see Appendix C, Exhibit 1)
One of the earliest archaeological sites recorded for the property, CA -ORA -839, has been
subject to the most archaeological investigation (Hall 1975; Van Horn 1980, 1982). This site,
originally recorded by Hall (1975), was considered in 1980 because a new well location was
planned. The proposed well site coincided with Locus B of CA -ORA -839 (see Figure 4),
requiring investigation by Van Horn (1980:1). Van Horn's investigations were not an
archaeological test of the entire site (CA -ORA -839), but of a single "locus" of the site resulting
from prior grading activities. In spite of apparent surface grading disturbances, Van Horn's
efforts included approximately 23 square meters of excavation. These excavations included 1 x
1 meter units and expanded units utilized to expose larger cultural features; however, it is not
clear why so many excavation units were completed. Van Horn's work not only verified
subsurface materials, but resulted in the discovery of multiple stratigraphic components to the
site (discussed below). These observations warranted his recommendation for further
evaluation (Van Horn 1980:4). Van Horn's recommendations included the avoidance of Locus B
as well as the other site loci, enforced by fencing each location.
While Van Horn's 1980 effort focused his work on Locus B, he later conducted an assessment
for cultural resources on the property, including survey and testing activities (Van Horn 1982).
Van Horn's results, including prior survey attempts, recognized six archaeological sites: CA-
R: \Projects \NewportU015\Technical Reports\CulturalWchaec Tech Rpt (pub)- 021610.tloc34 Archaeological Resources Assessment
Ranch
ORA -148, CA -ORA -839, CA -ORA -843, CA -ORA -844, CA -ORA -845, and CA -ORA -906. In
summary, Van Horn concluded that:
Ora -148 and 845 have been tested in recent years and are no longer regarded
as significant. Ora -839 and 843 have been tested and are regarded as very
significant. Ora -844 and 906 have not been tested and their significance is
presently uncertain.
FIGURE 3
ORA -839 AERIAL VIEW; NOTE SURFACE DISTURBANCE
AND BARROW PIT NORTH OF LOCUS C
FIGURE NOT INCLUDED FOR REASONS OF CONFIDENTIALITY
Since the work of Van Horn, various cultural resource investigators (Drover and Smith 1999,
and LSA 2008) have been unable to acquire certain documents initially recorded by Van Horn,
resulting in the inability to relocate several archaeological sites (e.g., CA -ORA -839 Locus E, CA-
ORA -148, CA -ORA -843, and CA -ORA -906). The present effort has acquired several of Van
Horn's unpublished documents, which have greatly served to support his earlier finds.
The present approach is a combination of recommendations compiled through the years,
including those by Van Horn (1982); Drover and Smith (1999) and LSA (2008).
Van Horn's determination of "significance" for CA -ORA -839 was based on his excavations of
1980 (noted above), which were solely focused at Locus B. The present effort to evaluate the
NRHP eligibility of Newport Banning Ranch's cultural resources has chosen to conduct limited
testing at each loci of CA -ORA -839. The geographic extent of CA -ORA -839 is apparent due to
the distinct topography of the site. The focus was to provide quantitative data for comparison.
Van Horn's results did not produce quantitative data regarding the comparative density of
R: \Projects \NewportU015\Technical Reports\CUlturalWchaec Tech Rpt (pub)- 021610.tloc35 Archaeological Resources Assessment
Ranch
cultural materials from different loci. Density data would allow the comparison of CA- ORA -839to
larger projects such as the Newport Coast Archaeological Project and to further evaluate its
ability to "contribute to science ". Such comparisons would allow for the estimation of site type
(function), as well as the site's ability to address certain environmental research questions, all of
which would contribute to determining eligibility for listing in the NRHR.
To provide these data, BonTerra Consulting excavated two 1 X 1 meter control excavation units
for Loci A, B, and C, while Loci D and E were limited to one 1 X 1 meter control unit each (due
to topographical constraints). Locus E had not been mentioned in Van Horn's work (1980), nor
relocated by Drover and Smith (1999) or LSA (2008). Van Horn does note "Locus F in his 1982
document, which indicates it was recorded as a result of his later survey work (1982:39). A
loose map in materials received from Archaeological Associates indicated the location of "Locus
F at the base of the mesa upon which CA -ORA -839 exists. This locus was not tested, and its
relationship to CA -ORA -839 (other than proximity) was not clear (1982:39).
As noted above, each locus is a remnant of the grading for oil well pads and access. The soil
removed was taken into the wetlands for road fill. The least disturbed locus (approximately
1,400 square meters [m2] in size), based on topography and plant growth, is the northernmost
Locus C. The remaining upper Loci A, B, and D are likely missing some of the upper levels of
the midden. Locus D appears to have been disturbed to the point of the exhaustion of any
cultural integrity. Locus E at the base of the bluff has been spatially disturbed by quarrying
activities, but still has some vertical integrity.
Van Horn suggested that as much as 70 cm. (Period 1) was missing topographically from the
top of Locus B, yet the remaining "Period 2" consisted of three phases, including a potential pre -
Millingstone Horizon phase. Van Horn acknowledges that the interpretation of a Phase 2 and 3
of Period 2 is based solely on one unit, 19B (1980:43).
R: \Projects \NewportU015\Technical Reports\CUlturalWchaec Tech Rpt (pub)- 021610.tloc36 Archaeological Resources Assessment
Ranch
FIGURE 4
NEW TEST UNITS ORA -839 LOCUS B
(AFTER VAN HORN 1980:55)
FIGURE NOT INCLUDED FOR REASONS OF CONFIDENTIALITY
R \Projects \Newport\ID15 \Technical Repons�cufturaMrchaec Tech Rpt (pub) - 021610 boc37 Archaeological Resources Assessment
Ranch
FIGURE 5
ORA -839 LOCUS B VAN HORN (1980:56)
In many ways the present, limited test results agree with Van Horn's general findings of 1980. A
feature was encountered in the 30 -40 -cm level of Unit 1, Locus C of CA -ORA -839. The feature
contained well associated shell with a 14C date of 3960 +/- 80 YBP; Beta - 261339, (MS3 -late
Millingstone Horizon /early Intermediate), from a unit which extended to the depth of 70 -80 cm.
R: \Projects \NewponU015\Technical Rep ns\CulturalWchaec Tech Rpt (pub)- 021610.doc38 Archaeological Resources Assessment
15,07 vctEJ _
L
q i_91
i
Pik /0D I
sp
60
Jo
5er
_2
0
1
s rďż˝
70
90
/OO
0 G30
O O pďż˝ ynr
Oo X00 /SOO�wo S�bMf '�.'O %hAY '.
L
ďż˝/O
OIHO /.4YM t
Are
I"
f ďż˝
7
PElR10D T 4-9, avA
140
/ďż˝
To
/d0
oe
/00
AW,45c G
sp
/90
200
i10
ZO
nLo
I
I
® P£R, le P -r Ir wďż˝. was iw1 <nef1
rigure
3• Top: Recmutmu ted
section of Ore -839 looking
mat. Rattan: hypothetical
prehistoric periods represented
at 0ra -639.
In many ways the present, limited test results agree with Van Horn's general findings of 1980. A
feature was encountered in the 30 -40 -cm level of Unit 1, Locus C of CA -ORA -839. The feature
contained well associated shell with a 14C date of 3960 +/- 80 YBP; Beta - 261339, (MS3 -late
Millingstone Horizon /early Intermediate), from a unit which extended to the depth of 70 -80 cm.
R: \Projects \NewponU015\Technical Rep ns\CulturalWchaec Tech Rpt (pub)- 021610.doc38 Archaeological Resources Assessment
Ranch
FIGURE 6
FEATURE 1 LOCUS C ORA -839; 14C
FIGURE NOT INCLUDED FOR REASONS OF CONFIDENTIALITY
Aside from site function, many of the general characteristics of CA -ORA -839 reflect pre -
Intermediate or Milling Stone Horizon occupation. Shell and lithic density is comparatively low at
the site similar to other sites of similar age. The cubic meter (m3) density for shellfish non-
R:\ Projects \Newpcn'JD15\Technical Reports\CulturalWchaeo Tech Rpt (pub)- 021610.tloc39 Archaeological Resources Assessment
NRE
Percent
Habitat
Chione spp.
1,030
40
B/E
Argopectin
584
23
B/E
Ostrea lurida
504
20
B /OC
Neverita reclusianus
113
4
Crepidula
83
3
Astraea unclose
72
3
Psuedochama
64
2
Cerithidea californica
37
1
Gastropoda
36
1
Mytilus
11
0
Ca/yptrea
10
0
Saxidomus
10
0
Bursa
5
0
Tegula
4
0
Hinnites
3
0
Laevicardium
3
0
2,569
Aside from site function, many of the general characteristics of CA -ORA -839 reflect pre -
Intermediate or Milling Stone Horizon occupation. Shell and lithic density is comparatively low at
the site similar to other sites of similar age. The cubic meter (m3) density for shellfish non-
R:\ Projects \Newpcn'JD15\Technical Reports\CulturalWchaeo Tech Rpt (pub)- 021610.tloc39 Archaeological Resources Assessment
Ranch
repeating elements (NRE) is 404/m3. Chione spp. represents 40 percent of the NRE count, with
Argopectin at 23 percent and Ostrea lurida at 20 percent. The dominating habitats are
Bay /Estuary and Bay /Outer Coast, which are in keeping with the immediate river mouth estuary.
Van Horn's shellfish recovery results (solely from Locus B) reflect the same three prominent
species; however, scallops (Plagioctenium circularis [sic]; cf. Argopectin) are the most abundant
instead of Chione spp. The Newport Coast Archaeological Project summarized shellfish Taxa
chronologically to compare the Milling Stone Period to the Late Prehistoric Period (Mason and
Peterson 1994:267). A distinct difference was noted between the Newport Coast Archaeological
Project Milling Stone and Late Prehistoric Periods. In descending frequency, the 3 dominant
Millingstone Period Taxa are Mytilus sp. (78 percent), Pollicipes polymerus (5 percent), and
Amaea sp. (3 percent), indicating rocky shore habitat exploitation. The Late Prehistoric Period
dominant Taxa are represented in order by Argopecten sp. (39 percent), Ostrea lurida
(19 percent), and Crepidula sp. (14 percent). At CA -ORA -839, the aggregate shellfish Taxa
strongly reflect the Newport Coast Archaeological Project's Late Prehistoric Period (1994:267).
The high frequency of Chione spp. at CA -ORA -839 is likely due to the geographic proximity of
the limited shellfish habitats provided by the Santa Ana River mouth estuary. In addition,
however, Chione spp. is the most dominant species at Newport Coast Archaeological Project
sites, which are Minor Residential Bases (Mason and Peterson 1994:270).
Lithic material was poorly represented at CA -ORA -839 at a cubic meter density of 30/m3,
(196 specimens -170 grams), which likely reflects site function (see below).
Metavolcanic rock represents 31 percent of the sample with Monterey chert at 23 percent and
quartzite at 27 percent. Very few actual flakes were recovered with distinctive bulbs of
percussion. Instead, the vast majority of material represented cubic shatter or very small
finishing flakes. Stone tools were also limited in the sample. One bifacial mano fragment and
two undetermined groundstone fragments were all that represented groundstone material. Two
quartz cores (one fragmentary) and one fragmentary core with secondary use as a scraper were
also recovered.
The poor representation of Lithic categories provided poor quantitative comparative data.
Debitage consisting heavily of cubical shatter make up the vast majority of "debitage" for a
density of 30/m3. When compared to the Newport Coast Archaeological Project's determination
R: \Projects \NewportU015\Technical Rep rNkGulturalWchaec Tech Rpt (pub)- 021610.tloc40 Archaeological Resources Assessment
Count
Percent
metavolcanic
56
31
Monterey chert
42
23
quartzite
27
15
chert
21
12
quartz
10
6
rosy quartz
9
5
andesite
8
4
obsidian
4
2
diorite
1
1
galucophane schist
1
1
jasper
1
1
180
Cubic Shatter
109
83
Primary
4
3
Secondary
3
2
Tertiary
15
11
Metavolcanic rock represents 31 percent of the sample with Monterey chert at 23 percent and
quartzite at 27 percent. Very few actual flakes were recovered with distinctive bulbs of
percussion. Instead, the vast majority of material represented cubic shatter or very small
finishing flakes. Stone tools were also limited in the sample. One bifacial mano fragment and
two undetermined groundstone fragments were all that represented groundstone material. Two
quartz cores (one fragmentary) and one fragmentary core with secondary use as a scraper were
also recovered.
The poor representation of Lithic categories provided poor quantitative comparative data.
Debitage consisting heavily of cubical shatter make up the vast majority of "debitage" for a
density of 30/m3. When compared to the Newport Coast Archaeological Project's determination
R: \Projects \NewportU015\Technical Rep rNkGulturalWchaec Tech Rpt (pub)- 021610.tloc40 Archaeological Resources Assessment
Ranch
of Mean Densities by Site Type, CA -ORA -839 would compare best with a Minor Residential
Base (Mason and Peterson 1994:248). Tool density at CA -ORA -839 of 0.65/m3 best compares
to a Specialized Activity Site (Mason and Peterson 1994:267).
While Van Horn's lithic data was not determined by density (m3), he too reports limited lithic
material (1980:35). As for flaked tools recovered by Van Horn, three cores, two projectile point
fragments, six scrapers, and one notched blade are all that are noted (1980:35). Based on the
excavation of 22 units (of different depths), this density might approximate 0.70 /m3. In addition
to the lack of finished tools, the amount of small shatter and very small flakes may indicate
limited resharpening of existing tools. Van Horn may not have quantified the category of "cubic
shatter" analyzed herein.
Van Horn's recovery of milling stone amounted to six specimens, all manos, and only one was
complete (1980:38). Van Horn noted that no ground stone specimens were found below 60 cm
in depth, and due to several trends, suggested that the lower parts of the site may pre -date the
onset of the Milling Stone Horizon(i.e. prior to 6,000 YBC) (1980:38).
Faunal specimens from the site include fishes, migratory birds, and limited mammal material
(see Appendix B). The majority of fishes indicate shallow water, in shore, and estuary species.
Only one specimen of California Sheephead represents a separate habitat. While Van Horn
does not provide species identification in his faunal analysis, he does separate fish vertebra
from other bone material and suggests that bone is more common in the lower levels. While the
present investigation sample size does not compare with Van Horn's sample size, there is no
indication of bone being more common in lower levels. According to bone count in 7 control
units of the present investigation, 121 specimens occur between 0 and 50 cm, and 94 occur
between 50 and 100 cm.
With results primarily from Locus B and limited excavations at Locus A, Van Horn suggested
two major Periods of occupation. Period 1 the mostly destroyed upper levels (0 -90 cm),
represents the Late Prehistoric Horizon, consisting of dark soil with an emphasis on shellfish
and underlain by "Period 2" (Van Horn 1980:41 -45; 56). Period 2 consists of three phases,
which include light soil color, a shift toward the exploitation of scallops, and diminishing
groundstone. Period 2 consisted of a shift from the Milling Stone Period to a pre - Milling Stone
(cf. Paleocoastal) Period. Van Horn notes that his assumptions regarding Period 2 at CA -ORA-
839 were based primarily upon the findings from one 1 X 1 meter unit at Locus B (1980:43).
Based upon the excavation of seven 1 X 1 meter control units distributed throughout all five site
loci, the following conclusions can be made. Based on observation made at CA -ORA -839 based
on topography, soil color and 14C dates, it is quite possible the site has multiple chronological
components (vertical and spatial). The existing 14C date from the site indicates the likelihood for
an Intermediate Period and Milling Stone Period occupation. While the existence of a "pre -
Milling Stone Period" is unknown, the likelihood of an upper, Late Prehistoric occupation is
possible. Local sites with two or three occupation components are relatively rare and certainly
significant. Enough of CA -ORA -839 is physically intact to address these chronological issues
with 14C analysis of marine shell. A remaining pertinent issue is whether Locus E at the base of
the bluff is truly a contemporary component of CA -ORA -839 or an individual site unto itself.
Given the topographic location and faunal and lithic material obtained in this sample, by
comparison to the results of the Newport Coast Archaeological Project, CA -ORA -839 appears to
be a Minor Residential Base (Mason and Peterson 1994:270). To a limited degree, male and
female activities, food procurement, and food - processing activities all seem to have occurred at
the site. While trade items (obsidian) and socio - ideological items (beads) are represented at the
site, their limited quantities may reflect a limited duration of occupation. Given the limited
regional knowledge of the occupation and habitat of the area, CA -ORA -839 can provide unique
R:\ Projects \NewportU015\Technical Reports\CUlturalWcbaeo Tech Rpt (pub)- 021610.tloc4i Archaeological Resources Assessment
Ranch
chronological and subsistence information and change about two or possibly three prehistoric
cultural periods. The site does possess the integrity and distinction to warrant listing in the
NRHP or CRHR as a historical and /or unique resource.
6.1.3 CA -ORA -843
Site Summary: CA -ORA -843
Beads
none
Bone
none
Debitage
none
Fire - affected Rock
none
Fishbone
none
Obsidian
none
Projectiles
none
Radiocarbon
NA
Shellfish
15 NRE; 12 Chione spp.; 2 Argopecten; 1 Astrea undosa
Tools
none
Control Units
none
Elevation
40 ft
Shovel Test Pits
8
Site Area
Ca. 15 m` existing disturbed area: originally 3 acres
Site Depth
40 cm
Time Period
unknown
Surface Collection
NA
cavated
Eight Shovel Test Pits —ca. 4m'
er
L eters
ters ix C, Exhibit 2)
CA -ORA -843 was once likely a large site (approximately three acres) on a prominent point on
the bluff overlooking the Newport Shores Community. Due to the degree to which the site has
been impacted by grading and oil field activities, the exact location and integrity of the site has
been difficult to ascertain. The site was first recorded by Hall (1975), independently by Murray in
1979, and updated by Drover and Smith in 1999 (LSA 2008). The lack of specific records
information regarding the location of the prior testing by Van Horn (1982) at the SCCIC,
combined with a paucity of observable midden or artifacts, hampered the understanding of the
status of the site (LSA 2008:56). CA -ORA -843 was tested with postholes by Van Horn and
found to be significant (1982:20; 25).
The present investigation chose to retest CA -ORA -843 due to the lack of information about the
location of the prior test areas and the criteria of the significance determination. A photograph
and description of the site in Van Horn's test report recovered from Archaeological Associates,
was able to focus the present test activities. Van Horn's test was conducted on a remaining
portion of the site only 40 feet in diameter. Only one of an unknown number of postholes
recovered any midden materials (1982:33). The information from this single post -hole indicated
a
... midden rich in marine shell, exhibited positive midden soil chemistry (high
phosphate content) and extended to a depth that exceed one meter (the
maximum depth of the auger bit)" (1982:33).
R: \Projects \NewpoOIJ015\Technical Reports\CulturalWchaec Tech Rpt (pub)- 021610.doc42 Archaeological Resources Assessment
Ranch
This information was the basis for the significance determination. A welded fence also indicates
an area of Van Horn's concern. The remaining area tested by Van Horn is highly disturbed with
historic debris mixed into the soil and is completely covered with ice plant. The area remained
undisturbed from prior grading due to a large electric transformer that stood in this location. As
can be seen in Appendix C, Exhibit 2, Drover and Smith stated that the site "no longer exists'
and did not recommend testing (1999:18). However, STP testing was recommended by LSA
(2008:66).
The present test activities consisted of eight STPs, six of which were focused in the area fenced
by Van Horn and two others in potential areas where brush inhibited a view of the surface. Of
the 6 units within the 40- foot - diameter fenced area, only 2 produced any cultural material. One
was closed for the lack of further data at 40 cm. and the other closed at 60 cm.
FIGURE 7
CA -ORA -843 REMNANT MIDDEN AREAS
FIGURE NOT INCLUDED FOR REASONS OF CONFIDENTIALITY
The only cultural data recovered from the 6 STPs were 15 pieces of shell: 7 from 0 to 20 cm, 5
from 20 to 40 cm, and 3 from 40 to 60 cm. The NRE of 15 shells included 1 Chione
californiensis, 2 Chione undatella, 9 Chione spp., 2 Argopecten, and 1 Astrea undosa. The
small area that produced these few specimens was highly disturbed by grading, intrusive phone
poles, trash, and erosion. Based on present observations, it is difficult to understand Van Horn's
estimation of the site's significance. CA -ORA -843 lacks any vertical or horizontal integrity as
well as representative data to address relevant research questions. The site does not possess
the integrity or distinction to warrant listing in the NRHP or CRHR as a historical resource, nor
does it meet the criteria for a unique archaeological resource.
R: \Projects \NewpoOIJ015\Technical Reports\CUlturalWchaec Tech Rpt (pub)- 021610.tloc43 Archaeological Resources Assessment
Ranch
6.1.4 CA -ORA -844 (Locus A + B)
Site Summary: CA -ORA -844 (Locus A + B)
Beads
none
Bone
9 -Locus B small mammal
Debitage
7 -Locus B
Fire - affected Rock
1 -Locus A
Fishbone
1 shark centrum
Obsidian
none
Projectiles
none
Radiocarbon
None— recommended
Shellfish
Control Unit 1: NRE of 443/m3
Tools
none
Control Units
1
Elevation
35 ft
Shovel Test Pits
Locus A 7 Shovel Test Pit (ca. 0.5m3); Locus B 3
Shovel Test Pits
(ca, 0.3m3)
Site Area
Locus A ca. 15 m` existing disturbed area: Locus B
15m
Site Depth
60 cm
Time Period
unknown
Surface Collection
NA
Volume Excavated
Locus A 7 Shovel Test Pit (ca. 3m3); Locus B 3
Shovel Test Pits
(ca, 1.5m3) and 1 Control Unit (ca. 0.7m3)
ft =feet
cm= centimeter
m'= square meters
m3 =cubic meters
(see Appendix C, Exhibit 3)
Similar to several sites, CA -ORA -844 was originally identified by Hall (1975), but formally
recorded in the SCCIC by Murray in 1979. CA -ORA -844 was not tested by Van Horn in 1982,
but was determined to be worthy of testing (1982:33 -35). Locus A, described as being 40 by
60 feet in size, was completely covered by ice plant and had undulating topography suggestive
of disturbance (Van Horn 1982:33). The site was noted to have a locus on either side of a road
(the main thoroughfare from the bluff top to the oil fields), but subsequent archaeological
surveys did not mention nor relocate Locus B (Drover and Smith 1999:19; LSA 2008:67).
However, with consideration primarily for Locus A, both Drover and Smith (1999) and LSA
(2008) recommended testing.
Initial testing undertaken at both loci consisted of STPs. Those excavated at Locus A consisted
of seven units laid out on the compass axes, three oriented north -south and four oriented on the
longer east -west axis. Only three STPs were laid out on a north -south axis at Locus B due to
the limited amount of undisturbed (not eroded) terrain. Locus B is located approximately
80 meters north of Locus A on a slightly elevated hillside with severe erosional cuts. While Van
Horn speculated that the two loci may have at one time been connected or contemporary
components of one another (1982:35), no evidence was observed to substantiate the idea.
R: \Projects \NewportU015\Technical Reports\CulturalWchaec Tech Rpt (pub)- 021610.doc44 Archaeological Resources Assessment
Ranch
FIGURE 8
ORA -844 LOCUS A AND B — REMNANT MIDDENS
FIGURE NOT INCLUDED FOR REASONS OF CONFIDENTIALITY
Locus A produced a limited amount of shell, primarily from STPs 3, 4, 5, and 6 in the western
half of the grid nearest the road intersection (see Appendix C, Exhibit 3). Of the four STPs noted
above, all produced limited shell in the 40 -60 cm level; however, 2 STPs (5 and 6) produce
shell in the 60 -80 cm level. In all. the NRE shell count from all STPs was 36.
The shell recovery was sparse, and no other prehistoric cultural materials were recovered with
the exception of a single, fire - cracked rock. Given the undulating surface of this portion of the
site ( +/- 3 to 4 feet), the recovery of historic material, size of the deposit and sparse shell, the
ability of Locus A to address the proposed research questions is highly doubtful. Since it is
recommended that Locus B qualifies in its ability to fulfill eligibility criteria (see below), a control
unit excavated at Locus A may provide an adequate radiocarbon sample to determine the
contemporanaeity of Loci A and B.
R: \Projects \NewportU015\Technical Reports\CulturalWchaec Tech Rpt (pub)- 021610.doc45 Archaeological Resources Assessment
0 -20cm
20 -40cm
40.60cm
60 -80cm
Chione spp.
3
6
3
Chione californiensis
1
Argopectin sp.
3
2
6
2
Ostrea lurida
1
2
3
1
Hinnites sp.
1
Mytilis sp.
1
The shell recovery was sparse, and no other prehistoric cultural materials were recovered with
the exception of a single, fire - cracked rock. Given the undulating surface of this portion of the
site ( +/- 3 to 4 feet), the recovery of historic material, size of the deposit and sparse shell, the
ability of Locus A to address the proposed research questions is highly doubtful. Since it is
recommended that Locus B qualifies in its ability to fulfill eligibility criteria (see below), a control
unit excavated at Locus A may provide an adequate radiocarbon sample to determine the
contemporanaeity of Loci A and B.
R: \Projects \NewportU015\Technical Reports\CulturalWchaec Tech Rpt (pub)- 021610.doc45 Archaeological Resources Assessment
Ranch
Locus B, as noted above, is located on a hillside transacted by two erosional cuts in excess of
six feet in depth. The western side of the site is absent due to the construction of an oil pad.
Very little midden is intact at this site that is not disturbed (approximately 10 -15 m2).
Of the three STPs excavated at Locus B, STP 1 produced cultural materials and soil integrity to
a depth of 60 cm, suggesting the need for the excavation of a Control Unit. The control
produced three data classes: shell, lithics and bone, with shell being the largest. Shell
represented from Control Unit 1 consisted of an NRE of 443, a surprising density giving the unit
was only excavated to the depth of 60 cm. (The cubic meter density for shellfish NRE) is
404/m3.) The diversity of Taxa ('richness ") in such a small sample is also promising in the
reconstruction of the habitat and food procurement strategies. The lithic material in the unit
amounted to seven specimens of debitage, all of which were shatter. Faunal material from the
unit included six small mammal bones and one shark centrum. Radiocarbon dating was not
conducted.
Taxa
NRE
Percent
Chione californiensis
134
31
Chione spp.
99
23
Crepidula sp.
93
21
Astrea undosa
25
6
Ostrea lurida
20
5
Cerithidea sp.
18
4
Argopectin sp.
12
3
Saxidomus nuttali
12
3
Neverita reclusianus
11
3
Chione undatella
8
2
Acanthina spirata
2
0
Calyptraea sp.
2
0
Chione f/uctifraga
1
0
Nassarius mendicus
1
0
Based on the data retrieved from one unit, it is impossible to reconstruct site type; however, the
cubic meter shell density and species frequency is favorable to the Minor Residential Base
pattern suggested by Mason and Peterson (994:270).
The remaining portion of the site has the capability to at least address the temporal setting of
the site and its subsistence patterns. It is possible that other recovered data classes may
contribute to other questions proposed in the research design. Given the limited regional
knowledge of the occupation and habitat of the area, CA -ORA -844, Locus B may yet yield
information important in prehistory; therefore, the site does possess the integrity and distinction
to warrant listing in the NRHP or CRHR as a historical resource. It does not meet the standards
of a unique archaeological resource.
R: \Projects \NewportU015\Technical Reports\CulturalWchaec Tech Rpt (pub)- 021610.tloc46 Archaeological Resources Assessment
Ranch
6.1.5 CA -ORA -845
Site Summary: CA -ORA -845
Beads
None
Bone
None
Debitage
None
Fire - affected Rock
None
Fishbone
None
Obsidian
None
Projectiles
None
Radiocarbon
None
Shellfish
NRE 25 Chione califomiensis; Ostrea lurida and Chione
spp.- sparse distribution
Tools
None
Control Units
None
Elevation
ca. 20 ft
Shovel Test Pits
10
Site Area
Unknown; destroyed
Site Depth
220 cm
Time Period
Unknown
Surface Collection
NA
Volume Excavated
10 STP's = ca. 5m3
ft =feet
cm= centimeter
m2= square meters
m3 =cubic meters
STP= shovel test pit
YBP =years before present
(see Appendix C, Exhibit 4)
Similar to several sites noted above, CA -ORA -844 was originally identified by Hall (1975) but
formally first recorded in the SCCIC by Murray in 1979. Hall originally described the site as
consisting of dark soil, fire - cracked rock and shellfish, covering an area of 50 meters by
150 meters, and noted that only 20 percent of the site remained intact. Van Horn conducted an
archaeological test at this site in 1981 consisting of four Control Units and a series of postholes
on the compass axis (Van Horn 1982:29). Van Horn's results stated that "...no significant
deposit is present at this site' (1982:29). Van Horn also noted that the site area had been
heavily impacted by quarrying activities. No subsequent archaeological survey has been unable
to relocate the site (Boxt and Barretta 1992, Drover and Smith 1999, and LSA 2008).
Since occasional shell appeared on the surface of one of the two loci shown on the site record,
ten STP's were distributed and excavated in areas where either soil color or topography
indicated non - sterile (less disturbed) soil conditions. It appeared topographically that the once
"top" of the site may have, as in many other areas, been graded and soil removed.
Of the ten STPs (eight on the lower, larger mapped locus and two on the upper, smaller locus),
the only material recovered was shell from the lower locus. The deepest STP went to 60 cm.
