PLAYA VISTA BURIAL GROUNDS - FINAL STUDY

https://youtu.be/wlMLXHRFnq0

2013 Data Recovery at CA-LAN-2768/H Locus A, Located on Lots 18–20 of Tract 49104-04, The Campus at Playa Vista, California

Edited by Scott H. Kremkau, Patrick Stanton, Kenneth M. Becker, and John G. Douglass

Prepared for
Playa Vista Parcel 4, L.P., and Playa Vista Parcel 5, L.P. 400 South Hope St., Ste. 200
Los Angeles, CA 90071

Technical Report 16-22 Redlands, California

page1image41488656

2013 Data Recovery at CA-LAN-2768/H Locus A, Located on Lots 18–20 of Tract 49104-04, The Campus at Playa Vista, California

Edited by Scott H. Kremkau, Patrick Stanton, Kenneth M. Becker, and John G. Douglass

Prepared for
Playa Vista Parcel 4, L.P., and Playa Vista Parcel 5, L.P. 400 South Hope St., Ste. 200
Los Angeles, CA 90071

Technical Report 16-22 Redlands, California

June 2020

page3image41667840

CONTENTS

page5image43668352

List of Figures.............................................................................................................................................vii List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................... ix List of Abbreviations and Acronyms...........................................................................................................xi

1. Introduction........................................................................................................................................................ 1

2. Project Setting and Previous Research, by Compiled by Scott H. Kremkau, Patrick B. Stanton,
and Jeffrey A. Homburg, with contributions by Christopher Garraty, John G. Douglass, Richard Ciolek-Torello, Mark Q. Sutton, and Benjamin R. Vargas
........................................................................... 7Geologic Background ............................................................................................................................... 7 Paleoenvironmental Reconstruction.......................................................................................................... 8

10,900–5550 cal B.C. .............................................................................................................................. 8 5550–3600 cal B.C. ................................................................................................................................. 8 3600–1950 cal B.C. ................................................................................................................................. 9 1950 cal B.C.–1000 cal A.D................................................................................................................... 10 cal A.D. 1000 to the Historical Period................................................................................................... 10

Cultural Setting ....................................................................................................................................... 11 Prehistoric Background ........................................................................................................................ 11 Paleocoastal Period (12000 cal B.P.–8500 cal B.P.) ........................................................................ 11 Millingstone Period (8500 cal B.P.–3000 cal B.P.)..........................................................................11 Intermediate Period (3000–1000 cal B.P.)....................................................................................... 12 Late Period (1000–400 cal B.P.)...................................................................................................... 12 Protohistoric and Early Historical Periods ........................................................................................... 13 Rancho Los Quintos and the Ranchería of Guaspet ....................................................................... 14 Historical-Period Setting ...................................................................................................................... 14 Rancho la Ballona ........................................................................................................................... 14 Twentieth-Century Land Use in the Ballona .................................................................................. 15 Previous Investigations at LAN-2768.....................................................................................................15 1998 Inventory and Evaluation ............................................................................................................ 16 2000 Data Recovery in Locus A .......................................................................................................... 16 2005 Riparian-Corridor Monitoring ..................................................................................................... 16 2005 and 2007 Trenching and Data Recovery at Locus B ................................................................... 18

2007 Additional Inventory Trenching for Playa Vista Parcel 4, L.P., and Playa Vista Parcel 5,
L.P., and Walton Street Capital, LLC, on The Campus at Playa Vista .......................................... 18

3. Research Goals and Objectives, by Compiled by Scott H. Kremkau and Patrick B. Stanton,
with contributions by John G. Douglass, Jeffrey H. Altschul, Richard Ciolek-Torello, Seetha N. Reddy, Benjamin R. Vargas, Donn R. Grenda, and Scott H. Kremkau 
................................................... 21Research Questions and Data Requirements........................................................................................... 21

Human-Land Relationships .................................................................................................................. 21 Geomorphology and Changing Environmental Conditions............................................................21 Subsistence Strategies.....................................................................................................................22

Data Requirements......................................................................................................................23 Cultural Dynamics of Prehistoric Settlement ....................................................................................... 23 Chronology ..................................................................................................................................... 24 Technology ..................................................................................................................................... 24 Cultural Interaction ......................................................................................................................... 25

iii

Data Requirements......................................................................................................................26 Historical-Period Development of the Ballona .................................................................................... 26 Agricultural Use..............................................................................................................................26 Industrial and Commercial Development ....................................................................................... 27 Data Requirements......................................................................................................................27

4. Project Methods, by Patrick B. Stanton and Kenneth M. Becker............................................................ 29Provenience Designations ....................................................................................................................... 29 Fieldwork Methods ................................................................................................................................. 30

Trenching.............................................................................................................................................. 30 Fill Removal ......................................................................................................................................... 30 Stripping ............................................................................................................................................... 32 Hand-Excavation .................................................................................................................................. 32

Bucket-Tracking System................................................................................................................. 32 Feature Excavation ............................................................................................................................... 33 Human Remains..............................................................................................................................33 Wet-Screening Methods ....................................................................................................................... 34 Laboratory Methods................................................................................................................................35

5. Fieldwork Results, by Patrick B. Stanton, Jeffrey A. Homburg, Scott H. Kremkau, and Dean M. Duryea, Jr. ........................................................................................................................................................ 37Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 37 Geoarchaeological Assessment...............................................................................................................37

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 37 Methods ................................................................................................................................................ 37 Results .................................................................................................................................................. 39

Radiocarbon-Dating Results ........................................................................................................... 43 Summary .............................................................................................................................................. 46 Excavation and Mechanical-Stripping Results ....................................................................................... 47 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 47 Prehistoric Component ......................................................................................................................... 47 Site Integrity and Disturbance..................................................................................................... 47 Midden-Constituent Analysis ......................................................................................................... 47 Spatial Patterning ........................................................................................................................ 48 Temporal Patterning.................................................................................................................... 50 Prehistoric Features......................................................................................................................... 51 Rock Clusters .............................................................................................................................. 51 Feature 3010............................................................................................................................ 51 Feature 3015............................................................................................................................ 51 Feature 3067............................................................................................................................ 51 Feature 3085............................................................................................................................ 56 Artifact Concentration................................................................................................................. 56 Feature 3064............................................................................................................................ 56 Spatial Patterning ........................................................................................................................ 60 Temporal Patterning.................................................................................................................... 60 Historical-Period Component ................................................................................................................. 60 Historical-Period Features .................................................................................................................... 60 Feature 2007.................................................................................................................................... 60 Feature 3047.................................................................................................................................... 62 Feature 3122.................................................................................................................................... 63 Temporally Ambiguous Features ......................................................................................................... 63 Feature 2020.................................................................................................................................... 63 Feature 3119.................................................................................................................................... 64

iv

Stripping Areas ....................................................................................................................................... 64

6. Material-Cultural Analysis, by Scott H. Kremkau, Justin Lev-Tov, Sarah Van Galder, Seetha
Reddy, Patrick B. Stanton, Karen Swope, and Teresa Terry
................................................................... 67Lithic Artifacts ........................................................................................................................................ 67

Sampling Strategy ................................................................................................................................ 67 Lithic-Typology Definitions................................................................................................................. 69 Flaked Stone Artifacts..................................................................................................................... 69 Debitage ...................................................................................................................................... 69 Bifaces......................................................................................................................................... 69 Projectile Points .......................................................................................................................... 69 Cores and Tested Material .......................................................................................................... 69 Edge-Modified Flakes.................................................................................................................70 Ground Stone .................................................................................................................................. 70 Expedient-Use Lithics..................................................................................................................... 70 Analysis Results......................................................................................................................................70 Excavation Units .................................................................................................................................. 70 Debitage .......................................................................................................................................... 72 Projectile Points .............................................................................................................................. 72 Bifaces ............................................................................................................................................ 74 Cores and Tested Material .............................................................................................................. 75 Edge-Modified Flakes..................................................................................................................... 75 FAR ............................................................................................................................................. 76 Features ................................................................................................................................................ 76 Debitage .......................................................................................................................................... 76 Tested Material ............................................................................................................................... 76 Ground Stone .................................................................................................................................. 76 FAR................................................................................................................................................. 76 Mechanical-Stripping Units.................................................................................................................. 77 Debitage .......................................................................................................................................... 78 Cores and Tested Material .............................................................................................................. 78 Ground Stone .................................................................................................................................. 78 FAR................................................................................................................................................. 78 Summary of Lithic Artifacts from LAN-2768 ........................................................................................ 78 Stratum II.............................................................................................................................................. 79 Stratum III/IV ....................................................................................................................................... 79 Stratum IV ............................................................................................................................................ 79 Comparisons with Other Playa Vista Sites...........................................................................................80 Loci A and B at LAN-2768 ............................................................................................................ 80 Other Playa Sites.............................................................................................................................81 Lithic Activities at LAN-2768.............................................................................................................. 82 Vertebrate-Faunal Remains..................................................................................................................... 82 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 82 Methods ................................................................................................................................................ 83 Results .................................................................................................................................................. 83 Mechanical-Stripping Units ............................................................................................................ 83 Trenches .......................................................................................................................................... 90 Features ........................................................................................................................................... 90 Prehistoric Features.....................................................................................................................90 Historical-Period Features........................................................................................................... 93 Excavation Units.............................................................................................................................93 Upper Stratum IV and Fill Interface ........................................................................................... 93 Lower Stratum IV ....................................................................................................................... 98

v

Stratum III...................................................................................................................................98 Stratum II .................................................................................................................................... 98 Stratum I...................................................................................................................................... 98

Burned Bone ................................................................................................................................... 98 Deer-Bone Distribution.............................................................................................................100 Discussion and Conclusions ............................................................................................................... 100 Historical-Period Context ............................................................................................................. 100 Prehistoric Context........................................................................................................................ 103 Invertebrate Remains ............................................................................................................................ 106 Introduction and Methods................................................................................................................... 106 Spatial and Stratigraphic Distribution of Shells ................................................................................. 108 Excavation Units...........................................................................................................................108 Features ......................................................................................................................................... 108 Mechanical-Stripping Units .......................................................................................................... 108 Trench ........................................................................................................................................... 113 Comparison with Previous Investigations at LAN-2768.................................................................... 113 Locus A.........................................................................................................................................113 Locus B ......................................................................................................................................... 115 Other Playa Sites...........................................................................................................................115 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................ 117 Worked Shell ................................................................................................................................ 118 Macrobotanical Remains....................................................................................................................... 118 Methods .............................................................................................................................................. 119 Results ................................................................................................................................................ 119 Comparison to Previous Data from the Site ....................................................................................... 121 Human Bone ......................................................................................................................................... 121 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 121 Methods .............................................................................................................................................. 123 Analysis .............................................................................................................................................. 123 Historical-Period Analysis .................................................................................................................... 124 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 124 Analysis .............................................................................................................................................. 124 Summary ............................................................................................................................................ 126

7. Conclusions, by John G. Douglass, Patrick B. Stanton, and Scott H. Kremkau ................................. 129Research Questions Reexamined .......................................................................................................... 129 Human–Land Relationships ............................................................................................................... 129 Subsistence.................................................................................................................................... 130 Cultural Dynamics of Prehistoric Settlement ..................................................................................... 131 Chronology ................................................................................................................................... 131 Technology ................................................................................................................................... 132 Identity and Interaction ................................................................................................................. 132 Historical-Period Development of the Ballona .................................................................................. 133 Agricultural Development ............................................................................................................ 133 Industrial and Commercial Development ..................................................................................... 133 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................... 134 Management Recommendations ........................................................................................................... 135

References Cited...............................................................................................................................................137

Appendix A. CA-LAN-2768/H Locus A 2015 Data Recovery Report .......................................................... 149 Appendix B. Radiocarbon Results .................................................................................................................. 203 Appendix C. CA-LAN-2768/H Site-Record Update........................................................................................ 217 Appendix D. Obsidian-Sourcing Results ........................................................................................................ 229

vi

LIST OF FIGURES

page9image43796160

Figure 1. Map of the Playa Vista Archaeological and Historical Project area, showing the location of LAN-2768 on The Campus at Playa Vista................................................................................................2

Figure 2. Map showing the location of LAN-2768 Locus A within Lots 18–20 of Tract 49104-04 ............ 3

Figure 3. Map of LAN-2768 Loci A–D........................................................................................................4

Figure 4. Close-up of LAN-2768 Locus A, showing the locations of data recovery excavations in 2000......................................................................................................................................................... 17

Figure 5. Map showing the locations of test trenches excavated in 2007 and the intact portion of LAN-2768 within Lots 18–20 of Tract 49104-04...................................................................................19

Figure 6. Map showing the locations of trenches and excavation units from the 2013 data recovery
at LAN-2768 ........................................................................................................................................... 31

Figure 7. Map showing the location of Profile A........................................................................................ 38 Figure 8. Schematic of Profile A ................................................................................................................ 40 Figure 9. Photograph of Profile A in Excavation Unit 11, Block 1 ............................................................ 41 Figure 10. Stratigraphic cross section of the Playa Vista Parcel 4, L.P., and Playa Vista Parcel 5,

L.P., parcel .............................................................................................................................................. 46

Figure 11. Block 1 artifact frequency, by stratum ...................................................................................... 49

Figure 12. Block 2 artifact frequency, by stratum ...................................................................................... 49

Figure 13. Combined artifact frequency of Blocks 1 and 2, by stratum ..................................................... 50

Figure 14. Map showing the locations of prehistoric features at LAN-2768.............................................. 52

Figure 15. Plan view and profile of Feature 3010....................................................................................... 53

Figure 16. Plan view of Feature 3015 ......................................................................................................... 54

Figure 17. Plan view and profile of Feature 3067....................................................................................... 55

Figure 18. Overview photograph of Feature 3067 ...................................................................................... 56

Figure 19. Plan view of Feature 3085 ......................................................................................................... 57

Figure 20. Overview photograph of Feature 3085 ...................................................................................... 58

Figure 21. Plan view of Feature 3064 ......................................................................................................... 59

Figure 22. Map showing the locations of historical-period and temporally ambiguous features at LAN-2768 ............................................................................................................................................... 61

Figure 23. Overview photograph of Feature 2007 ...................................................................................... 62 Figure 24. Overview photograph of Feature 3047 ...................................................................................... 63 Figure 25. Overview photograph of a septic tank (Subfeature 3121) ......................................................... 64 Figure 26. Flaked stone tools recovered from excavation units.................................................................. 74 Figure 27. Cores recovered from LAN-2768..............................................................................................75

vii

Figure 28. Ground stone artifacts from LAN-2768 .................................................................................... 77

Figure 29. Frequencies of lithic artifacts within Blocks 1 and 2 from the 2013 data recovery
compared to data from control units from the 2000 data recovery, by cultural period...........................81

Figure 30. Right maxillary second molar of adult Equus sp., occlusal surface .......................................... 92 Figure 31. Antler tine from Feature 3064 ................................................................................................... 92 Figure 32. Butchering marks on sheep or goat scapula ............................................................................ 103 Figure 33. Butchering marks on sheep or goat pelvis...............................................................................103 Figure 34. Comparison of the LAN-2768 Locus A 2013 data recovery invertebrate sample to

data from other contexts at LAN-2768 ................................................................................................. 114

Figure 35. Relative abundances of shellfish taxa at Intermediate period Playa Vista Archaeological
and Historical Project sites compared to relative abundances from the LAN-2768 Locus A 2013
data recovery ......................................................................................................................................... 116

Figure 36. Olivella-shell beads discovered at LAN-2768 during the 2013 data recovery ........................ 118 Figure 37. Manufacture dates of beverage containers found in Feature 3047 .......................................... 126

viii

LIST OF TABLES

page11image43801152

Table 1. Profile A Pedon Description ......................................................................................................... 42

Table 2. Radiocarbon Dates for LAN-2768................................................................................................44

Table 3. Artifact Counts and Densities for Each Stratum of LAN-2768 .................................................... 48

Table 4. Summary of Lithic Artifacts Recovered during Data Recovery...................................................68

Table 5. Lithic Artifacts from Excavation Units......................................................................................... 71

Table 6. Summary of Debitage, by Natural Stratum................................................................................... 73

Table 7. Vertebrate-Species List for All Contexts from the LAN-2768 Data Recovery ........................... 84

Table 8. Vertebrate-Species Abundance from Stripping-Unit Contexts, by Natural Stratum .................... 85

Table 9. Elements and Bone Portions from Stripping Units at LAN-2768, by Taxon ............................... 86

Table 10. Vertebrate-Species Abundance in Features and Trenches, by Natural Stratum ......................... 91

Table 11. Vertebrate-Species Abundance within the Upper Stratum IV and Fill Interface........................ 94

Table 12. Vertebrate-Species Abundance within Lower Stratum IV and the Remaining Stratum.............95

Table 13. Contexts and Descriptions of Butchered Bones from Stratum IV .............................................. 97

Table 14. Number of Burned vs. Unburned Bones within Excavation Units, by Stratum ......................... 99

Table 15. Stratigraphic Distribution of Deer Elements............................................................................. 101

Table 16. Comparison of Vertebrate Fauna from the LAN-2768 Locus A 2013 Data Recovery with Vertebrate Fauna from the LAN-2768 Locus A and Locus B 2000 Data Recovery ............................ 104

Table 17. Abundance of Molluscan Taxa across the Site, by Weight in Grams and Count ..................... 107

Table 18. Minimum Numbers of Bivalves in the Collection According to Sided Hinges.......................107

Table 19. Abundance of Shellfish by Count across the Site, by Stratum ................................................. 109

Table 20. Abundance of Shellfish by Weight in Grams (g) across the Site, by Stratum .......................... 111

Table 21. Comparison of Shell Contents of LAN-2768 Locus A Control Unit 2/22 and Locus A West, by Percentage of Weight ............................................................................................................................ 114

Table 22. Comparison of Venus Clam Percentages at Ballona-Area Intermediate Period Sites .............. 117 Table 23. Itemized Macrobotanical Remains from LAN-2768, by Stratum............................................. 120 Table 24. Macrobotanical Remains from Flotation Samples, LAN-2768 ................................................ 121 Table 25. Comparison of Previous and Current Macrobotanical-Analysis Results, LAN-2768 .............. 122 Table 26. Historical-Period Artifact Totals from Excavation Units and Feature 3047............................. 125

ix

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

page13image43801728

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation AMS accelerator mass spectrometry
ARB-30 arbitrary 30-cm soil buffer
Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

CU Control Unit
EMTD Entertainment, Media, and Technology District EU Excavation Unit
FAR fire-affected rock
MLD Most Likely Descendent
MNI minimum number of individuals
MSU mechanical-stripping unit
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
PA Programmatic Agreement
PD provenience designation
PVAHP Playa Vista Archaeological and Historical Project SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer
SRI Statistical Research, Inc.
UCLA University of California, Los Angeles

xi

CHAPTER 1Introduction

Playa Vista Parcel 4, L.P., and Playa Vista Parcel 5, L.P., plans to develop Lots 17–20 of Tract 49104-04, within an area previously known as the Entertainment, Media, and Technology District (EMTD) and now known as The Campus, at Playa Vista, California (Figures 1 and 2). These parcels are located to the south and west of the intersection of Bluff Creek Drive and Centinela Avenue. The development will involve the construction of commercial buildings, parking lots, and related infrastructure. A portion of archaeological site CA-LAN-2768/H (hereinafter, the prefix “CA-” and the suffix “/H” will be dropped from this site designation and others referenced in this volume) is present on Lots 18–20 (project area).

LAN-2768 is part of the Playa Vista Archaeological and Historical Project (PVAHP), established in compliance with federal, state, and municipal laws and regulations pertaining to cultural resources on the property (Altschul et al. 1991; Homburg et al. 2014). Since 1991, Statistical Research, Inc. (SRI), has been conducting research at the site as part of an overall research design (Altschul et al. 1991), the execution of which is stipulated as part of a Programmatic Agreement (PA) among the U.S. Army Corps of Engi- neers, Los Angeles District (Corps); the California State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO); and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP). LAN-2768 was recommended as a contributing member of the Ballona Lagoon Archaeological District (BLAD) in 1999 (Altschul et al. 1999:110) and, as such, was determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) by the Corps. For management purposes, SRI has divided LAN-2768 into four discrete loci: Loci A–D (Fig- ure 3). The project area covers the northernmost extension of LAN-2768 and lies within the western end of Locus A (see Figure 2).

Data recovery excavations were conducted previously at portions of Loci A–D at LAN-2768, in 2000 and 2005. In 2013, SRI conducted archaeological data recovery within the project area to mitigate adverse effects of the planned Tishman Speyer development. The Corps approved a previously submitted treatment plan for data recovery excavations at LAN-2768 (Altschul et al. 1999) and a related excavation plan for the portion of Locus A in Lots 18–20 (Grenda 2013).

Fieldwork in the project area began on October 21, 2013, and was completed on November 20, 2013. All SRI crew members performing archaeological duties met or exceeded the requirements of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation. Field efforts at the site were successful at collecting data relevant to the research questions detailed in the initial Research Design (Altschul et al. 1991), created under stipulations of a PA among the Corps, the SHPO, and the ACHP, and in subsequent work and treatment plans (Altschul and Ciolek-Torrello 1997; Altschul et al. 1999; Grenda 2005a, 2005b, 2007, 2013). Because the project required a permit from the Corps to comply with the Clean Water Act, the project also had to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. Additionally, the project had to comply with state and local laws, most notably the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Coastal Act. A comprehensive program was developed to ensure that compliance with federal, state, and local laws and regulations was met.

page15image43797888

1

page16image41715120page16image43804800page16image41719280page16image41714912page16image41719488page16image41717616

2

Figure 1. Map of the Playa Vista Archaeological and Historical Project area, showing the location of LAN-2768 on The Campus at Playa Vista.

page17image41717824page17image43795392page17image41718032page17image41716576page17image41716784

3

Figure 2. Map showing the location of LAN-2768 Locus A within Lots 18–20 of Tract 49104-04.

page18image41718864page18image43809984page18image41720112page18image41714704page18image41720320

4

Figure 3. Map of LAN-2768 Loci A–D.

This report presents the results of data recovery efforts conducted by SRI in the project area. Chapter 2 presents the project setting and previous research, including all work conducted by SRI from 1998 to 2007 as part of the PVAHP as well as earlier archaeological endeavors conducted prior to SRI’s involvement. The research design for this project is detailed in Chapter 3. Chapter 4 presents the field and laboratory methods employed by SRI staff during this project. Chapter 5 discusses the geoarchaeological findings and details the prehistoric and historical-period features, historical-period linear features, and artifact distribu- tions within the excavation units. Chapter 6 presents the analyses of the various artifact types recovered during fieldwork: lithic, vertebrate and invertebrate faunal, paleobotanical, human osteological, and histor- ical period. Chapter 7 compares the results of data recovery in the project area with data from other portions of LAN-2768 as well as other sites located in and near The Campus. Management recommendations that should be considered are also provided in Chapter 7.

In addition to the fieldwork completed in 2013, SRI did additional work in an adjacent area for Playa Vista Parcel 4, L.P., and Playa Vista Parcel 5, L.P., in the fall of 2015, when this report was already partially written. The report on the 2015 work is presented as an appendix (Appendix A) to this larger report. Ap- pendix B is the radiocarbon-dating report from Beta Analytic, Inc. Project site records are provided in Appendix C, and the obsidian-sourcing report from Geochemical Research Laboratory is presented in Ap- pendix D.

5

CHAPTER 2
Project Setting and Previous Research

Compiled by Scott H. Kremkau, Patrick B. Stanton, and Jeffrey A. Homburg,
with contributions by Christopher Garraty, John G. Douglass, Richard Ciolek-Torello, Mark Q. Sutton, and Benjamin R. Vargas

This chapter presents the natural and cultural setting of LAN-2768. It summarizes much of the information pre- sented in Chapter 7 of Volume 2 of the PVAHP data recovery report (Garraty, Vargas, and Ciolek-Torello 2016).

Geologic Background

LAN-2768 is situated in the Ballona, a large, low-lying coastal gap east of Santa Monica Bay that represents one of the many drowned valleys sandwiched between higher landforms that dot the length of the California Bight. The site is located about 5 km inland from the Santa Monica Bay, near the town of Playa del Rey. LAN-2768 wraps around a base of a ridge of the Ballona Escarpment at the northwestern edge of the El Segundo Sand Hills. The Ballona Gap is named after Ballona Creek, the creek that flows through the gap from the northeast. The Ballona Escarpment at the southeastern boundary of the gap is the product of tec- tonic activity along a fault line and of lateral stream migration of the ancestral Los Angeles River that occurred sometime in the Pleistocene (Grant and Shephard 1939).

The Ballona gap is fed by two drainages. Flowing along the base of the escarpment is Centinela Creek, a spring-fed stream that created an estuary of its own along its lower course. Centinela Creek has been channelized to form a riparian corridor at the southern end of Playa Vista, but it crossed LAN-2768 both prehistorically and in the modern era. The spring at the head of Centinela Creek originates in Inglewood to the southeast. Centinela Creek is a much smaller drainage than Ballona Creek, but it played a crucial role in prehistory because it likely flowed year-round. Ballona Creek, with a drainage area encompassing over 110 square miles, emptied into the Ballona Lagoon at about the present location of Lincoln and Jefferson boulevards. Because the area between the escarpment and the Santa Monica Mountains is crossed by a number of fault lines, the flow of underground water was often interrupted along the course of Ballona Creek to force water to the surface (Poland et al1959:12). When the first Spanish settlers grazed cattle in the Ballona Gap in the early 1800s, they found areas near the creek lined with alders, sycamores, and willows.

Prior to modern development, the Ballona Lagoon was an estuarine lagoon (see Bird 1994; Davies 1973:152), a type of lagoon characterized by stream discharge into a marine lagoon. As the estuarine lagoon matured, sediments from upstream were continually deposited at the mouth of Ballona Creek. Eventually, sedimentation transformed the lagoon from an open expanse of water into an intricate network of estuarine channels cutting through newly formed marshes and islands. Estuaries such as the one formed in the Ballona Gap are among the most productive ecozones, in terms of biomass (Palacios-Fest et al. 2007; Schreiber 1981). The mix of open lagoon, tidal flats, saltwater and freshwater marshes, and freshwater streams provides a variety of distinct habitats within a restricted space. The availability of oceanic, riverine, and terrestrial plants and animals in proximity to one another makes the Ballona and other estuaries of the Southern Cal- ifornia Bight some of the most favored locales for human occupation since people first populated the New World. In the late 1800s, the Ballona Lagoon was home to a dense population of fish, waterfowl, and sea mammals and was renowned for its hunting and fishing.

page21image43996416

7

Paleoenvironmental Reconstruction

Paleoenvironmental conditions in the eastern part of the Ballona Lagoon, near LAN-2768, were recon- structed as part of the PVAHP (Ciolek-Torello et al. 2013; Homburg and Douglas 2014). That work was based on analysis of the stratigraphy, radiocarbon dates, and paleoenvironmental indicators (diatoms [sili- ceous microfossils], foraminifera [calcareous microfossils], mollusks, ostracodes [shells of bivalve arthro- pods], and pollen) of Cores 8, 25, 61, and 100 (see Homburg and Douglas 2014); the closest core to LAN- 2768 is Core 25, which is about 600 m to the south-southwest of the site, north of LAN-193. The discussion below is based on the paleoenvironmental reconstruction by Homburg and Douglas (2014). The ages re- ported in this section were calibrated using OxCal 4.2.3 (see Bronk Ramsey and Lee 2013; Reimer et al. 2013) and rounded to the nearest 50-year increment; the uncalibrated ages are shown in parentheses.

10,900–5550 cal B.C.

No diatoms, foraminifera, or mollusks were identified in the cores from the eastern part of the lagoon in sediments predating roughly 5900 cal B.C. (7000 B.P.). One brackish-water ostracode (Cyprideis salebrosa) was recovered from a portion of the core dated to 11,100 cal B.C. (11,140 B.P.). The pollen analysis indi- cated that oak trees (Quercus sp.) and sage (Artemisia sp.) dominated the floral community on the bluffs above the Ballona in the early Holocene; pine (Pinus sp.) pollen was also present (9500 cal B.C. [ca. 10,000 B.P.]). After 7550 cal B.C. (8500 B.P.), an increase in grasses (Poaceae), shrubs, and plants (Che- nopodiaceae and Compositae) indicated that xeric vegetation was becoming established in the Ballona, likely associated with Altithermal warming. By approximately 7550 cal B.C. (8500 B.P.), the landscape in the vicinity of Core 8, north of LAN-62, supported an increasing number of ostracodes adapted to brackish- water conditions (Cyprideis salebrosaC. beaconensis, and C. castus). The presence of algae and salt- tolerant (halophytic) plants (Ruppia sp.) indicated that pools of saline water were present in the area around Core 8. The eastern area of the lagoon appears to have remained predominantly terrestrial for the next 2,000 years, experiencing only intermittent pulses of marine water, possibly via overflow of tidal channels during tidal surges associated with storms. For example, very low frequencies of transitional diatoms (Cytherura johnsoni, Megacythere johnsoni, and Perissocytheridea swaini) and marine diatoms (Actinop- tychus senarius and Stephanopyxis appendiculata) were identified in the Core 8 samples for the period dating to between roughly 6950 cal B.C. and 6650 cal B.C. (8000 and 7800 B.P.) and between 6400 cal B.C. and 6150 cal B.C. (7400 and 7300 B.P.). Their occurrence at low frequencies suggests that these organisms were deposited by tidal surges. Freshwater diatoms (e.g., Cocconeis placentula, Rhopalodia gibba,Caloneis spp., Surirella spp., and Epithemia sp.) were present but rare from 6950 cal B.C. to 5550 cal B.C. (8000–6600 B.P.). Frequencies in the ostracode and diatom assemblages remained low until roughly 5550 cal B.C. (6600 B.P.), indicating that this area of the lagoon was terrestrial during that interval. This interpretation is supported by the absence of foraminifera in the Core 8 samples spanning 7550 cal B.C.– 5550 cal B.C. (8500–6600 B.P.).

5550–3600 cal B.C.

Between approximately 5550 cal B.C. and 5500 cal B.C. (6600 and 6500 B.P.), there was a marked increase in freshwater ostracodes (Cypria ophtalmica and C. vidua), and freshwater specimens accounted for 90 per- cent of the assemblage. Freshwater diatoms (e.g., Cocconeis placentula, Rhopalodia gibba, Cypria spp.,Surirella spp., and Epithemia sp.) were present but rare. The increase in freshwater ostracodes and diatoms likely reflects an influx of groundwater from the alluvial fan at LAN-62 to the Core 8 location rather than an increase in precipitation or flooding. Brackish-water ostracodes (Cyprideis beaconensis and C. salebrosa) represented only a small percentage of the sample from this period. Evidence of temporary mi- gration of Centinela Creek, rather than flooding, was also supported by the pollen data, which indicated

8

that the sagebrush (Artemisia sp.) and shrub community was expanding during this interval, and aridity was increasing. A small spike in Ruppia pollen in this portion of Core 8 is explained by the migration of Cen- tinela Creek to this area of the lagoon. From 5500 cal B.C. to 4950 cal B.C. (6500–6050 B.P.), this area appears to have remained primarily terrestrial, receiving intermittent pulses of freshwater and saline water. Between 4950 cal B.C. and 4750 B.C. (6050 and 5850 B.P.), there was a notable spike in the presence of marine diatoms (Actinoptychus senarius and Stephanopyxis appendiculata), foraminifera (Elphidium in- certum and Ammonia beccarii), and ostracodes (Loxoconcha tamarindoidea), indicating a marine trans- gression. The same was suggested by low pollen counts in this interval. At approximately 4750 cal B.C. (5850 B.P.), there was an abrupt decline in marine organisms, and the lagoon appears to have transformed into a brackish-water system. Only brackish-water ostracodes and freshwater diatoms were observed in the Core 8 sediment samples from the subsequent 350 years (until roughly 4400 cal B.C. [5540 B.P.]), and no foraminifera were identified. This 350-year interval was also marked by an increase in the abundance of pollen, suggesting that the area around Core 8 was open to the air at least seasonally. Pollen percentages for sagelike shrubs and a variety of flowering plants (Chenopodiaceae and Compositae) increased from 4650 cal B.C. to 4350 cal B.C. (5800–5500 B.P.), and concurrently, percentages of brackish-water plants, such as Ruppia, decreased; that shift suggests that the eastern area of the lagoon was becoming more xeric during this 300-year interval. The marine transgression and subsequent recession were undoubtedly tied to changes in eustatic sea level, which had not yet achieved equilibrium. The floral community indicated that the region was hot and dry, which fits other climate reconstructions for this period of the Altithermal in California (see LaMarche 1973). From 4350 cal B.C. to 3600 cal B.C. (5500–4800 B.P.), ostracodes adapted to brackish water continued to dominate the assemblage (80 percent). Freshwater ostracodes were next in abundance (5–10 percent). Transitional and marine specimens were also present, suggesting that marine water and freshwater occasionally flushed the area, likely as a result of tidal surges and flooding of Ballona Creek, the Los Angeles River, and Centinela Creek. The diatom and foraminifera assemblages also reflected this pattern—fewer than 5 marine diatoms and 20 foraminifera dated to this 750-year interval. Intermittent flooding was also supported by the presence of higher levels of Ruppia sp. and algae, particularly from 4000 cal B.C. to 3750 cal B.C. (5200–5000 B.P.). Percentages of pollen for sagebrush (Artemisia sp.), sage- like shrubs, and a variety of flowering plants (Chenopodiaceae and Compositae) continued to increase throughout this period, indicating that the climate was warm and dry.

3600–1950 cal B.C.

From 3600 cal B.C. to 3400 cal B.C. (4800–4600 B.P.), there was a marine transgression, as evidenced by rel- atively high frequencies of foraminifera and increased numbers of marine and transitional ostracodes; oddly, only one marine diatom was observed in sediments from this interval. A marine transgression was also sug- gested by the extremely low pollen counts from 3600 cal B.C. to 3400 cal B.C. (4800–4600 B.P.). Concurrently, there was a small spike in Ruppia pollen and algae, indicating that the area around Core 8 was often sub- merged. Sediment composition and the presence of oyster (Ostrea sp.) shells in Core 100 indicated that the area 250 m north of and inland from Core 8 was located in a tidal mudflat. Roughly 300 m inland from Core 100, the landscape transitioned to a lagoon-edge environment, as evidenced by the presence of hornsnail (Cerithidea californica) shells in Core 61. From 3400 cal B.C. to 1950 cal B.C. (4600–3600 B.P.), the eastern part of the Ballona reverted to a predominantly brackish-water system. The mudflats supporting oyster (Os- trea) beds and clams (Core 100) were buried by silt between 2700 cal B.C. and 2500 cal B.C. (4100 and 4000 B.P.). An increase in freshwater diatoms and ostracodes indicated that the eastern part of the Ballona experienced flood pulses during this interval; episodic flooding deposited silt that buried the mudflats. Addi- tionally, recovered pollen grains from this 200-year interval were highly degraded, indicating alternating wet and dry conditions. A spike in Typha (cattails) and the presence of ferns and algae from roughly 2100 cal B.C. to 1950 cal B.C. (3700–3600 B.P.) indicated that standing water was present. With the exception of the spike in cattails and ferns, the floral community near Core 8 was dominated by sagelike shrubs, sagebrush, various flowering plants, and ragweed. Farther inland from Core 8, the Ballona was a salt marsh, as evidenced by the hornsnail (C. californica) shells recovered from Core 25. Between 2100 cal B.C. and 1950 cal B.C. (3700 and

9

3600 B.P.), a tidal channel appears to have overflowed, as represented by a single foraminifera (E. incertum) and one marine diatom (Coscinodiscus marginatus); the overflow may have occurred as a result of a tidal surge or winter storm. The wet conditions reflected in the proxy-data assemblages for 2700 cal B.P.–1950 calB.C. (4100–3600 B.P.) correspond well to the cooler/wetter conditions associated with the Neoglacial period in California (LaMarche 1973) and elsewhere (Clague and Mathewes 1996; Wood and Smith 2004); from 3400 cal B.C. to 2700 cal B.C. (4600–4100 B.P.), the environment appears to have been more xeric.

1950 cal B.C.–1000 cal A.D.

From 1950 cal B.C. to 0 cal A.D. (3600–2000 B.P.), the eastern portion of the Ballona became increasingly terrestrial as a result of the filling of the basin with sediment. No diatoms or foraminifera were identified in the sediment samples, and only a few freshwater ostracodes were observed in the sediment samples for Core 8. A decrease in salt-tolerant plants (Chenopodiaceae) and an increase in pine and ferns around 1350 cal B.C. (3100 B.P.) and 1250 cal B.C. (3000 B.P.) suggested that a cooler, more terrestrial environment was developing. By 1100 cal B.C. (2900 B.P.), the environment appears to have become more arid, as indi- cated by an abrupt decline in pine and ferns and an increase in Chenopodiaceae and plants associated with the sunflower (Compositae) family. One significant pulse of freshwater, possibly from flooding of Ballona Creek, was evidenced by an increase in the number of freshwater ostracodes observed in samples dating to around cal A.D. 0 (2000 B.P.) (n = 368). That number was much higher than in the samples from the previ- ous 500 years. The small flood event does not appear to have affected the plant community of the Ballona. From 1100 cal B.C. to cal A.D. 1000 (2900–1000 B.P.), the pollen assemblage remained largely the same, dominated by Chenopodiaceae and Compositae. No marine diatoms or foraminifera were observed in any of the samples dating to 1950 cal B.C.–cal A.D. 1000 (3600–1000 B.P.), indicating that the area was no longer directly influenced by the ocean. This period corresponds to Occupational Episodes 2–4 (see below), associated with the Intermediate period. Current evidence indicates that indigenous occupation of LAN- 2768 reached its zenith during this time.

cal A.D. 1000 to the Historical Period

From cal A.D. 1000 (1000 B.P.) to the historical period, the lagoon remained closed, and no diatoms, foram- inifera, or ostracodes were observed in Core 8 samples for this interval. A decline in Compositae corre- sponds to a marked increase in grasses and plants associated with the mustard (Brassicaceae) family, such as tubers like radish and cabbage-like plants similar to kale. These plants dominated the assemblage until approximately cal A.D. 1400 (500 B.P.), at which time oak and Compositae pollen increased in frequency once again. The plant community of the Ballona and the surrounding bluffs was undoubtedly heavily uti- lized by people living in the area, and the increases in grasses and Brassicaceae may reflect selective col- lection and harvesting of those resources. The decline in less-palatable plants may reflect human selection or weeding of these varieties so that preferred plants could expand into other areas of the landscape. The decline in grasses and plants associated with the mustard family around cal A.D. 1400 (500 B.P.), concurrent with an increase in oak pollen, could reflect a combination of cooler/wetter conditions associated with the Little Ice Age (making oak more abundant) and human collection of grasses and other plants from else- where and harvesting of acorns on the bluffs above the Ballona.

10

Cultural SettingPrehistoric Background

Over the last decade, a much clearer picture of the prehistory of coastal southern California has begun to emerge. Recent excavations at a number of sites, including those in the Ballona (Altschul et al. 2003; Douglass et al. 2005; Hull et al. 2013; Vargas et al. 2016) and at Landing Hill (Cleland et al. 2007), plus recent synthetic treatments of southern California prehistory (e.g., Byrd and Raab 2007; Sutton 2009; Sut- ton and Koerper 2009; Warren et al. 2008), have combined to better elucidate southern California prehis- tory. The following section summarizes the prehistory of the Ballona region as it is currently understood.

Paleocoastal Period (12000 cal B.P.–8500 cal B.P.)

The earliest evidence of human occupation of the coast of California dates to approximately 12,000 B.P. (Erlandson et al. 2007). These early people were part of the Paleocoastal tradition and have been docu- mented along the coast of central California and on the northern Channel Islands. These maritime-adapted people apparently migrated down the coast from the north, as shown by discoveries at several sites along the coast (see Erlandson et al. 2007). The earliest Paleocoastal groups were contemporaneous with the bet- ter-known Clovis complex, which was a terrestrial and lacustrine adaptation (with a different technology).

Many dozens of sites dating to between 12,000 and 8500 cal B.P. are known along the southern and central California coast (Erlandson et al. 2007; also see Erlandson 1997; Erlandson and Colten 1991:3; Jones et al. 2002, 2008). These sites are distributed in three primary clusters. One cluster extends from San Luis Obispo southward to the Santa Barbara coast (including the northern Channel Islands). The second cluster is concentrated on the southern Channel Islands, and the third is around the ancient lagoons of San Diego County. Only two or three are known along the coast in the Los Angeles area. These sites show strong evidence of maritime adaptations, including the use of shellfish, fish, and marine mammals.

In the Ballona area, evidence of a Paleocoastal occupation is scant; only two sites have shown any evi- dence of occupation during this time period: LAN-61, located on the bluff top, just east of the Lincoln Gap, and LAN-63, located immediately to the west of LAN-61, just west of the Lincoln Gap. Although there are no radiocarbon dates from LAN-61 from this period (Lambert 1983:8; Van Horn and Murray 1985), a crescent and several stemmed points were identified by Van Horn and Murray during their large-scale data recovery investigations at the site in the 1980s. Crescents generally date prior to approximately 7000 cal B.P. A few stemmed points also were recovered from the surface of LAN-63 in the 1980s (Hull and Douglass 2005; Lambert 1983:8; Van Horn 1987). Subsequent data recovery at LAN-63, however, including dozens of radi- ocarbon dates, failed to reveal any evidence of a Paleocoastal component (Douglass et al. 2005).

Millingstone Period (8500 cal B.P.–3000 cal B.P.)

The Millingstone period—sometimes referred to as the Early period—is a roughly 5,500-year span begin- ning around 8500 cal B.P. and ending with the first dramatic increase in regional human population, around 3000 cal B.P. The Millingstone period (called a “horizon” in some chronological schemes) is definitive of a time period when milling implements (especially manos and metates), scraper planes, choppers, and core tools were abundant and when there was a dearth of projectile points (in this case, dart points and spears) and faunal remains. Inherent in the definition of the Millingstone period is a heavy dependence on seeds and a relative lack of dependence on hunting (hence the abundance of milling implements and the near absence of hunting equipment and faunal remains).

Until recently, only a relatively small number of Millingstone period sites have been discovered in the Ballona. Most were located on the bluff tops above the PVAHP area (in the lower Ballona) and to the east, near the Baldwin Hills (in the upper Ballona), where ephemeral camps were located near an inland swamp

11

later known as Las Cienegas. However, recent reinterpretation of some sites, in addition to data recovery efforts at sites in the PVAHP project area, has shown that the Millingstone component in the Ballona area was more widespread than previously known.

Van Horn and White (1997) argued that the occupants of the Millingstone period component (Compo- nent A) at the Berger Street site (LAN-206) fished and collected shellfish in the nearby Ballona estuary. Below the bluff, Millingstone period dates have been identified at two sites that are part of the PVAHP: LAN-54 and LAN-62 (Altschul et al. 2003; Vargas and Altschul 2001; Vargas et al. 2005). LAN-62 ap- pears to date to at least 6000 cal B.P., whereas LAN-54 generally dates to the late Millingstone period, ca. 4000 cal B.P. Four sites on the bluff tops, LAN-61, LAN-63, LAN-64, and LAN-206 (including LAN- 206A), have yielded radiocarbon dates or other diagnostic artifacts that fall within the Millingstone period (Douglass et al. 2005; Van Horn 1987; Van Horn and Murray 1985). Radiocarbon assays from LAN-64 (Hull and Douglass 2005) have yielded a cluster of dates between 7000 and 8200 cal B.P., making it, by far, the oldest occupied site in the Ballona area (and one of the oldest sites along the Southern California Bight, as well).

Intermediate Period (3000–1000 cal B.P.)

The Intermediate period, dating from 3000 to 1000 cal B.P., is a period marked by changes in many aspects of prehistoric lifeways. During these two millennia, transformations in settlement patterns, economic ac- tivities, mortuary practices, and technology appeared all along the coast, some changes appearing suddenly and others evolving more gradually. The latter portion of the Intermediate period, ca. 1500–1000 cal B.P., is marked by the spread of the bow and arrow to the coast from the north and east. About this same time, the trade in Coso obsidian from the Coso Volcanic Field, 250 km north of the PVAHP project area, de- creased dramatically (Sutton et al. 2007:244), and obsidian from Obsidian Butte, 270 km southeast of the project area, increased in importance. During the end of the Intermediate period, ceramics also become more widespread, including both Yuman ceramics from the lower Colorado River and some local wares. Major settlements continued to be occupied on a seasonal basis. Flexed burials continued, and cremation remained uncommon. Sutton (2009) has argued that many of the major changes that began in the late In- termediate period were due to the diffusion of a Takic language, the mother of the Cupan languages, into Yuman-speaking areas immediately to the south of the Los Angeles Basin.

The Intermediate period is the best-documented portion of the prehistoric occupation in the Ballona. Ten Intermediate period sites have been identified through radiocarbon dating. Four sites (LAN-60, LAN- 62, LAN-193, and LAN-2768) are located at the base of the bluff, along the banks of Centinela Creek. LAN-54, which has both late Millingstone and early Intermediate period components, is located in the middle of the Ballona Lagoon, alongside Ballona Creek; this site is unique among Intermediate period sites in the Ballona in its location away from the bluffs. Five other large sites (LAN-59, LAN-61, LAN-63, LAN- 64, and LAN-206) occupy almost every elevated knoll along the edge of the Westchester Bluffs overlooking the Ballona. These sites contain relatively dense artifact and feature deposits that have yielded radiocarbon dates from the Intermediate period (Altschul et al. 2007; Douglass et al. 2005; Hull et al. 2013; Van Horn and Murray 1985). Many of these sites appear to be multicomponent and include minor Millingstone and Late period components.

Late Period (1000–400 cal B.P.)

The Late period, beginning around 1000 cal B.P. and ending with European contact in A.D. 1542, witnessed extensive population growth along much of the southern California coast. There are more sites and a greater variety of sites with greater internal differentiation from this time period than from any other time in pre- history. Villages with complex site layouts and burial grounds with highly variable mortuary treatments appeared, suggesting the development of social differentiation. There appears to have been a more formal placement and differentiation of burials during this period than was seen previously along the Southern California Bight, possibly further suggesting greater social-status markers.

12

However, in the Ballona, rather than increasing, the number of sites occupied appears to have decreased dramatically from the previous Intermediate period. Only three sites in the Ballona—all along the edge of the Ballona Wetlands—have good evidence of occupation during the Late period: LAN-47, LAN-62, and LAN-211. The two sites on the southern side of the wetlands, in the western half of the PVAHP project area—LAN-62 and LAN-211—appear to have functioned as a single community stretching along the base of the bluffs for approximately 1.5 km. Two additional sites—LAN-61 and LAN-63, both located on the adjacent bluff tops overlooking LAN-62—also appear to have some evidence of Late period use.

Wigand’s (2005) climatic reconstruction of the Ballona region provided a clue as to why settlement changed so drastically in the area between 2000 and 1000 cal B.P. He suggested that there was a return to drier conditions by 1000 cal B.P., with less annual precipitation and cyclical episodes of wet climate alter- nating with extreme drought. The Los Angeles River may also have shifted its course away from the Bal- lona. These drier, less predictable conditions would have severely impacted vernal pools that were once common in the area surrounding the Ballona and reduced associated freshwater and terrestrial resources. However, this would have left salt marshes relatively unaffected. With reduced freshwater inputs, salt marshes may have even expanded during this period. Deteriorating terrestrial conditions may be among the reasons for the shift from dispersed villages at the ecotone between the Ballona Wetlands and the coastal prairie to aggregated settlement at the lagoon edge. As the coastal prairie dried up, people may have shifted to the more-reliable salt-marsh resources.

Protohistoric and Early Historical Periods

The Protohistoric period in the Los Angeles Basin begins with initial European contact in A.D. 1542 and ends with the establishment of Mission San Gabriel in 1771, after which direct and recurrent contact be- tween the Gabrielino/Tongva and Spanish settlers in the Los Angeles Basin was established (King 1978). The early Historical period (also known as the Mission period) runs from 1771 until the beginning of the era of secularization in 1834. With the rise of the Hispanic mission and rancho systems, many Gabrielino/Tongva people abandoned their camps and village sites. Disease and cultural upheaval forced the native population into steep decline, and the survivors merged with other displaced populations. Between 1781 and 1831, the mean death rate was 95 per 1,000 individuals, compared to a mean birth rate of 44 per 1,000. Mean life expectancy at birth was only 6.4 years during this period (McCawley 1996:197).

Data recovery at LAN-62 and LAN-211, below the bluffs, as well as reevaluation of the materials from LAN-61 and LAN-63, on top of the bluffs, has offered strong evidence of Protohistoric and early Historical period occupations in the Ballona. As discussed in detail by Douglass et al. (2016) and Vargas et al. (2016), the most telling evidence is a burial area dating to sometime between the Late and Mission periods that was discovered at LAN-62 during data recovery efforts in 2003 and 2004 (Vargas et al. 2005). As discussed by Stoll et al. (2003; see also Stoll et al. 2009), a Mission period ranchería called Guaspet or Guasna was likely located somewhere in the Ballona area and may have been connected to the burial area at LAN-62.

Data recovery at LAN-211 in 2005 (Douglass et al. 2016; Van Galder et al. 2006; Vargas et al. 2016) revealed a multicomponent site dating to sometime between the Intermediate and Mission periods (and possibly earlier—the base of the deposit was not exposed) that had strong Protohistoric and Mission period occupations. Although the nature of the deposit is still debated, the Mission period component of the site contained dozens of features (including pits, hearths, and rock clusters) and an extremely dense lithic and faunal collection many times denser than what was found at other PVAHP sites. The deposit revealed that the subsistence of the occupants of this area during the Mission period included a mixture of native foods and nonlocal resources (domesticated cow and sheep/goat, domesticated barley, wheat, and corn) (Reddy 2009; see Reddy and Douglass 2016).

13

Rancho Los Quintos and the Ranchería of Guaspet

Mission period records suggested that the Ballona area was occupied by the Gabrielino/Tongva in at least one village (ranchería) called Guaspet or Guasna. Approximately 100 Gabrielino/Tongva from the village of Guaspet were recruited to Missions San Gabriel and San Fernando Rey between 1788 and 1815 (Stoll et al. 2009; see also Douglass et al. 2016). Newly identified archival documents revealed that there was a significant Spanish occupation in the Ballona as well. In 1787, there were reports of Native Americans butcher- ing cattle that were grazing in the vicinity of the Ballona (Mason 2004). Just a few years after the establishment of the Pueblo of Los Angeles, the need for grazing land for the pueblo’s growing herds of livestock became acute. Soon, the Ballona was being used as a communal grazing area for the pueblo’s herders.

Sometime around 1804, the land was granted to the family of Pío Quinto Zuñiga, formerly a soldier, and his wife, Rufina, a Juaneño neophyte from San Juan Capistrano (Mason 2004; Stoll et al. 2009; see also Douglass et al. 2016). Although it is unclear how long the Quinto Zuñiga family held the land claim to the Ballona, it is clear that they interacted with the Gabrielino/Tongva residents at Guaspet, which was likely contained within their land grant. Members of the Quinto Zuñiga family were officiates or godparents at several baptisms of neophytes from Guaspet between 1803 and 1809 (Stoll et al. 2009). In both 1799 and 1801, Pío Quinto Zuñiga was listed in pueblo records as a producer of cattle and wheat (Mason 2004). It is possible that the domesticated plants and animals found in the midden at LAN-211 may have been obtained from Rancho Los Quintos. Pío Quinto Zuñiga died in 1805, and it appears that by 1808 or 1809, the Quinto Zuñiga family had left the Ballona (Mason 2004; Stoll et al. 2009). Mission San Gabriel continued to recruit members from the ranchería of Guaspet until approximately 1815.

Historical-Period Setting

Although Native American and Hispanic occupation of the Ballona during the early Historical period has been documented, subsequent use of the Ballona by Native Americans after the mid-1810s is less clear. There is no evidence of recruitment to Missions San Gabriel and San Fernando Rey from the ranchería of Guaspet after 1815. Beginning in 1819, the next wave of Hispanic people in the area referred to it as Rancho la Ballona.

Rancho la Ballona

The next Hispanic inhabitants of the Ballona were the Machado and Talamantes families. They considered the land in the Ballona attractive, partly because its distance from San Gabriel had kept it outside the mission’s land claims. Beginning about 1819, with Alcalde Joaquin Higuera’s blessing and a permit from the military commander, José de la Guerra y Noriega, the Machado and Talamantes brothers moved their stock to the area now known as Culver City. In their petition of September 19, 1839, for the grazing land that became the Rancho La Ballona (Marie 1955:52), the men stated, “We occupied, with our grazing stock, houses and other interests, the place called ‘Paso de las Carretas’ but more generally known by the name of ‘the Ballona.’” Paso de las Carretas (or Wagon Pass) may refer to the low place between the sand hills known as the Ballona Gap. Robinson (1939a:105) showed the road running through Wagon Pass as following the path of today’s Washington Boulevard. The common interpretation is that “the paso fronted on the sea astride the rancho’s northern boundary” (Rolle 1952:147). The term “Ballona” might have been derived from ballena—Spanish for “whale.” Although whales are not mentioned in the historical record, killer-whale bone has been found at Ballona-area archaeological sites, such as at LAN-63 (Colby 1987; Douglass et al. 2005). Alternatively, “Bal- lona” may have derived from Bayona, the Spanish birthplace of the Talamantes family.

At the conclusion of the Mexican-American War in 1848, Alta California was ceded to the United States, and in October 1852, the Hispanic families owning Rancho La Ballona filed their claims with the U.S. Land Commission for confirmation of their grant. In 1854, the board upheld the Rancho La Ballona grant, and the U.S. District Court upheld the decision on appeal (Robinson 1939b). The Talamantes family members did not retain their landholdings in the Ballona long after the 1850s, however. The insolvency of

14

Tomás Talamantes in 1855 and the death of Felipe in 1856 necessitated the division of their shares of the rancho and the dissolution of the Talamantes/Machado partnership. The Ballona area continued to be used by farmers and ranchers into the early twentieth century.

Twentieth-Century Land Use in the Ballona

In the early twentieth century, parts of the Ballona became the playground of recreational hunters and beachgoers, and the railroad was brought in around that time. Originally, railroads were part of a large development scheme planned for the area, to build a seaside city named Port Ballona. Although the planned community did not come to be, the planning implementation left behind partially completed dredging, rail- road lines extending through the estuary, and a pier (which later washed away) as the only evidence of the failed venture. In the 1890s, separate projects—the construction of the Venice community and the begin- nings (and later expansion) of gas and oil exploration and drilling—made even greater impacts. During the early twentieth century, and up until their forced internment beginning in 1942, Japanese immigrants and/or Japanese-Americans leased much of the Ballona land and used it for truck farming of various vegetables that required heavy labor, most notably celery (Altschul et al. 1991:63–84). In addition to truck farming, there is evidence that during the 1920s, at least one hog farm (the Kitahata Hog Ranch) was located within the site boundaries of LAN-193, just west of LAN-2768 (Swope and Douglass 2016). Historical-period photographs and the identification and analysis of a large refuse deposit containing burned and unburned restaurant ware and other restaurant-related debris suggest that the hog farm was contracted with local municipalities and businesses to haul away their garbage for use as feed for the ranch’s hogs.

The estuary has been used by other industries, including Hollywood film studios, but the most signifi- cant has been the Howard Hughes aircraft facility and airstrip, which was in operation from the 1930s into the mid-1980s. The Hughes aircraft facility greatly altered much of the southern edge of the Ballona be- tween Lincoln and Sepulveda boulevards. Much of the area north of the base of the bluffs was leveled for a runway, and portions of at least two sites, LAN-62 and LAN-211, were destroyed when site material was hauled away to level the area around the runway. The Hughes facility also built several large hangars and other assembly buildings as well as other support infrastructure, such as railroads, parking lots, and support buildings. Several Hughes-era buildings and other infrastructure are visible in aerial photos within the LAN- 2768 site boundary. An old alignment of Teale Street, as well as a railroad spur, are visible passing through the center of the current project area. The eastern end of the runway also extended into the project area.

Previous Investigations at LAN-2768

LAN-2768 is a large prehistoric site dating roughly to the Intermediate period (Altschul et al. 1991; Vargas et al. 2016). The site was possibly first identified by Nels Nelson in 1912, during an overview of sites in the Ballona sponsored by the American Museum of Natural History’s Department of Anthropology. This site, which he identified as “Site No. 4,” consisted of a “refuse heap situated at the mouth of a small ravine opening north on Centinela Creek about 3 miles northeast of Port Ballona” (Nelson 1912). Although the location identified by Nelson is consistent with that of LAN-2768, it might also be the location of LAN-62 and LAN-193, two nearby multicomponent sites.

Additional evidence of LAN-2768 was reported in the Los Angeles Times in 1931. At that time, evi- dence of a Native American burial area had been recently uncovered near the intersection of Jefferson Street and Centinela Avenue, in what was then called Mesmer City. Professor M. S. Moore of Polytechnic High School (likely in Long Beach) argued that ground stone artifacts found at the base of the bluffs near that intersection were “worthy of the attention of museum scientists” (Los Angeles Times, 1 April 1931:A9). After the initial find of artifacts by one of his former students, Melvin Redhead, Professor Moore spent an additional day excavating the area where the ground stone artifacts were found, and he identified similar

15

artifacts, including pestles as well as several human skulls and other human bones. Based on the locational information, it is likely that the human remains and the artifacts were recovered at or near LAN-2768, at the base of the bluffs, just east or southeast of the intersection of Jefferson Boulevard and Centinela Avenue.

1998 Inventory and Evaluation

Although archaeological work in the Ballona during the early twentieth century revealed cultural resources at or near the location of LAN-2768, the site was first formally recorded in 1998, during archaeological investigations that included mechanical coring and augering, which revealed the presence of shell and dark midden soils (Altschul et al. 1999). Further testing confirmed the site boundaries. In 1998, a second testing phase was conducted and focused on refining the site boundaries and evaluating the cultural deposits. Eval- uation of LAN-2768 was focused on (1) determining whether the shell and dark soil represented intact archaeological deposits, (2) determining whether LAN-2768 was an extension of nearby LAN-60 or a sep- arate site, and (3) recovering a sample of the site constituents, to evaluate the site as a contributing member of the Ballona Lagoon Archaeological District (Altschul et al. 1999:37). Site boundaries were tested through the excavation of 43 bucket augers. Excavation at LAN-2768 was restricted to the proposed loca- tions of Bluff Creek Drive and the riparian corridor, along a narrow strip below the bluffs.

LAN-2768 was found to be a relatively continuous deposit of archaeological materials extending along the base of the bluffs, from roughly LAN-60 on the east to the Howard Hughes Industrial Complex, near the boundaries of LAN-193, to the west. Twenty-eight of the 43 bucket augers that were excavated in the area encountered site materials. Despite the relatively continuous nature of the deposit, SRI identified an area of higher-density cultural materials in the eastern portion of LAN-2768. That area of higher-density cultural materials was designated Locus A and was the location of later data recovery efforts in 2000.

2000 Data Recovery in Locus A

Data recovery was conducted in October and November of 2000, in accordance with the archaeological treatment plan approved by the Corps (Altschul et al. 1999). The location of the data recovery work was decided upon using data from previous mechanical testing that had employed bucket augers and cores. The work, which encompassed the hand-excavation of approximately 60 mof archaeological site material and 376 mof mechanical excavation, identified numerous features and artifacts related to the prehistoric oc- cupation of the site (Figure 4). The deposit was found to be relatively thin (1–1.5 m), and it contained a fairly low density of cultural materials (Vargas et al. 2016). Data recovery included mechanical trenching to document soil stratigraphy and the dimensions of the cultural deposit, manual excavation, mechanical stripping, and feature recovery. During the work, 31 prehistoric features—including rock clusters, hearths, activity areas, and a house pit—were discovered and recorded. Additionally, cremated human remains were identified during post-excavation water screening of materials from the mechanical-stripping unit.

A fair amount of disturbance was noted at the site, mostly resulting from historical-period use of the area. An unknown amount of the upper portion of the deposit appeared to have been truncated by historical-period activities. As with most sites in the Ballona, the deposit becomes much thicker with proximity to the bluff edge.

2005 Riparian-Corridor Monitoring

In 2005, mechanical excavation of portions of the riparian corridor impacted loci C and D of LAN-2768. SRI staff closely monitored the removal of soils from these areas and identified and recovered a number of prehistoric features. Most of the features recovered during that work were at the southwestern end of the site (Locus C). The features included domestic features and three human burials. The work in 2005 did not alter the size or shape of LAN-2768, because all the work was conducted within the known site boundaries.

16

page31image41716368page31image43798080page31image41721568page31image41717408page31image41715328page31image41721984

17

Figure 4. Close-up of LAN-2768 Locus A, showing the locations of data recovery excavations in 2000.

