1999 08 19 HPC� T
F OZ
V' >
tro
M or rN�
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
AGENDA
The Regular Meeting to be held in the Session Room at the
La Quinta City Hall, 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California
August 19, 1999
3:30 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. Pledge of Allegiance
B. Roll Call
C. Election of Chair and Vice Chair
II. PUBLIC COMMENT
This is the time set aside for citizens to address the Historical Preservation Commission on
matters relating to historic resources within the City of La Quinta which are not Agenda items.
When addressing the Historical Commission, please state your name and address and when
discussing matters pertaining to prehistoric sites, do not disclose the exact location of the site(s)
for their protection.
III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR:
A. Approval of the regular Minutes for the meeting of June 17, 1999
V. BUSINESS ITEMS:
a
Plan 99-036 located northwest of the intersection of Highway 111 and Dune Palms
Road and the north side of Highway 111, 350 feet east of Adams Street.
Applicant: Troll-Woodpark Company.
Archaeological Consultant: CRM Tech, Bruce Love
B. Phase I Archaeological Assessment of 54.65 acres owned by the City Redevelopment
Agency; located at the southwest corner of Washington Street and Miles Avenue.
Applicant: City of La Quinta Redevelopment Agency.
Archaeological Consultant: Archaeological Advisory Group, Mr. James Brock
-001
HPCIAGENDA
VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL:
VII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
HPC/AGENDA
..02
MINUTES
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall Session Room
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA
June 17, 1999
This meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission was called to order by Chairman Robert
Wright at 3:31 p.m. who led the flag salute and asked for the roll call.
CALL TO ORDER
A. Pledge of Allegiance.
B. Roll Call,
Present: Commissioners Barbara Irwin, Mike Mitchell, Maria Puente, .Judy Vossler,
and Chairman Robert Wright.
Staff Present: Planning Manager Christine di Iorio, Principal Planner Stan
Sawa, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer.
IL PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed.
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR:
A. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Irwin/Vossler to approve the Minutes
of May 27, 1999, as submitted. Unanimously approved.
V. BUSINESS ITEMS
A. Environmental Assessment 98- 367: Cultural Resources Reconnaissance and Review
of a Cultural Resources Reconnaissance for the La Quinta Resort and Club Real
Pr(oj ct located at the northwest intersection of Eisenhower Drive and Avenida
Fernando, north of the La Quinta Resort and Club. Applicant: Landaq Incorporated.
Archaeological Consultant Joan C. Brown for RMW Paleo Associates, Inc.; Review
Archaeological Consultant Donn Grenda for Statistical Research, Inc.
Commissioner Vossler withdrew from the meeting due to a possible conflict
of interest.
2. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the staff report, a copy of which is on
file in the Community Development Department.
Commissioner Mitchell thanked staff for their report and stated this report did
riot have any terms regarding curation agreements, nor did it list the artifacts
collected. He then asked if the artifacts belonged to the land holder or if the
CAM) Documents\WPDOCS\HPC6-17-99.wpd -I- I..-, .. 003
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
June 17. 1999
City had a curation agreement in 1place. The City should require some form
of a curation agreement to know the destination of the artifacts. In addition,
the report states the Salton Sea separates the Imperial Valley from Coachella
Valley and he is uncertain how that can be.
4. Chairman Wright introduced Mr. Ronald Bissell, Registered Professional
Archeologist with RMW Paleo Associates, who clarified he is a third owner
of RMW and Joan Brown is their employee. He was involved in the report
and the technical qualifications are the same. He then went on to state what
was found on the site and elaborated on their recommendation. He questioned
the review completed by Statistical Research Incorporated (SRI) in that Donn
Grenda of SRI did not note any site visits and depended on what was found
in their (RMW) report. Mr. Grenda concludes the four prehistoric sites are
not worthy of test excavation and recommends no further research on the four
sites. He questioned his reasoning for this recommendation and stated their
conclusion that the lack of surface artifacts is evidence there would be no
subsurface artifacts. This is faulty reasoning. Mr. Grenda based his
conclusion on a study at March AFB which is a different environment and
culture. He has done several excavations where there was very little surface
indication that wound up having, very complex subsurface deposits. These
sites all had one thing in common; they are located in areas of definition, not
erosion. Which is another area of disagreement with Mr. Grenda; his
perceived lack of sediments. The sites are surrounded by sediments. There
could be buried material. Mr. Grenda stated one potsherd was found when
two were found. His biggest disagreement with Mr. Grenda is where he
refers to one particular site, CA-RIV-6178, and states: "the sandy area south
of the feature could contain buried artifacts." This is exactly the same
conclusion they reached and Mr. Grenda is here making the same
recommendation. In summary, no one can say whether or not there are any
buried artifacts at the sites. If you do not accept the test excavations to go
with the sites, and there is a buried deposit, the chances are very good they
will be totally lost. In regard to the question as to why this could not be done
during monitoring, it is impossible to remove the dirt with a backhoe/scraper
in increments small enough to detect the artifacts. If Mr. Grenda's
recommendation is followed, archaeological data could be destroyed. With
their recommendation for minimal test excavation there will be a marginal
increase in cost, but there is a better chance of determining whether or not
there are any artifacts.
5. Commissioner Mitchell asked if they had spoken with SRI regarding their
differences in opinion. Mr. Bissell stated they had not had the time as they
had just received the report. Commissioner Mitchell asked if he would have
any objection to shuttle test probes. Mr. Bissell stated they suggested
controlled excavation in conjunction with a backhoe.
004
C:AMy Documents\WPDOCS\HPC6-17-99.wpd -2-
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
June 17.1999
6. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated RMW was requested to
supplement their report with the inclusion of research design question that
would justify the reason for a Phase II study. When asked for this
information, staff was told by RJOW that this is their recommendation and
nothing would be added to the report. This is why SRI was asked to prepare
the review. The City did not ask SRI to go out to the site due to budget
constraints.
7. Mr. Bissell stated they do modify their reports when asked by the
agency/company when something; is missing or the client believes it is weak.
He questioned who would have made that statement from his office. Staff
stated they were working with the; City's consultant. Mr. Bissell stated there
must have been some mis-communication.
8. Commissioner Irwin stated that considering the location, it is obvious from
the surface that the "pot hunters" have been there and she is amazed anything
was found. She definitely wants to see the site monitored as construction
continues. She agrees with staffs recommendation. She asked if any shovel
testing would take place. Staff stated the recommendation called for the first
report to prepare the record and form. However, as the summary did not
provide the justification for the need of additional testing and the City's
consultant did want this information as part of the study, staff requested the
second study. In doing the second study, the archaeologist did not visit the
site, but used the forms from the first report to make the determination
regarding the issues to be addressed. The recommendation in the peer review
was to not follow through with Phase II for the prehistoric site, and only do
the Phase II for the historic sites. Staff's recommendation agrees with the
peer review.
9. Commissioner Mitchell stated he agreed with Mr. Bissell that grading is the
worst form of excavation to expose subsurface material. However, he does
not agree with a lot of controlled excavation as it is very expensive and does
not expose as much of the subsurface as a shovel or auger. He; concurs with
staff s recommendation.
10. Mr. Bissell stated there are four archaeological sites that are in areas, or
immediately adjacent to areas that have active definition. There could be
artifacts in the sandy subsurface. They are recommending a minimal amount
of testing to determine if there: is anything below the sites. Mr. Grenda
recommended only monitoring and that could destroy anything that would be
below the subsurface.
] 1. Chairman Wright clarified the concern was only regarding the four
prehistoric sites.
C:\MyDocuments\WPDOCS\HPC6-17-99.wpd -3- .^ 005
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
June 17, 1999
12. Commissioner Puente asked if expense was the issue. Mr. Bissell stated no,
as the cost would be minimal. If a significant amount of material is found,
they will come back with a recommendation for data recovery prior to
grading. Where it could become expensive from the developers standpoint,
is if an archeological site is found during monitoring and he has to stop his
equipment while the site is explored. By doing the testing first, it prevents
delays.
13. Commissioner Puente asked for staffs opinion. Staff stated the peer review
provided the justification and did not recommend testing of the milling sites,
but monitoring.
14. Chairman Wright stated he concurred with staff s recommendation.
15. There being no further questions, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Wright/Irwin to adopt Minute Motion 99-017 accepting
staffs recommendation.
16. Commissioner Mitchell suggested testing for intact prehistoric deposits be
added to the recommendation. Commissioner Puente agreed.
17. Chairman Wright stated he agreed with staff. Commissioner Invin stated that
since the City has had such good luck in the past with monitoring, she would
stand with the motion as made.
18. Commissioner Puente asked what the cost would be for the Phase II
excavation. Staff stated it would have to be given to the consultant for his
review and determination.