The total NRE for shell recovered from all of the 8 lower STPs was 25 (8 Chione californiensis;
12 Ostrea lurida; and 5 Chione spp.). No other cultural material was recovered. Due to the
impact to this area, findings are in agreement with Van Horn (1982) that the site no longer exists
and lacks any physical integrity. Therefore, the site does not possess the integrity or distinction
to warrant listing in the NRHP or CRHR as a historical resource, nor does it meet the criteria for
a unique archaeological resource.
R: \Projects \Newpcn'JD15\Techniwl Reports\CulturalWchaec Tech Rpt (pub)- 021610.tloc47 Archaeological Resources Assessment
Ranch
6.1.6 CA -ORA -906
Site Summary: CA -ORA -906
Beads
none
Bone
See Appendix B
Debitage
none
Fire - affected Rock
none
Fishbone
See Appendix B
Obsidian
none
Projectiles
none
Radiocarbon
1330 +/- 70 YBP; (Beta 261340 -- LP1 Late
Prehistoric) and 2340 + /- 80 YBP; (Beta
261341 —LP1 Late Prehistoric).
Shellfish
Control Unit 1: NRE 447
Tools
none
Control Units
1
Elevation
Ca. 20 ft
Shovel Test Pits
0
Site Area
Unknown; buried
Site Depth
220 -240 cm
Time Period
unknown
Surface Collection
NA
Volume Excavated
Unit 1 – ca. 2m'
ft =feet
cm= centimeter
M2 =square meters
m3 =cubic meters
YBP =years before present
(see Appendix C, Exhibit 1)
CA -ORA -906 was recorded by Van Horn and Murray in 1980. The site was discovered during
their work on CA -ORA -839 and was exposed in a road cut (see photograph Van Horn 1982:21).
The site is located at the base of the bluff below CA -ORA -839 Locus D. This site could not be
relocated by Drover and Smith (1999) or LSA (2008). Drover and Smith recommended that the
site be relocated (1999:4), and LSA recommended that the site undergo STP /Unit testing
(2008:68). While the existence of the site was in doubt (possibly confused with a fossil shell
outcrop in the immediate area), CA -ORA -906 was able to be relocated with the aid of a
photograph taken by Van Horn (1982:21). The road cut shell exposure photographed by Van
Horn was extremely dense and was described as being partially buried by slump from the bluff
just below CA -ORA -839 Locus D. The site was finally located in dense foliage under slump in
the road cut running north -south at the base of the bluff below CA -ORA -839. (The road is also
known as "Industrial Park Way ".) Upon clearing brush, a meter -side profile of the cut was
cleared for purposes of observing the stratigraphy of the road cut. No shell or cultural material
appeared in this profile. A similar effort seven meters to the north indicated cultural shell that did
not belong to the Qsp (Quaternary San Pedro Formation: Palos Verdes Sand member) (GMU
2008: Plate 7). A 1 X 1 meter control unit was opened into the profile. Excavated in 10 -cm
levels, the first 80 to 90 cm (above the present road level) were sterile. At approximately 100 cm
in depth (at the present road level or standing surface), dense shell began to appear and
continued to a depth of approximately 200 cm. The overlying soil burying the midden, as
suggested by Van Horn, is referred to as a Qls (Quaternary land slide) in the Project
Geotechnical Report (GMU 2008: Plate 7). The site has been heavily disturbed by both road
building and burial. It is impossible to estimate how much of the site remains intact.
R: \Projects \NewpoOIJ015\Technical Reports\CulturalWchaec Tech Rpt (pub)- 021610.doc48 Archaeological Resources Assessment
Ranch
FIGURE 9
ORA -906 SIDEWALL PROFILE
FIGURE NOT INCLUDED FOR REASONS OF CONFIDENTIALITY
The excavation of the control unit in this site presented a unique combination of observations.
The depth of the site, density of shellfish remains, unweathered appearance of the shell, lack of
fire - cracked rock and lithics, and the procurement species focus of shellfish was noticed by
many observers. In addition, the lack of soil and presence of a matrix comprised of small gravel
is unusual, and may indicate the proximity of the site to a riverine channel.
Radiocarbon samples were submitted for the upper level (100 -110 cm) and the lowest level
(180 -200 cm) of the dense deposit. The dates respectively are 1330 +/- 70 YBP (Beta
261340 -LP1 Late Prehistoric), with a basal date of 2340 + /- 80 YBP (Beta 261341 -LP1 Late
Prehistoric).
R: \Projects \NewpoOIJ015\Technical Reports\CUlturalWchaec Tech Rpt (pub)- 021610.tlocO Archaeological Resources Assessment
Ranch
The density of shellfish and depth of the unit precluded com�lete sorting; however, a sample
projection for shellfish density is a cubic meter NRE of 4470/m . Such a density is ten times that
of CA -ORA -839. The focus on two primary species, Ostrea sp. and Argopecten sp., given the
density of the shell and the size of shell specimens in the midden is interesting.
Aside from CA- ORA -906's proximity to the Santa Ana River mouth estuary, dominance of
Argopecten sp., and Ostrea lurida are also common to Late Prehistoric Newport Coast
Archaeological Project sites.
While it is speculative to estimate site function from a single control excavation unit, the density
of shell at CA -ORA -906 does not seem to match the lack of other data classes at the site. To
some extent, seasonal use of the site may also be indicated by the number of winter migration
waterfowl seen in the faunal collection (see Appendix B).
Only three artifacts recovered from the midden indicate Native American presence. A small shell
fragment (possibly Haliotis) caked with asphaltum was recovered ( #906 -84), as was a small,
circular shell bead ( #906 -29) and a utilized mammalian bone (possibly a shellfish pry)
( #906 -48).
The lack of any lithics or diagnostic fire - affected rock is also unusual given the shellfish density
of the midden, which approaches that of a Major Residential site (Mason and Peterson
1994:270).
Regardless of the partial destruction of this site from road building and the difficulty of access
given the land slide overlay, the site represents a third chronological period on the property, the
Late Prehistoric. The data from this site could easily contribute to the research design
categories of chronology and subsistence and settlement patterns. Again, little is known about
the prehistoric use of the mouth of the Santa Ana River and its estuary; therefore, the data from
this site could easily contribute to research questions regarding chronology and subsistence and
settlement patterns; therefore, the site does possess the integrity and distinction to warrant
listing in the NRHP or CRHR as a historical resource, nor does it meet the criteria for a unique
archaeological resource.
R: \Projects \NewportU015\Technical Reports\CulturalWchaec Tech Rpt (pub)- 021610.tloc50 Archaeological Resources Assessment
Count
Percent
Ostrea lurida
257
57
Argopecten sp.
147
33
Crepidula sp.
26
6
Chione undatella
6
1
Chione spa.
3
1
Chione californiensis
3
1
Calyptraea sp.
3
1
Chione fluctifraga
2
0
447
(sample projection)
Aside from CA- ORA -906's proximity to the Santa Ana River mouth estuary, dominance of
Argopecten sp., and Ostrea lurida are also common to Late Prehistoric Newport Coast
Archaeological Project sites.
While it is speculative to estimate site function from a single control excavation unit, the density
of shell at CA -ORA -906 does not seem to match the lack of other data classes at the site. To
some extent, seasonal use of the site may also be indicated by the number of winter migration
waterfowl seen in the faunal collection (see Appendix B).
Only three artifacts recovered from the midden indicate Native American presence. A small shell
fragment (possibly Haliotis) caked with asphaltum was recovered ( #906 -84), as was a small,
circular shell bead ( #906 -29) and a utilized mammalian bone (possibly a shellfish pry)
( #906 -48).
The lack of any lithics or diagnostic fire - affected rock is also unusual given the shellfish density
of the midden, which approaches that of a Major Residential site (Mason and Peterson
1994:270).
Regardless of the partial destruction of this site from road building and the difficulty of access
given the land slide overlay, the site represents a third chronological period on the property, the
Late Prehistoric. The data from this site could easily contribute to the research design
categories of chronology and subsistence and settlement patterns. Again, little is known about
the prehistoric use of the mouth of the Santa Ana River and its estuary; therefore, the data from
this site could easily contribute to research questions regarding chronology and subsistence and
settlement patterns; therefore, the site does possess the integrity and distinction to warrant
listing in the NRHP or CRHR as a historical resource, nor does it meet the criteria for a unique
archaeological resource.
R: \Projects \NewportU015\Technical Reports\CulturalWchaec Tech Rpt (pub)- 021610.tloc50 Archaeological Resources Assessment
Ranch
6.1.7 CA -ORA -1599
Site Summary: CA -ORA -1599
Beads
none
Bone
none
Debitage
none
Fire - affected Rock
none
Fishbone
none
Obsidian
none
Projectiles
none
Radiocarbon
None
Shellfish
NRE 10
Tools
None
Control Units
None
Elevation
Ca. 40 ft
Shovel Test Pits
6
Site Area
Original Unknown;
Site Depth
unknown
Time Period
unknown
Surface Collection
NA
Volume Excavated
6 STPs — ca. 3m'
ft =feet
m3 =cubic meters
(see Appendix C Exhibit 5)
This site was recorded in 1990 by Smith et al, as part of the fieldwork associated with Phase I
survey activities associated with Banning Ranch (Drover Smith 1999). The site (Br -4) was
recorded as a widely scattered, sparse Iithic scatter with two pieces of quartz shatter, one
quartz flake, one quartz thinning flake, four chert thinning flakes, and one retouched /utilized
chert scraper or core within an area measuring 50 meters by 10 meters. The site was located
along a north -south oiled road (leading to pump No. 340), paralleling the western side of the old
road cut at the southern end of the Ranch. Upon revisiting the site, LSA found no prehistoric
Iithics but identified some historic glass and transfer ware porcelain (2008:60). The present test
efforts did also observe the historic glass and several shell fragments in the area intended for
STPs; however, no Iithic specimens were observed. Aside from a few areas with remnant
topsoil, the area in question has been both graded and disked. It is difficult to determine the
depth of any original cultural deposit. Most of the "soil' on the site actually consists of Qtm or
Quaternary Marine Terrace, with grading having disturbed the past top soil or potential cultural
deposits (cf. GMU 2080).
R: \Projects \NewportU015\Technical Reports\CulturalWchaec Tech Rpt (pub)- 021610.tloc5l Archaeological Resources Assessment
Ranch
FIGURE 10
ORA -1599 AND ORA -1600
FIGURE NOT INCLUDED FOR REASONS OF CONFIDENTIALITY
Very limited cultural material was derived from three STPs (numbers 2, 5 and 6) at CA -ORA-
1599.
STP 2 yielded an NRE of five shell: two Chione spp., one Cerithidea californica, one Chione
undatella, and one Crepidula sp. at 20-40 cm. While these specimens are not fossil shell, a
fragment of metal was found in the same level, indicating disturbance.
STP 5 (0 -20 cm) yielded an NRE of four shells: Chione spp., numerous small fragments of
Argopecten, and a fragment of Ostrea sp. and Crepidila sp. Three metal fragments were also
found in STP 5 in the 0- to 20 -cm level. In the 20- to 40 -cm level, STP 5 produced only an NRE
of 2 shell Mytilus sp. and Chione spp. with fragmentary evidence of Argopecten. No further
cultural materials were found in STP 5.
STP 6 produced material only from the 0- to 20 -cm level. Only fragmentary evidence existed for
Chione spp. and Mytilus sp. and two small pieces of quartz shatter. The lack of cultural material,
evidence of mixing with historic material, and obvious topographic disturbance leaves little to no
value in these specimens.
The poor physical integrity of this site and resulting lack of cultural data available renders it
impossible to provide any of the data requirements to address questions presented in the
Research Design section above. The site, therefore, does not possess the integrity or distinction
to warrant listing in the NRHP or CRHR as a historical resource, nor does it meet the criteria for
a unique archaeological resource.
R: \Projects \NewpoOIJ015\Technical Reports\CUlturalWchaec Tech Rpt (pub)- 021610.tloc52 Archaeological Resources Assessment
Ranch
6.1.8 CA -ORA -1600
Site Summary: CA -ORA -1600
Beads
None
Bone
None
Debitage
None
Fire - affected Rock
None
Fishbone
None
Obsidian
None
Projectiles
None
Radiocarbon
None
Shellfish
None
Tools
None
Control Units
7
Elevation
Ca. 40 ft
Shovel Test Pits
0
Site Area
Original Unknown
Site Depth
None
Time Period
Unknown
Surface Collection
NA
Volume Excavated
7 STPs — ca. 3.5m3
ft =feet
m3 =cubic meters
STP= shovel test pit
(see Appendix C, Exhibit 5)
This site was recorded in 1990 by Smith et al. as part of the fieldwork associated with Phase I
survey activities associated with Banning Ranch (Drover and Smith 1999). The site, directly east
of CA -ORA -1599, was recorded as (Br -3), and consisted of a diffuse Iithic scatter containing two
pieces of quartz shatter, one quartz flake, two quartz thinning flakes, three chert flakes, and one
retouched utilized chert core /scraper within an area of 25 meters by 10 meters. LSA's revisit to
the site in 2008 noted one small milky quartz flake and one large (4- to 5 -cm thick) secondary
core reduction flake made of a brownish quartzite. Some shell was also observed in small
quantities (LSA 2008:60). The distribution of materials recorded lie roughly on a north -south axis
paralleling the eastern boundary of the property and bordered by an existing apartment
complex. Just west of the apartments is an old fence line which more recent grading activities
have avoided. The fence line has created a small berm of soil, slightly higher and less disturbed
than the surrounding soils. The present testing efforts noticed small amounts of shell eroding
out rodent burrows along this fence line. The two northernmost STPs of the seven excavated
were placed along this fence berm. The fence alignment can be seen in Appendix C, Exhibit 5.
It is obvious that the area in question has been both graded and disked. It is difficult to
determine what depth any original cultural deposit may have had. Most of the "soil" on the site
actually consists of Qtm or Quaternary Marine Terrace, with grading having disturbed the past
top soil or potential cultural deposits (cf. GMU 2080).
All of the STPs excavated in the mapped location of this site returned negative cultural material.
The lack of cultural material, evidence of surface historic material, and obvious appearance of
topographic disturbance leaves little to no value in these specimens. The site, therefore, does
not possess the integrity or distinction to warrant listing in the NRHP or CRHR as a historical
resource, nor does it meet the criteria for a unique archaeological resource.
R: \Projects \NewportU015\Technical Reports\CulturalWchaec Tech Rpt (pub)- 021610.tloc53 Archaeological Resources Assessment
Ranch
The poor physical integrity of this site and resulting lack of cultural data available renders it
impossible to provide any of the data requirements to address questions presented in the
Research Design section above.
6.2 HISTORIC SITES
6.2.1 CA- ORA -1601H
Site Summary: CA- ORA -1601H
Beads
none
Bone
none
Debitage
none
Fire - affected Rock
none
Fishbone
none
Obsidian
none
Projectiles
none
Radiocarbon
none
Shellfish
none
Tools
none
Control Units
none
Elevation
70 ft above msl
Shovel Test Pits
2
Site Area
3x3 meters
Site Depth
unknown
Time Period
Early 20`h Century
Surface Collection
Yes
Volume Excavated
2 STPs — ca. .5m3
ft =feet
m3 =cubic meters
msl =mean sea level
(see Appendix C, Exhibit 6)
This site was recorded in 1990 by Smith et al. as part of the fieldwork associated with Phase I
survey activities associated with Newport Banning Ranch (Drover and Smith 1999). The site
was initially recorded as Br -2, and consists of historic trash eroding out of the inside curve of a
dirt road as it crests atop a small mesa in the southeasternmost corner of the property. The site
was initially recorded as a 2 meter by 2 meter area of historic trash. The site was relocated as
described.
CA -ORA -1601 H is approximately 0.4 km east of the West Coast Highway entrance to the West
Newport Oil field (Armstrong Oil), also known as Newport Banning Ranch, on the eastern bank
of a broad drainage that runs beneath Coast Highway (Appendix C, Exhibit 6). This site lies on
the edge of a highly eroded, graded upland terrace, which upon surface inspection yielded
4 artifacts associated with the early 20th Century. In addition to surface inspection, shovel test
pits (n =2) were excavated at a three -meter interval resulting in no positive tests or evidence of
subsurface deposits within an area measuring approximately ten meters in diameter. No intact
cultural lenses or structural remains were present. Materials recovered include one milk glass
cold cream jar, two amethyst glass bottle finish, and one aqua glass bottle base.
The age of this site (early 20th Century) indicates that there is no temporal relationship with
CA- ORA- 1610H, the Costa Mesa Gun Battery noted below. While the remains of the Battery
foundations are within 100 meters, no cultural relationship exists. The location of the site along
R: \Projects \NewportU015\Technical Reports\CulturalWchaec Tech Rpt (pub)- 021610A.64 Archaeological Resources Assessment
Ranch
an open bluff exposure facing south suggests that the exposure may have served as an
occasional dump at the turn of the century.
This site does not possess the integrity or distinction to warrant listing in the NRHP or CRHR as
a historical resource, nor does it meet the criteria for a unique archaeological resource. No
further work is recommended. The testing activities exhausted the data available from this site.
FIGURE 11
SITE LOCATIONS ORA -1601, 1602, AND 1610
FIGURE NOT INCLUDED FOR REASONS OF CONFIDENTIALITY
R: \Projects \NewportU015\Technical Reports\CUlturalWchaec Tech Rpt (pub)- 021610A.C55 Archaeological Resources Assessment
Ranch
6.2.2 CA- ORA -1602H
Site Summary: CA- ORA -1602H
Beads
none
Bone
none
Debitage
none
Fire - affected Rock
none
Fishbone
none
Obsidian
none
Projectiles
none
Radiocarbon
none
Shellfish
none
Tools
none
Control Units
none
Elevation
65 ft above msl
Shovel Test Pits
1
Site Area
2x4 meters
Site Depth
unknown
Time Period
Late 19th /Early 201h Centuries
Surface Collection
Yes
Volume Excavated
1 STP —ca. .2m3
ft =feet
ms =cubic meters
msl =mean sea level
STP = shovel test pit
(see Appendix C, Exhibit 6)
This site was recorded in 1990 by Smith et al. as part of the fieldwork associated with Phase I
survey activities associated with Newport Banning Ranch (Drover and Smith 1999). The site
was initially recorded as Br -1, a historic trash dump located along the northern side of a dirt road
leading eastward to the top of the mesa in the southeasternmost corner of the property. The site
is immediately adjacent (10 meters south) of CA- ORA- 1610H, the World War II gun
emplacement remnants. The proximity of the two sites has no bearing on their relationship. The
deposits occurred at different times (see below), and the remnant concrete portions of the gun
emplacement are not in their primary location.
CA- ORA -1602H is approximately 0.4 km east of the West Coast Highway entrance to the West
Newport Oil field (Armstrong Oil), also known as Newport Banning Ranch, on the eastern bank
of a broad drainage that runs beneath Coast Highway (Appendix C, Exhibit 6). This site lies on
the slope of a highly eroded, graded upland flat, which upon surface inspection yielded
49 artifacts associated with the late 19th and early 20th Centuries. In addition to surface
inspection, a shovel test pit (n =1) was dug, resulting in 1 positive test and the recovery of
274 historic artifacts.
Subsurface artifacts were encountered at 0 -80 cm below the surface. Two dark amber ( "black
glass ") bottle bases with pontil scars represent the middle to late 19th Century, while the
remainder of the assemblage is dominated by ceramic and glass bottle fragments from the early
20th Century. Building materials, including nails, brick fragments and window glass, were
recovered. Charcoal, ash, and fire- affected artifacts were present at 60 -80 cm, representing a
discrete cultural lens within the site. No other area proved to be culturally intact.
R: \Projects \NewportU015\Technical Reports\CulturalWchaec Tech Rpt (pub)- 021610.tloc56 Archaeological Resources Assessment
Ranch
Materials recovered include 11 amethyst glass shards, 14 aqua glass shards, 21 amber glass
shards, 66 clear glass shards, 2 milk glass shards, 1 cobalt glass shard, 2 green glass shards,
8 olive glass shards, 35 white ware /ironstone sherds, 10 porcelain sherds, 6 salt glazed
stoneware sherds, 1 earthenware sherd, 10 mammal bones, 31 miscellaneous building
materials, 55 miscellaneous metals, and 1 glass faux pearl hatpin mount.
The age of this site, CA- ORA- 1602H, (Late 191h /Early 20`h Century) (described above), shares
no temporal relationship with CA- ORA- 1610H, the Costa Mesa Gun Battery (described below).
While the remains of the Battery foundations are within 10 meters, no cultural relationship
exists. The location of the site along an open bluff exposure facing south suggests that the
exposure may have served as an occasional dump at the turn of the century.
This site does not possess the integrity or distinction to warrant listing in the NRHP or CRHR as
a historical resource, nor does it meet the criteria for a unique archaeological resource. No
further work is recommended. The testing activities have exhausted the data available from this
site.
6.2.3 CA- ORA -1610H
This site was first identified by Van Horn (1982), but was not officially recorded as site CA -ORA-
1610H (BR -5) until Smith et al. recorded the site during the Phase I survey activities of Drover
and Smith (1999) (see LSA 2008). Based on an actual design plan recovered from the
MacArthur Museum, the location was known to have had a `Panama Mount' comprising the
"Costa Mesa Battery" (Drover and Smith 1999). These coastal defense batteries were built
along the Southern California coast in a variety of locations. Large portions of broken concrete,
which had been pushed into an arroyo possibly for erosion control, were assumed to be
remnant parts of the original battery and were deemed the location of CA- ORA- 1610H. Later
observations by LSA (2008:25) positively demonstrated from the plan drawing that an
omega- shaped concrete anchor noted on the plan and observed embedded in a concrete
fragment verified the anchor as part of the gun mount. A 'Panama Mount' normally consisted of
three guns; however, Costa Mesa only completed the installation of two. (See Appendix C,
Exhibit 6)
LSA provided an excellent summary of the Costa Mesa Battery (see 2008:23 -27). The only
physical remains of the gunnery emplacement consisted of the broken concrete slabs
recognized in the combined survey activities of Drover and Smith (1999) and LSA (2008). The
slab fragments, verified as part of the gun emplacement, are clearly not in their original location.
Atop the bluff and above the slab fragments is the remnant of a mesa which intuitively would
seem to be the location of the gun emplacement. Oilfield drill pads were operated on this bluff,
decommissioned, and the soils "cleaned" by surface grading. Mass grading related to road
construction has also significantly altered the mesa on both the northern and southern sides of
West Coast Highway. While the small remaining portion of the bluff is near its original elevation,
no topsoil remains, suggesting the absence of a foot of soil. Areas impacted by mass grading
indicate a topographic absence of as much as 15 to 20 feet of soil.
R: \Projects \NewportU015\Technical Reports\CUlturalWchaec Tech Rpt (pub)- 021610.tloc57 Archaeological Resources Assessment
Ranch
FIGURE 12
COSTA MESA BATTERY; NOTE OMEGA SHAPED CONCRETE ANCHOR
(AFTER LSA 2008)
aeuno / .
NAaeoa oerENxs or Los ANCCLea CALIF.
,ha ;f:a•ewn:� COSTA MESA
�j PANAMA MOUNTS
I I ILLINOINCER OrrICC, LOS ANOncs,u ur.
rt
lIIi ISe .11 7 {I WW
/seora• a:� as/Mrea/ •nird.:.l L �r1
SECTION A -A
61 ďż˝ f /aJS _ GUN NO3 PLATFOgM
GUN NO I GUN NO2
GUN N0.3
2�3?
GUN 2 GUN 1ďż˝ ae
GUN _ -� `Tench l�1�-* "p==
����►1
.I/fa7747 /lira. JIO7Hy6 0 • ST MGC
rO�A.aCf rei/
.4en %aced Centre .
/J 7
C4M Al— cw a y „wd . _
IGee. cea, a "ďż˝
HALF PLAN PoOu/w Mae/ 4.6,6//0
• � JIb• G eplperfj
6%4,roi/ ďż˝' ` EUWgCplrpi Of flgptc Io rllht u \'' +ďż˝ /[ďż˝
llll���showing A -ship oet -i1I _ _
canneoeof taror. Mount No l and '1 17TI ;i e/o/ CerMtn /a
No 2 ) li' {y 'i
SECTION H RU PLA FORM
L S ^ FIGURE3
Bonn tg Ranch
Selected Portion[ of US Engineer Office
Plan for Paauma Mount, at the Costa Me”
. . • ... .. ..., - nr h✓. M Y Wn Tactical Batter' (Srnith at id. 1998)
R \Projects \Newport \J015 \Technical Repotls \CulturaMrchaec Tech Rpt (pub) - 021610 boc58 Archaeological Resources Assessment
Ranch
FIGURE 13
ORA -1610; NOTE OMEGA - SHAPED CONCRETE ANCHOR
IN THE CENTER RIGHT
FIGURE NOT INCLUDED FOR REASONS OF CONFIDENTIALITY
The exact, original location of the gun emplacement is unknown, primarily due to mass grading
disturbances related to road construction in the 1960s.
The restricted western view (potential visual shooting range) at the present position of the
remnant concrete slabs would not seem to be a suitable location for the emplacement. It is
possible that the original location of the gun emplacement would have been closer to West
Coast Highway, thereby extending the visual range. Earthmoving disturbances appear to have
removed the "front' or ocean front of the bluff, probably destroying the original gun
emplacement location as a result.
Drover and Smith (1999) suggested the potential for subsurface data possibly intact in trenches
or ammunition storage structures, and recommended monitoring for future development
(1999:6). Based on the same possibility, LSA (2008:65) recommended backhoe testing. Given
the degree of disturbance to the area, the likelihood of recovering further physical data beyond
the fragmentary concrete slabs is unlikely. Monitoring of any grading activities in the area is
recommended. The limited likelihood of further physical data and exhaustive archival efforts
strongly suggest this physical site has little or no remaining importance. Therefore, this site is
not eligible for inclusion on the NRHP or CRHR as a historical resource, nor does it meet the
criteria for a unique archaeological resource.
R: \Projects \NewportU015\Technical Reports\CUlturalWchaec Tech Rpt (pub)- 021610.tloc59 Archaeological Resources Assessment
Ranch
SECTION 7.0 DISCUSSION
The fact that the Newport Banning Ranch Project site is located in this coastal, lagoonal habitat,
most of which has been destroyed and developed throughout most of Southern California, and
that little to no archaeological investigation has taken place here, creates its own "data gap" in
Southern California coastal archaeology. This makes any relevant information gathered as a
result of the study that much more important.
7.1 ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATIONS
The goal of the evaluation was to determine the sites' eligibility for listing in the CRHR under the
criteria outlined in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines (PRC §5024.1), and for listing in the
NRHP under Section 106 of the NHPA (36 CFR 60.4). Criterion "D" of both Section 15064.5 of
the CEQA Guidelines and 36 CFR 60.4 of the NRHP have been applied to each site during this
test, and the conclusions are indicated below. The primary objective of the evaluation was to
evaluate whether each site has sufficient integrity, density, and diversity to yield information
important to prehistory or history. To demonstrate this, a methodical approach was used to
determine the integrity, density, and diversity of data classes within each site. Through a
combination of STPs and intuitively positioned Control Units, the investigation resulted in a
representative sample with which to empirically measure each site's cultural constituents.
SECTION 8.0 MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS
Of the 11 archaeological sites recorded on the Newport Banning Ranch Project site, BonTerra
Consulting recommends that 3 sites (CA -ORA -839, CA -ORA -8448, and CA -ORA -906) be
deemed eligible for listing on the CRHR and the NRHP. Therefore, the following
recommendations are focused on the three significant sites, with additional mitigation measures
that apply to the site as a whole.
Data recovery work at these sites would be designed to collect relevant information on the
research domains presented above. In particular, subsistence and settlement questions, food
procurement strategies, habitat reconstruction, and change through time should be able to be
addressed through data recovery. However, underpinning most of these questions is an
assumption of understanding each site chronologically. Little to nothing is now known of the
cultural chronology of sites in Newport Banning Ranch. Such data is critical in being able to
address other research topics, especially those regarding change through time. Therefore, it is
critical that any data recovery excavations include sufficiently robust radiocarbon data at each
site to form a baseline that could in turn be compared to nearby sites for which a chronology has
been established (e.g., the Newport Coast Archaeological Project).
8.1 RECOMMENDATIONS /MITIGATION
8.1.1 CA -ORA -148
Most of the "soil" on the site actually consists of Qtm or Quaternary Marine Terrace, with
grading having disturbed the past top soil or potential cultural deposits (cf. GMU 2080). The
terrace has been graded flat as a result of oil field operations. Therefore, it is difficult to
determine what depth any original cultural deposit may have had.
The poor to nonexistent physical integrity of this site and resulting lack of cultural data available
renders it impossible to provide any of the data requirements to address questions presented in
the Research Design section above. Therefore, BonTerra Consulting recommends that
CA -ORA -148 be deemed not eligible for listing on the CRHR and the NRHP.
R:\ Projects \NewportU015\Technical Reports\CUlturalWchaeo Tech Rpt (pub)- 021610.tloc6O Archaeological Resources Assessment
Ranch
8.1.2 CA -ORA -839
Given the topographic location and faunal and lithic material obtained in this sample and by
comparison to the results of the Newport Coast Archaeological Project, CA -ORA -839 appears to
be a Minor Residential Base (Mason and Peterson 1994:270). To a limited degree male and
female activities, food procurement, and food - processing activities all seem to have occurred at
the site. While trade items (obsidian) and socio - ideological items (bead) are represented at the
site, their limited quantities may reflect a limited duration of occupation. Given the limited
regional knowledge of the occupation and habitat of the area, CA -ORA -839 can certainly
provide unique chronological, subsistence, and change information about two or possibly three
prehistoric cultural periods. Therefore, BonTerra Consulting recommends that CA -ORA -839 be
deemed eligible for listing on the CRHR and the NRHP.