2005 and 2007 Trenching and Data Recovery at Locus B

Locus B is located in Lot 33 of Tract 49104-04, to the east of where data recovery work was conducted by SRI in 2000. The area was not evaluated or excavated in 2000, partly because of the large amount of fill and overburden covering the archaeological site and partly due to the lack of specific plans for development of the area. With the planned construction of the Los Angeles Clippers’ training center in Locus B of LAN- 2768, however, SRI was asked to create a plan for evaluating cultural materials in the area. Trenching was conducted in 2005, and trenching and potholing were conducted in 2007. In 2007, data recovery at LAN- 2768 Locus B, Lot 33, was undertaken in advance of proposed impacts to the site related to the construction of the Clippers’ training center at the northeastern extent of LAN-2768 (Grenda 2007). As a result of that work, six features were identified in Locus B.

2007 Additional Inventory Trenching for Playa Vista Parcel 4, L.P., and Playa Vista Parcel 5, L.P., and Walton Street Capital, LLC, on The Campus at Playa Vista

With the planned construction of various parcels on The Campus at Playa Vista by a joint venture of Playa Vista Parcel 4, L.P., and Playa Vista Parcel 5, L.P., and Walton Street Capital, LLC, SRI was asked to create a plan for mitigating potential adverse effects of the construction on cultural resources. A compre- hensive trenching plan was proposed to evaluate different parcels on the property that were thought to have the potential to contain intact cultural resources. In that phase of testing, Lot 2 of Tract 52092, portions of Lots 8–11 of Tract 52092, and Lots 17–24 of Tract 49104-04 were investigated with mechanically exca- vated trenches. Thirty-four trenches were excavated, 6 of which were found to contain intact cultural ma- terials. The intact cultural materials were found only in the northwestern portion of the site, within the boundaries identified during previous testing (Figure 5). Other trenches, such as those in Lots 8–11 of Tract 52092 and Lots 21–24 of Tract 49104-04, were found to contain redeposited cultural materials. A total area of approximately 3,800 mof intact deposits was identified through trenching. The deposit varies in thickness, but on average, it is approximately 50 cm thick.

18

page33image41720528page33image41718240page33image41721776page33image41716992page33image43796736

Figure 5. Map showing the locations of test trenches excavated in 2007 and the intact portion of LAN- 2768 within Lots 18–20 of Tract 49104-04.

19

CHAPTER 3
Research Goals and Objectives

Compiled by Scott H. Kremkau and Patrick B. Stanton,
with contributions by John G. Douglass, Jeffrey H. Altschul, Richard Ciolek-Torello, Seetha N. Reddy, Benjamin R. Vargas, Donn R. Grenda, and Scott H. Kremkau

As LAN-2768 falls within the area encompassed by the PVAHP, the SRI research design applied to the PVAHP (see Homburg et al. 2014:Chapter 2) is adapted to this project. Application of a similar research design and methodology provides a comparable data set through which the prehistory and history of the Ballona might be better understood.

Research Questions and Data Requirements

The research design, first presented by Altschul et al. (1991), outlines three broad research themes: (1) hu- man-land relationships, (2) cultural dynamics of prehistoric settlement, and (3) historical-period develop- ment of the Ballona. In subsequent years, SRI built on the original research design and expanded these themes (Altschul et al. 1991; Altschul et al. 1992, 1998, 1999, 2003; Vargas and Altschul 2001; Vargas et al. 2003) within the context of specific investigations. The research theme related to late-historical-period development of the Ballona has been previously addressed (Greenwood and Associates 1995; Statistical Research et al. 1991) and will not be discussed here. Research themes related to early-historical-period development of the Ballona, a theme that was not addressed adequately in the original research design, are discussed here in more detail.

Human-Land Relationships

The relationship between humans and the land they inhabit is complex and, from an archaeological perspec- tive, leads to several different avenues of investigation, including both the geomorphology and environmental conditions of the project area and the subsistence strategies employed by the people who lived there.

Geomorphology and Changing Environmental Conditions

The Quaternary history of Ballona Lagoon is characterized by dynamic environmental changes, the most important of which were the shift from an open lagoon to an estuarine environment and the migrations of the Los Angeles River channel (see Altschul et al. 2007). These changes were the result of the complex interaction of lowering sea level, rapid uplift, and subsidence. These environmental changes had profound effects on prehistoric settlement and resource procurement in the region.

The Ballona was generally unsuitable for long-term human settlement prior to about 6,500 years ago, when the area sustained an open and unstable bay environment. The earliest occupations at that time likely consisted of ephemeral resource-collection excursions to collect marine resources, generating scant material remains. As Palacios-Fest’s (1998) ostracod analysis has shown, however, after about 6,500 years ago, the

page35image43799616

21

Ballona Lagoon gradually transformed from a brackish, open estuary to a lagoonal estuary increasingly fed by freshwater sources. During that transformation, a gradual process of sedimentation from Ballona and Centinela Creeks began to create freshwater marshes surrounding the lagoon. By about 4,000 years ago, the landscape in the vicinity of The Campus appears to have supported a predominately freshwater habitat and a stable landform along upper Centinela Creek that was amenable to human habitation.

Human habitation at LAN-2768 peaked during the last millennium B.C. (the early Intermediate period), subsequent to the formation of a stable and primarily freshwater habitat in the Ballona. By that time, LAN- 2768 and surrounding sites probably would have been appealing settlement locations to mobile groups. As Altschul et al. (1999:14) explained, Centinela Creek supplied potable water as well as aquatic and riverine resources in all but the driest years. Riparian plant and animal communities likely covered much of LAN- 2768 at that time, offering an abundant array of plant and animal resources. In normal or dry years, the area along Centinela Creek likely was desirable for human settlement; in wet years, the settlers could have moved to higher ground on top of the bluffs.

Over the last 3,000 years or so, the lagoon gradually contracted as a result of continual siltation, and by about A.D. 1000, it was almost completely encircled by freshwater marshes. As more and more sediment from Ballona and Centinela creeks filled the lagoon, the border of the lagoon would have retreated west- ward, stabilizing at intervals, as climatic and tectonic conditions dictated, and then retreating again. As lagoon resources diminished, the Ballona became increasingly less attractive to human inhabitants. Because the project area is relatively far away from the edge of the Westchester Bluffs, in comparison with the rest of LAN-2768, it would have been located along the shoreline of the lagoon. Examining geomorphological changes along the shoreline at the project area may provide a more detailed understanding of how the hydrology, as well as the plant and animal communities, of the Ballona changed through time.

Subsistence Strategies

Studies of subsistence strategies form the backbone of many archaeological investigations. These lines of inquiry often focus on the most basic types of questions archaeologists can ask, such as who lived here, how was the use of space organized at the site level, what did people eat, and what time of year were they here? Although these questions may be simple, to answer them, researchers must draw on a number of disparate data sets.

Although the Ballona is an area of intense biodiversity and includes many seasonal and year-round species of plants and animals, the shift from an open lagoon to an estuarine environment initiated a host of adaptive behavioral changes in aboriginal subsistence systems. Simply put, access to some plant and animal species increased as the environment changed while, simultaneously, access to other species diminished. To study these changes in adaptive strategies, research often focuses on the analysis of vertebrate, invertebrate, and botanical remains. Results from the PVAHP studies found that occupants of the Ballona primarily focused more on terrestrial mammalian species and comparatively less on fish, birds, reptiles, and amphibians con- sumed, until the Late/Protohistoric/Mission periods, when a noticeable increase in fish remains was observed, although fish remains were still far fewer than terrestrial mammal remains (Reddy and Douglass 2016).

Patterns in shellfish exploitation observed during the PVAHP exhibited some interesting trends (Reddy and Douglass 2016). First of all, the use of Venus clam was consistently high from the Millingstone period to the Mission period. Also, during the Millingstone period, there was some dependence on Pismo clams, which are found in sandy, open-surf beaches—an environment not posited in the environmental reconstruc- tion of the Ballona. Finally, LAN-2768 was found to have a far greater amount of scallop remains than any other contemporary Intermediate period site.

Compared to faunal and invertebrate remains, botanical material is used infrequently in subsistence studies, primarily because of a lack of direct data and poor resolution for regional markers and also because bone and shell survive more often than botanical remains. Nonetheless, paleoethnobotanical research in coastal California has focused on the intensification of plant use over time and coastal vs. highland subsist- ence systems, and annual grass and nut use and its intensification during the Millingstone and Intermediate periods have also been explored.

22

Fortunately, during the PVAHP, an abundance of well-preserved botanical materials in good contexts was recovered. During this project, plant use, especially use of grasses, was found to have steadily increased over time, with a lower relative use during the Intermediate period that was possibly due to poorer preser- vation, less use of seed-bearing plants, and an increase in leaves, tubers, and vegetative plant parts (Reddy and Douglass 2016). Additionally, during the Intermediate period, exploitation of wetland plant species was lower than in the Protohistoric and Mission periods. Nut use was infrequent—a finding that is con- sistent with other coastal paleoethnobotanical trends (Reddy 2015).

Culture contact and the use of food by aboriginal groups in the Ballona are other important topics. Hispanic settlers entered the Los Angeles Basin in the 1770s and were using the Ballona as communal pastureland before 1800. There is documented evidence that by the early 1800s, Hispanic ranchers associ- ated with the Rancho de los Quintos actively farmed and herded animals in the Ballona. Several scholars (Hackel 2005; Larson et al. 1994; Milliken 1995) have argued that the large increase in both farming and herding of cattle, sheep, and horses during the Mission period had a deleterious effect on the ability of Native Americans to continue their traditional subsistence patterns.

Questions pertaining to human-land relationships include the following:

1. Based on data recovered during this project, how does the site geomorphology fit within the greater paleoenvironmental history of the Ballona?

  1. 2  How did these changes in the local landscape affect the exploitation of marine, estuarine, and terrestrial resources? How does this portion of LAN-2768 compare to other sites in the Ballona, including the portion of LAN-2768 excavated during the PVAHP?

  2. 3  What were the long-term adaptations to a lacustrine/riverine resource base, and how was the changing landscape used during the time of human occupation in the Ballona?

  3. 4  What was the nature of plant and nut use through time in the Ballona, and how does it compare to use in other areas?

  4. 5  How did food preparation, use, and preferences change through time, and how did food habits change as groups in the Ballona came into contact with other aboriginal or colonial groups?

  5. 6  What subsistence trends do we see during these periods of culture contact and social change—in other words, in what ways were new foods, if any, used and incorporated into the diet, and what previous subsistence patterns, if any, ceased?

Data Requirements

Studies of settlement patterns require not only intensively investigated individual sites but also enough regional comparative data to construct a complete model of site types. Features and artifacts, as well as faunal and botanical remains, will give clues to the types of activities that occurred at the sites, as well as the times of year the activities took place. Comparisons between the types of activities found at this site and those identified at PVAHP sites will place the project area in a regional context. These comparisons will also help determine whether this portion of the site represents the full range of activities documented in the surrounding region or a particular subset of activities.

Cultural Dynamics of Prehistoric Settlement

The second research theme presented by Altschul et al. (1991) was the cultural dynamics of prehistoric settlement. This broad theme can be divided into three subthemes: chronology, technology, and cultural interaction.

23

Chronology

Adequate temporal control in archaeological deposits is crucial if researchers are to generate meaningful inferences from data or address specific research questions with any degree of analytical confidence. Cru- cial to the current study is the timing of the prehistoric occupation of the project area. Chronological data available in 1991 suggested that the nearby Westchester Bluffs occupation began during the Millingstone period, sometime between 5500 and 3000 B.C., and ended at the beginning of the Late period, aroundA.D. 2000. Below the bluffs, occupation appears to have begun when the bluffs were abandoned aroundA.D. 2000, with the possible exception of the area where Centinela Creek empties into the Ballona Lagoon. In the years since 1991, however, the results of the PVAHP and other nearby studies have shown that the areas below the bluffs had a much more extensive prehistoric occupation. Based on several radiocarbon dates, human habitation at LAN-2768 peaked during the last millennium B.C. (the early Intermediate pe- riod), and habitation in Locus A occurred from the late Millingstone period through the Intermediate period (940 cal B.C.–560 cal A.D.).

Given the project area’s location, prehistoric occupation of this part of LAN-2768 should generally run from the late Millingstone period through the Intermediate period. Because the project area is located farther away from the edge of the bluffs, it is possible that a later occupation, one associated with the retreating lagoon, could have been present. So, material-cultural information gathered during this project is important, because it helps to place this portion of LAN-2768 into greater regional and temporal contexts as well as to elucidate general cultural dynamics and dimensions between this site and others within the Ballona.

Technology

Previous work during the PVAHP has demonstrated that the use of raw materials, both local and nonlocal, particularly in lithic-tool production, varied through time across the Ballona. Furthermore, temporally di- agnostic artifacts, such as projectile point types, offer a variety of types of information, including techno- logical data, as well as allowing for inferences about sociocultural identity and trade. Although few projec- tile points were discovered at LAN-2768 during data recovery, projectile point typology can provide some relative temporal information that can be used to support more absolute-dating methods. Work guided by the PVAHP has demonstrated that the shift from atlatl dart to bow-and-arrow technology commenced be- tween 200 and 1,500 years earlier than the commonly accepted date of A.D. 200 (Douglass, Ciolek-Torello, et al. 2014).

Ground stone has been an important tool for southern California hunter-gatherers for thousands of years. Ground stone tools are used for a variety of purposes, from grinding seeds and nuts to processing small animals. Their presence, coupled with other forms of artifacts, can be used to infer how the site was used. Furthermore, trends in ground stone use and technology can have interesting implications. During the PVAHP, the density of ground stone tools was found to have increased from the Millingstone period to the Late and Mission periods (Douglass, Ciolek-Torello, et al. 2014), a trend that contradicted previous models of ground stone use in California that defined the Millingstone horizon as a culture marked by extensive use of ground stone (milling stones) (Basgall 1987; Fitzgerald and Jones 1999).

Other artifacts found at sites within the Ballona consist of shell beads and ornaments; bone flutes/whis- tles, beads, and awls; a small amount of ceramics and basketry; metal tools and ornaments; and glass beads. Understanding how and where these goods were produced and how they came to the project area can help reveal how prehistoric economies were organized and how that organization changed through time. The historical-period artifacts can further help to define the interaction between native and colonial populations of the Ballona.

24

Cultural Interaction

Questions of ethnic or cultural affiliation center on the relationship between material culture and ethnicity. As many researchers have observed, simple correlations from certain diagnostic artifacts are insufficient for determining the presence of a particular group. It is, in fact, quite difficult to identify cultural or ethnic boundaries in the archaeological record, because issues with integrity and recovery efforts often preclude the fine-grained analyses necessary to make these determinations. One of the basic problems lies with the portable artifacts that form the basis of archaeological analyses. Pottery and projectile points, which often form the core of diagnostic-artifact assemblages, can be difficult to interpret. The presence of certain types of a particular material class may simply represent trade, as opposed to the actual presence of a particular group. Thus, multiple lines of evidence are often needed to tease out the subtle nuances of ethnic or cultural identity.

During the PVAHP, numerous examples of cross-cultural interaction and identity were identified. For instance, basketry discovered at LAN-62 exhibited both Takic and Chumash traits, the appearance of the burial area at LAN-62 was very similar to burial areas found in the Santa Monica Mountains along the Chumash-Gabrielino/Tongva border, and the presence of steatite pointed to interaction between island and mainland inhabitants. Artifacts found at LAN-2768 may provide further evidence of social interaction be- tween groups within the Ballona and those farther afield.

Mortuary features, burials, and isolated human remains have been found in varying degrees of abun- dance at most sites located within the Ballona. For example, several-hundred individuals were recovered from a formal burial area at LAN-62, whereas only a few burials or isolated remains were recovered from other sites along the base of the bluffs, including LAN-2768. Human remains can provide insight regarding general demographics, population health, and mortuary practices, and can demonstrate the inextricable ties of a group to an area. Also, as indicated previously, observations of mortuary practices can show evidence of cross-cultural interaction and group identity.

Questions pertaining to the cultural dynamics of prehistoric settlement include the following:

  1. What evidence of lithic production that dates to before the late Intermediate period is provided from data recovery? Were there any differences in tool production between the two cultural deposits (Strata II and IV) discovered in the project area?

  2. Are there any patterns and functions associated with the material culture seen within the two cultural deposits at the project area?

  3. Were there differences in the function and storage of ground stone through time? Does ground stone appear to be connected to particular areas of the site?

  4. What does the presence of nonlocal materials, if any, imply about trade and exchange through time in the Ballona? How do these patterns compare to those in other areas of the Los Angeles Basin? Are there patterns of resource exploitation through time in the record? What role did the project area play in raw-material-resource provisioning, exploitation, and consumption?

  5. Do any artifacts from the project area provide any evidence of cultural connections, identity, trade, and interaction with other regions and cultural groups?

  6. What types of features are present in the project area, and how did they function? Were there differences in the function, organization, or spatial distribution of features through time? Are there specific feature types that may have related to the site’s environmental setting? How do the feature types and functions at sites in the project area compare to those at sites on the tops of the bluffs, at other nearby Ballona sites, and at sites farther away?

  7. Were human remains discovered in the project area? What is the nature of those remains, and can they reveal insight regarding mortuary practices and population health and demography?

25

Data Requirements

The types of data needed to establish a chronological framework for any site include absolute dates from intact midden deposits with hearths, roasting pits, or other features that can be radiocarbon dated and rela- tive dates from temporally sensitive artifacts with well-established age ranges. Obsidian artifacts could yield relative chronological information through the measurement of hydration rims, although variables affecting the rate of hydration are as yet imperfectly understood.

The basic types of data required to address questions regarding technology are obvious—data regarding lithic, shell, and bone artifacts and the remains of their production. As determined from excavations con- ducted at other sites in area, the artifact types that were most likely to be encountered were shell, bone, and flaked and ground stone tools and ornaments. With regard to flaked stone tools, different technological and production techniques can be studied through the analysis of formal tools and debitage from tool manufac- ture. By comparing different attributes of these artifacts, we can infer how they were designed, made, used, and discarded. On the basis of these data, one can infer the intensity of tool use (expedient vs. formal tool production), the relative importance of particular technologies, and the relationship of these factors to spe- cific activities and practices (see Parry and Kelly 1987; but see also Railey 2010). The identification of disparate or common practices can help us to identify social relations among occupants of a site or different sites or change through time in historical or social connections among people.

The basic types of data required to address trade are those regarding the presence of lithic artifacts, shell ornaments, and other elements of material culture that are easily transportable. Trade can be inferred from the distribution of nonlocal materials, such as steatite and obsidian. Analyses of trade and exchange also require representative samples from other areas that can be used to show what materials were traded out of the study area. Sourcing studies and other chemical analyses would be required during further phases of research to determine the origins of obsidian found during survey.

Finding evidence of cultural interaction can be more challenging. Changes in tool manufacture or de- sign can help us to identify changing social relations among occupants of a site or change through time in social connections among different social groups.

Historical-Period Development of the Ballona

Historical-period development of the Ballona can be divided into two broad themes: agricultural use and industrial and commercial development.

Agricultural Use

Agriculture persisted in the project area until recent times. This theme includes at least three research issues: the development and persistence of the Hispanic tradition, the impact of the Euroamerican influx, and the twentieth-century development of specialized agriculture tailored to the needs of an urban population. Fur- thermore, during the early twentieth century and up until their forced internment beginning in 1942, Japa- nese immigrants and/or Japanese-Americans leased much of the Ballona land and utilized it for truck farm- ing of various vegetables that required heavy labor, most notably celery (Altschul et al. 1991:63–84).

Although the project area has been exploited for many purposes, the earliest historical-period use was agriculture and ranching. The earliest farmer and rancher in the Ballona was Pío Quinto Zuñiga, who named his property Rancho los Quintos (Stoll et al. 2009). The Quinto Zuñigas were likely in the Ballona for 6 or more years, from 1802 to 1808 (Stoll et al. 2009). It is clear from Mission records that during that period, the Native American inhabitants of the Ballona had contact and interaction with the Quinto Zuñigas. Quinto Zuñiga children were godparents to several inhabitants of Guaspet, the Native American ranchería located somewhere in the Ballona (Stoll et al. 2009). Prior and subsequent to the Quinto Zuñigas, the inhabitants of the Pueblo of Los Angeles used the Ballona as a communal paraje (or pasture) (Mason 2004). The first Hispanic people to reside in the Ballona for a long, continuous period of time were Agustín Machado and Felipe Talamantes, who established Rancho La Ballona in 1819 (Altschul et al. 1991; Stoll et al. 2003).

26

However, it is unclear how closely the Machado operation conformed to the generally established patterns of Hispanic land use in California, such as cattle ranching for hides and tallow, vineyards, and some farm- ing, the latter usually performed by Christianized Indians. It is also unclear how large the Machado opera- tion was and how much of an impact it had on the natural setting of the Ballona.

Following the conclusion of the Mexican-American War in 1848, American settlers began to flood into southern California. With American immigration, new agricultural techniques were introduced that soon swamped the older, less-intensive Hispanic land-use patterns. Cattle ranching declined, to be replaced partly by dairying. Dry farming expanded where feasible, but the most spectacular growth occurred in the devel- opment of citrus-fruit cultivation. By the turn of the twentieth century, much of the Ballona was under agricultural cultivation. Of particular interest is how Euroamerican agricultural practices replaced Hispanic land-use patterns within the project area. Were there any dairies or other large-scale production, or was it primarily small-scale farming, and what impact did farming have on the prehistoric sites in the Ballona?

By the early twentieth century, agriculture was increasingly restricted to the lower, marshier portions of the Ballona by the growth of the surrounding communities. The agriculture that remained became more specialized and more efficient, leading to single-crop cultivation and the use of railroads to transport foodstuffs. It was during that period that Japanese settlement and agricultural practices spread into the area. After the Japanese were relo- cated during World War II, a few isolated Hispanic families remained behind to pick up the pieces.

Industrial and Commercial Development

Industrial and commercial development of the area was apparent by the late 1800s and early 1900s. First came the railroads, in coordination with resort communities like Port Ballona and Ocean Park, and then oil and gas development. Throughout that period, there was a persistent but selective use of the project area for recreational purposes catering to an increasingly urbanized population. Automobile racing was another important activity in the Ballona in the early 1900s. Even the film industry had moved into the communities around the project area by the 1910s and 1920s, making selective use of open spaces provided by the Ballona area. Finally, in the 1940s, Howard Hughes built an aviation complex at the eastern end of the project area. Research questions posed in the research design relate to the advent of the railroads in the Ballona area, oil and gas development, recreational uses, early film-industry use, and, finally, the era of Howard Hughes.

Questions pertaining to the historical-period development of the Ballona include the following:

  1. Is there evidence of Protohistoric/Mission period development within the project area?

  2. How was European technology incorporated into Gabrielino/Tongva lifeways? Is there evidence of local use of European or American ceramics, metal items, or other foreign technology?

  3. Is there evidence of agricultural land use within the project area, and how has agricultural use of the land within the project area changed over time?

  4. How has the land within the project area changed to accommodate the development of industry and commerce into the modern era?

  5. Is there any evidence of specialized land use during the Hughes era?

Data Requirements

The appearance of European or American artifacts at LAN-2768, or the lack thereof, will indicate whether, and how, foreign technology was incorporated into Gabrielino/Tongva lifeways. The types of artifacts found will give some indication of the types of social transformations that took place in the region. For example, crosses, rosary beads, and other Christian symbols would indicate exposure to Christianity. The years during which many European artifact types, such as beads, ceramics, and glassware, were produced are well documented; so, the dating of any European artifacts may help in determining when foreign goods were introduced into the area.

For more recent agricultural developments, an abundance of domesticated plant and animal remains would be apparent in the upper levels of the project area, commingled with modern refuse. Agricultural features, such as irrigation systems (e.g., pipes and ditches) and a plow zone, may also be observable.

27

In more recent history, the Hughes aircraft facility incorporated and developed much of the Ballona for industrial purposes. During that time, large-scale construction and earthmoving activities occurred, and heavy machinery was used to flatten the area for development and install subsurface utilities. Although no large structures were evident on the surface at the time of data recovery, historical-period aerial photographs indicated that a parking lot once capped the site. Buried remains of utilities and other forms of infrastructure in support of the Hughes facilities may also be apparent at LAN-2768.

28

CHAPTER 4Project Methods

Patrick B. Stanton and Kenneth M. Becker

Following the basic tenets of the 1999 work plan (Altschul et al. 1999) and the excavation plan submitted to the Corps (Grenda 2013), data recovery at LAN-2768 Locus A was conducted as a series of phased activities, beginning with exploratory trenching and concluding with the identification and recovery of all features. The five phases of work were (1) mechanical excavation of trenches to identify the depth of con- struction fill above cultural deposits, (2) mechanical removal of construction fill, (3) manual excavation of excavation units (EUs) into the cultural deposits, (4) mechanical stripping of site sediments to discover features, and (5) manual excavation of features. These phases occurred concurrently, when feasible, to ex- pedite the project schedule. Members of the Gabrielino/Tongva Indians of California and of the Gabrielino Tongva Nation monitored all ground-disturbing activities associated with the data recovery program de- scribed below. Native American monitors periodically monitored screening activities and provided full- time monitoring during the screening of sediments from contexts containing human remains.

The 2013 excavation plan (Grenda 2013) proposed excavation of 1 percent of the site within the 3,800- mportion of the site to be impacted by construction. The excavation plan was based on the 2007 trenching results, which indicated that the archaeological deposit is approximately 50 cm thick, and it proposed ex- cavation of 38 1-by-1-m excavation units, in four blocks. Twenty-five percent of the excavation units would then be sorted, analyzed, and reported (essentially 10 excavation units analyzed to 50 cm deep), with the goal of choosing excavation units with the densest deposits. Early during project implementation, SRI dis- covered a deeply buried, unidentified archaeological deposit below the known site. That newly discovered deposit was separated from the upper deposit by as much as 50 cm of sterile sediment. In response to the discovery, SRI; Playa Vista Parcel 4, L.P., and Playa Vista Parcel 5, L.P., and the Corps discussed how to treat the site, which is roughly four times thicker than previously thought. It became clear to all parties that the strategy proposed in the excavation plan was unreasonable, given the thickness of the deposit. The Corps directed that the best approach to making the excavation more manageable was to reduce the exca- vation area to the 10 excavation units that were to be analyzed according to the treatment plan (Killeen 2013). Accordingly, SRI would excavate 10 1-by-1-m excavation units to the bottom of the site and would sort, analyze, and report on all of the proveniences from those 10 excavation units. In doing so, the analysis sample was effectively chosen prior to completion, without knowing the richness of the excavation units.

Provenience Designations

Before summarizing the field methods, the provenience system, which is crucial to all aspects of this pro- ject, is briefly discussed. To effectively record the complex suite of information that is necessary during archaeological excavations, SRI has developed an all-inclusive recording system. The provenience-desig- nation (PD) recording system synthesizes practically all aspects of field recording into one series of num- bers for the entire project. PD numbers are unique identifiers for all data entries for the project, including features, backhoe trenches, datums, excavation units, hand- or mechanical-stripping units, mapping nails, point-provenienced artifact locations, and grab samples.

page43image44037632

29

A PD log is used to record the unique PD number and various observations and to inventory material remains on a site, along with their provenience and dimensions. Generally, the log begins at PD 1, and a potentially infinite sequence of PD numbers can be assigned, depending on the excavation and recording strategy used. The PD numbers are then used throughout the various phases of fieldwork to place infor- mation in spatial context.

An important benefit to using this system is that because each PD number is unique, there cannot be a Trench 100 and an EU 100 in an individual project’s PD log. However, that also means that the PD numbers do not run sequentially by particular categories. In order to alleviate any potential confusion, PD-number blocks were assigned to the various aspects of the project. Excavation units were assigned PDs 1–38, test- pit levels and datums were assigned PD numbers between 1000 and 1999, trenches and any features found within them were assigned PDs 2000–2999, and features, point-provenienced artifacts, and artifacts associ- ated with grab samples found during mechanical stripping were given PD numbers between 3000 and 3999.

Fieldwork MethodsTrenching

Previous trenching at Locus A in 2007 had shown that this area of the site was buried by as much as 1.5 m of construction fill. SRI excavated four trenches (Trenches 2001–2003 and 2006) (Figure 6) outward from, and perpendicular to, the 2007 site boundary, to confirm the previously defined site boundary and further define fill thickness, in order to guide fill removal. The results of trenching were consistent with the 2007 trenching results.

Trenching was conducted using a tracked excavator fit with a 54-inch-wide, flat blade. Trenches were rapidly excavated through construction fill until intact native sediments were encountered, at which time excavation slowed, and the native sediments were removed in approximately 50-cm-thick lifts. Trenches varied in depth between 230 and 290 cm below the ground surface.

Limited trenching continued to be employed throughout data recovery as an aid to further defining the site boundaries. To avoid the cost of transporting excavated sediments with the front-end loader to the stockpile, we intended to “flip-flop” the excavated sediment during stripping. The procedure involved plac- ing sediment stripped from one area onto an adjacent area that had already been stripped to sterile condi- tions, a method that has been used at other sites in the PVAHP. Early on during stripping, a single trench (Trench 3123) was excavated into the bottom of the first stripped area, as a precaution, to insure that all site materials had been removed before that area received excavated sediments from an adjacent stripping area (see Figure 6). A previously undetected, buried A horizon was discovered in that trench, roughly 50 cm below the bottom of the known site deposit. Three short trenches (Trenches 3038, 3041, and 3044) were then excavated near three of the four excavation blocks, to confirm that the same buried A horizon was present across the site in this locus (see Figure 6). The buried A horizon was identified in all three trenches, prompting the change in field protocol indicated in the introduction to this chapter.

Fill Removal

Using the 2007 and 2013 trenching results as a guide, SRI began mechanical removal of the construction fill within the site boundaries. Fill was removed using the same heavy equipment used for trenching. Fill was rapidly removed until the top of native sediment was encountered. A front-end loader was used to move the stripped sediment to a stockpile located outside the site boundary. All surface treatments, such as asphalt and concrete, were stored separately from sediment for proper disposal.

30

page45image41720944page45image41721152page45image41719072page45image41714080page45image41714496page45image44014528

Figure 6. Map showing the locations of trenches and excavation units from the 2013 data recovery at LAN-2768 (note the areas of environmental-safety concern).

31

Stripping

Once the fill had been removed and the excavation units had been laid out, SRI began stripping the site sediments to search for archaeological features, concurrent with the hand-excavation. Stripping was accom- plished with the same equipment used for removing the fill. Site sediments were stripped following the natural stratigraphy of the site and were removed across the site, one stratum at a time, before the next stratum was stripped. That facilitated assigning features or stray finds to the strata in which they were found. Features found during stripping were cordoned off for later hand-excavation, and stripping continued. Once hand-excavation was complete, the feature locations and areas of excavation-unit blocks were subsequently stripped, following the established protocol.

Each area of a particular stratum stripped each day was recorded as a mechanical-stripping unit (MSU). In all, 25 mechanical-stripping units of varying sizes were excavated during mechanical stripping. Artifacts encountered during stripping were photographed and collected as part of the grab sample for each mechanical- stripping unit. All features discovered during data recovery were found during fill removal and mechanical stripping. These features were mapped with the total station and left in place until they were hand-excavated.

During mechanical stripping, some modern debris and features posed potential environmental-safety concerns (e.g., asbestos pipes and open septic systems). A 50-foot-diameter area centered on the hazard was cordoned off with lath and caution tape. Mechanical stripping in these locations ceased. Two areas of environmental-safety concern were discovered (see Figure 6).

Hand-Excavation

Hand-excavation occurred concurrently with mechanical stripping once the construction fill had been removed. It initially involved 38 1-by-1-m excavation units roughly evenly divided among four excavation blocks. Exca- vation blocks were placed by judgment based on the 2007 trenching results, observations made during the fill removal, and the desire for even coverage across the site. Excavation-block locations were constrained by the discovery, during fill removal, of modern and historical-period features that were of potential environmental- safety concern, as well as the locations of trenches excavated during previous testing at the site.

As mentioned above, the discovery of a buried A horizon precipitated changes in the field methods. The Corps, in consultation with Playa Vista Parcel 4, L.P., and Playa Vista Parcel 5, L.P., and SRI, directed that the number of excavation units be reduced from 38 to 10. The 10 excavation units were selected from among the 38 already partially excavated excavation units based on artifact richness in the levels already excavated. The excavation units selected for further excavation were arrayed in one 2-by-3-m block (Block 1) of six excavation units (EUs 10–15) and one 2-by-2-m block (Block 2) of four excavation units (EUs 24, 25, 27, and 28) (see Figure 6). The 28 excavation units not selected for further excavation had only reached the surface of the intact cultural deposit when they were abandoned.

All excavation units were excavated in 10-cm arbitrary levels, using a combination of shovels, picks, and small hand tools, and were terminated in soils determined to be culturally sterile. Excavated materials were placed in 5-gallon buckets and labeled with relevant provenience information. They were then transported to the nearby water-screening facility, where they were wet-screened using 1/8-inch-wire-mesh screens.

Bucket-Tracking System

Even though the number of excavation units was reduced following the discovery of the buried A horizon de- posit, hand-excavation produced hundreds of buckets of sediment that needed to be screened. A backlog of buckets to be screened formed because the excavations proceeded faster than the soil could be screened, and it became imperative to track which buckets had been screened and which had not. To minimize human error, a bar-code tracking system was implemented to track the location and status of each bucket stored in the wet- screening area.

32

Upon completion of an excavation unit level in the excavation area, excavators made a request for a series of bar codes for the buckets of sediment. A bar code was then placed on a tag on each bucket, along with the provenience information, written on a piece of flagging tape on one of the buckets. Each bar code is unique and is linked to a specific set of information located within SRI’s relational database (SRID), including provenience number, site, feature, and, ultimately, storage location. Though redundant, the flagging tape acted as a failsafe should the barcode become damaged or unreadable. Once the buckets from the excavation area had been transported to the wet-screening area, the bar-code tracking tag was immediately scanned. That allowed SRID to update the locations of the buckets. After the buckets had been scanned, they could safely be processed.

Feature Excavation

Two historical-period linear sites and eight features—five prehistoric, one historical period, and two tem- porally ambiguous—were discovered during fill removal and mechanical stripping. The two historical- period linear sites, a buried road and a railroad spur, were mechanically exposed during stripping, photo- graphed, and total-station mapped. The railroad spur was bisected, to observe and record the general feature profile. The two temporally ambiguous features included a brick-lined seepage pit and a telephone pole. Both of the temporally ambiguous features could not be excavated or recorded, because they represented a safety hazard to the field crew. The historical-period feature, another brick-lined seepage pit, was exposed through a combination of mechanical excavation and hand-excavation and was documented using a com- bination of total-station mapping, hand-illustration and measured drawings, and photography.

All of the prehistoric features were found during stripping. Human remains were associated with one of the prehistoric features. The feature was treated in accordance with a strict set of protocols requested by the Most Likely Descendant (MLD), as described below. Features without human remains were treated in accordance with protocols similar to those used during previous excavations at LAN-2768 and elsewhere in the PVAHP. Upon discovery, the ground in the immediate vicinity of a feature was probed to determine its relative extent, and an excavation unit was placed around it. The size of the excavation unit was scaled to the size of the feature, with the desire to capture the entire feature as well as any adjacent “toss zone.” Excavation units typically measured 1 by 1 m, but in one instance, an excavation unit measuring 1.5 by 1.5 m was used.

Features were excavated to expose their horizontal extents, photographed and drawn in plan, and then bisected. A profile was drawn and photographed prior to excavation of the second half of a feature. Sedi- ment associated with a feature was retained for flotation. Once a feature had been removed, the sediment around the feature in the excavation unit was excavated and wet-screened through 1/8-inch mesh. One fea- ture containing human remains was discovered and treated in accordance with the protocols requested by the MLD, as described below.

Human Remains

On Thursday, November 7, 2013, an isolated possible human clavicle was identified during mechanical stripping. Upon the discovery, work was immediately halted in the vicinity of the remains. Subsequently, the Los Angeles Coroner’s Office, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), and the project MLD, Mr. Robert Dorame, were all notified of the find. On the phone, the NAHC stated that they would continue with Mr. Dorame as the project MLD. To ensure that the remains were protected and to comply with the previous MLD recommendations of Mr. Dorame, a 50-foot-radius area around the remains was cordoned off, and all excavation in the area ceased. The remains and the adjacent area were covered with linen cloth, as per the previous MLD recommendations of Mr. Dorame. Sediment that had already been mechanically removed from the area prior to the feature’s discovery and transported to the spoil piles was located and cordoned off. A security guard was placed on-site during non-work hours until the remains could be treated.

33

On Friday, November 8, 2013, County of Los Angeles Coroner Investigator Lieutenant Elissa Fleak visited the site and confirmed that the remains were human and prehistoric in age. Mr. Dorame visited the site on Monday, November 11, 2013, and made several verbal recommendations regarding the treatment and disposition of the remains. Those recommendations were subsequently incorporated into the excavation and laboratory protocols by SRI personnel. Protocols used for excavation of the LAN-2768 human remains included the following:

  1. An arbitrary 30-cm soil buffer (ARB-30) was defined around the identified human-burial feature to ensure that all remains were recovered. The ARB-30 sediments were dry-screened through 1/8-inch mesh and retained for reburial.

  2. There was no photographic documentation of human remains.

  3. There was no destructive analysis of human remains, including ancient-DNA, radiocarbon, and stable- isotope analyses.

  4. Human remains were stored in containers composed of natural materials, such as cloth bags.

  5. Sediments associated with the feature were dry-screened through 1/8-inch mesh and retained for use during the reburial process.

  6. The human remains, associated artifacts, and the sediments retained for reburial were temporarily stored in secure storage at SRI’s Redlands, California, laboratory.

  7. Twenty 5-gallon buckets of sediments from the spoil pile that might have contained human remains were wet-screened through 1/8-inch mesh. All materials caught in the screens were retained for potential reburial. Sediments that passed through the screen were not retained.

    After the remains had been cleared for removal by the County of Los Angeles Coroner’s Office and

Mr. Dorame, samples of sediments from the spoil piles were collected and wet-screened through 1/8-inch mesh, to ensure that no remains were inadvertently missed. The sediments from the spoil piles associated with mechanical stripping of the immediate area were wet-screened, because the amount of sediment exceeded the reasonable limits that could be feasibly processed by dry-screening. That change in protocol was approved by Mr. Dorame. Wet-screening the sediments necessitated a second Native American monitor to ensure that the wet-screening and the ongoing mechanical stripping could proceed without delay. Excavation of the human remains was supervised by an archaeologist trained in human osteology. A 4-by-3-m area around the feature was shovel-scraped in order to ensure that there were no other remains in the vicinity of the feature. After shovel-scraping, mechanical stripping resumed in the area. No other human remains were found in the area.

During subsequent artifact analysis, two other pieces of isolated human remains were identified. These bones had been collected during monitoring but were not identified as human remains while in the field. The human remains are discussed in more detail in Chapter 6.

Wet-Screening Methods

Although much of the lower levels consisted of a silty sand or sandy clay that was relatively easy to screen, the upper 50 cm of the site was composed of a dense clay, which made dry-screening an impractical method of screening, and it was determined that wet-screening would be the most efficient way of screening the excavated soil. The wet-screening operation consisted of using an HH80c high-head water pump which pumped water from a 30-by-30-foot water retention basin through 2-inch pipe reduced to 5/8-inch industrial hoses to four wet-screening stations. The basin was lined with a large tarp to prevent ground saturation and groundwater contamination. Because of the retention basin, the wet-screening area was able to recycle the water. Each station could accommodate two crew members.

As discussed above, the bar-code tag on each bucket was scanned upon arrival to the wet-screening area, so that the location could be updated in SRID. Each 10-cm level from a 1-by-1-m excavation unit

34

produced between 8 and 20 buckets, depending on level thickness and fullness of the buckets. The wet- screening crew generally worked individually, and each crew member screened the buckets of a particular 10-cm level. Dense, clayey levels required a significant amount of presoaking before screening. No defloc- culants could be used to help disperse the clay.

After all the buckets for a given PD had been completely wet-screened, the resulting bulk materials were placed on drying racks and allowed to dry. Once dry, the bulk materials were inventoried in SRID and boxed until sorting could occur.

Flotation sample processing also occurred in the wet-screening area. Of the eight features, only four (all pre- historic features) had associated flotation samples. The samples were processed with a Flote-Tech Model A flota- tion machine. Each sample (up to 20 liters) was run through the machine for 30 minutes. Clean water was used for the flotation process. Once that process was complete, the heavy and light fractions were dried and inventoried.

Laboratory Methods

Processing of the bulk samples generated during the wet-screening process took place at the laboratory in SRI’s Redlands, California, office. Bulk samples associated with the 10 excavation units were size-sorted through 1/4- and 1/8-inch-mesh screens. For all excavation units, artifacts captured by the 1/4-inch-mesh screen were fully sorted. A full sort entails the collection of all artifacts, including unworked shell, unworked bone, lithic debitage, and nondiagnostic historical-period artifacts. Artifacts found in the 1/8-inch-mesh screen were subjected to a modified full sort. Essentially, all artifacts that were collected during the full sort at the 1/4-inch level were collected at the 1/8-inch level, with the exception of shell; only shell hinges were collected at the1/8-inch level. Any materials that passed through the 1/8-inch-mesh screen were checked for artifacts and then disposed. The detritus from the 1/4- and 1/8-inch levels was retained until analysis had been completed and was then discarded. Bulk bags associated with excavation units side from the 10 excavation units in the sample were not screened but will be curated for potential future analysis, as per the plan of work.

As indicated above, features were generally excavated in two basic proveniences: (1) feature interior and (2) feature exterior. The feature interior consisted of sediment only in direct association with the feature (i.e., excluding krotavina and other disturbances). That sediment was processed in the field, using a flotation machine. The light fraction was sent to SRI Paleoethnobotanist Dr. Seetha Reddy for analysis (see Chapter 6). The heavy fraction was size-sorted in the same manner as the excavation units, with one exception. Because the flotation machine captures material to the 1/16-inch level, all non-artifacts at the 1/16-inch level were saved and discarded after analysis, along with the 1/4- and 1/8-inch-level non-artifact materials. The sediment generated from the test unit placed around the feature (the feature exterior) was wet-screened through 1/8-inch-mesh screens. Bulk ma- terials from this context were treated in the same manner as a general excavation unit, as described above.

Sediments from the feature containing human remains were collected from three proveniences: (1) feature fill, (2) the ARB-30, and (3) spoil-pile samples. Sediments from the feature and the ARB-30 were dry- screened through 1/8-inch mesh. Any artifacts found during screening were collected in the field. The sediment was retained for future reburial. The spoil-pile samples represent the four locations in the spoil pile where any potential human remains from the feature might be found. These samples were wet-screened through 1/8-inch- mesh screen. Patrick Stanton examined the bulk sample to identify any human remains. No additional human remains were identified in these bags, although fragments of two human femora were discovered in grab- sample bags associated with the mechanical stripping. The human remains were transferred to cloth bags and placed in secure storage, as were the human remains, associated artifacts, and sediments that were recovered in the field. The bulk sediments associated with the spoil-pile samples will not be sorted in the laboratory but will be retained for the MLD, in case he would like those sediments to be reburied with the remains.

No bulk samples were generated as a result of stripping. Individual faunal, shell, and lithic artifacts were collected. These artifacts were inventoried and entered into SRID, in preparation for analysis. Sorted artifacts were weighed, counted, and inventoried in SRID. Bar-code tracking labels similar to the ones associated with the buckets were produced and placed on the bag exteriors.

35

CHAPTER 5Fieldwork Results

Patrick B. Stanton, Jeffrey A. Homburg, Scott H. Kremkau, and Dean M. Duryea, Jr.

Introduction

This chapter presents the excavation results from data recovery efforts at LAN-2768 during 2013. The first part of this chapter is dedicated to the geoarchaeological investigations and provides the chronological foun- dation upon which all analyses in this volume are based. Following the geoarchaeological analysis, descrip- tions of the features discovered during mechanical stripping and information regarding the densities of arti- facts recovered during hand-excavation are presented. In-depth artifact analyses are presented in Chapter 6.

Geoarchaeological AssessmentIntroduction

This section reports the results of a geoarchaeological assessment of Locus A of LAN-2768 on the parcel being developed by Playa Vista Parcel 4, L.P., and Playa Vista Parcel 5, L.P. As discussed in Chapter 2, SRI previously completed archaeological data recovery studies in four loci (Loci A–D) at LAN-2768 as part of the PVAHP and data recovery for the Los Angeles Clippers’ training facility to the east (see Garraty, Vargas, and Ciolek-Torello 2016). The geoarchaeological assessment discussed here was conducted to (1) document and interpret the stratigraphic contexts of cultural and natural deposits in this part of the site; (2) relate the stratigraphy to Locus A to the east of the Playa Vista Parcel 4, L.P., and Playa Vista Parcel 5, L.P., parcel; and (3) present and interpret the radiocarbon dates.

This chapter is organized in six sections. Following this introduction are sections that present the meth- ods, geologic background, paleoenvironmental reconstruction, results, and conclusions.

Methods

Dr. Jeffrey A. Homburg conducted geoarchaeological fieldwork at LAN-2768 on November 4–5, 2013. A stratigraphic profile, designated Profile A (PD 1248), was described and interpreted in the field (Figure 7). That profile was located along the eastern wall of EU 11 in Block 1. Profile A was described following standard soil-description conventions, as outlined in Schoenberger et al. (2002) and Soil Survey Division Staff (1993). Soil descriptions for each profile included the following properties: master horizon/strati- graphic depths, Munsell color (moist and dry), textural estimates by the ribbon method, gravel content, soil structure, consistence, boundary characteristics, ped coatings, redoximorphic features, carbonate develop- ment, and noteworthy observations, such as krotovina (infilled animal burrows) and associated artifacts. Strata were numbered from the lowest (that is, oldest) depositional layer observed at the site. Individual strata correlated to one or more soil horizons. A stratigraphic cross section was drawn to correlate strata

page51image44002752

37

page52image41720736page52image41721360page52image41715952

Figure 7. Map showing the location of Profile A.

lengthwise through the part of the site that was excavated on the Playa Vista Parcel 4, L.P., and Playa Vista Parcel 5, L.P., parcel. That cross section was approximately north–south in orientation.

Ten radiocarbon samples were submitted for analysis, but only 8 were suitable for dating by accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS): 7 samples of Venus clam (Chione) shells and 1 piece of charcoal. The shell samples were taken from EUs 10, 11, 13, 24, and 28, and the charcoal sample was taken from Feature 3067.

The radiocarbon results were calibrated by Dr. Scott Kremkau, using OxCal 4.2.3 corrections (see Bronk Ramsey and Lee 2013; Reimer et al. 2013), following the methods of Dr. Stacy Lengyel outlined in the chronostratigraphy chapter of Volume 2 of the PVAHP report (Lengyel and Hull 2016). In that report, all shell corrections used the Marine 04 correction curve and two sets of local ΔR offsets. The first is a standard offset of 220 ± 40 that is used along the nearby coast. The use of this average ΔR value allowed the dates obtained for this project to be compared to calibrated shell dates derived from other projects in southern California and to established regional chronologies. The shell dates calibrated with the standardΔR value provided baseline age estimates for associated contexts.

The second offset varied, depending on the original RCYBP age and the type of shell used for dating (see Table 4 in PVAHP Volume 2). These age-specific calibrated dates are presented with the standard calibrated dates (i.e., ΔR = 220 ± 40), to provide reasonable age estimates for individual samples given the current understanding of regional reservoir changes. The timing and duration of occupation episodes are estimations derived from both the age-specific and standard calibrated dates. The age-specific dates provide realistic and accurate age estimates, given our current understanding of how the local carbon reservoir has changed through time, whereas the standard dates facilitate comparisons with other regional projects and chronologies. Dates for both local ΔR offsets using the more recent Marine 13 correction curve are also presented below.

38

Results

Four intact strata, Strata I–IV, were identified in Profile A, the eastern sidewall of EU 11 (Figures 8 and 9). Stratum I was actually below the bottom elevation of EU 11, but it was documented about 8 m to the west, in Trench 3041, a trench excavated below the elevation at the bottom of EU 11, and was added to the de- scription of Profile A. The pedon description presented in Table 1 is a composite of the descriptions of EU 11 and Trench 3041. A fifth stratum, Stratum V, was located above Stratum IV and was composed of construction fills. This stratum was mechanically removed prior to the start of hand excavation.

Stratum I is the lower alluvial deposit, in all likelihood from the Los Angeles River/Ballona Creek (but possibly from an ancestral channel of Centinela Creek), and extends from 212 cm to greater than 252 cm below the stripped surface, exposing cultural deposits of the upper marsh. It consists of the 4C horizon, a gray sandy clay loam with reddish brown, spherical and irregular iron-oxide (Fe3+) masses. No artifacts were found in Stratum I.

Stratum II is the lower marsh deposit (or marl) that extends from 92 to 212 cm in depth below the stripped surface. It consists of a gray clay loam 3Ab1 horizon that contains masses and finely dissem- inated light gray calcium carbonate. It also contains sparse shell (mainly Chione) and lithic debitage in the upper part of the lower marsh. Underlying the 3Ab1 horizon is a dark gray clay loam 3Ab2 hori- zon and a dark gray to very dark gray loam 3Ab3 horizon; the 3Ab2 and 3Ab3 horizons both contain reddish brown, spherical and irregular iron-oxide (Fe3+) masses and threads. Overall, textures fine upward within Stratum II.

Stratum III is the upper alluvial deposit that extends from 68 to 92 cm below the stripped surface. The micaceous sediment of Stratum III indicates that it represents Centinela Creek alluvium. Stratum III consists of a grayish brown sandy clay 2C1 horizon over a grayish brown to light grayish brown loamy very fine sand 2C2 horizon, an upward-fining sequence. Reddish brown, spherical and irregular iron-oxide masses were found throughout Stratum III.

Stratum IV is the upper marsh deposit that extends from the top of the stripped surface to 68 cm below the stripped surface. It consists of a dark gray silty clay A1 horizon over a gray silty clay loam A2 horizon with shell (mainly Chione) and a grayish brown silt loam A3 horizon. The A1 horizon contains reddish brown iron-oxide coatings on peds, the A2 horizon contains reddish yellow, spherical masses of iron oxide, and the A3 horizon contains light gray masses of finely disseminated carbonates. The upper three levels of Stratum IV in both excavation blocks, corresponding to the A1 horizon, contain a heavily disturbed assem- blage of early-twentieth-century and modern faunal bone from domesticated animals, mixed in with pre- historic shell and lithic materials. Some of the materials in the A3 horizon were associated with Stratum V (see below), but it is not clear whether all of the disturbances were created during the addition of Stratum V or whether they happened before that addition.

Stratum V is the upper fill level and is composed of construction fill that was placed on top of LAN- 2768 during the construction of the Hughes aircraft facility. The fill consists of a variety of modern and historical-period refuse, such as glass, brick, and wood, as well as some faunal bone. The fill appears to have been brought in from elsewhere, because no prehistoric artifacts were found in it, suggesting that it is not composed of redeposited site materials.

Stratum III was not visible in Control Unit (CU) 2/22, excavated during the 2000 data recovery excavations, which was located just southeast of the 2013 date recovery excavations. However, an analysis of artifact densities from CU 2/22 showed that the same artifact distribution noted in Blocks 1 and 2 was also present in CU 2/22 (see the Midden-Constituent Analysis section, below), with a sharp decrease in artifact density around Level 10 or 11. So, although the Centinela Creek deposit was not present in CU 2/22, there was a clear break in the occupation of the site in the adjacent parts of Locus A. This is discussed in more detail below.

39

page54image41732752page54image41730464page54image41734624page54image41730048

Figure 8. Schematic of Profile A.

40

page55image41735248page55image44030720

Figure 9. Photograph of Profile A in Excavation Unit 11, Block 1, view to the east.

41

Table 1. Profile A Pedon Description

Horizon Description

Stratum IV, Upper Marsh

  1. A1  0–25 cm. Dark gray (10YR 4/1, 10YR 3/1 moist) silty clay; strong coarse to very coarse angular blocks; very rigid, rigid, very sticky, very plastic; few faint, medium reddish brown (5YR 4/4) iron-oxide coatings; common very fine roots flattened between peds, and few very fine roots throughout; slightly alkaline (pH 7.6); gradual smooth wavy boundary.

  2. A2  25–55 cm. Gray (10YR 5/1, 10YR4/1 moist) silty clay loam; moderate, fine, and medium granules and coarse to very coarse angular blocks; extremely hard, slightly rigid, moderately sticky, moderately plastic; very few fine, reddish yellow (5YR 6/6), spherical iron-oxide (Fe3+) masses; few very fine roots throughout; slightly alkaline (pH 7.8); clear smooth boundary. Contains sparse shell (mainly Chione).

  3. A3  55–68 cm. Grayish brown (10YR 5/2, 10YR 4/2 moist) silt loam; massive; hard, very firm, slightly sticky, moderately plastic; common fine to medium, distinct, light gray (10YR 7/1) spherical carbonate masses; few very fine roots throughout; slightly alkaline (pH 7.8); clear smooth boundary.

    Stratum III, Upper Alluvium

  1. 2C1  68–75 cm. Grayish brown (10YR 5/2, 10YR 4/2 moist) sandy clay; massive; slightly hard, friable, nonsticky, nonplastic; common fine, faint, reddish brown (5YR 4/4), spherical and irregular iron-oxide (Fe3+) masses; few very fine roots throughout; moderately alkaline (pH 7.9); abrupt smooth boundary.

  2. 2C2  75–92 cm. Grayish brown to light grayish brown (10YR 5.5/2, 10YR 4.5/2 moist) loamy very fine sand; massive; moderately hard, firm, slightly sticky, slightly plastic; many fine, distinct, reddish brown (5YR 4/4), spherical and irregular iron-oxide (Fe3+) masses; few very fine roots throughout; moderately alkaline (pH 8.0); clear smooth boundary.

    Stratum II, Lower Marsh

  1. 3Ab1  92–109 cm. Gray (10YR 5.5/1, 10YR 4.5/1 moist) clay loam; massive; hard, very firm, slightly sticky, slightly plastic; common fine, distinct, light gray (10YR 7/1), spherical calcium-carbonate masses; moderately alkaline (pH 8.0). Contains sparse shell (mainly Chione) and lithic debitage.

  2. 3Ab2  109–119 cm. Dark gray (10YR 4/1, 10YR 3/1 moist) clay loam; massive; very hard, slightly sticky, slightly plastic; common fine to medium, faint, reddish brown (5YR 4/4), spherical and irregular iron-oxide (Fe3+) threads; moderately alkaline (pH 8.0).

  3. 3Ab3  119–212 cm. Dark gray to very dark gray (10YR 3.5/1, 10YR 2.5/1 moist) loam; massive; moderately hard, firm, slightly sticky, slightly plastic; few fine, faint, reddish brown (5YR 4/4), spherical and irregular iron-oxide (Fe3+) masses and threads; moderately alkaline (pH 8.1).

    Stratum I, Lower Alluvium

4C 212–252+ cm. Gray (10YR 5/1, 10YR 4/1 moist) sandy clay loam, massive, moderately hard, firm, slightly sticky, slightly plastic; many fine to coarse, faint, reddish brown (5YR 4/4), spherical and irregular iron-oxide (Fe3+) masses; moderately alkaline (pH 8.1).

Note: Described by Jeff Homburg, November 4, 2013. The geomorphic setting was a toe slope below an alluvial fan at the base of the Ballona Escarpment; southwest aspect; less than 1 percent slope. The parent material consisted of stratified Holocene marsh and alluvial deposits.

page56image44010112page56image44012224page56image44016832page56image44015680page56image44014720page56image44012416page56image44010304page56image44013184page56image44016064page56image44007616

42

The presence of carbonate and redoximorphic features in the soil made it possible to draw interpretations of fluctuating water levels in the cultural and natural deposits of LAN-2768. The carbonates and iron-oxide redoximorphic features of all strata indicated that groundwater fluctuated regularly, and the formation of these soil features occurred in the soil when the marsh deposits dried out seasonally. In an anaerobic envi- ronment (such as was present when the marsh deposits were wet at LAN-2768), soil microbes reduced iron from the ferric (Fe3+) to the ferrous (Fe2+) form (see Richardson and Vepraskas 2000; Vasilas et al. 2010). Ferric iron is insoluble, but ferrous iron easily enters the soil solution and may be translocated to other areas of the soil under saturated conditions. Areas that have lost iron develop characteristic gray or reddish gray colors and are known as redox depletions. When the soil reverted to an aerobic state as the marsh deposits dried out seasonally, iron in solution oxidized and was concentrated in patches as soft masses and coatings along root channels and other pores. These areas of oxidized iron are called redox concentrations. Because water movement in saturated or inundated soils can be multidirectional (that is, directional changes from saturation to desiccation as the water table dropped and from desiccation to saturation as the water table rose), redox depletions and concentrations can occur anywhere in the soil and have irregular shapes and sizes in the soils of LAN-2768.

Soil pH was documented because it is a crucial taphonomic factor in bone preservation. The ideal pH for the preservation of hydroxyapatite (Ca10[PO4]6[OH]2), the mineral component of bone, is 7.88 (Lindsay 2001; Linse 1992), which is moderately alkaline. It is well known that acidic soil conditions can dissolve bone, but highly alkaline soils can also destroy bone. The pH of the soils in Profile A ranged from 7.6 at the top of Stratum IV to 8.1 at the bottom of Stratum I. Such mildly alkaline soils are excellent for preser- vation of bone—an interpretation confirmed by the excellent condition and the amount of faunal bone re- covered for zooarchaeological analysis.

Radiocarbon-Dating Results

Eight samples were sent to Beta Analytic, Inc., for AMS dating with 13C/12C reservoir corrections (see Appendix B). Table 2 summarizes the radiocarbon data for these samples. The first two sets of dates in the table reflect the two different ΔR offsets, using the Marine 04 correction curve. The date for the charcoal sample from Feature 3067 were not affected by any of the marine corrections. Dates in Table 2 are also shown for the more-recent Marine 13 correction curve. Almost all of the dates are similar to those that reflect the Marine 04 curve. These dates indicate that the lower marsh of Stratum II dates to the early to middle Intermediate period, and the upper marsh of Stratum IV dates to the late Intermediate period. The cultural feature from which the charcoal sample was recovered is located at the bottom of the upper marsh and dates to the middle to late Intermediate period; so, it is older than the upper marsh deposits.

Using the results of the radiocarbon data from the eight samples, the stratigraphic levels defined above were correlated to activity episodes defined by Garraty, Vargas, and Ciolek-Torello (2016). Episodes of activity are defined as probable periods of discrete human activity. In the 2000 data recovery excavations at LAN-2768, at least eight different episodes were defined, based on both radiocarbon dating and the presence of temporally diagnostic artifacts (Garraty, Vargas, and Ciolek-Torello 2016):

Episode 1: early Intermediate period (940–80 cal B.C.)
Episode 2: early to middle Intermediate period (730 cal 
B.C.–cal A.D. 160) Episode 3: middle to late Intermediate period (470 cal B.C.–cal A.D. 340) Episode 4: late Intermediate period (120 cal B.C.–cal A.D. 560)
Episode 5: Protohistoric to Mission period (cal 
A.D. 1500–1600/1780–1800) Episode 6: Rancho period (A.D. 1834–1848)
Episode 7: Euroamerican period (
A.D. 1848–1941)
Episode 8: Howard Hughes Industrial Complex (ca. 
A.D. 1941–1980s)

43

page58image43529344page58image43557696page58image43549056page58image43556736page58image43563072page58image43563264page58image43559232page58image43554432page58image43564032page58image43550784page58image43564608page58image43561152page58image43553664page58image43564416page58image43552704page58image43561344page58image43555776

44

Excavation Area

Unit No.

Unit Type

Level

Stratum

Material

Standard Marine ∆R Correction (220 ± 40)

Age-Specific Marine ∆R Corrections

Standard Marine ∆R Correction (220 ± 40)

Age-Specific Marine ∆R Corrections

Episode

Block 1

 10
 10
 11
 13
 24
 24
 28
3067

test pit test pit test pit test pit test pit test pit test pit feature

3 7 5 11 4 6 14

Stratum IV, upper marsh (upper A horizon)

Chione Chione Chione Chione Chione Chione ChioneCharcoal

2500 ± 30 B.P. 1910 ± 30 B.P. 2030 ± 30 B.P. 2600 ± 30 B.P. 2590 ± 30 B.P. 1970 ± 30 B.P. 2640 ± 30 B.P. 1750 ± 30 B.P.

