Search

This report describes a small undistinguished bedrock processing station located on an unnamed drainage tributary to Tucalota Creek. The feature is situated at an elevation of 2,140 feet above sea level east of Colt Road not far from the junction of Colt and Barranca roads in western Riverside County (Fig. 1). It is proposed that this site has three characteristics worthy of comment: 1. As of the late 1970s the pestles used in the processing were still in situ. 2. The number of pestle-like artifacts present on this rock exceed the number of mortars by a factor of four to one (nine pestles to two mortars). 3. The pestle forms are ovate to nearly round in outline as opposed to the elongate forms often associated with bedrock mortars in the region at large. In addition to this difference in outline form, several of the pestles are characterized by multiple pounding surfaces, and all have clearly defined rubbing wear on one or both sides.

Although data collection and analysis are far from complete, initial results suggest that there is significant patterning in the artifact distributions thus far compiled. As a tentative hypothesis, therefore, it is proposed that in the extant artifact distributions there is evidence for a hierarchical use of space related to: (1) terrain; (2) distance from primary water sources; and (3) probable locational differentials in the kinds and quantities of subsistence resources available for exploitation.

This short report provides information on what may be one of the last surviving Luiseno sweat house structures in northern San Diego County. The general location of this feature is shown in Figure 1.

Artifact collections made as part of surveys conducted in northern San Diego County during the late 1940s and early 1950s included hammer-like implements characterized by batter and evidence of wear. Such artifacts were typically irregular in form, seemingly lacked evidence of purposeful shaping, and for lack of a better designation, were termed hammergrinders. Some kind of undefined multi-purpose function was assumed (Warren, True, and Eudey 1961: 17). At the time such artifacts were not given a great deal of consideration, and the only real concern was that they were cultural and that their critical identifying attributes were the not always obvious wear facets on one or more surfaces.Unfortunately, in the years since 1961, no systematic treatment of this artifact has been proposed or published, and they are seldom mentioned in regional reports. Reasons for this lack of mention and/or reporting are uncertain but several possibilities come to mind: 1. It may be the case that they are not being recognized. This is especially likely (possible) when they are made of local rock with minimal evidence of cultural modification; 2. In other cases it may be that specimens fitting this category have been recognized as artifacts and collected, but were placed in a hammerstone category without further comment; 3. In a few cases (probably rare) such artifacts were collected and categorized as incipient manos or rubbing stones; 4. It may be that people working in the larger area are actually collecting these implements and simply prefer not to use the term hammergrinder.It is not the purpose of this paper to argue for any particular name, and it does not matter what the artifacts are called. It does matter if they are not considered in the overall assessment of the local and regional prehistory. Fig. 1 shows the location of the study region.

Recent radiocarbon age determinations (see Fig. 1) allow a reexamination of the suggested age of the San Luis Rey assemblages. When C. W. Meighan defined the San Luis Rey Complex as a local manifestation of the late prehistoric occupancy in northern San Diego County, neither the geographic (territorial) nor the temporal boundaries of this tentative cultural unit were clear (Meighan 1954). Based on the condition of the midden and a number of artifactual traits, a temporal span of A.D. 1400 to 1750 was proposed for the non-pottery component (San Luis Rey 1), and since pottery was conspicuous by its absence in the "type site" excavations, it was suggested that this complex also dated the arrival of ceramics into this particular region. A tentative date of A.D. 1750 for the terminal end of the pre-pottery phase, of course, meant that San Luis Rey II (whatever that represented) had to be fitted into the very limited temporal slot extending from A.D. 1750 to somewhat before 1850. Using mission secularization as the approximate time for the demise of a functional prehistoric lifeway, San Luis Rey II would indeed have had a short duration.

Recently determined radiocarbon dates for an archaeological component believed to reflect an Early Milling Stone occupancy in southern California provide chronological support for the recognition of La Jolla-like cultural traits in interior San Diego county.

In addition to those archaeological sites in San Diego County, California, that are easily recognized on the basis of artifact scatters, soil discoloration, and/or bedrock features, important cultural elements exist that generally are not identified. Examples are fairly common in the ethnographic literature, and some features are quite well known. The turtle rock at Potrero described by Lucario Cuevish (Du Bois 1908:115) is a good example, as is the place near Rincon known as Wasimal.

Recent discussions by Wallace (1985:135-144, 1986:21-27), and a general dearth of information for the southerly portions of Los Angeles County in general, provide the impetus for this short comment. The data presented below from Malaga Cove (CA-LAN-138; Fig. 1) were collected by the author during the mid- to late-1930s, preceding and overlapping the Southwest Museum excavations conducted by Edwin Walker (Walker 1937:210-214, 1951:27-69).