The following mitigation is recommended.
The CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR §15126.4[b][3]) direct public agencies, wherever
feasible, to avoid damaging historical resources of an archaeological nature,
preferably by preserving the resource(s) in place. Several possibilities suggested
by the CEQA Guidelines include (1) planning construction to avoid the site;
(2) incorporating the site into open space; (3) capping the site with a chemically
stable soil; and /or (4) deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement.
The following is applicable for CA -ORA -839 deemed eligible for listing on the
CRHR or the NRHP as historical resources. CA -ORA -839 is also considered a
unique archaeological resource. Mitigation is the same for both types of
resources.
CA -ORA -839
It should be possible to preserve the vast majority of the site in place in
perpetuity to avoid further disturbance to it. However, it appears that the planned
removal of oil field infrastructure may impact portions of the site. In that event,
the site shall undergo a data recovery excavation of those areas that will be
impacted. Data recovery shall be sufficient to collect a representative sample of
site constituents, including organic materials, to permit additional absolute dating
of the deposit.
Data Recovery
Data recovery excavation shall be completed prior to Project grading and shall be
designed to recover the consequential data present on the site. The study shall
include:
Development of a Research Design /Treatment And Mitigation Plan to
explicitly lay out the methods to be used in the excavation and the
scientifically consequential questions that the study will hope to answer;
• Excavation of a sufficient number of Control Units and shovel test pits (STPs)
to recover a representative sample of site constituents;
Laboratory analysis of all recovered materials and creation of a computerized
database of artifacts recovered;
R: \Projects \NewportU015\Technical Reports\CUlturalWchaec Tech Rpt (pub)- 021610.tloc6i Archaeological Resources Assessment
Ranch
• Completion of a Data Recovery Excavation /Mitigation Report detailing the
results of the study; and
• Curation of excavated cultural material in a museum or other scientifically
accredited institution that would make the collections available to future
researchers.
Capping
In addition, secondary impacts (e.g., increased foot traffic, erosion) could occur
at the site after the Project has been constructed; therefore, the site shall be
capped with chemically stable soil to preserve it in perpetuity. During grading
operations, excess dirt shall be placed on the site to a sufficient depth to protect
the deposit, but not cause unintended damage to it. Shallow- rooted vegetation
(such as native coastal sage scrub) may be planted on the new surface. To
ensure the integrity of the archaeological deposit, the current ground surface
shall initially be covered with some form of horizon marker (e.g., by Mirafi, a
polypropylene geotextile) to prevent the deposit from mixing with the covering
material and to serve as a marker of the site if the covering is ever removed. The
following relies on guidance provided by the National Park Service's Brief #5
Intentional Site Burial: A Technique to Protect Against Natural or Mechanical
Loss (NPS 1989, revised 1991).
The capping program must include submittal to the City of Newport Beach
Planning Department of a Site Capping Plan that includes:
• An evaluation by a qualified Archaeologist of the classes of archaeological
components to be preserved and their suitability for preservation;
• An analysis by a qualified Soils Scientist of the pH levels, compression
strength, and permeability of the horizon marker and capping material to be
used to ensure they fit the preservation needs of the site's constituents;
• Formulation of a plan by a qualified Civil /Structural Engineer that details how
the cap will be physically constructed to ensure that (1) hydraulic changes
over time, (2) erosion, and (3) the physical placement of the cap itself do not
adversely impact the deposit;
• Archaeological monitoring during placement of the capping material;
• A Revegetation Plan, prepared by a qualified Biologist/Restoration Specialist,
that is designed to help stabilize the new land surface and to prevent future
erosion at the surface of the cap;
• A plan of future monitoring of the site to ensure the long -term success of the
capping program; and
• A report detailing the results of the capping effort.
8.1.3 CA -ORA -843
At one time this site was probably quite large and located on a prominent point on the bluff
overlooking the wetland. Due to the degree to which the site has been impacted by grading and
R: \Projects \NewportU015\TechnimI Reports\CUlturalWchaec Tech Rpt (pub)- 021610.tloc62 Archaeological Resources Assessment
Ranch
oil field activities, the exact location and integrity of the site has been difficult to ascertain.
Evaluation of the site produced limited cultural material. The small area that produced these few
specimens was highly disturbed by grading, intrusive phone poles, trash, and erosion. Based on
the present observations it is difficult to understand Van Horn's estimation of the site's
"significance ". It is clear that CA -ORA -843 lacks any vertical or horizontal integrity or
representative data to address relevant research questions. Therefore, BonTerra Consulting
recommends that CA -ORA -843 be deemed not eligible for listing on the CRHR and the NRHP
as a historical and /or unique resource.
8.1.4 CA -ORA -844
Excavation at Locus A failed to produce a substantial deposit. It appears that its integrity has
been destroyed. Therefore, the ability of Locus A to address the proposed research questions is
highly doubtful; however, since it is recommended that Locus B qualifies in its ability to fulfill
eligibility (see below), a Control Unit excavated at Locus A may provide an adequate
radiocarbon sample to determine the contemporanaeity of Loci A and B.
The three STPs and one Control Unit excavated at Locus B produced shell, lithics and animal
bone, with shell being the most plentiful. The diversity of species in such a small sample is also
promising in the reconstruction of the habitat and food - procurement strategies. The shell density
and species frequency is favorable to the Minor Residential Base pattern suggested by Mason
and Peterson (994:270).
The remaining portion of the site has the capability to at least address the temporal setting of
the site and its subsistence patterns. It is possible that other recovered data classes may
contribute to other questions proposed in the research design. Therefore, BonTerra Consulting
recommends that CA -ORA -844, Locus B be deemed eligible for listing on the CRHR and the
NRHP.
Locus B of the site is located on a hillside transected by two erosional cuts in excess of six feet
in depth. The western side of the site is absent due to the construction of an oil pad. These
factors have left little midden from the original site intact at this location, but a surprisingly robust
sample was recovered through the test excavation.
The following mitigation is recommended
The CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR §15126.4[b][3]) direct public agencies, wherever
feasible, to avoid damaging historical resources of an archaeological nature,
preferably by preserving the resource(s) in place. Several possibilities suggested
by the CEQA Guidelines include (1) planning construction to avoid the site;
(2) incorporating the site into open space; (3) capping the site with a chemically
stable soil; and /or (4) deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement.
The following is applicable for CA -ORA -844, Locuse B, deemed eligible for listing
on the CRHR or the NRHP as historical resources.
CA -ORA -844 Locus B
CA- ORA -844B is not expected to be directly impacted by development. Oil
infrastructure removal activities that would occur prior to grading are expected to
adversely impact portions of the site. Indirect impacts from additional erosion of
the unstable surface and increased population in the vicinity of the site as a result
of the future development could cause further damage over time.
R: \Projects \NewpoOIJ015\Technical Reports\CUlturalWchaec Tech Rpt (pub)- 021610.tloc63 Archaeological Resources Assessment
Ranch
Both capping and data recovery excavation are viable options for treating the
site; however, because it has been disturbed by erosion and oil extraction
activities, capping the deposit would be difficult and possibly more expensive and
time consuming with less desirable results, than data recovery excavation.
Considering these circumstances, two options are provided: (1) successful
capping of the site, while likely difficult to accomplish, would be designed to
protect the site in perpetuity or, preferably, (2) data recovery shall be undertaken
prior to grading to collect the scientifically consequential data that is present in
the site since it appears that only a small, yet important, portion of the site
remains. Because of the limited size of this site, this option would be able to
remove and analyze the site in its entirety.
Capping
If option 1 is chosen, the site shall be capped with chemically stable soil to preserve it in
perpetuity. During grading operations, excess dirt shall be placed on the site to a
sufficient depth to protect the deposit, but not cause unintended damage to it.
Shallow- rooted vegetation (such as native coastal sage scrub) may be planted on the
new surface. To ensure the integrity of the archaeological deposit, the current ground
surface shall initially be covered with some form of horizon marker (e.g., by Mirafi, a
polypropylene geotextile) to prevent the deposit from mixing with the covering material
and to serve as a marker of the site if the covering is ever removed. The following relies
on guidance provided by the National Park Service's Brief #5 Intentional Site Burial: A
Technique to Protect Against Natural or Mechanical Loss (NPS 1989, revised 1991).
The capping program must include submittal to the Community Development
Department of a Site Capping Plan that includes:
• An evaluation by a qualified Archaeologist of the classes of archaeological
components to be preserved and their suitability for preservation;
• An analysis by a qualified Soils Scientist of the pH levels, compression strength, and
permeability of the horizon marker and capping material to be used to ensure they fit
the preservation needs of the site's constituents;
• Formulation of a plan by a qualified Civil /Structural Engineer that details how the cap
would be physically constructed to ensure that (1) hydraulic changes over time, (2)
erosion, and (3) the physical placement of the cap itself do not adversely impact the
deposit;
• Archaeological monitoring during placement of the capping material;
• A Revegetation Plan, prepared by a qualified Biologist/Restoration Specialist, that is
designed to help stabilize the new land surface and to prevent future erosion at the
cap surface;
• A plan of future monitoring of the site to ensure the long -term success of the capping
program; and
• A report detailing the results of the capping effort
R: \Projects \NewportU015\Technical Reports\CulturalWchaec Tech Rpt (pub)- 021610.tloc64 Archaeological Resources Assessment
Ranch
Data Recovery
If option 2 is selected, data recovery excavation at CA- ORA -844B shall be
completed prior to Project grading and shall be designed to recover the
consequential data present in the site and to remove site constituents. The study
shall include:
• Development of a Research Design/Treatment And Mitigation Plan to
explicitly lay out the methods to be used in the excavation and the
scientifically consequential questions that the study will hope to answer;
• Excavation of a sufficient number of Control Units and STPs to recover a
representative sample of site constituents;
Controlled demolition /removal of the site by a small scraper under the
direction of a qualified Archaeologist to ensure the removal of all midden and
other cultural constituents of the site. Controlled demolition permits the
discovery and recovery of larger features not typically found during hand
excavation and reduces the number of hand - excavated control units
necessary;
• Laboratory analysis of all recovered materials and creation of a computerized
database of artifacts recovered;
Completion of a Data Recovery Excavation /Mitigation Report detailing the
results of the study; and
• Curation of excavated cultural material in a museum or other scientifically
accredited institution that would make the collections available to future
researchers.
8.1.5 CA -ORA -845
Ten STPs were excavated at CA -ORA -845. Only a minimal amount of material was recovered.
The deepest STP went from 4 to 60 cm. The total NRE for shell recovered from all of the
8 lower STPs was 25 (8 Chione californiensis, 12 Ostrea lurida, and 5 Chione spp.). No other
cultural material was recovered. Due to the impact to this area, our findings are in agreement
with Van Horn (1982) that the site no longer exists and lacks any physical integrity. Van Horn's
results stated that "...no significant deposit is present at this site" (1982:29). Therefore,
BonTerra Consulting recommends that CA -ORA -845 be deemed not eligible for listing on the
CRHR and the NRHP as a historical and /or unique resource.
8.1.6 CA -ORA -906
Regardless of the partial destruction of this site from road building and the difficulty of access
given the land slide overlay, the site represents a third chronological period on the property, the
Late Prehistoric. The data from this site could easily contribute to the research design
categories of chronology and subsistence and settlement patterns. Again, little is known about
the prehistoric use of the mouth of the Santa Ana River and its estuary. The lack of any lithics or
diagnostic fire- affected rock is also unusual given the shellfish density of the midden that
approaches that of a Major Residential site (Mason and Peterson 1994:270). Therefore,
BonTerra Consulting recommends that CA -ORA -906 be deemed eligible for listing on the CRHR
and the NRHP.
R: \Projects \NewportU015\Technical Reports\CUlturalWchaec Tech Rpt (pub)- 021610.tloc65 Archaeological Resources Assessment
Ranch
The following mitigation is recommended.
The CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR §15126.4[b][3]) direct public agencies, wherever
feasible, to avoid damaging historical resources of an archaeological nature,
preferably by preserving the resource(s) in place. Several possibilities suggested
by the CEQA Guidelines include (1) planning construction to avoid the site;
(2) incorporating the site into open space; (3) capping the site with a chemically
stable soil; and /or (4) deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement.
The following is applicable for CA -ORA -906 deemed eligible for listing on the
CRHR or the NRHP as historical resources.
a •Ca '0.
CA -ORA -906 shall be directly impacted as a result of development as well as oil
infrastructure removal. Data recovery excavation at the site shall be completed
prior to Project grading and shall be designed to recover the consequential data
present in the site and to remove the site constituents. Mitigation shall be in the
form of data recovery excavation to collect the scientifically consequential data
that the site retains prior to its destruction by Project grading. The study shall
include:
Development of a Research Design /Treatment And Mitigation Plan to
explicitly lay out the methods to be used in the excavation and the
scientifically consequential questions that the study will hope to answer;
Excavation of a sufficient number of Control Units and STPs to recover a
representative sample of site constituents;
Controlled demolition /removal of the site by a small scraper under the
direction of a qualified Archaeologist to ensure the removal of all midden and
other cultural constituents of the site. Controlled demolition permits the
discovery and recovery of larger features not typically found during hand
excavation and reduces the number of hand - excavated control units
necessary;
• Laboratory analysis of all recovered materials and creation of a computerized
database of artifacts recovered;
Completion of a data recovery excavation /mitigation report detailing the
results of the study; and
Curation of excavated cultural material in a museum or other scientifically
accredited institution that would make the collections available to future
researchers.
8.1.7 CA -ORA -1599
The lack of cultural material, evidence of mixing with historic material, and obvious appearance
of topographic disturbance leaves little to no value in these specimens.
The poor physical integrity of this site and resulting lack of cultural data renders it impossible to
provide any of the data requirements to address questions presented in the Research Design
R: \Projects \NewportU015\Technical Reports\CUlturalWchaec Tech Rpt (pub)- 021610.tloc66 Archaeological Resources Assessment
Ranch
section above. Therefore, BonTerra Consulting recommends that CA -ORA -1599 be deemed not
eligible for listing on the CRHR and the NRHP as a historical and /or unique resource.
8.1.8 CA -ORA -1600
All of the STPs excavated in the mapped location of this site returned negative cultural material.
The lack of cultural material, evidence of surface historic material, and obvious appearance of
topographic disturbance leaves little to no value in these specimens.
The poor physical integrity of this site and resulting lack of cultural data renders it impossible to
provide any of the data requirements to address questions presented in the Research Design
section above. Therefore, BonTerra Consulting recommends that CA -ORA -1600 be deemed not
eligible for listing on the CRHR and the NRHP as a historical and /or unique resource.
8.1.9 CA -ORA -1601 H
The location of the site along an open bluff exposure facing south suggests that the exposure
may have served as an occasional dump at the turn of the century.
This site does not possess the integrity or distinction to warrant listing in the NRHP. No further
work is recommended. The testing activities exhausted the data available from this site.
Therefore, BonTerra Consulting recommends that CA- ORA -1601H be deemed not eligible for
listing on the CRHR and the NRHP as a historical and /or unique resource.
8.1.10 CA- ORA -1602H
The location of the site along an open bluff exposure facing south suggests that the exposure
may have served as an occasional dump at the turn of the century.
This site does not possess the integrity or distinction to warrant listing in the NRHP. No further
work is recommended. The testing activities exhausted the data available from this site.
Therefore, BonTerra Consulting recommends that CA- ORA -1602H be deemed not eligible for
listing on the CRHR and the NRHP as a historical and /or unique resource.
8.1.11 CA- ORA -1610H
The exact, original location of the gun emplacement is unknown, primarily due to mass grading
disturbances related to road construction in the 1960s. Drover and Smith in 1999 suggested the
potential for subsurface data possibly intact in trenches or ammunition storage structures, and
recommended monitoring for future development (1999:6). Based on the same possibility, LSA
(2008:65) recommended backhoe testing. Given the degree of disturbance to the area, the
likelihood of recovering further physical data beyond the fragmentary concrete slabs is unlikely.
Monitoring of any grading activities in the area is recommended. The limited likelihood of further
physical data in addition to exhaustive archival efforts strongly suggests this site has little
important data remaining. Therefore, BonTerra Consulting recommends that CA- ORA -1610H be
deemed not eligible for listing on the CRHR and the NRHP as a historical and /or unique
resource.
8.2 CULTURAL RESOURCES MONITORING
The following mitigation is recommended.
Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit and /or action that would permit
Project site disturbance, the Contractor shall provide written evidence to the City
R: \Projects \NewportU015\Technical Reports\CUlturalWchaec Tech Rpt (pub)- 021610.tloc67 Archaeological Resources Assessment
Ranch
of Newport Beach Planning Department that the Contractor has retained a
qualified Archaeologist to observe grading activities and to salvage and
catalogue archaeological resources, as necessary. The Archaeologist shall be
present at the pre -grade conference; shall establish procedures for
archaeological resource surveillance; and shall establish, in cooperation with the
Contractor, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the
sampling, identification, and evaluation of the artifacts, as appropriate. If
archaeological resources are found to be significant, the Archaeologist shall
determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the City and Contractor, for
exploration and /or salvage. These actions, as well as final mitigation and
disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the Planning
Director.
Based on their interest and concern about the discovery of cultural resources and
human remains during Project grading, a Native American Monitor shall be
retained to observe some or all grading activities.
Nothing in this mitigation measure precludes the retention of a single
cross - trained observer who is qualified to monitor for both archaeological and
paleontological resources.
8.3 HUMAN REMAINS
The following mitigation is required.
In accordance with Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, if
human remains are found, the County Coroner shall be notified within 24 hours
of the discovery. No further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby
area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains shall occur until the
County Coroner has determined, within two working days of notification of the
discovery, the appropriate treatment and disposition of the human remains. If the
County Coroner determines that the remains are or believed to be Native
American, s /he shall notify the NAHC in Sacramento within 24 hours. In
accordance with Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code, the
NAHC must immediately notify those persons it believes to be the most likely
descended from the deceased Native American. The descendents shall complete
their inspection within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. The
designated Native American representative would then determine, in consultation
with the property owner, the disposition of the human remains.
With implementation of the mitigation program listed above, potential impacts to archaeological
resources would be reduced to a level considered less than significant.
R: \Projects \NewportU015\Technical Reports\CulturalWchaec Tech Rpt (pub)- 021610.tloc68 Archaeological Resources Assessment
Ranch
SECTION 9.0 REFERENCES
Antos, J.
1969 Archaeological Site Record, CA -ORA -270. On file at South Central Coastal Information
Center, University of California, Los Angeles, California.
Arnold, J.E.
1987 Craft Specialization in the Prehistoric Channel Islands, Ga4fornia, University ofCalifornia
Publications in Anthropology No. 18. University of California Press., Berkeley.
Bean, L.J. and CR. Smith
1978 Gabrielino. In Handbook of North American Indians. Edited by R.F. Heizer,California.
8:530 -549. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Bettinger, R.L.
1980 Explanatory/Predictive Models of Hunter - Gatherer Adaptation. Advances in
Archaeological Method and Theory 3:189 -255. New York: Academic Press.
1982 Aboriginal Exchange and Territoriality in Owens Valley In Contexts for Prehistoric
Exchange, J.E. Ericson and J.K. Earle, eds., pp. 103 -127. New York: Academic Press.
1989 The Archaeology of Pinyon House, Two Eagles, and Crater Middens: Three Residential
Sites in Owens Valley, Eastern California. Anthropology Papers of the American
Museum of Natural History 67. American Museum of Natural History, New York.
1991 Hunter - Gatherers: Archaeological and Evolutionary Theory. Plenum Press, New York
Binford, L.R.
1978 Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology. New York: Academic Press.
1983 Working at Archaeology. New York: Academic Press.
Breschini, G.S., T. Haversat, and J. Erlandson
1990 California Radiocarbon Dates, 6th Edition. Coyote Press, Salinas, California.
Boxt, Matthew A. and Christine M. Barreta
1992 Archaeological and Paleontological Assessment Surveys for the Proposed Costa
Mesa /Newport Beach Pipeline Route Orange County, California. Scientific Resource
Surveys, Inc. Ms. On file at the South Central Coastal Archaeological Information
Center, California State University, Fullerton.
Catalano, Ralph
1986 Health, Behavior and the Community, An Ecological Perspective. Pergamon Press,New
York.
Cerreto, R.
1992 Non - Periodic Growth in Bivalves and the Implications for Three Seasonality Methods
Used by Southern California Archaeologists. Journal of California and Great Basin
Anthropology 14(2):216 -233
R: \Projects \NewportU015\Technical Reports\CUlturalWchaec Tech Rpt (pub)- 021610.tloc69 Archaeological Resources Assessment
Ranch
Chace, P.O.
1995 A Cultural /Scientific Resources Survey for the Irvine Planning Area 26, Bonita Canyon -
Coyote Canyon, Zone Change 1 8903 -ZC In the City of Irvine, Orange County,
California. Prepared for Irvine Community Builders, Newport Beach, California, for
submission to the City of Irvine. Prepared by The Keith Companies, Costa Mesa,
California.
Conkling, S., B. Sturm, and D. Taylor
1995 Cultural Resources Assessment, Planning Area 22, City of Irvine, Orange County,
California. Prepared for The Irvine Company. Prepared by LSA Associates, Inc., Irvine,
California.
Cooley, T.
1974 Preliminary Report — Bonita Mesa [Archaeological Assessment]. Report prepared by
Archaeological Research Inc., Costa Mesa, California.
Davis, O.K.
1992 Rapid Climatic Change in Coastal Southern California Inferred from Pollen Analysis
of San Joaquin Marsh. Quarterly Research 37:89 -100.
de Barros, P. and H.C. Koerper
1990 Final Test Investigation Report and Request of Determination of Eligibility for 23 Sites
along the San Joaquin Hills Transportation corridor. do Barros, Philip and Henry C.
Koerper (editors). Prepared for Transportation Corridor Agencies, Costa Mesa,
California. Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc., Santa Ana, California.
Douglas, RD.
1981 Archaeological Resource Survey, Northern Inland Coastal Hills Planning Area Orange
County, California Prepared for The Irvine Company, Newport Beach, California. Report
prepared by Cultural Resource Division, LSA, Inc., Newport Beach, California.
Draws, M. and R.G. Elston
1983 An Archaeological Investigation of Drilling Locations and Power Plant Site in the Coso
Known Geothermal Resource Area, China Lake Naval Weapons Center. Report on file,
Naval Weapons Center, China Lake.
Drover, Christopher E.
1979 The Late Prehistoric Human Ecology of the Northern Mojave Sink, San Bernardino
County, California. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of
California, Riverside.
1998 A Cultural Resources Inventory for a 800 Acre Conceptual Lofting Plan in Planning Area
27, Irvine, California. Prepared by The Keith Companies, Inc. Archaeology Division,
Costa Mesa, California for the Irvine Community Development Company, Newport
Beach, California.
1999 A Phase II Test Evaluation of Twenty Archaeological Sites in Shady Canyon Irvine,
California. Prepared for the Irvine Community Development Company, Newport Beach,
California. Prepared by The Keith Companies, Inc. Archaeology Division, Costa Mesa,
California.
R: \Projects \NewportU015\Technical Reports\CUlturalWchaec Tech Rpt (pub)- 021610.tloc70 Archaeological Resources Assessment
Ranch
Drover, Christopher E. et al.
2001 The Intermediate Period: Empirical Modeling of Cultural - Temporal Site Types on the
Bonita Mesa Archaeological Project. The Keith Companies, Inc. Archaeological Division
for the Irvine Community Development Company.
2001 Testing and Evaluation of Ca- Ora -269 and Ca- Ora -1485 Planning Area 27, Irvine
California. The Keith Companies, Inc. Archaeological Division for the Irvine Community
Development Company.
Drover, Christopher F., H.C. Koerper, and P.E. Langenwalter III
1983 Early Holocene Human Adaptation on the Southern California Coast: A Summary Report
of Investigations at the Irvine Site (CA- ORA -64), Newport Bay, OrangeCounty,
California. Pacqic Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 19(3 & 4):1 -84.
Drover, Christopher E., R.E. Taylor, T. Cairns) and J.E. Ericson
1979 Thermo - Luminescence Determination on Early Ceramic Materials from Early Southern
California. American Antiquity 44:285 -295.
Drover, Christopher and David Smith
1999 A Cultural Resource Inventory for the Newport Banning Ranch. Newport Beach, Orange
County, California. The Keith Companies for Taylor Woodrow Homes, Inc. On file at the
South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton,
California.
Dunnell, R.C.
1978 Style and Function: A Functional Dictionary. American Antiquity 43(2):192 -195
Earle, D. and S. O'Neii
1994 Newport Coast Archaeological Project: An Ethnohistoric Analysis of Population,
Settlement, and Social Organization in Coastal Orange County at the End of the Late
Prehistoric Period. The Keith Companies Archaeology Division, Costa Mesa, California
Prepared for Coast Community Builders, Newport Beach, California.
1977 Prehistoric Exchange Systems in California The Results of Obsidian Dating and Tracing.
Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
1981 Production for Obsidian Exchange in California. In contexts for Prehistoric Exchange,
edited by 3. F. Ericson and T. K. Earle, pp. 129 -148. Academic Press, New York.
Ericson, J.E, H.C, Koerper. C.E. Drover, and P.E. Langenwalter II
1989 Advances in Obsidian Hydration Dating and Obsidian Exchange in Prehistoric Orange
County. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 25(2):45 -60.
Erlandson, J.M. and T.K. Rockwell
1987 Radiocarbon Reversals and Stratigraphic Discontinuities: The Effects of Natural
Formation Processes on Coastal California Archaeological Sites. In Natural Formation
Processes and the Archaeological Record. Edited by D. T. Nash and M.D. Petraglia, pp.
51 -73. BAR International Series 352. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.
Finnerty, W.R, D.A, Decker, N.N. Leonard III, T.F. King, C.D. King, and L.B. King
1970 Community Structure and Trade at Isthmus cove: A Salvage Excavation on Catalina
Island. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Occasional Paper No. I Friedman, I. and 3.
Obradovich.
R: \Projects \NewportU015\Technical Reports\CUlturalWchaec Tech Rpt (pub)- 021610.tloc7l Archaeological Resources Assessment
Ranch
1981 Obsidian Hydration Dating of Volcanic Events. Quaternary Research 16:37 -3T Academic
Press, New York.
Gibson, R.O. and C.D. King
1994 Analysis of Beads, Ornaments and Fishhooks from 25 Orange County Sites. in Newport
Coast Archaeological Project: Newport Coast Settlement Systems. Summary and
Discussion. By R.D. Mason and M.L. Peterson, Appendix B. Report on file at the South
Central Coast Information Center, Institute of Archaeology University of California, Los
Angeles.
Gilreath, A.L, M.E. Basgali, and M —C. Hall
1987 Compendium of Chronologically Indicative Data from Fort Irwin Archaeological Sites,
San Bernardino County, California. Report submitted to U.S. Army National Training
Center, Fort Irwin, California, Contract No. DAC A09- 86 -DMO1 O.
GMU, Geotechnic
2008 Report of Geotechnical Studies Proposed Newport Banning Ranch Development City of
Newport Beach, County of Orange.
Grenda, D.R., C. Doolittle, and J.H. Altshuel, ed.
1998 Pit Houses and Middens: Methodological and Formation Processes at cA -OJL4— 116,
Newport Bay, Orange County California. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Los Angeles District. Los Angeles, California. Technical Series 69 Statistical
Research Inc., Redlands, California.
Hall, M.C.
1975 The Santa Ana River Project: Description and Evaluation of Cultural Resources.
Appendices: Field Data. Unpublished Report on file with the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers.
Harris, Marvin
1968 The Rise of Anthropological Theory. Thomas Y. Crowell, New York.
1979 Cultural Materialism: The Struggle for a Science of Culture. Vintage Books, New York.
Johnston, H.P.
1962 California's Gabrielino Indians. Frederick Webb Hodge Anniversary Publication Fund
Vol. 8. Southwest Museum, Los Angeles.
Killingley, John S.
1981 Seasonality of Mollusk Collecting Determined From 0 -18 Profiles of Shell Middens.
American Antiquity 46:152458.
King, C.D.
1990 The Evolution of Chumash Society: A Comparative Study Artifacts Used in System
Maintenance in the Santa Barbara Channel Region Before Al. 1804, Garland Publishing,
Inc., New York.
Kiug, L. and V. Popper
1997 Macrobotanical Analysis of Plant Remains from CA -ORA -220 and CA -ORA -223, Orange
County, California. Paleoethnobotany Laboratory, institute of Archaeology. University of
California, Los Angeles.
R: \Projects \NewportU015\Technical Reports\CUlturalWchaec Tech Rpt (pub)- 021610.tloc72 Archaeological Resources Assessment
Ranch
Koerper, H.C.
1981 Prehistoric Subsistence and Settlement in the Newport Bay Area and Environs,
Orange County, California. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Riverside.
1991 Chronology and Stylistic Artifacts. In Newport Coast Archaeological Project: Project
Background and Research Design by R.D. Mason, pp. 182491. Prepared by The Keith
Companies, Inc. Archaeology Division, Costa Mesa, California. Prepared for Coastal
Community Builders, Newport Beach, California.
Koerper, H. C., R. Cerreto, and K.P. Reitz
1984 Cautionary Notes on the Use of a Statistical Method of Seasonality Determination From
(Chione undatella Shells. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 20(3):67 -75.
Koerper, H.C. and C.E. Drover
1983 Chronology Building for Coastal Orange County: The Case from ORA -1 19 -A Pacific
Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 19(2):1 -.34.
Koerper, H.C., J.E. Ericson, CE. Drover, and PB. Langenwalter
1986 Obsidian Exchange in Prehistoric Orange County. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society
Quarterly 22(1):33 -69.