90 cal B.C.–calA.D. 200

420–160 cal B.C. (–85 ± 40)

90 cal B.C.–calA.D. 200

420–160 cal B.C. 1/2 (–85 ± 40)

Block 1

Stratum IV, upper marsh (upper A horizon)

cal A.D. 610–820 cal A.D. 470–690 190 cal B.C.–cal

cal A.D. 560–750 (165 ± 35)

cal A.D. 610–810 cal A.D. 470–690 190 cal B.C.–cal

cal A.D. 560–750 4 (165 ± 35)

Block 1

Stratum IV, upper marsh (upper A horizon)

cal A.D. 430–650 (165 ± 35)

cal A.D. 430–650 4 (165 ± 35)

Block 1

Stratum II, lower marsh (buried A horizon)

650–320 cal B.C. (–85 ± 40)

650–330 cal B.C. 1/2 (–85 ± 40)

Block 2

Stratum IV, upper marsh (upper A horizon)

180 cal B.C.–calA.D. 80

620–250 cal B.C. (–85 ± 40)

180 cal B.C.–calA.D. 80

650–300 cal B.C. 1/2 (–85 ± 40)

Block 2

Stratum IV, upper marsh (upper A horizon)

cal A.D. 550–760

cal A.D. 480–690 (165 ± 35)

cal A.D. 550–760

cal A.D. 480–690 4 (165 ± 35)

Block 2

Stratum II, lower marsh (buried A horizon)

290 cal B.C.–calA.D. 40

700–360 cal B.C. (–85 ± 40)

290 cal B.C.–calA.D. 40

700–370 cal B.C. 1/2 (–85 ± 40)

Stripping Unit

Bottom of Stratum IV

cal A.D. 220–390

cal A.D. 220–390

cal A.D. 220–390

cal A.D. 220–390 3/4

Table 2. Radiocarbon Dates for LAN-2768

RCYBP (from Beta Analytic, Inc.)

With Marine 04 Calibration Curve

With Marine 13 Calibration Curve

A.D. 80

A.D. 80

The episode assignments for the eight samples from the 2013 data recovery excavations are presented at the far right of Table 2. Because Episodes 1–4 overlap significantly, in many cases a single date could attributed to multiple episodes. Therefore, for the discussions here, the radiocarbon dates from the current project are attributed to the general time periods covered by the episodes. For example, the date from Fea- ture 3067 corresponded to both Episodes 3 and 4, the middle to late Intermediate period, and the late Inter- mediate period, respectively. As such, this date is considered to date to the middle to late Intermediate period.

Stratum II (the 3Ab horizons defined above), appears to date to the early to middle Intermediate period (Episodes 1 and 2), based on the results of two shell samples. The combined 2σ range for the two dates was 700–320 cal B.C. (the age-specific marine ∆R corrections in Table 2 and the other dates presented in the text). Two other Chione samples, taken from Levels 3 and 4 of Stratum IV, also dated to the same time period but are clearly outliers, relative to the other four radiocarbon dates from Stra- tum IV. Either the shells were translocated upward from Stratum II through bioturbation, or more likely, the upper levels of Stratum IV, corresponding to the A1 horizon, contain a mix of early-twenti- eth-century and modern artifacts and redeposited site material. Levels 1–3 in both excavation blocks contained a mix of modern, domesticated faunal bone and other artifacts dating to the twentieth cen- tury, as well as prehistoric artifacts, suggesting that this layer has been disturbed during the early twentieth century. Level 4 also contained two pieces of domesticated faunal bone (see Chapter 6), sug- gesting that krotovina may also have brought some more-recent artifacts down from Levels 1–3. So, these two dates are likely from a disturbed context. It is important to note that stratigraphic integrity is dominant over mixing at LAN-2768; if it were not, then stratigraphic and soil-horizon boundaries would not be as distinct as they are.

As noted above, the charcoal sample from Feature 3067 dated to cal A.D. 220–390, corresponding to Episodes 3 and 4, the middle to late Intermediate period and the late Intermediate period. The feature is located in the transition between Strata III and IV and corresponds to the A3 soil horizon defined above.

The upper portions of Stratum IV are associated with Episode 4, the late Intermediate period, cor- responding to the A2 soil horizon. The 2σ range for the three dates for this part of Stratum IV indicated a span of cal A.D. 430–750. The late Intermediate period dates from this project are the latest Interme- diate period dates obtained for all of LAN-2768 (that is, including Loci A–D). There was one other late Intermediate period date reported in Volume 2 of the PVAHP report that had a 2σ range of 120 calB.C.–cal A.D. 560.

Figure 10 shows a stratigraphic cross section lengthwise across the Playa Vista Parcel 4, L.P., and Playa Vista Parcel 5, L.P., parcel. The stratigraphy is very consistent in this parcel. Based on differ- ences in the thickness of Stratum IV, it appears that the upper part of Stratum IV has been truncated mechanically in portions of the parcel, which corresponds to the mixed deposits in Levels 1–3. That truncation was likely associated with historical-period earthmoving activity prior to placement of the overburden material over the intact cultural deposits of LAN-2768.

It was not possible to clearly correlate the stratigraphy of the project area with other areas of LAN- 2768, except for the portion immediately adjacent to the project area. Although a trench from the 2000 excavations extended into the project area, there are natural stratigraphic and soil differences in the landscape positioning of the two parcels. As in the project area, marsh and alluvial deposits were identified in the 2000 excavations, but this part of the site is slightly higher in elevation and is better drained than the project area. Consequently, there are some natural facies changes between the two locations. Redoximorphic features are more common in the project area because of its lower landscape position and increased fluctuations in water-table levels. Soil textures and colors, combined with the radiocarbon dates, indicated that Stratum IV in the project area is approximately correlated to the A1- A2-A3 horizons of Profile 1 in Trench 1 and the adjoining EU 3 from the 2000 excavations.

45

page60image41718656page60image41716160page60image44012608

Figure 10. Stratigraphic cross section of the Playa Vista Parcel 4, L.P., and Playa Vista Parcel 5, L.P., parcel.

Summary

The geoarchaeological assessment identified four strata in the project area. Strata I and III are alluvial de- posits interpreted as noncultural deposits, and Strata II and IV are marsh deposits that contain archaeolog- ical remains, a mix of Chione shell, faunal bone, lithic artifacts, and a few other materials. Soil evidence in the form of carbonate and redoximorphic features indicated that the water table fluctuated seasonally in the project area. Human occupation of this part of the site was seasonal, associated with times when the marsh deposits dried out.

The cultural deposits of Stratum II were dated to the early to middle Intermediate period and span approximately 700–320 cal B.C. Stratum IV was dated to the middle to late Intermediate period. Depending on which correction curve is used (the standard or age-specific ∆R), Strata II and IV are separated in time by a hiatus of between 150 and 550 years. The upper portions of Stratum IV appear to have been truncated in areas, and the top portions of this stratum are mixed with artifacts dating to the twentieth century. The preservation of stratigraphic and soil-horizon boundaries, however, indicates that the stratigraphic and soil horizon boundaries are relatively well preserved. The soil pH levels are excellent for bone preservation.

46

Excavation and Mechanical-Stripping ResultsIntroduction

This section describes the prehistoric and historical-period/modern features that were discovered during the data recovery efforts in the project area in 2013. Information regarding the spatial and temporal patterns of features and artifact densities is presented.

Prehistoric Component

In this section, we discuss the changes in artifact frequencies to delineate spatial and temporal trends in the midden remains and features. The results of the analysis of artifact and ecofact densities (flaked stone, faunal bone, and shell) at a per-level and per-stratum scale are presented. The following section presents the data and examines the spatial and temporal patterns observed. A more detailed analysis of the artifacts can be found in Chapter 6, and comparisons between these data and data gathered from earlier fieldwork at LAN-2768 are presented in Chapter 7.

Site Integrity and Disturbance

The site is generally in fair to good condition; disturbances occurred primarily during the early twentieth century and the subsequent Hughes era. At the time of data recovery, the site was buried by several feet of fill. The remains of Teale Street and a segment of railroad track intersected the southern part of the project area. Construction of these features, albeit generally shallow in profile, would have directly impacted the upper levels of the site. Furthermore, the presence of historical-period/modern debris, such as pieces of rusted metal, brick, clothing, and fragments of cut faunal bone, mixed together with prehistoric lithic arti- facts and pieces of shell with radiocarbon dates from the early to middle Intermediate period (dates that are consistent with Stratum II, from the bottom of the site deposit), indicates that the first few levels of Stratum IV are disturbed and mixed.

The older shell fragments were more than likely mixed into the upper levels of Stratum IV from other parts of the site or from other locations on the Playa Vista property. It was not uncommon for the terrain to be manipulated during construction of the Hughes industrial facility; areas were flattened or filled to address construction needs at the time. In at least two cases, sites identified during the initial subsurface investiga- tions in the PVAHP area (LAN-2676 and LAN-2679) were later determined to be made entirely of rede- posited site materials, likely from LAN-62 and LAN-211. Additional disturbances to the project area in- clude trenching and augering in 2000 and 2007, during testing and date recovery efforts. Backfilled trenches from those investigations were rediscovered during mechanical stripping.

Midden-Constituent Analysis

Within the project area, 10 EUs, split into two blocks, were excavated to a depth of 2 m, in arbitrary 10 cm levels. Block 1 consisted of 6 EUs (EUs 10–15), and Block 2 consisted of 4 EUs (EUs 24, 25, 27, and 28). Four natural strata were identified: an upper marsh deposit (Stratum IV), an upper alluvial deposit (Stratum III), a lower marsh deposit (Stratum II), and a lower alluvial deposit (Stratum I). Radiocarbon dating showed that the site was occupied throughout the Intermediate period, with the lower marsh dating to the early to middle Intermediate period and the upper marsh dating to the middle to late Intermediate period. As noted above, Levels 1–3 in Stratum IV are part of a mixed deposit containing modern and historical-period arti- facts as well as prehistoric artifacts. So, the artifacts from these three levels are excluded from the current discussion. The geoarchaeological studies presented above indicated that the levels below Level 3 are rel- atively intact. Artifacts recovered from below Level 3 in the two excavation blocks consisted of over 540

47

flaked stone artifacts, over 700 pieces of faunal bone, and nearly 500 g of shell. Block 1 exhibited the ma- jority of all artifact types: 88 percent of the flaked stone artifacts, 89.2 percent of the faunal bone, and 79.6 percent of the shell.

Spatial Patterning

Overall, the vast majority of flaked stone, faunal bone, and invertebrate artifacts were present in the Block 1 EUs, although the patterns of relative artifact density in the two excavation blocks were generally similar (Table 3; Figures 11 and 12). Within both blocks, the density of flaked stone artifacts was highest within Stratum II, and the second-highest density occurred at the interface between Strata II and III. Less than 5 percent of the flaked stone artifacts came from Stratum IV. In Block 1, the majority of the faunal bone was also found in Stratum II and at the interface between Strata II and III, although the disparity between the upper and lower marsh deposits was not as severe as with flaked stone artifacts. Stratum IV had nearly 20 percent of the total faunal bone sample below Levels 1–3. However, in Block 2, Stratum IV had the highest relative density of faunal bone, followed by Strata III and II. This is the only example in either excavation block with a relatively high portion of artifacts in Stratum III. Of the 21 bones from this stratum, 16 were from either rodents or unidentified small mammals; so, this count may be the result of an intrusive burrowing animal that died within the stratum. The densities of invertebrate remains in both blocks are nearly identical in Strata IV and II.

When compared to artifact densities recorded in nearby CU 2/22, previously excavated at LAN-2768 in 2000, all artifact densities associated with Blocks 1 and 2 are considerably lower. In regard to flaked stone, CU 2/22 yielded 408.4 artifacts/m3, whereas Blocks 1 and 2 yielded 39.8 and 8.1 artifacts/m3, respectively. Faunal bone recovered from CU 2/22 had 2,489.6 artifacts/m3, as opposed to densities of 145.1 and 56.9 arti- facts/mobserved in Blocks 1 and 2. CU 2/22 yielded a shell density of 232.7 g/m3, unlike Blocks 1 and 2, which had densities of 39.5 and 12.7 g/m3, respectively. Although there were only 0.9 ground stone arti- facts/min CU 2/22, no ground stone was found in either excavation block during the current project.

Table 3. Artifact Counts and Densities for Each Stratum of LAN-2768

page62image43550400

Bone, Unworked

Count Relative Density (%)

152 21

39 5 24 3

107 15 379 53

2 — 7 1

Lithic, Flaked Stone

Shell, Unworked

page62image43564800page62image58160928page62image43554240

Stratum

Stratum IV, upper marsh (upper A horizon)

Strata III/IV boundary

Stratum III, upper alluvium (Centinela Creek deposits)

Strata II/III boundary

Stratum II, lower marsh (buried A horizon)

Strata I/II boundary Stratum I, lower alluvium

Count

25

11 9

96 369

24 8

542

Relative Density (%)

Weight (g)

Relative Density (%)

29

12 6

19 35

— —

100

page62image43549824

Total 710
Note: Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole numbers.

100

5 142.1

2 58.8 2 27.8

18 68

4 1—

100 491.3

91.9 170.6

0.1

page62image43550976

48

page63image41765520page63image41763648

Figure 11. Block 1 artifact frequency, by stratum.

page63image41764064page63image41766560

Figure 12. Block 2 artifact frequency, by stratum.

49

When compared to artifact densities recorded in nearby CU 2/22, previously excavated at LAN-2768 in 2000, all artifact densities associated with Blocks 1 and 2 are considerably lower. In regard to flaked stone, CU 2/22 yielded 408.4 artifacts/m3, whereas Blocks 1 and 2 yielded 39.8 and 8.1 artifacts/m3, respectively. Faunal bone recovered from CU 2/22 had 2,489.6 artifacts/m3, as opposed to densities of 145.1 and 56.9 arti- facts/mobserved in Blocks 1 and 2. CU 2/22 yielded a shell density of 232.7 g/m3, unlike Blocks 1 and 2, which had densities of 39.5 and 12.7 g/m3, respectively. Although there were only 0.9 ground stone arti- facts/min CU 2/22, no ground stone was found in either excavation block during the current project.

CU 2/22 and Excavation Blocks 1 and 2 are, in turn, farther and farther from the edge of the Westches- ter Bluffs and, in turn, feature lower and lower artifact densities. This dramatic difference in artifact densi- ties within the site, as well as the smaller number of features recovered from the project area, suggests that the portion of LAN-2768 in the project area represents the western terminus of the site.

Temporal Patterning

Artifact frequencies clearly show the main periods of occupation in the project area, separated by a sterile layer where no human activity took place, apparently for at least 150 years, and possibly much longer. The upper marsh deposit, Stratum IV and the interface between Strata III and IV, dated to the middle to late Intermediate period. The lower marsh deposit, Stratum II dated to the early to middle Intermediate period. In general, artifact frequencies were much lower during middle to late Intermediate period, whereas the early to middle Intermediate period showed a much more intensive level of occupation.

During the middle to late Intermediate period, invertebrate remains and faunal bone were more frequent than flaked stone artifacts. Almost no lithic artifacts were represented in the levels from the upper portions of Stratum IV. At the bottom of Stratum IV, faunal remains were even less common. Stratum III, which is undated, showed a clear break in the occupation of the project area. However, Stratum II, which corre- sponds to the early to middle Intermediate period, showed a large increase in artifact frequency (Figure 13). The same pattern held true for lithic artifacts, as well. During the middle to late Intermediate period, there were virtually no flaked stone artifacts, accounting for only 7 percent of the entire collection, combined. The early to middle Intermediate period, however, accounted for nearly 70 percent of the total collection. Invertebrate shell frequencies were very similar between the upper and lower marsh deposits.

Figure 13. Combined artifact frequency of Blocks 1 and 2, by stratum.

page64image41723440page64image41717200

50

Taken together, the relative frequencies of faunal bone, flaked stone, and shell artifacts indicate that the project area was most intensively occupied during the early to middle Intermediate period, correspond- ing to Stratum II. That was followed by a significant period of abandonment, after which the site was reoc- cupied during the middle to late and late Intermediate period. It should be noted that an unknown portion of Stratum IV has been truncated from the site; so, the middle to late and late Intermediate period occupa- tions may have been more intensive than what is visible archaeologically.

Prehistoric Features

During data recovery, mechanical stripping revealed five prehistoric features: four rock clusters and one artifact concentration (Figure 14). Rock clusters are discrete concentrations of modified and/or unmodified rocks, including fire-affected rock (FAR), ground stone, and flaked-stone artifacts. These deposits were distinguished from thermal features by the absence of in situ burning (oxidized or charred soils), although some or many of the rocks may have been thermally altered. Based on similar features found elsewhere in the Playa Vista project area, faunal bone, charcoal, and plant seeds and geophytes are often found in asso- ciation with these features.

Artifact concentrations are distinct clusters of artifacts. In some cases, concentrations included items that appeared to have been cached purposefully. More typically, however, this feature type was applied to discrete clusters of artifacts that could not be characterized more accurately without further analysis. Although there might be some overlap between the two feature types (for example, artifact concentrations may contain some FAR), in terms of composition, the main difference is that the range of artifacts in artifact concentrations suggests that the feature is associated with different or more-complex uses. Only one artifact concentration (Feature 3064) was discovered. This feature included deer antler, FAR, and one human-skeletal element.

Rock Clusters

Feature 3010

This feature (Figure 15) consists of a concentration of small cobbles and FAR measuring 25 by 25 cm. The feature was discovered near the base of the upper marsh deposit (Stratum IV) during mechanical stripping of the site. The feature is composed of a single 4-cm-deep level of FAR. A fragment of burned faunal bone and one fragment of charcoal were discovered in the middle of the feature. The feature is probably a thermal feature associated with a simple concentration of FAR or the “cleanout” of a hearth. No soil change was associated with the feature. A 1-by-1-m EU was placed over the feature. The feature was bisected, a flota- tion sample was taken, and a profile of the feature was made.

Feature 3015

This feature (Figure 16) consists of a concentration of small cobbles and FAR measuring 50 by 50 cm. The feature is approximately 3 m north of Feature 3010, near the base of the upper marsh deposit (Stratum IV). It is composed of a single 2–3-cm-deep level of FAR. Some fragments of burned faunal bone were recovered. This feature is probably a thermal feature representing an FAR concentration or the cleanout of a hearth or thermal feature. No soil change was associated with the feature. A 1-by-1-m EU was placed over the feature. The feature was bisected, a flotation sample was taken, and a photograph of the feature profile was made.

Feature 3067

This feature (Figures 17 and 18) consists of a concentration of small cobbles and FAR measuring 50 by 45 cm. The feature was discovered near the base of the upper marsh deposit (Stratum IV). It is composed of a single 6–10-cm-deep layer of cobbles and FAR. The soil beneath the rocks was slightly discolored from charcoal staining. Some shell and burned faunal bone were recovered in the middle of the feature. Feature 3067 appears to be a thermal feature representing an FAR concentration or the cleanout of a hearth or other thermal feature. No soil change was associated with the feature. A 1.5-by-1.5-m EU was placed over the feature. The feature was bisected, a flotation sample was taken, and a profile of the feature was made.

51

page66image41724480page66image41723648page66image41723856page66image41722192page66image41722608

Figure 14. Map showing the locations of prehistoric features at LAN-2768.

52

page67image41722816page67image41723024page67image41723232

Figure 15. Plan view and profile of Feature 3010.

53

page68image41724688page68image41724896

Figure 16. Plan view of Feature 3015.

54

page69image41725104page69image41725312page69image41725520page69image41725728page69image41725936

Figure 17. Plan view and profile of Feature 3067.

55

page70image41726352page70image41726144

Feature 3085

Figure 18. Overview photograph of Feature 3067, view from above.

This feature (Figures 19 and 20) consists of a concentration of FAR, cobbles, and antler fragments just north of Feature 3064 measuring 55 by 40 cm and 2–3 cm in depth. Feature 3085 was located near the base of the upper marsh deposit (Stratum IV). It is probably a thermal feature representing an FAR concentration or the cleanout of a hearth or other thermal feature. No soil change was associated with the feature. A small 1-by-1-m EU was placed over the feature. The feature was bisected, a flotation sample was taken, and a photograph of the feature profile was made. A 3-by-4-m area around the feature was shovel-skimmed (Hand-Stripping Unit 3077) to ensure that the feature did not extend further. A few small pieces of faunal bone and antler were discovered from this area.

Artifact Concentration

Feature 3064

This feature (Figure 21) is a concentration of FAR, faunal bone, deer (Odocoileus sp.) antler, and one hu- man bone located at the Stratum IV/III interface. The feature measured 22 by 12 cm and only 6 cm in depth. Another antler fragment was discovered about 20 cm north of the main artifact concentration. The human bone was identified as the sternal end fragment of a left human clavicle. The feature appears to be a chance concentration of artifacts, but the presence of antler in association with the human clavicle may indicate that a burial was present in the vicinity of the site.

Based on the proximity of the former path of Centinela Creek, this feature may be the remnant of a larger or more-intact feature. Conversely, it could be the amalgamation of cultural materials that collected together along the edge of the creek. A 3-by-4-m area around the human bone was shovel-scraped to expose any potential additional features or human remains. The backdirt was sampled for additional human remains that could have potentially been carried away during machine stripping. No additional human remains were identified.

56

page71image41726560page71image41726768page71image41726976

Figure 19. Plan view of Feature 3085.

57

page72image41727184page72image41727392

Figure 20. Overview photograph of Feature 3085, view from above.

58

page73image41748096page73image41748928page73image41747680page73image41746848

Figure 21. Plan view of Feature 3064.

59

Spatial Patterning

Unlike previous work conducted at LAN-2768, where several features were found, only five prehistoric features were recovered during data recovery in the project area. These features are arranged in two general clusters. Features 3010, 3015, and 3067 are located in a line in the southwestern part of the site, and Fea- tures 3064 and 3085 are nearly adjacent to one another in the northeastern part of the site. All features were discovered during mechanical stripping; no features were excavated in either Block 1 or 2. Because of the nature of the excavation, there is no information regarding artifact densities in the vicinities of the features.

Temporal Patterning

Prehistoric features excavated in the project area fall into two temporal groups. Features 3010 and 3015, located within Stratum IV. Based on shell (Chione) samples collected from the midden surrounding these features, the combined sigma ranges (three assays combined) of cal A.D. 470–820 (standard ΔR) and calA.D. 430–750 (age-specific ΔR) for these samples, with a pooled date range of cal A.D. 430–820, suggest occupation during the late Intermediate period.

The second group of features, Features 3064, 3067, and 3085, were located at the interface between Strata III and IV. The charcoal sample collected from Feature 3067, with a sigma range of cal A.D. 220– 370 (standard and age-specific ΔR), suggests that this feature was in use during the middle to late Interme- diate period. Both standard and age-specific ΔR returned the same results. Although no datable materials were recovered from Features 3064 and 3085, they shared the same stratigraphic relationship with Fea- ture 3067 and were likely from the same occupation episode.

Historical-Period Component

During monitoring, two historical-period linear features, one potentially dating to the historical period and two temporally ambiguous features, were discovered at LAN-2768 (Figure 22). Neither temporally ambig- uous feature could be physically examined, because of inherent safety concerns associated with them.

Historical-Period Features

Feature 2007

This feature (Figure 23) consists of an approximately 120-foot-long segment of a historical-period railroad spur that ran parallel to Teale Street (no longer extant) and led from the Pacific Electric Company rail line to the north to the Hughes Aviation Company facilities at the base of the El Segundo Sand Hills to the southwest. A 1953 aerial image showed that the area associated with the site had been paved over for a parking lot. The track consists of two standard-gauge steel rails set on wood ties with steel baseplates and spikes over a prepared foundation of fill and gravel ballast. This segment is approximately 56 inches across, from track to track. The site extends over a portion of LAN-2768.

Feature 2007 consisted of two parallel, standard-gauge, steel rails. Each rail was a 41/2-inch-high flat- bottomed rail with an approximately 23/8-by-1-inch head, a 3/4-inch-wide web, and a 41/2-inch-wide foot. The rails were approximately 56 inches apart and were fixed to the ties with a series of baseplates and spikes. The railroad ties were 63/to 81/inches wide and were spaced approximately 14–161/inches apart. The tracks had been cut with a torch and spread apart at the southern end, probably during the construction of present-day Bluff Creek Road.

The rails were secured to the ties with steel baseplates and steel spikes, which were all moderately to severely corroded. The steel baseplates were square in plan view, had four square holes for the spikes, and rested between the ties and the rails. The plates measured 81/by 8 by 1/inches. No infor- mation was observed on the plates that might indicate the manufacturer or the date of manufacture.

60

page75image41727600page75image41727808page75image41728016page75image41728224page75image41728432page75image44017792

Figure 22. Map showing the locations of historical-period and temporally ambiguous features at LAN-2768.

61

page76image41728640page76image41728848

Figure 23. Overview photograph of Feature 2007, view to the north.

The rail spikes were square in cross section and had flat heads. Each plate had two spikes nailed into it (one outside the rail and one inside). The spikes measured 1/by 3/by 53/inches.

The rail joints were steel plates that fit on either side of the rail ends and were secured in place with large-gauge steel bolts and nuts that alternated from inside and outside the rail. The rail joints measured 22 by 81/inches and 4 inches in height. The railroad bed was composed of 2–6-inch subangular gravel and was slightly peaked and platformed in the middle. The bed measured roughly 7–9 feet wide and 2 feet thick and was located above a roughly 9-foot-wide and 1–2-foot-deep prepared fill layer. The fill layer was also built up in the middle and was located above the older construction fill that was not part of the railroad construction and in some areas above Stratum IV.

Feature 3047

This feature consists of a red-brick seepage pit (Figure 24) that measured approximately 62 by 56 by 271/inches (externally). The internal diameter was 42 inches. The structure was most likely circular in cross section originally but became distorted and compressed over the years. Additionally, much of the southeastern side of the feature was extensively damaged during mechanical stripping.

The bricks used in the construction of the pit were smooth sided and lacked any indication of a frog. Each brick measured approximately 81/by 33/by 21/inches, and the bricks were stacked in eight courses with 11/2– 2-inch gaps between each brick, to allow for drainage. Each course was separated by 1/to 3/inch of mortar.

The seepage pit was filled with an extensive amount of modern debris, including soda, beer, and liquor bottles and cans; construction materials, such as nails, metal shavings, and wood; an oil filter; and chicken bones. Numerous large land-snail shells were located within the fill. Although it is unclear when the struc- ture was constructed, from 1962 through the mid-1980s it was used as a trash pit.

62

page77image41766144

Feature 3122

Figure 24. Overview photograph of Feature 3047, view to the west.

During mechanical stripping of LAN-2768, an asphalt-paved street segment was discovered in the western portion of the project area. The road was originally named Hughes Avenue but was renamed Teale Street in the late 1940s. Most of the street was removed during the construction of the Playa Vista development. Although the street was replaced by Bluff Creek Drive on its southern end, it is still extant north of Centinela Avenue. Feature 3122 consists of a 211-foot-long northwest–southeast-oriented asphalt-paved road with con- crete curbs and integral gutters extending from Mesmer Avenue to the Hughes aviation facilities. The curb and gutters measured roughly 16 inches wide and were built in 12-foot segments. The road itself was com- posed of three major parts: a 4-inch-thick asphalt surface, a 1–2-inch-thick gravel road base, and a 1-inch- thick layer of engineered fill. A steel pipe, roughly 3–4 inches in diameter, extended the length of the street on the outside of the western curb. The function of the pipe is unknown, but it probably served as a utility pipe for electricity or water. Although the road is visible outside the project area in early aerial photographs (1928–1941), the road was extended onto the Hughes aviation facilities sometime between 1941 and 1946.

Temporally Ambiguous Features

Feature 2020

This feature consists of a subsurface fragment of a possible utility pole. The pole was upright within fill and visible in the sidewall of Trench 2002. Because of its location within an unshored trench, the feature could not be physically inspected.

63

page78image41767600page78image41765936page78image43566208

Figure 25. Overview photograph of a septic tank (Subfeature 3121), view to the southwest.

Feature 3119

This feature is similar to Feature 3047 and consists of a possible red-brick seepage pit with an asbestos- lined concrete pipe (Subfeature 3120) and a concrete septic tank (Subfeature 3121) (Figure 25) extending from the main structure. Unlike Feature 3047, however, this feature exhibited considerable depth and was potentially unstable. Because of the danger of collapse and the presence of asbestos, Feature 3119 was not excavated and was only photodocumented.

Stripping Areas

As previously mentioned, the site sediments were stripped following the natural stratigraphy of the site and were removed across the site one stratum at a time. In all, 25 mechanical-stripping units of varying sizes were excavated. Because of the recovery methods used during stripping, artifacts collected from the mechanical- stripping units were generally large and easy to recognize. The numbers and types of artifacts are discussed by strata below, and more-thorough examinations and analyses of these artifacts can be found in Chapter 6.

Faunal bone consisted of primarily large, domesticated animals such as cattle, horse, and sheep/goat, and a small number of mule-deer skeletal elements. The bulk of these remains was found within the upper marsh deposits (Stratum IV). Comparatively fewer faunal bones were found in the Centinela Creek deposits (Stra- tum III). No faunal bone was collected from mechanical-stripping units in the strata deeper than Stratum III.

64

Invertebrate remains were rarely collected from mechanical-stripping units, and the majority of these fragments could not be identified beyond phyla. Of the remains that could be identified, two Chione sp. (Ve- nus clams) fragments and one Argopecten sp. (scallop) fragment were discovered in Stratum IV, one Haliotissp. (abalone) fragment was found in Stratum III, and one Haliotis sp. fragment was found in Stratum II.

Twenty-four lithic artifacts were collected from the mechanical-stripping units. The majority of the arti- facts were recovered from the two marsh deposits (Strata II and IV). Within Stratum IV, these artifacts con- sisted of a single piece of FAR, 2 tested cobbles, a multidirectional core, a unidirectional core, and 5 fragments of debitage. Stratum II yielded 7 pieces of debitage, a unidirectional core, and 2 metate fragments. The re- maining artifacts, 4 pieces of debitage, were found in Stratum III. Depending on where within the stratum each piece of debitage was found, these flakes likely migrated from either Strata II or IV.

65

CHAPTER 6Material-Cultural Analysis

Scott H. Kremkau, Justin Lev-Tov, Sarah Van Galder, Seetha Reddy, Patrick B. Stanton, Karen Swope, and Teresa Terry

This chapter presents the results of the material analyses from the 2013 LAN-2768 Locus A data recovery. Included within the chapter are analyses for the lithic materials, vertebrate- and invertebrate-faunal remains, paleoethnobotanical remains, human bone, and historical-period artifacts. Where applicable, the analyses compare the results of the 2013 data recovery with data from other sites in the Ballona, particularly LAN- 54, LAN-62, LAN-193, and LAN-211, and especially from previous work at LAN-2768 Loci A and B.

Lithic Artifacts

Over 760 lithic artifacts were recovered from excavation units, features, and mechanical-stripping areas in the project area, of which just over 750 were analyzed. As previously stated, the top three levels of the excavation units contained a mix of prehistoric, historical-period, and modern artifacts, indicating that the levels had been disturbed sometime in the recent past. The lithic artifacts from these three levels are omitted from the current discussion, because of their questionable context. In the following discussion, the results of the lithic analysis and the lithic-artifact-collection methodology in these three contexts are described.

Sampling Strategy

The majority of the analyzed artifacts recovered during data recovery excavations were from excavation units (76.5 percent); features (20.3 percent) and mechanical-stripping units (3.2 percent) contained far fewer artifacts. The analyzed artifacts from excavation units included all artifacts below Level 3 from the 10 excavation units in Blocks 1 and 2 (EUs 10–15, 24, 25, 27, and 28), as well as from the 3 excavation units placed around Features 3017, 3022, and 3026. All lithic artifacts from features and all lithics collected during mechanical stripping were also analyzed. Artifacts from the incompletely excavated excavation units were not analyzed. Table 4 presents a summary of the lithic artifacts recovered during data recovery.

During excavations, five main strata were defined. Strata II and IV are culture-bearing marsh deposits, and Strata I and III are generally sterile alluvial deposits bordering Strata II and IV. Stratum V is a fill layer sitting on top of Stratum IV. Between Strata I–IV are thin transitional layers consisting of mixed soils con- taining materials from previous and subsequent strata. Because these transitional layers consist of mixed deposits, they were analyzed as separate units. As discussed in Chapter 5, the strata were separated into general time periods based on the results of radiocarbon dating. The upper marsh deposit, Stratum IV, dates primarily to the late Intermediate period, although the lower part of it at the Stratum III/IV boundary dates to the middle to late Intermediate period. The lower marsh deposit, Stratum II, dates to the early to middle Intermediate period.

page81image43576000

67

page82image43522048page82image43517632page82image43525696page82image43526656page82image43518400page82image43517056page82image43518016page82image43591808page82image43594688page82image43588160page82image43586624page82image43594496page82image43589312page82image43591424page82image43589120page82image43596608page82image43596416page82image43581632page82image43586816page82image43593728

68

Context

Fire-Affected Rock

Biface

Core Debitage

Edge- Modified Piece

Projectile Point

Tested Material

Subtotal

Total

Excavationunits Mechanical-stripping unit Feature

3 1 533 — 3 16 — — 2 — — — — — 2

2 2 2 543 — — 2 21 — — 1 3 — — 1 1 — — — 2

— — — 576 — 2 2 24 3 — 3 152 — — — 3 3 — 3 149

33 1 146 Artifactconcentration 2 Rockcluster 144

Total 180

3 4 551

2 2 5 567

3 2 5 752

Expedient Use

Table 4. Summary of Lithic Artifacts Recovered during Data RecoveryFlaked Stone

Ground/Battered Stone Mano Metate Subtotal

Lithic-Typology Definitions

Lithic analysis began by separating formal tools from the by-products of stone-tool production. SRI uses a standard lithic-analysis approach that records a series of attributes to characterize stone tools and the by- products of their manufacture. The three general classes of lithic artifacts are flaked stone, ground stone, and expedient-use lithics. These types are discussed in more detail by Peterson et al. (2016). The attributes recorded for each artifact type are discussed below.

Flaked Stone Artifacts

Flaked stone artifacts include stone tools that have been shaped through percussion or pressure flaking— that is, small pieces of stone have been removed from the parent artifact by striking it with a hammerstone, billet, or other tool. Flaked stone artifacts include the refuse produced during that process, debitage, and the resulting tools, bifaces, projectile points, cores, and flake tools.

Debitage

The term debitage derives from a French word meaning “to remove.” Debitage refers to detritus removed during stone-tool production and discarded. It most often takes the shape of flakes or shatter and is usually the most common type of lithic artifact found at prehistoric sites in the Ballona. Debitage was sorted by type into six categories: biface flakes, core flakes, shatter, bipolar flakes, microdebitage, and indeterminate. These categories are fully defined in Peterson el at. (2013). A suite of attributes for each flake, including flake type, size (for complete flakes only), material type, presence of cortex, and platform type and location, was recorded for each flake.

Bifaces

The biface class can encompass a broad variety of artifacts, ranging from cores to preforms of projectile points or knives. For the purposes of this analysis, bifaces are described as formal tools that exhibit retouch scars over one-third or more of both their dorsal and ventral surfaces. Although technically bifaces, projec- tile points were analyzed separately (see below). After standard descriptive observations were made, bifaces were typed by the technological method of reduction and the amount of reduction achieved into five classes: Stages 1–5, after Callahan (1979). All bifaces were analyzed for material type, the portion of the tool, tool shape, edge modification, and heat treatment. Because none of the bifaces was complete, measurements of the length, width, and thickness of the tools were not made.

Projectile Points

Although projectile points are bifacially flaked, they are distinguished here from bifaces by the presence of hafting modifications. As with bifaces, all specimens were analyzed for material type, portion of the tool, tool shape, edge modification, and heat treatment. No complete specimens were recovered from the 2013 data recovery excavations; so, size measurements were not taken. For definitions of all projectile point types found at PVAHP sites, see Peterson et al. (2016:39–51).

Cores and Tested Material

Cores are pieces of raw lithic material that have been reduced through flaking. The cores themselves are usually not the tools, but rather, the flakes removed from the core are subsequently further reduced to make various kinds of flaked stone tools. Cores come in a variety of shapes and sizes. They are usually classified according to the manner in which flakes were removed. Unifacial cores have had all the flakes removed from a single direction, bidirectional cores have had flakes removed from two different directions, and multidirectional cores have had flakes taken from three or more directions.

69

Pieces of tested material are pieces of raw material that have been assayed but not further reduced. Tested cobbles or other rocks may have had one or two flakes removed but were discarded without addi- tional reduction. Tested pieces were usually rejected because the quality of the material was determined to be too poor after the initial flakes were removed.

Edge-Modified Flakes

Edge-modified flakes are pieces of debitage that have been used as expedient tools and feature flaking or other use wear on one or more edges. They are distinguished from bifaces and other formal tools by the amount of preparation that goes into the shape of each tool, as well as the degree of flaking on the edges.

Ground Stone

Ground stone artifacts are tools that were formed through grinding, such as stone bowls, or tools whose primary use involved grinding, usually with one stone grinding onto another, such as mortars and pestles or manos and metates. Ground stone artifacts can also include decorative or ritual objects, such as pen- dants and fetishes. Ground stone analyses focused on functional types (manos, metates, bowls, etc.), size and shape of complete specimens, amount of wear on grinding surfaces, and level of investment in the shaping of the tool.

Expedient-Use Lithics

Expedient-use lithics are artifacts that were used for specific purposes but not intentionally reshaped for use. For the lithic collection analyzed here, this lithic class was composed entirely of FAR. FAR consists of rock that has been altered in some way through heating. This usually takes the form of fire-cracked rock (rocks that have been split via extreme heating). FAR can also show discoloration brought about by thermal alteration. FAR often consists of otherwise unmodified rocks, but occasionally, broken ground stone and other lithic artifacts were reused as FAR.

Analysis Results

This section presents the results of the analysis, focusing on excavation units, features, and mechanical- stripping units.

Excavation Units

In total, 583 lithic artifacts were recovered from the 10 excavation units of Blocks 1 and 2 as well as 3 excavation units around Features 3010, 3015, and 3067. Of those, 576 came from below Level 3 and were analyzed, and 7 came from the upper three levels and were not analyzed. Lithic artifacts from excavation units were almost entirely recovered from the 10 excavation units from Blocks 1 and 2. Only 5 of the 576 lithic artifacts, 4 pieces of FAR and 1 piece of debitage, were recovered from the 3 excavation units around Features 3010, 3015, and 3067. The lithic collection from excavation units was almost exclusively com- posed of flaked stone artifacts; some FAR was also present (Table 5). No ground stone artifacts were found in excavation units.

70

page85image43608576page85image43605696page85image43608768page85image43554048page85image43550016page85image43563648page85image43570624page85image43569280page85image43580032page85image43567936page85image43570432page85image57939648page85image43529536page85image43524544page85image43528192page85image43525120page85image57939536page85image43919488page85image43916800page85image43914112page85image43924480page85image43911808page85image43924288page85image43909312

71

Stratum Fire-Affected Rock

Biface

Core

Debitage

Edge-Modified Projectile Point Tested Material Subtotal TotalFlake

III/IV III II/III II

1 — — 11 — — — 11 12 2 — — 10 — — — 10 12 6 1 — 92 1 2 — 96 102

I/II I

11 2 1 364 1 — 1 369 380 3 — — 24 — — — 24 27 3 — — 8 — — — 8 11

Total

33 3 1 533 2 2 2 543 576

Expedient Use

Table 5. Lithic Artifacts from Excavation UnitsFlaked Stone

IV(analyzed) 7 — — 24 — — 1 25 32

Debitage

Debitage represented the largest lithic artifact type recovered during the 2013 data recovery. In total, 533 flakes were recovered from excavation units (93 percent of the lithic collection from excavation units). Most lithic artifacts were associated with the lower marsh deposit Stratum II, and debitage was no excep- tion. Approximately 68 percent of all debitage came from Stratum II (n = 364), compared to less than 5 per- cent from Stratum IV (n = 24). Given the large variation in the sizes of the collections in Strata II and IV, it is difficult to compare variations in the collections in terms of types of debitage or size.

Core flakes constituted the most common flake type, followed by biface flakes, shatter, and microdeb- itage. Only one bipolar flake was identified; a small number of unidentifiable flake fragments were also found (Table 6). Approximately 25 core flakes were identified as “potato” flakes (Van Horn and Murray 1985:85–86, 172, 174–175). “Potato” flakes are parts of split-cobble industry, in which a cobble is split in half, and then wedge-shaped flakes are subsequently removed from the cobble. Each flake has the distinc- tive appearance of a sharp edge on one side and a thicker band of cortex along the other sides. The “potato” flakes from the project area were generally large flakes and were made exclusively of basalt and quartzite. The function of “potato” flakes is unknown, but they are often found in large numbers, suggesting a utili- tarian use. They were first identified by Van Horn and Murray (1985) at LAN-61, a prehistoric site on the campus of Loyola Marymount University, which overlooks the PVAHP project area, approximately 1.8 km west of LAN-2768 Locus A, and have subsequently been identified at other sites in the Ballona (Peterson et al. 2016).

Chert was the dominant material type, more than twice as common as quartzite. Most of the chert was not identifiable by subtype, but at least 21 percent of the flakes were made of Monterey chert. Smaller numbers of basalt, metavolcanic stone, and rhyolite were found, but these consisted of just over 11 percent of the debitage collection, combined. Five obsidian flakes were also found. They were submitted to Geo- chemical Research Laboratory for sourcing (see Appendix D). Four of the five samples were composed of obsidian originating from the West Sugarloaf source, in the Coso Volcanic Field, approximately 230 km north of the project area. These samples came from Levels 11–14 of EUs 10 and 13, corresponding to the upper part of Stratum II. The source of the fifth sample, from Stratum I (Level 20) of EU 28, could not be identified. No radiocarbon dates are available for Stratum I, but based on other findings from LAN-2768, this stratum may date to the early Intermediate or Millingstone period.

Most flakes were complete (83 percent). Of the complete flakes, most were quite small. Over 80 percent of the complete debitage was smaller than 20 mm, and only one flake was over 70 mm in length. Only the core-flake and shatter categories contained flakes that were larger than 20 mm. Cortex was relatively rare on flakes: just 35 percent of the collection featured any type of cortex. Of those that did, chert flakes gen- erally featured primary geologic cortex, and quartzite and basalt flaked featured secondary, waterworn cor- tex. This suggests that basalt and quartzite flakes were coming from waterworn cobbles likely found in the Centinela and Ballona Creek channels, and chert flakes, particularly Monterey chert flakes, were coming from primary sources along the coast. Evidence of heat treatment was extremely rare (3 percent of the total); three flakes showed differential luster, and 14 contained pot lids.

Projectile Points

Fragments of two projectile points were recovered from excavation units (Figure 26a, b). Both projectile points, the base of a Vandenburg Contracting-stem point and the tip of an unknown point type, were com- posed of Monterrey chert and were found in the boundary between Strata II and III.

The projectile point tip, from EU 14, is a well-made, finely flaked piece. It is nearly 2 cm in length and is likely from a dart point and not part of a small arrow point such as a Cottonwood Triangular point. The Vandenburg Contracting-stem point consists of the proximal end of the artifact, and one of the barbs is partially broken. The cross section is relatively thick, at 8 mm. The material is relatively poor and contains numerous fractures. It is possible that the artifact was broken during manufacture and was never completed, as evidenced by a small area of cortex on one side.

72

Subtotal
Microdebitage basalt

— — 1 1 3 1 1 7 142540142133 219 — — — — 6 — — 6 —————1— 1 — — — — 2 — — 2 — — — 1 1 — — 2 ———191— 11 — 3 — — — — — 3 — 2 — 7 29 1 — 39 ——————1 1 — — 1 1 14 — — 16 —518431159

Subtotal Shatter

Subtotal Total

basalt 1 — — — 2 2 — 5 chert 4 2 3 9 38 — 2 58 metamorphic — — — — 1 — — 1 obsidian — — — — 1 — — 1 quartzite 1 1 — 10 23 1 1 37 rhyolite 1 — — — 1 — — 2 7 3 3 19 66 3 3 104

24111092364248 533

Table 6. Summary of Debitage, by Natural Stratum

page87image43997568

Technological Type

Biface flake

Subtotal Bipolarflake Subtotal

Core flake

Subtotal Indeterminate

Material Type

IV

III/IV III

Stratum
II/III II I/II I

Total

page87image44006976page87image43997760

21 96 5 1 126 — 3 — — 3 3 4 1 — 10 24 103 6 1 139 — 1 — — 1 ————1——1 4216182— 33 4 — 1 18 58 7 2 90 1 — — — 2 — — 3 quartzite 5 — 2 15 61 3 — 86

chert 1 obsidian — quartzite 2

1 1 — — — —

chert

rhyolite

chert metamorphic quartzite rhyolite

3 1 1 — — —

basalt chert metamorphic

chert obsidian quartzite

page87image57984320

73

page88image41729264

Figure 26. Flaked stone tools recovered from excavation units: (a) Vandenburg Contracting-stem projectile point base, (b) unknown type projectile point tip, (c–e) biface fragments, and (and g) edge- modified flakes.

Coastal contracting-stem points date to the Millingstone period into the early Intermediate period, with smaller numbers dating to the end of the Intermediate period (Justice 2002:257). The Vandenburg Con- tracting-stem point found in EU 10 was found in the boundary between Strata II and III, in the transition between the lower marsh deposit and the Centinela Creek deposit that overlies it. Stratum II dated to the early to middle Intermediate period; so, the presence of the point within Stratum II is chronologically con- sistent with the radiocarbon dates described in Chapter 5.

Bifaces

Three fragments of bifaces were recovered, all from excavation units (see Figure 26c–e). Two fragments were made of Monterey chert, and the third was composed of an unidentified chert subtype. Both Monterey chert bifaces were from EUs 10 and 12, and the other biface was from EU 28. All three bifaces were recov- ered from Stratum II.

The first biface, the tip of a Stage 3/4 biface (see Figure 26c), was recovered from EU 28. The tool is made of a light-gray material, and a small amount of white cortex is visible on one side. The margins are well worked, but several step fractures are present, possibly because the person making the tool was unable to remove thinning flakes to thin out the biface. The biface shows some evidence of heat treatment in the presence of some pot-lid fractures and a luster over the side of the tool that also contains the cortex.

The biface from EU 12 (see Figure 26d) is also highly fragmented and features a partial margin and base. These fragments are well flaked in comparison to the biface from EU 10, and the tool was likely a Stage 4 tool. The material quality is relatively poor, however, and the tool appears to have also shattered during manufacture. A large, white lens of coarse chert runs through the center of the biface, and the contact between this lens and the surrounding chert appears to be poor; the biface fractured along this margin.

The final biface from EU 10 (see Figure 26e) is a highly fragmented piece, probably from a lateral margin, and partial base of a Stage 3 biface. Small areas of primary cortex are located on both sides of the

74

page89image41729472page89image41729056

Figure 27. Cores recovered from LAN-2768.

tool, suggesting that it was shaped from a tabular piece of chert. The material quality is relatively poor, and numerous fractures are present in the surface on one side. Several step fractures are visible along the flaked edge, suggesting that the piece was difficult to work. Given the relatively simple nature of the flaking and the presence of cortex on both sides of the tool, it was likely broken during manufacture and discarded.

Cores and Tested Material

One core and two pieces of tested material were recovered from excavation units. The core and one tested piece were made of quartzite, and the other piece of tested material was composed of basalt. Both quartzite artifacts were from Stratum II, and the basalt artifact was from Stratum IV.

The quartzite core was from EU 13. This core is a small (4-by-3.6-cm), exhausted, unidirectional, py- ramidal core made from a split cobble (Figure 27b). The platform is the cortical surface of a waterworn cobble, and several flakes have been removed from the cortical platform.

The quartzite piece of tested material consists of a waterworn cobble with two flakes removed, and the basalt tested piece is a waterworn cobble that has been split and had no additional flakes removed. Both pieces were small, circular artifacts roughly 5 cm across.

Edge-Modified Flakes

Two edge-modified flakes were found in excavation units (see Figure 26f, g). Both flakes were made of Monterey chert and were fragments. One artifact was found in Stratum II, and the other was found in the boundary between Strata II and III.

75

The flake from Stratum II (see Figure 26f) is the proximal end of a flake fragment and was recovered from EU 14. It is unifacially flaked along one edge. The other edge may be flaked, but the extant portion of the edge is too small to confirm this observation. The worked edge of the flake appears to be intentional, but no microflaking from use was present. Because the flake is broken, however, only a small portion of the worked edge is present.

The second flake, recovered from EU 28, is a larger, core-reduction flake with flaking present along one edge and part of the distal end of the flake (see Figure 26g). Cortex is present on the other edge. The worked edge is intentionally unifacially flaked, and microflaking from use is present on both faces.

FAR

In total, 33 pieces of FAR were recovered from 12 excavation units, including 2 excavation units (EUs 3017 and 3022) excavated around Features 3010 and 3015. Most of the FAR (n = 11) was recovered from Stra- tum II; 8 pieces were recovered from Stratum IV, and a small number were scattered in other layers. The FAR were primarily quartzite and basalt and were under 4 cm in length.

Features

Five prehistoric features were found during mechanical stripping. Features 3010 and 3015 were located in Stratum IV, and the three others (Features 3064, 3067 and 3085), were located in the boundary between Strata III and IV. In total, 152 lithic artifacts were found in features, but nearly all of them were fragments of FAR (n = 146). The features did, however, include small numbers of ground stone and flaked stone artifacts (see Table 4).

Debitage

Two flakes were recovered from Feature 3067. These flakes, a core-reduction flake and a piece of shatter, were the only two pieces of debitage recovered from any of the features. Both flakes were made of quartzite and appeared to be from the same parent material, a bluish-grey, very coarse material. Both flakes were relatively large; the core-reduction flake was between 60 and 69 mm, and the piece of shatter was between 70 and 79 mm. Secondary, waterworn cortex was present on the dorsal surface of the core-reduction flake.

Tested Material

A tested basalt cobble was recovered from Feature 3064. The cobble measured 74 by 71 by 30 mm and had two flakes removed from one side.

Ground Stone

Three granite mano fragments were recovered from Feature 3067. One mano (Figure 28a) was nearly com- plete. It was a unifacial, unshaped mano that was not fire-affected. The other two mano fragments were heavily fire-affected and were probably discarded manos that were reused as FAR in the feature. Both of these pieces were very similar in terms of rock type and may be from the same artifact. Polishing on all three pieces was moderate.

FAR

In total, 146 pieces of FAR were recovered from the features. Two pieces were recovered from Feature 3064, the artifact concentration, and the other 144 came from the four rock-cluster features. Feature 3067 had the

76

page91image41929776page91image41932064

Figure 28. Ground stone artifacts from LAN-2768: (a) mano and (b) steatite metate.

most (n = 86), followed by Feature 3015 (n = 33), Feature 3085 (n = 15), and Feature 3010 (n = 12). The FAR generally consisted of fragments of waterworn cobbles made from quartzite and basalt. Most of the rocks were small, less than 20 cm long. They were probably small rocks found in the channels of Centinela and Ballona Creeks.

Mechanical-Stripping Units

In total, 24 lithic artifacts were recovered from mechanical-stripping units. Ten artifacts were found in both Strata IV and II, the upper and lower marsh deposits, respectively. Four other artifacts were found in Stra- tum III, located between the two marsh deposits. These flakes were likely moved through bioturbation or other postdepositional processes. Because the soil from the mechanical-stripping units was not screened, and artifacts were found through observation of the freshly stripped soil and backdirt, the artifacts recovered from mechanical stripping were primarily relatively large, easily visible objects. The 24 artifacts included 21 flaked stone artifacts, 2 ground stone artifacts, and 1 piece of FAR (see Table 4).

77

Debitage

In total, 16 pieces of debitage were recovered from the mechanical-stripping units. The flakes were primarily core-reduction flakes (n = 13), along with a small number of shatter (n = 3). Basalt and quartzite (n = 7 each) were the most common, and only 2 chert flakes were recovered. As noted above, most of the debitage found during stripping was larger than flakes found during hand-excavation. Eleven of the 16 flakes were at least 30 mm in length, whereas 80 percent of the flakes from excavation units were less than 20 mm in length. These smaller flakes were presumably in the mechanical-stripping units but were too small to notice during stripping.

All but one flake was complete, and all but two flakes featured at least some cortex, mostly secondary, waterworn cortex. That is not surprising, given that large core-reduction flakes and shatter are more likely to have cortex, because they are removed during the early stages of lithic reduction.

The general distribution of debitage within the mechanical-stripping units was divided into thirds, and artifacts were relatively evenly distributed among the lower marsh (Stratum II), upper marsh (Stratum IV), and Centinela Creek deposits (Stratum III), which separate the two marsh deposits.

Cores and Tested Material

Three cores and two pieces of tested material were found during mechanical stripping. Two of the cores and both pieces of tested material were composed of basalt, and the third core was made of quartzite. The cores include a unidirectional core, a bidirectional core, and a multidirectional core. Most of the cores and tested cobbles were nearly 10 cm long, but the bidirectional core was smaller, just 6.6 cm in length. All four basalt artifacts were recovered from Stratum IV, the upper marsh deposit, and the quartzite core came from the lower marsh deposit. The unidirectional core may have been used as a “chopper” or other type of simple cutting tool (see Figure 27a).

Ground Stone

Two metates were recovered during mechanical stripping. The first was part of an indeterminate-type granite metate that was heavily fragmented and fire-affected. The surface was moderately ground, but it was impossible to determine whether the artifact had been shaped. The second metate (see Figure 28b) was nearly complete, with only one end broken. This metate was composed of steatite, was thin, and had a very shallow (2-cm-deep) grinding trough. The artifact had been completely shaped, was oval, and had a thin lip around the edge.

FAR

Two pieces of FAR were identified during mechanical stripping. Both pieces were made of granite cobbles and were heavily deteriorated by heating. There was no evidence that either was used as ground stone before they were discarded.

Summary of Lithic Artifacts from LAN-2768

The contexts analyzed included 13 excavation units, 5 features, and 25 mechanical-stripping units. The 5 features included 4 rock clusters and 1 artifact concentration. The majority of lithic artifacts were recov- ered from the excavation units. The features contained primarily FAR. Because of the recovery methods employed during mechanical stripping, mechanical-stripping units contained mostly large artifacts, such as large pieces of ground stone.

78

Earlier studies at LAN-2768 found that Locus A contained cultural deposits that dated primarily to the Intermediate period, and there was some evidence of pre–Intermediate period occupation as well. Dating of midden and feature contexts from the 2013 data recovery excavations found that this portion of the site also dated to the Intermediate period. Stratum II, the lower marsh deposit, dates to the early to middle Intermediate period, and Stratum IV, the upper marsh deposit, dates to the late Intermediate period. The only feature that was dated, Feature 3067, was associated with Stratum III/IV and dates to the middle to late Intermediate period.

Stratum II

Not including FAR, 64 percent of the entire lithic collection from the 2013 data recovery excavations is associated with Stratum II, which dates to the early to middle Intermediate period. This stratum has a den- sity of approximately 112 artifacts/m3. The collection is dominated by debitage, and there are very few flaked stone or ground stone tools. Most of the flakes were made of chert and measured less than 20 mm in length. Cortex was relatively rare and was found mostly on core-reduction flakes. The debitage types at the site suggest that stone-tool maintenance was the primary focus. There were only a handful of flaked stone tools, most of which were biface fragments. Only 3 cores and 2 pieces of tested material were identified, suggesting that most of the artifacts that came to the site were finished tools.

Although the excavation blocks were located relatively close to one another, separated by just over 10 m, the densities of lithic artifacts in the two blocks varied considerably. In Block 1, the density of lithic artifacts within the six excavation units varied between 32.5 and 51.5 artifacts/m3. In Block 2, the density dropped to between 4.5 and 16.5 artifacts/m3. Overall, the density of lithic artifacts in Block 1 was approximately 41.6 artifacts/m3, and in Block 2, it dropped to just 4.5 artifacts/m3. CUs 2/22, excavated in 2000 and directly adjacent to the 2013 data recovery area, had a vastly greater density of lithic artifacts, at 418.7 artifacts/m3. That drastic drop-off as one moves northwest away from the base of the Ballona escarpment suggests that the portion of Locus A excavated in 2013 was likely on the edge of the site, at the margin of the Ballona Lagoon.

Stratum III/IV

Feature 3067, a rock feature, was found at the bottom of Stratum IV and along the border with Stratum III, which dates to the middle to late Intermediate period. The feature was found in the same stratum as Features 3064 and 3085. These two features, a small artifact concentration and a rock feature, were located near one another. With the exception of two pieces of debitage and three pieces of ground stone, all of which came from Feature 3067, the features from this stratum were generally devoid of lithic artifacts, besides pieces of FAR. That is in contrast to the rest of LAN-2768 outside the project area, where rock-cluster features had relatively large flaked stone concentrations.

Stratum IV

Stratum IV, the upper marsh deposit, dates to late Intermediate period. This stratum is defined by a paucity of lithic artifacts, with a density of only 5 artifacts/min the 10 excavation units. Not including FAR, only 7 percent of the lithic collection was located in Stratum IV. The collection was composed primarily of debitage, although 2 cores and 3 pieces of tested material were also recovered. Both cores and 2 of the pieces of tested material were recovered during mechanical stripping. The debitage in Stratum IV is similar to what was found in Stratum II in that both biface-thinning and core-reduction flakes were present, alt- hough the sample size was so small that it is difficult to make any specific conclusions regarding stone-tool production. Two rock features were found in Stratum IV, Features 3010 and 3015. Both features consisted entirely of FAR, and no worked stone of any kind was recovered.

79

Comparisons with Other Playa Vista Sites Loci A and B at LAN-2768

Generally speaking, the lithic collection from the 2013 data recovery excavations is similar to those from other areas of Locus A of LAN-2768, although in some instances, it was difficult to draw direct conclusions because of differences in analysis methods and reporting. For example, in the analysis of the 2000 data recov- ery excavations, debitage counts were reported only for biface-thinning flakes, core-reduction flakes, and indeterminate flakes, whereas the 2013 data recovery excavations also included counts for angular debris, microdebitage, and bipolar flakes. So, the comparisons discussed below should be taken with a note of cau- tion. However, in the following discussion, we compare the results from the 2013 data recovery excavations with data from CUs 2/22, 3, 8, and 20/21 from the 2000 data recovery excavations (Figure 29). Given the small numbers of flaked stone tools found in the excavation units, the discussion focuses primarily on debitage analysis. In total, 20 mwere excavated in the 10 excavation units from Blocks 1 and 2 in the project area, but only 10 tools were recovered from those units. That is a density of just 0.5 artifacts/m3. Ten artifacts were recovered from the four other control units in Locus A at LAN-2768, excavated in 2000, which together totaled 6.8 m3, for a density of 1.48 artifacts/m3.

CU 2/22, excavated during the 2000 data recovery excavations, was located 20 m northeast of the 2013 data recovery excavation blocks. Comparing the densities of lithic artifacts in CU 2/22 and the 10 excava- tion units from Blocks 1 and 2 showed that although the artifact density in CU 2/22 was much higher, the relative frequencies per level were very similar. In both areas, the first several levels contained very few lithic artifacts, but then the density rapidly increased in the lower levels. In Blocks 1 and 2, this corresponds to Stratum II. In CU 2/22, the Centinela Creek deposit, Stratum III was absent, but based on the distribution of lithic and other artifact types (see below), there were clearly two strata present in the control unit. The upper 10 levels of the control unit, which correspond to CU 2, contained a total of 128 pieces of flaked stone artifacts. No ground stone artifacts were recovered from CU 2/22. Level 11, which corresponds to CU 22, contained 749 flaked stone artifacts—over 86 percent of the combined collection from CU 2/22. Clearly, the same pattern visible in Blocks 1 and 2 was also present in CU 2/22, and although it was not visible in the soil profiles, there was a clear break between the upper and lower parts of CU 2/22.

A closer examination of the debitage showed that the ratios of biface-thinning flakes and core-reduction flakes were similar in CU 2/22 and Blocks 1 and 2. In Blocks 1 and 2, biface-reduction flakes and core- reduction flakes were found in a ratio of approximately 38 to 62 percent. In Levels 4–9 of CU 22, which roughly correspond to Stratum II, the ratio was approximately 34 percent biface flakes to 66 percent core- reduction flakes. Again, given the differences in reporting, these similarities should be considered tentative, but it appears that the types of artifacts found in CU 2/22 and Blocks 1 and 2 are very similar.

CU 8 was located approximately 17 m west of CU 2/22, at a slightly higher elevation. When occupation- episode boundaries were factored in, CU 8 also matched the 2013 data recovery excavations. However, it appeared that in this portion of the site, the late Intermediate period part of the site had been truncated, and most of Stratum IV was not present. In other words, much of the upper marsh deposit had been lost there. However, flaked-stone-artifact frequency again was very low during the middle to late Intermediate period and spiked sharply during the early to middle Intermediate period, paralleling the results from CU 2/22.
CU 3 was located at the eastern end of Locus A, approximately 26 m east of CU 8. Based on radiocarbon data, CU 3 was also truncated, and the top levels of the unit corresponded to the middle to late Intermediate period. When this control unit was adjusted by occupation episode, it appeared that the unit began at the interchange between Strata II and IV (Strata III was not present there) and that nearly the entire unit was located in the lower marsh deposit.

CU 20/21 was located approximately 15 m north of CU 3. This unit featured a very different signature, with wildly varying relative frequencies throughout all 20 levels. The invertebrate remains from this unit were also quite different, and this part of the site appeared to have been a discard area and functioned in a much different way from the rest of the site.