19. Commissioner Irwin asked if Commissioner Mitchell wanted all the sites
tested. Commissioner Mitchell stated he was concerned only with areas that
possible could have subsurface impact. If there are substantial areas of sand
deposition, he would like to have them tested.
20. Chairman Wright stated the site has been scavenged extensively and the
milling site is next to the mountain and he cannot see how a scraper could
work in that cove without tearing everything up.
21. Discussion followed regarding any potential development of the site and
what equipment would be used on the site.
22. Chairman Wright moved to accept the report as recommended by staff.
Commissioner Irwin seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously
with Commissioner Vossler absent.
006
C:AMy Documents\WPDOCS\HPC6-17-99.wpd -4-
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
June 17, 1999
Commissioner Vossler rejoined the Commission.
B. Environmental Assessment 99-383: Archaeological Assessment of Specific Plan 99-
03E and.Tentative Parcel MaI2 29351; located northwest of the intersection of
Highway III and Dune Palms Road, Applicant: Troll-Woodpark Company.
Archaeological Consultant Bruce Love for CRM Tech.
Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the staff report, a copy of which is on
file in the Community Development Department.
2. Commissioner Puente asked if a final report would be submitted. Staff stated
it would be prepared and submitted to the Commission.
3. Commissioner Irwin stated she wanted the five items done as outlined in the
report.
4. Commissioner Vossler supported staffs recommendation. Commissioner
Mitchell and Chairman Wright concurred.
There being no further questions, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Puente/Mitchell to adopt Minute Motion 99-018, accepting
the report as recommended by staff:
C. Environmental Assessment 99-382: Archaeological Assessment of Tentative Tract
29288 and Conditional Use Permit 99-044; located northeast of the intersection of
Adams Street and Miles Avenue. Applicant: Mark and Dorothy Hastings for First
School of the Desert. Archaeological Consultant Bruce Love for CRM Tech.
Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the staff report, a copy of which is on
file in the Community Development Department.
2. Commissioner Irwin stated the property appeared to have a catch basin and
asked if a study was done when Miles Avenue and Adams Street were
constructed. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated that when the record
search was completed, nothing was found. The only sites recorded were not
found in this area. Staff does not know how much land was moved at the
time, and no studies were completed for the streets that long .ago.
There being no further comments, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners PuenteNossler to adopt Minute Motion 99-019 to accept the
report as recommended by staff. Unanimously approved.
C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\1 IPC6-17-99.wpd -5-
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
June 17,1999
C. Interim Report on a Portion of the Phase I Archaeological Survu; located at the
southeast corner of Washington Street and Miles Avenue. Applicant: City of La
Quinta Redevelopment Agency. Archaeological Consultant James Brock and Brenda
D. Smith for Archaeological Advisory Group.
Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the staff report, a copy of which is on
file in the Community Development Department.
2. There being no comments, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Mitchell/Puente to adopt Minute Motion 99-020 accepting the report as
recommended by staff. Unanimously approved.
VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL
VII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
A. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio explained some if the items received in their
packets.
B. Commissioner Irwin asked if the Curation Report would be on the next agenda. Staff
stated they anticipated the Commission's review of the document at the September
meeting.
C. Commissioner Irwin asked if the next meeting could be on July 8, 1999. Discussion
followed as to summer meeting schedules. It was recommended. to go dark in July
with a regular meeting in August.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Irwin/Puente to
adjourn this meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission to the next regularly scheduled
meeting of the Historical Preservation Commission on August 19, 1999. This meeting of the
Historical Preservation Commission was adjourned at 4:35 p.m. June 17, 1999. Unanimously
approved.
Submitted by:
Betty J. Sawyer
Executive Secretary
008
Q\My Documents\WPDOCS\HPC6-17-99.wpd -6-
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: AUGUST 19, 1999
ITEM: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 99-383: PHASE II
ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF SPECIFIC PLAN 99-
036
LOCATION: NORTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 111
AND DUNE PALMS ROAD AND THE NORTH SIDE OF
HIGHWAY 111, 350 FEET EAST OF ADAMS STREET
APPLICANT: TROLL-WOODPARK COMPANY (SCOTT GAYNER)
ARCHAEOLOGICAL
CONSULTANT: CRM TECH (BRUCE LOVE, PRINCIPAL)
BACKGROUND„
An Initial Study for a Negative Declaration is being prepared pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act requirements for Specific Plan 99-036 proposed on 36 acres
of land on the north side of Highway 1 1 1 , east of the One -Eleven La Quinta Shopping
Center. The Specific Plan consists of a mixed commercial/light industrial development.
This project initially consisted of 55 acres but the owner of 19 acres in the middle of
the project area has withdrawn his permission to include his property. Therefore, the
project is made up of westerly (Horn property) and easterly (Troll property)
components.
As a part of the Environmental Assessment, a Phase I cultural resources report for the
entire 55 acres was reviewed by the HPC on June 17, 1999. The HPC recommended
a Phase II testing and site evaluation be conducted on the two archaeological sites
found.
DISCUSSION:
CRM TECH has conducted an archaeological testing and evaluation program on the
two sites (CA-RIV-2936 and CA-RIV-6190) identified during the Phase I investigation.
This includes surface mapping, 100% collection of surface finds, and the excavation
of and artifact recovery from 49 archaeological excavation units, 111 surface scrapes,
and 48 trenches. Sorting and cataloguing of all collected artifacts has also been
accomplished.
009
C:hpc rpt phase 2 sp 99-036 tt 29361
Site CA-RIV-6190, on the Troll property, does not constitute a historical resource and
requires no further consideration. Materials recovered from this site included pottery
sherds, shell, bone, groundstone, chipped stone, and fire -affected rock. These
materials do not indicate the presence of a buried component.
Site CA-RIV-2936, on the Horn property constitutes a "historic resource". This site
contains a buried component, as well as the materials noted in the paragraph above,
plus several shell beads. The buried depositor site was discovered in Unit 39, which
is under an area proposed by the specific plan to be a parking lot and sidewalk. This
deposit consists of a clay floor built of large chunks of fired clay and a fire pit with
large pieces of charcoal still in place. Other artifacts found at this deposit include a
piece of grinding slab and pestle, a complete hand grinding stone or mano, and shell
beads and ornaments, including a drilled abalone shell.
The report states the buried site at CA-RIV-2936 meets the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEEQA) criterion 4 for listing on the California Register of Historical
Resources and therefore, should be considered "historically significant". Criterion 4
states a site should be considered "historically significant" if has or is likely to yield
information important in prehistory or history. CRM TECH states the buried site has
the potential to answer questions in the area of chronology, subsistence, settlement
patterns, trade, ethnicity, and clay use.
ANALYSIS:
This report offers the alternatives of preserving the buried site in place for perpetuity
or excavation through 100% data recovery for mitigation. Native American observers
prefer excavation over preservation of the site. Therefore, as mitigation, CRM TECH
recommends excavation or full recovery of the buried site, but also indicates
preservation "in situ" is the preferred alternative per the California Environmental
Quality Act.
Section 15126.4 (b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines state that "Public agencies should,
whenever feasible, seek to avoid damaging effects on any historical resource of an
archaeological nature. The following factors shall be considered and discussed in an
EIR for a project involving such an archaeological site:
(A) Preservation in place is the preferred manner of mitigating impacts to
archaeological sites. Preservation in place maintains the relationship between
artifacts and the archaeological context. Preservation may also avoid conflict
with religious or cultural values of groups associated with the site.
(B) Preservation in place may be accomplished by, but is not limited to, the
following: 1.) Planning construction to avoid archaeological sites; 2.)
Incorporation of sites within parks, greenspace, or other open space; 3.)
Covering) the archaeological sites with a layer of chemically stable soil before
C:hpc rpt phase 2 sp 99-036 tt 29351
010
building tennis courts, parking lots, or similar facilities on the site (this method
of mitigation was added with the most recent CEQA update); and 4.) Deeding
the site into a permanent conservation easement.
When data recovery through excavation is the only feasible mitigation, a data recovery
plan, which makes provision for adequately recovering the scientifically consequential
information from and about the historical resource, shall be prepared and adopted prior
to any excavation being undertaken. Such studies shall be deposited with the
California Historical Resources Regional Information Center. Archaeological sites
known to contain human remains shall be treated in accordance with the provisions
of Section 7050.5 Health and Safety Code.
Preservation of archaeological sites is in keeping with Policy 4-4.1.4 of the Open
Space Element and Policy 6-2.1.3 and 6-2.1.4 of the Environmental Conservation
Element of the La Quinta General Plan which encourages preservation of archaeological
resources.