Koerper, H.C., P.E. Langenwalter II, and A.B. Schroth
1988 The Putuidem Project: Archaeological Investigations at CA -ORA -855. Prepared for
Enterprise Construction, Inc., Irvine, California. Ms. on file with the City of San Juan
Capistrano.
Koerper, H.C., RD. Mason, and M.L. Peterson (Final Draft)
2000 Complexity, Demography, and Change in Late Holocene Orange County. To be
published in Cultural Complexity on the California Coast: Late Holocene Archaeological
and Environmental Records. In Perspectives in California Archaeology Series, edited by
J.M. Erlandson and T.L. Jones, Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los
Angeles.
Koerper, H.C., LB. Schroth, and R.D. Mason
1994 Morphological and Temporal Projectile Point Types: Evidence from Orange County.
California. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 16(1):81 -105.
Kroeber, A.L.
1907 Shoshonean Dialects of California. University of California Publications in Archaeology
and Ethnology 4(3):65- 166.
1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Reprinted 1976. Dover Publications, New York.
LSA
2001 Cultural Resource Assessment Survey. For the 403 acre Banning Ranch Property. City
of Newport Beach, Orange County California. Newport Banning Ranch LLC.
Langenwalter, P., A. Schroth, P. de Barros, and F. Fenenga
1989 Redbank and Fancher Creeks Archaeological Data Recovery Program, Final Report
Mitech, Inc. (Chambers Group and Aleutian Associates), Santa Ana, CA. Submitted to
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District, Contract DACW05 -87 -C- 0099.
R: \Projects \NewportU015\Technical Reports\CUlturalWchaec Tech Rpt (pub)- 021610.tloc73 Archaeological Resources Assessment
Ranch
Macko, M.
1987 Archaeological Resources Technical Appendix. Prepared for the Irvine Community
Development Company, Newport Beach, California. Prepared by:Macko Archaeological
Consulting, Huntington Beach, California.
1998 Neolithic Newport Executive Summary Results of Implementing Mitigation Measures
Specified in the Operation Plan and Research Design for the Proposed Newporter North
Residential Development at ORA -64. Prepared for Irvine Community Development
Company, Newport Beach, CA. Macko Inc. Huntington Beach, California.
Macko, M.E., and E. Weil
1986 Archaeological Survey Report: Results of Cultural Resources Stage I Investigations for
the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. Draft submitted to Environmental
Management Agency, County of Orange, Santa Ana, California.
Macko, M.E., S. Couch, P.E. Langenwalter H, and B. Vargas
1998 The Muddy Canyon Archaeological Project. Results of Phase III Data Recovery
Excavations at Archaeological Sites Within the Crystal Cove Planned Community Phase
IV Tentative Tract 15447, San Joaquin Hills, Orange County, California. Prepared for
Irvine Community Development Company, Newport Beach, California Prepared by
Macko Inc., Huntington Beach, California,
Marshall, R.P.
1979 Harper Site (ORA -302): Second Season. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly
1 5(3):2 1 -44.
Mason, R.D.
1991 Newport Coast Archaeological Project. Project Background and Research Design.
Prepared by The Keith Companies Archaeology Division, Costa Mesa, CA. Prepared for
Coast Community Builders, Newport Beach, CA.
1993 Test Program Results and Request for Determination of Eligibility for Five Sites in the
New Ford Road Alignment, Irvine, California. Prepared for Sverdrup Corporation, Irvine,
and Transportation Corridor Agencies, Costa Mesa, by Chambers Group, Inc., Irvine.
1994 Treatment Plan: Prehistoric Archaeological Sites Discovered During construction of the
San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (12- ORA -73, 12- 102540), Orange County,
California, Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.11. Prepared for Sverdrup Corporation, Irvine and
Transportation Corridor Agencies, Santa Ana. Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc.,
Irvine.
Mason, R.D., and W.H. Bonner
1992 Prehistoric Cultural Resource Survey Report and Analysis of Impacts for the Ford Road
Realignment EJR. Report prepared by The Keith Companies, Inc. Archaeology Division,
Costa Mesa, California.
Mason, R.D. and M.L. Peterson
1994 Newport Coast Archeological Project: Newport Coast Settlement Systems, Analysis and
Discussion, Volume I. Prepared for Coastal Community Builders, Newport Beach,
California. The Keith Companies Archaeological Division, Costa Mesa, California.
R: \Projects \NewportU015\Technical Reports\CUlturalWchaec Tech Rpt (pub)- 021610.tloc74 Archaeological Resources Assessment
Ranch
Mason, R.D., B.A. Brechbiel, M.L. Peterson, C.A. Singer, P.E. Langenwalter II, R.O. Gibson
1991 Newport Coast Archaeological Project: Results of Data Recovery at the Late Small
Rockshelters. Prepared for Coastal Community Builders, Newport Beach, California.
Prepared by The Keith Companies, Inc. Archaeology Division, Costa Mesa, California.
Mason, R.D., M.L. Peterson, L.P. Klug, W.H. Bonner, R.O. Gibson, B.A. Breehbiel, D.F.
McCarthy
1994 Newport Coast Archaeological Project: Results of Data Recovery at G4 -ORA -274 and
CA -ORA -670. Prepared for Coastal Community Builders, Newport Beach, California.
Prepared by The Keith Companies, Inc. Archaeology Division, Costa Mesa, California.
Mason, R.D., W.H. Bonner, S.J. Bousearen, L. Carbone, R.O. Gibson, L.P. mug,
M.L.Peterson, and V. Popper
1997a San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Results of Data Recovery at CA -ORA- 89, CA-
ORA -736, and CA -ORA -1029. Prepared for Sverdrup Corporation, Irvine. California and
Transportation Corridor Agencies, Santa Ana, California. Prepared by Chambers Group,
Inc., Irvine, California.
Mason, R.D., W.H. Bonner, S.J. Bouscaren, L. Carbone, R.O. Gibson, L.P. mug, M.L. Peterson,
and V. Popper
1997b San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Results of Data Recovery at CA -ORA -225,
Prepared for Sverdrup Corporation, Irvine, California and Transportation Corridor
Agencies, Santa Ana, California. Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc., Irvine, California.
McCawley, W.
1996 The First Angelinos: The Gabrielino Indians of Los Angeles. Maliki Museum
Press /Ballena Press, Banning, California.
McLeod, S.
2009 Paleontological Resources for the Proposed Banning Ranch Project, in Newport Beach,
Orange County, project area. On file, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County.
Meighan, C.W.
1978 Obsidian Dating of the Malibu Site. In Obsidian Dates II: A Compendium of the Obsidian
Hydration Determination Made at the UCLA Obsidian Hydration Laboratory, edited by
C.W. Meighan and P.1. Vanderhoeven. Monograph VI, Institute of Archaeology,
University of California, Los Angeles.
Merriam, C.H.
1968 Village Names in Twelve California Mission Records. University of California
Archaeological Survey Report 74. Berkeley.
Moran, Emilio F.
1982 Human Adaptability: An Introduction to Ecological Anthropology. Westview Press, Inc.,
Boulder, Colorado.
National Park Service
1983 Archaeology and Historic Preservation; Secretary of the Interior's Standards and
Guidelines: Professional Qualifications Standards. http://www.cr.nps.gov/local-
law/arch—stnds-9.htm.
R: \Projects \NewportU015\Technical Reports\CUlturalWchaec Tech Rpt (pub)- 021610.tloc75 Archaeological Resources Assessment
Ranch
Office of Historic Preservation
1990 Archaeological Resource Management Reports (ARMR): Recommended Contents and
Format. Department of Parks and Recreation, Office of Historic Preservation,
Sacramento, California.
Rappaport, R.A.
1968 Pigs for the Ancestors. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut.
Rogers, J.
1939 Early Lithic Industries of the Lower Colorado River and Adjacent Desert Areas. San
Diego Museum of Man Papers 3.
1945 An Outline of Yuman Prehistory. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 1(2):
1988 Albuquerque.SRS (Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc.)
1989 Determination of National Register Eligibility and Treatment Plan and Data Recovery
Program for Archaeological Sites on the Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill Property,
Orange County, California. Manuscript #0 -954. On file at the South Central Coastal
Information Center, University of California, Los Angeles, California.
Schiffer, Michael B.
1972 Archaeological Context and Systemic Context American Antiquity 37 156 -165.
Schroth, A.B.
1983 Radiocarbon Dating with Application to Orange County Archaeology Pacific coast
Archaeological Society Quarterly 1 9(2):35 -81.
Scuderi, LA.
1984 A Dendroclimatic and Geomorphic Investigation of Late - Holocene Glaciation. Southern
Sierra Nevada, California. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
Steward, J.H.
1938 Basin - Plateau aboriginal sociopolitical groups. Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of
American Ethnology Bulletin 120. Washington, D.C.
1955 The Theory of culture change. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.
1977 Evolution and Ecology. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Strudwick, I. & R. Goodwin
2008 Cultural Resources Survey Assessment for the 403 -Acre Banning Ranch Property, City
of Newport Beach, Orange County California.
Thomas, D.H.
1979 Archaeology. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York.
1983 The Archaeology of Monitor Valley 1. Epistemology, 2. Gatecliff Shelter. Anthropological
Papers of the American Museum of Natural History 58, Pt. 1 and 59, Pt. 1.
1989 The Archaeology of Monitor Valley 3: Survey and Additional Excavations.
Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History 5 8(1) American
Museum of Natural History, New York.
R: \Projects \NewportU015\Technical Reports\CUlturalWchaec Tech Rpt (pub)- 021610.tloc76 Archaeological Resources Assessment
Ranch
True, D.L.
1966 Archaeological Differentiation of Shoshonean and Yuman Speaking Groups in Southern
California. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los
Angeles.
Van Horn, David
1980 Initial Archaeological Excavations at Ora -839 on the Banning Oil Lease Near Newport
Beach, California. Manuscript on file at Archaeological Associates, Quail Valley,
California.
1982 Cultural Resource Assessment: The Banning Oil Lease Adjacent to the City of Newport
Beach. Mobil Oil Corporation. Manuscript on file at Archaeological Associates, Quail
Valley, California.
Wallace, William J.
1955 A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology. Southwestern
Journal of Anthropology II :214 -23th.
Wallace, W.J., A. Schroth, and P. de Barros
1989 Archaeological Data Recovery at Prehistoric Archaeological Site CA- FRE -64. Prepared
by Chambers Group, Inc. for Caltrans, District 6.
Warren, Claude N.
1964 Cultural Change and Continuity on the San Diego Coast. Ph.D. dissertation, University
of California, Los Angeles.
1968 Cultural Traditions and Ecological Adaptation on the Southern California Coast. In
Archaic Prehistory in the Western United States. Eastern New Mexico Contributions in
Anthropology 1(3): 1 -14.
R: \Projects \NewportU015\Technical Reports\CUlturalWchaec Tech Rpt (pub)- 021610.tloc77 Archaeological Resources Assessment
APPENDIX A
PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS
J%ev,707T01 CHRISTOPHER E. DROVER PH.D.
C O N S U L T I N G REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ARCHAEOLOGIST
EDUCATION
Doctor of Philosophy, Anthropology, University of California, Riverside, CA, 1979 (Ph.D.
Dissertation: Late Prehistoric Human Ecology of the Northern Mohave Sink, San Bernardino
County, CA)
Master of Arts, Anthropology, California State University, Fullerton, CA, 1972
Bachelor of Arts, Anthropology, California State University, Fullerton, CA, 1970
SPECIALIZED TRAINING
NAHC Compliance Course
ACHP Section 106 Essentials Training
Riverside County Cultural Sensitivity Training, 2007
AREAS OF EXPERTISE
Management Archaeology and Paleontology
CEQA and Section 106 Projects
Survey, Data Recovery and Monitoring
California, Great Basin, Southwest
PROFESSIONAL SUMMARY
Christopher E. Drover, Ph.D., RPA offers over 30 years of experience in conducting cultural
resources assessments for environmental impact statements. He graduated from the University
of California, Riverside in Anthropology - Archaeology in 1979, has been a tenured professor of
this discipline at Golden West College in Huntington Beach since 1973, and is a visiting
professor of anthropology at the University of California, Irvine. As a Principal Investigator, he
has published extensive research regarding the archaeology of San Bernardino, Riverside, and
Orange Counties. Dr. Drover has conducted numerous consulting projects in the California
Counties of Riverside, San Diego, Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Kern, Ventura, and Inyo; in the
states of Arizona, Nevada, and Alaska; and internationally in Mexico and Argentina. Some of
the clients he has provided evaluations for over the years include the Museum of Northern
Arizona; the Kaiser Corporation; St. Joe America Corporation; Fluor Corporation; Kinder
Morgan; the Department of Defense; the Bureau of Reclamation; the Bureau of Indian Affairs;
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE); the State Lands Commission; U.S. Forest Service
(USFS); Arco; Chevron; and the Texaco Oil Corporation.
REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE
Nellis Air Force Base. Dr. Drover was the principal investigator responsible for overseeing the
production of The Dry Lake Hydrological Disturbance Evaluation Model. A New Method for
Assessing Archaeological Integrity in Dry Lake Environments at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada.
Prepared for Nellis Air Force Base.
Ca /trans. Dr. Drover was the principle investigator responsible for overseeing the survey and
report preparation Archaeological Survey Report. Harbor Boulevard North Off -Ramp Project.
Costa Mesa, California. Submitted to Caltrans District 12.
Flagstaff, Arizona. Dr. Drover was the principle investigator responsible for overseeing the
survey and report preparation of the Archaeological Survey of the Presidio West Development,
PAGE 1
CHRISTOPHER E. DROVER PH.D.
C o N s U L T I N G REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ARCHAEOLOGIST
Flagstaff, Arizona. Arizona Antiquities Act Blanket Permit No. 2005- 075bl. Manuscript on File at
the Arizona State Museum.
Tucson, Arizona. Dr. Drover was the principle investigator responsible for overseeing the
survey and report preparation of the Transwestern Pipeline Anomaly and SCC Repair Dig Sites,
Final County, Arizona. Arizona Antiquities Act Blanket Permit No. 2005 -075bl Kinder Morgan.
Manuscript on File at the Arizona State Museum.
Fort Bragg. Dr. Drover was the principle Investigator for the decommissioning of a 460 -acre
lumber mill in Fort Bragg, California. This facility was the third largest redwood mill in the world
and was a former Native American reservation. Dr. Drover was responsible for historic and
prehistoric evaluation of the resources on the site.
Newport Coast Community Park, Newport Coast. Dr. Drover was the archaeologist
responsible for overseeing the grading monitoring services for the Newport Coast Community
Park, located in Newport Beach, California. The archaeological and paleontological aspects of
this area have been determined as sensitive and relatively high and will require monitoring of
active cuts during the grading process. In addition to providing this service, the scope of work
for this project encompassed the review of excavation and construction plans; coordination of
responsibilities with project contractors; development of a safety plan for the monitoring of
grading operations; observation and evaluation of the salvage to identify any cultural resources
uncovered by grading or trenching; shovel probing to determine whether a discovery is isolated
or part of a potential site; coordination of the transfer of any collected archaeological resources;
and the preparation of a full report on the archaeological program with the discoveries described
and interpreted for the City.
Bonita Mesa Paleontological Excavation (Planning Area 26), Irvine. Dr. Drover was the
archaeologist responsible for overseeing the excavation of the largest fossil whale bed found on
the continental United States. The recovery required 10,000 Ibs of plaster of paris and
1,000 yards of burlap to remove the fossils from the site. The Keith Companies excavated the
site in approximately six weeks, all the while maintaining a large field crew at the Bonita Mesa
archaeological project located in the county of Orange, California. Dr. Drover followed CEQA
guidelines as well as working with local Native American on site consultation.
Paseo Del Sol, Temecula. Dr. Drover was the archaeologist responsible for overseeing the
archaeology, paleontology, and grading monitoring for this 829 -acre project located in
Temecula, California. There were five archaeological sites mitigated during the early phase of
work. Three of the sites were prehistoric, while the other two were early Pala Valley historic
adobe sites. Excavations included systematic data recovery, testing, and the complete
excavation of a three -room adobe. The Pala Formation, rich in pleistocene mammal fossils,
formed the geologic base of the property. The Keith Companies' archaeologists and
paleontologists were active throughout the initial pre - grading and mass - grading phases on the
site. Also at the site were found five Mastodons; they were excavated and prepared for analysis.
There were numerous other specimens of extinct animals found as well, including a saber -
toothed cat claw. In addition, the archaeological and paleontological sensitivity of this area was
high and required the active monitoring of active cuts. Dr. Drover worked through consultation
and assistance with local Native Americans, as well pursuant to CEQA guidelines.
Planning Area 18, Irvine. Dr. Drover was the archaeologist responsible for overseeing the
archaeology for this 800 -acre Planning Area 18 located in Irvine, California. The Keith
Companies did a Phase I Cultural Resources Inventory including paleontology. Two prehistoric
PAGE 2
CHRISTOPHER E. DROVER PH.D.
C o N s U L r I N G REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ARCHAEOLOGIST
sites were re- recorded, while two new sites were discovered and recorded. No paleontological
areas were found but a report for paleo- sensitivity was generated. All work was pursuant to
CEQA guidelines.
Planning Area 5A — 9C EIR Feasibility, Irvine. Dr. Drover was the archaeologist responsible
for overseeing the archaeological services for Planning Area 5A through 9C located in Irvine,
California. Phase I work was done on sites 5, 6, 8, and 9. The Keith Companies found 22 sites,
12 of which were previously recorded. One site, Lambert Reservoir, had been tested for
advanced preliminary land use. CEQA guidelines were followed.
Planning Area 17 & 18 — Cultural Resources, Irvine. Dr. Drover was the archaeologist
responsible for overseeing the Phase I cultural resource inventory, survey, and record search
for an 1,800 -acre site located in the city of Irvine. The property yielded eleven sites found to be
prehistoric. Seven of these sites were re- recorded and four of them newly recorded. Dr. Drover
recommended a Phase II test/excavation to eliminate problems further down the line in the
development process. All work conducted pursuant to CEQA guidelines.
Shady Canyon Archaeology, Irvine. Dr. Drover was the archaeologist responsible for
overseeing the Phase II archaeological testing and excavation for a 1,046 -acre residential
project located in Irvine, California. Twenty sites studied to see whether or not these
archaeological sites were deemed significant enough to alter the communities' design. One site
was determined to not be an archaeological site. Of the remaining 19, seven were preserved in
entirety through the cooperative land planning, and 12 were fully excavated. All work was done
pursuant to CEQA requirements. Dr. Drover worked closely with local Native Americans on the
project.
Trilogy at Glen Ivy, Corona. Dr. Drover was the archaeologist responsible for overseeing the
archaeological services for Trilogy, a 820 -acre senior residential community with golf course
located in Corona, California. Dr. Drover's scope of services included reviewing archaeological
and paleontological literature; performing archaeological and paleontological field work; and
preparing archaeological and paleontological reports.
The Retreat at The Quarry — Cultural Resources, La Quinta. Dr. Drover was the
archaeologist responsible for overseeing the cultural resources survey for this mixed -use,
residential /commercial development. The seven -acre site, located in La Quinta, underwent
Phase I environmental assessment and cultural resource monitoring during the grading process.
TKC was pursuant to CEQA guidelines.
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
1995 — ongoing, University of California, Irvine, Visiting Professor
1973— ongoing, Golden West College, California, full -time, tenured, professor
2003 -2007 Director of Archaeology TRC
1997 -2003 Director of Archaeology TKC, Keith Companies
1984 -1986, University of California, Irvine, Visiting Professor
1985 -1989, Director of Archaeology, Chambers Consultants and Planners
1975, University of California, Riverside, Lecturer
1973, Chapman College, Orange, Instructor, part-time
1973, Santa Ana College, Santa Ana, Instructor, part-time
1973, University of California, Irvine, Instructor, extension
1971 -1972, California State University, Fullerton, Instructor, part-time
1970 — ongoing Archaeological Consultant
PACE 3
C O N S U L r l N G
EDUCATION
• M.A. Anthropology
California State University, Fullerton, 1994
• B.A. Psychology/ Sociology
Towson State University, Maryland, 1987
PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATIONS
PATRICK O. MAXON, RPA
DIRECTOR, CULTURAL RESOURCES
• Registered Professional Archaeologist (National), 1999
• Certified Archaeologist — Riverside County TLMA, 2008 -2009
• Cultural Resources Specialist— California Energy Commission, 2004
• Certified Archaeologist — Orange County Environmental Management Agency, 1998
PROFESSIONAL SUMMARY
Patrick Maxon has 15 years of experience in cultural resources management. A Registered
Professional Archaeologist, he has expertise in compliance with the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA), the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA), the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA), and the Clean
Water Act, among others. Mr. Maxon has been certified as an archaeologist by the City of San
Diego, and is also certified by the County of Orange Environmental Management Agency and
the Riverside County Transportation and Land Management Agency. Mr. Maxon has completed
hundreds of cultural resource projects that have involved agency, client, Native American, and
subcontractor coordination; treatment plans and research design development; archival
research; field reconnaissance; site testing; data recovery excavation; construction monitoring;
site recordation; site protection /preservation; mapping /cartography; laboratory analysis; and
report production. He has managed a number of projects within the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Bureau of
Reclamation, and other federal agencies that require compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA.
He has also completed projects throughout Southern California under CEQA for State and local
governments and municipalities.
REPRESENTATIVE PROJECT EXPERIENCE
Centennial Corridor Environmental Impact Report, Cultural Resources Surveys, Kern
County. BonTerra Consulting is preparing the environmental documentation for the Centennial
Corridor, Thomas Roads Improvement Project, in the City of Bakersfield. Mr. Maxon is
managing the review, evaluation and mitigation of cultural resources for the project. He
conducted background research, coordinated with Caltrans and other agency personnel,
accomplished a field survey of the Area of Potential Effects, including several alternatives, and
is currently analyzing and documenting the results of the survey.
Centennial New Town Environmental Impact Report, Cultural and Biological Resources
Surveys, Los Angeles County. BonTerra Consulting is preparing the environmental
documentation for the Centennial New Town that involves a new community consisting of
residential, commercial, business park, and cultural and civic /institutional uses and
encompassing approximately 11,680 acres. Mr. Maxon is managing the review, evaluation and
mitigation of cultural resources for the project. To consider the current status of the project
PAGE ]
PATRICK O. MAXON, RPA
C o N s u L r I N G DIRECTOR, CULTURAL RESOURCES
area's cultural and paleontological resources in the environmental analysis, the entire — 12,000
acre project area, as well as small offsite areas, initially underwent a Phase I cultural resources
study including a records search at the South Central Coastal Information Center, California
State University, Fullerton, a paleontological records search at the Los Angeles County Museum
and an intensive pedestrian survey to evaluate the project area for the presence of cultural and
paleontological resources. Numerous cultural resources sites were discovered, some were
evaluated for significance. Those that were determined eligible and were in the development
area were preserved in place. As the project evolves and expands beyond the Phase One area,
additional sites must be evaluated for significance, some may need to undergo data recovery
excavations, while one structure must be recorded and evaluated; consultations with regulatory
agencies, County staff, Native American tribes, the interested public, and clients must be
completed and their comments considered; and monitoring of disturbances around the known
sites will be undertaken when construction activities commence.
Archaeological and Paleontological Investigations, Talega Associates, San Clemente,
Orange County. Mr. Maxon was the Project Manager for the archaeological and
paleontological compliance monitoring of the Talega Development in Orange County. He was
responsible for coordinating this decade -long project with the USACE by ensuring compliance
with Section 106 of the NHPA; performing monitoring; evaluating archaeological sites according
to the NHPA and CEQA; completing data recovery excavations; completing laboratory work;
and preparing reports. Mr. Maxon managed the excavation of one large archaeological site (CA-
LAN-907A and B) and several smaller sites during the course of this project. Mr. Maxon was
also involved in the development and installation of a display of artifacts and fossils at the
Talega school site.
Cultural Resources Surveys, Union Pacific Railroad Double -Track Project, Thermal, CA to
Yuma, AZ. Mr. Maxon was the Cultural Resources Project Manager for the UPRR Double -Track
project from Thermal to Yuma. The project began by consulting and coordinating with the State
Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO); the Union Pacific Railroad; and other relevant agencies to
develop a Programmatic Memorandum of Agreement to consider the cultural resources
associated with the project. Mr. Maxon and his crew conducted an intensive, 100 percent -
pedestrian, cultural resources survey of the area of potential effect (APE). Initial Native
American consultation and bridge and culvert recordation were provided. There are hundreds of
structures (bridges and culverts) in the project area, most built between 1903 and 1960 and are
considered historic. An Architectural Historian, under Mr. Maxon's direction, visited each
structure and produced a Primary Record (DPR 523A) and a Location Map (DPR523J).
Riverside Energy Resource Center Archaeological, Paleontological, and Biological
Services, Riverside County. Mr. Maxon served as the Program Director for the archaeological,
paleontological, and biological services at the Riverside Energy Resource Center. He managed
all aspects of surveys and monitoring of the power plant site and its associated transmission
lines and pipelines. Mr. Maxon maintained client contacts; coordinated with the CEC; and
communicated with the Riverside public utilities. In addition, he conducted cultural resources
surveys and monitoring; completed the cultural resources survey report; and wrote monthly
cultural resources monitoring reports and a final project report.
Orange County Great Park, Irvine. Mr. Maxon was the Cultural Resources Manager for the
CEQA Professional Program Management, Regulatory Approval /Permitting, Paleontology
Discoveries, Cultural and Natural Resource Management Services in Irvine. He provided
expertise in the area of cultural resources conservation, which included developing all required
monitoring and mitigation plans. He also reviewed the proposed Orange County Great Park
PAGE 2
PATRICK O. MAXON, RPA
C o N s U L r I N G DIRECTOR, CULTURAL RESOURCES
Master Plan to determine environmental and engineering constraints related to cultural
resources. Once a formidable military base in Orange County, the former Marine Corps Air
Station El Toro will be transformed into the 1,347 -acre Orange County Great Park.
Saddleback Meadows Development Archaeological Test Excavations, Orange County.
Mr. Maxon was the Program Director of archaeological investigations for the Saddleback
Meadows Development Project over a period of ten years. He performed test excavations of
twelve archaeological sites and developed a treatment plan and research design in compliance
with Section 106 of the NHPA for two of the sites. Mr. Maxon conducted a data recovery
excavation of one site, and laboratory and report preparation. Additionally, he later developed a
testing plan to evaluate two additional prehistoric sites; managed their excavation; and
maintained budgets and relations with the client (TPG Management) and the USACE.
Dayton Canyon Estates Development Archaeological Data Recovery, Los Angeles
County. Mr. Maxon was the Project Manager for the Dayton Canyon Estates Development
Project data recovery excavation of CA -LAN -254. He was responsible for coordinating with the
USACE and the Los Angeles County Coroner regarding (1) compliance with Section 106 of the
NHPA; (2) the development of a treatment plan and research design; (3) the conducting of data
recovery excavations; (4) the recovery of human remains; (5) the performance of laboratory
analysis; and (6) assistance with report preparation.
PROFESSIONAL PRESENTATION
"The Circle of Life in Dayton Canyon: Excavations at CA -LAN -254, Los Angeles County,
California." 68th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology. Milwaukee,
Wisconsin 2003.
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
• BonTerra Consulting — 2008
• Chambers Group — 2006 to 2008
• SWCA — 2001 to 2006
• RMW Paleo Associates — 1994 to 2001
PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS
• Pacific Coast Archaeological Society
• Society for California Archaeology
• Society for American Archaeology
• American Cultural Resources Association
• Association of Environmental Professionals (Board of Directors, 2005 - present)
PAGE 3
Resume of
MARK A. ROEDER, B.A.
Paleontologist
EXPERIENCE SUMMARY
Extensive paleontologic resource management experience conducting and managing paleontologic resource /impact assessments and impact
mitigation programs for large construction projects in California. Projects include municipal solid waste landfills; aggregate quarries; flood
control facilities; oil refineries; natural gas pipelines; freeways and other roadways; subways; waste water treatment facilities; housing
developments; planned communities; office buildings /complexes; shopping centers; hospitals and medical centers; industrial complexes; parking
lots /structures; land exchanges; and conditional use permit and specific plan revisions. Clients include private industry, public utilities,
conservancies, and federal, state, county, city, and regional agencies. Paleontologic resource assessments entailed data searches (literature
reviews, archival searches, field surveys, consultation with other paleontologists) to develop baseline inventories, evaluation of scientific
importance of resources and potential for disturbance by adverse project - related impacts, and formulation of mitigation measures to reduce these
impacts to an acceptable level. Paleontologic resource impact mitigation programs required monitoring of earth- moving activities, recovery of
fossil remains, supervision of field personnel, and preparation of progress and final reports. Projects involved extensive coordination and
consultation with project proponents, other consulting Finns, and permitting agencies; adherence to strict delivery schedules; and completion
within specified budget limits. Approximately 28 years of experience as a paleontologist and paleontologic consultant involved in NEPA and
CEQA compliance. Extensive paleontologic research background in fish faunas of Cenozoic marine and lacustrine formations of southern
California. Research entailed literature reviews, archival searches, field surveys, and consultation with other paleontologists.
2006 -to date TRC, Inc., Irvine, California. Field Supervisor. Participated in paleontologic resource assessments for major construction
projects in Orange, Kern and Los Angeles Counties.
2006 -to date SWCA, Inc., Mission Viejo, California. Field Supervisor. Participated in a paleontologic resource assessment for major
construction project in Kem County. Supervised paleological resource impact mitigation programs for projects in Los Angeles
and Orange Counties.