Both CUs 3 and 20/21 had much lower counts of flaked stone artifacts than CUs 2/22 and 8. CU 3 had likely been significantly truncated, but the upper portions of CU 2/22 had very few lithics; so, the part of

80

page95image41934352page95image41937472page95image43970560

Figure 29. Frequencies of lithic artifacts within Blocks 1 and 2 from the 2013 data recovery compared to data from control units from the 2000 data recovery, by cultural period.

the site that was removed from CU 3 does not account for the drop-off in counts in this CU. It may be that these two units are located near the eastern edge of the site, which could help to account for a possible discard zone around CU 20/21.

The pattern was similar in LAN-2768 Locus B, as well, although the sample sizes from the control units were small, making comparisons of specific artifact or technological types difficult. Also, the results of radiocarbon dating were not able to separate Episodes 2 and 3; so, the chronology is somewhat com- pressed in this part of the site. However, the majority of the lithic collection from Locus B is consistent with the finds in Locus A.

Other Playa Sites

The Intermediate period lithic collections from LAN-54, LAN-62, LAN-193, and LAN-211 vary greatly in size but show several similarities with the collection from the 2013 data recovery excavations at LAN- 2768. In total, three control units each from LAN-54, LAN-62 and LAN-193 and five control units from LAN-211 were used in the comparisons described below. Because of differences in the results of radiocar- bon dating at several of these sites, the early and middle Intermediate periods were grouped into different occupation episodes than at LAN-2768. So, it is difficult to make direct comparisons between episodes regarding changes through the Intermediate period. However, general comparisons between the Intermedi- ate period lithic collections from the 2013 excavations and those from LAN-54, LAN-62, LAN-193, and LAN-211 were made. As with the other portions of LAN-2768, the analysis here focuses primarily on debitage, but at these four sites, debitage was classified into more than just biface-thinning flakes and core- reduction flakes; so, a more direct comparison with the 2013 data recovery collection can be made.

81

The most notable similarity in the debitage at the four sites is the consistent ratios of core-reduction flakes and biface-thinning flakes. Generally, core-reduction flakes composed between 40 and 50 percent of the debitage collection at any particular site, and biface-thinning flakes composed between 25 and 30 per- cent of each sample. The only exception to that was at LAN-62, where core flakes composed over 60 per- cent of the sample. Flake size was also very consistent, although size analysis was conducted using English measurements instead of metric. However, between 84 and 97 percent of flakes from LAN-54, LAN-62, LAN-193, and LAN-211 were less than 1/inch (12.7 mm) in length, which is consistent with the small flakes from the 2013 excavations at LAN-2768. Likewise, cortex was relatively rare on flakes from LAN- 54, LAN-62, LAN-193, and LAN-211; between 70 and 80 percent of flakes had no cortex.

The greatest difference between the 2013 excavations at LAN-2768 and data from other playa sites is the relatively small number of tools found. As mentioned above, the density of tools in the 2013 excavations was 0.5 tools/m3. At LAN-193, the nearest site to LAN-2768, the density was 4.2 tools/m3. At LAN-211, the density was nearly 6.5 tools/m3. This lends further support to the argument that the portion of LAN- 2768 located within the 2013 excavation area was at the edge of the site and generally was not used as intensively as other portions of LAN-2768 or as other playa sites.

Lithic Activities at LAN-2768

The analysis of lithic artifacts recovered from the various analytical contexts during the 2013 data recovery at LAN-2768 showed several patterns. First, this part of the site is very similar to the rest of Locus A at LAN- 2768 and fits in with the general pattern of the early and middle Intermediate period at other playa sites. At the 2013 data recovery excavations, lithic-tool manufacture and maintenance were most intense during the early to middle Intermediate period, and there was a significant drop-off during the late Intermediate period. The lithic collection consisted primarily of small secondary and tertiary flakes, suggesting that tool mainte- nance and manufacture were the primary foci of lithic activities at the site. That makes sense, given the envi- ronmental setting of the site, because large quantities of usable tool stone would not have been readily avail- able near the site, and most lithic artifacts probably came to the site in advanced states of manufacture.

Second, spatially, this part of LAN-2768 is clearly at the margin of the site. Lithic densities for both tools and debitage were much lower than in the rest of the site. There were fewer features in the 2013 excavations, and they did not contain the relatively large numbers of flaked stone artifacts seen in the rest of Locus A, suggesting that they were not used as intensively as features elsewhere at the site.

Vertebrate-Faunal RemainsIntroduction

Vertebrate-faunal remains were recovered from most excavated contexts during data recovery operations within Locus A of LAN-2768. The faunal collection consists of just over 2,500 pieces of bone representing four vertebrate classes: ray-finned fish, reptiles, birds, and mammals. The collection was dominated by mammalian remains (Table 7). It is somewhat surprising, given the location of the project area along the Ballona, that fish and birds were not more prominent in the sample, although it is also true that these animals are not as omnipresent within other Ballona-area faunal assemblages as one would think, given the prox- imity to major bodies of water, including freshwater, brackish water, and saltwater. In general, the faunal collection was sizable, but most of it came from the upper levels and therefore may have been at least partly of recent or relatively recent date, rather than prehistoric.

82

Methods

Faunal remains recovered from the project area were examined at SRI’s Redlands office. Taxonomic and skeletal-element identification was achieved by comparison with skeletonized specimens stored there, along with reference manuals. A selected group of faunal remains was further identified through the use of the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), Fowler Museum Zooarchaeology Laboratory collec- tions. During analysis, aside from taxon and element, bones were quantified using both counts (principally, number of identified specimens) and weights (in grams), although the latter is not a reliable indicator (as has been discussed often in professional literature [cf. Lyman 2008:93–108]). Specifically, in the present case, faunal remains from stripping units had not been washed, and most were caked with dirt, inflating their weights. Other information recorded included, where possible, body side, fusion state, burning, and description of butchering marks (when present). Also recorded, especially for bones identified to only the class level, was body size, as a proxy means of further dividing large numbers of bone that could not oth- erwise be taxonomically differentiated from one another. Thus, birds were divided into medium-sized birds (chicken or duck) and small birds (songbird), and mammals were divided into four categories: very large (browsers, such as deer and elk), large (carnivores, such as wild cats and dogs), medium-sized (large rodents and rabbits), and small (rats and mice). The discussion of the faunal collection is divided by contextual origin; animal bones from stripping units are discussed first, followed by those from trenches, those from features, and those from hand-excavated units, separated into upper and lower levels. The separation of contexts is necessary to an extent, as each of these recovery modes produced faunal remains of very differ- ent characters from one another and probably were very divergent in date.

Results

Mechanical-Stripping Units

As previously mentioned, mammalian remains dominated the collection, and mammals of a very large size were numerically dominant in all represented strata (Table 8). The dominance of very large mammals is unlike most of the Ballona sites’ faunal collections, although it is similar to the faunal profile from LAN- 193, located to the west of the present site, along the base of the Westchester Bluffs. LAN-193 contained faunal remains relating to late-historical-period farming, including horse bones. Similarly, the stripping units in Locus A revealed numerous elements from very large mammals, including the remains of more than one horse (at one time, probably complete skeletons) as well as cattle and sheep bones (see Table 8).

Most of the faunal remains from the stripping units are of a character indicating that carcasses were dumped there in their entirety, although it is apparent that not all elements survived (although soil condi- tions, within at least the lower strata, were very good for bone preservation according to the geoarchaeo- logical analysis [see Chapter 5]) or were recovered (Table 9). Based on the portions and body sides of identified horse elements, it is apparent that there were intermingled remains of at least three individual animals, including one immature one. None of the skeletons, however, was close to completely preserved or recovered; the axial skeletons (ribs, pelvis, and vertebrae), along with most of the skulls (other than two teeth), were missing. It may be that past flooding carried differently shaped (flatter and lighter) elements farther or elsewhere, as opposed to the generally present heavy and rounded limb bones that were preserved on-site. Clearly, the faunal remains from stripping say nothing about diet but instead may suggest, along with the horse remains excavated at the neighboring LAN-193, that the area at the base of the bluffs was used for dumping dead animals during historical-period times (late 1800s/early 1900s), when the area was used for agriculture.

83

Table 7. Vertebrate-Species List for All Contexts from the LAN-2768 Data Recovery

page98image43993920

Taxon

Actinopterygii
Anatidae
Artiodactyla Artiodactyla/Perissodactyla Aves, medium sized

Aves, small
Aves/Mammalia

Bos taurus
Canis

Chordata
Equus caballus
Gallus

Geomyidae Lagomorpha/Rodentia Leporidae
Mammalia small
Mammalia, indeterminate sized Mammalia, large
Mammalia, medium sized Mammalia, very large
Microtus
Odocoileus hemionus
Ovis aries
Ovis
/Capra
Rodentia
Scapanus
Sciuridae
Squamata

Sylvilagus
Testudines
Thomomys

Total

Common Name

No. of Individual Specimens

page98image44004672

ray-finned fishes 4 ducks, geese, and swans 1 even-toed ungulates 181 even- or odd-toed ungulates 1 medium-sized birds 4 small birds 3 birds/mammals 41 domestic cattle 12 dogs, wolves, and coyotes 5 vertebrates 1 domestic horse 105 chicken 5 gophers 1 rabbits, hares, and pikas/rodents 1 rabbits and hares 1 small mammals 257 indeterminate mammals 755 large mammals 1 medium-sized mammals 15 very-large mammals 979 vole 2 mule deer 41 domestic sheep 19 sheep or goat 9 rodents 94 mole 1 squirrels 7 lizards and snakes 6 cottontail 4 turtles/tortoises 1 pocket gopher 1

2,558

page98image57993504

84

Table 8. Vertebrate-Species Abundance from Stripping-Unit Contexts, by Natural Stratum

page99image43956288

Hand- Taxon, by Stratum Stripping Unit 3077

IV
Artiodactyla —
Bos taurus Equus caballus — Mammalia, very large —Ovis aries Ovis/Capra 

Subtotal —

III
Artiodactyla —
Canis — Mammalia, very large —Ovisaries 

Subtotal —

III
Mammalia, very large —
Odocoileus hemionus 6

Subtotal 6 Total 6

Mechanical-Stripping Unit No.
3009 3039 3054 3057 3076 3082 3086 3097 3100 3114

Total

page99image43954368page99image43942464

3————32———8

226 —
37 12
18 14
— 1 —————1————1

284 27 20 54 — 41 37 — — — 463

———————11—2 ————————1—1 ———————88—16 ————1—————1 ————1——910—20

—————————2020 ——————————6 —————————2026

284 27 20 54 1 41 37 9 10 20 509

— 1 — 1— — —

— 228 —92 — 123 —11

4 14 — 20 16 39 — 16 — — — —

5 — — 20 — — 10 — —

page99image58052544

85

page100image43911616page100image43925056page100image43910848page100image43922176page100image43923328page100image43913536page100image43923520page100image43914496page100image43913728page100image43925248page100image43924864page100image43911424page100image43923712page100image43919296page100image43912192page100image43915264page100image43919680page100image43919872page100image43914688page100image43923136page100image43909120page100image43915456page100image43913920page100image43917184page100image43921792

86

Element Portion

Body Side

Hand-Stripping Unit 3077

Mechanical-Stripping Unit No. Total3009 3039 3054 3057 3076 3082 3086 3097 3100 3114

Cancellousbone fragment

— — — — — — — — — — —

—————7————7

Cervical vertebra Innominate Long bone
Long bone

spinous process ischium fragment shaft

1 — — 18 — —

— — — — — 39 16 —

— — — — — — — —

— — — — — — — — — 17 78

— 1 — 18 — 39 — 53

Rib shaft Scapula blade Thoracicvertebra centrum Undiagnosed fragment Vertebra centrum

5 — —————711——9 ——————1———1 ——————1———1 10————2———2032

Subtotal, Mammalia

1—————————1 17181639—16208820162

Humerus
Humerus
Longbone epiphysis
Radius proximal
Radius shaft left Thoracicvertebra centrum
Thoracic vertebra spinous process Axisvertebra centrum

— — — — — — — — —

————————1—1 ———————1——1 3—————————3 ——————1———1 —————1————1 —————1————1 —————1————1 ——————1———1 3 — — — — 3 2 1 1 — 10

Subtotal, Artiodactyla Antler

tine

6 6

Odocoileus hemionus (Mule Deer)——————————6 ——————————6

Subtotal, Odocoileus hemionus

Table 9. Elements and Bone Portions from Stripping Units at LAN-2768, by Taxon

distal right

proximal

right left

Mammalia (Mammals)

Artiodactyla (Even-Toed Ungulates)

page101image43922560page101image43920256page101image43922944page101image43910464page101image43924672page101image43909888page101image43911040page101image43917760page101image43626112page101image43628224page101image43614976

87

Element Portion

Body Side

Hand-Stripping Unit 3077

Mechanical-Stripping Unit No. Total3009 3039 3054 3057 3076 3082 3086 3097 3100 3114

Horn
Mandible alveolus Mandible fragment Phalanx1 complete

right right left

— — — — —

Bos taurus (Domestic Cattle)1—————————1 1—————————1

Subtotal, Bos taurus
Humerus distal

———1——————1 —————1————1 2——1—1————4

Phalanx2 complete

right right

— — — —

Ovis aries (Domestic Sheep)————1—————1 —1————————1 ——————10———10 —1——1—10———12

Tibia
Subtotal, 
Ovis aries

distal

Scapula
Subtotal, 
Ovis/Capra

glenoid fossa

right

— —

Ovis/Capra (Sheep or Goat)—————1————1 —————1————1

Astragalus Astragalus Calcaneum Calcaneum Central tarsal Cervicalvertebra Cuboid

complete

left right right left left

— — — — — — — — — —

Equus caballus (Domestic Horse)1—————————1 1—————————1 1—————————1 1—————————1

Femur Femur Femur

complete proximal complete complete complete complete

——1———————1 —1————————1 —1————————1 —————1————1 —1————————1 ——1———————1

right distal left

distal right

continued on next page

page102image43960192page102image43971520page102image43967296page102image43970944page102image43961536page102image43961344page102image43965952page102image43968256page102image43967104page102image43965568page102image43966528page102image43973248page102image43963840page102image43969792page102image43973440page102image43971904page102image43967488page102image43963264page102image43973056page102image43972288

88

Element Portion Body Side

Hand-Stripping Unit 3077

Mechanical-Stripping Unit No. Total3009 3039 3054 3057 3076 3082 3086 3097 3100 3114

Femur
Femur
Humerus
Humerus
Humerus
Humerus
Maxillary Molar 2
Maxillary Premolar 3
Metacarpal
Metacarpal
Metapodial distal

right right left left right right right left right

Metatarsal
Metatarsal
Navicular
Phalanx1
Phalanx 1
Phalanx2
Phalanx3
Phalanx3
Radius
Radius
Radius
Radius
Rib head Scapula glenoid fossa Sesamoid complete Thoracicvertebra centrum

right left

1—————————1 ——1———————1 1—————————1 1—————————1 ——1———————1 1—————————1 1—————————1 1—————————1 —————1————1 ———1——1———2 —1————————1 ———2——————2 1—————————1 ———1——1———2 ——————1———1 —————1————1

shaft left

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

———1——————1 ———1——————1 ———1——————1 ———1——————1 ——————1———1 ———1——————1

shaft distal proximal shaft shaft complete complete proximal proximal

— — — — — — — —

—1 — — —1 — — —1 — — —1 — —

— — — — — — — —

— — 1 — — 1 — — 1 — — 1

complete proximal complete complete complete complete complete distal complete distal proximal shaft

right

left left left

left left

1—————————1

page103image43970176page103image43972096page103image43964800page103image43966336page103image43962496page103image43974400page103image43973824page103image43968064page103image43964608page103image43963072page103image43960384page103image43959040page103image43965184page103image43973632page103image43964032page103image43962688page103image43972672page103image43969600page103image43960768page103image43964992page103image43974016page103image43969408

89

Element Portion

Body Side

Hand-Stripping Unit 3077

Mechanical-Stripping Unit No. Total3009 3039 3054 3057 3076 3082 3086 3097 3100 3114

Thoracicvertebra complete

— — — — — — — — — —

—————1————1 11————————2 15—————————15 ———1——————1 —1————————1 —1—1——————2 ——————1———1 2—————————2 1—————————1 317415—45———66

Tibia
Tibia
Tibia
Tibia
Tibia
Ulna
Vestigial metapodial
Vestigialmetapodial shaft

left

Subtotal, Equus caballusTibia

shaft left

— —

Canis sp. (Dog/Wolf/Coyote)————————1—1

Total, Canis sp.

532620551253791020262

complete distal shaft shaft shafttotal lunar notch proximal

left right left right

Trenches

Two mechanically excavated trenches within the project area produced faunal remains (Table 10). In total in Trench 2001, 4 animal bones, all from mammals of similar character to those represented by the elements recovered from stripping units, were recorded. Two of those bones could be further identified, one as an artiodactyl and the other as a horse. The horse, however, is not the European-introduced domesticate, Equus caballus, but rather a fossil that must have come from one of the wild North American progenitor species to the equids eventually domesticated in the Old World. The bone is the very worn-down right maxillary second molar of an adult animal, genus Equus (Figure 30). Fossil horses are commonly found in small numbers in Pleistocene North American paleontological as well as on archaeological (Paleoindian period) sites (cf. Azzaroli and Voorhies 1993; Woodward 1991), and specimens have been recovered from the La Brea Tar Pits in Los Angeles. The other trench, Trench 3041, produced only a single bone, a non-fossilized vertebral process from a horse, presumably the European-introduced domesticate, Equus caballus. Other than the fossil specimen, the animal bones recovered from the trenches appeared to be similar to those recovered from the stripping units, which suggests that the trenching operations encountered the same de- posits as those found during mechanical stripping. That Trench 3041, located in the center of the stripping and hand-excavation area, contained the same faunal material as the stripping units is entirely expected. The faunal content of Trench 2001, located west of the stripping and excavation area, revealed that the central site deposits extend farther in that direction. This indicates either that centrally dumped animal carcasses were spread—for example, by floodwaters after disarticulation—or that the entire area once served as a dumping ground for animal carcasses, extending westward to neighboring LAN-193 (cf. Gar- raty, Vargas, and Ciolek-Torello 2014:132).

Features

Animal bones (see Table 10) were recovered from a total of five prehistoric features (Features 3010, 3015, 3064, 3067, and 3085) and one historical-period feature (Feature 3047) found during stripping.

Prehistoric Features

Feature 3010, an FAR cluster, contained just two bones, one from a rodent and the other from a small mammal. The latter bone was burned, suggesting that it may have been food waste, because excavation notes mentioned the bone’s position in the center of the rocks. Feature 3015 consisted of a cluster of rocks, some of which were fire-affected. Six bone fragments were recovered from the feature, all from small or medium-sized mammals (thus of unknown specific size). Feature 3010 was located within 5 m north-north- west of Feature 3015.

Feature 3064 was identified when a human clavicle was discovered during stripping. In addition to the human bone, a piece of FAR and a tested basalt cobble were collected. The feature contained a total of 37 pieces of animal bone, most of which (n = 15) consisted of small fragments of deer antler, along with 1 larger antler tine (Figure 31) to which the other fragments may belong. The pieces all appeared to be un- worked. Along with the antler were identified 2 artiodactyl bones (an innominate fragment and the distal end of a first phalanx) and 20 bone fragments of very large mammals, probably also artiodactyls. The arbitrary 30-cm buffer around the clavicle (ARB-30) contained an additional 8 unworked fragments of deer antler but no other animal bones. SRI excavated a 3-by-4-m hand-stripping unit (HSU 3077) around Fea- ture 3064 to determine if other human remains lay in the immediate vicinity of the clavicle (none was identified). In total in HSU 3077, 6 bone fragments were found. The fragments were from deer-antler tines and, therefore, were likely associated with those from Feature 3064 as well as those from adjacent Fea- ture 3085.

Feature 3067, also a small FAR cluster, produced a total of 22 bones, mainly small fragments from indeterminate-sized mammals. The remaining few fragments were divided between those identifiable only as very large mammals and 2 pieces identified as mule deer. This feature was radiocarbon dated to the middle to late Intermediate period (cal A.D. 220–390).

90

page105image43916224page105image43916992page105image43920448page105image43921408page105image43913152

91

Taxon, by Stratum

3064 3064
(30-cm 
(Feature) 3010 3015 3047 3067 3085

Subtotal, Features

Subtotal, Trenches

Total

None
Artiodactyla
EquuscaballusMammalia,verylarge

————————1—11 ————————1122 — — — — — — — — 2 — 2 2 ————————4155

Fill

Subtotal

Gallus

————8——8———8

Subtotal IV

Mammalia, indeterminate sized Mammalia,small
Rodentia

———6———6———6 ——1————1———1 ——1————1———1 ——26———8———8

Subtotal III/IV

Artiodactyla
Mammalia, indeterminate sized Mammalia, very large
Odocoileus hemionus

—2—————2———2

Subtotal

— — — 20 8 15 8 37

— — — — — — — —

— 10 — 4 — 2 — 16

— 10 — 24 3 28 3 64

— — — 10 — — — 24 — — — 28 — — — 64

III
Mammalia, indeterminate sized

— —

— —

— 6

— 6

— — — 6

Subtotal Total

Table 10. Vertebrate-Species Abundance in Features and Trenches, by Natural Stratum

Buffer)

3 86Note: The number of identified specimens (NISP), also called the fragment count, is used to show abundance of species in this table.

4 1 5 91

8 37

2 6 8 22

Feature No.

Trench No. 2001 3041

page106image41927280page106image43912384

Figure 30. Right maxillary second molar of adult Equus sp., occlusal surface.

page106image41931024

Figure 31. Antler tine from Feature 3064.

92

Feature 3085, a small cluster of rocks including FAR, contained three deer-antler fragments but no other bones. Like the antler fragments from Feature 3064, the antler pieces from Feature 3085 were also unworked. Features 3064 and 3085 are adjacent to one another; so, their similar contents of deer antler is not surprising. The deer-antler pieces from these two features as well as HSU 3077 placed around Fea- ture 3064 were the only ones recovered from the site. Therefore, they may have been deposited as burial goods with the human remains, even though they were unworked, and there was no evidence other than proximity to connect the human remains with the animal bones.

Historical-Period Features

Feature 3047, a historical-period brick-lined seepage pit that was filled with modern beverage containers and construction debris, contained a total of eight specimens, all of which were chicken bone, the only ones at the site. The chicken bones were also the only ones identified at any of the Ballona-area sites. The bottles found in the cistern suggested a date within the last 40 years; presumably, the chicken bones were of the same date.

Excavation Units

Faunal remains were analyzed from the 10 hand-excavated units in Blocks 1 and 2. As geomorphological and chronometric results indicated, the upper part of Stratum IV was disturbed, and some degree of com- mingling was evident between prehistoric and historical-period deposits (see Chapter 5). These deposits appeared to be primarily associated with the first three levels (0–30 cm below the surface). So, the upper part of Stratum IV, as well as the interface between Stratum IV and the overlying fill deposit, is discussed separately from the lower portion of Stratum IV (below 30 cm below the surface). Table 11 details the remains recovered from the upper part of Stratum IV and the fill interface, and Table 12 presents the results from the lower portion of Stratum IV and the other, lower strata.

The remains recovered from the interfaces between each stratum are not discussed in detail, because they represent a mixture of deposits. Although some vertical movement between strata can be expected because of bioturbation, these interfaces were more heavily mixed, and the associated data are muddled. Instead, these deposits are only referenced if noteworthy (e.g., the presence of uncommon animal types in the assemblage, such as fish or deer remains). The summary information for these interfaces is provided in Tables 11 and 12.

Upper Stratum IV and Fill Interface

The top three levels of Stratum IV contained the majority of all recovered bones from the excavation units, approximately 70 percent. Additionally, it was only within these levels that bones from domesticated mam- mals appeared in abundance (see Table 11). Clearly, these remains represent either a historical-period de- posit in the project area in Stratum IV, which included remains of domesticated (European-derived) ani- mals, or a disturbance of some sort that mixed historical-period materials from elsewhere with in situ prehistoric artifacts. The geoarchaeological analysis (see Chapter 5) noted the presence of krotovina and discussed the concomitant impact of rodent burrowing on stratigraphic integrity. This, however, seems un- likely to be the sole cause of the large number of domesticated-mammal and similarly sized bones (probably also from domesticated mammals) identified within Levels 1–3 of Stratum IV. In soil deposits below the upper portion of Stratum IV (below 30 cm), the contribution of artiodactyls and very large mammals dropped off significantly (see Table 12). Only 2 sheep/goat bones were recovered from below that level, and the number of bones from very large mammals also decreased dramatically, from roughly 600 pieces of such bone above 30 cm to just 7 such fragments below 30 cm. The case appears to be that in addition to bioturbation, considerable mixing of the uppermost ca. 30 cm occurred during the historical period. The cause of that mixing is not clear. Evidently, the result of the disturbances was the mixing of historical- period bones from domesticated animals with prehistoric deposits displaced from elsewhere, given that two radiocarbon dates from the upper part of Stratum IV were older than dates from the lower part of Stratum IV and were coeval with dates from Stratum II.

93

Table 11. Vertebrate-Species Abundance within the Upper Stratum IV and Fill Interface

page108image43946112

Excavation Unit No.
10 11 12 13 14 15 24 25 27 28

Taxon, by Stratum

Fill/IV
Artiodactyla

Bos taurus
Canis

Mammalia, indeterminate sized Mammalia, very large

Subtotal

IV
Anatidae
Artiodactyla
Artiodactyla/Perissodactyla
Aves
Aves/Mammalia

Bostaurus
Canis

Lagomorpha/Rodentia
Mammalia, indeterminate sized
Mammalia,mediumsized 1—————4——16

—1———————— 1 —2———————— 2 —1———————— 1

19 — 15 29 34 33

— — — — — —

— — — — — — — — —

— — — 19 — — — 44 — — — 67

————————1— 1 121121212101104 164 —————1———— 1 ———————12—3 ———————62—8 ———13——11—6 —————2————2 ———————1——1 57214799528760582917527

———1————112335 691454672009730332723614 ————1—111—4 ———11—2—116

Mammalia, small
Mammalia, very large

Odocoileushemionus
Ovisaries
Ovis/Capra 
111———22——7

Rodentia

Scapanus

Squamata

Sylvilagus

Testudines Subtotal

Total

3 — — — 1 — 7 — — — 11 —————1————1 ————1—————1 ——————1——12 ————1—————1

143 37 103 171 381 190 117 104 85 70 1,401 177 70 103 171 381 190 117 104 85 70 1,468

Total

page108image43942848page108image43957632page108image55271072

94

Table 12. Vertebrate-Species Abundance within Lower Stratum IV and the Remaining Stratum

page109image43624384

Excavation Unit No.
10 11 12 13 14 15 24 25 27 28

IV
Artiodactyla
Aves/Mammalia
Mammalia, indeterminate sized
Mammalia,mediumsized
Mammalia, small
Mammalia,verylarge 12———4————7

Taxon, by Stratum

Total

page109image43623808page109image43629376

Microtus Ovisaries Ovis/CapraRodentiaSylvilagus

Subtotal III/IV

Artiodactyla
Geomyidae
Mammalia, indeterminate sized Mammalia, small Mammalia,verylarge Rodentia
Sciuridae
Vertebrata

Subtotal

III Aves

Leporidae
Mammalia, indeterminate sized Mammalia,medium-sized Mammalia, small Mammalia,verylarge Rodentia
Squamata

Subtotal II/III

Actinopterygii Aves Aves/Mammalia

2—————————2 —————————11 ——1——————— 1

715312——2— 21

1————————— 1 19153012252410575 152

————1————— 1 —————1———— 1 ——7—25———2 11 ———8—2———— 10 ———5—————— 5 ——1——2———— 3 —————2———— 2 ————————1— 1 ——813312——12 39

————————1— 1 ———————1—— 1 ———2—————— 2 ———————5218 ——————22——4 ———1—————— 1 ——————32—16 ————————1—1 ———3——5104224

—————————11 —————2————2 ———1——————1

continued on next page

————1—————1 —————111519 4652211794—3 71 ——15—————— 6 461822————— 32

page109image43625728

95

page110image43616896

Taxon, by Stratum

Mammalia, indeterminate sized Mammalia, large
Mammalia, small
Mammalia, very large
Odocoileus hemionus

Rodentia Squamata Subtotal

Actinopterygii
Artiodactyla
Aves
Aves/Mammalia

Canis
Mammalia, indeterminate sized Mammalia,mediumsized Mammalia, small

Mammalia, very large

Odocoileus hemionus

Rodentia Sciuridae SquamataSylvilagusThomomys

Subtotal

I/II
Mammalia, indeterminate sized Mammalia,mediumsized

Subtotal

Aves/Mammalia
Mammalia, indeterminate sized Mammalia, small Mammalia,verylarge Rodentia

Excavation Unit No.
10 11 12 13 14 15 24 25 27 28

Total

page110image43629568page110image43623424

II

I

Subtotal Total

—————1———— 1 2——1—————— 3 ———————1—— 1 ————1————— 1 ———1—————— 1 2——211—1—— 7

4956979618914617171825 710

— — 2 —

——12—————— 3 ———1—————— 1 —————1———— 1 ——11——7———4 22 ——1——————— 1

81322721———2 55

1——1—————— 2 1111163123401—4 137 —3——904——11 99 —————2———— 2

2 — 8 10 7 16 — 1 1 1 46 —2—3——————5 ————3————— 3 —1———————— 1 ———1—————— 1

22

305956125711168 379

——7—231——— 31 1———————— 1 9——25————1 37

——1412———6 23 ———1—————— 1 4————1———— 5 ————5————— 5 6 10 — 10 34 38 1 — — 8 107


— —1——1—————2

———1————— 1 1———————— 1

page110image55296000

96

The remains from the upper Stratum IV are, unlike the faunal content of the stripping units, apparently indicative of historical-period diets. However, the question remains: in the absence of widespread housing in the project area prior to the last few decades, who dumped the waste there, and from where did it come? The Ballona area was formerly a rural and then an industrial area, rather than hosting a sizable resident population. It is likely that these faunal remains represent use of the area as a dump. In that case, the bones would not directly represent the food of a resident population but, instead, general foodways at the time in the Los Angeles area or the specific menu of certain nearby establishments whose garbage was collected and dumped on the property as a part of hog-farming operations.

A small number of butchered bones (n = 12) were recovered from within upper Stratum IV, from seven of the excavation units selected for analysis and one of the mechanical-stripping units (Table 13). All but one of the butchered bones were from very large mammals or more specifically identified fauna, including sheep or goats and cattle. In addition, a single turtle/tortoise bone also showed a butchering mark. Among the butchered bones, one cow and one sheep or goat bone exhibited saw marks. The sawing indicated that the bones date to the later historical period, after the industrialization of the meat industry by the last quarter of the nineteenth century. The other bones exhibiting signs of butchering showed either chopping marks (5 bones) from a broad-bladed tool, such as an ax or cleaver, or knife-derived cut marks (3 bones). The marks were consistent with metal tools, because when viewed using a light microscope, the butchering marks featured smooth sides (Walker and Long 1977). The relatively large number of butchering marks (some bones exhibited several per element) seems indicative of household rather than professional butchery and could therefore be evidence that at least the very-large-mammal bones, identifiable and unidentifiable, may in fact have been food waste dumped there by local residents.

Table 13. Contexts and Descriptions of Butchered Bones from Stratum IV

page111image43619968

Taxon

Bos taurus
Bos taurus
Bos taurus

Testudines plastron Artiodactyla scapula

Excavation Unit No.

Element

innominate scapula scapula thoracic vertebra scapula

radius axis

11
13
14
14
24
24

25 25 27 28

Butchering-Mark Notes

Sawn across shaft.

Acetabulum chopped through.

Very thick bone fragment; possible hammer marks along edges.

Cut marks—from butchering or tool preparation?

Cut marks, including smooth-sided cuts through bone.

2–3 deep cut marks, running medial-laterally across posterior of glenoid process; 2–3 additional cuts on anterior surface, cranial margin.

Chopped with four marks, one separating the sacrum articulation, another superimposed on a shallower one.

3 deep parallel cuts/chops along caudal margin of scapula, anterior face; a third chop broke through scapula blade.

2 articulating vertebrae; deep cut marks on anterior surface, along both sides of top spinous process, oriented cranial-caudally.

Scapula reduced/chopped to small pieces; chopped proximally and distally, reducing piece to ca. 2 cm long.

Sawn across proximal edge, cutting away epiphysis.

Chopped in a medial-lateral direction through vertebra in slanting direction; possibly beheading.

page111image43621312

Ovis/Capra

Artiodactyla

Ovis/Capra

Bos taurus

Artiodactyla

ArtiodactylaaArtiodactylaa

tibia innominate tibia

page111image43622848

From Mechanical-Stripping Unit 3086.

97

Other animals found within the upper Stratum IV were mainly small mammals, including mammals identified only as rodents or small mammals, squirrels, cottontails, and other small burrowing mammals. Many of these remains could have entered the deposits naturally rather than through cultural deposition, representing burrow deaths as opposed to dietary remains. That may also have been the case for the cotton- tail-rabbit bones, although it is also possible that they instead represent food remains. Four deer-bone frag- ments were discovered within this part of the stratum. Because of the scarcity of deer bone at the site outside feature contexts, this bone is likely intrusive.

Lower Stratum IV

Lower Stratum IV consists of the remainder of the Stratum IV deposit located below 30 cm below the surface. This portion of the stratum consists of an intact prehistoric component. Some remains from the disturbed upper Stratum IV have migrated into this portion of the stratum, but the number of potentially translocated bones is small (e.g., two domesticated-sheep- or goat-bone fragments). There were considerably fewer skeletal elements in this portion of Stratum IV than in the upper portion of the stratum. At only approximately 150 elements, there were nearly 10 times fewer pieces of faunal bone in this part of Stratum IV than in the upper part. Additionally, the overall general faunal diversity dropped off substantially, and identifiable taxa tended toward smaller mammals (e.g., rodents and rabbits) and a few medium-sized mammals (see Table 12).

Stratum III

Stratum III consists of a layer of sandy deposits from an earlier Centinela Creek course. Vertebrate-faunal remains in this stratum were similar to those in the lower part of Stratum IV (i.e., low faunal diversity and the majority of the bone associated with mammals) (see Table 12).

Stratum II

Stratum II represents the second cultural deposit discovered at LAN-2768. Unlike the lower part of Stra- tum IV, this stratum exhibited a greater degree of faunal diversity and contained over twice as many remains. In addition, the only fish bones found at the site were in Stratum II and the interface between Stratum II and Stratum III, specifically in EUs 12, 13, and 28. All the fish bones were unidentifiable vertebrae. Although more diverse, the collection from Stratum II still contained mainly the bones of small mammals, either uni- dentifiable beyond class or identifiable as rodents. In general, there were relatively few identifiable bones, but the principal identified animals were rabbits, squirrels, and deer. The deer bones from the lower levels of the excavation units, including the interface between Strata II and III, consisted of three postcranial fragments, two pieces of tibia, and a complete third phalanx (see the Deer-Bone Distribution section, below). Additional deer elements may be represented by the very-large-mammal bones in this portion of the assemblage (see Table 12).

Stratum I

As with Stratum II, Stratum I represents buried noncultural, alluvial deposits. As can be expected, very few faunal elements were recovered from this stratum—by far the fewest from any unmixed stratum (see Table 12).

Burned Bone

Many zooarchaeologists have suggested that as a rule of thumb, the presence of burned bones at archaeolog- ical sites indicates that an animal was used for food, without considering experimental evidence suggesting that bones buried near a hearth can burn without direct contact with the fire (cf. Bennett 2009). Of the over 2,000 fragments of faunal bone recovered from the project area, only 126 exhibited evidence of burning (Ta- ble 14). In the case of the bone sample from Stratum IV, only 45 bones were burned (see Table 14). These bones were divided relatively evenly between the upper and lower parts of Stratum IV. Of the 45 bones, all but 5 were from unidentifiable mammal bones of indeterminate size (either small or medium-sized). Two rodent bones and a number of small to medium-sized-mammal bones were also present and showed signs of burning.

98

page113image43628608page113image43619392page113image43626880page113image43624192page113image43622080page113image43615552page113image43617664page113image43629952page113image43625152page113image43623232page113image43614208page113image43614784page113image43629184page113image43627072page113image43626304

99

Fill/IV
IV (upper) IV(lower) III/IV
III
II/III
II
I/II
I

34—33———————————————11 68 143—37—103—14823381—190—117—10485—70——1,378 16 3 12 3 30 — 6 6 25 — 20 4 4 6 5 7 — 5 — — 130 — — — — 3 5 11 2 — 3 12 — — — — — 1 2 — — 28 — — — — — — 1 2 — — — — 5 — 10 4 — 2 — — 22 6 — 10 — — — 8 2 25 9 38 — 1 — — — — 8 — — 96 1111228481152410916701 1— 1 51 8—— 327 ———1—————1—————————— — 2—————11—11———1————— 5

1 69 23 1,401 22 152 11 39

Total

212141141218416227405403033151286121101295112,054

126 2,180

Table 14. Number of Burned vs. Unburned Bones within Excavation Units, by Stratum

Excavation Unit No.a, b

Stratum 10 11 12 13 14 15 24 25 27 28 3017 Subtotal, Subtotal, Total Unburned Burned

UBUBUBUBUBUBUBUUBUUB

No burned bones were identified in any context other than the hand-excavated test units from Blocks 1 and 2, with the exception of the single burned bone from Stripping Unit 3017, which was placed around Feature 3010.
U = unburned; B = burned.

 2      24
11     107
52     379

2 2 2 7

Aside from a single artiodactyl element, none of the elements from identifiable species was burned, despite the fact that a number of bones were butchered (see Table 13), and all in this context clearly represented food re- mains. That demonstrates the limit of the approach, because although burning may often be a cultural indicator, the lack of burning indicates nothing. Further, it seems unlikely that rodents or rodent-sized mammals would be food remains in a historical-period context. The burned bones either must have been incidentally charred, per- haps while burning trash, or indeed represent food remains from displaced prehistoric deposits.

As discussed above (see also Table 14), burned bones may be an indication of whether or not elements, especially those from small mammals, represent food remains. From the lower strata of the excavation units was recovered a total of 65 burned bones, mainly within Block 1 (EUs 10–15). Taxonomically, the burned bones come mainly from small and medium-sized mammals, possibly an indicator that small fauna, including rodents, were consumed, as ethnohistoric research on the Gabrielino has suggested (see Bean and Smith 1978:546).

Deer-Bone Distribution

Also present in the upper levels of the site were a small number of deer elements (Table 15). Four deer-bone fragments were recovered from the upper part of Stratum IV in the excavation units: a piece of a thoracic vertebra, a partial innominate, and 2 limb-bone fragments (see Table 15). The deer elements in the upper portion of the excavation units, like the burned small-mammal bones, may indicate that the upper marsh stra- tum became somewhat mixed. That is, it seems more likely that the deer bones came from prehistoric deposits rather than the late-historical-period levels with which the upper levels of Stratum IV are associated. Many more deer elements were identified in Stratum III/IV than in Stratum IV. Of the 28 total deer elements recov- ered from the Stratum III/IV boundary, all came from features or from the areas in the immediate vicinity of features. In contrast to those from the excavation units, which were all postcranial elements, each deer bone from the Stratum III/IV boundary was an antler or cranial fragment. Deer bones also were found in the lower levels of the excavation units (Strata II/III and II), in addition to Feature 3064, which contained human bone, and Feature 3085, which was located adjacent to Feature 3064. At the other PVAHP sites previously exca- vated by SRI, no deer bones were recovered from late-historical-period contexts (see Lev-Tov and Goodman 2016). A small number of antler fragments were recovered from HSU 3077, an exploratory 3-by-4-m hand- stripping unit placed over Feature 3064.

Discussion and Conclusions

The following section discusses the interpretations of the faunal assemblages recovered from the various contexts within the project area. Also presented below are comparisons among other sites within the Ballona as well as loci within LAN-2768.

Historical-Period Context

The latest historical-period faunal remains are the horse and cattle carcasses recovered from the upper portions of Stratum IV from stripping operations and excavation units (see Tables 8 and 11). These remains were either dumped intact or died at or near that location. Subsequent to deposition, portions of the skeletons became scattered. The vast majority (91 percent) of animal bones recovered from stripping units originated in Stra- tum IV. The remaining bones, those found in the lower strata of the stripping units, are discussed below, in the section dedicated to the lower strata of the excavation units.

100

page115image43953408page115image43953600page115image43952256page115image43949952page115image43955328page115image43955136page115image43955712page115image43944960page115image43954752page115image43944000page115image43950720page115image43957056page115image43951296page115image43941888page115image43956096page115image43943040page115image43947648page115image43955904page115image43949376page115image43950144page115image43948800page115image43957248page115image43947456page115image43945344page115image43954176page115image43945152

101

Element, by Stratum Portion 3118/30-cmBuffer

3067 (Stripping
3064 Unit 3026) 3085

13

Total

III/IV
Antler fragment 7 Antler tine 1 Cranial tympanicbulla —

— — 15 — — 2

— — 36 — —

—————— 7 ——————25 —————— 2

II/III
Phalanx3 complete —

— —

— —

1————— 1

II

Tibia distal — Total 8

— — 15 2

— — 3 6

——2———2 1 1 2 1 1 1 41

Table 15. Stratigraphic Distribution of Deer Elements

Feature No.

Hand-Stripping Unit 3077

Excavation Unit No.
14 15 24 25 27

IV
Femur epiphysis,distal —
Innominate ischium —
Thoracic vertebra spinous process —
Ulna proximal——————1————1

— — — — — — — — —

— — —

———1—— 1 —————1 1 ————1— 1

The faunal remains from the upper Stratum IV in excavation units are interesting, in that, of the identi- fiable species in this part of the collection, sheep or sheep/goat bones (n = 13) were more common than those of cattle (n = 8). If representative, this pattern may demonstrate a change in dietary preferences over time, because during the last several decades, mutton and/or chevon (goat meat) have fallen in popularity and become mainly relegated to the food of immigrant communities. The late-nineteenth-century range wars fought between cattle and sheep ranchers in the West, which were largely won by the cattlemen, were a likely cause of the meat’s decline in popularity (Towne and Wentworth 1945). A possible explanation for the sheep bones being somewhat more common is that these deposits represent remains of meals eaten by the Japanese farmers living in the area in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Although they are not directly comparable, it is worth noting that faunal assemblages from late-nineteenth-century China- towns of California (e.g., Riverside [cf. Langenwalter 1985]) tend to contain significant numbers of sheep bones (Langenwalter 1985:62).

Twelve instances of butchered bone were identified in seven excavation units and one mechanical- stripping unit (see Table 13). Some of the butchering methods displayed by the cut marks are potentially indicative of home preparation and ethnically East Asian food preparation. Many of the remains from the Playa Vista Parcel 4, L.P., and Playa Vista Parcel 5, L.P., excavations displayed a number of chop marks made by cleavers, which Langenwalter (1980, 1985:56–57, 95–96) argued were typical of Chinese butch- ering methods and different from Euroamerican butchering practices. Specifically, Langenwalter (1985) argued that Asian butchers, although they also made use of contemporary Euroamerican butchering meth- ods, including saws, preferred narrow-bladed cleavers. Langenwalter (1985:82) illustrated what he consid- ered to be Asian-style cleaver marks on a Riverside Chinatown scapula, which appeared to be very similar to those visible on a sheep or goat scapula from the current excavations at LAN-2768 (Figure 32). Con- versely, other chop marks visible on animal bones—for instance, a sheep or goat pelvis (Figure 33)—sug- gest a wider-bladed, Euroamerican-style cleaver.

In opposition to this, many of the bones deposited in the historical-period portion of neighboring LAN- 193 seemed to have been professionally butchered. They represent standardized cuts of meat, given the bones’ near-uniform sizes, as a recent study of faunal remains from an early-twentieth-century California site demonstrated (Arter 2013). One possibility is that the waste bones and other materials were collected from businesses and restaurants in the area. For instance, Swope and Douglass (2011:478–479) noted that a large proportion of the late-historical-period (early-twentieth-century) ceramic artifacts at Ballona sites LAN-54 and LAN-193 came from the Ocean Park Casino, formerly located in the Venice/Ocean Park area north of the Ballona, for use at the Kitahata Hog Ranch located nearby, at LAN-193. The hog farmers contracted with local cities to collect their garbage as pig food. Trash from the Ocean Park Casino may have been collected and dumped on the property as a part of the same hog-feeding operation (Swope and Douglass 2011:479).

The historical-period animal bones in the upper levels of the excavation units contrast with the late-nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century animal-bone collection from LAN-193 (Lev-Tov and Goodman 2016) in other ways, as well. In the latter sample, most of the bones were identified as cattle, and a smaller number were identified as pig. Only 14 sheep, goat, or sheep/goat elements were identi- fied in the collection of over 10,000 bones (Lev-Tov and Goodman 2016:594). In addition, a large proportion (35 percent) of the faunal remains from the late-historical-period contexts at LAN-193 were burned, whereas only 3 percent of the bones from fill, Stratum IV, or the Stratum III/IV boundary were burned. Another difference between the two faunal collections relates to butchering methods. The bones displaying butchering marks from the LAN-2768 historical-period collection were few, but most of the marks were from tools other than saws. The much-larger LAN-193 sample was dominated by saw-cut bones.

The most recent set of remains in the project area appears to be the chicken bones from the brick cistern (Feature 3047), which were deposited less than 50 years ago.

102

page117image41749760page117image41750384page117image43945536

Figure 32. Butchering marks on sheep or goat scapula.

page117image43951680

Prehistoric Context

Other than the animal bones from the features in Stratum III/IV, faunal remains from the excavation units from below the first three levels of Stratum IV are largely unidentifiable because they are poorly preserved. The few bones identifiable beyond the order level do not constitute a large enough sample to make reliable statements about the Intermediate period prehistoric diet. On a general level, it can be said that the popula- tion who deposited the animal bones hunted mainly mammals and, to a lesser extent, pursued both birds and fish (see Table 12). Mammalian remains were dominated by small animals (probably squirrels, gophers, rats, and mice) and, to a lesser extent, medium-sized animals (probably large rodents and rabbits), although Stratum II also possessed a sizable number of very large (likely artiodactyl) bone fragments, as well as two positively identified deer bones. Although mammalian dominance is typical of Ballona-area sites, the near- complete absence of fish remains is unusual, compared to previously excavated portions of Loci A and B at LAN-2768. The collection’s small size and poor preservation combined to make the discussed anomalies suspicious and likely the outcomes of small sample size, limiting the conclusions that could be safely drawn from the faunal collection to the very general observations mentioned above.

Additionally, other than the deer remains from Features 3064, 3067, and 3085, there were no identifiable pieces of bone from any of the prehistoric features. Instead, the faunal remains could only be identified as mammalian or, in one case, a single rodent bone. HSU 3077, a 3-by-4-m hand-stripping unit placed over Feature 3064, also yielded some deer bone. Many of the deer remains were antler fragments associated with the isolated human clavicle in Feature 3064. The two additional pieces of bone from that context, which were identified as artiodactyl, are likely deer, as well. The antler and deer bones may represent mortuary offerings, because all the antler and most of the identified deer bones were found within contexts that produced a human bone. The other prehistoric features contained very little bone, and much of what they did contain was not identifiable. There was also no pattern of difference apparent among burned bones; there were few such re- mains from the features, which suggests that the rock clusters were not used as hearths for cooking meat.

Table 16 presents a comparison between vertebrate remains recovered from Loci A and B at LAN-2768 during 2000 and 2013. Results from the 2000 excavation at Loci A and B revealed that mammals, especially small mammals, dominated the collection. They may have been a mix of intrusive species and dietary remains. Deer, artiodactyls, and deer-sized mammals composed 4 percent of those collections—a larger amount than at other Ballona sites. Within the current sample, deer, artiodactyls, and similarly sized mammals composed 20 per- cent of the collection from the lower strata of the excavation units. The relatively high abundance of these mam- mals compared to those in the remainder of LAN-2768 is an anomaly. An opposing pattern is visible in regard to abundance of fish bones. Despite wet-screening, only a few fish bones were recovered from the project area, whereas large numbers were recovered during previous excavations at the site. Current excavations yielded a total of four bones.

103

Figure 33. Butchering marks on sheep or goat pelvis.

Table 16. Comparison of Vertebrate Fauna from the LAN-2768 Locus A 2013 Data Recovery with Vertebrate Fauna from the LAN-2768 Locus A and Locus B 2000 Data Recovery

page118image43949184page118image43948416

Taxon

Amphibians/Reptiles California alligator lizard Colubrid snakes
Lizards and snakes Racer snakes

Turtles and tortoises Unidentifiable amphibians Unidentifiable reptiles Western pond turtle

Birds
American wigeon Kingfisher
Mallard duck Unidentifiable birds

Fish
Barracuda
Bat ray
Bat rays
Drum
Flounders
Herring, shad, and sardines Kelp bass
Mackerels, tunas, and bonitos Neotropical silversides
Pacific angel shark
Pacific chub mackerel
Pacific jack mackerel
Rainbow trout
Rockfishes
Rubberlip surfperch/pile perch Señorita
Shovelnose guitarfish Surfperches
Thresher shark
Unidentifiable bony fish Unidentifiable cartilaginous fish Yellowtail amberjack

2013

Locus A

% No.

0.0 1 0.0 30 6.2 — 0.0 3 0.0 — 0.0 — 0.0 9 0.0 8

0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 2.8 3

0.0 1 0.0 2 0.0 5 0.0 1 0.0 — 0.0 228 0.0 — 0.0 8 0.0 — 0.0 4 0.0 7 0.0 — 0.0 — 0.0 — 0.0 — 0.0 — 0.0 — 0.0 — 0.0 — 0.0 17 0.0 1 0.0 —

2000a

Locus B

page118image43948992page118image43944768page118image43951104

No.

— — 9 — — — — —

— — —

4

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

4 — —

% No.

0.2 — 4.6 — 0.0 — 0.5 — 0.0 3 0.0 1 1.4 56 1.2 —

0.2 — 0.2 — 0.2 — 0.5 116

  1. 0.2  11

  2. 0.3  —

0.8 — 0.2 — 0.0 6

35.0 86 0.0 1 1.2 — 0.0 7 0.6 — 1.1 — 0.0 5 0.0 1 0.0 3 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 3 0.0 — 0.0 461 0.0 10 0.0 1

%

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7

10.6 0.1 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1

page118image43946304page118image55107120

104

page119image43624000

Taxon 2013

2000a

Locus A
No. % No. % No.

Locus B

page119image43628416page119image43621120page119image43623040page119image43622464page119image43616704

Mammals Bird/mammal Carnivores
Cat family Cottontail rabbit Coyote

33 22.8 — — 0.0 — — 0.0 —

2 1.4 9 — 0.0 1 1 0.7 — — 0.0 — 3 2.1 16 1 0.7 — 1 0.7 — — 0.0 2 — 0.0 2 — 0.0 1 3 2.1 16 — 0.0 2 — 0.0 — 1 0.7 20 — 0.0 1 — 0.0 — — 0.0 1 82 56.6 274 7 4.8 1 — 0.0 — 1 0.0 1 554 0.0 2,408

1.4 2

0.0 — 0.0 14 0.0 1 1.4 18 0.2 — 0.0 — 0.0 1 2.5 27 0.0 3 0.0 46 0.3 27 0.3 6 0.2 — 2.5 3 0.3 1 0.0 1 3.1 35 0.2 1 0.0 1 0.2 —

42.0 358 0.2 15 0.0 3 0.0 — 0.0 3,687 0.3 4 0.2 3

0.0 5,029 0.0 814

%

0.0 1.7 0.1 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 3.3 0.4 5.7 3.3 0.7 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.1 4.3 0.1 0.1 0.0

44.0 1.8 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.4

0.0 0.0

Dog, wolf, or coyote
Dogs, wolves, coyotes, and foxes
Even-toed grazers
Gophers
Hares and rabbits
Jackrabbit
Kangaroo rat
Mountain lion
Mule deer
Murid mouse

Otospermophilus (ground squirrels)
Pocket gopher
Pocket mouse
Rabbits, hares, and pikas
Rice rat
Rodents
Squirrel family
Tree squirrels
Unidentifiable bone
Unidentifiable mammals
Vole 2
Wood rat — 0.0 1

Total 708
Total Identified beyond Class
145 0.0 652

Locus A faunal data were taken only from Control Unit 2/22.
Percentages in the table were based on bones identifiable to categories more specific than class.

0.0 3,089

page119image43616320

105

A much larger amount with greater species diversity was recovered from CU 2/22 (n = 274) and from Locus B as a whole (n = 598). The divergence in the relative abundance of fish bones was likely also a product of the small size of the collection. It appears that the project area was marginal to the remainder of the site and did not experience the same intensity of occupation and deposition as the rest of Loci A and B.

The faunal remains recovered from the lower part of Stratum IV and deeper were from intact prehistoric levels and therefore can be roughly compared to samples previously analyzed from other sections of LAN- 2768 excavated in 2000, specifically in Loci A and B (Lev-Tov et al. 2011). The previously analyzed sec- tions of Loci A and B both dated to the early Intermediate period, and Stratum II from the current analysis dated to the early to middle Intermediate period. Direct comparison of the samples is difficult to achieve, because sampling procedures differed from those used previously and because of differences in sample sizes between the assemblages. Approximately 28,000 pieces of bone were previously recovered from a combination of features and excavation units in Locus A. In fact, CU 2/22, the closest control unit to the project area, contained more bones (over 4,000) than the entire prehistoric sample from the recent excava- tions. The faunal collection from features and excavation units within the project area and below the first three levels of Stratum IV totaled approximately 1,100 specimens. Locus B provided a faunal collection that was more comparable in size, totaling just over 3,000 pieces of bone.

Invertebrate RemainsIntroduction and Methods

The excavations in the project area recovered only small amounts of shell from excavation units, features, me- chanical-stripping areas, and trenches (see Figure 6). Because of the small size of the collection, all recovered shell was analyzed, with the exception of shells recovered from Levels 1–3 of the excavation units, as described elsewhere in this chapter. Analyzed-shell totals from the project area included a narrow species range, which is unsurprising, given the small sample size. Slightly more than 460 pieces of shell, weighing just over 570 g, were recovered (Table 17). As measured by either count or weight, Venus clam was the most abundant species. The abundance of Venus clams in the artifact collection was due to their abundance within the Santa Monica Bay and the nearby Ballona, which offer a preferred habitat—namely, muddy-bottomed bodies of water.

Shell quantification is a topic of some discussion in archaeology in general (Claassen 1998) and in Cali- fornia specifically (Erlandson 1994). Some analysts examine shell-species abundance by using the minimum number of individuals (MNI) method as it is applied to bivalves, by siding hinges on species that exhibit asymmetrical hinges (Claassen 1998:106). In the present sample, all bivalves other than scallops, which have symmetrical shells, had hinges that could be sided. As shown in Table 17, Venus clams were the most preva- lent species, by far, when abundance was calculated using MNI. The numbers displayed in Table 18 show that the bivalves were represented by greater numbers of left than right hinges. In Block 1, comprising EUs 10—15, where 31 of the 47 hinges were recovered, left-sided shells were favored in the overall distribu- tion (18 left vs. 13 right). Within individual units, the distribution of left and right hinges was, in most cases, also relatively equal, although the counts in any particular excavation unit were very small. The biggest dif- ference was in EU 13, which contained four right hinges and no left hinges. In Block 2, EUs 24, 27, and 28, the left-sided hinges favored the right over 2:1 (9 left vs. 4 right). One hinge from a Chione shell that could be sided was recovered from Trench 3057, and one hinge from a Pismo clam that could be sided was recovered from Trench 2001. Although at first glance, the somewhat uneven distribution of sided hinges might indicate that the excavated deposits were moved by postdepositional processes, the small sample size discourages such an inference. Others have argued that calculations of a taxon’s dietary importance should be based on meat yield. Erlandson (1994:59), for instance, argued that shell weight can be deceptive using that method in Cali- fornia and favors the heavy shells of Venus clams over and above the light ones of scallops, whereas he has calculated that scallops, in fact, have a significantly higher meat-to-shell ratio than do Venus clams.

106

Table 17. Abundance of Molluscan Taxa across the Site, by Weight in Grams and Count

page121image43627456

Taxon

Mollusca Gastropoda
Haliotis sp.Orbitestella sp. Bivalvia
Ostrea lurida Argopecten sp. Veneridae
Chione sp.Protothaca staminea Tivela stultorum

Common Name

mollusks
gastropods
abalone
(none)
bivalves
Olympia oyster
Scallop
Venus clams California Venus or wavy chione littleneck clam
Pismo clam

Total Weight (g)

13.5 0.1 40.2 0.9 21.1 2.0 33.6 64.0 354.6 20.9 24.8

Percentage by Weight

2.3

7.0 0.2 3.7 0.3 5.8

11.1 61.6 3.6 4.3

100.0

Total Counta

    35
     2
    17
     1
    52
     5
    24
   134
   186
    11
     1

468

Percentage by Count

7.5 0.4 3.6 0.2

11.1 1.1 5.1 28.6 39.7 2.4 0.2

100.0

page121image43621696

Total 575.7Count includes hinges, fragments, and spires.

page121image43620544

Table 18. Minimum Numbers of Bivalves in the Collection According to Sided Hinges

page121image43628992

Taxon

Chione sp.
Chione sp.Protothaca staminea Protothaca stamineaVeneridae
Tivela stultorum

Total

Body Side

Count

page121image43615360

left 23 right 17 left 2 right 1 left 2 left 1

47

page121image55144592

107

Nonetheless, the miniscule amount of scallop found during recent data recovery, even when meat yields were used to rank the importance of shellfish taxa, can in no way have formed a more important dietary item than the much more abundant Venus clam. Therefore, for the remainder of this chapter, the relative abundance of shellfish taxa is discussed in terms of weight (in grams), because this method has been the primary means used to quantify shell from other Ballona-area sites excavated by SRI (Lev-Tov and Van Galder 2016).

Spatial and Stratigraphic Distribution of Shells

As previously discussed, the project area was divided stratigraphically between Stratum IV, which contains the upper marsh, and Stratum II, which contains the lower marsh deposits. These marsh deposits are sepa- rated by a layer of alluvium from an ancient Centinela Creek course (Stratum III) and by transitional layers between the main strata. Stratum IV has been dated to Episode 4, the late Intermediate period. The boundary between Strata III and IV has been dated to Episode 3, the middle to late Intermediate period, and Stratum II has been dated to Episode 2, the early to middle Intermediate period. As with the other material types analyzed during the current project, the upper three levels of Stratum IV contained a mix of modern, his- torical-period, and prehistoric deposits and appeared to be disturbed. So, artifacts from those three levels are omitted from the following discussion.

Excavation Units

Most of the invertebrate remains were found within the excavation units, whether quantified by count (Ta- ble 19) or weight (Table 20). The range of species represented within Stratum II was slightly more diverse than in Strata III/IV and IV, although the various gastropods identified (see Tables 19 and 20) most likely represent incidental collection of naturally occurring species during excavation rather than prehistoric food remains. All three strata showed a predominance of Venus clam–family shell, composing 78 percent of the sample from Stratum IV, 58 percent from Stratum III/IV, and 70 percent from Stratum II. The only samples of abalone shell from excavation units came from Stratum II and the Stratum III/Centinela Creek deposit.

In terms of relative abundance, the majority of shell was found in Stratum IV (47 percent of the total sample). Stratum III/IV contained approximately 7 percent, and Stratum II contained 22 percent. A rela- tively large portion of the sample (16.7 percent) was found in the transitional layer between Strata II and III. As noted in Chapter 5, nearly 80 percent of the shell sample came from Block 1.

Features

Feature 3067, a rock cluster, is the only feature from which any shell was recovered. This feature contained a single small piece of shell that could not be identified.

Mechanical-Stripping Units

Molluscan remains were recovered only from the mechanical-stripping units; no shell was found within the hand-stripping unit (HSU 3077) excavated around Feature 3064. The stripping-unit collection differed in its species profile from the excavation units, although the sample size was extremely small. Shells from stripping units (see Tables 19 and 20) were mainly fragments of scallop and abalone, both of which were rare within the excavation units. However, these shells were still found in very small numbers, and given the large area stripped in relation to the excavation units, these shell types were still quite rare throughout the project area.