The recent two-year drought (1975-77) provided an opportunity to find out just how such material might be brought to light. During the drought, Lake Berryessa on Putah Creek lowered its level about 40 feet leaving surfaces exposed that were considerably altered from their pre-1956 (year of inundation) condition. How we happened on to the situation is outlined below. This is the first in a series of papers in which we hope to report in detail on the extent, condition, and nature of such material in one small part of the North Coast Range of California.

This paper is concerned with those tributaries that drain into the San Luis Rey River from the Agua Tibia-Palomar Mountain block (see Fig. 3).

The purpose of the present paper is to add to the existing data base two previously undescribed Pauma Complex artifact inventories. We recognize that our presentation is descriptive and contains no recognizable research design. It has no list or discussion of local plants, no discussion of regional rainfall figures, and no significant comments on the local geology. These omissions are not accidental. While we recognize the need for such information under some circumstances, and are fully cognizant of the many unresolved local theoretical issues, it is our opinion that such matters are best developed in other contexts, and when dealing with substantially larger artifact samples.

Nahachish Rock is located on the northerly margin of Rainbow Valley in northern San Diego County, California (Fig. 1). This feature is supposed to represent the solidified remains of an important person in Luiseno mythology. This paper describes the location of the Nahachish Rock, compares its appearance in the mid-1920s and the mid-1980s, comments on some aspects of the mythology associated with the person Nahachish and, wherever possible, provides definitive locations for the several places visited during his travels.

In short, our point is not that Fulmer and Rosen erred by including these possibilities in their much-appreciated reports, nor are we proposing that Oxendine added confusion to the record. It is clear that all the authors recognized the limitations in the available data. Furthermore, we agree in principle that the possible identification of prehistoric sites with ethnographic and/or historic data should be considered and mentioned whenever there is any reason to believe that a correlation exists. Our concern is with the increasingly common use of secondary sources without careful consideration of the intent or details included in the primary works. The likelihood that repeated secondary and even tertiary citations, starting out as qualified possibilities, will gradually translate into some level of unwarranted reality with attendant potential for misinterpretation, is worth some attention.

My Luiseño Neighbors: Excerpts from a Journal Kept in Pauma Valley, Northern San Diego County, 1934 to 1974.Eleanor Beemer. Ramona: Acoma Books, 1980, 67 pp., map and many illustrations, $9.95 (paper).

This report presents ethnographic testimony collected 30-40 years ago by the senior author which pinpoints the location of Exwanyawish, and provides additional information concerning the pictographs located thereon. Initially, we had some concern about publicizing the exact location of this important feature, but we realized that although the site had been recorded archaeologically many years ago, its ethnographic significance had become confused. Many of the Luiseno elders who knew the details connected with the rock, its pictographs, and its mythological connections have since passed away, so it is important from an ethnographic perspective to fill in as many gaps as possible while the remaining carriers of this knowledge are alive.

Kumeyaay Pottery—Paddle and A nvil Techniques of Southern California.Gena R. Van Camp. Socorro, New Mexico: Ballena Press Anthropological Papers No, 15, 1979, 104 pp., 15 illustrations, 3 maps, $6.95 (paper).

Because of a long-term research interest in pitted rock petroglyphs, we were interested and somewhat concerned several years ago when Minor (1975) published his paper "The Pit and Groove Petroglyph Style in Southern California". Our interest was in the description of the southern California examples, the distribution data, and the fact that someone was working with this material in a systematic way. Our concern was focused primarily on the proposal that a meaningful interpretation for the pitted rock features could be found in the extant Luiseno ethnographic literature.

In a recent review of the archaeological report on the site of Molpa, San Diego County, a number of important points were raised by Ken Hedges. This is not a reply to Hedges' review which is on the whole carefully thought out and more than fair. However, several points seem worth some additional comment.

The immediate goal is to present here some data relative to one aspect of the little known San Luis Rey I phase of the San Luis Rey Complex. We are not proposing a synthesis of all available San Luis Rey I data for San Diego County nor are we suggesting that the handful of artifacts described herein is a sufficient basis for any in-depth discussion of either the settlement pattern or the specific activities of site occupants. We have included, however several theoretically oriented observations that are best seen as tentative hypotheses. In our opinion these suggestions, though not yet testable, are not inconsistent with the available data and may have meaningful implications in the eventual understanding of the local archaeology. It is hoped that more significant data and somewhat more definitive theoretical contributions will be forthcoming as the data base is expanded and refined. Continuing investigations toward this end are now in progress.