As lead agency, the City of La Quinta pursuant to CEQA guidelines recommends the
potentially significant site be preserved "in situ". The project as proposed by the
applicant will allow a majority of the buried site to be preserved without redesigning
the project. This is due to the site location being almost entirely under the parking lot
and sidewalk just south of a proposed group of retail shops east of the hotel site.
Open space is a second option covering the buried site as parking can be reduced as
part of the specific plan approval. CRM TECH states the grading of the project in this
area will permit preservation of the site in place. The buried site could be over
excavated and capped with a layer of chemically stable soil prior to construction of the
project improvements. However, there may be a small portion of the north part of the
site under the proposed shops that may be excavated because of the building footing
and compaction requirements. Therefore, 100% data recovery of this area provides
the opportunity to answer research design questions in the area of chronology,
subsistence, settlement patterns, trade, ethnicity, and clay use as noted in the report,
while allowing a majority of the buried site to remain in archaeological context.
RECOMMENDATION_
Adopt Minute Motion 99- , accepting the cultural resources report titled,
"Archaeological Testing and Site Evaluation at La Quinta Corporate Center", as
prepared by CRM TECH, with the modification that Site CA-RIV-2936 on the westerly
part of the project site be preserved in place rather than excavated, except for areas
determined to be under the shop buildings;
for Environmental Assessment 99-383, in partial compliance with the requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act.
011
C:hpc rpt phase 2 sp 99-036 tt 29351
Attachments:
1. Confidential Cultural Resource Report titled "Archaeological Testing and Site
Evaluation at L.a Quinta Corporate Center" (Commissioners only)
Prepared by: Submitted By:
��. P, ` RA PAL
Stan B. Sawa, Principal Planner
Christine di lorio, Planning Manager
I.--
012
C:hpc rpt phase 2 sp 99-036 tt 29351
ARCHAEOLOGICAL TESTING AND SITE EVALUATION AT
LA QUINTA CORPORATE CENTRE
HIGHWAY 111 AND DUNE PALMS ROAD
LA QUINTA, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Submitted to:
Scott Gayner, President
Troll-Woodpark Development Company
2323 N. Tustin Avenue, Suite F
Santa Ana, CA, 92705
Submitted by:
Bruce Love, Principal
Michael Hogan, Archaeologist
Harry M. Quinn, Field Director
Kathryn J. W. Bouscaren, Lab Director
CRM TECH
2411 Sunset Drive
Riverside, CA 92506
August 2, 1999
CRM TECH Contract #409
Approximately 40 Acres
La Qu-- .Calif., 7.5' Quadrangle
Section 29, T5S R7E, San Bernardino Base Meridian
Sites CA-RIV-2936 .and -6190
013
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
Since June of 1999, CRM TECH has been engaged in an archaeological
testing and evaluation program on Sites CA-RIV-2936 and -6190, located
on approximately 40 acres of undeveloped land in the City of La Quinta,
Riverside County, California. The subject property of the study consists of
two separate tracts of land, known as Horn property and Troll property,
respectively, lying mostly in the southern. half of the northwest quarter of
Section 29, T5S R7E, San Bernardino Base Meridian, on the northwestern
corner of :Highway 111 and Dune Palms Road.
The study is a part of the environmental impact review process for a
proposed development project to be undertaken on the subject property,
and is required by the City of La Quinta, as the Lead Agency for the project,
in compliance with provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA). The purpose of the study is to assist the City in assessing the
significance of Sites CA-RIV-2936 and -6190, and to propose mitigation
measures for the sites if they are determined to constitute "historical
resources," as defined by CEQA.
Since the commencement of the study, CRM TECH has completed surface
mapping of both sites, 100% collection of the surface finds, and the
excavation of and artifact recovery from 49 archaeological excavation
units, 111 surface scrapes, and 48 trenches. Sorting and cataloguing of all
collected artifacts have also been accomplished.
Site CA-RIV-6190, on the Troll property, does not constitute a historical
resource and requires no further consideration in the planning process. A
portion of CA-RIV-2936, on the Horn property, contains a buried
component that does constitute a "historical resource." Based on Native
American consultation, excavation as mitigation is recommended, after
which grading and construction could commence. Because of the
potential for as yet undiscovered archaeological sites, archaeological
monitoring shall be required during grading for both the Horn and the
Troll properties.
i
014
TABLE OF CONTENTS
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY .................................. ......................................
I ........................ i
INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................1
BACKGROUND..........................................................................................................................3
RESEARCHDESIGN..................................................................................................................3
CHRONOLOGY...............................................................................................................4
SUBSISTENCE.................................................................................................................4
SETTLEMENTPATTERNS..........................................................................................5
TRADE..............................................................................................................................5
ETHNICITY......................................................................................................................5
CLAYUSE.........................................................................................................................6
METHODS....................................................................................................................................6
SURFACE COLLECTION AND MAPPING..............................................................7
EXCAVATIONOF UNITS............................................................................................7
SURFACESCRAPES.................................................................:....................................7
BACKHOETRENCHING..............................................................................................11
SORTING AND CATALOGUING OF AR:TIFACTS...............................................11
NATIVE AMERICAN CONSULTATION................................................................12
RESULTSAND FINDINGS......................................................................................................12
SURFACECOLLECTION..............................................................................................12
EXCAVA,TIONS...................................................................................
I..........................13
Horn Property
.........................13
SurfaceCollection...................................................................................13
TestUnits..................................................................................................13
Surface Scrapes around Units..............................................................16
Isolated Surface Scrapes.........................................................................18
BackhoeTrenches...................................................................................18
Troll Property
19
SurfaceCollection...................................................................................19
TestUnits..................................................................................................19
Surface Scrapes around Units..............................................................21
Isolated Surface Scrapes.........................................................................22
BackhoeTrenches...................................................................................22
COLLECTIONSUMMARY............................................................................................23
BURIEDSITE...................................................................................................................23
NATIVE AMERICAN CONSULTATION................................................................23
DISCUSSION...............................................................................................................................30
DEFINITION....................................................................................................................30
SITEEVALUATION......................................................................................................30
PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION OPTIONS..............................................32
RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................................32
CONCLUSION.............................................................................................................................33
REFERENCES..............................................................................................................................34
APPENDIX 1: PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS.................................................................35
01'5
ii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure1.
Project vicinity...........................................................................................................1
Figure2.
Project area.................................................................................................................2
Figure 3.
Surface artifacts marked by pin flags.....................................................................7
Figure 4.
Eastern portion of the project area (Troll property)..........................................8
Figure 5.
Western portion of the project area (Horn property).......................................9
Figure 6.
Test unit excavation procedures............................................................................10
Figure 7.
Example of surface scrapes around a test unit....................................................10
Figure 8.
Screen used to sift soil from trench excavations ................................................11
Figure 9.
Units with deep deposits.........................................................................................25
Figure 10.
Location of the buried site on the western portion of the project area .......
26
Figure 11.
Intact fire hearth at 160 cm (5 ft) depth in a test unit......................................27
Figure 12.
Shell beads and ornaments...................................................................................27
Figure13. Mano..........................................................................................................................28
Figure 14. Location of the buried site in relation to development plans......................29
011.6
iii
INTRODUCTION
In June and July, of 1999, at the request of Troll-Woodpark Development Company,
CRM TECH proceeded with an archaeological testing and evaluation program on Sites
CA-RIV-2936 and -6190, located on approximately 40 acres of undeveloped land in the
City of La Quinta, Riverside County, California (Figs. 1, 2). The subject property of the
study consists of two separate tracts of land, known as the Horn property and the Troll
property, respectively, lying mostly in the southern half of the northwest quarter of
Section 29, T5S R7E, San Bernardino Base Meridian, on the northwestern corner of
Highway 111 and Dune Palms Road (Fig. 2). The study is a part of the environmental
review process for a proposed development project to be undertaken on the subject
property, and is required by the City of La Quinta, as the Lead Agency, for the project, in
compliance with provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, PRC
§21000, et seq.). The purpose of the study is to assist the City in assessing the
significance of Sites CA-RIV-2936 and -6190, and to propose mitigation measures on the
sites if they are determined to constitute "historical resources," as defined by CEQA.
Since the commencement of the study, CRM TECH has completed surface mapping of
both sites, 100% collection of the surface finds, and the excavation of and artifact
recovery from 49 archaeological excavation units, 111 surface scrapes,. and 48 trenches.
Sorting and cataloguing of all collected artifacts have also been accomplished. The
following report: presents the methods and procedures applied during the study, and
the conclusions reached based on the recovered data.
1 Jl
proiect
location
SCALfl1:250,000 10m{lea ,`
0� B tti �-.