108

page123image43618624page123image43618048page123image43619584page123image43635584page123image43637312

109

Taxon, by Stratum

Feature Subtota

Multiple
Bivalvia

Chione
Tivela stultorum

——————————————2——2—2 ——————————————3——3—3 ——————————————————11 ——————————————5——516

Subtotal
Stratum IV, upper marsh (upper A horizon)

Argopecten

— —2——2 34—23——3———15—17 — ————— 2—161441——3—31—31 — —1——18188231441—1178—79 ———————1—————————1—1 —6———64213—3—————13—19 ——————1——————————1—1 ———————2—————————2—2 ——————————33—————6—6 — —————1613—176712—3267—67 — 63——934401028493166—73214—223

Bivalvia

Chione

Gastropoda Mollusca OrbitestellaOstrea ProtothacaVeneridae

Subtotal
Stratum III/IV boundary

Argopecten

———————————1—————1—1 ——————————1——————1—1 ————————1712—————11—11

Bivalvia

Chione

Mollusca

1——————————5—————5—6 ————————2————————2—2 ————————2312—————8—8

Ostrea

Veneridae Subtotal

1 — — — — — — — 5 10 3 10 — — — — — 28 — 29

Stratum III, upper alluvium (Centinela Creek deposits)

Argopecten

———————1————11——14—4

Table 19. Abundance of Shellfish by Count across the Site, by Stratum

Mechanical-Stripping Unit No. Excavation Unit No.

Trench Total3067 3002 3057 3100 3107 10 11 12 13 14 15 24 25 26 27 28 Subtotal 2001

continued on next page

page124image43637120page124image43638656page124image43636928page124image43645568page124image43640384

110

Taxon, by Stratum

Feature Subtota

Bivalvia

—————————2———1—317—7 ————————11——1————3—3 — ——1—1—————————————1 ————————————1————1—1 ———————1—————————1—1 ——————32233—2————15—15 — ——1—1 34363—52—3231—32

Chione HaliotisMolluscaProtothacaVeneridae

Subtotal
Stratum II/III boundary

Argopecten

—————————1———————1—1 ——————2—————————57—7 — ——————9——13111—10136—36 ———————2——1—1————4—4 ——————6——7—642——328—28 — ————— 811—814763—10976—76

Bivalvia

Chione ProtothacaVeneridae

Subtotal
Stratum II, lower marsh (buried A horizon)

Bivalvia

—————————2———2———4—4

Chione

54 — 54 1 — 1 15 — 16

Gastropoda

Haliotis

Mollusca

Ostrea

Veneridae Subtotal

I/II boundary

Argopecten

—————————————1———1—1 —————————————1———1—1

Subtotal

Total
Counts include shell fragments, hinges, and spires.

1 6 3 1 1 11 57 80 45 55 81 52 24 16 5 22 18 455 1 468

Mechanical-Stripping Unit No. Excavation Unit No.

Trench Total3067 3002 3057 3100 3107 10 11 12 13 14 15 24 25 26 27 28 Subtotal 2001

11211211—21—14 —————————1— ——15————————

  • —  — — — ——

  • —  — — — ——

  • —  — — — 11 ———————4——212————9—9 ——————————1——————1—1 ——————1———8331———16—16 — ———11122527312474—24100—101

page125image43986944page125image43978304page125image43984832page125image43979456page125image43988672

111

Taxon, by Stratum

Feature Mechanical-Stripping Unit No. Excavation Unit No. Trench Total3067 3002 3057 3100 3107 Subtotal 10 11 12 13 14 15 24 25 26 27 28 Subtotal 2001

Multiple
Bivalvia

Chione
Tivela stultorum

— — — — — — — — — — — —

— — — — — — — — — — — —

————————0.1—— ————————1.9—— ——————————— ————————2.0——

0.1 — 0.1 1.9 — 1.9 — 24.8 24.8 2.0 24.8 26.8

Subtotal
Stratum IV, upper marsh (upper A horizon)

Argopecten

— — 22.0 — — — — — 4.9 — — — — 7.5 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 7.5 26.9

— — 22.0 — — — — — 4.9 — — — — — 7.5 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 34.4

2.60.7—0.53.6——1.2——— 0.4—0.42.86.71.60.1——1.3— 6.124.52.3—12.39.112.20.8—3.87 —0.0————————— 1.00.20.10.4—2.6————— 0.9—————————— —1.3————————— ————12.70.9————— 2.65.2—5.82.32.4—0.4—2.60.7

8.6 — 30.6 13.3 — 13.3 78.1 — 83.0

Bivalvia

Chione

Gastropoda Mollusca OrbitestellaOstrea ProtothacaVeneridae

0.0 — 0.0 4.3 — 11.8 0.9 — 0.9 1.3 — 1.3

Subtotal
Stratum III/IV boundary

13.6 31.9 2.8 9.5 37.6 16.6 12.3 2.4 — 7.7 7.7

22.0 — 22.0 142.1 — 176.5

Argopecten

— — — — — — — — —

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

—————0.0————— ————0.5—————— ——2.636.412.42.1————— —————1.2————— ——0.5———————— ——1.30.70.20.9————— ——4.437.113.14.2—————

0.0 — 0.0

Bivalvia

0.5 — 0.5 53.5 — 53.5 1.2 — 1.2 0.5 — 0.5 3.1 — 3.1 58.8 — 58.8

Chione

Mollusca

<0.1 — — — — — — — —

Ostrea

Veneridae Subtotal

<0.1 — —

Stratum III upper alluvium (Centinela Creek deposits)

Table 20. Abundance of Shellfish by Weight in Grams (g) across the Site, by Stratum

13.6 — 13.6

continued on next page

page126image43989056page126image43980800page126image43981184page126image43987520page126image43983872page126image43974848page126image43988096page126image43984256page126image43985216page126image43979840page126image43988864page126image43988288page126image43985792page126image43978496page126image43979072page126image43976000page126image43983104page126image43975424page126image43976384page126image43985408page126image43977920page126image43989632page126image43982144page126image43986752page126image43978880page126image43980416page126image43987712page126image43981760

112

Taxon, by Stratum

Feature Mechanical-Stripping Unit No. Excavation Unit No.3067 3002 3057 3100 3107 Subtotal 10 11 12 13 14 15 24 25

Trench Total26 27 28 Subtotal 2001

Argopecten

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

0.8 0.1 —

Bivalvia

3.8 — 3.8 13.3 — 13.3 — — 12.4 0.2 — 0.2 0.7 — 0.7 8.5 — 8.5 27.8 — 40.2

Chione HaliotisMolluscaProtothacaVeneridae

12.4 — 12.4 — — — — — — — — —

Subtotal
Stratum II/III boundary

12.4 — 12.4

Argopecten

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

——— 1.6 —— ——

— — — — — —

——

1.6 — 1.6

Bivalvia

0.7 —— — 13.8 — —5— 0.8 —— 1.5 18.8 —

——— ——

— 0.4 12.3 6.4 —— — 1.8 12.3 8.6

1.1 — 1.1 68.5 — 68.5 6.6 — 6.6 14.1 — 14.1 91.9 — 91.9

Chione ProtothacaVeneridae

— 11 16.0 6.8 — 1.2 — 0.4 5.9 — 2.2 2.4 7.5 12.2 18.2 9.6

2.2 — 1.0 3.2

Subtotal
Stratum II, lower marsh (buried A horizon)

Bivalvia

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

— — — — — — — — — — 10.8 10.8 — —— — —— — —— — 10.8 10.8

——— 19.8 39.4 29.8

0.9 — — — 10.1 7.7 — 6.6

1.4

— — — — — — — —

—— 4.5 15.4 0.1 — —— —— —— —— 4.6 15.4

2.3 — 2.3 134.4 — 134.4 0.1 — 0.1 17 — 27.8 0.3 — 0.3 0.2 — 0.2 16.3 — 16.3 170.6 — 181.4

Chione

1.1 ————— — —— ——17—— — —— —0.0——0.1 0.1 0.1 — ————0.2 — ——

Gastropoda

Haliotis

Mollusca

Ostrea

Veneridae Subtotal

0.2 ——— 12.5 1.4 2.1 20.0 39.4 46.8 11 20.5 1.5 8.8

0.1 2.6

Stratum I/II boundary

Argopecten

— — — — — —

— —— — ——

————— — — ————— — —

0.1 0.1

— —

—— ——

0.1 — 0.1 0.1 — 0.1

Subtotal Total

<0.1 7.5 26.9

12.4 10.8 57.6

36.4 91.7 63.8 74.1 84.6 40.5 33.7

9.2

2 25.1 32.2

493.3 24.8 575.7

— — — — — — — — —

—0.1———— 0.0 ———3.1 —— — ——8.8 3.2 —— 1.3 —————— —— —————— 0.2 — —0.7———— —— 1.3 0.8 1.0 2.7 1.2 — 1.5 — 1.3 1.6 9.8 9.0 1.2 — 3 0.9

— — — — — — — —

— 0.4 0.5 0.1 —— —— —— —— —— 0.5 0.5

1.3 — 1.3

Trench

A single shell, the nearly complete left valve of a Pismo clam, was found within the backdirt produced by excavation of Trench 2001 and was the only specimen of that species found during excavations in the project area. Unfortunately, its exact depth is unknown, because it was found out of position within the trench’s backdirt and was recovered in a grab sample. However, the sample did come from the lower levels of Stratum IV and dates to the middle to late Intermediate period.

Comparison with Previous Investigations at LAN-2768

Locus A

Spatially, the abundance of invertebrate-faunal remains shows a clear decline as one moves westward from the center of the site, excavated in 2000, toward the current project area. At the center of the site, in CU 20/21, the density of shell remains was nearly 3,200 g/m3. In CU 8, that number dropped to just under 1,000 g/m3, followed by 425 g/min CU 3. CU 2/22 had a density of just under 200 g/m3. In the project area, Blocks 1 and 2 had densities of just 39.5 and 12.7 g/m3, respectively. As noted with other material types, these density changes clearly show that the project area is located at the western edge of LAN-2768.

In terms of species prevalence, the project area is generally similar to the central and western portions of Locus A, excavated in 2000. The dominance of Venus clams within the project area was similar to their representation in other portions of Locus A (Figure 34). Previous investigations at LAN-2768 have shown that Venus clams were generally the most prevalent species by weight within Locus A. Based on the results of the 2000 data recovery within Locus A (not including the anomalous CU 20/21 [see below]), Venus clams were the most abundant shellfish species (38 percent by weight). CU 2/22, the unit closest to the project area, as well as CUs 3 and 8, also contained mainly Venus clams (Table 21). An interesting excep- tion to Venus clam dominance in Locus A was CU 20/21, at the northeastern end of Locus A, where scallops predominated (Lev-Tov and Van Galder 2016:607). Scallops were so prevalent, and found in such high concentrations, that when the weights from the four control units were pooled, scallops were the most com- mon species in all of Locus A. In fact, the weight of scallop remains in CU 20/21 was over twice that of all shell from the three other control units combined. Within Locus A, that pattern seems to be an anomaly limited to that CU, however (see the discussion of CU 524, below). Because of that odd pattern, Figure 34 also compares shell percentages across Loci A and B without the content of CU 20/21. Within the project area, Venus clams were not only more abundant than any other shellfish species but also more relatively prevalent than they were within the rest of Locus A. The proportion of Venus clams to the next-most- frequent species in CUs 3 and 8 was between 2:1 and 4:1. Within the project area, the ratio of Venus clams to the second-most-frequent taxon in the sample was, by contrast, 11:1, and Venus clams composed over 80 percent of the entire collection. However, that difference may have been due to the small sample size from the project area.

Scallops were far less abundant in the project area than in the shell recovered from control units during the 2000 excavations in Locus A (see Figure 34). However, when CU 20/21 was removed from the com- parison, scallops were similarly rare in both collections. CU 2/22 was more typical in its content of scallops; it contained just nearly 6 percent of such shells by weight (see Table 21). Although CU 20/21 was anoma- lous in its very large scallop content, there were other differences between the project area and other parts of the site that were not as strong. Those divergences lay in the relative abundances of littleneck clams and oysters. Both these species were relatively more common in the 2000 Locus A control units than in the project area. Abalone shell was also present, although rare, within Locus A. CU 2/22 contained less than 1 g (less than 1 percent) of that shell, similar to the relatively small amount recovered from the project area (see Table 21). Other control units of Locus A contained slightly more: CU 20/21 had just over 5 g of that shell, and CU 8 contained slightly more than twice that amount (almost 13 g). All the previously excavated control units of Locus A together produced approximately 20 g of abalone shell. The relative lack of aba- lone shell was a unifying characteristic of the project area and other parts of the site.

113

page128image41767808page128image41765104page128image41764688page128image43977152

Figure 34. Comparison of the LAN-2768 Locus A 2013 data recovery invertebrate sample to data from other contexts at LAN-2768.

Table 21. Comparison of Shell Contents of LAN-2768
Locus A Control Unit 2/22 and Locus A West, by Percentage of Weight

page128image43976768

Taxon Control Unit 2/22

Scallop 5.9 Venus clam 41.9 Abalone 0.4 Oyster 1.2 Littleneck clam 14.2 Pismo clam — Other 1.5 Unidentifiable 34.9

2013 Data Recovery Excavations

5.8 72.7 7.0 0.3 3.6 4.3 6.0 0.2

page128image43984640page128image55496304

114

Locus B

In total, six control units were excavated in Locus B. One control unit was located in the western part of the locus, along the border with Locus A; another was excavated in the eastern portion of the locus; and five more were excavated in the central portion of the locus. The shell collection from the project area diverged to a greater extent from LAN-2768 Locus B than from Locus A (see Figure 34). Within the Locus B collection, scallops were the dominant taxon (over 50 percent of the collection by weight), followed by littleneck clams, oysters, and Venus clams, in order of decreasing abundance (Lev-Tov and Van Galder 2016:608–611). By weight, the density of shell in Locus B was approximately a quarter of the density in Locus A (316 g/mvs. 1,261 g/m3, respectively), although that was heavily skewed by the enormous densi- ties in CU 20/21 in Locus A. When that control unit was factored out, the densities in Loci B and A were more similar (316 g/mvs. 490 g/m3, respectively).

Interestingly, the density of scallop remains in Locus B were also heavily influenced by a single control unit with a concentration much larger than the rest of the CUs. This unit, CU 524, is located at the western end of Locus B and is the closest control unit to CU 20/21 in Locus A. It appears that the eastern part of Locus A and the western part of Locus B were the foci of intensive scallop processing, an activity that wasn’t carried out in other parts of the site, including the project area.

Other Playa Sites

Questions of representativeness aside, the shellfish collection in the project area did accord with general patterns at Ballona-area sites, in terms of the prevalence of the identified species and taxonomic families, if not their rank order of abundance. That is, at all sites other than the late Prehistoric/Mission period con- texts of LAN-62, where abalone shells were abundant (Lev-Tov and Van Galder 2016:629–630), the most common shellfish were Venus, littleneck and Pismo clams, and scallops (Lev-Tov and Van Galder 2016:645–646). Pismo clams, represented within the current sample by only a single specimen from an unclear context, are the principal point of departure between this sample and analyzed collections from most other Ballona-area sites, where the species is generally more prevalent. However, Lev-Tov and Van Galder (2016:645) did note that Pismo clams, in addition to scallops and oysters, dropped in importance after the early Intermediate period in PVAHP collections. Stratum II is dated to the early to middle Inter- mediate period and thus postdates the early Intermediate period somewhat, therefore according with earlier observations about the decline of Pismo clams after the early Intermediate period. Moreover, the largest part of the sample from the project area came from Stratum IV, dated to the middle to late Intermediate period. The abundance of shellfish species in the project area and the combined profile of shellfish preva- lence based on all Intermediate period collections from the PVAHP are compared in Figure 35. In the figure, the difference is not which species were present but, rather, their abundance. Compared to the average for all Intermediate period collections combined, Venus clams were substantially overrepresented within the current sample, and conversely, other species, mainly scallops and littleneck clams, were underrepresented. However, given the smaller sample size from the project area, these differences may be due partly to sam- pling error. In general, across multiple Ballona-area sites with Intermediate period occupation levels, Venus clams declined in percentages after the late Millingstone period but became prominent once again in the late Intermediate period.

115

page130image41766768page130image41763024page130image41764272

Figure 35. Relative abundances of shellfish taxa at Intermediate period Playa Vista Archaeological and Historical Project sites compared to relative abundances from the LAN-2768 Locus A 2013 data recovery.

Keller (1999:96) argued that Venus clams were the dominant shellfish species throughout all prehistoric periods in the Ballona. Nevertheless, the extent of their dominance within the project area was somewhat unexpected. In Millingstone period deposits at LAN-62 Loci A-G, Venus clams had a high occurrence (on average, 63 percent), although they occurred in much lower numbers at LAN-54 (Lev-Tov and Van Galder 2016). Intermediate period sites in the Ballona area vary widely in the relative abundance of Venus clams present (Table 22). Some areas of LAN-62 contained only small amounts of that shell from the Intermediate period—for instance, Feature Block 4 excavation units (see Lev-Tov and Van Galder 2016). However, the Intermediate period stratum of the control units of LAN-62 Feature Block 4 contained higher frequencies of Venus clam shell (on average, 61 percent). At LAN-211, the content of Venus clams was variable, be- cause it occurred in low percentages in all but one Intermediate period context, namely CU 359. In that unit, Venus clam percentages varied between 90 percent in one Intermediate period level to between 22 and 62 percent in late Intermediate period levels of CU 359. In general within LAN-211 CUs, Venus clams were more abundant in the late Intermediate period. Despite those variations, with the sole exception of one level of the aforementioned control unit at LAN-211, the Venus clam percentage for the project area was much higher than most roughly contemporary contexts at these neighboring sites.

116

Table 22. Comparison of Venus Clam Percentages at Ballona-Area Intermediate Period SitesPeriod

page131image43977728page131image43979264

Site and Context

Ballona-area average
LAN-62 Locus A/G control units
LAN-62 Locus A/G Feature Block 4 control units LAN-62 Locus A/G Feature Block 4 excavation units LAN-211 control units
LAN-2768 Locus A
LAN-2768 Locus A West
LAN-2768 Locus B

Early Early to Middle Late Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate

Intermediate

page131image43988480

10 — 41 3 35 — — — — — — 61 — — — 16 — — 41 21 — — — 19 — 74 50 — — — — 8

page131image43990400

Note: Percentages were calculated as Venus clams/total of all shells within the same site, context, and stratum.

Conclusions

The present shellfish collection, despite an unusually strong emphasis on Venus clams (reasons for this are further considered below) did resemble other Ballona-area shellfish samples, in the sense that the species present were those that would most commonly have inhabited nearby waters (see Lev-Tov and Van Galder 2016:602–604). The Ballona estuary and Santa Monica Bay beyond it were characterized principally by muddy or sandy bottoms. Shallow-water reefs are necessary for oysters and constitute a habitat available in parts of Santa Monica Bay but not in the Ballona. In some areas farther from the Ballona, such as the Channel Islands or the Palos Verdes Peninsula, deep-water rocky substrates, where abalone could be found, are available.

The invertebrate remains from the project area demonstrated that the most common six shellfish species present at other PVAHP sites—scallops, Venus clams, littleneck clams, abalone, oysters, and Pismo clams—were most common in the project area, as well. As discussed immediately above, the differences between this sample and others from the same site are the relative abundance and rank order of shellfish species. It appears that there were distinct sample size (or perhaps depositional) issues re- sponsible for the unusual species abundances within the current project shellfish collection. Although Venus clams are normally abundant at Ballona-area sites, their dominance in this portion of LAN-2768 compared to other areas of the site and surrounding sites (see Figures 34 and 35) suggests an anomalous collection resulting from small sample size. With the exception of some isolated contexts (e.g., CU 359 at LAN-211), analysis of large samples of shell collections from five PVAHP-area sites produced no Intermediate period collections in which Venus clams dominated to the extent that they did in Blocks 1 and 2 (cf. Lev-Tov and Van Galder 2016).

In sum, the shellfish collection demonstrated trends similar to those in other Ballona-area collections. The difference in species relative abundance between this portion of Locus A and other PVAHP sites was one of extent of emphasis on Venus clams, rather than the appearance or disappearance of widespread and abundant species found at other PVAHP sites. As noted above, the abundance figures seem most likely a product of small sample size.

117

page132image41763232page132image43987328

Worked Shell

In addition to the unworked shell described above, four shell beads were also recovered from the 2013 data recovery excavations. The beads were all of the same type, made from olivella shell. They also formed the most common class of bead identified from the earlier excavations at LAN-2768, in the small collection from Loci A and B studied by Cannon (2016). As Cannon (2016:170) observed, the shells used for these beads were selected specifically for bead manufacture and apparently were manufactured off-site, because unworked olivella shells do not occur in the site’s midden area. That was the case for Loci A and B at LAN- 2768, including in the current project area, because no unworked olivella shells were recovered there either. All four beads are of the tiny saucer variety and have outer diameters between approximately 3.8 and 4.2 mm (Figure 36). According to Bennyhoff and Hughes (1987:132), this type of saucer bead carries with it no chronological implications, because it occurred within all periods. The beads therefore may or may not agree temporally with those identified from other parts of this site by Cannon (2016), which were of the Small Normal Saucer type. They were dated, based on Bennyhoff and Hughes (1987), to the Interme- diate through Late/Mission periods (Cannon 2016).

The four beads were recovered from three of the hand-excavated units, two from EU12 and one each from EUs 15 and 27. EUs 12 and 15 were both within Block 1, diagonal from one another. EU 27 was within Block 2, roughly 10 m north of Block 1. All of the beads were recovered from Level 3 (within 20– 30 cm below the stripped surface), within Stratum IV. Despite the fact that this horizon (upper A2 horizon) of Block 1 in Stratum IV was radiocarbon dated to 90 cal B.C.–cal A.D. 200 (standard ΔR) or 420–160 calB.C. (age-specific ΔR), the date is problematic, because it is older than some horizons immediately beneath it. In addition, historical-period (probably twentieth-century) bones from domesticated mammals and uni- dentified bones bearing butchering marks from metal tools were recovered from the same horizon. The presence of the beads in this upper marsh stratum is another indication that the uppermost portion of Stra- tum IV has been disturbed by unknown forces, possibly floodwaters, that deposited older materials mixed with twentieth-century artifacts. The lack of stratigraphic integrity prevents the drawing of insights con- cerning associations between shell beads and other artifact classes, as Cannon (2016:256) recently called for in her conclusions concerning the shell beads of the PVAHP sites.

Macrobotanical Remains

Data recovery excavations at LAN-2768 in 2013 included sampling for macrobotanical remains from fea- tures and units. In total, 32.5 liters of unscreened sediment from four features were floated, and 53 itemized samples were collected during unit and feature excavations. The goals of this study were to conduct the macrobotanical analysis of these materials and to compare those results to data from previous studies at LAN-2768 (Reddy 2015).

118

Figure 36. Olivella-shell beads discovered at LAN-2768 during the 2013 data recovery.

Methods

The Flote-Tech flotation machine was used to process the unscreened sediments. Once dry, all light-fraction samples were put through nested geological sieves with mesh sizes of 15 mm, 1.5 mm, 1 mm, and 0.7 mm, resulting in four subsamples (>15 mm, 1.5–1 mm, 1–0.7 mm, and < 0.7 mm). Such presorting is an effective way to remove modern rootlets, leaves, and isolated material culture, such as flakes, bones, and shell. Post- depositional disturbance was measured through a qualitative-categorical method. It is crucial to note post- depositional disturbance in paleoethnobotanical studies, so that association of low densities of particular taxa can be explained effectively as cultural or biological. In addition to uncarbonized seeds, the presence of organic materials, such as rodent fecal matter, insect parts, worms, and land snails, was also noted. None of the light-fraction samples in this project had evidence of postdepositional disturbance, suggesting that the cultural integrity of the macrobotanical remains from these samples was strong.

Results

The 53 itemized samples from unit and feature excavations included 20 samples that only had charcoal, 18 samples that had only plant-food remains, and 15 samples that had both charcoal and plant-food remains. The 33 itemized samples that had plant-food remains were from eight excavation units associated with Blocks 1 and 2 (EUs 11–14, 24, 25, 27, and 28) and two excavation units associated with features (EU 3017 from Feature 3010 and EU 3026 from Feature 3067) (Table 23). The plant-food remains were composed of primarily carbonized soft tissues from geophytes (bulbs, corms, or tubers) and a single fragment of Juglanssp. (wild walnut). The geophyte remains were represented by Dichelostemma capitatum (bluedicks), Trite- leia laxa (Ithuriel’s spear), and/or Brodiaea terrestris (cluster lilies), all of which occur naturally in coastal southern California. Taxonomists have variously lumped these three species together, because they are closely related, and often the archaeological specimens are difficult to distinguish from one another unless complete corms are preserved. Therefore, some geophyte fragments recovered during this project have been identified as Brodiaea complex when identification to the specific taxon was not possible. In total, 4.51 g of plant remains (n = 101 fragments) composed the itemized plant remains, including Juglans sp., possible geo- phyte fragments, a geophyte fragment (unknown taxon), Brodiaea complex, Brodiaea sp., and Brodiaea ter- restris (see Table 23).

Brodiaea-complex geophytes are rich in carbohydrates and calories (Gilliland 1985) and are known to have been cooked and eaten by California Native Americans (Sutton 2011; Timbrook 2007). The size of these Brodiaea-complex corms could be up to 3–4 cm in diameter, and the mature corms have small corm- lets at their bases that are important for plant propagation, and ethnohistorically, California Native Ameri- cans intentionally knocked them off the parent corms during harvest, so that the plants propagated for the next season (Anderson 2005). The Brodiaea-complex corms bloom in the spring and would be ideal for harvest in summer. Brodiaea-complex corms could be eaten raw but were most likely baked, roasted, steamed, or parched before consumption (Reddy and Erlandson 2012). According to ethnohistoric accounts, geophytes were an important food source that was baked in large earth ovens (Sutton 2011:5; Timbrook 2007; Wagner 1929:162). Once the corms were roasted, parched, or baked they could be stored for winter. Using ethnographic and experimental research, Trammel et al. (2008) argued that terrestrial roots should be considered the highest-ranked plant foods, given returns of 2,000–4,000 kcal/hour for some root foods dependent on abundance and processing requirements

In addition to the itemized plant remains, four sediment samples from four features (all rock clusters) were processed through flotation, which resulted in the recovery of low quantities of charcoal (0.01 g/liter of sediment) and geophyte fragments (0.02 g/liter) (Table 24). No carbonized seeds were recovered. Of the four features, one feature (Feature 3085) did not yield any carbonized materials (charcoal or plant remains). Only charcoal was recovered from Feature 3010, and Feature 3067 (also a rock cluster) yielded three geo- phyte fragments (0.02 g) that were possibly Brodiaea complex. Four small fragments of amorphous car- bonized material were recovered (<0.01 g) from Feature 3015 and may be geophyte tissue, but the frag- ments did not retain sufficient structural integrity to make a good identification.

119

Provenience

Count

Weight Taxon(g)

Stratum IV

0.05 geophyte fragments (cf. Brodiaea complex) 0.04 geophyte fragment (unknown taxon) 0.14 Brodiaea terrestris
0.06 geophyte fragment (unknown taxon) 0.05 Brodiaea terrestris

0.16 geophyte fragment (unknown taxon)

0.05 amorphous, possible geophyte <0.01 geophyte fragment (unknown taxon)

0.08 Brodiaea terrestris
<0.01 geophyte fragment (unknown taxon)

Strata III/IV

0.14 cf. Brodiaea
0.03 geophyte fragments (cf. Brodiaea complex) 0.02 geophyte fragments (cf. Brodiaea complex) 0.48 geophyte fragments (cf. Brodiaea complex) 0.69 geophyte fragments (cf. Brodiaea complex) 0.03 geophyte fragment (unknown taxon) 0.12 geophyte fragments (cf. Brodiaea complex)

Stratum III

0.03 amorphous, possible geophyte
0.03 geophyte fragments (cf. 
Brodiaea complex) 0.06 geophyte fragment (unknown taxon) 0.21 Brodiaea terrestris
0.05 geophyte fragment (unknown taxon) 0.13 cf. Juglans sp.
0.26 
Brodiaea terrestris
0.15 geophyte fragments (cf. Brodiaea complex) 1.04 Brodiaea terrestris
0.04 cf. Brodiaea
0.17 cf. Brodiaea
0.14 geophyte fragment (unknown taxon) 0.04 geophyte fragment (unknown taxon)

Table 23. Itemized Macrobotanical Remains from LAN-2768, by StratumPlant Remainsa

page134image43980032page134image43990208page134image43986368page134image43986176

Unit 12, Level 6 1 Unit 25, Level 1 1 Unit 25, Level 4 1 Unit 25, Level 4 3 Unit 27, Level 4 4 Unit 27, Level 6 5 Unit 28, Level 2 2 Unit 28, Level 4 1 Unit 28, Level 6 2 Unit 3017, Level 1, Feature 3010 1

Unit 12, Level 8 2 Unit 12, Level 8 1 Unit 13, Level 8 1 Unit 25, Level 7 11 Unit 27, Level 7 14 Unit 28, Level 7 1 Unit 3026, Level 2, Feature 3067 4

Unit 11, Level 8 1 Unit 14, Level 9 2 Unit 24, Level 8 5 Unit 24, Level 9 2 Unit 24, Level 9 3 Unit 24, Level 10 4 Unit 24, Level 11 4 Unit 25, Level 9 5 Unit 25, Level 10 6 Unit 27, Level 9 1 Unit 27, Level 10 2 Unit 28, Level 8 9 Unit 28, Level 9 2

page134image43985600page134image43975040page134image43987136page134image43990784

Total 101 4.51

Brodiaea complex includes Brodiaea terrestris (cluster lilies), Dichelostemma capitatum (bluedicks), and Triteleia laxa (Ithuriel’s spear).

page134image43981568

120

Table 24. Macrobotanical Remains from Flotation Samples, LAN-2768

page135image43989824

Feature No.

Stratum

Sediment (liters)

Geophyte Fragments Charcoal Carbonized Seeds Amorphous (cf. Brodiaea

Complex) g g/liter n n/liter n g n g

page135image43986560page135image43980608page135image43990592page135image43985984page135image43980992

3010 IV 4.0 3015 IV 6.5 3085 III/IV 13.5 3067 III/IV 8.5

Total 32.5

0.05 0.01 — — — — 0.19 0.02

0.24 0.01

— — — — — — — —

— —

— — — — 4 <0.01 — — — — — — — — 3 0.02

4 <0.01 3 0.02

page135image55478240

Comparison to Previous Data from the Site

Reddy (2015) reported a seed density of 1.1 seeds/liter of sediment (n = 1464 carbonized seeds from 1,385 li- ters of sediment) from seven features and one unit excavated at Locus A LAN-2768, approximately 35 m to the east of the 2013 excavations. In contrast, the current excavations did not yield any carbonized seeds (Ta- ble 25). Furthermore, geophytes were not recovered during previous excavations, in contrast to the current study. That disparity in macrobotanical data is noteworthy because the logistics and scheduling related to labor and returns involved in small-seed gathering and processing are distinct from those of geophyte collec- tion and processing. As Trammel et al. (2008) contended, geophytes are ranked much higher than seeds.

The differences in the macrobotanical data within LAN-2768 could be temporal variation between the two areas excavated, functional differences, or sampling. Of the three, the functional differences are most likely, because the area excavated during the current project was closer to the prehistoric marsh and the Centinela Creek channel, which would have been an area where Brodiaea-complex-type geophytes would be readily growing. The previous excavations, though less than 35 m from the current excavations, were farther away from the marsh, and that distance may have been enough to make the difference in where geophytes were processed after collection. If the two excavated areas are of similar age, the variation in plant use indicates differential use of space at the site, based on distance from the riparian habitat. Finally, the variation could also be indicative of seasonal differences. Small seeds, such as those recovered by Reddy (2015) (Calandrinia cf. breweri and Bromus cf. carinatus, among others), are available in spring and sum- mer. Geophytes are available in fall and winter/spring, and their taste and texture vary depending on the season (Kristina Gill, personal communication March 2014). If temporal context is held a constant, the variation in the macrobotanical remains could be explained through spatial/functional and/or seasonal factors.

Human BoneIntroduction

This section details the human remains discovered during the 2013 LAN-2768 data recovery. Three isolated human-skeletal elements were discovered during mechanical stripping. Because of the limited data poten- tial of the remains, in-depth analysis could not be performed. Instead, a description of the remains, including element, age, sex, and any pathological conditions, is presented.

121

Table 25. Comparison of Previous and Current Macrobotanical-Analysis Results, LAN-2768

page136image43622656

Genus/Species, by Family

Amaranthus sp. Asteraceae

Reddy (2015:Table 217) Study

Current Study

page136image43646336page136image43588928

n

234 4 — 21 — 10 1 7 — 1 7 — 51 6 4 — 1 — 18 — 50 132 2 10 Polygonaceae —Eriogonum sp. 1Rumex sp. 1 Portulacaceae —Calandrinia cf. breweri 903 Subtotal (seeds) 1,464

n/liter

0.2 0.003

— 0.02 — 0.01

0.001 0.01

— 0.001

0.01 — 0.04

0.004 0.003 — 0.001 —

0.01 — 0.04

0.1 0.001 0.01

— 0.001 0.001 —

0.7 1.1

n

n/liter

page136image43597184

Indeterminate fragmentsAmbrosia sp.Hemizonia sp.

Cyperaceae
Cyperus sp.
Schoenoplectus [Scirpus] cf. californicus

Fabaceae
Indeterminate fragments
Melilotus sp.
Vicia sp.

Lamiaceae
Salvia cf. apiana

Seeds

page136image43595072

Unidentified seed fragments Seed embryos Amaranthaceae

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Onagraceae
Clarkia cf. purpurea

Poaceae
Indeterminate fragments
Bromus cf. carinatus Hordeum pusillum Phalaris sp.

page136image43544960

Poaceae 12 — Nutshell — —

Nutshells

Geophytes

— —

— —

— — 4 (0.13g) —

— — 3 (0.08 g) — 31 (0.58 g) — 39 (1.57 g) — 5 (0.35 g) — 19 (1.78 g) —

Grasses (Non-Seeds)

page136image43544000page136image43537280page136image43543232

Unidentifiable nut fragments Juglandaceae

Geophytes
Amorphous, possible geophyte
Geophyte fragment (unknown taxon) Geophyte fragments (cf. 
Brodiaea complex) cf. Brodiaea
Brodiaea terrestris

4 (<0.01 g) — 3 (<0.01 g) —

page136image43548224page136image43546112

— — — — — —

— — — — — —

page136image55569120

122

Methods

Identification of the human remains was conducted through comparison with anatomical specimens, when- ever possible, and osteological field manuals, such as those of White (1991) and Bass (1995). Estimation of age was based on skeletal development, and sex estimation incorporated nonmetric traits, particularly general skeletal robusticity. Standards for Data Collection from Human Skeletal Remains (Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994:Figures 1–4) was used for observations regarding skeletal growth.

Analysis

Three isolated and fragmentary human-skeletal elements were discovered during excavation and me- chanical stripping.

The first bone fragment was the sternal end of a left clavicle (PD 3105) found in Feature 3064 and associated with FAR, a tested cobble, and fragments of a deer antler. Though found in association with FAR, the bone showed no evidence of burning. The development and appearance of the bone suggested that the individual was an adult. Although there was some damage to the sternal end, the epiphysis did not appear to be fused, which indicates that the individual was in their mid-twenties or younger, probably in the 18–25-year-old range. The sex of the individual could not be estimated. No pathological conditions or traumatic defects were observed.

The second fragment (PD 3008) was found in MSU 3002, in the southern portion of the project area: the proximal two-thirds of a left femur, with the femoral head and trochanteric region missing postmortem. Although some recent postmortem fracturing was evident, the coloration of the exposed surfaces on the distal and proximal ends of the bone fragment were similar to that of the rest of the bone, indicating that the fracturing occurred substantially prior to discovery. Rodent gnaw marks were observed at various locations along the femoral shaft, as well as on the older postmortem fractures. Unfortunately, the age and sex of this individual could not be precisely estimated. Regardless, muscle markings, such as the linea aspera, were not well-defined, suggesting that the individual was either a female or a gracile male. Furthermore, although the epiphyseal surfaces were not visible, the bone appeared to be skeletally mature and could be from an adult or an older adolescent. No pathological conditions or traumatic defects were observed.

The final human bone fragment (PD 3058) appeared to be a possible femoral-shaft fragment. The bone was found in MSU 3057, north of Feature 3064. The bone could not be sided. Although the epi- physeal surfaces were not visible, the bone appeared to be skeletally mature and could be from an adult or an older adolescent. The size of the bone was not consistent with the other femoral fragment found, and so, the bone likely represented another individual. No pathological conditions or traumatic defects were observed.

Feature 3064 was located at the interface between Strata IV and III. Both femora were collected in grab samples from mechanical-stripping units associated with the upper marsh deposit, Stratum IV. Unfortu- nately, the depth at which these remains were recovered is unknown. So, it is unclear whether the remains were recovered from the lower portion of Stratum IV, near the interface between Strata III and IV, where other features, including Feature 3064, were discovered at this site or were found closer to the surface, where there was a notable amount of mixing between modern/historical-period and early to middle Inter- mediate period deposits. Although earlier work at the site discovered burials in the southern portion of Locus D and cremated remains in Locus A, the fragmentary and dispersed nature of the elements suggested that these were isolated occurrences of human remains.

123

Historical-Period AnalysisIntroduction

During data recovery, in total, 91 pieces of glass, ceramic, metal, leather, and plastic were collected (Ta- ble 26). Thirty-four of them were associated with 8 of the 10 excavation units (EUs 10–15, 24, and 28). The other 57 artifacts were collected from a single feature (Feature 3047). No historical-period or modern debris was collected from the mechanical-stripping units. The soil from excavation units was wet-screened through 1/8-inch-mesh screen. The resulting bulk was collected and later sorted in the laboratory. In regard to Feature 3047, diagnostic artifacts were collected in grab samples from three contexts: artifacts from the fill inside the feature, artifacts from the fill outside the feature, and brick from the actual feature structure. These artifacts were brought to the laboratory to be analyzed.

All artifacts were fully analyzed, and material type, function, and age were recorded (South 1977:93). Other attributes, such as color, brand or maker, quantity, completeness, and minimum number of items represented, were also recorded. Nondiagnostic artifacts were recorded by material type and tallied.

Analysis

All of the artifacts collected from the excavation units were found either within Stratum IV or at the inter- face between Stratum IV and the layer of fill that covered the site. Approximately 90 percent of these arti- facts were found within 20 cm below the ground surface in the excavation units. The other artifacts (n = 3) were found deeper; two were discovered near the bottom of Stratum IV, approximately 50–60 cm below the ground surface. That distribution suggests that this stratum was minimally affected by bioturbation.

Artifacts of note consisted of two .45-caliber-bullet casings. One casing was found in EU 12, Level 2, and the second was found in EU 15, Level 2 (Logan 1959:92). The remainder of the artifacts consisted of glass, ceramic, and metal fragments and were what one would expect to find on a modern surface. The glass colors, amber and dark green, indicated that the glass fragments were probably from beer and wine bottles (Myhrer et al. 1990:20). Also found with Stratum IV was part of the leather sole of a shoe and a white plastic button. These two artifacts were discovered in excavation units that were closed and not included with the 10 excavation units used in this analysis.

Feature 3047 is a red-brick circular feature. A second similar structure (Feature 3119) was found about 100 feet to the south-southwest. Feature 3119 was not excavated, because of the danger of collapse and its association with asbestos pipes. Brick cesspools were circular constructions of lose-laid or minimally mor- tared brick with natural bottoms that allowed waste water from indoor septic systems to decompose natu- rally through bacterial action and effluent to percolate into the surrounding soil. Cesspools were also used to drain excess surface water, which was, historically, a problem near the Ballona Creek (Troxell 1957:55). These pits were dug deep enough to prevent grey water and odors from contaminating surface soil while simultaneously recharging local groundwater. These types of septic features were not very durable and tended to be found in groups. After one cesspool became unusable, a new one would be constructed nearby. Feature 3047 may have been related to a guard shack for the parking lot seen on a 1953 aerial photograph of the corner of Centinela Avenue and Teale Street. This structure was located in the center of the parking lot east of Teale Street and once covered this portion of the site.

Excavation of Feature 3047 revealed several whole and fragmented beverage containers and a few pieces of metal and construction debris. The remains of the beverage containers represented six beer bottles or cans, two whiskey bottles, two soda bottles, and two wine bottles (with additional fragments, as repre- sented in Table 26). Manufacturing dates found on the bases of the bottles could be grouped into two time periods (Figure 37).

124

page139image43678528page139image43671232page139image43673728page139image43671424page139image43676800page139image43679104page139image43675264page139image43667392page139image43674496page139image43670080page139image43669312page139image43661760page139image43653888page139image43655616page139image43732544page139image43731392page139image43783232page139image43791872page139image43787456page139image43791296page139image43790912page139image43778048page139image43784384

125

Provenience Type

Glass Bottles Window

Ceramic
Brick White Ware

Ammunition

Cans

Metal
Can Closures

Wire/Nails

Clothing

Other Unidentified

Total

Table 26. Historical-Period Artifact Totals from Excavation Units and Feature 3047

Excavationunits 4 — 2 5 2 — — 2 6 13 34 Feature3047 19 1 1 — — 3 2 3 — 28 57

Total 23 1 3 5 2 3 2 5 6 41 91

page140image41768432page140image41768848page140image43784768

Figure 37. Manufacture dates of beverage containers found in Feature 3047.

The first group of containers was manufactured between 1962 and 1969 and consisted of bottles for whiskey or soda, such as Corby's Blended Whiskey and both Grape and Strawberry Crush soda. The second group of containers was manufactured between 1978 and 1986 and consisted of bottles for beer and wine, such as Erlanger, Michelob, Mickey's, Miller High Life, and Madera. Non-date-specific brands included Coors and Ripple. The Ripple wine bottle did not have an actual manufacture date, but Ripple wine was produced from 1966 to 1984 (Rich 2014). Coors began production in 1959 and is still manufactured today (MillerCoors 2009, 2014).

These artifacts seemed to indicate two distinct depositions of nearly equal duration, although storage before bottling and distribution, and later bottle reuse, may affect totals. Because the brands were random and seldom repeated, they were probably deposited during isolated, single-use events by people walking or working nearby, probably during temporary removal of the structure's concrete cover.

The brick-lined pit structure also contained several pieces of construction debris, including metal shav- ings, window glass, wire, and small, heavily rusted metal fragments. None was datable, and they probably represented construction activities above the brick-lined pit during times when the opening to the pit was exposed. The historical-period diagnostic artifacts found during stripping also consisted of a small number of chicken bones (see the Vertebrate-Faunal Remains section, above).

Summary

The specialized industrial/transportation use of the area was indicated by the lack of household items and the abundance of portable beverage containers (Lewis 1984:288–289). In the past, the project area was covered by a parking lot with an associated guard shack. Construction activities and archaeological surveys were conducted in the area. By 1953, the area excavated was covered by a now-nonexistent southern ex- tension of Teale Street and parking lots for the Hughes Aviation Corporation facilities.

As indicated previously, a structure, possibly a guard shack, was once located on the property. Fea- ture 3047 may have been beneath that structure. The structure can also be seen on a 1962 aerial photograph but did not appear on a 1972 aerial photograph. Artifact deposition may have occurred during removal of the structure, sometime between 1962 and 1972, coinciding with the first grouping of dates for artifacts found in Feature 3047. Resurfacing of the parking lot may have again exposed the brick structure, leading

126

to the second grouping of artifact dates. The parking lot was removed sometime between 1980 and 1994 (Google Earth 2014; Nationwide Environmental Title Research 2009).

The artifacts discovered at LAN-2768 can best be understood by their function. The majority of the glass came from identifiable beverage containers that could be dated using the bottling information incor- porated into the bottles’ designs. Likewise, the shapes of the bottles revealed their likely contents. Whiskey, wine, and soda bottles usually have distinct, recognizable shapes or labels to help consumers easily recog- nize the products. The bottles found in the project area all represented popular brands available during the middle 1960s to the middle 1980s, with an emphasis on inexpensive alcoholic beverages.

Unlike glass, some metals corrode quickly and disintegrate in damp soil; in such cases, function is more difficult to ascertain, and random pieces of highly corroded metals tend to be undatable. From the small amount of more-durable metals, such as aluminum, it seemed apparent that most of the metal fragments came from construction activities in the area. Only the .45-caliber-bullet casings were identifiable, and they were not datable to a specific decade.

Ceramic can be both durable and datable, but only if recognizable pieces are discovered. Only a few small pieces of semivitreous white ware were found, and the purpose of the vessel could not be identified. Because datable artifacts dated to and postdated the removal of the historical-period structure, they

could not be directly attributed to the structure. Because the cesspool was below surface level, removal of it was probably not considered necessary, but it did become a handy dumping ground for recreational bev- erages during times when removal of the covering structure or resurfacing of the parking lot exposed the brick-lined pit.

127

CHAPTER 7Conclusions

John G. Douglass, Patrick B. Stanton, and Scott H. Kremkau

This concluding chapter to SRI’s work on a small portion of LAN-2768 within parcels being developed by Playa Vista Parcel 4, L.P., and Playa Vista Parcel 5, L.P., offers an opportunity to better understand the site, its overall relationship to the dynamic physical landscape surrounding it, and how it was used and created by the Gabrielino/Tongva in the past. Below, we begin by highlighting the research questions posed in Chapter 3 of this report and then detail SRI’s conclusions and contributions to answering those questions. We conclude with a discussion of the overall importance of the site and its role in the larger Ballona settlement.

Research Questions Reexamined

The research themes examined for this project are based upon those first presented for the PVAHP in 1991 (Altschul et al. 1991) and reexamined more recently in the final reports for the PVAHP (Douglass, Altschul, et al. 2014).

Human–Land Relationships

LAN-2768 is located at the base of the eastern end of the portion of the Westchester Bluffs that overlook the Playa Vista development. During the course of human use of the area—the earliest site in the Ballona has been dated to approximately 8,500 years ago—the natural environment has changed dramatically (see Homburg and Douglas [2014] for details). For example, sea levels have risen, likely inundating early oc- cupation sites on the nearby coast. Areas adjacent to the site in the past have contained a large open bay, a freshwater marsh, and a saltwater marsh, as well as stable surfaces for human occupation. As pointed out in the geoarchaeological discussion in Chapter 5, portions of LAN-2768 contain complex natural stratigra- phy that includes alluvial deposits from nearby rivers or creeks, marsh deposits from past freshwater and saltwater marshes, and colluvial deposits formed from the nearby bluffs. These soil strata help to illustrate the varied landscapes of LAN-2768 that were occupied in the past.

Because these dramatic changes to the physical landscape over the past 8,000 years in the Ballona had a profound effect on the human occupants of the area. Although some resources remained the same, others appeared or disappeared as conditions changed. For example, during the Intermediate period, the marsh in front of sites like LAN-2768 was freshwater, whereas by the Late period, changes in the course of the Los Angeles River and periods of intense drought led to a gradual shift to a saltwater marsh. Although some resources shifted as a result of that change, Wigand (2005) has argued persuasively that the saltwater marsh contained significant resources for the native inhabitants of the Ballona. The residents of sites like LAN- 2768 adapted to those shifts.

It is likely that the Gabrielino/Tongva using the portion of LAN-2768 investigated during this project were occupying an area that at times was an active marsh and wetland and at other times was obviously dry and stable enough for sustained occupation and use. Not many features were found during the investigation, but it is clear that although this area was more of a peripheral part of the overall site, it still was important

page143image43784000

129

to its occupants. A similar pattern can be seen in nearby LAN-62 Locus G. There, the Gabrielino/Tongva utilized the marsh to the north of the main locus of use for a variety of purposes and left the remains of a variety of different kinds of features. Though not as extensively used at LAN-2768 as LAN-62 Locus G, this similar pattern suggests that certain types of activities were undertaken closer to the marsh edge.

Subsistence

As noted in Chapter 3, subsistence patterns constitute an important part of understanding human-land rela- tionships. The analysis of the faunal remains from the site found that mammalian remains were dominated by small animals and, to a lesser extent, medium-sized animals. The prevalence of small animals (such as squirrels, gophers, rats, and mice), which were many times highly fragmented as a result of processing techniques, is something seen across time and space in the Ballona. Within Stratum II, there was a larger percentage of very-large animals (likely artiodactyls), which are also generally found at sites across the Ballona. One usual variation from other Ballona sites was the near-complete absence of fish bone from the overall collection. The comparison of vertebrate remains from nearby LAN-2768 Locus A excavations revealed that small mammals were also the norm, which is not surprising. There did appear, however, to be a much larger proportion of likely deer in the current excavations compared to the adjacent 2000 excava- tions, something that may be partly due to the smaller sample size in the current collection. The presence of much larger quantities of fish bone in the adjacent excavations than in the current excavations may indicate something about the disposal or processing patterns of fish remains. The significant overall lack of faunal bone from the current excavations also likely suggests differences in the processing and/or disposal patterns on the site.

Invertebrate remains from the current excavations were small in number, much like the vertebrate re- mains. That said, a number of observations could be made. The dominance of Venus clams in the current excavation was strikingly similar to what has been seen from previous excavations at the site, although some portions of the site encountered in previous excavations had concentrations of scallops present, as well (again, that may be due to particular processing or disposal patterns). Within the current excavation, Venus clams accounted for over 80 percent of the collection, which was small. Overall, the concentrations of Venus clams across the site as a whole suggested that areas closest to the marsh had higher concentra- tions. At Ballona sites in general, the most common shellfish are Venus, littleneck, and Pismo clams, in addition to scallops. Interestingly, during the Millingstone period, LAN-62 Loci A–G analysis revealed a high proportion of Venus clams, although another marsh-edge site, LAN-54, had a much lower proportion. For the Intermediate period (the period with the highest occupation in the Ballona) generally however, there was variation in the proportion of Venus clams from site to site.

Macrobotanical remains revealed that plant-food remains consisted primarily of geophytes (bulbs, corms, or tubers) and a single fragment of wild walnut. The presence of those remains was not unusual, because geophytes are documented to have been processed and consumed by a variety of Native Californian groups. Although some could have been eaten raw, many were likely processed in a variety of ways, in- cluding roasting, parching, baking, or steaming; once processed, they could be either eaten immediately or stored for future use. Interestingly, although carbonized seeds were found and analyzed from other sites in the Ballona, none was found during the current study. Similarly, no geophytes were identified in any other excavations in the Ballona. These differences may relate to temporal variations, functional differences, or sampling, although functional differences are most likely. The portion of LAN-2768 examined in this report is closest to the prehistoric marsh and Centinela Creek–channel areas, where some of the identified varieties of geophytes are likely to have grown.

Overall, then, the vertebrate and invertebrate remains suggested strong ties to local food resources. Small mammals were likely abundant and therefore sought as meat sources, whereas larger game were less common in the overall diet. The prevalence of shellfish reflected the fact that sites such as LAN-2768 were located at the edge of the marsh and near the Ballona estuary, but a bit farther from Santa Monica Bay. These areas were characterized by muddy or sandy bottoms, which were ideal for certain species of shell- fish. Less common varieties of shellfish, such as abalone, were likely imported to the Ballona, because

130

deep-water rocky substrates (the natural habitat for abalone) were farther removed from the Ballona area. The differences in the macrobotanical results from the current excavation and data from other previous work in the Ballona may suggest functional differences in resource procurement and consumption.

Cultural Dynamics of Prehistoric Settlement

The research theme of cultural dynamics of prehistoric settlement has three subthemes: chronology, tech- nology, and identity and interaction. Each is discussed below.

Chronology

Across the Ballona, Native Californian occupation spans from the early Millingstone period (radiocarbon dates go back as far as approximately 8,500 years ago) to the Mission period. There is also some evidence (both archaeological and archival) that Native Californians (though not necessarily Gabrielino/Tongva) lived in the Ballona as ranch laborers well into the Rancho period. Garraty, Vargas, Lengyel, et al. (2016), in summarizing previous work at LAN-2768, suggested that the primary human habitation at the site dated to the early to late Intermediate period, and some less-intense use of the site occurred during the subsequent Protohistoric through Rancho periods. The use of the site during the Rancho period is primarily based upon the identification of several beads that dated to that period; their context is unclear. In addition, of course, the area was also used more recently by Hughes. As a result, in Chapter 3 of this report, it was hypothesized that this portion of LAN-2768 likely dates to between the late Millingstone and late Intermediate periods, although given the location of the current project farther away from the edge of the bluff, there may be a later component to the site.

As noted in Chapter 5, the geologic stratigraphy in the project area is generally similar to what has been recorded in other portions of the site during previous work. There were some exceptions, however. Stra- tum III (Centinela Creek deposit) was not identified in the adjacent 2000 excavations, but the analysis of artifact densities from CU 2/22 showed the same artifact distribution noted in Blocks 1 and 2 and the current excavation. Overall, of the eight occupation episodes documented for the site as a whole by Garraty, Vargas, Lengyel, et al. (2016), the four constituting the entire Intermediate period were identified via a combination of radiocarbon dating and chronostratigraphy. The cultural deposits of Stratum II were dated to the early to middle Intermediate period, which correspond to Episodes 1 and 2. Stratum IV was dated to the middle and late Intermediate periods, which correspond to Episodes 3 and 4. The upper portion of Stratum IV was truncated, likely by earthmoving activities during the Hughes era.

Besides stratigraphy and radiocarbon assays, there are other potential chronological indicators on site. For example, four olivella-shell tiny-saucer-variety beads were identified from the 2013 excavations. Un- fortunately, these types of shell beads occur across time periods and therefore have no associated specific chronological brackets. In addition, there were two projectile points recovered from the excavations: the base of a Vandenberg Contracting-stem point and the tip of an unknown-type point. The Vandenberg Con- tracting-stem point dated to the Millingstone period into the early Intermediate period, or perhaps as late as the late Intermediate period. It was recovered in EU 10, at the interface between Strata II and III. Stratum II dates to the early to middle Intermediate period; so, the stratigraphic context was consistent with the under- stood chronological bracket for the point.

As a result, then, this portion of the site appears to have been prehistorically occupied during the early through late Intermediate period, a time when many of the sites in the greater Ballona area were also occu- pied. This portion of the larger site did not contain any evidence of later Native Californian use.

131

Technology

Although there are several different aspects to technology, the primary focus of this project was on lithic technology. How similar to or different from the technology in the rest of the site and at other sites in the Ballona was the technology seen in this portion of LAN-2768? Below, we discuss these sorts of questions, based on the research design.

The majority of the lithic-artifact collection (save the FAR) dated to the early to middle Intermediate period within the Playa Vista Parcel 4, L.P., and Playa Vista Parcel 5, L.P., parcel. The vast majority of these lithic artifacts were composed of debitage less than 2 cm in length with little cortex apparent. The main technology during the early to middle Intermediate period at the site was stone-tool maintenance (there were few formal flaked or ground stone tools identified). Because of the lack of cores at the site, it is likely that most of the tools that were found on-site arrived there in finished form. Most of the identified features dating to middle to late Intermediate period lacked much in the way of lithics. This was in sharp contrast to the rest of LAN-2768, where rock-cluster features contained large amounts of flaked stone. During the late Intermediate period, very few lithic artifacts were found and in very low proportions per square meter. Several cores and some debitage were identified from this time period, but generally much less is known about the technological attributes. Generally, there were similarities among collections across LAN-2768 and at other sites with components dating to the Intermediate period.

Identity and Interaction

Excavations at sites like LAN-2768 are exciting, partly because there is the possibility of being able to study material culture during times of important cultural transitions. As pointed out in Chapter 3, questions regarding identity and cultural affiliation focus on the relationship between material culture and ethnicity. Generally, most of the sites at the base of the bluff that were excavated as part of the PVAHP had their first occupation in the late Millingstone period, and their occupation continued at least through the Intermediate period. One of the important cultural hallmarks of the late Millingstone period is what is referred to as the Takic expansion. Sutton (2009) has argued that Takic speakers arrived in southern California approximately 3,500 years ago, and he and other scholars have argued that there were transformations, or at least changes, in the material culture associated with it. As one example of many, some have argued that the transition from shell beads to stone beads in burial and mortuary contexts may be one indicator of Takic expansion into southern California. Unfortunately, if Sutton is correct, and the Takic expansion occurred approxi- mately 3,500 years ago during the late Millingstone period, then this portion of LAN-2768 had occupation only after that, beginning during the early Intermediate period.

Much of the lithic analysis indicated that the materials used were primarily either locally available or may have been sourced from the wide range of materials likely found in the prehistoric Ballona Creek, which drew materials from a diverse and wide region. That said, there were several items made of identifi- ably nonlocal materials. For example, one of the metates recovered during mechanical stripping was con- structed of steatite, indicating likely trade (direct or indirect) with Santa Catalina Island. Some of the other sites in the Ballona dating to the late Intermediate period, including LAN-63 at West Bluffs, contained large amounts of steatite in the form of formal tools or purposely destroyed objects. Generally, though, the early to middle Intermediate period component of the site contained the majority (64 percent) of the lithic arti- facts recovered from this portion of the site. During that period, lithic-tool manufacture and maintenance was most intense, and there was a significant drop-off during the subsequent middle to late Intermediate period and late Intermediate period. Based on the collection, it appears that manufacture and maintenance were the primary purposes of the site.

Because of the lack of features, or much in the way of ground stone or other lithic tools, in this portion of the site, many of the questions posed for this research subtheme cannot be addressed. Although isolated human remains were identified during excavations and mechanical stripping, their lack of clear context within a burial feature did not allow for much inference regarding mortuary practices or population health and demography.

132

It is clear, based on the distribution of lithics in this portion of the site compared to the adjacent 2000 excava- tions, that this portion of the site is at its margin. Artifacts obviously used within what was likely an active marsh area (much like LAN-62 Locus G) also seemed to suggest that.

Historical-Period Development of the Ballona

The historical period in the Ballona (post-Mission period) is an important topic. Although much of the archival research has already been undertaken by others (e.g., Altschul et al. 1991; Greenwood and Asso- ciates 1995), as noted in Chapter 3, there are still aspects to be addressed through our archaeological re- search on this project. The two subthemes to be addressed here are agricultural development and industrial and commercial development.

Agricultural Development

As discussed in Chapter 3, a number of sites examined during the PVAHP have offered important clues related to different aspects of the agricultural development of the area, including both the project area and the larger region. For example, archaeological work at both LAN-62 and LAN-211, combined with archival research, allowed for much greater insight into the early rancho development of the area, including the Rancho Los Quintos, with which some Gabrielino/Tongva associated with the burial area at LAN-62 were likely engaged. In another example, as discussed in various chapters in Vargas et al. (2016) as well as by Swope and Douglass (2016), both LAN-54 and LAN-193 offered unusual synchronistic evidence of early-twentieth-century use of the project area, including agricultural development. In those cases, similar trash deposits containing similar materials were found through archival research to likely be related to early hog farming in the area; hog farm- ers received garbage collected from other portions of west Los Angeles to feed their hogs.

Unfortunately, there was no archaeological evidence uncovered in this portion of LAN-2768 related to the early agricultural use and development of the area. Therefore, this subtheme cannot be more fully addressed.

Industrial and Commercial Development

As noted in Chapter 3, by the late 1800s, the area around Playa Vista was beginning to develop with more industrial and commercial activities. Port Ballona, the Venice Boardwalk, Ocean Park, and the Motordrome were some of the first large developments along this portion of Santa Monica Bay that aided in later devel- opment, including residential housing and the establishment of institutions like Loyola Marymount Univer- sity. However, during the mid-1930s, when Howard Hughes began purchasing land in the Ballona, much of it was still agricultural. As Altschul et al. (1991) have pointed out, even after Hughes built many of the buildings in his Culver City plant and had established a private runway, much of the areas he needed simply as buffers or for future purposes were kept agricultural. Among the many benefits were lower property taxes on those areas kept in crops.

As discussed in Chapters 5 and 6, several historical-period features were identified and recorded. All appeared to date to the Hughes era. The first, Feature 2007, was an approximately 120-foot-long segment of railroad spur that ran parallel to (the now-removed) Teale Street. This standard-gauge rail line ran from the Pacific Electric Company rail line on Centinela Avenue to the Hughes Aircraft Company buildings to the west. The second linear feature, Feature 3122, was an asphalt-paved street segment of Teale Street (formerly Hughes Avenue). This 211-foot-long road segment appeared to have been originally constructed sometime between 1928 and 1941, but the road was extended to the Hughes aviation facilities sometime during the Culver City plant’s first real boom during World War II. In addition, several other features likely dating to the Hughes era were identified, including two brick seepage pits (Features 3047 and 3119) and a utility pole (Feature 2020). In addition, as discussed in Chapter 5, the upper portion of Stratum IV was truncated by previous earthmoving activities, likely during the Hughes era.

133

Although none of these historical-period features is especially unique or significant, they together com- bine to offer more information on the development of the property during the Hughes era. Through time, Hughes Aircraft Company developed an area that in the 1930s was principally agricultural and built a mas- sive amount of infrastructure, including the longest privately owned runway in the United States at the time. Building 15, which was constructed to house the H-4 Hercules (commonly referred to as the “Spruce Goose”), was a massive 315,000-square-foot building that is still preserved today, along with a number of other NRHP-eligible buildings, through adaptive reuse. The development of Teale Street, the standard- gauge railroad, and other similar infrastructure allowed the Culver City plant to expand and be efficient. The use of rail cars to transport materials for projects directly to those buildings where they were most needed was one of many features that illustrate the grand scale of production at the plant.