2005 -to date Chambers Group, Inc., Irvine, California. Field Supervisor. Participated in paleontologic resource assessments for major
construction projects in Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. Supervised paleological resource impact mitigation
programs for County of Orange Integrated Waste Management, SunCal Homes, and other clients.
1997 -to date L & L Environmental, Inc., Corona, California. Field Supervisor. Participated in paleontologic resource assessments far major
construction projects in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. Supervised paleontologic resource impact mitigation programs
for Empire Homes, Forecast Homes, Lennar Homes, Palle Homes, and Inland Empire Utilities Agency. Recently (2005)
participated in Riverside County Lamb Canyon Landfill Expansion Study.
1988 -to date Palen Environmental Associates, Inc., Costa Mesa, California. Field Supervisor /Owner. Participated in paleontologic resource
assessments for major construction projects in southern and central California. Supervised paleontologic resource impact
mitigation programs for major construction projects in southern California, including Simi Valley, Puente Hills, Santiago
Canyon, and Brea/Olinda, Prima Deschecha and Coyote Canyon Landfills, Metro Rail Red Line Segments 1, 2, and 3, Foothill
Ranch.
1988 Heritage Resource Consultants, La Mirada, California. Paleontologic Consultant Participated in paleontologic resource impact
assessments for major construction projects in Riverside County, California.
1987 -1988 Engineering- Science, Inc., Pasadena, California. Paleontologist Supervised paleontologic resource impact mitigation program
for Simi Valley Landfill expansion in Ventura County, California,
1985 -1986 Archaeological Advisory Group, Newport Beach, California. Paleontologic Consultant. Managed paleontologic resource impact
mitigation program for Coyote Canyon Landfill in Orange County, California.
1982 -1987 San Bernardino County Museum, Redlands, California. Museum Assistant /Technician. Participated in paleontologic resource
assessments and impact mitigation programs for major construction projects in southern California.
1983 -to date Paleontological Services,. Inc., (San Diego Natural History Museum) San Diego, California. Paleontologic Consultant.
Participated in paleontologic resource assessments and impact mitigation programs for major construction projects in San Diego
County, California.
1978 -1983 Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc., Huntington Beach, California. Paleontologist. Conducted paleontologic resource assessments
and impact mitigation programs for major construction projects in Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and San Diego
Counties, California.
1969 -1976 Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Los Angeles, California. Student Professional Worker/Field Associate.
EDUCATION
B.A., Anthropology, 1977, San Diego State University
PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION
Registered Paleontologic Consultant, County of Orange, California
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology
Western Association of Vertebrate Paleontologists
Southern California Academy of Sciences
INSTITUTIONAL AFFILIATIONS
Field Associate, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County
PUBLICATIONS
Roeder, M.A., 1978, Fish remains from Ven -294, in Clewlow, C.W., Jr., Wells, H.F., and Pasnon, A.G., editors, The archaeology of Oak Park,
Ventura County, California: University of California, Los Angeles, Institute of Archaeology Monograph 5(2).
1979, Fish remains, primarily centra, from an inland Chumash site (Von-261), in Prichett, J., and McIntyre, A., editors, The Running
Springs Ranch site: University of California, Los Angeles, Institute of Archaeology Monograph 12.
Demote, T.A., Roeder, M.A., Chandler R.M., and Minch, 1.A, 1984, Paleontology of the middle Miocene Los Indies Member of the Rosarito
Beach Formation, northwestern Baja California, Mexico, in Minch, J.A., and Ashby, J.R., Jr, editors, Miocene and Cretaceous
depositional environments, northwestern Baja California, Mexico: American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Pacific Section,
Guidebook 54:47 -56.
Roeder, M.A., 1985, Late Wisconsin records of Gasterosteus aculeatus (threespine sticleback) and Gila bicolor (Mojave ti i chub) from unnamed
Mojave River sediments near Daggett, San Bernardino County, California, pp. 171 -174, in Reynolds, R.E., compiler, Geological
Investigations Along Interstate 15, Cajon Pass to Manix Lake: San Bernardino County Museum.
Kelly, T.S., Lander, E.B., Roeder, M.A., Whistler, D.P., and Reynolds, R.E., 1991, Preliminary report on a paleontologic investigation of the
lower and middle members, Sespe Formation, Simi Valley Landfill, Ventura County, California: PaleoBios.
Whistler, D.P., Lander, E.B., and Roeder, M.A., 1995, First diverse record of small vertebrates from late Holocene sediments of Lake Cahuilla,
Riverside County, California, in Reynolds, 1., compiler, Abstracts from proceedings, The 1995 Desert Research Symposium: San
Bernardino County Museum Association Quarterly 42(2):46.
Whistler, D.P., Lander, E.B., and Roeder, M.A., 1995, A diverse record of microfossils and fossil plants, invertebrates, and small vertebrates from
the late Holocene Lake Cahuilla Beds, Riverside County, Califomia, in Remeika, P, and Sturtz, A.editors, Paleontology and geology
of the western Salton trough detachment, Anza- Borrego Desert State Park, California: San Diego Association of Geologist's field trip
to Anza- Borrego Desert State Park, field trip guidebook and volume.
Roeder, M. A. 2004, Fossil Marine Fish Fauna from a late Pleistocene Site on Mission Bay, San Diego County, California. Abstracts of the
Annual Meeting of the Southern California Academy of Sciences, Abstract No. 21.
Roeder, M. A. 2005, Fossil Fishes of the Anza- Borrego Region, Fossil Treasures of the Anza - Borrego Desert, A Symposium Exploring North
America's Richest Continuous. Fossil Record for the Last Seven Million Years. November 19 -20, 2005 Borego Springs, California.
Gensler, P, Roeder, M. A., and Jefferson, G. T, 2006, The Fossil Lower Vertebrates: Fish, Amphibians, and Reptiles in Jefferson, G. T. and
Lindsay, L. editors, Fossil Treasures of the Anza Borrego Desert, Sunbelt Publications, San Diego.
J%ev,707T01 ARTHUR A. KUHNER
C O N S U L T I N G REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ARCHAEOLOGIST
EDUCATION
Bachelor of Arts, Anthropology, California State University, CA, 1988
Bachelor of Arts, Psychology, California State University, CA, 1988
PROFESSIONAL SUMMARY
Arthur Kuhner has 15 years experience in Southern California archaeology, as well as two years
of experience in the Midwest and nine years in the Southeast (Florida, Georgia, Alabama, North
Carolina, and South Carolina). He has spent the last nine years employed by Environmental
Services, Inc. in Jacksonville, Florida. In his position as an archaeological crew chief, he was
able to add to his prior urban and desert environs of Southern California working knowledge of
historic and prehistoric buildings, structures, objects, artifacts, and cemeteries.
His positions over the last 26 years as an archaeologist in the Southeast, Southwest, and the
Midwest have given him an excellent working knowledge of geology, botany and zoology as well
as history and prehistoric and historic archaeology. He has also gained significant familiarity
with any number of different prehistoric culture groups. Additionally, while working in Southern
California, he had the opportunity to perform the duties of a paleontological monitor in the Chino
Hills area. This entailed discovery, removal, preparation, and cataloging of Pleistocene and
Miocene specimens.
RESPONSIBILITIES WITH ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
While working for Environmental Services, Inc., Mr. Kuhner was responsible for Cell Tower
Assessment, Reconnaissance Surveys, the responsibilities of Crew Chief on Phase I, Phase II
and Phase III Archaeological fieldwork, writing field reports; and the identification and
processing of Historic Architecture, historic and prehistoric artifacts. Mr. Kuhner is also familiar
with the Lieka and Trimbel GPS systems and the associated software.
Mr. Kuhner has also been intensively cross - trained within E.S.I. in Wetland Mitigation, Water
Quality, Forestry, Endangered Species surveys, Wetland Creation and Site Assessment and
Remediation.
REPRESENTATIVE PROJECT EXPERIENCE
Phase 11 Testing at Banning Ranch, Costa Mesa.
Employer: BonTerra Consulting
Date: 2009
Phase I Survey, Phase 11 Testing and Phase Ill Mitigation at Vincent Lugo Adobe, Bell
Gardens.
Employer: Archaeological Consulting Services
Date: 1992
Phase I Survey and Phase 11 Testing; and Paleontological monitoring at Yorba Slaughter
Adobe.
Employer: Archaeological Consulting Services
Date: 1994
PAGE 1
ARTHUR A. KUHNER
C o N S u L T I N G REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ARCHAEOLOGIST
Phase I Survey and H Testing at the Tuscan Landing Tract, Camden County, GA.
Employer: Environmental Services Inc
Date: 2005
Phase I Survey, Phase II Testing and 111 Mitigation at Site 8NA921 (The Brady Point Site),
Nassau County, FL.
Employer: Environmental Services Inc
Date: 2004
Phase 1 Survey, Phase Il Testing and Phase 111 Mitigation at the Jacksonville Baseball
Park and EntertainmenUSports Arena, Duval County, FL.
Employer: Environmental Services Inc
Date: 2003
Phase I Survey, Phase Il Testing and Phase 111 Mitigation at the Nocotee Tract, St. Johns
County, FL.
Employer: Environmental Services Inc
Date: 2000 -2008
Phase I Survey at the Oakleaf Tract, Clay and Duval County, FL.
Employer: Environmental Services Inc
Date: 2002
SELECTED PROFESSIONAL PUBLICATIONS
Kuhner, Arthur A., 1988. Coyote: Myth and the California Indian. Anthrologue II. California State
University, Long Beach, Ca. including graphics.
Alexanderowicz, J. Stephen. A.Q Duffield - Stoll, S.R. Alexanderowicz, A. A Kuhner, et al. 1992.
Historical Archaeology at the Vicente Lugo Adobe, City of Bell Gardens, County of Los
Angeles, California. ACS Technical Series No. 6.
Kuhner; Arthur A. and Marsha A. Chance. 2006. A Cultural Resource Assessment Survey and
Site Excavation at 8DUI7801 at The Shangri La Subdivision, Duval County, Florida
Report of Investigations No. 957.
Kuhner, Arthur A., Greg S. Hendryx, and Jennifer L.F. Nash. 2004. An Archaeological and
Historical Assessment for the Existing St. Johns - Flagler Line Cellular Tower, St. Johns
County, Florida. Report of Investigations No. 517.
Thompson, Sharyn, Marsha A. Chance, contributions by Arthur A. Kuhner. 2004. A Survey of
Forty -five Historical Cemeteries in St. Johns County, Florida. Report of Investigations
No. 572.
Kuhner, Arthur A. and Greg S. Hendryx. 2004. Intensive Cultural Resource Assessment Survey
of the Tuscan Landing Tract Camden County, Georgia. Report of Investigation No. 665.
Kuhner; Arthur A. and Greg S. Hendryx. 2005. An Intensive Cultural Resource Assessment
Survey of The Proposed Jessup Boardwalk and Park Tracts Wayne County, Georgia
Report of Investigations No. 823.
PAGE 2
J%CV1707T01 ARTHUR A. KUHNER
C O N S U L 7 1 N G REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ARCHAEOLOGIST
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
BonTerra Consulting, 2009
Environmental Services Inc.. 1999 -2008
Wisconsin State Historical Society; Archaeological Consulting Services, Verona, WI, 1998
Archaeological Consulting Services, Verona, WI, 1997
Archaeological Consulting Services, San Bernardino, CA, 1991 -1996
Chambers Group Inc., Santa Anna, CA, 1990 -1991
Various C.R.M projects in Southern California, 1989 -1990
California State University, Fullerton, CA, 1988
Various C.R.M. projects in Southern California, 1983 -1987
Student Teacher, Los Angeles Board of Education,
PAGE 3
r_rrrATkFsT M.
FISHBONE AND FAUNAL ANALYSES
Ranch
FISHBONE AND FAUNAL ANALYSES
.Family
I Genus
Species
Common
Count
Remarks
CA -ORA 839 VERTEBRATES
on rocky bottom and in kelp beds; in tidal to 150
Myliobatis
californica
bat stringray
55
feet
sand or mud bottom in shallow coastal waters,
Rhinobatos
productus
shovelnose guitarfish
8
bays, sloughs, and estuaries
Triakididae
4
smoothhounds, leopard shark, soup fin shark
usually in schools over rocky bottom and in kelp
Atractoscion
nobilis
white seabass
1
beds also in surf zone
Cynoscion
parvipinnus
shortfin corvina
1
shallow inshore sandy areas
rocky and soft bottom, common in bays, spawns
late spring or summer, eggs underside of rocks,
Porichthys
mynaster
specklefin midshipman
1
male guards
two species found on sandy and muddy bottoms
Porichthys
midshipman
5
of bays
sandy shores and bays, mostly in shallow surf
Roncador
stearnsii
spotfin croaker
3
zone
Semicossyphus
pulcher
California sheephead
1
prefers rocky bottom, in kelp beds
CA -ORA -906
VERTEBRATES
Clupeidae
sardines and herrings
1
probably a sardine
Hypsopsetta
guttulata
diamond turbot
5
mud to sand bottom, often in bays and sloughs
found in water depths 5 -150 feet
very common in sandy and muddy and sloughs,
Myliobatis
califfornica
bat stringray
5
also on rocky bottom and in kelp beds, In tidal to
150 feet
Paralabrax
basses
1
three species off Southern California
Paralichthys
californicus
Calif. Halibut
7
common on san bottom beyond the surfzone,
and in bay and estuaries
Porichthys
midshipman fish
7
two species found on sandy and muddy bottoms
of bays
Platyrhinoides
triseriata
thornback
5
sometimes abundant on mudflats of coastal
bays
Rhinobatos
productus
shovelnose guita fsh
26
sand or mud bottom in shallow coastal waters,
bays, sloughs, and estuaries
R: \Projects \Newport1J015 \Technical Reports \CulturalWchaeo Tech Rpt (pub )021610.doc B -1 Appendix B
Ranch
FISHBONE AND FAUNAL ANALYSES
(Continued)
Family
Genus
I Species
Common
count
Remarks
CA -ORA -906
VERTEBRATES (Continued)
Triakididae
25
smoothhounds, leopard shark, soupfin shark
abundant, widespread, common in marshes,
Anas
cf. A. acuta
northern pintail
4
open areas with ponds, lakes, year -round
resident
Anas
cf. A. crecca
green- winged teal
6
winter range in Southern California
Anas
cf. A. clypeata
northern schoveler
1
found in marshes, ponds, lake in open country
winter range in Southern California
Anas
cf. A. cyanoptere
cinnamon teal
1
common in marshes, ponds, and lakes year -
round resident
Brenta
cf. B. canadensis
Canada goose
4
winter range in Southern California
Chen
cf. C cerulescens
snow goose
1
winter range in Southern California
common to abundant, nests in freshwater
Fulica
americans
American coot
1
marshes, wetlands, or near lakes and ponds,
year -round resident
Melanitta
perspicilata
surf scoter
2
winters on coastal water in southern California
Oxyura
cf. O. jamaicensis
ruddy duck
1
year -round resident, large lakes, shallow bays,
salt marshes
Pelecanus
occidentalis
brown pelican
1
prefers saltwater habitats year -round
double - crested
common, widespread rocky coast, beaches,
Phalacrocorax
auritus
cormorant
1
inland lakes and rivers, winters in Southern
California
Rallus
longirostris
clapper rail
2
year -round resident, inhabits coastal salt
marshes
Enhydra
lutris
sea otter
1
locally extinct since 1860s
R: \Projects \Newport1J015 \Technical Reports \CulturalWchaeo Tech Rpt (pub }021610.doc B -2 Appendix B
APPENDIX C
CULTURAL SITES: UNIT EXCAVATION LOCATIONS
(Figures not included for reasons of confidentiality)
APPENDIX D
CATALOG
Ranch
ORA -839 CATALOG
Catalog #
Site
Locus
Unit
Level
Class
Attribute 1
Attribute 2
Attribute 3
Attribute 4
Count
Wt.
1
Ora -839
A
1
0 -10
shell
Neverita reclusians
B /OC
4
2
Ora -839
A
1
0 -10
shell
Argopecten sp.
WE
1
3
Ora -839
A
1
0 -10
shell
Chione spp.
B/E
12
4
Ora -839
A
1
0 -10
shell
Chione californiensis
B /OC
4
5
Ora -839
A
1
0 -10
shell
Chione undatella
B/E
1
6
Ora -839
A
1
0 -10
shell
Astraea unclose
B/E
2
7
Ora -839
A
1
0 -10
shell
Psuedochama sp.
RS /OC
1
8
Ora -839
A
1
0 -10
shell
Oystrea
B /OC
1
9
Ora -839
A
1
0 -10
shell
Gastropod
B /OC
columella
1
10
Ora -839
A
1
0 -10
shell
Gastropod
B /OC
1
11
Ora -839
A
1
0 -10
shell
Gastropod
B /OC
3
12
Ora -839
A
1
0 -10
Faunal
Chondricthyes
centrum
1
13
Ora -839
A
1
0 -10
Faunal
mammal
burnt
1
14
Ora -839
A
1
0 -10
Faunal
rodent
long bone
1
15
Ora -839
A
1
0 -10
lithic
groundstone
fragment
metavolcanic
1
11.1g
16
Ora -839
A
1
0 -10
lithic
core /scraper
spent
retouched
Monterey
1
12.1g
17
Ora -839
A
1
0 -10
lithic
debitage
quartz
1
13.1g
18
Ora -839
A
1
0 -10
lithic
debitage
cubic shatter
chert
2
3.1g
19
Ora -839
A
1
0 -10
lithic
debitage
cubic shatter
metavolcanic
1
0.1g
20
Ora -839
A
1
10 -20c
shell
Chione californiensis
B /OC
8
21
Ora -839
A
1
10 -20c
shell
Chione undatella
WE
1
22
Ora -839
A
1
10 -20c
shell
Chione spp.
WE
15
23
Ora -839
A
1
10 -20c
shell
Argopecten sp.
WE
2
24
Ora -839
A
1
10 -20c
shell
Saxidomus
B/E
1
25
Ora -839
A
1
10 -20c
shell
Astraea undosa
WE
5
26
Ora -839
A
1
10 -20c
shell
Ostrea
B/E
5
27
Ora -839
A
1
10 -20c
shell
Crepidula sp.
WE
RS /OC
1
28
Ora -839
A
1
10 -20c
shell
Neverita reclusians
B /OC
1
29
Ora -839
A
1
10 -20c
shell
Gastropod
B /OC
2
30
Ora -839
A
1
10 -20c
faunal
Roncador stearnsii
sp.
otolith
left
1
31
Ora -839
A
1
10 -20c
faunal
Myliobatis californica
teeth
3
32
Ora -839
A
1
10 -20c
faunal
fish
vertebra
1
33
Ora -839
A
1
10 -20c
faunal
shark
centrum
1
R: \Projects \Newport1J015 \Technical Reports \CulturalWchaeo Tech Rpt (pub)- 021610.doc D -1 Appendix D
Ranch
ORA -839 CATALOG
(Continued)
Catalog #
Site
Locus
Unit
Level
Class
Attribute 1
Attribute 2
Attribute 3
Attribute 4
Count
Wt.
34
Ora -839
A
1
10 -20c
faunal
Rhinobatus productus
centrum
1
35
Ora -839
A
1
10 -20c
faunal
Porichthys
vertebrae
1
36
Ora -839
A
1
10 -20c
faunal
mammal
bone frag
1
37
Ora -839
A
1
10 -20c
lithic
debitage
tertiary
Monterey
1
1.2g
38
Ora -839
A
1
10 -20c
lithic
debitage
cubic shatter
quartzite
1
0.4g
39
Ora -839
A
1
10 -20c
lithic
debitage
cubic shatter
quartzite
2
0.3g
40
Ora -839
A
1
20 -30c
shell
Chione undatella
B/E
2
41
Ora -839
A
1
20 -30c
shell
Chione sp.
B/E
14
42
Ora -839
A
1
20 -30c
shell
Chione californiensis
B /OC
21
43
Ora -839
A
1
20 -30c
shell
Foreria belched
1
44
Ora -839
A
1
20 -30c
shell
Astraea unclose
5
45
Ora -839
A
1
20 -30c
shell
Saxodomus nuttali
B/E
1
46
Ora -839
A
1
20 -30c
shell
Macoma nasuta
S/B
1
47
Ora -839
A
1
20 -30c
shell
Pseudochama exogyra
B /OC
6
48
Ora -839
A
1
20 -30c
shell
Neverita reclusians
B /OC
13
49
Ora -839
A
1
20 -30c
shell
I Argopecten sp.
B/E
13
50
Ora -839
A
1
20 -30c
shell
Acanthina spirata
1
51
Ora -839
A
1
20 -30c
shell
Ostrea
B /OC
6
52
Ora -839
A
1
20 -30c
shell
Bursa califomica.
B /OC
2
53
Ora -839
A
1
20 -30c
shell
Crepidula sp.
RS /OC
2
54
Ora -839
A
1
20 -30c
faunal
Roncador steamsii
otolith
left
1
55
Ora -839
A
1
20 -30c
faunal
bony fish
vertebra
1
56
Ora -839
A
1
20 -30c
faunal
bony fish
fin spine
1
57
Ora -839
A
1
20 -30c
faunal
shark
calcified
card.
1
58
Ora -839
A
1
20 -30c
faunal
shark
centrum
1
59
Ora -839
A
1
20 -30c
faunal
Myliobatis californica
tooth
1
60
Ora -839
A
1
20 -30c
faunal
Myliobatis californica
centrum
1
61
Ora -839
A
1
20 -30c
faunal
shark
centrum
burnt
1
62
Ora -839
A
1
20 -30c
faunal
shark
centrum
1
63
Ora -839
A
1
20 -30c
faunal
Rhinobatus productus
centrum
1
64
Ora -839
A
1
20 -30c
faunal
shark
centrum
1
R: \Projects \Newport1JD15 \Technical Reports \CulturalWchaeo Tech Rpt (pub }021610.doc D -2 Appendix D
Ranch
ORA -839 CATALOG
(Continued)
Catalog #
Site
Locus
Unit
Level
Class
Attribute 1
Attribute 2
Attribute 3
Attribute 4
Count
Wt.
65
Ora -839
A
1
20 -30c
faunal
small mammal
femur
fragment
2
66
Ora -839
A
1
20 -30c
lithic
flakes
tertiary
jasper /r. quartz
2
0.5
67
Ora -839
A
1
30-40
shell
Chione undatella
B/E
16
68
Ora -839
A
1
30-40
shell
Chione californiensis
B /OC
16
69
Ora -839
A
1
30-40
shell
Chione sp.
B/E
16
70
Ora -839
A
1
30-40
shell
Argopecten sp.
WE
17
71
Ora -839
A
1
30-40
shell
Pseudochama exogyra
B /OC
4
72
Ora -839
A
1
30-40
shell
Cerithidea califomica
1
73
Ora -839
A
1
30-40
shell
Neverita reclusians
4
74
Ora -839
A
1
30-40
shell
Kellia suborbicularis
RS
1
75
Ora -839
A
1
30-40
shell
Crepidula sp.
RS /OC
3
76
Ora -839
A
1
30-40
shell
Astraea undosa
RS /OC
1
77
Ora -839
A
1
30-40
shell
Calyptrea sp.
RS /OC
1
78
Ora -839
A
1
30-40
shell
Ostrea
B /OC
4
79
Ora -839
A
1
30-40
faunal
Myliobatis califorica
teeth
3
80
Ora -839
A
1
30-40
faunal
mammal
bone frag.
1
81
Ora -839
A
1
30-40
lithic
debitage
cubic shatter
1
1.0g
82
Ora -839
A
1
30-40
shell
Saxidomus nuttali
B/E
1
83
Ora -839
A
1
30-40
lithic
debitage
flake
(cf. felsite)
metavolcanic
1
4.3g
84
Ora -839
A
1
30 -40f
shell
Astraea unclose
Feature 1.
1
85
Ora -839
A
1
40 -50
shell
Chione undatella
B/E
9
86
Ora -839
A
1
40 -50
shell
Chione sp.
B/E
12
87
Ora -839
A
1
40 -50
shell
Chione fluctifraga
B/E
3
88
Ora -839
A
1
40 -50
shell
Chione californiensis
B /OC
56
89
Ora -839
A
1
40 -50
shell
Argopecten sp.
RS /OC
56
90
Ora -839
A
1
40 -50
shell
Neverita reclusians
B /OC
12
91
Ora -839
A
1
40 -50
shell
Hinnites
1
92
Ora -839
A
1
40 -50
shell
Ostrea lurida
B /OC
23
93
Ora -839
1
40 -50
shell
Astraea undosa
operculi
6
94
Ora -839
1
40 -50
shell
Mytilus spp.
RS /OC
2
95
Ora -839
flA
1
40 -50
shell
Pseudochama exogyre
RS /OC
1
96
Ora -839
1
40 - 50
shell
Bursa califorica
RS /OC
1
R: \Projects \Newport1J015 \Technical Reports \CulturalWchaeo Tech Rpt (pub }021610.doc D -3 Appendix D
Ranch
ORA -839 CATALOG
(Continued)
Catalog #
Site
Locus
Unit
Level
Class
Attribute 1
Attribute 2
Attribute 3
Attribute 4
Count
Wt.
97
Ora -839
A
1
40 -50
shell
Cerithidea californica
1
98
Ora -839
A
1
40 -50
shell
Crepidula sp.
RS /OC
6
99
Ora -839
A
1
40 -50
shell
Calyptrea sp.
RS /OC
1
100
Ora -839
A
1
40 -50
shell
Anomia peruviana
1
101
Ora -839
A
1
40 -50
shell
Acanthina spirata
1
102
Ora -839
A
1
40 -50
faunal
Cynoscion parvipinnus
otolith
right
1
103
Ora -839
A
1
40 -50
faunal
Rhinobatus productus
centrum
1
104
Ora -839
A
1
40 -50
faunal
Triakidae
centrum
frags.
2
105
Ora -839
A
1
40 -50
faunal
shark
centrum
1
106
Ora -839
A
1
40 -50
faunal
shark
centrum
frag
1
107
Ora -839
A
1
40 -50
faunal
Semicossyphus
pulcher
pharangeal
frag
1
108
Ora -839
A
1
40 -50
faunal
mammal
long bone
distal
1
109
Ora -839
A
1
40 -50
faunal
bony fish
quarate
frag
1
110
Ora -839
A
1
40 -50
faunal
mammal
bone
(rags.
3
111
Ora -839
A
1
40 -50
shell
Conus californicus
bead
spire - lopped
1
112
Ora -839
A
1
40 -50
debitage
flake
tertiary
chert
1
0.1g
113
Ora -839
A
1
40 -50
debitage
flake
primary
chert
1
0.3g
114
Ora -839
A
1
40 -50
debitage
core
tertiary
fragment
Monterey
1
6.4g
115
Ora -839
A
1
40 -50
debitage
flake
cubic shatter
quartzite
1
1.2g
116
Ora -839
A
1
40 -50
debitage
flake
cubic shatter
quartzite
1
0.5g
117
Ora -839
A
1
40 -50
shell
Gastropod
1
118
Ora -839
A
1
50 -60
shell
Chione undatella
B/E
13
119
Ora -839
A
1
50 -60
shell
Chione sp.
B/E
23
120
Ora -839
A
1
50 -60
shell
Chione californiensis
B /OC
28
121
Ora -839
A
1
50 -60
shell
Argopecten sp.
B/E
40
122
Ora -839
A
1
50 -60
shell
Mytilus spp.
RS/0G
4
123
Ora -839
A
1
50 -60
shell
Cerithidea califomica
2
125
Ora -839
A
1
50 -60
shell
Littorina scutulata
1
126
Ora -839
A
1
50 -60
shell
Conus californicus
RS /OC
1
127
Ora -839
A
1
50 -60
shell
Ocenebra japonica
RS /OC
1
128
Ora -839
A
1
50 -60
shell
Neverita reclusians
B /OC
4
R: \Projects \NewporAJ015 \Technical Reports \CulturalWchaeo Tech Rpt (pub }021610.doc D-4 Appendix D
Ranch
ORA -839 CATALOG
(Continued)
Catalog #
Site
Locus
Unit
Level
Class
Attribute 1
Attribute 2
Attribute 3
Attribute 4
Count
Wt.
129
Ora -839
A
1
50 -60
shell
Astraea undosa
2
130
Ora -839
A
1
50 -60
shell
Crepidula sp.
RS /OC
7
131
Ora -839
A
1
50 -60
shell
Ostrea laurida
B /OC
14
132
Ora -839
A
1
50 -60
shell
Calyptrea sp.
RS /OC
1
133
Ora -839
A
1
50 -60
shell
Psuedochama sp.
RS /OC
10
134
Ora -839
A
1
50 -60
faunal
Atractoscion noblis
right
1
135
Ora -839
A
1
50 -60
faunal
Myliobatis californica
teeth
burned
3
136
Ora -839
A
1
50 -60
faunal
Myliobatis californica
centrum
1
137
Ora -839
A
1
50 -60
faunal
Myliobatis californica
centrum
1
138
Ora -839
A
1
50 -60
faunal
shark
centrum
burned
fragment
1
139
Ora -839
A
1
50 -60
faunal
shark
centrum
1
140
Ora -839
A
1
50 -60
faunal
Myliobatis californica
centrum
fragment
1
141
Ora -839
A
1
50 -60
faunal
shark
centrum
fragment
1
142
Ora -839
A
1
50 -60
faunal
bony fish
burned
fragment
1
143
Ora -839
A
1
50 -60
faunal
snake
vertebra
1
144
Ora -839
A
1
50 -60
faunal
shark
centrum
1
145
Ora -839
A
1
50 -60
faunal
mammal
burned
fragments
4
146
Ora -839
A
1
50 -60
faunal
mammal
fragments
5
147
Ora -839
A
1
60 -70
shell
Chione undatella
7
148
Ora -839
A
1
60 -70
shell
Chione californiensis
8
149
Ora -839
A
1
60 -70
shell
Chione sp.