Figure 1. Project vicinity. (Based on USGS Santa Ana, Calif., 1:250,000 quadrangle [USGS 19791)
017
Figure 2. Project area, with archaeological site boundaries. (Based on USGS La Quinta, Calif., 1:24,000
quadrangle [USGS 19801)
2
018
BACKGROUND
In November and December, 1998, CRM TECH carried out a cultural resources survey
of the project area (Love et al. 1999). During the survey, the extension of the previously
recorded Site CA-RIV-2936 was discovered on t]Ze Horn property in the western portion
of the project area. On the Troll property in the eastern portion of the project area, a
previously unknown archaeological site was identified, recorded, and subsequently
designated CA-RIV-6190. In the report resulting from that survey, the sites are
described as follows (ibid.:11-16):
• CA-RIV-2936 CA-RIV-2936 is a large site that extends from west of Adams Street
eastward onto the subject property. The portion mapped for the current project
contains some 31 loci, or artifact concentrations, which for the most part are scatters
of burned clay and rock with some pottery fragments, small animal bone, and pieces
of mussel shell. Remains of two fire pits, apparently intact, were plotted on the
property, one at Locus 12 and the other at Locus 31. Several of the loci contain
chipped stone flakes and cores, the parent rocks from which the flakes were struck.
Locus 25 has over 65 sherds, Locus 29 over 105, and Locus 31 over 170 fragments of
Indian pottery. A single shell bead (Olivella Wall Disk type) was found in Locus 17.
• CA-RIV-6190 This extensive site, previously unrecorded, consists of three large
loci, or artifact concentrations, and three smaller ones. Locus 5 has had the top
layer of sand graded off, and rather than destroying an archaeological site, it in fact
has exposed one, a dense concentration of rock, clay, animal bone and ceramics.
An arrow point (Cottonwood Triangular type), made of brown jasper,.was found
at this locus. The small loci, Nos. 1, 3, and 4 .are scatters of burned clay and rock
with only a few pottery sherds.
The report states that these two sites are separated by an expanse of low rolling sand
dunes. Indications are that these dunes are fairly recent in origin and may have blown
in and accumulated since the period when this area was occupied by the Cahuilla
Indians. At CA-RIV-6190, there is a graded area showing numerous artifacts and
remnants of past activities. It is surmised that the central dune area very likely hides
similar deposits, which, if it proves to be true, would make the two sites one single
elongated site that is temporarily buried in the middle by recently deposited sands. In
June, 1999, CRM TECH commenced excavations designed to evaluate the significance of
the two sites.
RESEARCH DESIGN
A research design is intended to guide archaeological explorations, directing
investigators to focus on those questions which have the best potential to fill in gaps in
current knowledge and theory. Archaeologists plan their field and laboratory strategies
to collect scientific data that can paint a picture of past lifeways, focusing especially on
3 0 1 (
those questions that are the subject of ongoing debate, trying to advance the field by
building on previous work, by supporting or refuting current understandings, and by
asking questions that lead in new directions, thus laying the groundwork for future
studies.
In archaeological investigations in general, there are a set of research questions that can
be asked of almost any excavation project, but the specifics of each case require
refinement and focus. The standard set of questions includes (1) chronology, the age
and duration of site occupation; (2) subsistence, the daily diet and range of natural
resources that were hunted, collected, and consumed; (3) settlement patterns, the
nature of site occupation be it temporary or permanent, large scale or small; (4) trade or
external contacts., the evidence for materials exchange with outside groups based on the
presence or absence of exotic items in the archaeological record; and (5) ethnicity or
culture, the tribal or linguistic affiliation of the people who occupied the land at the
time. These five general questions, which are common to site investigation
everywhere, generate more specific inquiries and focused lines of research when
applied to the northern shoreline of ancient Lake Cahuilla.
CHRONOLOGY
The age of Native settlements along the north shore of ancient Lake Cahuilla is of
course a function of the history of the lake itself. Until recently, the last high stand of
the lake was thought to have occurred in the 1500s, with its final recession leaving the
valley dry by around 1600 (Schaefer 1994:67). However, just within the last five years,
new information points to yet another full in -filling of the lake in the 1600s, with a
high stand at the 42-foot elevation around AD 1650-1680 (Laylander 1997:68, 96;
Rockwell 1995; 1.997). Can sites along Highway 'Ill confirm the later (late and add
support to this recently revised chronology?
Besides the question of settlement during the most recent high stand, there are many
unanswered questions regarding older time periods. The lake has come and gone a
number of times during the last millennium, but newly discovered buried midden
deposits in the nearby City of Indio suggest lakeshore occupation older than two
thousand years ago (Love 1997). Every time the lake fills, it must be assumed Native
peoples took advantage of the rich plant and animal resources along its shoreline. Are
there records of these earlier visits by the ancestors of today's Cahuilla people in the
form of older, buried archaeological deposits?
SUBSISTENCE
The earliest major study of Cahuilla diet based on the archaeological record is Wilke's
doctoral dissertation on animal and plant remains extracted from ancient Indian fecal
remains in the sand dunes of Myoma and vicinity (Wilke 1976). Since then dozens of
archaeological studies have analyzed animal bone remains from numerous sites in the
La Quinta region, and Cahuilla exploitation of lacustrine resources, particularly in the
.. 4 020
form of freshwater fish, water fowl, and small land mammals is well documented.
Current researchis no longer asking whether or not the Indians were using the lake's
resources --it is now well established that they were. Today it is more a question of
refinement of details. What percentages of which animals constituted their diet, and
are there hints from the bone remains telling the probable means by which the animals
were captured and how were they prepared for consumption?
SETTLEMENT PATTERNS
The question of year-round "village" occupation vs. temporary campsite on the north
shore of Lake Cahuilla has been debated since the 1970s (reviewed in Schaefer 1994:68 et
seq.). Recent large-scale excavations and data recovery programs tend to support the
temporary camp hypothesis, finding light surface scatters of ceramics and fire -affected
rock, little or no midden, no multiple cremations or evidence of cemeteries, no features
or site "furniture" suggesting permanence, and a dearth of ceremonial objects that
would occur at villages where large gatherings would take place for ritual purposes
(Love 1996). A recent re -analysis of Wilke's original data, using statistical modeling,
also supports the temporary camp hypothesis (Sutton 1998). The Highway 111 property
provides a textbook opportunity to discuss evidence of settlement along an ancient
estuary, a place where the Whitewater River met the old Lake Cahuilla.
TRADE .
Evidence of trade is usually found archaeologically in the form of exotic goods,
materials or iterns whose origin is some distance away. Stone materials are the most
commonly cited evidence for such external contacts. Shell beads are another sure sign
of trade, often brought to the Coachella Valley from the Pacific Coast, presumably by
Mojave long-distance traders who had a tradition of passing frequently between the
Colorado River and the western seashore. Careful identification of stone types, as part
of the lithics analysis phase at the Corporate Centre property, can partially, address this
question, although one must remember there could have been heavy trade in
perishable items that do not last in the archaeological record and which V90uld be
undetectable during present-day explorations.
ETHNICITY
Although archaeologists continually try to tie ethnicity to the artifact: record, their
efforts for the most part remain frustrated. Peoples of different linguistic and cultural
heritage may use the same kinds of artifacts when it comes to everyday subsistence
activities like hunting, collecting, food preparing, etc. The simple rnano, or hand-held
grinding stone, would not reveal the ethnic identity of its owner, unless perhaps it
showed artistic elaborations or design work specific to one culture or another. More
generally, it is a.ssurned that the people who lived at a site prior to modem times were
the same people who were living there in recent recorded history. In the case of the
Coachella Valley, the Cahuilla people occupied a wide expanse of territory in the 18th
5 021
and 19th centuries, and it is assumed that the archaeological sites from the few
centuries prior to that: also represent Cahuilla cultures. What of sites 2000 years old?
The present-day Cahuilla traditions say the Cahuilla people were always here, that in
fact the Cahuilla people were created here, at the beginning of time. 'There is nothing
in the rock chips and burned animal bone from 2000-year-old sites that would dispute
this. However, historical linguists and students of cultural change and migration
would argue that new cultures entered the Coachella Valley some 2000 to 2500 years
ago. For the present, there is little that the archaeological record can shed on this
question, other than to document the presence or absence of artifacts and features from
earlier periods. The question of cultural affiliation and ethnicity rernains open.