Conclusions

All in all, this portion of LAN-2768 appears to have been on the margin of the site; there were few prehis- toric features and little in the way of artifacts. Several different lines of evidence, including shellfish and lithic artifacts, indicated that the farther out into the marsh area one went, the lower the numbers and den- sities of artifacts found. Excavations across this portion of the site indicated that units excavated closer to the previous 2000 investigations were more consistently similar, and those farther removed to the west and north contained fewer artifacts.

That said, it is important to understand this portion of LAN-2768, in comparison to other parts of the site and other sites in the Ballona. It is clear that the prehistoric inhabitants of this portion of the site—at least during the early to middle Intermediate period—used it for stone-tool manufacture and maintenance. It is clear that they also used this portion of the site for other activities, including perhaps reburial of past inhabitants of the site. These portions of sites—much like LAN-62 Locus G—are important to understand, simply because they are peripheral to the cores of the sites. What types of activities are similar or different across the site? Here, compared to LAN-62 Locus G, we see a much smaller number of features for a relatively similarly sized area. Given the deep stratification at LAN-62 and the much more complex archae- ology in general than LAN-2768, that is likely to be expected. Generally, compared to other portions of LAN-2768, the features recovered in the current excavations suggested a much more limited set of activi- ties. Although a wide range of feature types were identified across LAN-2768, for example, excavations there documented a much more limited set of features and, hence, activities. In addition, even within par- ticular feature types, such as rock-cluster features, those found in this portion of LAN-2768 had a much more restricted number of non-FAR artifacts recovered.

As a result, overall, although the results of our excavations in this portion of the site are not perhaps as dramatic as in other areas of LAN-2768, there were still important findings. First and foremost, we understand the nature of site structure better, including which areas of the site were more heavily used and occupied and which areas appear to have been more marginal. The work reported here suggests that this portion of the site was on the margin, and limited activities during prehistoric times took place. Second, there were some unusual and unexpected findings. Seetha Reddy’s macrobotanical analysis revealed a new type of subsistence behavior never seen in the Ballona before—namely, geophytes. Geophytes have high caloric value and perhaps were found in this portion of the site because they were collected nearby, and after they were roasted, they were stored. Finally, some of the historical-period remains help us to remember the importance of the Hughes era and its effects on the property. Like some other sites in the Ballona, portions of the archaeology at LAN-2768 were literally paved over and therefore preserved. Much of the archaeology along the base of the bluff was at least partly preserved because of the large amount of earthmoving that the Hughes Aircraft Company under- took on the property. Although portions of LAN-62, for example, were hauled off to create the “runway sites” (LAN-1932 and LAN-2676), other portions of the site were preserved under at least 20 feet of fill. LAN-54 and LAN-211 are also similar in that way, containing buildings and pavement built directly on top of the sites, preserving them. And the list goes on. The historical-period archaeology offers us an opportunity to remind

134

ourselves of the lasting impact of Hughes on the entire PVAHP area, not just the Playa Vista Parcel 4, L.P., and Playa Vista Parcel 5, L.P., parcel. Teale Street, the railroad tracks, and the like were all part of the tre- mendous infrastructure created to supply and develop the Hughes Aircraft Company beginning in the late 1930s. The lasting effects are still seen today.

Management Recommendations

This portion of LAN-2768 has undergone data recovery and mechanical stripping to ensure that all features and cultural materials within the project area are recovered and properly treated, including human remains. Once this report is accepted by all regulatory agencies, artifacts will be curated at UCLA’s Fowler Museum, and no further treatment of this particular area will be required. Human remains were reburied on November 5, 2017, in coordination with the MLD, Mr. Robert Dorame.

As documented in Appendix A of this report, further construction activity was planned immediately adjacent to this current work, and additional data recovery was necessary. That work, like this current work, is now complete in the field, and all analysis is complete. Once the artifacts are curated at UCLA, no further treatment of this particular area will be required, because all archaeological resources have been identified and treated.

135

Altschul,
Kathleen
Keller, and David Maxwell

REFERENCES CITED

page151image43792256

Altschul, 1999

Altschul, 1997

Altschul, 1991

Altschul, 1998

Jeffrey H., Su Benaron, and Christopher J. Doolittle

At the Head of the Marsh: Middle Period Settlement along Upper Centinela Creek: Archaeo- logical Treatment Plan for CA-LAN-60, CA-LAN-193, and CA-LAN-2768, Marina del Rey, California. Playa Vista Monograph Series, Test Excavation Report 2. Statistical Research, Tucson.

Jeffrey H., and Richard S. Ciolek-Torrello

Work Plan for Archaeological Inventory and Evaluation of the Entertainment, Media, and Technology District, and Portions of the Riparian Corridor, Playa Vista, Marina del Rey, Cal- ifornia. Playa Vista Archaeological and Historical Project, Technical Report 6. Statistical Re- search, Tucson.

Jeffrey H., Richard S. Ciolek-Torrello, Jeffrey A. Homburg, and Mark T. Swanson
Playa Vista Archaeological and Historical Project: Research Design. Technical Series 29, vol. 1. Statistical Research, Tucson.

Jeffrey H., Christopher J. Doolittle, and Su Benaron (editors)

Settlement on the Lagoon Edge: Archaeological Treatment Plan for CA-LAN-2676, Marina del Rey, California. Playa Vista Monograph Series, Test Excavation Report 1. Statistical Re- search, Tucson.

Jeffrey H., John G. Douglass, Richard S. Ciolek-Torrello, Sarah Van Galder, Benjamin R. Vargas, L. Hull, Donn R. Grenda, Jeffrey A. Homburg, Manuel Palacios-Fest, Steven D. Shelley, Angela

2007 Life at the Nexus of the Wetland and Coastal Prairie, West Los Angeles. In Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology, vol. 20, edited by Sharon A. Waechter, Don Laylander, and Gregory G. White, pp. 34–42. Society for California Archaeology, Chico.

Altschul, Jeffrey H., Jeffrey A. Homburg, and Richard S. Ciolek-Torrello
1992 
Life in the Ballona: Archaeological Investigations at the Admiralty Site (CA-LAN-47) and the

Channel Gateway Site (CA-LAN-1596H). Technical Series 33. Statistical Research, Tucson.

Altschul, Jeffrey H., Anne Q. Stoll, Donn R. Grenda, and Richard S. Ciolek-Torrello (editors)
2003 
At the Base of the Bluff: Inventory and Testing in Area D and Archaeological Treatment Plan for CA-LAN-211, Los Angeles, California. Playa Vista Monograph Series, Test Excavation Re-

port 4. Statistical Research, Tucson.

Anderson, Kat
2005 
Tending the Wild: Native American Knowledge and the Management of California’s Natural

Resources. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Arter, Susan
2013 Food Consumption and Lesson in Animal Husbandry: Vertebrate Remains from the Saint Bon-

iface Indian School. SCA Proceedings 27:132–144. 137

Azzaroli, Augusto, and Michael R. Voorhies
1993 The Genus Equus in North America: The Blancan Species. 
Palaeontographica Italica 80:175–

198.

Basgall, M. E.
1987 Resource Intensification among Hunter-Gatherers: Acorn Economies in Prehistoric California.

Research in Economic Anthropology 9:21–52.

Bass, William M.
1995 
Human Osteology: A Laboratory and Field Manual. 4th ed. Missouri Archaeological Society,

Columbia.

Bean, Lowell John, and Charles R. Smith
1978 Gabrielino. In 
California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 538–549. Handbook of North Amer-

ican Indians, vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washing- ton, D.C.

Bennett, Joanne L.
2009 Thermal Alteration of Buried Bone. 
Journal of Archaeological Science 26:1–8.

Bennyhoff, James A., and Richard E. Hughes
1987 
Shell Bead and Ornament Exchange Networks between California and the Western Great Ba-

sin. Anthropological Papers, vol. 64, pt. 2. American Museum of Natural History, New York.

Bird, E. C. F.
1994 Physical Setting and Geomorphology of Coastal Lagoons. In 
Coastal Lagoon Processes, edited

by B. Kjerfve, pp. 9–39. Elsevier, Amsterdam. Bronk Ramsey, Christopher, and S. Lee

2013 Recent and Planned Developments of the Program OxCal. Radiocarbon 55(2–3):720–730.

Buikstra, Jane E., and Douglas H. Ubelaker (editors)
1994 
Standards for Data Collection from Human Skeletal Remains. Arkansas Archeological Survey

Research Series No. 44. Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville.

Byrd, Brian F., and L. Mark Raab
2007 Prehistory of the Southern Bight: Models for a New Millennium. In 
California Prehistory:

Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, pp. 215– 227. AltaMira, Lanham, Maryland.

Callahan, Errett
1979 The Basics of Biface Knapping in the Eastern Fluted Point Tradition. 
Archaeology of Eastern

North America 7:1–180.

Cannon, Amanda
2016 Shell Beads and Other Worked-Shell Artifacts. In 
Material Culture and Subsistence Practices,

edited by Seetha N. Reddy and John G. Douglass, pp. 155–256. People in a Changing Land: The Archaeology and History of the Ballona in Los Angeles, California, vol. 3, Donn R. Grenda, Richard Ciolek-Torello, and Jeffrey H. Altschul, series editors. Technical Series 94, vol. 3. Draft. Statistical Research, Redlands, California, and Tucson, Arizona.

138

Ciolek-Torello, Richard, Jeffrey A. Homburg, Seetha N. Reddy, John G. Douglass, and Donn R. Grenda 2013 Living in the Ballona Wetlands of the Southern California Coast: Paleoenvironmental Recon-

struction and Human Settlement. Journal of Wetland Archaeology 13(1):1–28. Claassen, Cheryl

1998 Shells. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.

Clague, John J., and Rolf W. Mathewes
1996 Neoglaciation, Glacier-Dammed Lakes, and Vegetation Change in Northwestern British Co-

lumbia, Canada. Arctic and Alpine Research 28(1):10–24.

Cleland, James H., Andrew L. York, and Lorraine M. Willey
2007 
Piecing Together the Prehistory of Landing Hill: A Place Remembered. Cultural Publications

No. 3. EDAW, San Francisco.

Colby, Susan M.
1987 Faunal Remains (Other than Fish): LAN-63. In 
Excavations at the Del Rey Site (LAN-63) and

the Bluff Site (LAN-64), in the City of Los Angeles, edited by David M. Van Horn, Appendix A. Archaeological Associates, Sun City, California. Submitted to Howard Hughes Realty, Los Angeles. On file, California Historical Resources Information System, South Central Coastal Information Center, Department of Anthropology, California State University, Fullerton.

Davies, J. L.
1973 
Geographical Variation in Coastal Development. Hafner, New York.

Douglass, John G., Jeffrey H. Altschul, and Richard S. Ciolek-Torrello (editors)
2005 
Overlooking the Wetlands: Archaeological Investigations at the West Bluffs Project, CA-LAN-

63, CA-LAN-64, and CA-LAN-206A, Playa del Rey, California. Technical Report 05-93. Sta- tistical Research, Tucson.

Douglass, John G., Jeffrey H. Altschul, Richard Ciolek-Torello, Seetha N. Reddy, Benjamin R. Vargas, and Donn R. Grenda

2014 Research Goals and Objectives of the Playa Vista Archaeological and Historical Project. InPaleoenvironment and Culture History, edited by Jeffrey A. Homburg, John G. Douglass, and Seetha N. Reddy, pp. 61–72. People in a Changing Land: The Archaeology and History of the Ballona in Los Angeles, California, vol. 1, Donn R. Grenda, Richard Ciolek-Torello, and Jef- frey H. Altschul, series editors. Technical Series 94, vol. 1. Statistical Research, Redlands, California, and Tucson, Arizona.

Douglass, John G., Richard Ciolek-Torello, Mark Q. Sutton, Jeffrey H. Altschul, Patrick B. Stanton, Anne Q. Stoll, Benjamin R. Vargas, Christopher P. Garraty, and Donn R. Grenda

2014 Cultural Setting. In Paleoenvironment and Culture History, edited by Jeffrey A. Homburg, John G. Douglass, and Seetha N. Reddy, pp. 23–48. People in a Changing Land: The Archae- ology and History of the Ballona in Los Angeles, California, vol. 1, Donn R. Grenda, Richard Ciolek-Torello, and Jeffrey H. Altschul, series editors. Technical Series 94, vol. 1. Statistical Research, Redlands, California, and Tucson, Arizona.

Douglass, John G., Seetha N. Reddy, Richard Ciolek-Torello, and Donn R. Grenda (editors)
2016 
Gabrielino/Tongva Origins and Development: A View from Guaspet. People in a Changing Land: The Archaeology and History of the Ballona in Los Angeles, California, vol. 5, Donn R. Grenda, Richard Ciolek-Torello, and Jeffrey H. Altschul, series editors. Technical Series 94,

vol. 5. Draft. Statistical Research, Redlands, California, and Tucson, Arizona. 139

Erlandson, Jon M.
1994 
Early Hunter-Gatherers of the California Coast. Plenum Press, New York.

1997 The Middle Holocene on the Western Santa Barbara Coast. In The Archaeology of the Califor- nia Coast during the Middle Holocene, edited by Jon M. Erlandson and Michael A. Glassow. Perspectives in California Archaeology 4:91–109. Institute of Archaeology, University of Cal- ifornia, Los Angeles.

Erlandson, Jon M., and Roger H. Colten
1991 An Archaeological Context for Early Holocene Studies on the California Coast. In 
Hunter-

Gatherers of Early Holocene Coastal California, edited by Jon M. Erlandson and Roger H. Colten, pp. 1–10. Perspectives in California Archaeology, vol. 1. Institute of Archaeology, Uni- versity of California, Los Angeles.

Erlandson, Jon M., and Torben C. Rick, Terry L. Jones, and Judith F. Porcasi
2007 One if by Land, Two if by Sea: Who Were the First Californians? In 
California Prehistory:

Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, pp. 53– 62. AltaMira, Lanham, Maryland.

Fitzgerald, R. T., and T. L. Jones
1999 The Milling Stone Horizon Revisited: New Perspectives from Northern and Southern Califor-

nia. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 21:65–93.

Garraty, Christopher P., Benjamin R. Vargas, and Richard Ciolek-Torello
2016 Feature Classification. In 
Archaeological Sites and Chronology, edited by Benjamin R. Vargas,

John G. Douglass, and Seetha N. Reddy, pp. 89–132. People in a Changing Land: The Archae- ology and History of the Ballona in Los Angeles, California, vol. 2, Donn R. Grenda, Richard Ciolek-Torello, and Jeffrey H. Altschul, series editors. Technical Series 94, vol. 2. Statistical Research, Redlands, California, and Tucson, Arizona.

Garraty, Christopher P., Benjamin R. Vargas, Stacey N. Lengyel, and Jeffrey A. Homburg
2016 LAN-2768: Methods and Excavation Results. In 
Archaeological Sites and Chronology, edited by Benjamin R. Vargas, John G. Douglass, and Seetha N. Reddy, pp. 163–221. People in a Changing Land: The Archaeology and History of the Ballona in Los Angeles, California, vol. 2, Donn R. Grenda, Richard Ciolek-Torello, and Jeffrey H. Altschul, series editors. Technical

Series 94, vol. 2. Statistical Research, Redlands, California, and Tucson, Arizona.

Gilliland, Linda E.
1985 Proximate Analysis and Mineral Composition of Traditional California Native American

Foods. Unpublished Master’s thesis, University of California, Davis.

Google Earth
2014 Google Earth. Electronic document, https://www.google.com/earth/, accessed May 9, 2014.

Grant, U. S., and W. E. Sheppard
1939 Some Recent Changes of Elevation in the Los Angeles Basin of Southern California, and Their

Possible Significance. Seismological Society of America Bulletin 29(2):299–326.

Greenwood and Associates
1995 
Historical American Engineering Record, Hughes Aircraft Company, Howard Hughes Indus-

trial Complex. Playa Vista Archaeological and Historical Project, Technical Report 5. Statisti- cal Research, Tucson.

140

Grenda, Donn R.

  1. 2005a  Letter to Cliff Ritz, February 25. On file, Statistical Research, Redlands, California.

  2. 2005b  Letter to Cliff Ritz, March 1. On file, Statistical Research, Redlands, California.

2007 Letter to Pamela Maxwell, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District, May 10. On file, Statistical Research, Redlands, California.

2013 Letter to John Killeen, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District, October 3. On file, Statistical Research, Redlands, California.

Hackel, Steven W.
2005 
Children of Coyote, Missionaries of Saint Francis: Indian-Spanish Relations in Colonial Cal-

ifornia, 1769–1850. Published for the Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture, Williamsburg, Virginia, by the University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.

Homburg, Jeffrey A., and Diane L. Douglas
2014 Paleoenvironmental Reconstruction of the Ballona Lagoon. In 
Paleoenvironment and Culture

History, edited by Jeffrey A. Homburg, John G. Douglass, and Seetha N. Reddy, pp. 85–109. People in a Changing Land: The Archaeology and History of the Ballona in Los Angeles, Cal- ifornia, vol. 1, Donn R. Grenda, Richard Ciolek-Torello, and Jeffrey H. Altschul, series editors. Technical Series 94, vol. 1. Statistical Research, Redlands, California, and Tucson, Arizona.

Homburg, Jeffrey A., John G. Douglass, and Seetha N. Reddy (editors)
2014 
Paleoenvironment and Culture History. People in a Changing Land: The Archaeology and His-

tory of the Ballona in Los Angeles, California, vol. 1, Donn R. Grenda, Richard Ciolek-Torello, and Jeffrey H. Altschul, series editors. Technical Series 94, vol. 1. Statistical Research, Red- lands, California, and Tucson, Arizona.

Hull, Kathleen L., and John G. Douglass
2005 Chronology. In 
Overlooking the Wetlands: Archaeological Investigations at the West Bluffs

Project, CA-LAN-63, CA-LAN-64, and CA-LAN-206A, Playa del Rey, California, edited by John G. Douglass, Jeffrey H. Altschul, and Richard S. Ciolek-Torrello, pp. 14.1–14.15. Tech- nical Report 05-93. Statistical Research, Tucson.

Hull, Kathleen L., John G. Douglass, and Andy York
2013 Recognizing Ritual Action and Intent in Communal Mourning Features on the Southern Cali-

fornia Coast. American Antiquity 78:24–47.

Jones, Terry L., Richard T. Fitzgerald, Douglas J. Kennett, Charles H. Miksicek, John L. Fagan, John Sharp, and Jon M. Erlandson

2002 The Cross Creek Site (CA-SLO-1797) and Its Implications for New World Colonization. Amer- ican Antiquity 67:213–230.

Jones, Terry L., Judith F. Porcasi, Jereme Gaeta, and Brian F. Codding
2008 The Diablo Canyon Fauna: A Course-Grained Record of Trans-Holocene Foraging from the

Central California Mainland Coast. American Antiquity 73:289–316.

Justice, Noel D.
2002 
Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of California and the Great Basin. Indiana University Press,

Bloomington.

141

Keller, Angela H.
1999 Invertebrate Remains. In 
At the Head of the Marsh: Middle Period Settlement along Upper

Centinela Creek. Archaeological Treatment Plan for CA-LAN-60, CA-LAN-193, and CA-LAN- 2768, Marina Del Rey, California, edited by Jeffrey H. Altschul, Su Benaron, and Christopher J. Doolittle, pp. 83–99. Playa Vista Monograph Series, Test Excavation Report 2. Statistical Research, Tucson.

Killeen, John J.
2013 E-mail to Donn Grenda, November 6. On file, Statistical Research, Redlands, California.

King, Chester D.
1978 Protohistoric and Historic Archaeology. In 
California, edited by Robert Heizer, pp. 58–68.

Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithson- ian Institution, Washington, D.C.

LaMarche, V. C., Jr.
1973 Holocene Climatic Variations Inferred from Tree Line Fluctuations in the White Mountains,

California. Quaternary Research 3:632–660.

Lambert, Vincent
1983 A Surface Collection from the Del Rey Hills, Los Angeles, California. 
Journal of New World

Archaeology 5(3):7–19.

Langenwalter, Paul E., II
1985 Mammals and Reptiles as Food and Medicine in Riverside’s Chinatown. In 
Archaeology, pp. 53–

106. Wong Ho Leun: An American Chinatown, vol. 2. Great Basin Foundation, San Diego.

Larson, Daniel O., John R. Johnson, and Joel C. Michaelsen
1994 Missionization among the Coastal Chumash of Central California: A Study of Risk Minimiza-

tion Strategies. American Anthropologist 96(2):263–299.

Lengyel, Stacey N., and Kathleen L. Hull
2016 Chronometric-Dating Results. In 
Archaeological Sites and Chronology, edited by Benjamin R.

Vargas, John G. Douglass, and Seetha N. Reddy, pp. 39–65. People in a Changing Land: The Archaeology and History of the Ballona in Los Angeles, California, vol. 2, Donn R. Grenda, Richard Ciolek-Torello, and Jeffrey H. Altschul, series editors. Technical Series 94, vol. 2. Statistical Research, Redlands, California, and Tucson, Arizona.

Lev-Tov, Justin, and John D. Goodman II
2016 Early-Twentieth-Century Vertebrate Fauna from LAN-54, LAN-62, and LAN-193: Ethnic,

Economic, and Industrial Implications. In Material Culture and Subsistence Practices, edited by Seetha N. Reddy and John G. Douglass, pp. 577–600. People in a Changing Land: The Archaeology and History of the Ballona in Los Angeles, California, vol. 3, Donn R. Grenda, Richard Ciolek-Torello, and Jeffrey H. Altschul, series editors. Technical Series 94, vol. 3. Draft. Statistical Research, Redlands, California, and Tucson, Arizona.

Lev-Tov, Justin, and Sarah Van Galder
2016 Invertebrate Faunal Remains. In 
Material Culture and Subsistence Practices, edited by Seetha

N. Reddy and John G. Douglass, pp. 601–648. People in a Changing Land: The Archaeology and History of the Ballona in Los Angeles, California, vol. 3, Donn R. Grenda, Richard Ciolek- Torello, and Jeffrey H. Altschul, series editors. Technical Series 94, vol. 3. Draft. Statistical Research, Redlands, California, and Tucson, Arizona.

142

Lewis, Kenneth E.
1984 The 
American Frontier, an Archaeological Study of Settlement Pattern and Process. Academic

Press, New York. Lindsay, Willard L.

2001 Chemical Equilibria in Soils. Blackburn, Caldwell, New Jersey.

Linse, Angela R.
1992 Is Bone Safe in a Shell Midden? In 
Deciphering a Shell Midden, edited by J. K. Stein, pp. 327–

345. Academic Press, San Diego. Logan, Herschel C.

1959 Cartridges: A Pictorial Digest of Small Arms Ammunition. Bonanza Books, New York.Los Angeles Times

1931 Stone Utensils Stir Scientist: Prehistoric Find Here Called Important. 1 April:A9. Los Angeles. Lyman, R. Lee

2008 Quantitative Paleozoology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.

Marie, Sister Clementia D. M. J.
1955 The First Families of the Ballona Valley. 
Historical Society of Southern California Quarterly

37(1):48–55. Mason, William Marvin

2004 Los Angeles under the Spanish Flag. Southern California Genealogical Society, Burbank.

McCawley, William
1996 
The First Angelinos: The Gabrielino Indians of Los Angeles. Malki Museum/Ballena Press,

Banning, California.

MillerCoors
2009 50th Anniversary of the Aluminum Can. MillerCoors Latest News. Electronic document,

http://www.millercoors.com/News-Center/Latest-News/50th-anniversary-of-t... can.aspx, accessed April 21, 2004.

2014 Bill Coors: We invented Recycling. Mother Nature Network. Electronic document, http:// www.mnn.com/food/beverages/sponsorstory/bill-coors-we-invented-recycling#, accessed April 21, 2014.

Milliken, Randall
1995 
A Time of Little Choice: The Disintegration of Tribal Culture in the San Francisco Bay Area,

1769–1810. Anthropological Papers No. 43. Ballena Press, Menlo Park, California.

Myhrer, Keith, William G. White, Stanton D. Rolf
1990 
Archaeology of the Old Spanish Trail/Mormon Road. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau

of Land Management, Reno, Nevada.

Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC
2009 HistoricAerials.com. Electronic document, http://www.historicaerials.com/aerials.php?scale=

2000&lon=-118.40104021132&lat=33.983849734068&year=2005, accessed May 9, 2014. 143

Nelson, Nels
1912 
Site Survey of Southern California Coast from Topanga Canyon to San Diego Bay. Manuscript

No. 411. Archaeological Research Facility, University of California, Berkeley.

Palacios-Fest, Manuel R.
1998 
Paleoenvironmental Evolution of the Ballona Lagoon: The Ostracode Evidence. Manuscript

on file, Statistical Research, Tucson.

Palacios-Fest, Manual R., Jeffery A. Homburg, Eric C. Brevik, Antony R. Orme, and Steven D. Shelley 2007 Late Quaternary Paleoecology in the Ballona Lagoon of Southern California. Ciencias Marinas

32:485–504.

Parry, William J., and Robert L. Kelly
1987 Expedient Core Technology and Sedentism. In 
The Organization of Core Technology, edited

by J. K. Johnson and C. A. Morrow, pp. 285–304. Westview, Boulder, Colorado.

Peterson, Polly A., Seetha N. Reddy, Kathleen L. Hull, Amanda C. Cannon, and Mark Q. Sutton
2016 Lithic Artifacts. In 
Material Culture and Subsistence Practices, edited by Seetha N. Reddy and John G. Douglass, pp. 35–152. People in a Changing Land: The Archaeology and History of the Ballona in Los Angeles, California, vol. 3, Donn R. Grenda, Richard Ciolek-Torello, and Jeffrey H. Altschul, series editors. Technical Series 94, vol. 3. Draft. Statistical Research, Red-

lands, California, and Tucson, Arizona.

Poland, J. F., A. A. Garrett, and Allen Sinnott
1959 
Geology, Hydrology, and Chemical Character of Ground Waters in the Torrance–Santa Mon-

ica Area, California. Water-Supply Paper No. 1461. U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Railey, Jim A.
2010 Reduced Mobility or the Bow and Arrow? Another Look at “Expedient” Technologies and

Sedentism. American Antiquity 75:259–286.

Reddy, Seetha N.
2009 Harvesting the Landscape: Defining Protohistoric Plant Exploitation in Coastal Southern Cal-

ifornia. Society for California Archaeology Proceedings 22:1–9.

2015 Feeding Family and Ancestors: Persistence of Traditional Native American Lifeways during the Mission Period in Coastal Southern California. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology37:48–66.

Reddy, Seetha N., and John G. Douglass (editors)
2016 
Material Culture and Subsistence Practices. People in a Changing Land: The Archaeology and

History of the Ballona in Los Angeles, California, vol. 3, Donn R. Grenda, Richard Ciolek- Torello, and Jeffrey H. Altschul, series editors. Technical Series 94, vol. 3. Draft. Statistical Research, Redlands, California, and Tucson, Arizona.

Reddy, Seetha N., and Jon Erlandson
2012 Macrobotanical Food Remains from a Trans-Holocene Sequence at Daisy Cave (CA-SMI-

261), San Miguel Island. California Journal of Archaeological Science 39:33–40.

144

Reimer, Paula J., Edouard Bard, Alex Bayliss, J. Warren Beck, Paul G. Blackwell, Christopher Bronk Ramsey, Caitlin E. Buck, Hai Cheng, R. Lawrence Edwards, Michael Friedrich, Pieter M. Grootes, Thomas P. Guilderson, Haflidi Haflidason, Irka Hajdas, Christine Hatté, Timothy J. Heaton, Dirk L. Hoffmann, Alan G. Hogg, Konrad A. Hughen, K. Felix Kaiser, Bernd Kromer, Sturt W. Manning, Mu Niu, Ron W. Reimer, David A. Richards, E. Marian Scott, John R. Southon, Richard A. Staff, Christian S. M. Turney, and Johannes van der Plicht

2013 IntCal13 and Marine13 Radiocarbon Age Calibration Curves, 0–50,000 years cal B.PRadio- carbon 55(4):1869–1887.

Rich, Frank Kelly
2014 Dead End Drinks: The Rise and Fall of Three Iconic Failures. Modern Drunkard Magazine

No. 55. Electronic document, http://www.drunkard.com/55-dead-end-drinks/, accessed Febru- ary 5, 2014.

Richardson, J. L., and M. J. Vepraskas (editors)
2000 
Wetland Soils: Genesis, Hydrology, Landscapes, and Classification. Lewis, Boca Raton, Florida.

Robinson, W. W.
1939a 
Ranchos Become Cities. San Pasqual, Pasadena, California.

1939b Culver City, California: A Calendar of Events. Title Guarantee and Trust Company, Los Angeles.

Rolle, Andrew F.
1952 Wagon Pass Rancho Withers Away: La Ballona, 1821–1952. 
The Historical Society of South-

ern California Quarterly 32(2):147–158.

Schoeneberger, P. J., D. A Wysocki, E. C. Benham, and W. D. Broderson
2002 
Field Book for Describing and Sampling Soils, v. 2.0. National Resources Conservation Ser-

vice, National Soil Survey Center, Lincoln, Nebraska.

Schreiber, R. W. (editor)
1981 
The Biota of the Ballona Region, Los Angeles County, Supplement 1, Marina Del Rey/Ballona

Local Coastal Plan. Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History Museum Foundation, Los Angeles.

Soil Survey Staff
1993 
Soil Survey Manual. Handbook 18. U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conser-

vation Service, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. South, Stanley

1977 Method and Theory in Historical Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.

Statistical Research, Inc., Greenwood and Associates, and Historic Resources Group
1991 
Historic Property Survey Report for the Hughes Aircraft Site at Playa Vista. Playa Vista Ar-

chaeological and Historical Project, Technical Report 4. Statistical Research, Tucson.

Stoll, Anne Q., John G. Douglass, and Richard S. Ciolek-Torrello
2009 Searching for Guaspet: A Mission Period Rancheria in West Los Angeles. 
Society for Califor-

nia Archaeology Proceedings 22:1–9.

145

Stoll, Anne Q., John G. Douglass, and Benjamin R. Vargas
2003 Cultural Setting. In 
At the Base of the Bluff: Inventory and Testing in Area D and Archaeolog-

ical Treatment Plan for CA-LAN-211, Los Angeles, California, edited by Jeffrey H. Altschul, Anne Q. Stoll, Donn R. Grenda, and Richard S. Ciolek-Torrello, pp. 7–56. Playa Vista Mono- graph Series, Test Excavation Report 4. Statistical Research, Tucson.

Sutton, E. A.
2011 An Analysis of Perforated Stones from the Santa Barbara Channel Region. Unpublished Man-

uscript on file, Repository for Archaeological and Ethnographic Collections, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Santa Barbara.

Sutton, Mark Q.
2009 People and Language: Defining the Takic Expansion into Southern California. 
Pacific Coast

Archaeological Society Quarterly 41(2–3):31–93.

Sutton, Mark Q., Mark E. Basgall, Jill K. Gardner, and Mark W. Allen
2007 Advances in Understanding Mojave Desert Prehistory. In 
California Prehistory: Colonization,

Culture, and Complexity, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, pp. 229–245. Alta- Mira, Lanham, Maryland.

Sutton, Mark Q., and Henry C. Koerper
2009 The Middle Holocene Western Nexus: An Interaction Sphere between Southern California and

the Northwestern Great Basin. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 41(2–3):1–29.

Swope, Karen K., and John G. Douglass
2016 Playa Vista Historical-Period Artifacts. In 
Material Culture and Subsistence Practices, edited

by Seetha N. Reddy and John G. Douglass, pp. 435–480. People in a Changing Land: The Archaeology and History of the Ballona in Los Angeles, California, vol. 3, Donn R. Grenda, Richard Ciolek-Torello, and Jeffrey H. Altschul, series editors. Technical Series 94, vol. 3. Draft. Statistical Research, Redlands, California, and Tucson, Arizona.

Timbrook, Jan
2007 
Chumash Ethnobotany: Plant Knowledge among the Chumash People of Southern California.

Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History and Heyday Books, Berkeley, California. Towne, Charles W., and Edward N. Wentworth

1945 Shepherd’s Empire. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

Trammell, J., J. O. Connell, S. Bush, C. Parker, P. Borghi, L. Hunsaker, and D. Bird
2008 
Exploring Geophyte Use in the Northern Great Basin: Nutrient Content, Handling Costs, Ef- fects of Fire and Tillage, and Archaeological Implications. Paper presented at the Great Basin

Anthropology Association Conference, Portland, Oregon.

Troxell, Harold Coble
1957 
Water Resources of Southern California with Special Reference to the Drought of 1944–1951. Wa-

ter Supply Paper 1366. U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington.

Van Galder, Sarah J., Benjamin R. Vargas, Jeffrey H. Altschul, John G. Douglass, Richard S. Ciolek- Torrello, and Donn R. Grenda

2006 Preliminary Report on Data Recovery within the Phase 2 Project Area at CA-LAN-62, Locus D and CA-LAN-211/H, Playa Vista, California. Playa Vista Archaeological and Historical Pro- ject, Technical Report 13. Statistical Research, Tucson.

146

Van Horn, David M.
1987 
Excavations at the Del Rey Site (LAN-63) and the Bluff Site (LAN-64) in the City of Los Ange-

les. Archaeological Associates, Sun City, California. Submitted to Howard Hughes Realty, Los Angeles. On file, California Historical Resources Information System, South Central Coastal information Center, Department of Anthropology, California State University, Fullerton.

Van Horn, David M., and John R. Murray
1985 
The Loyola Marymount Archaeological Project: Salvage Excavations at LAN-61A-C. Archae-

ological Associates, Sun City, California. Manuscript on file, California Historical Resources Information System, South Central Coastal information Center, Department of Anthropology, California State University, Fullerton.

Van Horn, David M., and Laurie S. White
1997 
LAN-206 and the West Bluff Property. Archaeological Associates, Sun City, California. Man-

uscript on file, California Historical Resources Information System, South Central Coastal In- formation Center, Department of Anthropology, California State University, Fullerton.

Vargas, Benjamin R., and Jeffrey H. Altschul
2001 
Playa Vista Archaeological and Historical Project on Ballona Creek: Archaeological Treat-

ment Plan for CA-LAN-54, Marina del Rey, California. Playa Vista Monograph Series, Test Excavation Report 3. Statistical Research, Redlands, California. Report LA-7726. On file, Cal- ifornia Historical Resources Information System, South Central Coastal Information Center, Department of Anthropology, California State University, Fullerton.

Vargas, Benjamin R., Jeffrey H. Altschul, John G. Douglass, Richard S. Ciolek-Torrello, Donn R. Grenda, Robert M. Wegener, and William L. Deaver

2005 Preliminary Report on Data Recovery with the Phase I Project Area at CA-LAN-62, Playa Vista, California. Playa Vista Archaeological and Historical Project. Technical Report 12. Sta- tistical Research, Redlands, California.

Vargas, Benjamin R., John G. Douglass, and Seetha N. Reddy (editors)
2016 
Archaeological Sites and Chronology. People in a Changing Land: The Archaeology and His-

tory of the Ballona in Los Angeles, California, vol. 2, Donn R. Grenda, Richard Ciolek-Torello, and Jeffrey H. Altschul, series editors. Technical Series 94, vol. 2. Statistical Research, Red- lands, California, and Tucson, Arizona.

Vargas, Benjamin R., Donn R. Grenda, and Anne Q. Stoll
2003 Treatment Plan. In 
At the Base of the Bluff: Inventory and Testing in Area D and Archaeolog-

ical Treatment Plan for CA-LAN-211, Los Angeles, California, edited by Jeffrey H. Altschul, Anne Q. Stoll, Donn R. Grenda and Richard S. Ciolek-Torrello, pp. 249–280. Playa Vista Mon- ograph Series, Test Excavation Report 4. Statistical Research, Tucson.

Vasilas, L. M., G. W. Hurt, and C. V. Noble (editors)
2010 
Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States: A Guide for Identifying and Delineating

Hydric Soils, v. 7.0. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils, Washington, D.C.

Wagner, Henry R.
1929 
Spanish Voyages to the Northwest Coast of America in the Sixteenth Century. Special Publica-

tion No. 4. California Historical Society, San Francisco.

147

Walker, P. L., and J. C. Long
1977 An Experimental Study of the Morphological Characteristics of Tool Marks. 
American Antiq-

uity 42:605–616.

Warren, Claude N., Gretchen Siegler, and Frank Dittmer
2008 Paleoindian and Early Archaic Periods. In 
Prehistoric and Historic Archaeology of Metropol-

itan San Diego: An Historic Properties Background Study, pp. 13–107. ASM Affiliates, Carls- bad, California. Report on file, Metropolitan Wastewater Department, City of San Diego.

White, Tim D.
1991 
Human Osteology. Academic Press, San Diego.

Wigand, Peter E.
2005 Pollen and Macrobotanical Analysis. In 
Overlooking the Wetlands: Archaeological Investiga-

tions at the West Bluffs Project, CA-LAN-63, CA-LAN-64, and CA-LAN-206A, Playa del Rey, California, edited by John G. Douglass, Jeffrey H. Altschul, and Richard S. Ciolek-Torrello, pp. 12.1–12.27. Technical Report 05-93. Statistical Research, Tucson.

Wood, C., and D. Smith
2004 Dendroglaciological Evidence for a Neoglacial Advance of the Saskatchewan Glacier, Banff

National Park, Canadian Rocky Mountains. Tree-Ring Research 60(1):59–65.

Woodward, Susan L.
1991 Late Pleistocene North American Equids: Why a Widespread Large Mammal May be Sparsely

Represented in Early Archaeological Sites. In Beamers, Bobwhites, and Blue-Points: Tributes to the Career of Paul W. Parmalee, edited by James R. Purdue, Walter E. Klippel, and Bonnie W. Styles, pp. 261–272. Scientific Papers, vol. 23. Illinois State Museum, Springfield.

148

APPENDIX A
CA-LAN-2768/H Locus A 2015 Data Recovery Report

page163image43784960

149

2015 Data Recovery at CA-LAN-2768/H Locus A, Located on Lot 18 of Tract 49104-04, The Campus at Playa Vista, California

Edited by Scott H. Kremkau, Ken Becker, and John G. Douglass

Prepared for
Playa Vista Parcel 4, L.P., and Playa Vista Parcel 5, L.P. 400 South Hope St., Ste. 200
Los Angeles, CA 90071

Technical Report 16-22a Redlands, California

page165image41768016

CONTENTS

page167image43788992

List of Figures ........................................................................................................................................... A.v List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................ A.v List of Abbreviations and Acronyms ...................................................................................................... A.vii

1. Introduction..................................................................................................................................................... A.1

Previous Investigations at LAN-2768............................................................................................... A.5 1998 Inventory and Evaluation ......................................................................................................... A.5 2000 Data Recovery in Locus A ....................................................................................................... A.5 2005 Riparian Corridor Monitoring.................................................................................................. A.5 2005 and 2007 Trenching and Data Recovery at Locus B ............................................................... A.7 2007 Additional Inventory Trenching for Tishman/Walton Street in The Campus at Playa Vista...... A.7 2013 Data Recovery in Locus A ....................................................................................................... A.7 2015 Data Recovery in Locus A ....................................................................................................... A.9 Contents of Report ............................................................................................................................ A.9

2. Project Methods and Results, by Scott Kremkau ................................................................................... A.11Project Methods .................................................................................................................................. A.11 Fill Removal ................................................................................................................................... A.11 Stripping ......................................................................................................................................... A.11 Hand-Excavation ............................................................................................................................ A.14 Wet-Screening Methods ................................................................................................................. A.14 Laboratory Methods............................................................................................................................ A.14 Fieldwork Results ............................................................................................................................... A.15 Geoarchaeological Analysis............................................................................................................ A.15 Excavation and Mechanical-Stripping Results ................................................................................... A.17 Introduction..................................................................................................................................... A.17 Prehistoric Component ................................................................................................................... A.17 Site Integrity and Disturbance..................................................................................................... A.17 Midden-Constituent Analysis ..................................................................................................... A.17 Spatial Patterning .................................................................................................................... A.18 Temporal Patterning................................................................................................................ A.18

3. Material Culture, by Scott Kremkau and Janet Griffitts.........................................................................A.21Lithic Artifacts .................................................................................................................................... A.21 Lithic-Typology Definitions ........................................................................................................... A.21 Flaked stone artifacts .................................................................................................................. A.21 Debitage ...................................................................................................................................... A.21 Bifaces ........................................................................................................................................ A.22 Projectile Points .......................................................................................................................... A.22 Cores and Tested Material .......................................................................................................... A.22 Edge-Modified Flakes................................................................................................................. A.22 Ground Stone .............................................................................................................................. A.22 Expedient-Use Lithics................................................................................................................. A.23 Excavation Units............................................................................................................................. A.23 Debitage ...................................................................................................................................... A.23

A.iii

Bifaces ........................................................................................................................................ A.23 Mechanical-Stripping Units ............................................................................................................ A.23 Debitage ...................................................................................................................................... A.25 Cores and Tested Material .......................................................................................................... A.25 FAR............................................................................................................................................. A.25 Summary of Lithic Artifacts from 2015 Data Recovery Excavations at LAN-2768...................... A.25 Vertebrate-Faunal Remains................................................................................................................. A.26 Vertebrate Fauna............................................................................................................................. A.26 Methods .......................................................................................................................................... A.26 Skeletal Region and Element ...................................................................................................... A.28 Age.............................................................................................................................................. A.28 Bone Condition ........................................................................................................................... A.28 Fragmentation ............................................................................................................................. A.28 Results............................................................................................................................................. A.29 Recovery context ........................................................................................................................ A.29 Taxa Present................................................................................................................................ A.29 Fish.......................................................................................................................................... A.29 Amphibians ............................................................................................................................. A.29 Reptiles ................................................................................................................................... A.29 Birds ........................................................................................................................................ A.32 Mammals................................................................................................................................. A.32 Rodents ............................................................................................................................... A.32

Leporids .............................................................................................................................. A.33

Artiodactyls ......................................................................................................................... A.33

Bone Fragmentation and Food Processing.................................................................................. A.34

Comparison with the 2013 Excavations...................................................................................... A.35 Summary of Vertebrate Faunal Remains from 2015 Data Recovery Excavations at LAN-2768... A.35 Invertebrate Remains .......................................................................................................................... A.36 Methods .......................................................................................................................................... A.36 Results............................................................................................................................................. A.36

4. Discussion and Management Recommendations, John G. Douglass and Scott Kremkau..............A.39Management Recommendations ......................................................................................................... A.40

References Cited..............................................................................................................................................A.41

A.iv

LIST OF FIGURES

page169image44031488

Figure 1. Map of the Playa Vista Archaeological and Historical Project area, showing the location
of LAN-2768 within The Campus...................................................................................................... A.2

Figure 2. Map of LAN-2768 Loci A–D .................................................................................................... A.3

Figure 3. Approximate footprint of the proposed parking structure within Lots 17 and 18,
Tract 49104-04, and the approximate area of the proposed archaeological work within Lot 18 ....... A.4

Figure 4. Close-up of LAN-2768 Locus A, showing the locations of data recovery excavations
in 2000................................................................................................................................................ A.6

Figure 5. Map showing the locations of test trenches excavated in 2007 and the intact portion of LAN-2768 within Lots 18–20 of Tract 49104-04 .............................................................................. A.8

Figure 6. Map showing the locations of the 2015 excavation units at LAN-2768, as well as
previous excavations ........................................................................................................................ A.12

Figure 7. Map showing the locations of the 2015 excavation units and the extent of mechanical
stripping at LAN-2768, as well as previous excavations ................................................................. A.13

Figure 8. Profile of the western sidewall of EUs 5001, 5004, and 5007................................................. A.16 Figure 9. Artifact counts and densities for each stratum of LAN-2768 .................................................. A.19 Figure 10. Artifact frequencies, by stratum ............................................................................................ A.20

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Artifact Count, by Stratum........................................................................................................ A.19 Table 2. Summary of Lithic Artifacts Recovered ................................................................................... A.24 Table 3. Summary of Lithic Artifacts from Excavation Units................................................................ A.24 Table 4. Summary of Lithic Artifacts from Mechanical-Stripping Units ............................................... A.24 Table 5. Summary of All Faunal Remains from the Project................................................................... A.27 Table 6. Vertebrate Fauna, by Natural Stratum, and Unit ...................................................................... A.30 Table 7. Vertebrate Fauna, by Natural Stratum and Size Class .............................................................. A.31 Table 8. Specimen Sizes of Mammal Bone, by Body-Size Class........................................................... A.34 Table 9. Invertebrate Remains Recovered during 2015 Data Recovery Excavations at LAN-2768,

by Stratum and Level ....................................................................................................................... A.36 A.v

page169image44039168

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

page171image44035520

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation BLAD Ballona Lagoon Archaeological District Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
FAR fire-affected rock

MSU mechanical-stripping unit
NISP number of individual specimens PA Programmatic Agreement
SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer SRI Statistical Research, Inc.

A.vii

CHAPTER 1Introduction

Playa Vista Parcel 4, L.P., and Playa Vista Parcel 5, L.P., plans to develop the northeast portion of Lot 18 of Tract 49104-04 within an area previously known as the Entertainment, Media, and Technology District and now known as The Campus at Playa Vista, California (Figures 1 and 2). These parcels are located to the south and west of the intersection of Bluff Creek Drive and Centinela Avenue. The development will involve the construction of commercial buildings, parking lots, and related infrastructure. A portion of archaeological site CA-LAN-2768/H (hereinafter, the prefix “CA-” and the suffix “/H” will be dropped from this site designation and others referenced in this volume) encroaches onto Lot 18 (project area). Previously, in 2013, Tishman Speyer wished to develop lots 17–20, excluding the portion of Lot 18 which is the current project. This portion of Lot 18 will include a parking garage and therefore will impact a portion of LAN-2768.

LAN-2768 is part of the Playa Vista Archaeological and Historical Project, established in compliance with federal, state, and municipal laws and regulations pertaining to cultural resources on the property (Alt- schul et al. 1991; Homburg et al. 2014). Since 1991, Statistical Research, Inc. (SRI), has been conducting research at the site as part of an overall research design (Altschul et al. 1991), the execution of which is stipulated as part of a programmatic agreement (PA) among the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), the California State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP). LAN-2768 was recommended as a contributing member of the Ballona Lagoon Archaeological District (BLAD) in 1999 (Altschul et al. 1999:110) and thus was determined eligible for listing in the Na- tional Register of Historic Places by the Corps. For management purposes, SRI has divided LAN-2768 into four discrete loci, A–D (Figure 3). The project area covers the northernmost extension of LAN-2768 and lies within the western end of Locus A (see Figure 3).

Data recovery excavations have been conducted previously at portions of LAN-2768, Loci A–D—in 2000, 2007, and 2013. In 2013, SRI conducted archaeological data recovery within the project area to mit- igate adverse effects of the planned Tishman Speyer development. The Corps approved a previously sub- mitted treatment plan for data recovery excavations at LAN-2768 (Altschul et al. 1999) and a related exca- vation plan for the portion of Locus A in Lots 18–20 (Grenda 2013). Here, in an adjacent portion of the site, the Corps approved the same previously submitted treatment plan for the site and a new excavation plan for the portion of Locus A in the northeastern portion of Lot 18 (Grenda 2015).

Fieldwork at the project area began on March 2, 2015, and was completed on March 26, 2015. All SRI crew members performing archaeological duties fulfilled or exceeded the requirements of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation. Field efforts at the site were successful at collecting data relevant to the research questions detailed in the initial research design (Altschul et al. 1991), created under the stipulations of a PA between the Corps, the SHPO, and the ACHP and in subsequent work and treatment plans (Altschul and Ciolek-Torrello 1997; Altschul et al. 1999; Grenda 2005a, 2005b, 2007, 2013). Because the project required a permit from the Corps to comply with the Clean Water Act, the project also had to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act and Sec- tion 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Additionally, the project had to comply with state and local laws, most notably the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Coastal Act. A com- prehensive program was developed to ensure that compliance with federal, state, and local laws and regu- lations was met. All field efforts were monitored by a Gabrielino/Tongva tribal member.

Below, we offer a brief history of previous excavations at LAN-2768. Because this report is designed to be an appendix of the larger data-recovery excavations in Lots 17–20, adjacent to the current excavations (Kremkau et al. 2016), the reader is referred to that report for a more expansive discussion of the history of work at Playa Vista and the research design for the project, as well as more robust conclusions based on that larger sample.

page173image43910080

A.1

page174image43932416page174image41941632page174image41935184page174image41927488page174image41936432page174image41940592

A.2

Figure 1. Map of the Playa Vista Archaeological and Historical Project area, showing the location of LAN-2768 within The Campus.

page175image43939712page175image41928736page175image41935808page175image41940384page175image41930608

A.3

Figure 2. Map of LAN-2768 Loci A–D.

page176image41931232page176image43921600page176image41930400page176image41933520page176image41929984

A.4

Figure 3. Approximate footprint of the proposed parking structure within Lots 17 and 18, Tract 49104-04, and the approximate area of the proposed archaeological work within Lot 18.

Previous Investigations at LAN-2768

LAN-2768 is a large prehistoric site dating roughly to the Intermediate period (Altschul et al. 1991; Vargas et al. 2016). The southeastern portions of Campus Lots 18, 19, and 20 of Tract 49104-04 cover the north- ernmost extent of the site and lie within Locus A.

1998 Inventory and Evaluation

The site was first discovered during archaeological investigations, including mechanical coring and auger- ing, and further testing confirmed the site boundaries. In 1998, this second testing phase was focused on refining the site boundaries and evaluating the cultural deposits. Evaluation of LAN-2768 was focused on (1) determining whether the shell and dark soil represented an intact archaeological deposit, (2) determining whether it was an extension of nearby LAN-60 or a separate site, and (3) recovering a sample of the site constituents to evaluate it as a contributing member of the BLAD. Site boundaries were tested through the excavation of 43 bucket augers. Excavation at LAN-2768/H was restricted to the proposed locations of Bluff Creek Drive and the riparian corridor along a narrow strip below the bluffs.

LAN-2768 was found to be a relatively continuous deposit of archaeological material extending along the base of the bluff from roughly LAN-60 on the east to the Howard Hughes Industrial Complex, near the boundaries of LAN-193, to the west. Twenty-eight of the 43 bucket augers that were excavated in this area yielded site material. Although the deposit of cultural materials was relatively continuous, SRI identified an area of higher density on the eastern portion of LAN-2768. This was to be the location of later data recovery efforts.

2000 Data Recovery in Locus A

Data recovery was conducted in October and November of 2000, in accordance with the archaeological treatment plan approved by the Corps (Altschul et al. 1999). The location of this data recovery work was decided upon after review of data from previous mechanical testing with bucket augers and cores. This work—which entailed hand excavation of approximately 60 mand mechanical excavation of 376 mof site area (Figure 4)—identified numerous features and artifacts related to prehistoric occupation of the site. The deposit was found to be relatively thin (1–1.5 m) and to contain a fairly low density of cultural material (Vargas et al. 2016). Data recovery included mechanical trenching to document soil stratigraphy and the dimensions of the cultural deposit, manual excavation, mechanical stripping, and feature recovery. During this work, 31 prehistoric features—including rock clusters, hearths, activity areas, and a house pit—were discovered and recorded.

A fair amount of disturbance was noted at the site, mostly as a result of historical-period use of the area. An unknown amount of the upper portion of the deposit appeared to have been truncated by historical- period activities. As with most sites in the Ballona, the deposit becomes much thicker closer to the bluff edge. During the time data recovery was undertaken, a large amount of fill material rested on the extreme eastern edge of the site (Lot 33 of Tract 49104-04), prohibiting any work in this area.

2005 Riparian Corridor Monitoring

In 2005, mechanical excavation of portions of the riparian corridor impacted Loci C and D of LAN-2768. SRI staff closely monitored the removal of soils in these areas and identified and recovered a number of prehistoric features. Most of the features recovered during this work were at the southwestern end of the site (Locus C) and included domestic features and three human burials. The work in 2005 did not alter the size or shape of LAN-2768, as all of the work was conducted within known site boundaries.

A.5

page178image43788032page178image41764480page178image41768224page178image41764896page178image41762816page178image41768640

A.6

Figure 4. Close-up of LAN-2768 Locus A, showing the locations of data recovery excavations in 2000 .

2005 and 2007 Trenching and Data Recovery at Locus B

Locus B is located on Lot 33 of Tract 49104-04, to the east of where data recovery work was conducted by SRI in 2000. This area was not evaluated or excavated at that time, in part because of the large amount of fill and overburden covering the archaeological site and the lack of specific plans for development of this area. With the planned construction of the Clippers Training Center at Locus B of LAN-2768, however, SRI was asked to create a plan for evaluating cultural materials in this area. Trenching was done in 2005, and trenching and pot holing were done in 2007. In 2007, data recovery at LAN-2768, Locus B, Lot 33, was undertaken in advance of proposed impacts to the site related to the construction of the Clippers Train- ing Center at the northeastern extent of LAN-2768 (Grenda 2007). As a result of this work, six features were identified at Locus B.

2007 Additional Inventory Trenching for Tishman/Walton Street in The Campus at Playa Vista

With the planned construction of various parcels in The Campus by a joint venture of Tishman Speyer Properties and Walton Street Capital, SRI was asked to create a plan for mitigating potential adverse effects on cultural resources. A comprehensive trenching plan was proposed to evaluate different parcels within the property that were thought to have the potential to contain intact cultural resources. In this phase of testing, Lot 2 of Tract 52092, portions of Lots 8–11 of Tract 52092, and Lots 17–24 of Tract 49104-04 were investigated with mechanically excavated trenches (Figure 5). Of the 34 trenches excavated, 6 were found to contain intact cultural materials. Such materials were only found in the northwestern portion of the site, within the boundaries identified during previous testing. Other trenches, such as those in Lots 8–11 of Tract 52092 and Lots 21–24 of Tract 49104-04, were found to contain redeposited cultural materials. A total area of approximately 3,800 mof intact deposits was identified through trenching (see Figure 5). The deposit varies in thickness but on average is approximately 50 cm thick.

2013 Data Recovery in Locus A

In October and November of 2013, data recovery was undertaken at LAN-2768 in intact site areas within Lots 18–20 of Tract 49104-04. Figure 5 illustrates the portion of LAN-2768 that was detected to be intact during the 2013 data recovery excavations, based on investigations of known impacts at that time. This fieldwork was undertaken in three phases: (1) manual excavation of units into the cultural deposit, (2) me- chanical excavation of trenches and monitored mechanical stripping, and (3) manual excavation and re- cording of all features, if discovered. The excavation in this area revealed a thick, intact, stratified archae- ological deposit with a total of 12 features—5 prehistoric and 7 dating from the historical period— discovered during fill removal and mechanical stripping. Human remains were encountered and associated with one of the prehistoric features. In general, this portion of LAN-2768 is characterized by a low density of cultural materials, including low frequencies of shell, faunal bone, and flaked and ground stone artifacts;Olivella-shell beads; pieces of fire-affected rock (FAR); and historical-period artifacts. This data recovery was undertaken to mitigate the then-understood impacts from development of these parcels.

A.7

page180image41749344page180image41749552page180image41749136page180image41750176page180image43958848

Figure 5. Map showing the locations of test trenches excavated in 2007 and the intact portion of LAN- 2768 within Lots 18–20 of Tract 49104-04.

A.8

2015 Data Recovery in Locus A

Based on changes to the design of work in Lots 17 and 18 of Tract 49104-04 after 2013, a parking structure was subsequently planned for construction along Centinela Boulevard (see Figure 3). The portion of the parking structure to be constructed on Lot 18 had the potential to impact LAN-2768, and any such impact must be mitigated through data recovery. Following the basic tenets of the 1999 work plan (Altschul et al. 1999) and the excavation plan submitted to the Corps (Grenda 2007), data recovery at LAN-2768, Locus A West, within Lot 18 was proposed as a series of phased activities, beginning with exploratory trenching and concluding with the identification and recovery of all features. After fill removal, the three phases of work included (1) manual excavation of test pits into the cultural deposit, (2) mechanical excavation of trenches and monitored mechanical stripping, and (3) manual excavation and recording of all features, if discovered. A Native American representative from the Gabrielino/Tongva tribe monitored all excavations within cul- tural deposits.

Based on the original treatment plan for LAN-2768 (Altschul et al. 1999) and standardized treatment of other archaeological sites in the BLAD, the Corps accepted a plan to hand-excavate 1 percent of the site that will be impacted. SRI estimated that there are approximately 900 mof intact archaeological deposit remaining within Lot 18; therefore, SRI excavated a total of 9 1-by-1-m units to the bottom of the deposit.

Contents of Report

This report presents the results of data recovery efforts conducted by SRI at the project area. Because this report is designed to complement the work conducted in 2013 at the same portion of LAN-2768, it is concise and the reader is referred to the larger report (Kremkau et al. 2016) for details on the larger history of work at Playa Vista and the research design for the project. Chapter 2 presents the field and laboratory methods and results employed by SRI staff during this project, including artifact distributions within the excavation units (EUs). Chapter 3 presents the analysis of lithic and vertebrate remains recovered during fieldwork (no other material culture categories were encountered or collected during this phase of work). Chapter 4 con- cludes the report and offers both a brief discussion of overall findings and management recommendations for this portion of LAN-2768.

A.9

CHAPTER 2
Project Methods and Results

Scott Kremkau

In this chapter, we present the laboratory and field methods used during the 2015 data recovery at Lot 18 of Tract 49104-04, along with results.

Project Methods

Following the basic tenets of the 1999 work plan (Altschul et al. 1999) and the excavation plan submitted to the Corps (Grenda 2015), data recovery at LAN-2768, Locus A, was conducted as a series of phased activities, beginning with fill removal and concluding with hand excavation and mechanical stripping. The three phases of work were (1) mechanical removal of construction fill, (2) hand digging of excavation units into the cultural deposits, and (3) mechanical stripping of site sediments to discover features. These meth- ods follow those described in Kremkau et al. (2016). These phases occurred concurrently, when feasible, to expedite the project schedule. Members of the Gabrielino/Tongva Indians of California and of the Ga- brielino Tongva Nation monitored all ground-disturbing activities associated with the data recovery pro- gram described below. Native American monitors periodically monitored screening activities.

The 2015 excavation plan (Grenda 2015) proposed excavation of approximately 1 percent of the site within the 1,218-mportion of the site to be impacted by construction. As such, SRI excavated nine 1-by- 1-m units to the bottom of the site, approximately 3 m in depth.

Fill Removal

Using the 2007 and 2013 trenching results as a guide, SRI began mechanical removal of the construction fill within the site boundaries. Fill was removed using the same heavy equipment used for trenching. Fill was rapidly removed until the top of native sediment was encountered. A front-end loader was used to move the stripped sediment to a stockpile located outside the site boundary.

Stripping

Once the fill had been removed and the hand-excavation units laid out (Figure 6), SRI began stripping the site sediments to search for archaeological features, concurrent with the hand-excavation (Figure 7). Strip- ping was accomplished with the same equipment used for removing the fill. Site sediments were stripped following the natural stratigraphy of the site and were removed across the site one stratum at a time before the next stratum was stripped. This facilitated assigning features or stray finds to the stratum in which they were found. Features found during stripping were cordoned off for later hand-excavation, and stripping continued. Once hand-excavation was complete, the feature locations and areas of excavation-unit blocks were subsequently stripped, following the established protocol.

page183image43958464

A.11

page184image43817728page184image41749968page184image41747056page184image41747888page184image41750800

A.12

Figure 6. Map showing the locations of the 2015 excavation units at LAN-2768, as well as previous excavations.

page185image43825984page185image41746432page185image41751216page185image41751632page185image41752464

A.13

Figure 7. Map showing the locations of the 2015 excavation units and the extent of mechanical stripping at LAN-2768, as well as previous excavations.

Each area of a particular stratum stripped each day was recorded as a mechanical-stripping unit (MSU). In all, 14 mechanical-stripping units of varying sizes were excavated during mechanical stripping. Artifacts encountered during stripping were photographed and collected either as point-provenienced artifacts or as part of a grab sample for each mechanical-stripping unit.

Hand-Excavation

Hand-excavation occurred concurrently with mechanical stripping, once the construction fill was removed. Placement of the excavation block was based on the 2007 and 2013 trenching results and observations made during fill removal. The location of the excavation block was constrained by the discovery, during fill removal, of modern disturbance areas, as well as the locations of trenches excavated during previous testing at the site.

All excavation units were dug in arbitrary 10-cm levels, using a combination of shovels, picks, and small hand tools, and terminated in soils determined to be culturally sterile. Excavated materials were placed in 5-gallon buckets and labeled with relevant provenience information and divided into groups of 32 buckets that were stacked in two levels onto wooden pallets and secured with plastic wrap. Because of space limitations, screening was not conducted on site. Upon completion of data recovery excavations, the pallets were loaded onto flat-bed trucks and transported to Redlands, California, near the SRI offices, where they were wet-screened using 1/8-inch wire-mesh screens.