B/E
19
150
Ora -839
A
1
60 -70
shell
Neverita reclusians
B /OC
3
151
Ora -839
A
1
60 -70
shell
Tegula sp.
1
152
Ora -839
A
1
60 -70
shell
Cerithidea californica
1
153
Ora -839
A
1
60 -70
shell
Argopecten sp.
B/E
20
154
Ora -839
A
1
60 -70
shell
Crepidula sp.
RS /OC
3
155
Ora -839
A
1
60 -70
shell
Calyptrea sp.
RS /OC
1
156
Ora -839
A
1
60 -70
shell
gastropod
RS /OC
1
157
Ora -839
A
1
60 -70
shell
Anovia peruviana
RS /OC
1
158
Ora -839
A
1
60 -70
shell
Ostrea lurida
B /OC
10
159
Ora -839
A
1
60 -70
shell
Donax gouldi
S/B
1
160
Ora -839
A
1
60 -70
shell
Pseudochama exogyra
RS /OC
2
R: \Projects \Newport1JD15 \Technical Reports \CulturalWchaeo Tech Rpt (pub }021610.doc D -5 Appendix D
Ranch
ORA -839 CATALOG
(Continued)
Catalog #
Site
Locus
Unit
Level
Class
Attribute 1
Attribute 2
Attribute 3
Attribute 4
Count
Wt.
161
Ora -839
A
1
60 -70
shell
Mytilus spp.
RS /OC
tr.
162
Ora -839
A
1
60 -70
shell
Anomia peruviana
3
163
Ora -839
A
1
60 -70
shell
Astraea undosa
RS /OC
2
164
Ora -839
A
1
60 -70
faunal
Myliobatis californica
tooth
burned
1
165
Ora -839
A
1
60 -70
faunal
bony fish
quadrate
1
166
Ora -839
A
1
60 -70
faunal
Porichthys
vertebra
precaudal
1
167
Ora -839
A
1
60 -70
faunal
bony fish
vertebra
fragment
1
168
Ora -839
A
1
60 -70
faunal
Porichthys
vertebra
precaudal
burned
1
169
Ora -839
A
1
60 -70
faunal
Myliobatis californica
centrum
1
170
Ora -839
A
1
60 -70
faunal
Myliobatis californica
centrum
1
171
Ora -839
A
1
60 -70
faunal
shark
centrum
1
172
Ora -839
A
1
60 -70
faunal
Rhinobatus productus
centrum
1
173
Ora -839
A
1
60 -70
faunal
shark
centrum
fragment
1
174
Ora -839
A
1
60 -70
faunal
Triakidae
centrum
fragment
1
175
Ora -839
A
1
60 -70
faunal
mammal
fragment
2 burned
3
176
Ora -839
A
1
60 -70
faunal
snake
vertebra
1
177
Ora -839
A
1
60 -70
lithic
debitage
shatter
quartz
1
0.1g
178
Ora -839
A
1
60 -70
lithic
debitage
shatter
metavolcanic
1
0.1g
179
Ora -839
A
1
60 -70
lithic
debitage
shatter
Monterey
1
<0.1g
180
Ora -839
A
1
60 -70
lithic
debitage
tertiary
Quartzite
1
1.5g
181
Ora -839
A
1
60 -70
lithic
groundstone
fragment
glaucophane
schist
1
28.4g
182
Ora -839
A
1
70 -80
shell
Chione undatella
B/E
6
183
Ora -839
A
1
70 -80
shell
Chione sp.
B/E
9
184
Ora -839
A
1
70 -80
shell
Chione californiensis
B /OC
2
185
Ora -839
A
1
70 -80
shell
Argopecten sp.
B/E
13
186
Ora -839
A
1
70 -80
shell
Astraea undosa
RS /OC
2
187
Ora -839
A
1
70 -80
shell
Neverita reclusians
B /OC
1
188
Ora -839
A
1
70 -80
shell
Tegula sp.
1
189
Ora -839
A
1
70 -80
shell
Crepidula sp.
RS /OC
5
190
Ora -839
A
1
70 -80
shell
Chiton sp.
RS /OC
plate
1
191
Ora -839
A
1
70 -80
shell
Anomia peruviana
3
R: \Projects \NewporAJ015 \Technical Reports \CulturalWchaeo Tech Rpt (pub }021610.doc D -6 Appendix D
Ranch
ORA -839 CATALOG
(Continued)
Catalog #
Site
Locus
Unit
Level
Class
Attribute 1
Attribute 2
Attribute 3
Attribute 4
Count
Wt.
192
Ora -839
A
1
70 -80
shell
Gastropod
1
193
Ora -839
A
1
70 -80
shell
Ostrea lurida
B /OC
3
194
Ora -839
A
1
70 -80
faunal
Rhinobatus productus
centrum
1
195
Ora -839
A
1
70 -80
faunal
Porichthys
vertebra
precaudal
1
196
Ora -839
A
1
70 -80
faunal
bony fish
vertebra
fragment
1
197
Ora -839
A
1
70 -80
faunal
shark
centrum
1
198
Ora -839
A
1
70 -80
faunal
Rhinobatus productus
centrum
fragment
1
199
Ora -839
A
1
70 -80
faunal
Myliobatis californica
tooth
burned
1
200
Ora -839
A
1
70 -80
faunal
Triakidae
centrum
fragment
1
201
Ora -839
A
1
70 -80
faunal
rabbit
bone
proximal
1
202
Ora -839
A
1
70 -80
faunal
mammal
bone
fragment
7
203
Ora -839
A
1
70 -80
faunal
mammal
bone
fragment
burned
4
204
Ora -839
A
1
70 -80
faunal
snake
vertebra
1
205
Ora -839
A
1
70 -80
shell
Mytilus spp.
RS /OC
tr.
206
Ora -839
A
1
70 -80
lithic
debitage
debitage
flake -bulb
obsidian
1
<0.1g
207
Ora -839
A
1
70 -80
lithic
debitage
shatter
1
0.2g
208
Ora -839
A
1
70 -80
lithic
debitage
shatter
primary
1
<0.1g
209
Ora -839
A
2
0 -10
shell
Chione spp.
1
210
Ora -839
A
2
0 -10
faunal
mammal
bone
fragment
2
211
Ora -839
A
2
0 -10
lithic
debitage
cubic shatter
3 quartzite; 1
chart; 1
metavolcanic
5
2.9g
212
Ora -839
A
2
10 -20c
shell
Chione californiensis
B /OC
4
213
Ora -839
A
2
10 -20c
shell
Chione spp.
B/E
12
214
Ora -839
A
2
10 -20c
shell
Neverita reclusianus
B /OC
6
215
Ora -839
A
2
10 -20c
shell
Astrea undosa
RS /OC
6
216
Ora -839
A
2
10 -20c
faunal
Myliobatis californica
tooth
1
217
Ora -839
A
2
10 -20c
lithic
debitage
shatter
quartz
1
0.3g
218
Ora -839
A
2
10 -20c
lithic
debitage
shatter
burnt
chart
1
0.7g
219
Ora -839
A
2
10 -20c
lithic
debitage
flake
bulb
Monterey chart
1
<0.1g
220
Ora -839
A
2
10 -20C
lithic
flake
fragment base
retouched
quartz
1
1.4g
221
Ora -839
A
2
20 -30
shell
Chione undatella
1
R: \Projects \NewporAJ015 \Technical Reports \CulturalWchaeo Tech Rpt (pub }021610.doc D -7 Appendix D
Ranch
ORA -839 CATALOG
(Continued)
Catalog #
Site
Locus
Unit
Level
Class
Attribute 1
Attribute 2
Attribute 3
Attribute 4
Count
Wt.
222
Ora -839
A
2
20 -30
shell
Chione californiensis
3
223
Ora -839
A
2
20 -30
shell
Chione spp.
7
224
Ora -839
A
2
20 -30
shell
Ostrea lurida
1
225
Ora -839
A
2
20 -30
shell
Argopecten sp.
1
226
Ora -839
A
2
20 -30
shell
Psuedochama sp.
1
227
Ora -839
A
2
20 -30
shell
Neverita reclusianus
2
228
Ora -839
A
2
20 -30
shell
Astraea undosa
tr.
229
Ora -839
A
2
20 -30
faunal
Myliobatis californica
tooth
burnt
1
230
Ora -839
A
2
20 -30
faunal
shark
centrum
fragment
1
231
Ora -839
A
2
20 -30
faunal
mammal
bone
fragment
1
232
Ora -839
A
2
20 -30
faunal
mammal
bone
fragment
burnt
1
233
Ora -839
A
2
20 -30
lithic
debitage
cubic shatter
metavolcanic
3
1.4g
234
Ora -839
A
2
20 -30
lithic
debitage
shatter
Monterey chart
1
0.2g
235
Ora -839
A
2
30-40
shell
Chione spp.
2
236
Ora -839
A
2
30-40
shell
Chione californiensis
1
237
Ora -839
A
2
30-40
shell
Neverita reclusianus
2
238
Ora -839
A
2
30-40
shell
Ostrea lurida
1
239
Ora -839
A
2
30 -40
shell
Pseudochama exogyra
tr.
240
Ora -839
A
2
30-40
shell
Gastropod
1
241
Ora -839
A
2
30-40
faunal
Myliobatis californica
tooth
burnt
1
242
Ora -839
A
2
30-40
faunal
shark
clasper
cartilage
calcified
1
243
Ora -839
A
2
30-40
lithic
debitage
flake
pressure?
rosy quartz
2
0.1g
244
Ora -839
A
2
30-40
lithic
debitage
shatter
Monterey chart
2
4.3g
245
Ora -839
A
2
30-40
lithic
debitage
shatter
I
metavolcanic
4
1.5g
246
Ora -839
A
2
40 -50
shell
Chione californiensis
3
247
Ora -839
A
2
40 -50
shell
Chione spp.
11
248
Ora -839
A
2
40 -50
shell
Argopecten sp.
2
249
Ora -839
A
2
40 -50
shell
Saxidomus nuttali
1
250
Ora -839
A
2
40 -50
shell
Neverita reclusianus
1
251
Ora -839
A
2
40 -50
shell
Astraea undosa
tr.
252
Ora -839
A
2
40 -50
faunal
shark
tantrum
1
253
Ora -839
A
2
40 -50
faunal
mammal bone
I fragments
5
R: \Projects \Newport1JD15 \Technical Reports \CulturalWchaeo Tech Rpt (pub }021610.doc D -8 Appendix D
Ranch
ORA -839 CATALOG
(Continued)
Catalog #
Site
Locus
Unit
Level
Class
Attribute 1
Attribute 2
Attribute 3
Attribute 4
Count
Wt.
254
Ora -839
A
2
40 -50
lithic
flake
bulb +shatter
quartzite
2
6.2g
255
Ora -839
A
2
40 -50
lithic
flake
shatter
quartzite
1
0.2g
256
Ora -839
A
2
50 -60
shell
Chione californiensis
10
257
Ora -839
A
2
50 -60
shell
Chione spp.
7
258
Ora -839
A
2
50 -60
shell
Argopecten sp.
10
259
Ora -839
A
2
50 -60
shell
Neverita reclusianus
1
260
Ora -839
A
2
50 -60
shell
Pseudochama exogyra
4
261
Ora -839
A
2
50 -60
shell
Astraea unclose
tr.
262
Ora -839
A
2
50 -60
shell
Tivela stultorum
1
263
Ora -839
A
2
50 -60
faunal
Myliobatis californica
centrum
1
264
Ora -839
A
2
50 -60
faunal
mammal
bone
calcined
1
265
Ora -839
A
2
50 -60
faunal
mammal
bone
fragment
1
266
Ora -839
A
2
50 -60
lithic
utilized flake
utilized edge
quartzite
1
75.3g
267
Ora -839
A
2
50 -60
lithic
primary flake
shatter
Monterey chert
1
7.8g
268
Ora -839
A
2
50 -60
lithic
tertiary flakes
shatter
Monterey chert
3
3.8g
269
Ora -839
A
2
60 -70
shell
Chione spp.
2
270
Ora -839
A
2
60 -70
shell
Chione californiensis
2
271
Ora -839
A
2
60 -70
shell
Chione undatella
1
272
Ora -839
A
2
60 -70
shell
Argopecten sp.
2
273
Ora -839
A
2
60 -70
shell
Pseudochama exogyra
1
274
Ora -839
A
2
60 -70
shell
Ostrea lurida
tr.
275
Ora -839
A
2
60 -70
shell
Neverita reclusianus
tr.
276
Ora -839
A
2
60 -70
faunal
Myliobatis californica
tooth
burnt
1
277
Ora -839
A
2
60 -70
faunal
shark
centrum
fragment
278
Ora -839
A
2
70 -80
shell
Chione spp.
14
279
Ora -839
A
2
70 -80
shell
Chione undatella
2
280
Ora -839
A
2
70 -80
shell
Chione californiensis
9
281
Ora -839
A
2
70 -80
shell
Argopecten sp.
14
282
Ora -839
A
2
70 -80
shell
Neverita reclusianus
5
283
Ora -839
A
2
70 -80
shell
Pseudochama exogyra
5
284
Ora -839
A
2
70 -80
shell
Astraea unclose
1
285
Ora -839
A
2
70 -80
shell
Ostrea lurida
3
R: \Projects \Newport1JD15 \Technical Reports \CulturalWchaeo Tech Rpt (pub }021610.doc D -9 Appendix D
Ranch
ORA -839 CATALOG
(Continued)
Catalog #
Site
Locus
Unit
Level
Class
Attribute 1
Attribute 2
Attribute 3
Attribute 4
Count
Wt.
286
Ora -839
A
2
70 -80
shell
Crepidula sp.
1
287
Ora -839
A
2
70 -80
shell
Ocenebra lurida
1
288
Ora -839
A
2
70 -80
shell
bivalve
1
289
Ora -839
A
2
70 -80
faunal
shark
centrum
burnt
1
290
Ora -839
A
2
70 -80
faunal
Myliobatis califomica
tooth
1
291
Ora -839
A
2
70 -80
faunal
mammal
bone
fragment
8
292
Ora -839
A
2
70 -80
faunal
mammal sm.
bone
fragment
1
293
Ora -839
A
2
70 -80
faunal
Porichthys
vertebra
precaudal
fragment
1
294
Ora -839
A
2
70 -80
lithic
core
battered
quartz
1
50.Og
295
Ora -839
A
2
70 -80
lithic
debitage
shatter
Monterey chert
1
0.2g
296
Ora -839
A
2
70 -80
lithic
debitage
shatter
1 pressure
rosy quartz
2
0.6g
297
Ora -839
A
2
70 -80
lithic
debitage
shatter
quartz
1
0.2g
298
Ora -839
A
2
80 -90
shell
Chione spp.
8
299
Ora -839
A
2
80 -90
shell
Chione undatella
9
300
Ora -839
A
2
80 -90
shell
Chione californiensis
9
301
Ora -839
A
2
80 -90
shell
Pseudochama exogyra
5
302
Ora -839
A
2
80 -90
shell
Hinnites sp.
1
303
Ora -839
A
2
80 -90
shell
Argopecten sp.
21
304
Ora -839
A
2
80 -90
shell
Neverita reclusianus
3
305
Ora -839
A
2
80 -90
shell
Bursa californica
1
306
Ora -839
A
2
80 -90
shell
Crepidula sp.
1
307
Ora -839
A
2
80 -90
shell
Astraea undosa
1
308
Ora -839
A
2
80 -90
shell
Ostrea lurida
8
309
Ora -839
A
2
80 -90
shell
Mytilus sp.
1
310
Ora -839
A
2
80 -90
faunal
shark
centrum
1
311
Ora -839
A
2
80 -90
faunal
mammal
bone
fragment
1
312
Ora -839
A
2
80 -90
lithic
debitage
shatter
Monterey chert
1
0.1
313
Ora -839
A
2
80 -90
lithic
debitage
shatter
quartzite
2
1.4
314
Ora -839
A
2
80 -90
lithic
debitage
shatter
chart
0.2
315
Ora -839
A
2
90- sterile
shell
Chione spp.
6
316
Ora -839
A
2
90- sterile
shell
Chione californiensis
8
317
Ora -839
A
2
90- sterile
shell
Chione undatella
4
R: \Projects \Newport1J015 \Technical Reports \CUlturalWchaeo Tech Rpt (pub }021610.doc D -10 Appendix D
Ranch
ORA -839 CATALOG
(Continued)
Catalog #
Site
Locus
Unit
Level
Class
Attribute 1
Attribute 2
Attribute 3
Attribute 4
Count
Wt.
318
Ora -839
A
2
90- sterile
shell
Argopecten sp.
6
319
Ora -839
A
2
90- sterile
shell
Astraea undosa
3
320
Ora -839
A
2
90- sterile
shell
Neverita reclusianus
2
321
Ora -839
A
2
90- sterile
shell
Ostrea lurida
2
322
Ora -839
A
2
90- sterile
shell
Crepidula sp.
2
323
Ora -839
A
2
90- sterile
shell
Mollusca sp.
1
324
Ora -839
A
2
90- sterile
shell
Mytilus sp.
tr.
325
Ora -839
A
2
90- sterile
faunal
shark
centrum
1
326
Ora -839
A
2
90- sterile
lithic
manuport
crystaline faces
quartz
1
8.5g
327
Ora -839
B
1
0 -10
shell
Chione californiensis
3
328
Ora -839
B
1
0 -10
shell
Chione spp.
13
329
Ora -839
B
1
0 -10
shell
Argopecten sp.
1
330
Ora -839
B
1
0 -10
shell
Neverita reclusianus
3
331
Ora -839
B
1
0 -10
shell
Laevicardium sp.
1
332
Ora -839
B
1
0 -10
shell
Astraea undosa
1
333
Ora -839
B
1
0 -10
shell
Bursa californica
1
334
Ora -839
B
1
0 -10
shell
Cerithidea californica
1
335
Ora -839
B
1
0 -10
shell
Ostrea lurida
2
336
Ora -839
B
1
0 -10
shell
Mytilus sp.
1
337
Ora -839
B
1
0 -10
lithic
flake
shatter
quartzite
1
0.6g
338
Ora -839
B
1
10 -20c
shell
Chione spp.
10
339
Ora -839
B
1
10 -20c
shell
Neverita reclusianus
1
340
Ora -839
B
1
10 -20c
shell
Argopecten sp.
2
341
Ora -839
B
1
10 -20c
shell
Psuedochama exogyra
3
342
Ora -839
B
1
10 -20c
shell
Astraea undosa
1
343
Ora -839
B
1
10 -20c
shell
Ostrea lurida
3
344
Ora -839
B
1
10 -20c
shell
Crepidula sp.
1
345
Ora -839
B
1
10 -20c
faunal
mammal
bone
fragment
burnt
3
346
Ora -839
1
10 -20c
shell
Gastropod
2
347
Ora -839
1
20 -30
shell
Chione spp.
6
348
Ora -839
flB
1
20 -30
shell
Argopecten sp.
4
349
Ora -839
1
20 -3 0
shell
Astraea undosa
tr.
R: \Projects \Newport1J015 \Technical Reports \CulturalWchaeo Tech Rpt (pub }021610.doc D -11 Appendix D
Ranch
ORA -839 CATALOG
(Continued)
Catalog #
Site
Locus
Unit
Level
Class
Attribute 1
Attribute 2
Attribute 3
Attribute 4
Count
Wt.
350
Ora -839
B
1
20 -30
shell
Gastropod
columella
1
351
Ora -839
B
1
20 -30
faunal
Rhinobatus productus
centrum
1
352
Ora -839
B
1
20 -30
lithic
flake
bulb /shatter
Monterey chart
1
0.9g
353
Ora -839
B
1
20 -30
lithic
flake
shatter
quartzite
2
0.7g
354
Ora -839
B
1
30-40
shell
Chione californiensis
1
355
Ora -839
B
1
30-40
faunal
mammal
bone
small
1
356
Ora -839
B
1
30-40
lithic
debitage
flake +shatter
1 bulb
Monterey chart
3
1.8g
357
Ora -839
B
1
30-40
lithic
debitage
shatter
chart
4
1.2g
358
Ora -839
B
1
30-40
lithic
debitage
flake +shatter
quartzite
2
4.1g
359
Ora -839
B
1
40 -50
shell
Neverita reclusianus
1
360
Ora -839
B
1
40 -50
lithic
flake
tertiary
rosy quartz
1
1.Og
361
Ora -839
B
1
40 -50
lithic
mano
bifacial
fragment
diorite
1
157.98
362
Ora -839
B
1
50 -60
faunal
shark
centrum
bead
1
363
Ora -839
B
1
50 -60
faunal
Myliobatis californica
centrum
1
364
Ora -839
B
1
50 -60
faunal
mammal
bone
fragments
4
365
Ora -839
B
1
50 -60
lithic
flake
bulb
pressure
obsidian
1
0.1g
366
Ora -839
B
1
50 -60
lithic
flake
shatter
rosy quartz
1
0.2g
367
Ora -839
B
1
60 -70
shell
Chione californiensis
1
368
Ora -839
B
1
60 -70
shell
Argopecten sp.
1
369
Ora -839
B
1
60 -70
faunal
Myliobatis californica
bone
calcined
1
370
Ora -839
B
1
60 -70
lithic
flake
tertiary
large
quartz
1
15.5g
371
Ora -839
B
1
60 -70
lithic
debitage
shatter
Monterey chart
2
1.6g
372
Ora -839
B
1
60 -70
lithic
debitage
shatter
burnt
chert
1
0.8g
373
Ora -839
B
1
60 -70
lithic
debitage
flake
bulb
metavolcanic
1
0.7g
374
Ora -839
B
1
60 -70
lithic
debitage
core
retouch
flake
1
5.Og
375
Ora -839
B
2
0 -10
shell
Psuedochama sp.
2
376
Ora -839
B
2
0 -10
shell
Neverita reclusianus
1
377
Ora -839
B
2
0 -10
shell
Chione spp.
4
378
Ora -839
B
2
0 -10
shell
Astraea undosa
1
379
Ora -839
B
2
0 -10
shell
Ostrea lurida
3
380
Ora -839
B
2
6_ -10
shell
Molluscs
1
381
Ora -839
B
2
0 -10
faunal
mammal
bone
fragments
2
R: \Projects \Newport1J015 \Technical Reports \CUlturalWchaeo Tech Rpt (pub }021610.doc D -12 Appendix D
Ranch
ORA -839 CATALOG
(Continued)
Catalog #
Site
Locus
Unit
Level
Class
Attribute 1
Attribute 2
Attribute 3
Attribute 4
Count
Wt.
382
Ora -839
B
2
0 -10
lithic
debitage
shatter
Monterey chert
2
0.5g
383
Ora -839
B
2
0 -10
lithic
debitage
shatter
rosy quartz
2
0.5g
384
Ora -839
B
2
0 -10
lithic
debitage
flake
metavolcanic
1
0.3g
385
Ora -839
B
2
10 -20c
shell
Chione californiensis
2
386
Ora -839
B
2
10 -20c
shell
Chione spp.
4
387
Ora -839
B
2
10 -20c
shell
Argopecten sp.
1
388
Ora -839
B
2
10 -20c
shell
Neverita reclusianus
1
389
Ora -839
B
2
10 -20c
shell
Astraea unclose
tr.
390
Ora -839
B
2
10 -20c
shell
Ostrea lurida
3
391
Ora -839
B
2
10 -20c
shell
Psuedochama sp.
1
392
Ora -839
B
2
10 -20c
shell
gastropod
columella
1
393
Ora -839
B
2
10 -20c
faunal
Roncadorstearnsii
otolith
1
394
Ora -839
B
2
10 -20c
faunal
mammal
bone
fragment
1
395
Ora -839
B
2
10 -20c
faunal
mammal
bone
3
396
Ora -839
B
2
10 -20c
historic
glass
opalized
1
397
Ora -839
B
2
10 -20c
lithic
debitage
quartzite
1
0.3g
398
Ora -839
B
2
10 -20c
lithic
debitage
metavolcanic
1
2.6g
399
Ora -839
B
2
20 -30
lithic
debitage
shatter
Monterey chert
1
0.9g
400
Ora -839
B
2
20 -30
lithic
debitage
shatter
metavolcanic
1
0.3g
401
Ora -839
B
2
20 -30
shell
Argopecten sp.
tr.
402
Ora -839
B
2
20 -30
faunal
mammal
1
403
Ora -839
B
2
30-40
shell
Molluscs
1
404
Ora -839
B
2
30-40
lithic
debitage
1 flake
1 shatter
andesite
2
1.5g
405
Ora -839
B
2
30 -40
lithic
debitage
flakes
primary
metavolcanic
2
29.2g
406
Ora -839
B
2
30 -40
lithic
debitage
flake
tertiary
rosy quartz
1
0.3g
407
Ora -839
B
2
30-40
lithic
debitage
flake
tertiary
chert
1
1.1g
408
Ora -839
B
2
40 -50
shell
Chione californiensis
tr.
409
Ora -839
B
2
40 -50
lithic
debitage
flake
tertiary
Monterey chert
1
8.1g
410
Ora -839
B
2
40 -50
lithic
debitage
shatter
chert
2
0.9g
411
Ora -839
B
2
40 -50
lithic
debitage
shatter
andesite
2
0.8g
412
Ora -839
B
2
50 -60
shell
Leptopectin sp.
fossil
413
Ora -839
B
2
50 -60
faunal
mammal
bone
fragment
2
R: \Projects \Newport1J015 \Technical Reports \CulturalWchaeo Tech Rpt (pub }021610.doc D -13 Appendix D
Ranch
ORA -839 CATALOG
(Continued)
Catalog #
Site
Locus
Unit
Level
Class
Attribute 1
Attribute 2
Attribute 3
Attribute 4
Count
Wt.
414
Ora -839
B
2
50 -60
lithic
debitage
flake
tertiary
Monterey chert
1
0.3g
415
Ora -839
B
2
50 -60
lithic
debitage
flakes
tertiary
quartzite
2
0.7g
416
Ora -839
B
2
50 -60
lithic
debitage
shatter
quartzite
1
417
Ora -839
B
2
60 -70
shell
Argopecten sp.
tr.
418
Ora -839
B
2
60 -70
lithic
debitage
shatter
Monterey chart
1
0.3g
419
Ora -839
B
2
60 -70
lithic
debitage
shatter
quartzite
1
0.2g
420
Ora -839
B
2
60 -70
lithic
debitage
shatter
1 flake
andesite
3
1.3g
421
Ora -839
B
2
70 -80
shell
Chione undatella
3
422
Ora -839
B
2
70 -80
shell
Chione spp.
4
423
Ora -839
B
2
70 -80
faunal
Myliobatis californica
tooth
burnt
1
424
Ora -839
B
2
70 -80
faunal
mammal
bone
fragment
burnt
1
425
Ora -839
B
2
80 -90
shell
Chione sp.
3
426
Ora -839
B
2
80 -90
shell
Argopecten sp.
tr.
427
Ora -839
C
1
0 -10
shell
Chione undatella
1
428
Ora -839
C
1
0 -10
shell
Chione spp.
13
429
Ora -839
C
1
0 -10
shell
Chione californiensis
9
430
Ora -839
C
1
0 -10
shell
Chione fluctifraga
2
431
Ora -839
C
1
0 -10
shell
Neverita reclusianus
2
432
Ora -839
C
1
0 -10
shell
Laevicardium sp.
1
433
Ora -839
C
1
0 -10
faunal
Myliobatis californica
tooth
burnt
1
434
Ora -839
C
1
0 -10
shell
Astraea undosa
tr.
435
Ora -839
C
1
0 -10
shell
Psuedochama exogyra
1
436
Ora -839
C
1
0 -10
shell
Gastropod
2
437
Ora -839
C
1
0 -10
shell
Ostrea lurida
1
438
Ora -839
C
1
0 -10
faunal
mammal
bone
2 burnt
4
439
Ora -839
C
1
0 -10
shell
Argopecten sp.
9
440
Ora -839
C
1
0 -10
lithic
debitage
flake
primary
andesite
1
8.8g
441
Ora -839
C
1
0 -10
lithic
debitage
shatter
quartz
1
0.2g
442
Ora -839
C
1
0 -10
lithic
debitage
shatter
tertiary
metavolcanic
2
13.5g
443
Ora -839
C
1
0 -10
lithic
debitage
shatter
Monterey chert
2
2.1g
444
Ora -839
C
1
10 -20c
shell
Chione spp.
19
445
Ora -839
C
1
10 -20c
shell
Chione californiensis
11
R: \Projects \Newport1J015 \Technical Reports \CulturalWchaeo Tech Rpt (pub }021610.doc D -14 Appendix D
Ranch
ORA -839 CATALOG
(Continued)
Catalog #
Site
Locus
Unit
Level
Class
Attribute 1
Attribute 2
Attribute 3
Attribute 4
Count
Wt.
446
Ora -839
C
1
10 -20c
shell
Chione undatella
6
447
Ora -839
C
1
10 -20c
shell
Neverita reclusianus
7
448
Ora -839
C
1
10 -20c
shell
Argopecten sp.
2
449
Ora -839
C
1
10 -20c
shell
Astraea undosa
3
450
Ora -839
C
1
10 -20c
shell
Psuedochama sp.
2
451
Ora -839
C
1
10 -20c
faunal
shark
calcified
cartilage
1
452
Ora -839
C
1
10 -20c
lithic
debitage
shatter
same?
quartzite
4
11.9g
453
Ora -839
C
1
20 -30
shell
Chione californiensis
6
454
Ora -839
C
1
20 -30
shell
Chione undatella
7
455
Ora -839
C
1
20 -30
shell
Chione spp.