CLAY USE
In addition to the generalized research questions, archaeology in specific locales tends to
produce questions that pertain to those regions in particular. Such is the case with
partially fired silty clay pieces that are ubiquitous in Coachella Valley archaeological
sites, but little understood. From site to site, varying in density and type, hardened clay,
apparently unshaped by human hands, lies scattered among the pottery sherds, chipped
stone, and fire -affected rock. Possible explanations include daub, to line walls or small
structures like granaries; flooring, where clay had been imported to line house floors;
ceramic production, either stockpiling clay to be used in making pots or discarding extra
clay after pots are completed; and baking foods, wrapping small animals, especially fish,
before baking in a fire. A detailed analysis of multiple clay samples is intended to
further this on -going research. At the least, a typology needs to be created based on
variations in clay samples, separating the fired clay into discreet categories or
descriptive units, the first step in analysis when dealing with unknown properties.
In sum, if explorations at the archaeological sites on the Corporate Centre property can
answer one or more of these important research questions, then the sites fit the
definition of a historical resource under CEQA. Based on a site's information potential,
it can qualify for mitigation measures to reduce project impacts. The following
methods and results are presented in an effort toward answering that question.
METHODS
The following sections outline the methods and. procedures used during this study on
both properties.
SURVEY AND RECORDING
Project archaeologists walked north -south parallel transects at 5-meter (16-foot)
intervals across the entire property. As artifacts were spotted, archaeologists marked
them with pin flags (Fig. 3). All artifacts were left in situ until the survey was complete,
at which time clusterings became evident and locus boundaries could be discerned.
6 022
Figure 3. Surface artifacts marked by pin flags.
SURFACE COLLECTION AND MAPPING
The site was divided, with wooden stakes marking the corners, into 50 x 50-meter
quadrants measured by pacing with a hand-held. compass for direction. Surface artifacts
were then collected, bagged, and labeled according to their location within the 50-m
squares. Using the grid as a guide, a field map showing excavation units, surface
scrapes, and trenches was also produced (Figs. 4, 5).
EXCAVATION OF UNITS
Test units were placed throughout the site, both in areas of high surface artifact density
as well as areas where there were few artifacts on the surface . Test units, measuring 1 x
1 m, were excavated in 10-cm levels and dry -screened through 1/8-in wire mesh (Fig. 6).
Units were generally dug to at least 100 cm below the surface, with several units
continuing to be dug below that depth. In areas where further investigation was
warranted, units were expanded to provide more information. A total of 49 test units
were excavated on the two properties.
SURFACE SCRAPES
A standard procedure for this project was to situate 1 x 1-m surface scrapes such that,
along with an excavation unit, a 2 x 2-m area would be sampled (Fig. 7). '.Surface scrapes
7 023
0 200 ft
0 6D m
o Surface scrape
Combined excavation unit
and surface scrapes
® Screened backhoe trench
B B ® Unscreened backhoe trench
AA
301,
` j�1 `11 N
�� �'a ^J • _. fj/l
"ds
9 s1 ' 7
22
'y
N a ��df
Property boundary
Figure 4. Eastern portion of the project area (Troll property). Excavation units, surface scrapes, and
trenches are not to scale.
024
101
0 200 ft
0 60 m
7 4� � o Surface scrape
1-41-- u Combined excavation unit
DD� and surface scrapes
0 Screened backhoe trench
to Unscreened backhoe trench
cc
6,
G
0
7
Jr^S? 16? 9 25 '
Figure 5. Western portion of the project area (Horn property). Excavation units, surface scrapes, and
trenches are not to scale.
9 025
Figure 6. Test unit excavation procedures.
Figure 7. Example of surface scrapes around a test unit.
02E)
10
were excavated with depths ranging from 10 to 20 cm below surface, depending on what
was found in the associated excavation unit. This was done to provide further
information regarding the density and depth of artifacts. Besides the 96 1 x 1-m surface
scrapes around excavation units, there were two more 1 x 1-m surface scrapes located as
extensions of Test Unit: 2, one 3 x 2-m surface scrape, and one 2 x 2-m surface scrape, for
a total of 108 1 x 1-m surface scrapes.
BACKHOE TRENCHING
A total of 48 back:hoe trenches were dug to obtain deep stratigraphic data and to look for
possible buried sites. Soil from most of the trenches was passed through a 1/2-inch
wire mesh screen to help determine if artifacts were present or not (Fig. 8). Soil profiles
of each trench were observed and recorded to help in understanding site formation
processes and environmental conditions that once existed on the property.
SORTING AND CATALOGUING OF ARTIFACTS
In the lab, artifacts were sorted according to type (groundstone, chipped stone debitage,
animal bone [faunal], etc.) and catalogued using Excel software. The number and type
of artifacts from each level of each excavation unit and surface scrape was entered into
the database. If nothing was collected in a particular level, that information was also
noted.
Figure 8. Screen used to sift soil from trench excavations (trench is being backfilled).
027
11
NATIVE AMERICAN CONSULTATION
Extensive Native American consultation regarding disposition of an important buried
site (discussed below) resulted in a number of interviews with cultural representatives
from three local Tribes--Agua Caliente, Cabazon and Torres Martinez. In all cases, the
question was put: Is it better to preserve the site intact under a parking lot --or perhaps a
green landscaped space --or is it preferable to excavate the site to recover the artifacts?
On July 28, Love did a telephone interview with Anthony "Biff Andreas, long-time
cultural resources consultant, Cahuilla historian, and renowned traditional bird singer.
On July 29, Love escorted Ernest Morreo, Torres Martinez elder and designated "Most
Likely Descendant" to the site, showed him the stakes marking the site location, and
recorded his comments. Later on the same day, Love met with Marc Benitez, Second
Vice Chairman of Cabazon Band of Mission Indians and followed the same procedure.
In addition to these three noted Tribal cultural specialists, Love asked three younger
members of Torres Martinez Band of Desert Cahuilla Indians what their opinion was
regarding preservation vs. excavation. The opinions and recommendations expressed,
surprisingly unanimous, are presented in the "Results and Findings" section, below.
RESULTS AND FINDINGS
From surface collections and excavation at both the Horn and Troll properties,
thousands of items were collected. The following results and findings are preliminary
in nature, but sufficient to make determinations of significance regarding the sites. For
example, good charcoal samples were collected for dating purposes, showing that the
artifact assemblage has the potential to add to our knowledge of prehistoric chronology.
Even though the charcoal has not yet been run through the laboratory procedures, and
the dates are not yet known, it has been demonstrated that the site is "datable" and
therefore of some importance. The number of artifacts, their class or category, and the
depth at which they were found, provide the raw data on which interpretations are
based. A summary of these results is presented below.
SURFACE COLLECTION
A total of 1,180 cultural items were collected from the surface of both the Horn and
Troll properties. As reflected in the total number of artifacts collected, the largest
number of the items collected from the surface were animal bone. In all, 564 bones or
bone fragments were collected, again consisting mostly of rodent bone. Four hundred
twenty-eight pottery sherds, comprising 76.4% of the total pottery collected from the
two sites, were found during the surface collection. The majority of the collected
groundstone, 47 pieces or 79.7% of the sites' total, were also found on the surface. No
complete manos or metates were found, but one highly burned mano was found in two
pieces near a cluster of fire -affected rock and groundstone in Area 5 of the Troll
property. Several possible pestle fragments of schist were also recovered. One hundred
thirty-seven pieces of chipped stone, making up 43.2% of the total, were collected from
12
028
the surface. The four shell beads collected from the surface comprise only 19% of the
total number of beads collected.
EXCAVATIONS
Material recovered during all excavations (test units, surface scrapes, and trenches)
include shell beads, chipped stone, groundstone, bone, pottery sherds, pieces of clay,
charcoal, shell, rock, and metal.
One intact feature was encountered, allowing for special studies and analysis of it. A
more detailed summary of the findings, by property area and collection type, are
presented below.