Wet-Screening Methods

As with the 2013 data recovery, the soils excavated during the 2015 excavations had a high clay content and were extremely hard, thus requiring wet-screening. Although this took place at a different location from the 2013 excavations, the methods involved were essentially the same. The buckets of excavated soil from the 2015 excavations were also labeled with bar code tags, and these tags were scanned upon screening at the wet-screen area. In the field, the soil from each 10-cm level from a 1-by-1-m excavation unit was put into 16 buckets, so that two levels (32 buckets) were stacked on each pallet. During screening, all 16 buck- ets from each unit-level were screened within the same screen at the same time. Screening took place using “low-boy” dumpsters. Each dumpster was lined with plastic to prevent water leaks, and a baffle made of sand bags divided each dumpster in two halves. Screening took place on one side of each dumpster, and soils from the screening were collected on that half of the dumpster. Water drained to the other half of the dumpster, and a recirculating water pump located on the other side pumped clean water to the screeners.

The wet-screening crew generally worked individually, with each crew member screening the buckets of a particular 10-cm level. Dense, clayey levels required a significant amount of presoaking before screen- ing. No deflocculants could be used to help disperse the clay. After all the buckets for a given PD were completely wet-screened, the resulting bulk material was placed on drying racks and allowed to dry. Once dry, the bulk material was inventoried in the database and boxed until sorting could occur.

Laboratory Methods

Laboratory processing of the bulk samples generated during the wet-screening process took place at the lab and followed the same guidelines as the 2013 excavations. Bulk samples associated with the nine excava- tion units were size-sorted through 1/4- and 1/8-inch screen. For all units, artifacts captured by the 1/4-inch screen were fully sorted. A full sort entails the collection of all artifacts, including unworked shell, un- worked bone, lithic debitage, and nondiagnostic historical-period artifacts. Artifacts found in the 1/8-inch screen were subjected to a modified full sort. Essentially, all artifacts that were collected during the full sort at the 1/4-inch level were collected at the 1/8-inch level with the exception of shell. Only shell hinges were

A.14

collected at the 1/8-inch level. Any material that passed through the 1/8-inch screen was checked for artifacts and then disposed. The remains of the dreck from the 1/4- and 1/8-inch levels were retained until analysis was completed and were then discarded. Any bulk bags associated with units beyond the ten in the sample were not screened but will be curated for potential future analysis.

No bulk samples were generated as a result of stripping. Individual faunal, shell, and lithic artifacts were collected. These artifacts were inventoried and entered into SRID in preparation for analysis. Sorted artifacts were weighed, counted, and inventoried in the database. A barcode tracking label, similar to the ones associated with the buckets, was produced and placed on the bag exterior.

Fieldwork Results

This section presents the excavation results from data recovery efforts at LAN-2768 during 2015, beginning with the geoarchaeological analysis of the project area, then discussing the findings from the excavations, including a discussion of site integrity and artifact density.

Geoarchaeological Analysis

During the 2013 data recovery excavations, trenching and hand excavations identified five separate strata, Strata I–V (Figure 8). Stratum V was the uppermost stratum, consisting of construction fill that was placed on top of LAN-2768 during the construction of the Hughes aircraft facility. Stratum IV is the upper marsh deposit that extended from just below the fill and was approximately 70 cm thick. This soil was further subdivided into three separate layers, A1–A3. Stratum III is the upper alluvial deposit that extended some 25 cm below Stratum IV. The micaceous sediment of Stratum III indicates that it represents Centinela Creek alluvium. Stratum II is the lower marsh deposit (or marl) that extended from 120 cm below Stratum III. Like Stratum IV, Stratum II was also divided into three layers, 3Ab1, 3Ab2, and 3Ab3. Stratum I is the lower alluvial deposit, in all likelihood from the Los Angeles River/Ballona Creek (but possibly from an ancestral channel of Centinela Creek).

All five of these strata were identified during the 2015 excavations, and the soil descriptions presented in the larger report of which this report is an appendix (Kremkau et al. 2016) are generally the same here, alt- hough the thicknesses of various levels differed between the 2013 and 2015 project areas. For more detailed descriptions of the soil strata, see the larger report of which this report is an appendix (Kremkau et al. 2016).

The fill layer, Stratum V, was approximately 100–120 cm thick. The fill consists of a variety of modern and historical-period refuse, such as glass, brick, and wood, as well as some faunal bone. The fill appears to have been brought in from elsewhere, as no prehistoric artifacts were found in the fill, suggesting it is not composed of redeposited site material.

Stratum IV was approximately 80 cm thick in the 2015 excavations, and the three strata are generally the same as previously described. As with the 2013 excavations, the upper three levels of Stratum IV, cor- responding to the A1 horizon, contain a heavily disturbed assemblage of early-twentieth-century and mod- ern faunal bone from domesticated animals mixed in with prehistoric shell and lithic materials.

Stratum III was much thicker in the 2015 excavations than it was in the 2013 project area. The entire stratum was approximately 100 cm thick. The lower 25 cm of the level were bedded, alternating between a lighter (Munsell 2.5Y 7/3–6/3), relatively soft clay sand and a darker (10YR 5/2) hard clay, which appears to be a transition to the lower Stratum II below.

A.15

page188image41736080page188image41735040page188image41731296page188image41734416

Figure 8. Profile of the western sidewall of Excavation Units 5001, 5004, and 5007.

A.16

Stratum II was approximately 80 cm thick, and two of the three layers were identified (3Ab1 and 3Ab2) (see Figure 8). During excavations, several large cracks were noted in the stratum that had been filled in with lighter sediment. When viewed from above, the cracks connect to one another and appear to be fossil mudcracks, which occur when wet environments desiccate. The presence of these cracks in Stratum II sug- gests that this part of the site was on the margin of the Ballona Lagoon during this time, and the area was subject to periodic inundation and drying cycles.

The transition between Stratum I and Stratum II was detected at the very bottom of the excavation unit, approximately 2.7 m below to the top of excavations. The soil was slightly lighter than Stratum II, and the hexagonal mudcracks were no longer present, indicating that the area was no longer subject to alternating cycles of inundation and drying. This same level was detected during the 2013 excavations, and the cultural deposit terminated at this level.

Excavation and Mechanical-Stripping ResultsIntroduction

This section describes the spatial and temporal patterns of artifact densities. During mechanical stripping, no features and only a handful of artifacts were identified (see Chapter 3 for these analyses). Therefore, all of the excavation results here discuss the spatial and temporal trends of the midden remains recovered in the nine excavation units.

Prehistoric Component

In this section, we discuss the changes in artifact frequencies, to delineate spatial and temporal trends in the midden remains, and we compare the results of the current study with those of the 2013 data recovery excavations. The results of the analysis of artifact and ecofact densities (flaked stone, faunal bone, and shell) at a per-stratum scale are presented. The following section presents the data and examines the spatial and temporal patterns observed.

Site Integrity and Disturbance

The site is in generally fair to good condition, with disturbances occurring primarily during the early twen- tieth century and the subsequent Hughes era. At the time of data recovery, the site was buried by several feet of fill. As with the 2013 excavations, the upper few levels of Stratum IV included a mix of prehistoric and historical-period artifacts and appear to be disturbed. However, the separate strata were generally well defined, and although some krotovina were noted, the strata appear to be intact and not heavily mixed.

Midden-Constituent Analysis

Within the project area, nine excavation units, excavated in a single block, were dug to a depth of 2.7 m in arbitrary 10-cm levels. Four natural strata were identified: an upper marsh deposit (Stratum IV), an upper alluvium deposit (Stratum III), a lower marsh deposit (Stratum II) and a lower alluvium deposit (Stratum I). Stratum V, a deposit of artificial fill, was also present but was removed before excavation began.

Three previously defined occupation episodes (Episodes 2–4) were identified at the project area through radiocarbon dating during the 2000 and 2013 data recovery excavations. No charcoal or marine shell of sufficient size was recovered during the 2015 data recovery excavations, so no additional samples

A.17

were submitted for radiocarbon dating. Given the proximity of the 2013 and 2015 data recovery excavations and the intact nature of both deposits, it is assumed that the strata in both areas date from the same periods. As noted previously, Levels 1–3 in Stratum IV are part of a mixed deposit containing both modern and historical-period artifacts, as well as prehistoric artifacts. These three levels were excluded from the discus- sion of the 2013 data recovery, and to be consistent, the three levels are also excluded here.

Spatial Patterning

Overall, the artifact and ecofact assemblages from the 2015 excavations were much smaller than those from the 2013 excavations. Within the excavation area, the density of flaked stone artifacts was highest within Stratum II. Densities in Stratum IV and the interface between Strata II and III were second highest, although each contained only two flaked stone artifacts. The majority of the faunal bone was found in Stratum IV, followed by the interface between Strata I and II and the interface between Strata III and IV. Stratum III and the Stratum II/Stratum III interface had comparatively no faunal remains (Table 1; Figure 9).

When compared to the 2013 excavations, all artifact densities associated with the 2015 excavations are considerably lower. With regard to flaked stone, Blocks 1 and 2 from the 2013 excavations yielded 39.8 and 8.1 artifacts/m3, respectively, whereas for the 2015 excavations, the density of flaked stone artifacts from the excavation units was just 0.69 artifacts/m3. Faunal bone recovered from Blocks 1 and 2 had den- sities of 145.1 and 56.9 artifacts/m3. The density from the 2015 excavations was 22.9 artifacts/m3. Blocks 1 and 2 had shell densities of 39.5 and 12.7 g/m3, respectively. The 2015 excavations had just 6.1 g/m3.

The 2015 data recovery excavations were located farther from the edge of the Westchester Bluffs than the 2013 Excavation Blocks 1 and 2. Not surprisingly, the 2015 excavations feature lower artifact densities. This dramatic difference in artifact densities within the site as well as the lack of features recovered from the 2015 project area suggests that the portion of LAN-2768 in the 2015 project area represents the western terminus of the site.

Temporal Patterning

Although the artifact densities from the 2015 data recovery are less than those from the 2000 and 2013 exca- vations, the artifact frequencies clearly show the same two main periods of occupation, Strata II and IV, sep- arated by a sterile layer where no human activity took place, Stratum III. Based on the radiocarbon dates from 2000 and 2013, Strata II and IV are separated by approximately 150 years, and possibly much longer. Based on these earlier radiocarbon dates, Stratum IV and the interface between Strata III and IV date to the late Intermediate period and middle to late Intermediate period, respectively. Stratum II dates to the early to middle Intermediate period. During the 2013 data recovery excavations, artifact frequencies were much lower in Stratum IV, whereas Stratum II showed a much more intensive level of occupation. However, in the 2015 excavations, this pattern is reversed, and the artifact densities are higher in Stratum IV than in Stratum II.

In Stratum IV, invertebrate remains and faunal bone are more frequent than flaked stone artifacts (Fig- ure 10). Almost no lithic artifacts are represented in the levels associated with Stratum IV. At the Stratum III/IV contact, faunal, shell, and lithic remains are even less common. Stratum III, which is undated, shows a clear break in the occupation of the project area. In Stratum II, there is a small increase in faunal-bone frequency. However, lithic-artifact frequencies are much higher in Stratum II. In Stratum IV, there are virtually no flaked stone artifacts. Stratum II, however, accounts for nearly 74 percent of the total collection. The shell frequency is highest in Stratum IV, and shells are virtually absent from Stratum II.

The density of faunal-bone, flaked-stone, and shell artifacts indicates that the project area was most intensively occupied during the middle to late and late Intermediate period, corresponding to Stratum IV. In Stratum IV, the combined density of faunal-bone, shell, and flaked stone artifacts was 128.6 artifacts/m3. That occupation was preceded by a significant period of abandonment corresponding to Stratum III. Stra- tum II, which dates to the early to middle Intermediate period, preceded that abandonment, but the artifact densities suggest a much less intensive occupation of this part of the site. Here, the combined faunal-bone- , shell-, and flaked-stone-artifact density was just 1.11 artifacts/mIt should be noted that an unknown portion of Stratum IV has been truncated from the site; so, the middle to late and late Intermediate period occupations may have been even more intensive that what is visible archaeologically.

A.18

page191image43934912

Natural Stratum

Stratum IV, upper marsh (upper A horizon)

Stratum III/IV boundary

Stratum III, upper alluvium (Centinela Creek deposits)

Stratum II/III boundary

Stratum II, lower marsh (buried A horizon)

Stratum I/II boundary

Table 1. Artifact Count, by StratumBone

Lithic

Shell Unworked

page191image43915072page191image43971712page191image43969216

Unworked

349

27 10

— 65

45

Worked

Expedient Use

Flaked Stone

page191image43865344

  • —  —

  • —  —

  • —  —

  • —  —

  • —  2

1 —

2 112

— 18 — —

2 — 14 1

1 —

page191image55429984page191image41933728page191image41937056

Figure 9. Artifact counts and densities for each stratum of LAN-2768.

A.19

page192image41930192page192image41941840

Figure 10. Artifact frequencies, by stratum.

A.20

CHAPTER 3Material Culture

Scott Kremkau and Janet Griffitts

This chapter presents the results of lithic, vertebrate-faunal, and invertebrate-faunal analyses for the project. Although material culture in this area of the site is not as diverse as in other areas, the results are still important.

Lithic Artifacts

In total, 31 lithic artifacts were recovered during data recovery, 16 from monitoring and 15 from excavation units. All 31 artifacts were analyzed following the methods outlined in Chapter 6 of the larger report for which this is an appendix (Kremkau et al. 2016). Below, we define the lithic typology for the Playa Vista project.

Lithic-Typology Definitions

Lithic analysis began by separating formal tools from the by-products of stone-tool production. SRI uses a standard lithic-analysis approach that records a series of attributes to characterize stone tools and the by- products of their manufacture. The three general classes of lithic artifacts are flaked stone, ground stone, and expedient use. These types are discussed in more detail in Peterson et al. (2016). The attributes recorded for each artifact type are discussed below.

Flaked stone artifacts

Flaked stone artifacts include stone tools that have been shaped through percussion or pressure flaking. That is, small pieces of stone have been removed from the parent artifact by striking it with a hammerstone, billet, or other tool. Flaked stone artifacts included the refuse produced during this process, debitage, as well as the resulting tools, bifaces, projectile points, cores, and flake tools.

Debitage

The term debitage derives from a French word meaning “to remove.” Debitage refers to detritus removed during stone-tool production and discarded. It most often takes the shape of flakes or shatter and is usually the most common type of lithic artifact found at prehistoric sites in the Ballona. Debitage was sorted by type into six categories: biface flakes, core flakes, shatter, bipolar flakes, microdebitage, and indeterminate. These categories are fully defined in Peterson el at. (2016). A suite of attributes for each flake, including flake type, size (for complete flakes only), material type, presence of cortex, and platform type and location were recorded for each flake.

page193image43873024

A.21

Bifaces

The biface class can encompass a broad variety of artifacts, ranging from cores to preforms of projectile points or knives. For the purposes of this analysis, bifaces are described as formal tools that exhibit retouch scars over one-third or more of both their dorsal and ventral surfaces. Though technically bifaces, projectile points were analyzed separately (see below). After standard descriptive observations were made, bifaces were typed according to the technological method of reduction and the amount of reduction achieved and categorized in five classes: Stages 1–5 (after Callahan 1979). All bifaces were analyzed for material type, portion of the tool, tool shape, edge modification, and heat treatment. Because none of the bifaces was complete, measurements of the length, width, and thickness of the tools were not made.

Projectile Points

Although projectile points are bifacially flaked, they are distinguished here from bifaces by the presence of hafting modifications. As with bifaces, all specimens were analyzed for material type, portion of the tool, tool shape, edge modification, and heat treatment. No complete specimens were recovered from the 2013 data recovery excavations; so, size measurements were not taken. For definitions of all projectile point types found at Playa Vista sites, see Peterson et al. (2016).

Cores and Tested Material

Cores are pieces of raw lithic material that have been reduced through flaking. The cores themselves are usually not the tools, but rather, the flakes removed from the core are subsequently further reduced to make various kinds of flaked stone tools. Cores come in a variety of shapes and sizes. They are usually classified according to the manner in which flakes were removed. Unifacial cores have had all the flakes removed in a single direction, bidirectional cores have had flakes removed in two different directions, and multidirec- tional cores have had flakes taken in three or more directions.

Pieces of tested material are pieces of raw material that have been assayed but not further reduced. Tested cobbles or other rocks may have had one or two flakes removed but were discarded without addi- tional reduction. Tested pieces were usually rejected because the quality of the material was determined to be too poor after the initial flakes were removed.

Edge-Modified Flakes

Edge-modified flakes are pieces of debitage that have been used as expedient tools and have feature flaking or other use wear on one or more edges. They are distinguished from bifaces and other formal tools by the amount of preparation that goes into the shape of the tool, as well as the degree of flaking on the edges.

Ground Stone

Ground stone artifacts are tools that were formed through grinding, such as stone bowls, or whose primary use involved grinding, usually one stone grinding onto another, such as mortars and pestles or manos and metates. Ground stone artifacts can also include decorative or ritual objects, such as pendants and fetishes. The project ground stone analyses focused on functional types (manos, metates, bowls, etc.), sizes and shapes of complete specimens, amount of wear on grinding surfaces, and level of investment in the shaping of the tools.

A.22

Expedient-Use Lithics

Expedient-use lithics are artifacts that were used for specific purposes but not intentionally reshaped for use. For the lithic collection analyzed here, this lithic class was composed entirely of FAR, which consists of rock that has been altered in some way through heating. This usually takes the form of fire-cracked rocks—rocks that have been split via extreme heating. FAR can also show discoloration brought about by thermal alteration. FAR often consists of otherwise unmodified rocks, but occasionally, broken ground stone and other lithic artifacts were reused as FAR.

Excavation Units

In total, 15 lithic artifacts were recovered from excavation units: 14 pieces of debitage and 1 biface frag- ment (Table 2). No ground stone artifacts were found in excavation units.

Debitage

Debitage represents the largest lithic-artifact type recovered during the 2015 data recovery, although the quantity of artifacts was far less than what was recovered during the 2013 excavations at LAN-2768. As with the 2013 excavations, most of the debitage from excavation units came from Stratum II (Episode 2), the lower marsh deposit. In fact, no debitage was recovered from Stratum IV (Episode 4). Two pieces of debitage were recovered from the Stratum II/III interchange, 11 flakes were from Stratum II, and 1 flake came from the Stratum I/II boundary.

Within Episode 2 (Table 3), artifact counts were nearly equally represented among five flake types: biface-thinning flakes, core-reduction flakes, shatter, microdebitage, and indeterminate flakes. All of the debitage from the excavation units was made of Monterrey chert. With the exception of the indeterminate flakes, which were broken, all the flakes were complete. All of the complete flakes were small. Of the 11 complete flakes, 7 were smaller than 10 mm, and the other 4 were between 10 and 19 mm.

Bifaces

One biface fragment was recovered from the excavation units within Stratum IV. The fragment is made of Monterrey chert and appears to be the tip of a biface or projectile point, although it is less than 10 mm long, and the type was difficult to determine for certain.

Mechanical-Stripping Units

In total, 16 lithic artifacts were recovered from mechanical-stripping units: 4 cores, 2 pieces of tested ma- terial, 5 pieces of debitage, and 5 pieces of FAR (Table 4). Interestingly, many more artifacts were recov- ered from Stratum IV (Episode 4), whereas only 5 artifacts were recovered from Stratum II (Episode 2). This is the reverse of what was found in the excavation units, in which no artifacts were found in Stratum IV. The 5 pieces of debitage are all from Stratum II, and all the other artifacts came from Stratum IV.

Because the soil from the mechanical-stripping units was not screened, and artifacts were found through observation of the freshly stripped soil and backdirt, the artifacts recovered from mechanical stripping were primarily relatively large, easily visible objects.

A.23

Table 2. Summary of Lithic Artifacts Recovered

Unit No. Biface Core Debitage Fire-Altered Tested Total Rock Material

EU5002 — — 2 — — 2 EU5004 — — 2 — — 2 EU5005 1 — 4 — — 5 EU5006 — — 2 — — 2 EU5007 — — 1 — — 1 EU5008 — — 2 — — 2 EU5009 — — 1 — — 1 MSU6029 — 4 5 5 2 16

Total 1 4 19 5 2 31

page196image55442976page196image44032064page196image55442640page196image44031872page196image55443312page196image44024192

Key: EU = excavation unit; MSU = mechanical-stripping unit.

page196image44037056

Natural Stratum

Table 3. Summary of Lithic Artifacts from Excavation UnitsBiface Debitage

Total

page196image44032448

Stratum IV, upper marsh (upper A horizon) Stratum II/III boundary
Stratum II, lower marsh (buried A horizon) Stratum I/II boundary

1 — 1 — 2 2 — 11 11 — 1 1

1 14 15

Table 4. Summary of Lithic Artifacts from Mechanical-Stripping Units

Total

Natural Stratum

Stratum IV, upper marsh (upper A horizon) Stratum II, lower marsh (buried A horizon)

Total

Core Debitage

4 — — 5

Fire-Altered Tested Material Rock

Total

page196image54693152page196image44023808page196image44024960

5 2 11 — — 5

4 5 5 2 16

page196image54694048

A.24

Debitage

Five pieces of debitage were recovered during mechanical stripping. All five pieces of debitage were re- covered from Stratum II. The artifacts include four core-reduction flakes and one piece of shatter. Most of the flakes were made of quartzite, but one core flake was made of basalt. The flakes were all complete and were made of waterworn cobbles. As noted above, because the artifacts were found during stripping, they generally included only large artifacts. Debitage size classes for the flakes recovered from mechanical strip- ping varied from 40–49 mm to 60–69 mm.

Cores and Tested Material

Four cores and two pieces of tested material were collected during mechanical stripping. All six artifacts were complete, and all came from Stratum IV. The cores include three unidirectional cores and one multi- directional core. Two of the unifacial cores were made from basalt, the other unifacial core and the multi- directional core were made of quartzite, and all four were made from waterworn cobbles. The two pieces of tested material were tested quartzite cobbles.

FAR

Five pieces of FAR were recovered from Stratum IV: four made from sandstone and one made from quartz- ite. None of the artifacts were recycled artifacts, such as ground stone, hammerstones, or cores.

Summary of Lithic Artifacts from 2015 Data Recovery Excavations at LAN-2768

The 2015 data recovery excavations at LAN-2768 were located north of the 2013 excavations and west of the 2000 data recovery excavations. The analysis of the artifacts from the 2015 project indicated that the excavations were located at the very edge of the site. Artifact densities in both Strata II and IV are under 1 artifact/m3—a fraction of the density in Blocks 1 and 2, excavated in 2013.

Although the artifact density was low, the distribution of lithic artifacts generally matched the results from the rest of the site. Stratum IV, the upper marsh, had relatively fewer lithic artifacts, whereas Stratum IV contained more, although these differences were not as noticeable as during the 2013 and 2000 excava- tions, primarily because FAR was found only in Stratum IV. The ratio between flaked stone tools and debitage in Strata II and IV is 2:1. Given the small sample size, it is difficult to draw many conclusions about the lithic artifacts, except to say that the collection generally mirrors the results of the previous exca- vations and suggest that the focus on tool production and maintenance was most intense during the early to middle Intermediate period, corresponding with Stratum II, and that there was a significant drop-off during the late Intermediate period (Stratum IV).

The lithic collection in Stratum II consisted primarily of small, secondary and tertiary flakes, suggesting that tool maintenance and manufacture were the primary foci of lithic activities at the site. The lack of cores and other flaked stone tools from Stratum II is interesting, given that most of the debitage was from that stratum. All six cores and tested cobbles found during the project were from Stratum IV, although no deb- itage was found in the excavation units in the stratum, and only five flakes were found over the entire area that was mechanically stripped.

A.25

Vertebrate-Faunal RemainsVertebrate Fauna

Over 670 bones and bone fragments were recovered from mechanical-stripping units and excavation units, although the vast majority were found in test pits. Vertebrate-faunal remains represent at least five classes, including ray-finned fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. Of these, mammalian bone is most common (Table 5). All vertebrate-faunal remains were analyzed. No bone tools, ornaments, or other bone artifacts were identified.

Methods

All faunal specimens were identified to the smallest taxonomic level possible, and their attributes were entered into the relational database. The bones were analyzed at SRI’s Tucson laboratory, using a collection of comparative specimens. Published osteological references were also consulted (Brown and Gustafson 1979; Gilbert 1980; Gilbert et al.1985; Hillson 1992, 2005; Lawrence 1951; Olsen 1964, 1968, 1979; Schmid 1972; Zweifel 1994).

All faunal specimens were counted and identified to taxon, age, skeletal element, portion, and side when possible, and all specimens were assigned to general size classes. Very-small animals are those that weigh less than 100 g, such as pocket mice (Perognathus). Small mammals weigh between 100 and 700 g, such as wood rats (Neotoma) and many squirrels. Medium-sized mammals weigh between 700 g and 5 kg. Most medium-sized mammals identified in this study were leporids, specifically jackrabbits and cottontails. Animals weighing between 5 and 25 kg were classified as large mammals. Examples of animals in this size class include coyotes (Canis latrans) or bobcats (Lynx rufus). Very-large mammals are those weighing over 25 kg, such as deer (Odocoileus), pronghorn (Antilocapra), or sheep (Ovis). Finally, extra-large mammals are animals the size of a cow (Bos), horse (Equus), or elk/wapiti (Cervus). Specimens that were too frag- mentary to determine size class were assigned to the indeterminate-sized class. In the following discussion, very-small mammals are referred to as mouse-sized mammals, small mammals are referred to as squirrel- sized mammals, medium-sized mammals are referred to as rabbit-sized mammals, large mammals are re- ferred to as coyote-/bobcat-sized mammals, and very-large mammals are referred to as deer-sized mam- mals. No extra-large or cow-sized mammals were identified.

Bones that were unidentifiable to taxon were placed in the smallest possible size class. For example, if a fragment could have belonged to a larger squirrel-sized mammal (usually in the small-mammal class) or a small leporid (medium-sized mammal) but was otherwise unidentifiable, it was assigned to the smaller size classification of small mammal. There were exceptions to the classification system described above. Kit foxes (Vulpes macrotis) are tiny carnivores (members of Carnivora) weighing less than 5 kg, but they are behaviorally much more like the larger gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus) and other larger carnivores than they are like the rabbits and hares that made up the bulk of the medium-sized mammals in this collec- tion. Similarly, the upper weight range of the antelope jackrabbit (Lepus alleni) is over 5 kg, but these large hares were placed in the same size class as other rabbits rather than included with the small carnivores.

A.26

Table 5. Summary of All Faunal Remains from the Project

Taxon Common Name n %

Actinopterygii ray-finned fish 2 0.30 Reptile

Amphibia amphibian 1 0.15

page199image43824256page199image43810816page199image43819072page199image43822528page199image43822144page199image43819840

Reptilia/Amphibia Serpentes
Reptilia (lizard) Testudines

Subtotal Bird

Aves (very small) Aves (small) Passeriformes (small) Aves (medium)

Subtotal Mammalia/Aves (small) Mammalia/Aves (very small) Mouse-sized mammal

Mammalia (very small)
Rodentia (very small)
Muridae (very small)

Microtus vole 4 0.59

reptile or amphibian snake
lizard
turtle or tortoise

song-bird-sized bird pigeon-sized bird pigeon-sized perching bird chicken-sized bird

squirrel- or pigeon-sized mammal or bird mouse- or songbird-sized mammal or bird

1 0.15 19 2.81 1 0.15 4 0.59 26 3.84

3 0.44 19 2.81 2 0.30 17 2.51 41 6.06 7 1.03 3 0.44

mouse-sized mammal mouse-sized rodent mouse-sized mice and rats

135 19.94 3 0.44 1 0.15

Subtotal Squirrel-sized mammal

Mammalia (small)
Rodentia (small)
Sciuridae squirrel 2 0.30

squirrel-sized mammal squirrel-sized rodent

290 42.84 9 1.33

wood rat kangaroo rat pocket gopher

Mammalia (medium)
Leporidae
Sylvilagus cottontail 2 0.30 Lepus jackrabbit 3 0.44

Subtotal 31 4.58 Mammalia (large) dog-sized mammal 6 0.89 Deer-sized mammal

continued on next page

Neotoma Dipodomys Thomomys

Subtotal Rabbit-sized mammal

1 0.15

1 0.15 43 6.35 346 51.11

rabbit-sized mammal rabbits and hares

25 3.69 1 0.15

143 21.12

page199image43820992page199image43822720page199image43820608

A.27

page200image44029952page200image43938752page200image43931264

Taxon

Mammalia (extra large) Mammalia (indeterminate) Vertebrata (unanalyzed) Vertebrata (indeterminate) Vertebrata (small)

Common Name n %

even-toed mammal 4 0.59

deer-sized mammal 60 8.86 Subtotal 64 9.45

page200image43847808page200image43852416page200image43857216

Artiodactyla (very large) Mammalia (very large)

cow-sized mammal 1 0.15 indeterminate-sized mammal 3 0.44 vertebrate (unanalyzed) 1 0.15 indeterminate-sized vertebrate 2 0.30 small vertebrate 1 0.15

Total 677 100.00

Skeletal Region and Element

Bones and fragments were counted and identified to skeletal element, side, and element portion when pos- sible. Fragments were counted separately unless they could be refitted or were broken postexcavation from same larger piece. Several methods were employed to examine element representation within and between sites. Specimens were placed in categories based on element portion (Wegener 2011). These categories were used to examine breakage patterns. Long bones represent limb bones. Long bones and long-bone fragments were identified as number of individual specimens (NISP)/whole, NISP/shafts, or NISP/ends, depending on whether the element was intact or a specimen was represented by only the shaft or an articular end. Whole and fragmentary cranial bones, vertebrae, scapulae, innominates, carpals, and tarsals were as- signed to NISP/flat. Two additional NISP categories were used. The NISP/tooth-enamel category contains teeth and tooth fragments, and NISP/antler-horn indicates antler or horn.

Age

Specimens were categorized as adult, subadult, neonatal, and indeterminate based on the presence or ab- sence of age indicators, such as erupting or heavily worn teeth; presence of antler; fused, unfused, or par- tially fused epiphyses; or spongy fetal-appearing bone.

Bone Condition

The overall bone condition was recorded for each specimen. Taphonomic factors included noncultural for- mation processes, such as rodent and carnivore gnawing and weathering, as well as cultural modifications, such as cutting, butchering, and burning. Burning was recorded as blackened, calcined, or partially burned. Many of the bones were stained light to dark brown, and it was at times difficult to determine whether a specimen was lightly burned or stained. Dark staining would not be surprising, because many of the bones were recovered from marsh deposits.

Fragmentation

Seven ordinal categories characterized the maximum dimensions of each specimen (following Wegener 2011): less than 5 mm, 5–14 mm, 15–24 mm, 25–34 mm, 35–49 mm, 50–100 mm, and greater than 100 mm

page200image54746336

A.28

in size. These size classes provide information on fragmentation, which in turn can reflect decisions made during meat processing. Such information can provide useful information concerning butchery and cooking practices, along with postdepositional processes. For example, fragmentation may also come about through trampling or other taphonomic processes. In addition to recording specimen size class, the breakage patterns were recorded for deer-sized and larger animals, in an effort to identify whether bone was broken while fresh or dry or during excavation or laboratory processing. Crushing and impact marks, breakage, cut marks, and other signs of butchery provide clues to human behavior and were recorded when visible.

Results

Recovery context

Most of the bone was recovered from excavation units; only 3 percent of the bone was recovered from mechanical-stripping units (Tables 6 and 7). Most of the bone was recovered from Strata IV and II, the upper and lower marsh deposits, respectively. Bone from the mechanical-stripping units consisted of mam- mal and bird bone, including artiodactyl, deer-sized-mammal bone, pocket gopher, and indeterminate small-mammal bone, as well as three pieces of bird bone. Because of the small sample size, the following discussion focuses primarily on the bones recovered from the excavation units. Also, as mentioned above, the top three levels of Stratum IV contain a mix of prehistoric and historical-period artifacts and, therefore, are not comparable with the intact prehistoric deposit below these levels.

Taxa Present

Fish

Fish bone consists of two vertebra-centra fragments. Both are from relatively large individuals, slightly larger than a comparative channel catfish that would have measured at least 25 cm long at its death. Neither could be identified to taxon. The two fish vertebrae were recovered from Level 3 of Stratum IV within EUs 5003 and 5007, and therefore, it is possible that the fish bones were from a historical-period context.

Amphibians

Amphibian bone consists of a humerus-shaft fragment recovered in the middle of Stratum IV within EU 5001. This bone probably represents a frog or toad. Though similar in overall size and shape to the leopard frog illustrated in Olsen (1968), the piece is too fragmentary to be identified further with any con- fidence.

Reptiles

Reptile bone includes lizard, snake, and turtle/tortoise shell. Much of this bone was found in the fill layer above Stratum IV and in the first three levels of Stratum IV, and therefore, it is unclear if they are prehistoric in age or are modern intrusions. The single lizard bone consists of a small mandible fragment. It was stained dark brown or slightly burned and was recovered from EU 5006 in Stratum I/II. This small lizard bone could represent a variety of taxa, including the great basin fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis longipes), San Diego alligator lizard (Elgaria multicarinata webbii), western side-blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana elegans), or others (Johnston 2012),

Snake vertebrae or fragments of vertebrae made up the bulk of the 24 pieces of reptile bone, with 18 vertebrae and 1 snake-skull fragment. The snake vertebrae were distributed throughout Stratum IV and in Stratum II, and no more than 1 or 2 specimens were ever found in the same unit and level. Five vertebrae from the fill/Stratum IV transition were determined to be likely intrusive; their light color and overall con- dition indicated that they were deposited more recently than darker-stained bone, and their recovery loca- tion near the surface also supports that interpretation. Two snake bones were burned. Most snake vertebrae were small and could have come from small individuals or the tail of a snake.

A.29

page202image43975808page202image43981952page202image43989248page202image43987904page202image43906560page202image43904640page202image43906944page202image43905408page202image43898880page202image43905216page202image43901952page202image43898304

A.30

Natural Stratum

EU 5001

Unit No.
EU 5002 EU 5003 EU 5004 EU 5005 EU 5006 EU 5007 EU 5008 EU 5009 MSU 6019 MSU 6022 MSU 6029

Total

Fill/StratumIV

3

3 6 18 6 3 6 3 4 — — — 52 47 102 44 76 46 13 54 24 — 3 — 459 8 2 6 6 1 1 — — — — — 27 — — — — — — — — — — — 10

Stratum IV, upper marsh (upper A horizon)

50

StratumIII/IVboundary 3

Stratum III, upper alluvium (Centinela Creek deposits)

10

Stratum II, lower marsh (buried A horizon)

2 3 11 8 6 9 4 4 17 — 1 82 1 1 1 15 24 — 3 — — — — 46

17 StratumI/IIboundary 1

Total 84
Key: EU = excavation unit; MSU = mechanical-stripping unit.

Table 6. Vertebrate Fauna, by Natural Stratum, and Unit

61 114 80 111 80 29 64 32 17 3 1 676

page203image43907136page203image43905600page203image43895616page203image43904448page203image43908672page203image43903680page203image43899456page203image43902720page203image43899072page203image43904064page203image43902336page203image43903488page203image43906176page203image43907328page203image43901760page203image43895808page203image43905024page203image43903104page203image43908864page203image43898688page203image43903872page203image43895424page203image43906368page203image43902528page203image43899648page203image43908288

A.31

Indeterminate-Sized Small
Subtotal

Ray-Finned Fish

Amphibian

Amphibian/Reptile Reptile

Bird

Bird/Mammal

Indeterminate- Sized

Very Small Small Medium-Sized Large

Very Large Extra Large Subtotal

Natural Stratum, by Unit Type

Total

Excavation unit
Fill/Stratum IV
Stratum IV, upper marsh (upper A horizon)

— — 1 1

— — 2 2

— — 1 1

9 1 3 10 33 5

— 1 12 — 103 245

9 — 12 3

17 — 38 1

39 52 402 456

Stratum III/IV boundary

1 — — —

1 — — —

— — — —

— 1 — — — —

— 9 12 — 1 9

1 — — —

3 — — —

25 27 10 10

Stratum III–upper alluvium (Centinela Creek deposits)

Stratum II, lower marsh (buried A horizon) Stratum I/II boundary

— — — —

— —

— —

3 3 2

3 12 27 — 17 25 3 143 330

8 3

3 —

56 65

Subtotal Mechanical-stripping unit

Stratum IV, upper marsh (upper A horizon) Stratum II, lower marsh (buried A horizon)

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

— — 3 — — — — — — — 3 —

— ——— — — — 16 — — — — 16 — —

— — —3

Subtotal Total

2 — 2 —

18 18 18 21

Table 7. Vertebrate Fauna, by Natural Stratum and Size Class

Indeterminate Vertebrates

Identifiable Vertebrates

— —
213 21124 38 10

2 1 3 2 1 1 24 41 10

3 143 346 31 6

64 1 594 676

— —

2 — —

1 — 31 6

1 — 62 1

44 46 576 655

Mammal

A variety of venomous and nonvenomous snakes are found in the Ballona today (Johnston 2012), but although it was possible to rule out certain taxa, it was not possible to positively identify any of the vertebrae or fragments to a specific taxon. A herpetofauna survey conducted in 2010 and 2011 in the Ballona Fresh- water Marsh (Johnston 2012) found the California kingsnake (Lampropeltis getula californiae), San Ber- nardino ring-necked snake (Diadophis punctatus modestus), San Diego gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer annectens), and Southern Pacific rattlesnake (Crotalus oreganus helleri). The report also determined that the south-coast garter snake and two-striped garter snakes had potential to live in the Ballona.

The remaining reptile bones consist of four fragments of tortoise or turtle shell. Three were found in the fill layer above Stratum IV and one was found at the Stratum I/II boundary. Several species of turtles now inhabit or potentially inhabit the Ballona Wetlands Ecological Reserve, but as with the other reptiles from this collection, no fragments could be identified to taxon. The herpetofauna survey of 2010 and 2011 found only the nonnative red-eared slider (Trachemys scripta elegans) in the Ballona Freshwater Marsh, but the south- western pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata pallida) has the potential to live in the area (Johnston 2012).

Birds

Just over 40 specimens were identified as bird bone, and 10 additional specimens were identified as either mammal or bird. Most of these were from excavation units, but 3 bird bones were recovered during me- chanical stripping. All bird and possible bird bones were fragmentary, and the majority was from Stra- tum IV. Half of the collection was from either the fill layer above Stratum IV or from the first three levels of Stratum IV. Therefore, it is unclear whether they are prehistoric or historical period in origin. Excluding these contexts, the majority of the bone were from Stratum IV (n = 14), with just 3 bird bones recovered from Stratum II.

As with much of this collection, the fragmentary condition reduced the identifiability, and therefore, no birds could be identified below the family level. In spite of the low identifiability, size differences indi- cate that multiple taxa are represented. The largest of the bones are similar in size to modern chickens, and the smallest represent animals the size of songbirds. Two bird bones were burned, two mammal/bird bones were probably intrusive, and a third mammal/bird bone may have been intrusive. Chicken bones were iden- tified in earlier excavations, and at least some the bones of unidentified chicken-sized birds recovered in the present study could also easily represent chickens. The bird bones could represent a variety of taxa, and too many birds either live or pass through the area to list here.

Mammals

Mammal bone made up the bulk of the bone from these excavations. Most of the bone was from the excavation units; only 18 mammal bones were recovered from the mechanical-stripping units, all from Stratum II. Bones from the excavation units were primarily from Stratum IV; a large portion of these bones were classified by size class. Very small and small mammal bones were associated primarily with rodents; medium-sized mam- mal bones were associated leporids; and large, very large, and extra-large mammal bones were associated with artiodactyls and other large animals.

Rodents

Rodent bone, which include very small and small-sized mammals, made up the greatest proportion of iden- tifiable bone (over 70 percent). Pocket gopher (Thomomys sp.), wood rat (Neotoma sp.), kangaroo rat (Dip- odomys sp.), and vole (Microtus sp.) were present in varying amounts. Pocket gopher bones were most common, and in all, 43 specimens were assigned to pocket gophers (6 percent of all faunal bone). The remaining rodent genera are represented by one, two, or four specimens each.

Pocket gopher remains consist of mandibles, teeth, crania, long bones, and a few foot bones. Because of their adaptation to digging, many pocket gopher elements are more easily identified than comparable bones from other, more generalized rodent taxa. This can lead to a relative overabundance of pocket gophers, simply because they can be recognized, whereas the bones of other taxa are grouped in the small-mammal category. With one exception, pocket gopher bones were found in all units in which bone was found. The exception was EU 5007, in which small- and very-small-mammal bone was recovered, but none could be identified.

A.32

Pocket gophers are mentioned among the varied prey taken by the Western Shoshone in Nevada and northeastern California (Bengston 2003) and by the Mojave in Nevada, Arizona, and California (Ruppert 1976). South of the project area, members of the Northern Tepehuan killed and ate gophers, cooking them on spits or boiling them (Pennington 1969). However, pocket gophers are burrowers. They wreak havoc on gardens by burrowing into soil and eating plants from underground, and they burrow into the strata of archaeological sites, shifting small objects, mixing sediments, and occasionally dying there. Therefore, pocket gopher bone may represent intrusive individuals or may have been brought to the site by human activities, and it can be difficult to distinguish between these two formation processes. In some cases, burn- ing may be a clue, but dark brown staining on much of the bone from this project made it difficult to positively identify lightly burned bone. At least some of the rodent bone was likely intrusive. For example, a now-fragmentary but probably complete pocket gopher skull, a mandible, a rodent scapula, and several vertebrae were all recovered together in MSU 6019. These bones are much lighter in color than the dark- stained bones and probably represent the remains of the upper body of an intrusive individual. On the other hand, at least two specimens are probably burned. A maxilla from EU 5005 is blackened, and a radius from EU 5084 is calcined; both are from Stratum IV. Several other pieces are either stained or burned.

Leporids

Leporid bone—that is, bone identified as belonging to rabbits or hares—were classified as medium-sized bone. These bones made up only a small portion of the total mammalian bone, with 3 jackrabbit and 2 cot- tontail bones and 1 indeterminate-sized leporid bone. An additional 25 specimens were assigned to the more general leporid-sized-mammal class. Most were the right size to be jackrabbit or larger cottontail bones but lacked diagnostic landmarks. Most leporid bones and bones of leporid-sized mammals were found in Stra- tum IV, but a few were recovered from Stratum II.

Jackrabbit bones are most likely to represent the black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus), but both the desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii) and the brush rabbit (Sylvilagus bachmani) are found in the general area (Jameson and Peeters 1986). No attempt was made to speciate the jackrabbit or cottontail bones. Cottontails and unidentified leporid are exclusively represented by teeth, and jackrabbits are repre- sented by a cranial fragment and two foot bones. The rabbit-sized-mammal bone includes long bones, foot bones, innominate, and vertebrae. Together, the leporid and leporid-sized-mammal bone suggests that entire carcasses were probably brought to the site at least some of the time. Two of the leporid-sized-mammal bones are burned. Smaller cottontail bones may be hidden in the small-sized mammal bone.

Artiodactyls

In total, 71 bones from artiodactyls or other large, very large, or extra-large-sized mammals were identified in the collection. Most of this bone was recovered from the first three layers of Stratum IV and the fill layer above (50 percent from Stratum IV and 26 percent from fill/Stratum IV). This layer is a mixed layer of prehistoric and historical-period artifacts. Artiodactyls are even-toed ungulates that include a variety of native, New World taxa, such as deer, elk, mountain sheep, and pronghorn, as well as Old World taxa, such as pigs, cattle, sheep, and goats. Four artiodactyl bones or fragments were identified, three from excavation units and one from mechanical stripping. These included two rib fragments, a proximal phalanx, and a carpal. Bone from other artiodactyl-sized mammals was also present but tended to be fragmentary and consists largely of flat bone, cancellous bone, rib, and unidentified fragments.

Most of the artiodactyl bones and bones of artiodactyl-sized mammals are fragmentary. The only com- plete bone is an accessory carpal from MSU 6019. The only artiodactyl bones measuring more than 35 mm are rib fragments, including one possible pig rib, one rib head from a cervid or bovid, and a rib midsection from a cow-sized mammal. This specimen was recovered from the top of Stratum IV of EU 5008. The surface is weathered, but based on the shape, it was probably saw-cut diagonally at one end. Horse, cattle, and other historical-period domesticates were recovered in earlier excavations at this site, and this bone likely repre- sents butchered cow bone. Curiously, long bones and long-bone fragments were lacking. It is possible that long bones were set aside for tool raw material or have been broken or crushed beyond recognition.

A.33

Bone Fragmentation and Food Processing

Most of the bones were fragmentary. Table 8 presents the maximum dimensions of mammal bones and mammal-bone fragments, arranged by animal-body-size class. No specimens were recovered with maxi- mum dimension of over 50 mm, and more than 80 percent measured less than 15 mm. This pattern is partly influenced by the size of the animals. Small animals have smaller bones, but the bones from very-large or deer-sized mammals were also broken into small pieces, and 75 percent measured less than 15 mm in max- imum dimension. No complete bones were burned, but 12 percent of bone fragments from below Levels 1–3 of Stratum IV were burned.

All portions of the anatomy were present for small and very small-sized mammals. Whole bones were most likely mandibles, vertebrae (especially caudal vertebrae), and teeth, but other bones were also com- plete. Approximately 32 percent of the complete bones from squirrel-sized mammals were thought to be intrusive, based on bone condition. No complete bones were identified from leporids or rabbit-sized mam- mals, and only one complete artiodactyl bone was present, but this was from the upper levels of Stratum IV, and not associated with the prehistoric component of the site. Leporid bone and bone from leporid-sized mammals includes all anatomical regions—head, axial skeleton, upper leg, lower leg, and feet—but the overall bone count is so low that only a few specimens from each region are present.

Small animals, such as pocket gophers or other rodents, may be roasted and eaten whole or pulverized (Driver 1937:64). The Diegueño ground and then stewed a variety of small mammals and reptiles (Yohe et al. 1991), and other groups practiced similar preparation methods.

The Luiseño (Kroeber 1953:652; Sparkman 1908) roasted rabbits on coals, and crushed, dried, and stored any leftovers. The Kiliwa cooked wood rats and jackrabbits, pulled off the legs, and crushed and ate the meat and bones of the trunk (Yohe et al. 1991). Both techniques may result in fragmentary carcasses. Szuter (1984) suggested that if rodents were roasted whole, then they would likely be represented by very fragmentary remains, because they would have been consumed whole, as well. Small bones of the extrem- ities are more likely to fall into the fire while cooking (Szuter 1984), and one might therefore expect to find evidence of burning on foot and tail bones. Foot bones may have remained attached to skins that were thrown into the fire during food processing (Szuter 1984). The Kiliwa sometimes ground deer bone into a fine paste (Yohe et al. 1991), and that process would potentially remove all or portions of some bones from the archaeological record.

Table 8. Specimen Sizes of Mammal Bone, by Body-Size Class

Maximum Dimension (mm)
Size Class <5 5–15 15–25 25–35 35–50

page206image43859136

Total n%n%n%n%n%n%

page206image43852032page206image43855488page206image43849536page206image43852800page206image43852992page206image43849152page206image43847616page206image43845504page206image43856640

Indeterminate 3 100.0 —
Very small 24 16.8 104 72.7 Small 42 12.1 259 74.9 Medium-sized 3 9.7 23 74.2 Large — 6 100.0 Very large 3 4.7 45 70.3 Extra large — —

Total 75 12.6 437 73.6

— — 15 10.5 — 33 9.5 12

4 12.9 — — — 12 18.8 2 — —

64 10.8 14

—3 0.5

3.5

— —

1 3.2 —

143 24.1 346 58.3 31 5.2 6 1.0 64 10.8 1 0.2

594 100.0

3.1 2 3.1 1 100.0

2.4 4 0.7

page206image54552416

A.34

Comparison with the 2013 Excavations

The faunal bone collection recovered from excavation units during the 2015 data recovery excavations contained approximately half the number of bones from the 2013 excavations. This is significant because more soil was excavated in 2015 than 2014 (24.3 mand 20 m3, respectively). The smaller size of the 2015 collection is no doubt due, in large part, to the location of the 2015 excavations at the very edge of the site.

Despite the small size of the collection, some comparisons with the 2013 excavations are possible. The upper three levels of Stratum IV from the 2015 excavation show the same mixing of prehistoric and histor- ical-period artifacts as seen in the 2013 assemblage. In both excavations, the upper 30 cm of the stratum contained most of the faunal bone from the excavation units (64 percent in 2013 and percent in 2015). As with the 2013 excavations, nearly all of the identifiable Old World domesticates from the 2015 excavations were found in these three levels. In fact, in the 2015 excavations, nearly 85 percent (n = 60) of the large, very large, and extra-large mammal bone was from either the fill layers at the top of the excavation (Lev- els 1 and 2) or the first three levels of Stratum IV (Levels 3–5). Interestingly, however, the density of this bone is much greater in the 2013 excavations. In Block 1 of the 2013 excavations, the density of faunal bone in the top three levels of Stratum IV was nearly 600 bones/m3. In Block 2, it was lower, at only 277 bones/m3. In the 2015 excavations, the density was 113 bones/m3. Whatever the cause of the mixed deposit, it appears that the artifacts in these levels are not spread evenly across the site. Rather, the density of artifacts increases to the south, as one moves closer to the Westchester Bluffs.

Below this mixed layer, the 2015 faunal collection shared a few similarities with the 2013 collection, but overall, the two collections were quite different. Mammals dominate both collections. Fish bone, reptile, and bird bones made up only a small percentage of the collection for both the 2013 and 2015 excavations, which is in line with the 2000 excavations (Lev-Tov et al. 2016).

However, in terms of the types of mammals represented, as well as the distribution of the bones within the strata, the collections are very different. In 2013, not including the first three levels of Stratum IV, there were over twice as many bones from Stratum II as Stratum IV (nearly 54 percent and over 21 percent of the collection, respectively). In 2013, those numbers are reversed. Not including the first three levels of Stratum IV, Stratum IV contains just over 50 percent of the collection, and Stratum II contains just under 22 percent. The types of mammals present are also quite different. In the 2013 excavations, small and very small mammals make up approximately 48 percent of the faunal collection, and large and very large mam- mals make up nearly 21 percent of the collection. However, in 2015, small and very small mammals make up 88 percent of the collection, with large and very large mammals making up less than 4 percent.

Based on these comparisons, the faunal bone collection from the 2013 and 2015 data recovery excava- tions appear to show different activities within the site during the early to middle and middle to late Inter- mediate period. The 2013 excavations share numerous similarities with the 2000 data recovery excavations and show that most of the animal processing at the site took place during the early to middle intermediate period (Stratum II). During the 2015 excavations, most of the bone came from Stratum IV, and there was a much greater percentage of smaller mammals. This may suggest that the margin of the site was more im- portant for animal processing during the middle to late intermediate period than it was during the early to middle intermediate period. However, these variations may be the result of intrusive rodents burrowing into the site and not from human activities.

Summary of Vertebrate Faunal Remains from 2015 Data Recovery Excavations at LAN-2768

The fauna from the 2015 excavations indicate that artiodactyls and leporids made up only small proportions of the diet. Rodents and similar-sized mammals made up the bulk of the faunal collections, and there were more bone fragments from deer-sized mammals than from rabbit-sized mammals. Non-mammalian bone made up a small proportion of the collection, and most of these bones were from disturbed contexts at the top of Stratum IV. Some of the rodent remains probably reflect cultural practices, and others are probably intrusive. In spite of the marsh location, riparian taxa do not seem to have made a strong contribution to the

A.35

overall diet. Certain food-preparation techniques may have eliminated some faunal evidence. The bone was very fragmentary, suggesting that animal remains were heavily processed.

Invertebrate Remains

In total, 159 pieces of shell, weighing just over 45 g, were recovered from the excavation units (Table 9). No shell was recovered from the mechanical-stripping units. All but 3 pieces of shell came from either Stratum IV (the upper marsh) or the transition between Strata III and IV. Because of the small size of the collection, all recovered shell was analyzed, with the exception of 2 pieces of shell from the fill layer above Stratum IV.

Table 9. Invertebrate Remains Recovered during 2015 Data Recovery Excavations at LAN-2768, by Stratum and Level

page208image43859968

Natural Stratum

Fill/StratumIV

Stratum IV, upper marsh (upper A horizon)

Subtotal
Stratum III/IV boundary

Subtotal

Level No. Argopecten Bivalvia Gastropoda Mollusca Ostrea Tagelus Veneridae Total1——1———12

page208image43863040

Stratum II, lower marsh 18 (buried A horizon)

Total

3 1121

4 — — 60
5 — 2 26 61—1————2

2 3 108 8— —5 9 8 1 1 8 1 6 — —1

10 4 116

Methods

61 18 —— — — — — — — — —— —

6 1 18

— 138 27 1 11 3 18

—1 4 159

1 —2

—26

1 1 — 4 — 16

— 62 — 48

page208image54530320

Each specimen was identified to the most-specific taxonomic level possible using both standard identifica- tion guides (e.g., Brusca and Brusca 1990; Coan et al. 2000; Keen and Coan 1974; McLean 1978; Morris et al. 1980; Rehder 1996; Ricketts et al. 1985) and photographs from SRI’s invertebrate comparative col- lection housed in our Redlands, California, office. In addition to taxonomic identification, all shell pieces were weighed, and NISP was determined.

Results

Analyzed shell from the project area included a narrow range of species, which is not surprising given the small sample size (see Table 9). Small, unidentified gastropods were the most abundant species, accounting for nearly 73 percent (n = 116) of the collection. These were likely naturally occurring snails and did not

A.36

represent subsistence remains. By weight, the most-common economic species in the collection is scallop (Argopecten sp.), although this is heavily skewed by the fact that a few of the scallop shells were nearly complete and other species were represented by only small fragments. The most-common economic species by count is razor clam (Tagelus sp.). A small number of venus clams and oyster, as well as other unidenti- fied bivalves and mollusks were found, but in very small numbers.

Given the small, fragmentary, nature of the invertebrate collection, it is difficult to draw many conclu- sions. Most of the small gastropods are concentrated in the upper three levels of Stratum IV. These mollusks are usually found in submerged settings that would have been unfit for human occupation. However, a large quantity of modern and historical-period faunal bone were also recovered from these levels, which has been interpreted as an intrusive layer of mixed prehistoric and historical-period materials. Thus, the presence of these gastropods may not accurately represent the environmental setting of the upper portion of Stratum IV and may be the result of modern or historical-period disturbances at the site.

Economic species at the site are confined to the upper marsh, Stratum IV, and the boundary between Strata III and IV, which is likely due to some mixing caused by rodent burrowing and other bioturbation. The identifiable economic species—scallop, venus and razor clams, and oyster—have all been identified at other parts of LAN-2768/H, as well as other prehistoric sites at Playa Vista. Thus, although small in number, the collection is representative of previous results from the site. During the 2013 excavations, shell remains were found in relatively equal densities in both the upper and lower marsh deposits. However, during the 2015 excavations, shell was only found in the upper marsh. However, as with the results of the lithic and faunal bone collections, the sparse shell collection from the 2015 excavations may be too small to accurately compare with the earlier excavations.

A.37

CHAPTER 4
Discussion and Management Recommendations

John G. Douglass and Scott Kremkau

This report documents additional data recovery within Locus A of LAN-2768 conducted in the spring of 2015. Although this work was relatively small compared to work in other areas and did not produce as robust a sample of materials as other areas have, it is still important. Overall, it is clear that this portion of LAN-2768 is on the outer margin of the site, because the amount of remains found suggests that there were limited activities represented.

Lithic remains were extremely rare in these excavations (in total, 31 were recovered, 16 from monitor- ing and 15 from the excavation block). Although the artifact density was extremely low, the distribution generally matches what was found previously during the 2013 excavations in terms of Stratum II, because Stratum IV had very little in the way of artifacts collected. Although the sample was small, it appeared that similar types of activities—primarily tool production and maintenance, based on small, secondary and ter- tiary lithic flakes—were found in this portion of the site during the early to middle Intermediate period. The proportion of artifacts found during the subsequent late Intermediate period is much lower in this sample than it was in the 2013 excavations. The lithic artifacts collected during mechanical stripping did not sig- nificantly increase our knowledge of the site, given the small sample identified.

Vertebrate-faunal remains in the 2015 excavations, though still sparse, were significantly more plentiful in this portion of the site than were lithic artifacts. In fact, over 670 bones and bone fragments were recov- ered and analyzed from this portion of the site—a number roughly 20 times the number of lithic artifacts identified. Like lithic artifacts, all faunal remains recovered were analyzed. As with the 2013 excavations, a layer of intrusive bone, including Old World domesticates, were identified in the upper portions of Stratum IV. Unlike previous excavations at the site, no shell or bone tools, ornaments, or other bone artifacts were recov- ered. Approximately half the number of vertebrate faunal remains from the adjacent excavations in 2013 were recovered and analyzed in this round of data recovery, despite a slightly larger excavation area. That said, there are similarities as well as differences between the two collections. The similarities include very small amounts of fish and turtle bone recovered, as well as low frequencies of carnivore bone. The differ- ences include the low numbers of artiodactyl and deer-sized-mammal remains in the current collection (less than 4 percent from below the first 30 cm of Stratum IV) compared to a much higher percentage (roughly 21 percent) from the adjacent 2013 excavations. Consequently, there was a much higher percentage of small and very small mammals, primarily rodents, in the 2015 excavations.

It is clear that although much of the deposit represents the Intermediate period, the presence of Old World domesticated animals in the collection suggests that the upper components date to the historical period, much like what was observed in the adjacent work in 2013. That said, the 2015 collection had a larger sample of those types of materials than the current sample.

Overall, the faunal collection suggests that at the location of the 2015 excavations, larger animals, such as artiodactyls and leporids, made up relatively small portions of the diet, and rodents and similar-sized mammals made up the bulk of the collection. Based on the fragmentary nature of the larger-mammal re- mains, it is quite possible that they were processed for marrow, along with being a general source of meat. Surprisingly, despite the fact that this portion of the site was located on the edge of the marsh, riparian taxa did not have a strong presence in the sample, and there were few shellfish remains recovered, indicating a terrestrial focus for subsistence.

Because of the limited nature of the remains found, little more can be added to the 2013 data recovery conclusions regarding answers to research questions. The work here complements that larger sample, and

page211image43874944

A.39

although the remains recovered and analyzed here generally suggest similar patterns, the location of the deposit on the very edge of the site may suggest more regarding disposal patterns of faunal remains than in situ consumption patterns. For example, the nearly complete dearth of lithic materials in this study, com- pared to the adjacent work, and the very small number of invertebrate-faunal remains both may suggest that this was more of a refuse area than an activity area. The lack of features at this location may be further evidence of that. That said, the area excavated and mechanically stripped was relatively small compared to the adjacent 2013 excavations. In the end, this work further contributes to our general understanding of the site and complements the previous work accomplished in other portions of the site in 2000, 2007, and 2013.

Management Recommendations

This portion of LAN-2768 has undergone data recovery and mechanical stripping to ensure that all features and cultural material within the project area are recovered and properly treated. No human remains were recovered during these excavations. Once this report is accepted by all regulatory agencies, artifacts will be curated at the University of California, Los Angeles, Fowler Museum, and no further treatment of this particular area will be required.

A.40

REFERENCES CITED

page213image43819648

Altschul, Jeffrey H., Su Benaron, and Christopher J. Doolittle
1999 
At the Head of the Marsh: Middle Period Settlement along Upper Centinela Creek: Archaeo-

logical Treatment Plan for CA-LAN-60, CA-LAN-193, and CA-LAN-2768, Marina del Rey, California. Playa Vista Monograph Series, Test Excavation Report 2. Statistical Research, Tucson.

Altschul, Jeffrey H., and Richard S. Ciolek-Torrello
1997 
Work Plan for Archaeological Inventory and Evaluation of the Entertainment, Media, and

Technology District, and Portions of the Riparian Corridor, Playa Vista, Marina del Rey, Cal- ifornia. Playa Vista Archaeological and Historical Project, Technical Report 6. Statistical Re- search, Tucson.

Altschul, Jeffrey H., Richard S. Ciolek-Torrello, Jeffrey A. Homburg, and Mark T. Swanson
1991 
Playa Vista Archaeological and Historical Project: Research Design. Technical Series 29,

vol. 1. Statistical Research, Tucson.

Bengston, Ginny
2003 
Northern Paiute and Western Shoshone Land Use in Northern Nevada: A Class I Ethno-

graphic/Ethnohistoric Overview. Cultural Resource Series No. 12. U.S. Department of the In- terior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada.

Brown, Christopher L., and Carl E. Gustafson
1979 
A Key to Postcranial Skeletal Remains of Cattle/Bison, Elk, and Horse. Reports of Investiga-

tions No. 57. Laboratory of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman. Brusca, R. C., and G. J. Brusca

1990 Invertebrates. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland.

Callahan, Errett
1979 The Basics of Biface Knapping in the Eastern Fluted Point Tradition. 
Archaeology of Eastern

North America 7:1–180.