11
456
Ora -839
C
1
20 -30
shell
Neverita reclusianus
4
457
Ora -839
C
1
20 -30
shell
Pseudochama exogyra
5
458
Ora -839
C
1
20 -30
shell
Argopecten sp.
3
459
Ora -839
C
1
20 -30
shell
Astraea undosa
1
460
Ora -839
C
1
20 -30
faunal
mammal
bone
fragment
2
461
Ora -839
C
1
20 -30
lithic
debitage
secondary
flake; shatter
battered
metavolcanic
2
17.9g
462
Ora -839
C
1
20 -30
lithic
debitage
secondary
flake; shatter
battered
metavolcanic
2
23.2g
463
Ora -839
C
1
30-40
shell
Chione californiensis
10
464
Ora -839
C
1
30-40
shell
Chione undatella
5
465
Ora -839
C
1
30-40
Chione spp.
25
466
Ora -839
C
1
30-40
shell
Argopecten sp.
24
467
Ora -839
C
1
30-40
shell
Neverita reclusianus
2
468
Ora -839
C
1
30-40
shell
Psuedochama sp.
2
469
Ora -839
C
1
30-40
shell
Astraea undosa
3
470
Ora -839
C
1
30-40
shell
Crepidula sp.
2
471
Ora -839
C
1
30-40
shell
Gastropod
1
472
Ora -839
C
1
30-40
faunal
Myliobatis californica
tooth
2
473
Ora -839
C
I 1
30-40
faunal
I shark
I centrum
1
474
Ora -839
C
1
30-40
faunal
shark
centrum
1
475
Ora -839
C
1
30 -40
faunal
Porichthys myriaster
otolith
1
R: \Projects \NewporAJ015 \Technical Reports \CulturalWchaeo Tech Rpt (pub }021610.doc D -1$ Appendix D
Ranch
ORA -839 CATALOG
(Continued)
Catalog #
Site
Locus
Unit
Level
Class
Attribute 1
Attribute 2
Attribute 3
Attribute 4
Count
Wt.
476
Ora -839
C
1
30 -40
faunal
mammal
bone
3 burnt
4
477
Ora -839
C
1
30 -40
lithic
debitage
flake
primary
metavolcanic
3
36.2g
478
Ora -839
C
1
30 -40
lithic
debitage
secondary
flake; shatter
Monterey chart
1
3.Og
479
Ora -839
C
1
30-40
lithic
debitage
flake
tertiary
metavolcanic
4
1.9g
480
Ora -839
C
1
30-40
shell
Chione californiensis
feature 1
1
481
Ora -839
C
1
30-40
shell
Chione spp.
feature 1
1
482
Ora -839
C
1
30-40
shell
Mytilus sp.
feature 1
trace
483
Ora -839
C
1
30-40
shell
Argopecten sp.
feature 1
1
484
Ora -839
C
1
30-40
shell
Gastropod
feature 1
1
485
Ora -839
C
1
30-40
shell
Ostrea lurida
feature 1
1
486
Ora -839
C
1
30-40
shell
Chione spp.
c -14 date
feature 1
1
487
Ora -839
C
1
30-40
shell
Astraea undosa
c -14 date
feature 1
1
488
Ora -839
C
1
40 -50
shell
Chione californiensis
15
489
Ora -839
C
1
40 -50
shell
Chione fluctifraga
1
490
Ora -839
C
1
40 -50
shell
Chione undatella
6
491
Ora -839
C
1
40 -50
shell
Chione spp.
15
492
Ora -839
C
1
40 -50
shell
Psuedochama sp.
6
493
Ora -839
C
1
40 -50
shell
Saxidomus nuttali
2
494
Ora -839
C
1
40 -50
shell
Crepidula sp.
3
495
Ora -839
C
1
40 -50
shell
Anomia peruviana
1
496
Ora -839
C
1
40 -50
shell
Mytilus sp.
trace
497
Ora -839
C
1
40 -50
shell
Ostrea lurida
9
498
Ora -839
C
1
40 -50
shell
Argopecten sp.
28
499
Ora -839
C
1
40 -50
shell
Neverita reclusianus
6
500
Ora -839
C
1
40 -50
shell
Astraea undosa
3
501
Ora -839
C
1
40 -50
shell
Gastropod
columella
1
502
Ora -839
C
1
40 -50
faunal
Myliobatis californica
tooth
1
503
Ora -839
C
1
40 -50
faunal
Myliobatis californica
centrum
Fragment
1
504
Ora -839
C
1
40 -50
faunal
Triakidae
centrum
Fragment
1
505
Ora -839
C
1
40 -50
faunal
Myliobatis californica
centrum
fragment
1
506
Ora -839
C
1
40 -50
faunal
Myliobatis californica
centrum
1
R: \Projects \NewporAJ015 \Technical Reports \CUlturalWchaeo Tech Rpt (pub }021610.doc D -16 Appendix D
Ranch
ORA -839 CATALOG
(Continued)
Catalog #
Site
Locus
Unit
Level
Class
Attribute 1
Attribute 2
Attribute 3
Attribute 4
Count
Wt.
507
Ora -839
C
1
40 -50
faunal
small mammal
longbone
fragment
1
508
Ora -839
C
1
40 -50
lithic
flake
tertiary
obsidian
1
1.0g
509
Ora -839
C
1
40 -50
lithic
debitage
secondary
metavolcanic
1
14.6g
510
Ora -839
C
1
40 -50
lithic
debitage
secondary
flake; shatter
quartzite
1
17.1g
511
Ora -839
C
1
50 -60
shell
Chione californiensis
3
512
Ora -839
C
1
50 -60
shell
Chione spp.
6
513
Ora -839
C
1
50 -60
shell
Argopecten sp.
19
514
Ora -839
C
1
50 -60
shell
Psuedochama sp.
4
515
Ora -839
C
1
50 -60
shell
Cerithidea sp.
1
516
Ora -839
C
1
50 -60
shell
Neverita reclusianus
1
517
Ora -839
C
1
50 -60
shell
Mytilus sp.
1
518
Ora -839
C
1
50 -60
shell
Crepidula sp.
1
519
Ora -839
C
1
50 -60
shell
I Calyptraea sp.
1
520
Ora -839
C
1
50 -60
shell
Buccindae
1
521
Ora -839
C
1
50 -60
shell
Astraea undosa
2
522
Ora -839
C
1
50 -60
shell
Ostrea lurida
1
523
Ora -839
C
1
50 -60
shell
Gastropod
1
524
Ora -839
C
1
50 -60
shell
Anomia peruviana
1
525
Ora -839
C
1
50 -60
faunal
Myliobatis californica
teeth
burned
2
526
Ora -839
C
1
50 -60
faunal
Myliobatis californica
centrum
1
527
Ora -839
C
1
50 -60
faunal
Myliobatis californica
centrum
1
528
Ora -839
C
1
50 -60
faunal
I Myliobatis californica
centrum
1
529
Ora -839
C
1
50 -60
faunal
bone
1
530
Ora -839
C
1
50 -60
faunal
mammal
bone frag
1 burned
3
531
Ora -839
C
1
50 -60
lithic
debitage
shatter
quartzite
1
0.4g
532
Ora -839
C
1
50 -60
lithic
debitage
shatter
granitic
1
2.3g
533
Ora -839
C
1
60 -70
shell
Chione undatella
3
534
Ora -839
C
1
60 -70
shell
Chione spp.
4
535
Ora -839
C
1
60 -70
shell
Calyptraea sp.
2
536
Ora -839
C
1
60 -70
shell
Argopecten sp.
9
537
Ora -839
C
1
60 -70
shell
Neverita reclusianus
1
R: \Projects \Newport1J015 \Technical Reports \CulturalWchaeo Tech Rpt (pub }021610.doc D -17 Appendix D
Ranch
ORA -839 CATALOG
(Continued)
Catalog #
Site
Locus
Unit
Level
Class
Attribute 1
Attribute 2
Attribute 3
Attribute 4
Count
wt.
538
Ora -839
C
1
60 -70
shell
Mytilus sp.
trace
539
Ora -839
C
1
60 -70
shell
Psuedochama sp.
1
540
Ora -839
C
1
60 -70
shell
Ostrea lurida
1
541
Ora -839
C
1
60 -70
shell
shark
centrum
1
542
Ora -839
C
1
60 -70
shell
Crepidula sp.
1
543
Ora -839
C
1
60 -70
shell
Astraea undosa
trace
544
Ora -839
C
2
0 -10
shell
Chione fluctifraga
1
545
Ora -839
C
2
0 -10
shell
Chione spp.
8
546
Ora -839
C
2
0 -10
shell
Argopecten sp.
3
547
Ora -839
C
2
0 -10
shell
Astraea undosa
1
548
Ora -839
C
2
0 -10
shell
Gastropod
columella
1
549
Ora -839
C
2
0 -10
shell
Crepidula sp.
1
550
Ora -839
C
2
0 -10
faunal
Myliobatis californica
centrum
1
551
Ora -839
C
2
0 -10
faunal
bone
fragments
1
552
Ora -839
C
2
0 -10
lithic
flake
obsidian
1
>0.1g
553
Ora -839
C
2
0 -10
lithic
debitage
shatter
Monterey chart
2
13.5g
554
Ora -839
C
2
0 -10
lithic
debitage
shatter
Quartz
1
8.8g
555
Ora -839
C
2
0 -10
lithic
debitage
shatter
metavolcanic
1
0.7g
556
Ora -839
C
2
10 -20c
shell
Chione spp.
15
557
Ora -839
C
2
10 -20c
shell
Chione californiensis
4
558
Ora -839
C
2
10 -20c
shell
Chione fluctifraga
3
559
Ora -839
C
2
10 -20c
shell
Argopecten sp.
5
560
Ora -839
C
2
10 -20c
shell
Neverita redusianus
2
561
Ora -839
C
2
10 -20c
shell
Ostrea lurida
3
562
Ora -839
C
2
10 -20c
shell
Gastropod ?
columella
1
563
Ora -839
C
2
10 -20c
faunal
Myliobatis californica
tooth
1
564
Ora -839
C
2
10 -20c
faunal
Myliobatis californica
centrum
1
565
Ora -839
C
2
10 -20c
faunal
mammal
bone
1
566
Ora -839
C
2
10 -20c
glass
bottle
clear
fragment
w /bubbles
1
567
Ora -839
C
2
10 -20c
shell
Gastropod
1
568
Ora -839
C
2
10 -20c
lithic
debitage
shatter
Monterey chert
1
1.2g
569
Ora -839
C
2
10 -20c
shell
Astraea unclose
1
R: \Projects \Newport1J015 \Technical Reports \CulturalWchaeo Tech Rpt (pub }021610.doc D -18 Appendix D
Ranch
ORA -839 CATALOG
(Continued)
Catalog #
Site
Locus
Unit
Level
Class
Attribute 1
Attribute 2
Attribute 3
Attribute 4
Count
Wt.
570
Ora -839
C
2
10 -20c
lithic
debitage
shatter
metavolcanic
2
2.2g
571
Ora -839
C
2
10 -20c
lithic
debitage
flake
secondary
metavolcanic
1
4.7g
572
Ora -839
C
2
20 -30c
shell
Chione fluctifraga
1
573
Ora -839
C
2
20 -30c
shell
Chione spp.
21
574
Ora -839
C
2
20 -30c
shell
Chione undatella
4
575
Ora -839
C
2
20 -30c
shell
Argopecten sp.
6
576
Ora -839
C
2
20 -30c
shell
Saxodomus nuttali
1
577
Ora -839
C
2
20 -30c
shell
Neverita reclusjanus
2
578
Ora -839
C
2
20 -30c
shell
Pseudochama exogyra
2
579
Ora -839
C
2
20 -30c
shell
Astraea unclose
3
580
Ora -839
C
2
20 -30c
faunal
Myliobatis californica
centrum
1
581
Ora -839
C
2
20 -30c
faunal
Myliobatis californica
centrum
1
582
Ora -839
C
2
20 -30c
faunal
Mammal
bone
1 burned
2
583
Ora -839
C
2
20 -30c
lithic
bi -face
scraper
core
monteray chart
1
243.Og
584
Ora -839
C
2
20 -30c
lithic
debitage
flake
tertiary
montery chart
1
0.3g
585
Ora -839
C
2
20 -30c
lithic
debitage
flake
secondary
montery chert
1
0.3g
586
Ora -839
C
2
20 -30c
lithic
debitage
flake
tertiary
quartz
1
0.2g
587
Ora -839
C
2
20 -30c
lithic
debitage
shatter
montery chart
1
0.6g
588
Ora -839
C
2
20 -30c
lithic
debitage
shatter
metavolcanic
1
4.Og
589
Ora -839
C
2
30-40c
shell
Chione spp.
24
590
Ora -839
C
2
30 -40c
shell
Chione fluctifraga
2
591
Ora -839
C
2
30-40c
shell
Chione undatella
9
592
Ora -839
C
2
30-40c
shell
Chione californiensis
8
593
Ora -839
C
2
30-40c
shell
Argopecten sp.
16
594
Ora -839
C
2
30-40c
shell
Hinnites sp.
1
595
Ora -839
C
2
30-40c
shell
Astraea undosa
2
596
Ora -839
C
2
30-40c
shell
Neverita reclusianus
6
597
Ora -839
C
2
30-40c
shell
Tegula sp.
1
598
Ora -839
C
2
30-40c
shell
Psuedochama sp.
2
599
Ora -839
C
2
30-40c
shell
Anomia peruviana
1
600
Ora -839
C
2
30 -40c
shell
Saxodomus nuttali
1
601
Ora -839
C
2
30 -40c
shell
Crepidula sp.
1
R: \Projects \Newport1J015 \Technical Reports \CUlturalWchaeo Tech Rpt (pub }021610.doc D -19 Appendix D
Ranch
ORA -839 CATALOG
(Continued)
Catalog #
Site
Locus
Unit
Level
Class
Attribute 1
Attribute 2
Attribute 3
Attribute 4
Count
Wt.
602
Ora -839
C
2
30 -40c
shell
Ostrea lurida
1
603
Ora -839
C
2
30-40c
shell
shark
centrum frag
1
604
Ora -839
C
2
30 -40c
faunal
Mammal
bone frag
1
605
Ora -839
C
2
40 -50
shell
Chione spp.
20
606
Ora -839
C
2
40 -50
shell
Chione californiensis
13
607
Ora -839
C
2
40 -50
shell
Chione undatella
13
608
Ora -839
C
2
40 -50
shell
Chione fluctifraga
3
609
Ora -839
C
2
40 -50
shell
Neverita reclusjanus
1
610
Ora -839
C
2
40 -50
shell
Saxidomus nuttali
trace
611
Ora -839
C
2
40 -50
shell
Crepidula sp.
4
612
Ora -839
C
2
40 -50
shell
Laevicardium sp.
trace
613
Ora -839
C
2
40 -50
shell
Cerithidea sp.
1
614
Ora -839
C
2
40 -50
shell
Psuedochama sp.
1
615
Ora -839
C
2
40 -50
shell
Astraea undosa
3
616
Ora -839
C
2
40 -50
shell
Ostrea lurida
11
617
Ora -839
C
2
40 -50
shell
Mytilus sp.
1
618
Ora -839
C
2
40 -50
faunal
bony fish
vertebra
1
619
Ora -839
C
2
40 -50
faunal
Rhinobatus productus
centrum
1
620
Ora -839
C
2
40 -50
shell
Argopecten sp.
18
621
Ora -839
C
2
40 -50
lithic
Red Ochre
1
622
Ora -839
C
2
40 -50
lithic
debitage
Montery Chert
1
2.7g
623
Ora -839
C
2
40 -50
faunal
bone
mammal
burned
2
624
Ora -839
C
2
40 -50
lithic
PP /K
frag
montery chart
1
0.7g
625
Ora -839
C
2
40 -50
lithic
debitage
shatter
Quartzite
1
8.1g
626
Ora -839
C
2
40 -50
lithic
debitage
shatter
metavolcanic
2
26.2g
627
Ora -839
C
2
50 -60
shell
Chione spp.
1
628
Ora -839
C
2
50 -60
shell
Chione undatella
1
629
Ora -839
C
2
50 -60
shell
Argopecten sp.
7
630
Ora -839
C
2
50 -60
shell
Ostrea lurida
2
631
Ora -839
C
2
50 -60
shell
Mytilus sp.
trace
632
Ora -839
C
2
50 -60
shell
Psuedochama sp.
1
633
Ora -839
C
2
50 -60
shell
Anomia peruviana
1
R: \Projects \Newport1J015 \Technical Reports \CulturalWchaeo Tech Rpt (pub }021610.doc D -20 Appendix D
Ranch
ORA -839 CATALOG
(Continued)
Catalog #
Site
Locus
Unit
Level
Class
Attribute 1
Attribute 2
Attribute 3
Attribute 4
Count
Wt.
634
Ora -839
C
2
50 -60
shell
Astraea unclose
trace
635
Ora -839
C
2
50 -60
shell
Crepidula sp.
1
636
Ora -839
C
2
50 -60
shell
Calyptraea sp.
1
637
Ora -839
C
2
50 -60
lithic
debitage
shatter
metavolcanic
5
3.6g
638
Ora -839
C
2
50 -60
lithic
debitage
shatter
Montery Chart
2
0.6
639
Ora -839
D
1
0 -10
shell
Chione spp.
2
640
Ora -839
D
1
0 -10
shell
Neverita reclusianus
2
641
Ora -839
D
1
0 -10
shell
Conus californica
1
642
Ora -839
D
1
0 -10
shell
Argopecten sp.
1
643
Ora -839
D
1
0 -10
shell
Gastropod
columella
1
644
Ora -839
D
1
10 -20c
shell
Chione spp.
2
645
Ora -839
D
1
10 -20c
shell
Argopecten sp.
1
646
Ora -839
D
1
10 -20c
lithic
debitage
shatter
metavolcanic
2
1.9g
647
Ora -839
D
1
10 -20c
shell
debitage
shatter
Quartzite
1
0.4g
648
Ora -839
D
1
20 -30c
shell
Chione spp.
4
649
Ora -839
D
1
20 -30c
shell
Ceratostoma
1
650
Ora -839
D
1
20 -30c
lithic
debitage
shatter
Quartzite
1
1.2g
651
Ora -839
D
1
20 -30c
lithic
debitage
shatter
metavolcanic
2
2.1g
652
Ora -839
D
1
30-40
shell
Chione spp.
1
653
Ora -839
D
1
30-40
lithic
debitage
shatter
secondary
Quartzite
1
0.4g
654
Ora -839
D
1
40 -50
shell
Chione spp.
1
655
Ora -839
D
1
40 -50
lithic
debitage
shatter
tertiary
Monterey chart
1
<0.1g
656
Ora -839
D
1
40 -50
lithic
debitage
shatter
metavolcanic
2
0.69g
657
Ora -839
D
1
50 -60
lithic
debitage
shatter
metavolcanic
1
0.2g
658
Ora -839
E
1
0 -10c
shell
Chione spp.
7
659
Ora -839
E
1
0 -10c
shell
Argopecten sp.
3
660
Ora -839
E
1
0 -10c
shell
Ostrea lurida
9
661
Ora -839
E
1
10 -20c
shell
Chione spp.
16
662
Ora -839
E
1
10 -20c
shell
Chione undatella
2
663
Ora -839
E
1
10 -20c
shell
Chione californiensis
1
664
Ora -839
E
1
10 -20c
shell
Chione fluctifraga
3
665
Ora -839
E
1,
shell
Ostrea lurida
1
R: \Projects \Newport1J015 \Technical Reports \CulturalWchaeo Tech Rpt (pub }021610.doc D -21 Appendix D
Ranch
ORA -839 CATALOG
(Continued)
Catalog #
Site
Locus
Unit
Level
Class
Attribute 1
Attribute 2
Attribute 3
Attribute 4
Count
Wt.
666
Ora -839
E
1
10 -20c
shell
Neverita reclusianus
1
667
Ora -839
E
1
10 -20c
shell
Argopecten sp.
5
668
Ora -839
E
1
10 -20c
shell
Astraea undosa
trace
669
Ora -839
E
1
10 -20c
faunal
Rabbit
1
670
Ora -839
E
1
10 -20c
lithic
debitage
shatter
2
6.1g
671
Ora -839
E
1
20 -30
shell
Chione spp.
19
672
Ora -839
E
1
20 -30
shell
Chione californiensis
2
673
Ora -839
E
1
20 -30
shell
Chione undatella
1
674
Ora -839
E
1
20 -30
shell
Chione fluctifraga
1
675
Ora -839
E
1
20 -30
shell
Ostrea lurida
2
676
Ora -839
E
1
20 -30
shell
Argopecten sp.
7
677
Ora -839
E
1
20 -30
faunal
mammal
bone frag
2
678
Ora -839
E
1
30-40
shell
Chione spp.
36
679
Ora -839
E
1
30-40
shell
Chione californiensis
5
680
Ora -839
E
1
30-40
shell
Chione fluctifraga
1
681
Ora -839
E
1
30 -40
shell
Neverita reclusianus
2
682
Ora -839
E
1
30-40
shell
Argopecten sp.
5
683
Ora -839
E
1
30-40
shell
Ostrea lurida
18
684
Ora -839
E
1
30-40
shell
Crepidula sp.
1
685
Ora -839
E
1
30-40
faunal
mammal
bone frag
3
686
Ora -839
E
1
30-40
lithics
debitage
cubic shatter
metavolcanic
1
5.Og
687
Ora -839
E
1
40 -50
shell
Chione spp.
21
688
Ora -839
E
1
40 -50
shell
Chione californiensis
2
689
Ora -839
E
1
40 -50
shell
Chione undatella
2
690
Ora -839
E
1
40 -50
shell
Ostrea lurida
18
691
Ora -839
E
1
40 -50
shell
Argopecten sp.
10
692
Ora -839
E
1
40 -50
shell
Astraea undosa
trace
693
Ora -839
E
1
40 -50
faunal
mammal
bone frag
4
694
Ora -839
E
1
40 -50
lithics
debitage
shatter
2
16.Og
695
Ora -839
E
1
50 -60
shell
Chione spp.
18
696
Ora -839
E
1
50 -60
shell
Chione californiensis
3
697
Ora -839
E
1,
shell
Chione undatella
2
R: \Projects \Newport1J015 \Technical Reports \CUlturalWchaeo Tech Rpt (pub }021610.doc D -22 Appendix D
Ranch
ORA -839 CATALOG
(Continued)
Catalog #
Site
Locus
Unit
Level
Class
Attribute 1
Attribute 2
Attribute 3
Attribute 4
Count
Wt.
698
Ora -839
E
1
50 -60
shell
Ostrea lurida
20
699
Ora -839
E
1
50 -60
shell
Argopecten sp.
14
700
Ora -839
E
1
50 -60
shell
Crepidula sp.
4
701
Ora -839
E
1
50 -60
shell
Astraea undosa
1
702
Ora -839
E
1
50 -60
shell
Cerithidea sp.
1
703
Ora -839
E
1
60 -70
shell
Chione spp.
14
704
Ora -839
E
1
60 -70
shell
Chione californiensis
1
705
Ora -839
E
1
60 -70
shell
Chione undatella
1
706
Ora -839
E
1
60 -70
shell
Chione fluctifraga
1
707
Ora -839
E
1
60 -70
shell
Argopecten sp.
13
708
Ora -839
E
1
60 -70
shell
Neverita reclusianus
1
709
Ora -839
E
1
60 -70
shell
Astraea undosa
trace
710
Ora -839
E
1
60 -70
shell
Ostrea lurida
16
711
Ora -839
E
1
60 -70
shell
Crepidula sp.
2
712
Ora -839
E
1
70 -80
shell
Chione spp.
19
713
Ora -839
E
1
70 -80
shell
Chione californiensis
1
714
Ora -839
E
1
70 -80
shell
Crepidula sp.
2
715
Ora -839
E
1
70 -80
shell
Ostrea lurida
21
716
Ora -839
E
1
70 -80
shell
Astraea unclose
trace
717
Ora -839
E
1
70 -80
shell
Gastropod
1
718
Ora -839
E
1
70 -80
lithic
debitage
cubic shatter
metavolcanic
3
26.6g
719
Ora -839
E
1
70 -80
shell
Argopecten sp.
9
720
Ora -839
E
1
80 -90
shell
Chione spp.
17
721
Ora -839
E
1
80 -90
shell
Chione californiensis
2
722
Ora -839
E
1
80 -90
shell
Chione undatella
1
723
Ora -839
E
1
80 -90
shell
Ostrea lurida
47
724
Ora -839
E
1
80 -90
shell
Argopecten sp.
16
725
Ora -839
E
1
80 -90
shell
Crepidula sp.
15
726
Ora -839
E
1
80 -90
shell
Acmaea persona
1
727
Ora -839
E
1
80 -90
shell
Astraea undosa
trace
728
Ora 839
E
1
80 -90
lithic
debitage
cubic shatter
3
13.7g
729
Ora -839
E
1
90 -100
shell
Chione spp.
15
R: \Projects \Newport1JD15 \Technical Reports \CulturalWchaeo Tech Rpt (pub }021610.doc D -23 Appendix D
Ranch
ORA -839 CATALOG
(Continued)
Catalog #
Site
Locus
Unit
Level
Class
Attribute 1
Attribute 2
Attribute 3
Attribute 4
Count
Wt.
730
Ora -839
E
1
90 -100
shell
Chione undatella
2
731
Ora -839
E
1
90 -100
shell
Neverita reclusianus
2
732
Ora -839
E
1
90 -100
shell
Ostrea lurida
4
733
Ora -839
E
1
90 -100
shell
Crepidula sp.
2
734
Ora -839
E
1
90 -100
shell
Argopecten sp.
4
735
Ora -839
E
1
90 -100
lithic
debitage
cubic shatter
2
61.1g
736
Ora -839
E
1
100-
sterile
shell
Chione spp.
2
737
Ora -839
E
1
100-
sterile
shell
Crepidula sp.
1
738
Ora -844
B
1
10 -20c
shell
Chione spp.
2
739
Ora -844
B
1
10 -20c
shell
Ostrea lurida
2
740
Ora -844
B
1
10 -20c
faunal
small mammal
bone frag
1
741
Ora -844
B
1
20 -30
shell
Chione spp.
6
742
Ora -844
B
1
20 -30
shell
Chione californiensis
1
743
Ora -844
B
1
20 -30
shell
Chione undatella
1
744
Ora -844
B
1
20 -30
shell
Ostrea lurida
9
745
Ora -844
B
1
20 -30
shell
Argopecten sp.
15
746
Ora -844
B
1
20 -30
shell
Neverita reclusianus
1
747
Ora -844
B
1
20 -30
shell
Astraea undosa
trace
748
Ora -844
B
1
20 -30
shell
Gastropod
2
749
Ora -844
B
1
20 -30
shell
Crepidula sp.
1
750
Ora -844
B
1
20 -30
shell
Ostrea lurida
1
751
Ora -844
B
1
20 -30
faunal
mammal
bone frag
burnt
1
752
Ora -844
B
1
20 -30
lithic
debitage
shatter
2
0.6g
753
Ora -844
B
1
30-40
shell
Chione spp.
16
754
Ora -844
B
1
30-40
shell
Chione californiensis
2
755
Ora -844
B
1
30-40
shell
Chione undatella
2
756
Ora -844
B
1
30-40
shell
Gastropod
1
757
Ora -844
B
1
30-40
shell
Cerithidea sp.
3
758
Ora -844
B
1
30-40
shell
Ostrea lurida
134
759
Ora -844
B
1
30 -40
shell
Cerithidea sp.
24
R: \Projects \Newport\J015 \Technical Reports \CulturalWchaeo Tech Rpt (pub }021610.doc D -24 Appendix D
Ranch
ORA -839 CATALOG
(Continued)
Catalog #
Site
Locus
Unit
Level
Class
Attribute 1
Attribute 2
Attribute 3
Attribute 4
Count
Wt.
760
Ora -844
B
1
30 -40
shell
Astraea undosa
6
761
Ora -844
B
1
30-40
shell
Saxidomus nuttali
1
762
Ora -844
B
1
30-40
shell
Argopecten sp.
68
763
Ora -844
B
1
30-40
faunal
small mammal
bone frag
4
764
Ora -844
B
1
30-40
lithic
debitage
shatter
1
0.4g
765
Ora -844
B
1
40 -50
shell
Chione spp.
4
766
Ora -844
B
1
40 -50
shell
Chione californiensis
2
767
Ora -844
B
1
40 -50
shell
Chione undatella
2
768
Ora -844
B
1
40 -50
shell
Chione fluctifraga
1
769
Ora -844
B
1
40 -50
shell
Argopecten sp.
28
770
Ora -844
B
1
40 -50
shell
Ostrea lurida
64
771
Ora -844
B
1
40 -50
shell
Astraea undosa
1
772
Ora -844
B
1
40 -50
shell
Crepidula sp.
11
773
Ora -844
B
1
40 -50
faunal
Calyptraea sp.
2
774
Ora -844
B
1
40 -50
faunal
Myliobatis californica
centrum
1
775
Ora -844
B
1
40 -50
lithics
debitage
shatter
Montery Cheri
2
0.5g
776
Ora -844
B
1
40 -50
lithic
debitage
shatter
metavolcanic
1
0.2g
777
Ora -844
B
1
50- sterile
shell
Chione californiensis
1
778
Ora -844
B
1
50- sterile
shell
Argopecten sp.
13
779
Ora -844
B
1
50- sterile
shell
Calyptraea sp.
1
780
Ora -844
B
1
50- sterile
shell
Crepidula sp.
4
781
Ora -844
B
1
50- sterile
shell
Cerithidea sp.