Horn Property
60-70 cm:
no recovery
70-80 cm:
no recovery
Surface Collection
80-90 cm:
no recovery
90-100 cm:
chipped stone (1)
Bone, not including numerous rodent
bones which were not culturally
Unit 2
significant (at least 110)
surface:
no recovery
Large fired clay pieces for sampling, not
0-10 cm:
bone (3), clay (20), rock
including thousands of smaller to
(9), chipped stone (1)
very tiny fragments (15)
10-20 cm:
clay (30+)
Shell, mostly anadonta fragments and
20-30 cm:
clay (4)
one whole valve, as well as a small
30-40 cm:
no recovery
amount of freshwater snail (77)
40-50 cm:
chipped stone (1)
Pottery sherds, including numerous rim
50-100 cm:
no recovery
sherds (at least 274)
Groundstone (36)
Unit 3
Chipped stone (118)
surface:
no recovery
Shell beads (4)
0-10 cm:
bone (31)
Numerous fire -affected rocks were found,
10-20 cm:
bone (7)
but no discrete clusters could be
20-30 cm:
no recovery
discerned; a small sample (2) collected
30-40 cm:
no recovery
40-50 cm:
no recovery
Test Units
50-60 cm:
bone (6)
60-70 cm:
bone (119)
Unit 1
70-80 cm:
bone (8)
surface: rock (2)
80-100 cm:
no recovery
0-10 cm: bone (30+), chipped stone
(4)
Unit 4
10-20 cm: bone (10), shell (1)
0-10 cm:
bone (4), clay (42)
20-30 cm: bone (2)
10-20 cm:
clay (9)
30-40 cm: no recovery
20-70 cm:
no recovery
40-50 cm: no recovery
70-80 cm:
clay (4)
50-60 cm: no recovery
80-100 cm:
no recovery
13
029
Unit 5
0-10 cm:
clay (16)
10-20 cm:
bone (4)
20-100 cm:
no recovery
Unit 6
0-10 cm: bone (8), rock (1), chipped
stone {3)
10-20 cm: no recovery
20-30 cm: chipped stone (1)
30-100 cm: no recovery
Unit 7
0-10 cm:
bone (15), clay (13), rock
(31), shell (2), pottery sherd (1),
chipped stone (3)
10-20 cm:
bone (2)
20-30 cm:
bone (1)
30-60 cm:
no recovery
60-70 cm:
bone (2)
70-100 cm:
no recovery
Unit 8
0-10 cm:
bone (1), pottery sherd (1)
10-20 cm:
pottery sherd (1)
20-100 cm:
no recovery
Unit 9
0-10 cm:
bone (8), clay (4), pottery
sherd (7), chipped stone (1)
10-20 cm:
bone (5), pottery sherd
(1), chipped stone (1)
40-50 cm:
caliche (10)
50-60 cm:
caliche (5)
60-70 cm:
caliche (15+)
70-80 cm:
caliche (20+)
80-90 cm:
caliche (25+)
90-100 cm:
caliche (50+)
Unit 10
0-100 cm: no recovery
Unit 11
0-10 cm: bone (9), clay (3), rock
(15), shell (2), pottery sherds
(25), groundstone (2)
14
10-20 cm:
shell (4+), metal (3),
pottery sherd (1)
20-30 cm:
bone (5)
30-50 cm:
no recovery
50-60 cm:
bone (1)
Unit 13
0-10 cm:
no recovery
10-20 cm:
clay (1)
20-30 cm:
clay (1)
30-40 cm:
shell (1)
40-100 cm:
no recovery
Unit 14
0-10 cm: bone (3), clay (4), rock (3),
metal (40+), pottery sherds (2),
chipped stone (1)
10-20 cm: metal (9), pottery sherds
(4)
20-100 cm: no recovery
Unit 15
0-20 cm:
no recovery
20-30 cm:
clay (2)
30-40 cm:
no recovery
40-50 cm:
bone (29)
50-60 cm:
bone (1), clay (6)
60-70 cm:
clay (3)
70-100 cm:
no recovery
Unit 16
surface:
bone (5), clay (11), shell
(1)
0-10 cm:
bone (7), clay (2), pottery
sherd (1), chipped stone (1)
10-20 cm:
bone (10)
20-30 cm:
bone (20), rock (2),
chipped stone (3)
30-40 cm:
bone (4)
40-50 cm:
no recovery
50-60 cm:
bone (2)
60-100 cm:
no recovery
Unit 17
0-10 cm: bone (4), chipped stone
(2)
030
10-20 cm: clay (,2)
20-100 cm: no recovery
Unit 18
0-100 cm: no recovery
Unit 37
0-10 cm:
bone (4), chipped stone
(1)
10-20 cm:
bone (6), chipped stone
(1)
20-50 cm:
no recovery
50-60 cm:
bone (14)
60-70 cm:
bone (1), chipped stone
(1)
70-80 cm:
bone (5), clay (1), chipped
stone
(2)
80-90 cm:
bone (80+), clay (20), rock
(5), shell (4), metal (1), shell
bead (1), chipped stone (8)
90-100 cm:
bone (50+), clay (2), shell
beads (5), chipped stone (5)
100-110 cm:
bone (21), chipped stone
(1)
Unit 37 West
0-10 cm:
bone (30)
10-20 cm:
bone (7)
20-30 cm:
bone (4)
30-40 cm:
bone (5), clay (2)
40-50 cm:
bone (7), chipped stone
(1)
50-60 cm:
bone (10), clay (1)
60-70 cm:
bone (4)
70-80 cm:
bone (14)
80-90 cm:
bone (30+), clay (30), rock
(30),
charcoal, shell beads (2),
chipped stone (8)
90-100 cm:
bone (30+), clay (4), shell
(5), shell beads (2), chipped
stone (1)
70-80 cm: bone (30+), clay (6), rock
(10+), shell (1), charcoal,
chipped stone (8)
80-90 cm: bone (30+), rock (3), shell
bead (1), groundstone (2),
chipped stone (5)
90-100 cm: no recovery
Unit 38
No valid data
Unit 39
0-10 cm:
bone (4)
10-20 cm:
rock (3), shell (1)
20-30 cm:
shell (3)
30-50 cm:
no recovery
50-60 cm:
bone (15)
60-70 cm:
bone (3)
70-80 cm:
bone (3)
80-90 cm:
no recovery
90-100 cm:
bone (2)
100-110 cm:
bone (41), clay (10+)
110-120 cm:
clay (10+)
120-130 cm:
clay (8), rock (4)
130-140 cm:
bone (6), rock (1), clay (6),
charcoal
140-150 cm:
clay (8), rock (2),
groundstone (2)
150-160 cm:
bone (4), clay (15+),
charcoal,
groundstone (1)
165-175 cm:
(feature #1) bone (8), clay
(15+), rock (3), charcoal,
groundstone (1)
Unit 40
0-120 cm:
no recovery
120-130 cm:
bone (3)
130-170 cm:
no recovery
170-180 cm:
bone (15+)
180-200 cm:
(southeast quad only)
bone
(4), rock (2)
Unit 37 East Unit 40 North
0-60 cm: no recovery 0-50 cm: shell (1)
60-70 cm: bone (32), shell (1), shell 50-70 cm: no recovery
beads (2), chipped stone (4) 70-80 cm: bone 1:4), shell (7)
15
031
80-130 cm: no recovery
130-140 cm: bone (4), shell (3)
Unit 41
0-10 cm:
bone (70+), clay (10), shell
(4), chapped.