Coan, E. V., P. V. Scott, and F. R. Bernard
2000 
Bivalve Seashells of Western North America: Marine Bivalve Mollusks from Arctic Alaska to

Baja California. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, Santa Barbara, California.

Driver, Harold E.
1937 
Culture Element Distribution IV: Southern Sierra Nevada. Anthropological Records, vol. 1,

no. 2. University of California Press, Berkeley. Gilbert, B. Miles

1980 Mammalian Osteology. Missouri Archaeological Society, Columbia. Gilbert, B. Miles, Larry D. Martin, and Howard G. Savage

1985 Avian Osteology. Modern Printing, Laramie, Wyoming. A.41

Grenda, Donn R.

  1. 2005a  Letter to Cliff Ritz, February 25. On file, Statistical Research, Redlands, California.

  2. 2005b  Letter to Cliff Ritz, March 1. On file, Statistical Research, Redlands, California.

2007 Letter to Pamela Maxwell, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District, May 10. On file, Statistical Research, Redlands, California.

2013 Letter to John Killeen, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District, October 3. On file, Statistical Research, Redlands, California.

2015 Letter to John Killeen, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District, regarding the exca- vation plan for CA-LAN-2768/H Locus A West, located on Lot 18 of Tract 49104-04, The Cam- pus at Playa Vista, California, dated February 24, 2015. On file, Statistical Research, Redlands.

Hillson, Simon
1992 
Mammal Bones and Teeth: An Introductory Guide to Methods of Identification. Institute of

Archaeology, University College, London.

2005 Teeth. 2nd ed. Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.

Homburg, Jeffrey A., John G. Douglass, and Seetha N. Reddy (editors)
2014 
Paleoenvironment and Culture History. People in a Changing Land: The Archaeology and His-

tory of the Ballona in Los Angeles, California, vol. 1, Donn R. Grenda, Richard Ciolek-Torello, and Jeffrey H. Altschul, series editors. Technical Series 94, vol. 1. Statistical Research, Tucson.

Jameson, E. W., and Hans J. Peeters
1986 
California Mammals. California Natural History Guides 52. University of California Press,

Berkeley.

Johnston, Karina
2012 Herpetofauna. In 
Baseline Assessment Program: 2010–2011 Report, Chapter 6. Ballona Wet-

lands Ecological Reserve, Los Angeles, and the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission, Santa Monica, California. Prepared for the California State Coastal Conservancy. Available online, http://ballonarestoration.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/6_BWER_YR2_Base... HERPETOFAUNA.pdf, accessed October 6, 2015.

Keen, A. Myra, and Eugene Coan
1974 
Marine Molluscan Genera of Western North America: An Illustrated Key. 2nd ed. Stanford

University Press, Palo Alto.

Kremkau, Scott H., Patrick Stanton, Kenneth Becker, and John G. Douglass (editors)
2016 
2013 Data Recovery at CA-LAN-2768/H Locus A, Located on Lots 18–20 of Tract 49104-04, The Campus at Playa Vista, California. Technical Report 16-22. Statistical Research, Tucson,

Arizona, and Redlands, California. Kroeber, A. L.

1953 Handbook of the Indians of California. California Book Company, Berkeley.

A.42

Lawrence, Barbara
1951 Post-Cranial Skeletal Characters of Deer, Pronghorn, and Sheep-Goat with Notes on 
Bos and

Bison. Reports of the Awatovi Expedition Peabody Museum, pt. 2. Report No. 4. Harvard Uni- versity, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Papers, vol. 25, no 3. Peabody Museum of American Ar- chaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Lev-Tov, Justin, Sarah Van Galder, David Maxwell, and Seetha Reddy
2016 Analysis of Vertebrate Fauna. In 
Material Culture and Subsistence Practices, edited by Seetha

N. Reddy and John G. Douglass, pp. 501–556. People in a Changing Land: The Archaeology and History of the Ballona in Los Angeles, California, vol. 3, Donn R. Grenda, Richard Ciolek- Torello, and Jeffrey H. Altschul, series editors. Technical Series 94, vol. 3. Draft. Statistical Research, Tucson, Arizona.

McLean, J. H.
1978 
Marine Shells of Southern California, Revised Edition. Science Series No. 23. Natural History

Museum of Los Angeles County, Los Angeles. Morris, Robert H., Donald P. Abbot, and Eugene C. Haderlie

1980 Intertidal Invertebrates of California. Stanford University Press, Stanford.

Olsen, Stanley J.
1964 
Southeastern and Southwestern United States. Mammal Remains from Archaeological Sites,

pt. 1. Papers, vol. 56, no. 1. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard Univer- sity, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

1968 The Osteology of the Wild Turkey. In Southeastern and Southwestern United States, by Stan- ley J. Olsen, appendix. Fish, Amphibian, and Reptile Remains from Archaeological Sites, pt. 1. Papers, vol. 56, no. 2. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

1979 Osteology for the Archaeologist. Papers, vol. 56, nos. 3–5. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Pennington, Campbell W.
1969 
The Tepehuan of Chihuahua: Their Material Culture. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Peterson, Polly A., Seetha N. Reddy, Kathleen L. Hull, Amanda C. Cannon, and Mark Q. Sutton
2016 Lithic Artifacts. In 
Material Culture and Subsistence Practices, edited by Seetha N. Reddy and John G. Douglass, pp. 35–152. People in a Changing Land: The Archaeology and History of the Ballona in Los Angeles, California, vol. 3, Donn R. Grenda, Richard Ciolek-Torello, and Jeffrey H. Altschul, series editors. Technical Series 94, vol. 3. Draft. Statistical Research, Tuc-

son.

Rehder, H. A.
1996 The Audubon Society Guide to North American Seashells. Knopf, New York.

Ricketts, Edward F., Jack Calvin, and Joel W. Hedgpeth
1985 
Between Pacific Tides. 5th ed. Revised by David W. Phillips. Stanford University Press, Stan-

ford, California.

A.43

Ruppert, David E.
1976 
Lake Mead National Recreation Area: An Ethnographic Overview. Western Archeological

Center, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Tucson, Arizona.

Schmid, Elisabeth
1972 
Atlas of Animal Bones for Prehistorians, Archaeologists and Quaternary Geologists. (Knochenat-

las. Für Prähistoriker, Archäologen und Quartärgeologen). Elsevier, Amsterdam.

Sparkman, Philip S.
1908 
The Culture of the Luiseño Indians. Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology,

vol. 8, no. 4. University of California, Berkeley.

Szuter, Christine R.
1984 Faunal Exploitation and the Reliance on Small Animals among the Hohokam. In 
Environment

and Subsistence, edited by Lynne S. Teague and Patricia L. Crown, pp. 139–169. Hohokam Archaeology along the Salt-Gila Aqueduct, Central Arizona Project, vol. 7. Archaeological Se- ries No. 150. Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson.

Vargas, Benjamin R., John G. Douglass, and Seetha N. Reddy (editors)
2016 
Archaeological Sites and Chronology. People in a Changing Land: The Archaeology and His-

tory of the Ballona in Los Angeles, California, vol. 2, Donn R. Grenda, Richard Ciolek-Torello, and Jeffrey H. Altschul, series editors. Technical Series 94, vol. 2. Statistical Research, Tucson, Arizona.

Wegener, Robert M.
2011 Animal Remains. In 
Florence Junction Area, edited by Richard S. Ciolek-Torello and Rob-

ert M. Wegener, pp. 229–254. The U.S. 60 Archaeological Project: Early Agricultural, Form- ative, and Historical-Period Use of the Upper Queen Creek Region, vol. 1. Technical Series 92. Statistical Research, Tucson.

Yohe, Robert M., II, Margaret E. Newman, and Joan S. Schneider
1991 Immunological Identification of Small-Mammal Proteins on Aboriginal Milling Equipment.

American Antiquity 56:659–666.

Zweifel, Matthew Karl
1994 A Guide to the Identification of the Molariform Teeth of Rodents and Lagomorphs of the Co-

lumbia Basin. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman.

A.44

APPENDIX BRadiocarbon Results

page217image43850112

203

page219image41765728

May 20, 2014

Mr. Jeffrey Altschul/Mr. James J. Clark Statistical Research, Incorporated
P.O. Box 390
21 W. Stuart Street

Redlands, CA 92373 USA

RE: Radiocarbon Dating Results For Samples CA-LAN-2768/H PD1089 Unit10 Level3, CA-LAN- 2768/H PD1102 Unit11 Level5, CA-LAN-2768/H PD1105 Unit10 Level7, CA-LAN-2768/H PD1163 Unit24 Level4, CA-LAN-2768/H PD1223 Unit24 Level6, CA-LAN-2768/H PD1274 Unit13 Level11, CA-LAN-2768/H PD1301 Unit28 Level14, CA-LAN-2768/H PD3032 Feature3067 charcoal

Dear Jeff & James:

Enclosed are the radiocarbon dating results for eight samples recently sent to us. As usual, the method of analysis is listed on the report with the results and calibration data is provided where applicable. The Conventional Radiocarbon Ages have all been corrected for total fractionation effects and where applicable, calibration was performed using 2013 calibration databases (cited on the graph pages).

The web directory containing the table of results and PDF download also contains pictures, a cvs spreadsheet download option and a quality assurance report containing expected vs. measured values for 3-5 working standards analyzed simultaneously with your samples.

Reported results are accredited to ISO-17025 standards and all chemistry was performed here in our laboratories and counted in our own accelerators here in Miami. Since Beta is not a teaching laboratory, only graduates trained to strict protocols of the ISO-17025 program participated in the analyses.

As always Conventional Radiocarbon Ages and sigmas are rounded to the nearest 10 years per the conventions of the 1977 International Radiocarbon Conference. When counting statistics produce sigmas lower than +/- 30 years, a conservative +/- 30 BP is cited for the result.

When interpreting the results, please consider any communications you may have had with us regarding the samples. As always, your inquiries are most welcome. If you have any questions or would like further details of the analyses, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Thank you for prepaying the analyses. As always, if you have any questions or would like to discuss the results, don’t hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Digital signature on file

page219image54566784page219image54566896page219image54567008page219image54567120page219image54567232

Page 1 of 11

page220image41935392

Mr. Jeffrey Altschul/James J. Clark Statistical Research, Incorporated

Sample Data

Measured Radiocarbon Age

13C/12C Ratio

Report Date: 5/20/2014 Material Received: 5/2/2014

Conventional Radiocarbon Age(*)

2500 +/- 30 BP

2030 +/- 30 BP

1910 +/- 30 BP

2590 +/- 30 BP

page220image54578912page220image43860160page220image54579024page220image43863616page220image43862464page220image43872448page220image54579136page220image43874176page220image54579248page220image54579360page220image43873792page220image43875712page220image54579472page220image43871680page220image43871104page220image54579584page220image43870336page220image54579696

Beta - 379707
SAMPLE : CA-LAN-2768/H PD1089 Unit10 Level3
ANALYSIS : AMS-Standard delivery
MATERIAL/PRETREATMENT : (shell): acid etch
2 SIGMA CALIBRATION : Cal BC 25 to AD 260 (Cal BP 1975 to 1690) ____________________________________________________________________________________

Beta - 379708 1610 +/- 30 BP +0.7 o/oo SAMPLE : CA-LAN-2768/H PD1102 Unit11 Level5
ANALYSIS : AMS-Standard delivery
MATERIAL/PRETREATMENT : (shell): acid etch

2 SIGMA CALIBRATION : Cal AD 540 to 735 (Cal BP 1410 to 1215) ____________________________________________________________________________________

Beta - 379709 1520 +/- 30 BP -1.4 o/oo SAMPLE : CA-LAN-2768/H PD1105 Unit10 Level7
ANALYSIS : AMS-Standard delivery
MATERIAL/PRETREATMENT : (shell): acid etch

2 SIGMA CALIBRATION : Cal AD 650 to 890 (Cal BP 1300 to 1060) ____________________________________________________________________________________

Beta - 379710 2170 +/- 30 BP +0.6 o/oo SAMPLE : CA-LAN-2768/H PD1163 Unit24 Level4
ANALYSIS : AMS-Standard delivery
MATERIAL/PRETREATMENT : (shell): acid etch

2 SIGMA CALIBRATION : Cal BC 150 to AD 145 (Cal BP 2100 to 1805) ____________________________________________________________________________________

2100 +/- 30 BP

-0.7 o/oo

page220image41934144

Page 2 of 11

page221image41939344

Mr. Jeffrey Altschul/James J. Clark

Sample Data

Measured Radiocarbon Age

13C/12C Ratio

Report Date: 5/20/2014

Conventional Radiocarbon Age(*)

1970 +/- 30 BP

2600 +/- 30 BP

2640 +/- 30 BP

1750 +/- 30 BP

page221image54588432page221image43183360page221image54588544page221image43182592page221image43180480page221image43180288page221image54588656page221image43186624page221image54588768page221image54588880page221image43181248page221image54588992page221image43174336page221image43174528page221image43176064page221image54589104page221image43177600page221image54589216

Beta - 379711
SAMPLE : CA-LAN-2768/H PD1223 Unit24 Level6
ANALYSIS : AMS-Standard delivery
MATERIAL/PRETREATMENT : (shell): acid etch
2 SIGMA CALIBRATION : Cal AD 595 to 800 (Cal BP 1355 to 1150) ____________________________________________________________________________________

Beta - 379712 2200 +/- 30 BP -0.5 o/oo SAMPLE : CA-LAN-2768/H PD1274 Unit13 Level11
ANALYSIS : AMS-Standard delivery
MATERIAL/PRETREATMENT : (shell): acid etch

2 SIGMA CALIBRATION : Cal BC 160 to AD 140 (Cal BP 2110 to 1810) ____________________________________________________________________________________

Beta - 379713 2230 +/- 30 BP -0.1 o/oo SAMPLE : CA-LAN-2768/H PD1301 Unit28 Level14
ANALYSIS : AMS-Standard delivery
MATERIAL/PRETREATMENT : (shell): acid etch

2 SIGMA CALIBRATION : Cal BC 195 to AD 95 (Cal BP 2145 to 1855) ____________________________________________________________________________________

Beta - 379715 1750 +/- 30 BP -24.8 o/oo SAMPLE : CA-LAN-2768/H PD3032 Feature3067 charcoal
ANALYSIS : AMS-Standard delivery
MATERIAL/PRETREATMENT : (charred material): acid/alkali/acid

2 SIGMA CALIBRATION : Cal AD 230 to 380 (Cal BP 1720 to 1570) ____________________________________________________________________________________

1570 +/- 30 BP

-0.8 o/oo

page221image41938720

Page 3 of 11

CALIBRATION OF RADIOCARBON AGE TO CALENDAR YEARS

page222image43160832

(Variables: C13/C12 = -0.7 o/oo : Delta-R = 270 ± 55 : Glob res = -200 to 500 : lab. mult = 1)

Laboratory number Beta-379707 Conventional radiocarbon age 2500 ± 30 BP

2230 ± 63 Adjusted for local reservoir correction

2 Sigma calibrated result 95% probability

Intercept of radiocarbon age with calibration curve

1 Sigma calibrated results 68% probability

2450 2500 ± 30 BP (2230 ± 63 BP adjusted)

Cal BC 25 to AD 260 (Cal BP 1975 to 1690)

Cal AD 115 (Cal BP 1835)

Cal AD 55 to 180 (Cal BP 1895 to 1770)

SHELL

page222image43158336page222image43171392page222image43170624page222image43169472page222image43161984page222image43168896page222image43169088page222image43162368page222image43163712page222image43162944page222image43165248

    2400
    2350
    2300
    2250
    2200
    2150
    2100
    2050
    2000

Database usedMARINE13

References
Mathematics used for calibration scenario

A Simplified Approach to Calibrating C14 Dates, Talma, A. S., Vogel, J. C., 1993, Radiocarbon 35(2):317-322

References to MARINE13 database

Reimer PJ, Bard E, Bayliss A, Beck JW, Blackwell PG, Bronk Ramsey C, Buck CE, Cheng H, Edwards RL, Friedrich M, Grootes PM, Guilderson TP, Haflidason H, Hajdas I, Hatté C, Heaton TJ, Hoffmann DL, Hogg AG, Hughen KA, Kaiser KF, Kromer B, Manning SW, Niu M, Reimer RW, Richards DA, Scott EM, Southon JR, Staff RA, Turney CSM, van der Plicht J. 2013. IntCal13 and Marine13 radiocarbon age calibration curves 0–50,000 years cal BP. Radiocarbon 55(4):1869–1887.

Beta Analytic Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory

4985 S.W. 74 Court Miami Florida 33155 USA • Tel: (305)-667-5167 • Fax: (305)-663-0964 • Email: beta@radiocarbon.com

page222image43160256page222image54597312page222image43156416page222image43156992page222image54597424page222image43170240page222image54597536page222image43160448page222image43166784page222image43159296page222image43155456page222image43160064page222image43164864page222image43165056page222image43171008page222image43161600page222image43164672page222image43166400page222image54597648page222image43166976page222image54597760page222image43161216page222image54597872page222image43159680page222image43169856page222image43161024page222image43156032page222image43129984page222image43130176page222image43133440page222image43135936page222image43135168page222image43134976page222image43127680page222image43124224page222image43136320page222image43135552page222image43131904page222image43133824page222image43132864page222image43124416page222image43131136page222image43132672page222image54597984page222image43136896page222image54598096page222image43137280page222image54598208page222image43130368page222image54598320page222image43133056page222image43122880page222image43132096page222image43130944page222image43131328page222image54598432page222image54598544page222image54598656page222image43137856page222image43123456page222image43123072page222image43130752page222image43137088page222image43124608page222image43127872page222image54598768page222image43123840page222image43136704page222image54598880page222image43138240page222image54598992page222image43137664page222image43138048page222image54599104page222image43130560page222image43138816page222image54599216page222image54599328page222image43134016page222image43124992page222image43124032page222image43124800page222image43123264page222image43131520page222image43135744page222image43129216page222image43125568page222image43853952page222image54599440page222image43848384page222image54599552page222image54599664page222image43783616page222image54599776page222image54599888page222image43785536page222image54600000page222image54600112page222image43876544page222image54600224page222image43877120page222image54600336page222image43877696page222image54600448page222image54600560page222image54600672page222image43879040page222image43879232page222image54600784page222image43879808page222image43880000page222image43880192page222image43880384page222image43880576page222image43880768page222image43880960page222image43881152page222image54600896page222image43881728page222image54601008page222image43882304page222image54601120page222image43882880page222image43883072page222image43883264page222image43883456page222image43883648page222image43883840page222image43884032page222image43884224page222image43884416page222image43884608page222image43884800page222image43884992page222image54601232page222image43885952page222image43886144page222image43886336page222image43886528page222image43886720page222image43886912page222image43887104page222image43887296page222image43887488page222image43887680

50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Cal BC/AD

page222image43887872

Page 4 of 11

Radiocarbon age (BP)

CALIBRATION OF RADIOCARBON AGE TO CALENDAR YEARS

page223image43175296

(Variables: C13/C12 = 0.7 o/oo : Delta-R = 270 ± 55 : Glob res = -200 to 500 : lab. mult = 1)

Laboratory number Beta-379708 Conventional radiocarbon age 2030 ± 30 BP

1760 ± 63 Adjusted for local reservoir correction

2 Sigma calibrated result 95% probability

Intercept of radiocarbon age with calibration curve

1 Sigma calibrated results 68% probability

2000 page223image431791362030 ± 30 BP (1760 ± 63 BP adjusted)

Cal AD 540 to 735 (Cal BP 1410 to 1215)

Cal AD 655 (Cal BP 1295)

Cal AD 595 to 690 (Cal BP 1355 to 1260)

SHELL

page223image43177792page223image43186432page223image43172992page223image43174144page223image43173184page223image43176448page223image43176256page223image43175104page223image43175680page223image43174912page223image43176640page223image43172608page223image43173952page223image43173568

    1950
    1900
    1850
    1800
    1750
    1700
    1650
    1600
    1550
    1500

500 525

Database usedMARINE13

550 575

600

625 650 Cal AD

675 700 725

750 775

page223image43186240page223image43184128page223image54612912page223image43187776page223image43179904page223image43181056page223image43185088page223image43182400page223image43181824page223image43183936page223image43178752page223image43180672page223image43180864page223image43182208page223image54613024page223image43184320page223image43182016page223image43178560page223image43187008page223image43179712page223image43180096page223image43187392page223image43179520page223image54613136page223image43181440page223image43177984page223image43182784page223image54610560page223image43139072page223image43139264page223image43139456page223image43139648page223image43139840page223image43140032page223image43140224page223image43140416page223image43140608page223image43140800page223image43140992page223image43141184page223image43141376page223image43141568page223image43141760page223image54610672page223image43142336page223image54610784page223image43142912page223image54610896page223image43143488page223image54615488page223image43144064page223image54615600page223image54615712page223image54615824page223image54611008page223image54611120page223image54611232page223image54611344page223image43147520page223image43147712page223image54617728page223image43148288page223image54617840page223image54617952page223image43149248page223image54618064page223image43149824page223image54608320page223image43150400page223image43150592page223image43150784page223image43150976page223image43151168page223image43151360page223image54608432page223image43151936page223image54608544page223image43152512page223image43152704page223image54608656page223image43153280page223image43153472page223image54616832page223image54616944page223image54617056page223image43154816page223image43155008page223image43155200page223image54617168page223image43161792page223image43204608page223image43204800page223image43204992page223image43205184page223image43205376page223image43205568page223image43205760page223image43205952page223image43206144page223image43206336page223image54612352page223image54612464page223image43207296page223image43207488page223image43207680page223image43207872page223image43208064page223image43208256page223image43208448page223image43208640page223image43208832page223image43209024page223image43209216page223image54612576page223image43210176page223image43210368page223image43210560page223image43210752page223image43210944page223image43211136page223image43211328page223image43211520page223image43211712page223image43211904page223image43212096page223image43212288page223image43212480page223image43212672

References
Mathematics used for calibration scenario

A Simplified Approach to Calibrating C14 Dates, Talma, A. S., Vogel, J. C., 1993, Radiocarbon 35(2):317-322

References to MARINE13 database

Reimer PJ, Bard E, Bayliss A, Beck JW, Blackwell PG, Bronk Ramsey C, Buck CE, Cheng H, Edwards RL, Friedrich M, Grootes PM, Guilderson TP, Haflidason H, Hajdas I, Hatté C, Heaton TJ, Hoffmann DL, Hogg AG, Hughen KA, Kaiser KF, Kromer B, Manning SW, Niu M, Reimer RW, Richards DA, Scott EM, Southon JR, Staff RA, Turney CSM, van der Plicht J. 2013. IntCal13 and Marine13 radiocarbon age calibration curves 0–50,000 years cal BP. Radiocarbon 55(4):1869–1887.

Beta Analytic Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory

4985 S.W. 74 Court Miami Florida 33155 USA • Tel: (305)-667-5167 • Fax: (305)-663-0964 • Email: beta@radiocarbon.com

page223image43212864

Page 5 of 11

Radiocarbon age (BP)

CALIBRATION OF RADIOCARBON AGE TO CALENDAR YEARS

page224image43213824

(Variables: C13/C12 = -1.4 o/oo : Delta-R = 270 ± 55 : Glob res = -200 to 500 : lab. mult = 1)

Laboratory number Beta-379709 Conventional radiocarbon age 1910 ± 30 BP

1640 ± 63 Adjusted for local reservoir correction

2 Sigma calibrated result 95% probability

Intercept of radiocarbon age with calibration curve

1 Sigma calibrated results 68% probability

1900 page224image432140161910 ± 30 BP (1640 ± 63 BP adjusted)

Cal AD 650 to 890 (Cal BP 1300 to 1060)

Cal AD 730 (Cal BP 1220)

Cal AD 685 to 795 (Cal BP 1265 to 1155)

SHELL

page224image43214208page224image43214400page224image43214592page224image43214784page224image43214976page224image43215168page224image43215360page224image43215552page224image43215744page224image43215936

    1850
    1800
    1750
    1700
    1650
    1600
    1550
    1500
    1450
    1400

600 650

Database usedMARINE13

700 750

800

850 900 950

page224image43216128page224image43216320page224image43216512page224image54569248page224image54571040page224image54571152page224image54571264page224image43218240page224image54569136page224image54568576page224image43219200page224image43219392page224image43219584page224image43219776page224image43219968page224image43220160page224image54568352page224image43220736page224image43183552page224image43178176page224image43177024page224image43188224page224image43188416page224image54571824page224image43190720page224image43190912page224image54572272page224image43191680page224image43191872page224image43192064page224image43192256page224image43192448page224image43192640page224image43192832page224image43193024page224image43193216page224image54568912page224image43193792page224image54568016page224image43194368page224image54574736page224image43194944page224image54560736page224image43195520page224image43195712page224image54574288page224image54574400page224image43196672page224image43196864page224image43197056page224image43197248page224image43197440page224image54567680page224image43198016page224image54572720page224image54571376page224image54562640page224image54569808page224image43199744page224image54572944page224image43200320page224image43200512page224image54573056page224image43201088page224image43201280page224image54573392page224image54574848page224image43202240page224image43202432page224image43202624page224image43202816page224image54585744page224image43203392page224image43203584page224image54583952page224image54584960page224image43237376page224image54584848page224image54586752page224image43238336page224image54585296page224image54585072page224image54585856page224image54584400page224image54583728page224image54584176page224image54585408page224image54585184page224image54585520page224image43241984page224image43242176page224image43242368page224image43242560page224image43242752page224image43242944page224image43243136page224image43243328page224image43243520page224image43243712page224image43243904page224image43244096page224image43244288page224image43244480page224image43244672page224image43244864page224image43245056page224image43245248page224image43245440page224image54583616page224image43246016page224image54588096page224image54587872page224image43246976page224image43247168page224image43247360page224image54584624page224image54584512page224image54586976page224image54584736page224image43249088page224image54584288page224image43249664page224image43249856page224image43250048page224image54584064page224image43251008page224image43251200page224image43251392page224image43251584page224image43251776page224image43251968page224image43252160page224image43252352page224image43252544page224image43252736

References
Mathematics used for calibration scenario

Page 6 of 11

Cal AD

A Simplified Approach to Calibrating C14 Dates, Talma, A. S., Vogel, J. C., 1993, Radiocarbon 35(2):317-322

References to MARINE13 database

Reimer PJ, Bard E, Bayliss A, Beck JW, Blackwell PG, Bronk Ramsey C, Buck CE, Cheng H, Edwards RL, Friedrich M, Grootes PM, Guilderson TP, Haflidason H, Hajdas I, Hatté C, Heaton TJ, Hoffmann DL, Hogg AG, Hughen KA, Kaiser KF, Kromer B, Manning SW, Niu M, Reimer RW, Richards DA, Scott EM, Southon JR, Staff RA, Turney CSM, van der Plicht J. 2013. IntCal13 and Marine13 radiocarbon age calibration curves 0–50,000 years cal BP. Radiocarbon 55(4):1869–1887.

Beta Analytic Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory

4985 S.W. 74 Court Miami Florida 33155 USA • Tel: (305)-667-5167 • Fax: (305)-663-0964 • Email: beta@radiocarbon.com

page224image43252928

Radiocarbon age (BP)

CALIBRATION OF RADIOCARBON AGE TO CALENDAR YEARS

page225image43253312

(Variables: C13/C12 = 0.6 o/oo : Delta-R = 270 ± 55 : Glob res = -200 to 500 : lab. mult = 1)

Laboratory number Beta-379710 Conventional radiocarbon age 2590 ± 30 BP

2320 ± 63 Adjusted for local reservoir correction

2 Sigma calibrated result 95% probability

Intercept of radiocarbon age with calibration curve

1 Sigma calibrated results 68% probability

2550 page225image432535042590 ± 30 BP (2320 ± 63 BP adjusted)

     2500
     2450
     2400
     2350
     2300
     2250
     2200
     2150
     2100

Cal BC 150 to AD 145 (Cal BP 2100 to 1805)

Cal AD 20 (Cal BP 1930)

Cal BC 50 to AD 85 (Cal BP 2000 to 1865)

SHELL

page225image43213248page225image43213056page225image43213440page225image43220992page225image43221184page225image43221376page225image43221568page225image43221760page225image43221952page225image43222144page225image43222336page225image43222528page225image54603024page225image54602688page225image54605712page225image54621200page225image43224256page225image54621088page225image54620976page225image43225216page225image43225408page225image54620864page225image43225984page225image43226176page225image43226368page225image43226560page225image43226752page225image43226944page225image43227136page225image43227328page225image43227520page225image43227712page225image43227904page225image43228096page225image43228288page225image54621536page225image54623104page225image43229440page225image43229632page225image54621424page225image54609552page225image43230976page225image54608992page225image43231744page225image43231936page225image43232128page225image43232320page225image43232512page225image43232704page225image54620528page225image43233280page225image43233472page225image54620416page225image43234048page225image43234240page225image43234432page225image43234624page225image43234816page225image43235008page225image43235200page225image43235392page225image43235584page225image54620192page225image54623776page225image43236544page225image43236736page225image43236928page225image43237120page225image54609216page225image43008384page225image43008576page225image43008768page225image43008960page225image54624112page225image54622432page225image54624000page225image54622208page225image54621872page225image54621760page225image54620304page225image43012608page225image43012800page225image43012992page225image43013184page225image43013376page225image43013568page225image43013760page225image43013952page225image43014144page225image54620752page225image43014720page225image43014912page225image54620640page225image43015488page225image54609440page225image43016064page225image54609328page225image43016640page225image54623552page225image54623216page225image54622880page225image54622768page225image54609104page225image54608880page225image43019136page225image43019328page225image43019520page225image43019712page225image54623440page225image54623664page225image43020672page225image54622656page225image43021248page225image54622544page225image54621984page225image43022208page225image54621648page225image54622992page225image54623888page225image43023552page225image43023744page225image54623328page225image54622320page225image42992000page225image42992192page225image42992384page225image42992576page225image42992768page225image42992960page225image42993152page225image42993344page225image42993536page225image54622096page225image42994112page225image42994304page225image42994496page225image42994688page225image54621312page225image54573616page225image42995648page225image42995840page225image54569472page225image42996416page225image54574960page225image42996992page225image42997184page225image54570256page225image42997760page225image42997952page225image42998144page225image42998336page225image54569024page225image42999296page225image42999488page225image42999680page225image42999872page225image43000064page225image43000256page225image43000448page225image43000640page225image43000832page225image43001024page225image43001216

200 150 100 50 0 50 100 150 200 Cal BC/AD

Database usedMARINE13

References
Mathematics used for calibration scenario

A Simplified Approach to Calibrating C14 Dates, Talma, A. S., Vogel, J. C., 1993, Radiocarbon 35(2):317-322

References to MARINE13 database

Reimer PJ, Bard E, Bayliss A, Beck JW, Blackwell PG, Bronk Ramsey C, Buck CE, Cheng H, Edwards RL, Friedrich M, Grootes PM, Guilderson TP, Haflidason H, Hajdas I, Hatté C, Heaton TJ, Hoffmann DL, Hogg AG, Hughen KA, Kaiser KF, Kromer B, Manning SW, Niu M, Reimer RW, Richards DA, Scott EM, Southon JR, Staff RA, Turney CSM, van der Plicht J. 2013. IntCal13 and Marine13 radiocarbon age calibration curves 0–50,000 years cal BP. Radiocarbon 55(4):1869–1887.

Beta Analytic Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory

4985 S.W. 74 Court Miami Florida 33155 USA • Tel: (305)-667-5167 • Fax: (305)-663-0964 • Email: beta@radiocarbon.com

page225image43001408

Page 7 of 11

Radiocarbon age (BP)

CALIBRATION OF RADIOCARBON AGE TO CALENDAR YEARS

page226image43888832

(Variables: C13/C12 = -0.8 o/oo : Delta-R = 270 ± 55 : Glob res = -200 to 500 : lab. mult = 1)

Laboratory number Beta-379711 Conventional radiocarbon age 1970 ± 30 BP

1700 ± 63 Adjusted for local reservoir correction

2 Sigma calibrated result 95% probability

Intercept of radiocarbon age with calibration curve

1 Sigma calibrated results 68% probability

1950 page226image438890241970 ± 30 BP (1700 ± 63 BP adjusted)

Cal AD 595 to 800 (Cal BP 1355 to 1150)

Cal AD 685 (Cal BP 1265)

Cal AD 655 to 735 (Cal BP 1295 to 1215)

SHELL

page226image43889216page226image43889408page226image43889600page226image43889792page226image43889984page226image43890176page226image43890368page226image43890560page226image43890752page226image43890944page226image43891136page226image43891328page226image43891520

    1900
    1850
    1800
    1750
    1700
    1650
    1600
    1550
    1500
    1450

575 600 625

Database usedMARINE13

650

675 700 725 Cal AD

750 775

800 825

page226image43891712page226image43891904page226image54646576page226image43892480page226image43040768page226image43040960page226image43041152page226image43041344page226image43041536page226image54646688page226image43042112page226image43042304page226image43042496page226image43042688page226image43042880page226image43043072page226image54646800page226image43044416page226image54646912page226image43044992page226image54647024page226image43045760page226image43045952page226image43046144page226image43046336page226image54647136page226image43046912page226image54647248page226image54647360page226image43047872page226image43048064page226image43048256page226image54647472page226image43048832page226image43049024page226image54647584page226image54647696page226image43049984page226image43050176page226image54647808page226image54647920page226image54648032page226image43052096page226image43052288page226image43052480page226image43052672page226image54648144page226image43053248page226image54648256page226image43053824page226image54648368page226image54648480page226image43054784page226image43054976page226image54648592page226image54648704page226image43055936page226image43056128page226image43056320page226image43056512page226image43056704page226image54648816page226image43024576page226image54648928page226image54649040page226image54649152page226image54649264page226image43026304page226image54649376page226image43026880page226image43027072page226image54649488page226image43027648page226image54649600page226image43028224page226image54649712page226image54649824page226image43029184page226image43029376page226image43029568page226image43029760page226image43029952page226image54649936page226image43030528page226image43030720page226image43030912page226image43031104page226image43031296page226image54650048page226image43031872page226image54650160page226image43032448page226image43032640page226image43032832page226image43033024page226image43033216page226image43033408page226image43033600page226image43033792page226image54650272page226image43034752page226image43034944page226image43035136page226image43035328page226image43035520page226image43035712page226image43035904page226image43036096page226image43036288page226image43036480page226image43036672page226image43036864page226image43037056

References
Mathematics used for calibration scenario

A Simplified Approach to Calibrating C14 Dates, Talma, A. S., Vogel, J. C., 1993, Radiocarbon 35(2):317-322

References to MARINE13 database

Reimer PJ, Bard E, Bayliss A, Beck JW, Blackwell PG, Bronk Ramsey C, Buck CE, Cheng H, Edwards RL, Friedrich M, Grootes PM, Guilderson TP, Haflidason H, Hajdas I, Hatté C, Heaton TJ, Hoffmann DL, Hogg AG, Hughen KA, Kaiser KF, Kromer B, Manning SW, Niu M, Reimer RW, Richards DA, Scott EM, Southon JR, Staff RA, Turney CSM, van der Plicht J. 2013. IntCal13 and Marine13 radiocarbon age calibration curves 0–50,000 years cal BP. Radiocarbon 55(4):1869–1887.

Beta Analytic Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory

4985 S.W. 74 Court Miami Florida 33155 USA • Tel: (305)-667-5167 • Fax: (305)-663-0964 • Email: beta@radiocarbon.com

page226image43037248

Page 8 of 11

Radiocarbon age (BP)

CALIBRATION OF RADIOCARBON AGE TO CALENDAR YEARS

page227image43901568

(Variables: C13/C12 = -0.5 o/oo : Delta-R = 270 ± 55 : Glob res = -200 to 500 : lab. mult = 1)

Laboratory number Beta-379712 Conventional radiocarbon age 2600 ± 30 BP

2330 ± 63 Adjusted for local reservoir correction

2 Sigma calibrated result 95% probability

Intercept of radiocarbon age with calibration curve

1 Sigma calibrated results 68% probability

2550 page227image439080962600 ± 30 BP (2330 ± 63 BP adjusted)

     2500
     2450
     2400
     2350
     2300
     2250
     2200
     2150
     2100

Cal BC 160 to AD 140 (Cal BP 2110 to 1810)

Cal AD 10 (Cal BP 1940)

Cal BC 70 to AD 80 (Cal BP 2020 to 1870)

SHELL

page227image43908480page227image43902912page227image43905792page227image43903296page227image43906752page227image43899264page227image43904832page227image43888064page227image43888256page227image43888448page227image43073536page227image43073728page227image54763728page227image54763840page227image54763952page227image54764064page227image43075456page227image54763280page227image54763392page227image43076416page227image43076608page227image43076800page227image43076992page227image43077184page227image43077376page227image43077568page227image43077760page227image43077952page227image43078144page227image54763504page227image54763616page227image54762832page227image43079488page227image54762944page227image43080448page227image43080640page227image54763056page227image43081408page227image43081600page227image43081792page227image43081984page227image43082176page227image43082368page227image43082560page227image43082752page227image43082944page227image43083136page227image43083328page227image43083520page227image43083712page227image43083904page227image43084096page227image43084288page227image43084480page227image43084672page227image43084864page227image43085056page227image43085248page227image43085440page227image43085632page227image54763168page227image54762384page227image43086592page227image54762496page227image43087168page227image54762608page227image43087744page227image54762720page227image43088320page227image43088512page227image43088704page227image43088896page227image43089088page227image54761040page227image43089664page227image54761152page227image54761264page227image54761376page227image54758352page227image43059072page227image43059264page227image43059456page227image43059648page227image43059840page227image54758464page227image43060416page227image54758576page227image43060992page227image43061184page227image43061376page227image54758688page227image54761936page227image43062336page227image43062528page227image54762048page227image43063104page227image54762160page227image43063680page227image54762272page227image54758800page227image54758912page227image54759024page227image54759136page227image43065792page227image43065984page227image43066176page227image43066368page227image43066560page227image54759248page227image54759360page227image43067520page227image43067712page227image54759472page227image43068288page227image54759584page227image43068864page227image54766192page227image54766304page227image54766416page227image54766528page227image54767536page227image54767648page227image43071360page227image43071552page227image54767760page227image43072128page227image43072320page227image43072512page227image43072704page227image43072896page227image43073088page227image43073280page227image43106304page227image43106496page227image43106688page227image43106880page227image54767872page227image43107456page227image54768432page227image43108032page227image43108224page227image43108416page227image54768544page227image54768656page227image43109376page227image54768768page227image43109952page227image54759696page227image54759808page227image43110912page227image43111104page227image43111296page227image43111488page227image43111680page227image54759920page227image43112640page227image43112832page227image43113024page227image43113216page227image43113408page227image43113600page227image43113792page227image43113984page227image43114176page227image43114368page227image43114560

200 150 100 50 0 50 100 150 200 Cal BC/AD

Database usedMARINE13

References
Mathematics used for calibration scenario

A Simplified Approach to Calibrating C14 Dates, Talma, A. S., Vogel, J. C., 1993, Radiocarbon 35(2):317-322

References to MARINE13 database

Reimer PJ, Bard E, Bayliss A, Beck JW, Blackwell PG, Bronk Ramsey C, Buck CE, Cheng H, Edwards RL, Friedrich M, Grootes PM, Guilderson TP, Haflidason H, Hajdas I, Hatté C, Heaton TJ, Hoffmann DL, Hogg AG, Hughen KA, Kaiser KF, Kromer B, Manning SW, Niu M, Reimer RW, Richards DA, Scott EM, Southon JR, Staff RA, Turney CSM, van der Plicht J. 2013. IntCal13 and Marine13 radiocarbon age calibration curves 0–50,000 years cal BP. Radiocarbon 55(4):1869–1887.

Beta Analytic Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory

4985 S.W. 74 Court Miami Florida 33155 USA • Tel: (305)-667-5167 • Fax: (305)-663-0964 • Email: beta@radiocarbon.com

page227image43114752

Page 9 of 11

Radiocarbon age (BP)

CALIBRATION OF RADIOCARBON AGE TO CALENDAR YEARS

page228image43038400

(Variables: C13/C12 = -0.1 o/oo : Delta-R = 270 ± 55 : Glob res = -200 to 500 : lab. mult = 1)

Laboratory number Beta-379713 Conventional radiocarbon age 2640 ± 30 BP

2370 ± 63 Adjusted for local reservoir correction

2 Sigma calibrated result 95% probability

Intercept of radiocarbon age with calibration curve

1 Sigma calibrated results 68% probability

2600 page228image430385922640 ± 30 BP (2370 ± 63 BP adjusted)

     2550
     2500
     2450
     2400
     2350
     2300
     2250
     2200
     2150

Cal BC 195 to AD 95 (Cal BP 2145 to 1855)

Cal BC 40 (Cal BP 1990)

Cal BC 135 to AD 35 (Cal BP 2085 to 1915)

SHELL

page228image43038784page228image43038976page228image43039168page228image43039360page228image43039552page228image43039744page228image43039936page228image43040128page228image43040320page228image43040512page228image43904256page228image43907520page228image54928016page228image54927904page228image54927120page228image54927008page228image43091264page228image43091456page228image54926672page228image54926560page228image43092416page228image43092608page228image43092800page228image43092992page228image54927568page228image43093568page228image43093760page228image43093952page228image43094144page228image43094336page228image43094528page228image43094720page228image43094912page228image43095104page228image54927456page228image54927344page228image43096256page228image43096448page228image54927232page228image54927792page228image43097792page228image54757344page228image43115520page228image43115712page228image54770224page228image43116288page228image43116480page228image43116672page228image43116864page228image43117056page228image43117248page228image54770336page228image54770448page228image43118208page228image54770560page228image54770672page228image54770784page228image43119552page228image43119744page228image43119936page228image54770896page228image43120512page228image54771008page228image54771120page228image43121472page228image54771232page228image54771344page228image54771456page228image54771568page228image54654528page228image54654416page228image54654080page228image54653968page228image43404096page228image43404288page228image43404480page228image43404672page228image43404864page228image43405056page228image54655200page228image43405632page228image43405824page228image54655312page228image43406400page228image54655424page228image43406976page228image54655536page228image54655648page228image54655760page228image54655872page228image54655984page228image54656208page228image54656544page228image54656320page228image43410240page228image43410432page228image54656656page228image43411008page228image43411200page228image54653744page228image54653632page228image54653520page228image43412544page228image54653408page228image54654192page228image43413504page228image54653296page228image54652960page228image43414464page228image54643776page228image54656432page228image43415424page228image43415616page228image54656768page228image43416192page228image43416384page228image43416576page228image43416768page228image43416960page228image43417152page228image43417344page228image43384832page228image43385024page228image43385216page228image43385408page228image43385600page228image43385792page228image43385984page228image54656880page228image43386560page228image43386752page228image54643888page228image43387328page228image43387520page228image43387712page228image54656096page228image43388288page228image43388480page228image43388672page228image54653184page228image43389248page228image54654640page228image43389824page228image43390016page228image43390208page228image54643664page228image43391168page228image43391360page228image43391552page228image43391744page228image43391936page228image43392128page228image43392320page228image43392512page228image43392704page228image43392896page228image43393088

250 200 150 100 50 0 50 100 150 Cal BC/AD

Database usedMARINE13

References
Mathematics used for calibration scenario

A Simplified Approach to Calibrating C14 Dates, Talma, A. S., Vogel, J. C., 1993, Radiocarbon 35(2):317-322

References to MARINE13 database

Reimer PJ, Bard E, Bayliss A, Beck JW, Blackwell PG, Bronk Ramsey C, Buck CE, Cheng H, Edwards RL, Friedrich M, Grootes PM, Guilderson TP, Haflidason H, Hajdas I, Hatté C, Heaton TJ, Hoffmann DL, Hogg AG, Hughen KA, Kaiser KF, Kromer B, Manning SW, Niu M, Reimer RW, Richards DA, Scott EM, Southon JR, Staff RA, Turney CSM, van der Plicht J. 2013. IntCal13 and Marine13 radiocarbon age calibration curves 0–50,000 years cal BP. Radiocarbon 55(4):1869–1887.

Beta Analytic Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory

4985 S.W. 74 Court Miami Florida 33155 USA • Tel: (305)-667-5167 • Fax: (305)-663-0964 • Email: beta@radiocarbon.com

page228image43393280

Page 10 of 11

Radiocarbon age (BP)

CALIBRATION OF RADIOCARBON AGE TO CALENDAR YEARS

page229image43818880

Laboratory number Conventional radiocarbon age

2 Sigma calibrated result 95% probability

Intercept of radiocarbon age with calibration curve

1 Sigma calibrated results 68% probability

Beta-379715
1750 ± 30 BP
Cal AD 230 to 380 (Cal BP 1720 to 1570)

Cal AD 255 (Cal BP 1695) Cal AD 295 (Cal BP 1655) Cal AD 320 (Cal BP 1630)

Cal AD 240 to 335 (Cal BP 1710 to 1615)

1875 page229image438179201750 ± 30 BP

    1850
    1825
    1800
    1775
    1750
    1725
    1700
    1675
    1650
    1625

200 225

Database usedINTCAL13

CHARRED MATERIAL

(Variables: C13/C12 = -24.8 o/oo : lab. mult = 1)

page229image43814848page229image43815232page229image43820032page229image43821760page229image43038016page229image43037824page229image43037632page229image43037440page229image43433984page229image43434176page229image43434368page229image43434560page229image54640048page229image43435136page229image43435328page229image54639936page229image54627952page229image43436288page229image54628064page229image43436864page229image43437056page229image43437248page229image43437440page229image54639040page229image43438016page229image43438208page229image43438400page229image54629184page229image43438976page229image54629408page229image43439744page229image43439936page229image43440128page229image54629520page229image54629632page229image43441088page229image54629856page229image54630080page229image54638928page229image54630640page229image43444160page229image43444352page229image43444544page229image43444736page229image43444928page229image54631200page229image43445504page229image43445696page229image43445888page229image43446080page229image43446272page229image43446464page229image54631424page229image54638592page229image54630416page229image43447808page229image43448000page229image43448192page229image43448384page229image43448576page229image54630752page229image43449152page229image43449344page229image43449536page229image43449728page229image54631312page229image43417600page229image43417792page229image43417984page229image43418176page229image54638032page229image43418752page229image43418944page229image43419136page229image43419328page229image54639152page229image43419904page229image43420096page229image43420288page229image43420480page229image43420672page229image43420864page229image43421056page229image43421248page229image43421440page229image43421632page229image43421824page229image43422016page229image43422208page229image43422400page229image43422592page229image43422784page229image43422976page229image43423168page229image43423360page229image43423552page229image54638144page229image43424128page229image43424320page229image54633328page229image43424896page229image43425088page229image43425280page229image43425472page229image54639376page229image43426432page229image43426624page229image43426816page229image43427008page229image43427200page229image43427392page229image43427584page229image43427776page229image43427968page229image43428160page229image43428352

References
Mathematics used for calibration scenario

250

275 300 Cal AD

325 350

375 400

A Simplified Approach to Calibrating C14 Dates, Talma, A. S., Vogel, J. C., 1993, Radiocarbon 35(2):317-322

References to INTCAL13 database

Reimer PJ et al. IntCal13 and Marine13 radiocarbon age calibration curves 0–50,000 years cal BP. Radiocarbon 55(4):1869–1887.

Beta Analytic Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory

4985 S.W. 74 Court Miami Florida 33155 USA • Tel: (305)-667-5167 • Fax: (305)-663-0964 • Email: beta@radiocarbon.com

page229image43428544

Page 11 of 11

Radiocarbon age (BP)

page230image41929568

Quality Assurance Report

This report provides the results of reference materials used to validate radiocarbon analyses prior to reporting. Known value reference materials were analyzed quasi-simultaneously with the unknowns. Results are reported as expected values vs measured values. Reported values are calculated relative to NIST SRM-4990B and corrected for isotopic fractionation. Results are reported using the direct analytical measure percent modern carbon (pMC) with one relative standard deviation.

Report Date: Submitter :

May 27, 2014
Mr. Jeffrey Altschul

Reference 1

Reference 2

Reference 3

Reference 4

QA MEASUREMENTS

page230image43003712

COMMENT:

Validation:

All measurements passed acceptance tests.

Expected Value: Measured Value: Agreement:

Expected Value: Measured Value: Agreement:

Expected Value: Measured Value: Agreement:

Expected Value: Measured Value: Agreement:

1.2 +/- 0.1 pMC 1.4 +/- 0.1 pMC Accepted

57.2 +/- 0.3 pMC 57.2 +/- 0.2 pMC Accepted

10.3 +/- 0.2 Pmc 10.3 +/- 0.1 pMC Accepted

95.6 +/- 0.3 pMC 95.4 +/- 0.4 pMC Accepted

page230image41942256

Date:

May 27, 2014

APPENDIX CCA-LAN-2768/H Site-Record Update

page231image43001600

217

State of California — The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

Primary # HRI #

Trinomial CA-LAN-2768/HNRHP Status Code

Reviewer Date

page233image43002752page233image43002944

PRIMARY RECORDUPDATE

page233image43003136

Other Listings Review Code

Page of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)CA-LAN-2768/H

page233image43004288page233image43004480page233image43004672

P1. Other Identifier:
*P2. Location: 
 Not for Publication  Unrestricted

and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.)*b. USGS 7.5' Quad Venice Date: 1951, photorevised 1967

c. Address:
d. UTM: Zone: 
11370260
d. UTM: Zone: 11370813
e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate) Elevation: 10 m above mean sea level;

the site runs westward from the intersection of Jefferson and Centinela Boulevards for approximately 800 m along the base of the Westchester Bluffs.

*P3a. Description (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries):

This is an update for CA-LAN-2768/H. Statistical Research, Inc. (SRI), conducted data recovery excavations at the northern end of Locus A in March 2015. SRI excavated a 3-by-3-m excavation block and conducted mechanical stripping in a 900-m2area. The excavations identified two cultural strata, the upper and lower marsh deposits, separated by a sterile stratum of sand that was likely deposited by Centinela Creek. The two cultural strata contained few artifacts, primarily faunal bone and lithics. Only a small quantity of identifiable marine shell was recovered. The lithic artifacts included a small number of flakes and a few flaked stone tools. The faunal bone comprised at least five classes, including ray-finned fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. No features were encountered during hand-excavation or mechanical stripping.

mE/ 3760562mE/ 3761154

*P3b. Resource Attributes (List attributes and codes)AP15. Habitation debris

City: mN (G.P.S.)mN (G.P.S.)

Zip:

*a. County: Los Angeles
Location: Ballona and Sausal Civil Land Grants, unsectioned

*P4. Resources Present:

 Building  Structure  ObjectSiteDistrictElement of DistrictOther (Isolates, etc.)

P5b. Description of Photo (view, date, accession #): Upper marsh deposit, LAN-2768, 3/3/2015, view to the west.

*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Source:

 Historic  Prehistoric  Both*P7. Owner and Address:

Playa Vista Parcel 4, L.P., and Playa Vista Parcel 5, L.P.
400 South Hope St., Ste. 200
Los Angeles, CA 90071

*P8. Recorded by (Name, affiliation, and address):

S. Kremkau and K. Becker Statistical Research, Inc. P.O. Box 390
Redlands, CA 92374

*P9. Date Recorded: March 2015*P10. SurveyType(Describe):Data

Recovery Excavations.

page233image54922304page233image43098368page233image43098560

*P11. Report Citation (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter "none."):
Kremkau, Scott H., Kenneth M. Becker, and John G. Douglass (editors)
2016 
2015 Data Recovery at CA-LAN-2768/H Locus A, Located on Lot 18 of Tract 49104-04, The Campus at Playa Vista, California. Technical Report 16-22a. Statistical Research, Redlands, California.

*Attachments:  NONE  Location Map  Sketch Map  Continuation Sheet  Building, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological Record  District Record  Linear Feature Record  Milling Station Record  Rock Art Record Artifact Record  Photograph Record  Other (List):

page233image43098752

DPR 523A (9/2013) *Required information

State of California — The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION Trinomial CA-LAN-2768/H

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE RECORD

page234image43429696page234image43429888

Page of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)CA-LAN-2768/H

*A1. Dimensions: a. Length: 800m. ne/sw × b. Width: 250m. nw/se )

Method of Measurement:Paced Taped Visual estimate Other: GPS

Method of Determination (Check any that apply):Artifacts Features Soil Vegetation Topography Cut bank  Animal burrow  Excavation  Property boundary  Other (Explain):

Reliability of Determination:  High  Medium  Low Explain: Excavations and mechanical stripping have defined the site boundaries.

Limitations (Check any that apply):Restricted access Paved/built over Site limits incompletely definedDisturbances Vegetation Other (Explain):

A2. Depth: up to 3m  None  Unknown Method of Determination: Excavations and mechanical stripping

  1. *A3.  Human Remains:  Present  Absent  Possible  Unknown (Explain):

  2. *A4.  Features (Number, briefly describe, indicate size, list associated cultural constituents, and show location of each feature on sketch map):No features were found during the current project.

  3. *A5.  Cultural Constituents (Describe and quantify artifacts, ecofacts, cultural residues, etc., not associated with features):

    The upper levels of the excavation block contained a small quantity of historical-period artifacts, including metal, glass, and pottery. These appeared to date to the early twentieth century. In total, 15 lithic artifacts were recovered from excavation units: 14 pieces of debitage and 1 biface fragment. In total, 16 lithic artifacts were recovered from mechanical-stripping units: 4 cores, 2 pieces of tested material, 5 pieces of debitage, and 5 pieces of fire-affected rock. Over 670 bones and bone fragments were recovered from mechanical-stripping units and test pits, the vast majority from test pits. Vertebrate-faunal remains represented at least five classes, including ray-finned fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. Of those, mammalian bone was most common. Bones from the mechanical-stripping unit consisted of mammal and bird bone, including artiodactyl, deer-sized-mammal, pocket gopher, and indeterminate small-mammal bones as well as 3 pieces of bird bone.

  4. *A6.  Were Specimens Collected? No Yes (If yes, attach Artifact Record or catalog and identify where specimens are curated.)

  5. *A7.  Site Condition:  Good  Fair  Poor (Describe disturbances) The upper portion of the site had been truncated by

    mechanical stripping, but the rest of the site was intact.

  6. *A8.  Nearest Water (Type, distance, and direction)Centinela Creek once flowed through the site, but the creek has now been channelized.

  7. *A9.  Elevation: 10 m above mean sea level

  1. A10.  Environmental Setting (Describe culturally relevant variables such as vegetation, fauna, soils, geology, landform, slope, aspect, exposure,

    etc.):

  2. A11.  Historical Information:

*A12. Age:Prehistoric Protohistoric 1542-1769 1769-1848 1848-1880 1880-1914 1914-1945
 Post 1945  Undetermined Describe position in regional prehistoric chronology or factual historic dates if known.

Most of the site is prehistoric in age, primarily dating to the Intermediate period. However, the upper levels of the site are mixed with twentieth-century refuse.

page234image43430464page234image43429504page234image43429312

  1. A13.  Interpretations (Discuss data potential, function[s], ethnic affiliation, and other interpretations):

  2. A14.  Remarks:

  3. A15.  References (Documents, informants, maps, and other references):

  4. A16.  Photographs (List subjects, direction of view, and accession numbers or attach a Photograph Record): Original Media/Negatives Kept at:

*A17. Form Prepared by: S. Kremkau
Affiliation and Address: Statistical Research, Inc., P.O. Box 390, Redlands, CA 92374

Date:

3/23/2016

page234image43429120page234image43428928page234image43430656

DPR 523C (Rev. 1/1995) (Word 2/2015)

*Required information

State of California — The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION Trinomial CA-LAN-2768/H

ARTIFACT RECORD

page235image43432960page235image43433152

Page of Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) CA-LAN-2768/HLocation Where Collected Specimens are Curated: Fowler Museum, University of California, Los Angeles

page235image43433344page235image43433536page235image43433728page235image41752672page235image43466752page235image41753088page235image41753296

Type Key (list abbreviations used):

Condition Key:

C Ceramic F Faunal H Historics L Lithic

O Other

F Fragmentary C Complete
U Unknown Other:

DPR 523H (Rev. 1/1995) (Word 2/2015)

State of California — The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION Trinomial CA-LAN-2768/H

ARTIFACT RECORD

page236image43475392page236image43475584

Page of Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) CA-LAN-2768/H

page236image43475776page236image43475968page236image43476160page236image41753504page236image41752880page236image41753712

Type Key (list abbreviations used):

Condition Key:

C Ceramic F Faunal H Historics L Lithic

O Other

F Fragmentary C Complete
U Unknown Other:

DPR 523H (Rev. 1/1995) (Word 2/2015)

State of California — The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

PHOTOGRAPH RECORD

Primary # HRI #

Trinomial CA-LAN-2768/H

page237image43474048page237image43482688page237image43482880

Page of Project Name: LAN-2768 Data Recovery - Tishman Speyer Year: 2015Camera Format: Digital

page237image43431040page237image43431232page237image43430848page237image43431424page237image41753920page237image41754128page237image41754336

DPR 523i (Rev. 1/1995) (Word 9/2013)

State of California — The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

CONTINUATION SHEET

Property Name:

Primary # HRI #

Trinomial CA-LAN-2768/H

page238image43450752page238image43450944page238image43451136page238image43451328

Page of 9

page238image43451520page238image43451712page238image43451904page238image43452096page238image43452288page238image43452480page238image41754960page238image43452672page238image41754544page238image43452864page238image43453056page238image43453248

Photo DSCF0120: View of excavations of the upper marsh deposit.

page238image43453440page238image43453632page238image43453824page238image43454016page238image41755168page238image43454208page238image43454400page238image43454592page238image43454784

Photo DSCF0132: View of excavations of the lower marsh deposit.

DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995) (Word 9/2013)

State of California — The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

CONTINUATION SHEET

Property Name:

Primary # HRI #

Trinomial CA-LAN-2768/H

page239image43456704page239image43456896page239image43457088page239image43457280

Page of 9

page239image43457472page239image43457664page239image43457856page239image43458048page239image43458240page239image43458432page239image41755584page239image43458624page239image41754752page239image43458816page239image43459008page239image43459200

Photo DSCF0148: Overview of mechanical stripping.

page239image43099328page239image43099136page239image43098944page239image43099520page239image41769056page239image43099712page239image41770304page239image43099904page239image43100096page239image43100288

Photo DSCF0149: Overview of mechanical stripping.

DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995) (Word 9/2013)

State of California — The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

SKETCH MAP

Primary # HRI #

Trinomial CA-LAN-2768/H

page240image43101632page240image43101824page240image43102016

Page of *Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder)*Drawn by: S. Norris

CA-LAN-2768/H

*Date of map: 2015

page240image43102208page240image43102400page240image43102592page240image43102784page240image43102976page240image41770512

DPR 523K (Rev. 1/1995) (Word 9/2013)

NOTE: Include bar scale and north arrow.

State of California — The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

LOCATION MAP

Primary # HRI #

Trinomial CA-LAN-2768/H

page241image43104512page241image43104704page241image43104896

Page of *Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder)*Map Name: Venice 7.5’ USGS topographic quadrangle *Scale: 1:24,000

CA-LAN-2768/H

*Date of map: 2010

page241image43105088page241image43105280page241image43105472page241image43105664page241image43105856page241image43106048page241image41770720page241image41770096page241image41770928page241image41771136page241image41771344

DPR 523J (Rev. 1/1995) (Word 9/2013)

*Required information

APPENDIX DObsidian-Sourcing Results

page243image43100864

229

page245image41771760

January 8, 2014

Richard Hughes
Geochemical Research Laboratory 20 Portola Green Circle
Portola Valley, CA 94028-7833

Dear Dr. Hughes,

Enclosed are five samples (3000-030064A19, 3000-0300647EA, 3000-030064807, 3000- 030064869, and 3000-0300649B4) for non-destructive energy dispersive x-ray fluorescence (edxrf) analysis. These samples come from prehistoric site CA-LAN-2768, which is located in the Ballona Wetlands near Marina del Rey, California. The site is located within an unsectioned portion of the Ballona and Sausal Civil Land Grants, on the 1967 Venice, 7.5- minute U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle (see attached figures). The site is located along upper Centinela Creek and the base of the Westchester Bluffs. The site encompasses a long and relatively narrow prehistoric midden situated on the upper terrace of the relict Centinela Creek. The midden is more or less continuous throughout the site, and encompasses approximately 850 meters of midden along the base of the bluffs. Dated features and midden deposits suggest that most of the prehistoric occupation occurred from about 950 BC to AD 300.

Our account is listed under the name Jeffrey H. Altschul with his contact information from our Tucson office. Please send the invoice and results to my attention here at the Redlands California office (address below) and reference it to Project Number 13TS06. We do not need expedited delivery service, but if possible, we would like an estimate of when we would receive the results.

Please email me upon receipt of this material (jclark@sricrm.com) and feel free to call or email with any further recommendations, comments or questions.

Sincerely,

James J. Clark, M.A., RPA Director, Redlands Office Statistical Research, Inc. 21 W. Stuart Ave. Redlands, CA 92374

page245image41733168page245image43393664page245image41736496

page246image41738784
page247image41737120page247image41737536
page249image41738576
page250image41737952