1
782
Ora -844
B
1
50- sterile
shell
Astraea undosa
trace
783
Ora -844
B
1
50- sterile
shell
Ostrea lurida
12
784
Ora -844
B
1
50- sterile
I lithic
debitage
I shatter
1
5.Og
R: \Projects \Newport1J015 \Technical Reports \CUlturalWchaeo Tech Rpt (pub }021610.doc D -25 Appendix D
Ranch
ORA -906 CATALOG
Catalog #
Site
Level
Class
Genus
Species
Element
Side
Count
Comments
1
Ora -906
80 -90
faunal
Rhinobatos
productus
centrum
1
shovelnose
guitarfish
2
Ora -906
90 -100
artifact
iron bolt
1
oil pipeline
3
Ora -906
90 -100
faunal
Hypsopsetta
guttulata
caudal vertebra
1
diamond turbot
4
Ora -906
90 -100
faunal
Paralabrax
caudal vertebra
1
bass
5
Ora -906
90 -100
faunal
shark
centrum
1
6
Ora -906
90 -100
faunal
Myliobatis
californica
centrum
1
bat stingray
7
Ora -906
90 -100
faunal
rodent
skull, incisor, rib
4
7a
Ora -906
90 -100
metal
lead
slug
1
7b
Ora -906
90 -100
faunal
bony fish
precaudal vertebra
1
7c
Ora -906
90 -100
faunal
shark
centrum frag.
1
7d
Ora -906
90 -100
faunal
small mammal
misc. bones
4
8
Ora -906
90 -100
shell
Dentalium
shell
1
9
Ora -906
100 -110
faunal
Platyrhinoides
triseriata
centrum
1
thornback
10
Ora -906
100 -110
faunal
snake
vertebra
1
11
Ora -906
100 -110
faunal
Mammal
bone shaft
1
12
Ora -906
100 -110
faunal
bony fish
misc. bones
2
13
Ora -906
110 -120
faunal
Rallus
longirostris
tarsometatarsus
1
clapper rail
13a
Ora -906
110 -120
faunal
Paralichthys
californicus
precaudal vertebra
1
Calif. Halibut
13b
Ora -906
110 -120
faunal
bony fish
angular
1
13c
Ora -906
110 -120
faunal
Myliobatis
californica
tooth
1
bat stingray
13d
Ora -906
110 -120
faunal
Triakididae
centrum
1
smoothhounds
13e
Ora -906
110 -120
faunal
Rhinobatos
productus
centrum frag.
1
shovelnose
guitarfish
13f
Ora -906
110 -120
faunal
bony fish
bone
1
13g
Ora -906
110 -120
faunal
reptile
vertebra
2
13h
Ora -906
110 -120
faunal
rodent
incisor
1
13i
Ora -906
110 -120
faunal
small mammal
misc. bones
13
13j
Ora -906
110 -120
lithic
red orcher
1
4.7
13k
Ora -906
110 -120
shell
small bead
1
14
Ora -906
110 -120
faunal
Porichthys
precaudal vertebra
1
15
Ora -906
110 -120
faunal
bony fish
caudal vertebra
1
16
Ora -906
110 -120
faunal
Rhinobatos
productus
centrum
1
shovelnose
guitarfish
R: \Projects \Newport1J015 \Technical RepoMs CulturalWchaec Tech Rpt (pub)- 021610.doc D -26 Appendix D
Ranch
ORA -906 CATALOG
(Continued)
Catalog #
Site
Level
Class
Genus
Species
Element
Side
Count
Comments
17
Ora -906
110 -120
faunal
Triakididae
centrum
1
smoothhounds
18
Ora -906
110 -120
faunal
Triakididae
centrum
1
smoothhounds
19
Ora -906
110 -120
faunal
Rallus
longirostris
tarsometatarsus
1
clapper rail
20
Ora -906
110 -120
faunal
gopher
lowerjaw
1
21
Ora -906
110 -120
faunal
vertebrate
misc. bones
6
22
Ora -906
120 -130
faunal
Enhydra
lutris
dentary
R
1
locally extinct 1860
23
Ora -906
120 -130
faunal
bird
cervical vertebra
1
24
Ora -906
120 -130
faunal
Rhinobatos
productus
centrum
1
shovelnose
guitarfish
25
Ora -906
120 -130
faunal
Mammal
bone end
1
26
Ora -906
120 -130
faunal
Mammal
bone fragments
2
27
Ora -906
120 -130
faunal
bird
vertebra
1
28
Ora -906
120 -130
shell
Cerithidea
californicus
shell
1
29
Ora -906
120 -130
faunal
bony fish
premaxilla frag.?
1
30
Ora -906
130 -140
faunal
Phalacrocorax
auritus
tibiotarsus
1
Double- crested
cormorant
31
Ora -906
130 -140
faunal
bird
vertebra
1
32
Ora -906
130 -140
faunal
bird
bone
1
33
Ora -906
130 -140
faunal
Myliobatis
californica
centrum
1
bat stingray
34
Ora -906
130 -140
faunal
shark
centrum
1
35
Ora -906
130 -140
faunal
reptile
vertebra
1
36
Ora -906
130 -140
faunal
bony fish
vertebra
1
37
Ora -906
130 -140
faunal
Hypsopsetta
guttulata
precaudal vertebra
1
diamond turbot
38
Ora -906
130 -140
faunal
Triakididae
centrum frag.
1
smoothhounds
39
Ora -906
130 -140
faunal
Triakididae
centrum frag.
1
smoothhounds
40
Ora -906
130 -140
faunal
Hypsopsetta
guttulata
caudal vertebra
1
diamond turbot
41
Ora -906
130 -140
faunal
rodent
vertebra
1
42
Ora -906
130 -140
faunal
Rhinobatos
productus
centrum
1
shovelnose
guitarfish
43
Ora -906
130 -140
faunal
Rhinobatos
productus
centrum
1
burned
44
Ora -906
130 -140
faunal
Parahchthys
californicus
precaudal vertebra
8
Calif. Halibut
45
Ora -906
130 -140
faunal
Porichthys
precaudal vertebra
4
midshipmen
46
Ora -906
130 -140
faunal
gopher
dentary
1
R: \Projects \Newport1JD15 \Technical Reports \CulturalWchaeo Tech Rpt (pub }021610.doc D -27 Appendix D
Ranch
ORA -906 CATALOG
(Continued)
Catalog #
Site
Level
Class
Genus
Species
Element
Side
Count
Comments
47
Ora -906
130 -140
faunal
Mammal
misc. bones
27
48
Ora -906
140 -150
faunal
Mammal
bone shaft
1
poss. Bone tool cut
marks
49
Ora -906
140 -150
faunal
Rhinobatos
productus
centrum
1
shovelnose
guitartish
50
Ora -906
140 -150
faunal
Triakididae
centrum
1
smoothhounds
51
Ora -906
140 -150
faunal
Triakididae
centrum
1
smoothhounds
52
Ora -906
140 -150
faunal
Rhinobatos
productus
centrum
1
shovelnose
guitartish
53
Ora -906
140 -150
faunal
shark
centrum
1
burned
54
Ora -906
140 -150
faunal
Rhinobatos
productus
centrum
1
shovelnose
guitartish
55
Ora -906
140 -150
faunal
bony fish
centrum
1
56
Ora -906
140 -150
faunal
Rhinobatos
productus
centrum
1
shovelnose
guitartish
57
Ora -906
140 -150
faunal
Triakidae
centrum
1
58
Ora -906
140 -150
faunal
bony fish
vertebra
1
very small fish
59
Ora -906
140 -150
faunal
Clupeidae
vertebra
1
very small fish
60
Ora -906
140 -150
faunal
bony fish
precaudal vertebra
1
61
Ora -906
140 -150
faunal
Paralichthys
californicus
caudal vertebra
1
Calif. Halibut
62
Ora -906
140 -150
faunal
Paralichthys
californicus
caudal vertebra
1
Calif. Halibut
63
Ora -906
140 -150
faunal
bony fish
caudal vertebra
1
Embiotocid?
64
Ora -906
140 -150
faunal
Porichthys
precaudal vertebra
2
midshipman
65
Ora -906
140 -150
faunal
Porichthys
caudal vertebra
2
midshipman
66
Ora -906
140 -150
faunal
Hypsopsette
guttulata
precaudal vertebra
1
diamond turbot
67
Ora -906
140 -150
faunal
bony fish
basioccipital
1
68
Ora -906
140 -150
faunal
bony fish
bone
1
69
Ora -906
140 -150
faunal
bony fish
precaudal vertebra
1
small fish
70
Ora -906
140 -150
faunal
bird
vertebra
1
71
Ora -906
140 -150
faunal
Oxyura
cf. O.
jamaicensis
femur
1
ruddy? Duck
72
Ora -906
140 -150
faunal
reptile
vertebra
2
73
Ora -906
140 -150
faunal
bird
phalanx
1
R: \Projects \Newport1J015 \Technical Reports \CulturalWchaeo Tech Rpt (pub }021610.doc D -28 Appendix D
Ranch
ORA -906 CATALOG
(Continued)
Catalog #
Site
Level
Class
Genus
Species
Element
Side
Count
Comments
74
Ora -906
140 -150
faunal
vertebrates
misc. bone frags
28
75
Ora -906
140 -150
faunal
bony fish
misc. bone frags
7
76
Ora -906
140 -150
faunal
rodent
tooth
5
77
Ora -906
140 -150
faunal
Hypsopsetta
guttulata
vertebra
1
diamond turbot
78
Ora -906
150 -160
faunal
Triakididae
centrum
1
smoothhounds
79
Ora -906
150 -160
faunal
Rhinobatos
productus
centrum
1
shovelnose
guitarfish
80
Ora -906
150 -160
faunal
Triakididae
centrum
1
smoothhounds
81
Ora -906
150 -160
faunal
Triakididae
centrum
1
smoothhounds
82
Ora -906
150 -160
faunal
Triakididae
centrum
1
smoothhounds
83
Ora -906
150 -160
faunal
Anas
cf. A. acuta
coracoid
1
northern pintail
84
Ora -906
150 -160
shell
shell
with asphaltum
1
tool?
85
Ora -906
150 -160
faunal
Branta
Cf. B.
canadensisi
tibiotarsus and ulna
3
Canada gpose
86
Ora -906
150 -160
faunal
mammal
occipital
1
87
Ora -906
150 -160
faunal
mammal
skull -otic? Region
1
large mammal
88
Ora -906
150 -160
faunal
mammal
long bone
1
large mammal
89
Ora -906
150 -160
faunal
rodent
skull
2
90
Ora -906
150 -160
faunal
Anas
cf. A. crecca
femur
1
green - winged teal
91
Ora -906
150 -160
faunal
bird
radius
1
92
Ora -906
150 -160
faunal
vertebrates
misc. bone frags
4
93
Ora -906
160 -170
faunal
Paralichthys
californicus
precaudal vertebra
1
Calif. Halibut
94
Ora -906
160 -170
faunal
Porichthys
precaudal vertebra
1
midshipman
95
Ora -906
160 -170
faunal
Anas
cf. A. acute
furcula
1
northern pintail
96
Ora -906
160 -170
faunal
Melanitta
perspicillata
carpometacarpus
1
surf scoter
97
Ora -906
160 -170
faunal
Fulica
americana
tibiotarsus?
1
American coot
98
Ora -906
160 -170
faunal
Fulica
americana
phalanx
1
American coot
99
Ora -906
160 -170
faunal
Chen
cf. C.
cerulescens
pelvis
1
snow goose
100
Ora -906
160 -170
faunal
frog
pelvis?
1
101
Ora -906
160 -170
faunal
vertebrates
misc. bone frags
5
102
Ora -906
160 -170
faunal
bird
bone
1
R: \Projects \Newport1J015 \Technical Reports \culturalWchaeo Tech Rpt (pub }021610.doc D -29 Appendix D
Ranch
ORA -906 CATALOG
(Continued)
Catalog #
Site
Level
Class
Genus
Species
Element
Side
Count
Comments
103
Ora -906
170 -180
faunal
Rhinobatos
productus
centrum
1
shovelnose
guitarfish
104
Ora -906
170 -180
faunal
Rhinobatos
productus
centrum
1
shovelnose
guitarfish
105
Ora -906
170 -180
faunal
Rhinobatos
productus
centrum
1
shovelnose
guitarfish
106
Ora -906
170 -180
faunal
Rhinobatos
productus
centrum
1
shovelnose
guitarfish
107
Ora -906
170 -180
faunal
Triakidae
centrum
1
108
Ora -906
170 -180
faunal
Paralichthys
californicus
precaudal vertebra
1
Calif. Halibut
109
Ora -906
170 -180
faunal
Porichthys
caudal vertebra
1
midshipman
110
Ora -906
170 -180
faunal
bony fish
precaudal vertebra
1
111
Ora -906
170 -180
faunal
Porchthys
cleithrum?
1
112
Ora -906
170 -180
faunal
Pelecanus
occidentalsi
coracoid
1
brown pelican
113
Ora -906
170 -180
faunal
bird
vertebra
1
114
Ora -906
170 -180
faunal
Anas
cf. A. acute
coracoid
1
northern pintail
115
Ora -906
170 -180
faunal
Anas
cf. A. crecca
coracoid
1
green - winged teal
116
Ora -906
170 -180
faunal
Melanitta
perspicillata
tibiotarsus?
1
surf scoter
117
Ora -906
170 -180
faunal
Branta
cf. B.
canadensisi
femur
1
Canada gpose
118
Ora -906
170 -180
faunal
Anas
cf. A. crecca
sterum
1
green - winged teal
119
Ora -906
170 -180
faunal
mammal
pelvis
1
120
Ora -906
170 -180
faunal
Anas
cf. A. acuta
scapula
1
121
Ora -906
170 -180
faunal
frog
pelvis
1
122
Ora -906
170 -180
faunal
snake
vertebra
1
123
Ora -906
170 -180
faunal
frog
bone
1
124
Ora -906
170 -180
faunal
mammal
bone frag.
1
125
Ora -906
170 -180
faunal
mammal
misc. bone frags
7
126
Ora -906
170 -180
faunal
small mammal
caudal vertebra
1
127
Ora -906
170 -180
faunal
mammal
rib
1
128
Ora -906
180 -260
faunal
Branta
Cf. B.
canadensisi
bone
1
Canada gpose
129
Ora -906
180 -260
faunal
Anas
cf. A.
cyanoptera
humerus
1
cinnamon teal
R: \Projects \Newport1JD15 \Technical Reports \CulturalWchaeo Tech Rpt (pub)- 021610.doc D -30 Appendix D
Ranch
ORA -906 CATALOG
(Continued)
Catalog #
Site
Level
Class
Genus
Species
Element
Side
Count
Comments
130
Ora -906
180 -260
faunal
Aechmophorus
cf. A.
occidentalis
humerus
1
Western or Clark's
Grebe
131
Ora -906
180 -260
faunal
Anas
cf. A. clypeata
sternum
1
Northern Shoveler
132
Ora -906
180 -260
faunal
bird
?
1
133
Ora -906
180 -260
faunal
Rhinobatos
productus
centrum
1
shovelnose
guitarfish
134
Ora -906
180 -260
faunal
Triakidae
centrum
1
smoothhounds
135
Ora -906
180 -260
faunal
Rhinobatos
productus
centrum
2
shovelnose
guitarfish
136
Ora -906
180 -260
faunal
Rhinobatos
productus
centrum
1
shovelnose
guitarfish
137
Ora -906
180 -260
faunal
Rhinobatos
productus
centrum frag.
1
shovelnose
guitarfish
138
Ora -906
180 -260
faunal
Rhinobatos
productus
centrum
1
shovelnose
guitarfish
139
Ora -906
180 -260
faunal
Triakididae
centrum
1
smoothhounds
140
Ora -906
180 -260
faunal
Triakididae
centrum
1
smoothhounds
141
Ora -906
180 -260
faunal
Triakididae
centrum
1
smoothhounds
142
Ora -906
180 -260
faunal
Triakididae
centrum frag.
1
smoothhounds
143
Ora -906
180 -260
faunal
bony fish
vertebra
1
144
Ora -906
180 -260
faunal
bony fish
bone
2
145
Ora -906
180 -260
faunal
Ig. cat or dog
metatarsal?
1
146
Ora -906
180 -260
faunal
Mammal
phalanx
1
147
Ora -906
180 -260
faunal
Mammal?
pelvis
1
148
Ora -906
180 -260
faunal
Mammal
rib
1
149
Ora -906
180 -260
faunal
Vertebrate
misc bone fr.
10
R: \Projects \Newport1JD15 \Technical Reports \CulturalWchaeo Tech Rpt (pub }021610.doc D -31 Appendix D
Ranch
HISTORY
Unit
Level
Class
Attribute 1
Attribute 2
Attribute 3
Attribute 4
Count
wt.
surface
glass
milk glass
embossed: "E -CAYA" on side and
"JAMES C CRANE NEW YORK" on base
cosmetic jar
fire affected
1
156.0 g
surface
glass
amethyst
hand tooled "flared" finish
bottle finish
1
26.9g
surface
glass
aqua
embossed: "LE...." along side
bottle base
1
16.3g
surface
ceramic
white ware
embossed: along base
bowl base
1
20.5g
surface
glass
amethyst
rolled or folded -in /out "bead" finish
bottle finish
fire affected
1
9.4g
surface
glass
clear
embossed below hand tooled
"prescription" finish
bottle finish
1
35.1g
surface
glass
clear
hand tooled "prescription" finish
bottle finish
1
26.1g
surface
glass
clear
hand tooled 'brown cap" finish
bottle finish
1
31.6g
surface
glass
green
hand tooled "crown cap" finish
bottle finish
1
26.1g
surface
glass
aqua
emdossed "B" (...all) in print and in script
canning jar body
fire affected
1
14.1g
surface
glass
amethyst
blown in (cup) mold
bottle base
1
66.4g
surface
glass
aqua
lightning type jar closure
canning jar finish
1
40.6g
surface
glass
aqua
semi - automatic /ABM scar on base
canning jar base
1
33.3g
surface
glass
clear
straight brandy or wine finish
bottle finish
1
48.6g
surface
glass
amethyst
straight brandy or wine finish ABM
bottle finish
1
31.48
surface
glass
amethyst
MM, "B" with extended serifs,
(BrockawayGlass Co.)
whiskey bottle
base
1
34.9g
surface
glass
amethyst
oval base
bottle base
1
21.3G
surface
glass
clear
embossed "CALL. ", T"
panel body frag
1
12.8g
surface
glass
amethyst
embossed "...3 G.Co." with irregular
polygon base
bottle base
1
19.9g
surface
ceramic
stoneware
salt glazed
crock body
fragment
1
7.3g
surface
ceramic
white ware
shell edged, embossed with transfer
printed under glaze
rim sherd
1
36.2g
surface
ceramic
porcelain
undecorated
3 1/2" dia. base
1
16.0g
surface
ceramic
stoneware
undecorated
6 1/2" dia. Base
1
64.2g
surface
glass
milk glass
2" dia.
canning jar liner
1
13.Og
surface
glass
amethyst
"flat or patent' finish
bottle finish
fire affected
1
21.2g
surface
glass
amber
blob top finish
bottle finish
1
4.7g
surface
glass
clear
"flat or patent' finish
bottle finish
1
46.4
surface
glass
clear
small mouth external thread finish
bottle finish
1
25.6
R: \Projects \Newpor \J015 \Technical Reports \CUlturalWchaeo Tech Rpt (pub }021610.doc D -32 Appendix D
Ranch
HISTORY
(Continued)
Unit
Level
Class
Attribute 1
Attribute 2
Attribute 3
Attribute 4
Count
wt.
surface
glass
clear
bead finish (medicinal)
bottle finish
1
8.2g
surface
glass
clear
small mouth external thread finish
bottle finish
1
25.4g
surface
glass
clear
stretch marks on neck
bottle neck
1
12.9g
surface
glass
amethyst
drinking glass with fluted base
glass base
1
20.2g
surface
glass
clear
base fragment
round base
1
11.3g
surface
glass
amber
embossed "D. MEINKE..." ...AN FR..."
body fragment
1
41.8g
surface
glass
clear
medicinal panel embossed "...A.
SLO... "; "...MOND PHA..." with
increments along sidebody
body fragment
1
8.5g
surface
glass
clear
oval pressed glassbase w/ star burst
design
pickle /relish dish
1
29.9g
surface
glass
amethyst
large serving platter
rim sherd
2
123.2g
surface
glass
clear
window pane
pane fragment
1
8.9g
surface
bone
mammal
2" long, machine cut
long bone
1
4.1g
surface
construction
ceramic
household insulator embossed
"...P.P.INC. 5... "; "ALL..."
ceramic insulator
1
121.5g
surface
ceramic
white ware
shell edged, embossed along edge
rim sherd
2
19.7g
surface
ceramic
stoneware
flat
base fragment
1
10.4g
surface
ceramic
semi -
porcelain
shell edged embossed
rim sherd
1
5.Og
surface
ceramic
white ware
shell edged embossed
rim sherd
1
11.8
surface
ceramic
white ware
flo blue
base fragment
1
17.9g
suface
ceramic
porcelain
red transferware
teacup handel
1
8.Og
surface
ceramic
porcelain
green handpainted underglaze
body fragment
1
4.8g
surface
ceramic
earthenware
"VIENNA..."
body fragment
1
5.5g
surface
ceramic
white ware
flo blue
body fragment
fire affected
1
5.Og
surface
ceramic
Ironstone
Tea leaf pattern transferware
"Anthony Shaw
England"
1
8.1g
surface
ceramic
white ware
blue embossed rim
rim sherd
1
1.6g
STP #1
0 -20cm
glass
clear
misc. undiagnostic fragments
bottle glass
10
57.1g
STP #1
0 -20cm
glass
clear
misc. undiagnostic fragments
bottle glass
fire affected
6
62.Og
STP #1
0 -20cm
glass
amethyst
body fragment
bottle glass
fire affected
1
5.5g
STP #1
0 -20cm
glass
clear
embossed "DR... ", medicinal panel
bottle glass
1
10.g'
R: \Projects \Newport1J015 \Technical Reports \CUlturalWchaeo Tech Rpt (pub }021610.doc D -33 Appendix D
Ranch
HISTORY
(Continued)
Unit
Level
Class
Attribute 1
Attribute 2
Attribute 3
Attribute 4
Count
wt.
STP #1
0 -20cm
glass
clear
bead finish
bottle glass
1
15.2g
STP #1
0 -20cm
glass
amber
misc. undiagnostic fragments
bottle glass
6
23.1
STP #1
0 -20cm
glass
cobalt
body fragment
bottle glass
1
1.4g
STP #1
0 -20cm
glass
aqua
finish
bottle glass
fire affected
1
6.3g
STP #1
0 -20cm
glass
olive
body fragment
bottle glass
1
3.9g
STP #1
0 -20cm
glass
light green
thick body frag
bottle glass
1
7.7g
STP#1
0 -20cm
glass
clear
bead finish
bottle finish
2
14.9g
STP#1
0 -20cm
glass
clear
window pane
flat glass
2
3.9g
STP #1
0 -20cm
glass
clear
condimint
bottle glass
2
13.6g
STP#1
0 -20cm
glass
clear
thin glass
lamp chimmney
2
1.2g
STP #1
0 -20cm
metal
steel
fastener
garter
1
2.Og
STP #1
0 -20cm
construction
brick
brick
brick
1
4.6
STP #1
0 -20cm
ceramic
white ware
bowl
rim and base
4
29.1g
STP #1
0 -20cm
ceramic
porcelain
bowl
rim and base
1
12.4g
STP #1
0 -20cm
ceramic
porcelain
body fragment
1
5.9g
STP #1
20 -40cm
ceramic
white ware
"Maastricht Pottery CO" "ABBY'
Transferware
Flo Blue
1
41.3g
STP #1
20 -40cm
ceramic
white ware
misc. bowl fragments
rim and base
4
19.7
STP #1
20 -40cm
bone
mammal
femur
proximal portion
broken
1
22.Og
STP #1
20 -40cm
bone
mammal
rib and cut long bone
small sections
saw cut
2
3.4g
STP #1
20 -40cm
bone
mammal
rib section
fire affected
1
1.5g
STP #1
20 -40cm
glass
clear
misc. undiagnostic fragments
bottle
opalized
6
23.7g
STP #1
2040cm
glass
olive
body fragment
bottle
bubbles
1
7.Og
STP #1
20 -40cm
glass
aqua
misc. undiagnostic fragments
bottle
some opalized
4
13.1g
STP #1
20 -40cm
glass
amber
undiagnostic fragment
bottle
1
2.4
STP #1
20 -40cm
glass
clear
flat glass
window pane
3
3.4g
STP#1
20 -40cm
glass
light olive
undiagniostic fragment
bottle
1
1.9g
STP#1
20 -40cm
glass
clear
faux pearl jewelry
hatpin
1
.4g
STP#1
20 -40cm
ceramic
porcelain
misc. undiagnostic fragments
3
1.7g
STP #1
20 -40cm
ceramic
porcelain
hand painted
teacup
1
1.8g
STP #1
20 -40cm
metal
nail
wire nail
1
2.5g
STP #1
40 -60cm
glass
olive
applied or champagne finish
bottle finish
opalized
1
39.78
R: \Projects \Newport1J015 \Technical Reports \GulturalWchaeo Tech Rpt (pub }021610.doc D -34 Appendix D
Ranch
HISTORY
(Continued)
Unit
Level
Class
Attribute 1
Attribute 2
Attribute 3
Attribute 4
Count
wt.
STP #1
40 -60cm
glass
clear
flared finish
bottle finish
opalized
1
26.88
STP #1
40 -60cm
glass
amber
pontil scar; "black glass"
base fragment
3
61.6g
STP #1
40 -60 -cm
glass
amber
embossed "35 "; "B" w /pontil scar
base fragment
"black glass"
2
38.Og
STP #1
40 -60 -cm
construction
ceramic
insulator
frament
1
41.6
STP #1
40 -60 -cm
glass
amber
embossed "...A..."
body fragment
2
5.7g
STP #1
40 -60 -cm
glass
olive
wine bottle
neck fragment
3
25.3g
STP#1
40 -60 -cm
glass
milk glass
Embossed "...Y D..."
canning lid
1
1.3g
STP#1
40 -60 -cm
glass
amber
Beer bottle fragments
body fragment
5
20.8g
STP #1
40 -60 -cm
glass
clear
wine /brandy finish
finish frament
3
20.5g
STP#1
40 -60 -cm
glass
aqua
misc. undiagnostic fragments
body fragment
5
13.6g
STP #1
40 -60 -cm
glass
clear
misc. undiagnostic fragments
body fragment
opalized
14
50.3g
STP #1
40 -60 -cm
bone
mammal
talus
cow?
1
134.Og
STP #1
40 -60 -cm
bone
mammal
long bone
small animal
3
5.6g
STP #1
40 -60 -cm
bone
mammal
long bone ?
articulating surface
fire affected
1
1.8g
STP #1
40 -60 -cm
metal
nails
wire nails
4 heads
oxidized
11
29.1g
STP #1
40 -60 -cm
I metal
screw
large thread
no head
oxidized
1
5.Og
STP #1
40 -60 -cm
metal
copper
wire
bare
oxidized
2
1.4g
STP#1
40 -60 -cm
metal
misc. metal
hinge bracket
partial
oxidized
1
73.98
STP#1
40 -60 -cm
metal
misc. metal
container with cap
partial
oxidized
1
67.8g
STP#1
40 -60 -cm
metal
misc. metal
roller w/ bearings
4.2 "x 1.8"
oxidized
1
403.8g
STP #1
40 -60 -cm
metal
misc. metal
misc. undiagnostic fragments
oxidized
26
312.1g
STP #1
40 -60 -cm
shell
barnacle
1
1.2
STP #1
40 -60 -cm
ceramic
stoneware
salt glazed
crock body
fragment
5
35.2g
STP #1
40 -60 -cm
ceramic
Ironstone
Tea leaf pattern transferware
"Anthony Shaw
England"
1
9.9g
STP #1
40 -60 -cm
ceramic
white ware
bowl fragments
fire affected
17
80.3g
STP #1
40 -60 -cm
ceramic
white ware
embossed beaded rim
rim sherd
1
3.7g
STP #1
40 -60 -cm
construction
plaster
material imprint on both surfaces
wall covering
1
3.9.g
STP #1
40 -60 -cm
shell
mytilus
black mussel
fire affected?
1
1.6g
STP #1
60 -80cm
glass
aqua
LID
slag
fire affected
2
27.Og
STP #1
60 -80cm
glass
clear
LID
opalized
fire affected
1
1_2g
R: \Projects \NewporAJ015 \Technical Reports \GulturalWchaeo Tech Rpt (pub }021610.doc D -35 Appendix D
Ranch
HISTORY
(Continued)
Unit
Level
Class
Attribute 1
Attribute 2
Attribute 3
Attribute 4
Count
wt.
STP #1
60 -80cm
bone
mammal
UID
fire affected
1
1.2g
STP #1
60 -80cm
construction
copper
wire
1
.6g
STP #1
60 -80cm
construction
copper
screen fragments
3
.3g
STP #1
60 -80cm
metal
nail
large wire nail w/ charcoal attached
fire affected
1
12.5g
STP#1
60 -80cm
metal
misc. metal
misc. undiagnostic fragments
oxidized
19
51.6g
STP #1
60 -80cm
metal
nail
wire nail fragments
2 heads
oxidized
2
1.1g
STP#1
60 -80cm
glass
UID
slag
fire affected
1
.4g
STP #1
60 -80cm
construction
Plaster
material imprint on both surfaces
wood imbeded
fire affected
2
1.7g
R: \Projects \Newport1JD15 \Technical Reports \CUlturalWchaeo Tech Rpt (pub }021610.doc D -36 Appendix D