stone (7)
10-20 cm:
bone (30+), chipped stone (2)
20-30 cm:
bone (10)
30-40 cm:
bone (22)
40-50 cm:
bone (9)
50-60 cm:
bone (20), charcoal
60-70 cm:
bone (7), shell (1), shell
bead (1)
70-80 cm:
no recovery
80-90 cm:
bone (8)
90-100 cm:
no recovery
100-110 cm:
bone (2)
Unit 42
0-10 cm:
clay (3), chipped stone (1)
10-20 cm:
bone (2)
20-30 cm:
clay (8+)
30-40 cm:
clay (4)
40-50 cm:
clay (4)
50-60 cm:
charcoal
60-100 cm:
no recovery
Unit 43
0-10 cm:
bone (2), shell (3)
10-20 cm:
bone (8)
20-30 cm:
bone (6), chipped stone (1)
30-40 cm:
no recovery
40-50 cm:
bone (3)
50-60 cm:
bone (6)
60-70 cm:
rock (1)
70-80 cm:
no recovery
80-90 cm:
clay (7), shell (1)
90-100 cm:
bone (7), clay (6), rock (2)
100-110 cm:
bone (13), clay (8), shell
(1)
110-120 cm:
bone (10), clay (1),
charcoal, chipped stone (1)
Unit 44
0-20 cm: no recovery
20-30 cm: chipped stone (1)
16
30-40 cm:
no recovery
40-50 cm:
clay (2)
50-60 cm:
bone (1)
60-70 cm:
no recovery
70-80 cm:
clay (4), shell bead (1)
80-90 cm:
charcoal
90-100 cm:
bone (3), rock (5),
charcoal
100-110 cm:
bone (1), rock (2), chipped
stone
(1)
110-120 cm:
rock (1)
120-130 cm:
bone (1), charcoal,
groundstone
(1)
Unit 45
0-10 cm:
bone (20+), chipped stone
(4)
10-20 cm:
bone (6), chipped stone
(2)
20-30 cm:
bone (12), clay (7),
charcoal, chipped stone (1)
30-40 cm:
bone (20+), clay (2), rock
(10),
charcoal, shell (2), chipped
stone (10)
40-50 cm:
bone (30+), rock (2)
50-60 cm:
bone (10+), chipped stone
(4)
60-70 cm:
bone (20+), charcoal
70-80 cm:
bone (4)
80-90 cm:
bone (16)
90-100 cm:
bone (8), shell bead (1)
Unit 46
0-10 cm: no recovery
10-20 cm: bone (3)
20-30 cm: no recovery
30-40 cm: charcoal
40-50 cm: bone (3), charcoal
Surface Scrapes around Units
Unit 1
SS 1,0-10 cm: bone (20), clay (5), rock
(1), chipped stone (5)
SS 2, 0-20 cm: bone (30+), clay (4),
shell (8), chipped stone (8)
032
SS 3, 0-10 cm.: bone (20+), clay (6),
chipped stone (6)
Unit 2
SS 1, 0-20 cm.: bone (1), clay
(20+), rock (9), chipped
stone (3)
SS 2, 0-20 cm.: clay (57)
SS 3, 0-20 cm.: clay (46), rock (10)
SS 4, 0-20 cm.: rock (14)
SS 5, 0-20 cm.: clay (150+), rock (25)
Unit 3
SS 1, 0-10 cm.: bone (16), rock (1),
chipped stone (1)
SS 2, 0-10 cm.: bone (15), rock (1)
SS 3, 0-10 cm.: bone (15+), clay (4),
shell (4)
Unit 4
SS 1, 0-20 cm,: bone (20), clay (50),
rock (5)
SS 2, 0-20 crn: clay (20)
SS 3, 0-20 crn: clay (30+), rock (4)
Unit 5
SS 1, 0-10 crn: clay (9)
SS 2, 0-10 crn: bone (5), clay (9),
pottery sherd (1)
SS 3, 0-10 crn: bone (5), clay (4),
pottery sherds (2)
Unit 6
SS 1, 0-10 crn:
(9)
SS 2, 0-10 cm:
(3)
SS 3, 0-10 cm:
stone (6)
rock (9), chipped stone
rock (3), chipped stone
bone (1), chipped
Unit 7
SS 1, 0-10 cm: bone (15+), clay (15+),
rock (10), shell (1),
SS 2, 0-10 cm: bone (16), clay (14),
rock (15+)
17
SS 3, 0-10 cm: bone (30), clay (15),
rock (17), chipped stone (3)
Unit 8
SS 1, 0-20 cm: bone (3), clay (11), rock
(2), pottery sherds (2)
SS 2, 0-20 cm: clay (4), shell (1)
SS 3, 0-20 cm: bone (2), pottery sherd
(1)
Unit 9
SS 1, 0-20 cm: bone (1),, clay (4),
pottery sherds (5), chipped stone
(3)
SS 2, 0-20 cm: bone (9), clay (9), rock
(1), shell (2), pottery sherd (1)
SS 3, 0-20 cm: bone (6), clay (9),
pottery sherds (2), chipped stone
(2)
Unit 10
SS 1, 0-20 cm: bone (4), clay (3),
chipped stone (1)
SS 2, 0-10 cm: bone (1), clay (15)
SS 3, 0-10 cm: clay (8)
Unit 11
SS 1, 0-20 cm: bone (3), rock (1),
metal (2), pottery sherds (5)
SS 2, 0-20 cm: bone (9), rock (1), shell
(2), glass (1), pottery sherd (1),
chipped stone (1)
SS 3, 0-20 cm: bone (2), shell (1),
groundstone (1), pottery sherds
(6), chipped stone (1)
Unit 12
SS 1, 0-10 cm: clay (4)
SS 2, 0-10 cm: bone (13), clay (4)
SS 3, 0-10 cm: no recovery
Unit 13
SS 1, 0-10 cm: bone (3), clay (15+),
pottery sherds (2)
SS 2, 0-10 cm: bone (5), clay (20+),
pottery sherci (1)
033
SS 3, 0-10 cm: clay (10)
Unit 14
SS 1, 0-20 cm: pottery sherds
(18)
SS 2, 0-20 cm: bone (6), pottery
sherds (8)
SS 3, 0-20 cm: rock (1), pottery
sherds (5)
Unit 15
SS 1, 0-10 cm: bone (11), clay (10+)
SS 2, 0-10 cm: bone (4), rock (3),
pottery sherds (3)
SS 3, 0-10 cm: bone (8), rock (1),
groundstone (1), pottery sherd
(1)
Unit 16
SS 1, 0-10 cm: clay (8), pottery sherds
SS 2, 0(10 cm: bone (7), clay (5), shell
(3), pottery sherd (1), chipped
stone (1)
SS 3, 0-10 cm.: bone (5), clay (4),
pottery sherd (1), chipped stone
(2)
Unit 17
SS 1, 0-20 crn: bone (3), clay (2), rock
(5), chipped stone (1)
SS 2, 0-20 crn: bone (7), rock (4), shell
(2), shell bead (1), chipped
stone (3)
SS 3, 0-20 cm: clay (6)
Unit 18
Backhoe Trenches
Trench 1
0-200 cm: clay (1)
Trench 2
0-200 cm: no recovery
Trench 3
0-200 cm: clay (15), rock (6)
Trench 4
0-200 cm: no recovery
Trench 5
0-200 cm: rock (6)
Trenches 6-8
0-200 cm: no recovery
Trench 9
0-200 cm: bone (1), clay (21), rock (25+),
charcoal, chipped stone (1)
Trench 10
0-200 cm: no recovery
Trench 11
0-200 cm: clay (2)
Trenches 12-16
0-200 cm: no recovery
Trench 17
bone (4), clay (23), rock (7), pottery
sherd (1)
SS 1, 0-10 cm: no recovery Trench 18-22
SS 2, 0-10 cm: no recovery 0-200 cm: no recovery
SS 3, 0-10 cm: no recovery
Trench 23
Isolated Surface Scrapes 0-200 cm: clay (3), rock (3)
Surface scrape #1, 3 x 2 meters, 0-20 cm: Trench 24
bone (50+), clay (20+), rock (3), chipped 0-200 cm: no recovery
stone (5)
18 034
Trench 25
0-200 cm: clay (8)
Trench 26
0-200 cm: no :recovery
Trench 27
0-200 cm: clay (20), rock (9)
Trench 28
0-200 cm: no recovery
Trench 29
0-200 cm: bone (1), clay (13), pottery
sherd (1)
Trenches 30-32
0-200 cm: no recovery
Trench 33
0-200 cm: bone (1), clay (30+), charcoal,
pottery sherd (1)
Trench 34
0-200 cm: no recovery
Trench 35
0-200 cm: clay (2), rock (2)
Troll Property
Surface Collection
Bone, not including numerous non -
cultural rodent bones (112)
Large fired clay pieces for sampling (3)
Anadonta shell (at least 50)
Groundstone (11)
Pottery sherds (at least 154)
Chipped stone (16)
Historic ceramic: sherds (9)
Numerous fire -affected rocks were left in
place; a large cluster (which contained
much of the collected groundstone)
was located in area 5
19
Test Units
Unit 22
0-20 cm:
no recovery
20-30 cm:
clay (1)
30-40 cm:
bone (2), shell (1)
40-70 cm:
no recovery
70-80 cm:
bone (7), shell (1), pottery
sherd (2)
80-90 cm:
no recovery
90-100 cm:
clay (3)
Unit 23
0-10 cm:
clay (8)
10-20 cm:
clay (3)
20-60 cm:
no recovery
60-70 cm:
clay (16), rock (1)
70-80 cm:
bone (4), clay (3)
80-90 cm:
bone (6), clay (14)
90-100 cm:
no recovery
Unit 24
0-10 cm:
bone (5), clay (7)
10-20 cm:
bone (4)
20-50 cm:
no recover),
50-60 cm:
bone (2), clay (5), rock
(5), chipped. stone (1)
60-70 cm:
bone (5), chipped
stone (3)
70-80 cm:
no recovery
80-90 cm:
bone (1.), chipped
stone (1)
90-100 cm:
no recovery
Unit 25
0-10 cm:
clay (10), rock (5), charcoal
10-20 cm:
bone (3), rock (2), charcoal
20-30 cm:
bone (3), clay (8), charcoal
30-40 cm:
bone (5), charcoal
40-50 cm:
bone (3), clay (6)
50-60 cm:
bone (2), charcoal
60-70 cm:
charcoal
70-80 cm:
no recovery
80-90 cm:
charcoal
90-100 cm:
charcoal
03,5
Unit 26
0-10 cm:
clay (2)
10-20 cm:
pottery sherd (1)
20-30 cm:
clay (6)
30-40 cm:
clay (7)
40-50 cm:
clay (40+)
50-60 cm:
bone (12), clay (30+)
60-70 cm:
clay (20+)
70-80 cm:
bone (6), clay (6)
80-90 cm:
clay (9)
90-100 cm:
clay (5)
Unit 27 Northwest
0-10 cm:
bone (1)
10-20 cm:
bone (3)
20-30 cm:
no recovery
30-40 cm:
bone (3)
40-70 cm:
no recovery
70-80 cm:
bone (2)
80-90 cm:
bone (5)
90-100 cm:
bone (20+)
100-110 cm:
bone (30+), clay (15)
110-120 cm:
bone (20+), clay (4)
120-130 cm:
bone (20+)
130-140 cm:
bone (20+)
140-150 cm:
bone (14), rock (1)
150-160 cm:
bone (7)
160-180 cm:
no recovery
180-190 cm:
bone (9)
Unit 27 Southwest
0-10 cm:
clay (10)
10-20 cm:
bone (3), clay (7)
20-30 cm:
clay (5)
30-40 cm:
bone (3)
40-50 cm:
bone (5), shell (1)
50-60 cm:
no recovery
60-70 cm:
bone (3)
Unit 28
0-10 cm:
clay (4).
10-20 cm:
no recovery
20-30 cm:
clay (2)
30-40 cm:
no recovery
40-50 cm:
clay (3)
50-70 cm:
no recovery
70-80 cm: clay (1)
80-90 cm: clay (2), charcoal
90-100 cm: clay (1), charcoal, pottery
sherd (1)
100-110 cm: charcoal
Unit 29
0-10 cm:
10-20 cm:
20-60 cm:
60-70 cm:
70-80 cm:
80-100 cm:
Unit 30
0-10 cm:
10-20 cm:
20-100 cm:
Unit 31
0-90 cm:
90-100 cm:
Unit 32
0-10 cm:
10-20 cm:
20-30 cm:
30-40 cm:
40-100 cm:
no recovery
bone (5)
no recovery,
bone (4)
bone (8)
no recovery
no recovery
bone (1)
no recovery
no recovery
bone (2)
no recovery
shell (3)
shell (1)
clay (20+)
no recovery
Unit 33
0-10 cm:
clay (20+)
10-20 cm:
bone (1), clay (13), rock (1)
20-30 cm:
bone (3), clay (16),
charcoal
30-40 cm:
bone (9), clay (25+)
40-50 cm:
bone (12), clay (30+)
50-60 cm:
bone (3), clay (15)
60-70 cm:
clay (20+), rock (2)
70-80 cm:
bone (18), clay (48)
80-90 cm:
clay (5)
90-100 cm:
no recovery
Unit 34
0-10 cm: bone (26), clay (50+),
pottery sherd (2)
20 036
10-20 cm:
20-30 cm:
30-60 cm:
60-70 cm:
70-80 cm:
80-90 cm:
90-100 cm:
Unit 35
0-10 cm:
10-20 cm:
20-30 cm:
30-40 cm:
40-50 cm:
50-70 cm:
70-80 cm:
80-100 cm:
Unit 36
0-10 cm:
10-20 cm:
20-30 cm:
30-40 cm:
40-50 cm:
50-60 cm:
60-70 cm:
70-90 cm:
90-100 cm:
clay (10)
bone (3), clay (3)
no recovery
bone (2), clay (2)
bone (30)
bone (10), clay (3)
bone (4)
bone (12), clay (20+),
clay (,20+)
clay (10)
no recovery
clay (5)
no recovery
clay (6)
no recovery
bone (6), clay (1)
bone (10), clay (3)
bone (11)
bone (7)
clay (2), shell (2)
clay (2)
chipped stone (1)
no recovery
bone (7), clay (4)
Surface Scrapes around Units
Unit 22
SS 1, 0-10 crn:
SS 2, 0-10 crn:
SS 3, 0-10 crn:
Unit 23
SS 1, 0-20 crn:
SS 2, 0-20 cm:
SS 3, 0-20 cm:
Unit 24
SS 1, 0-10 crn:
SS 2, 0-10 cm:
SS 3, 0-10 cm:
clay (3)
bone (2), clay (2)
no recovery
no recovery
bone (2), clay (7)
clay (5)
no recovery
bone (9), clay (4)
no recovery
Unit 25
SS 1, 0-10 cm: bone (4), rock (2),
charcoal
SS 2, 0-10 cm: rock: (7), charcoal
SS 3, 0-10 cm: bone (1), clay (4), rock
(4), charcoal
Unit 26
SS 1, 0-10 cm:
SS 2, 0-10 cm:
SS 3, 0-10 cm:
Unit 28
SS 1, 0-20 cm:
SS 2, 0-20 cm:
SS 3, 0-20 cm:
Unit 29
SS 1, 0-10 cm:
SS 2, 0-10 cm:
SS 3, 0-10 cm:
Unit 30
SS 1, 0-10 cm:
SS 2, 0-10 cm:
SS 3, 0-10 cm:
Unit 31
SS 1, 0-10 cm:
SS 2, 0-10 cm:
SS 3, 0-10 cm:
Unit 32
SS 1, 0-10 cm:
SS 2, 0-10 cm:
SS 3, 0-10 cm:
clay (4)
clay (4)
clay (5), shell (1)
bone (1),. clay (1)
clay (5)
clay (4)
no recovery
no recovery
no recovery
no recovery
no recovery
no recovery
no recovery
clay (1)
modern shell casing (1)
no recovery
no recovery
no recovery
Unit 33
SS 1, 0-10 cm: clay (12), rock (4),
pottery sherd (1)
SS 2, 0-10 cm: bone (4), clay (8)
SS 3, 0-10 cm: clay (20)
Unit 34
SS 1, 0-20 cm: bone (35+), clay (40),
rock (3), groundstone (1),
chipped stone (2)
21 ... ; _ 037
SS 2, 0-20 cm.: bone (30+), clay (35)
SS 3, 0-20 cm.: bone (50+), clay (45),
pottery sherd (3)
Unit 35
SS 1, 0-20 crn:
SS 2, 0-20 crn:
SS 3, 0-20 crn:
Unit 36
SS 1, 0-10 cm:
SS 2, 0-10 crn:
SS 3, 0-10 crn:
bone (30+), clay (40+)
bone (34), clay (40+)
bone (21), clay (40)
no recovery
no recovery
no recovery
Isolated Surface Scrapes
Surface scrape #2, 2 x 2 meters, 0-20 cm:
bone (20), clay (220+), shell (8), pottery
sherds (2), chipped stone (1)
Backhoe Trenches
Trench A
0-200 cm: clay (21), rock (6)
Trench B
0-200 cm: clay (6), rock (2)
COLLECTION SUMMARY
Trench C
0-200 cm: bone (1), clay (19), shell (1),
chipped stone (1)
Trench D
0-200 cm:
no recovery
Trench E
0-200 cm:
clay (3), rock (4)
Trench F
0-200 cm:
clay (15)
Trenches G-I
0-200 cm:
no recovery
Trench J
0-200 cm: clay (21), shell (9), pottery
sherd (1)
Trench K
0-200 cm: no recovery
Trench L
0-200 cm: clay (4)
Trench M
0-200 cm: clay (3), glass (3)
Over 3,766 cultural items were collected during field testing. Of these, at least 2,809
were animal bones and bone fragments, the majority of which are rodent bone, many
burned. The remaining artifacts consist of 560 pottery sherds, 59 pieces of groundstone,
317 pieces of chipped stone, and 21 shell beads. Also collected were large amounts of
rock, much of it fire -affected, and anadonta (freshwater mussel) shell, as well as
charcoal, and some mixing of modern metal and ceramics.
The vast majority of the test units found little more than scattered rodent bone and
flakes of burned or sun-dried clay, much of it probably not cultural in origin, in levels
below the surface. However, one cluster of units came upon a very important buried
deposit, best exemplified by Unit 37 on the Horn property.
BURIED SITE
In the western portion, or the Horn property, a buried deposit was discovered and
sampled. First, during observations at Trench 1Vo. 9, charcoal, fire -affected rock and one
22
�_ 03�
piece of chipped stone were found at depth, between 1 and 2 meters deep. As additional
units were placed by hand, confirmation was achieved of an intact living surface or
habitation site, buried by perhaps centuries of windblown sand (Fig. 9). Subsequent test
units confirmed a deep deposit, ranging from 70 to 160 cm (2.5 ft to 5 ft) covering a
roughly circular area some 60 meters (200 feet) in diameter (Fig. 10).
In Unit 39, a clay floor built of large chunks of fired clay was found in association with a
fire pit with large pieces of charcoal still in place (Fig. 11). From the same feature came
a piece of schist metate or grinding slab. Just above this feature, archaeologists exposed
a piece of a schist pestle in the wall of the unit. In Unit 44 a complete mano, or hand-
held grinding stone, was found at 120 cm (4 ft), a tool showing complete working and
shaping on all sides, a piece of personal property refined to a degree far beyond mere
expediency; while in a number of other units, also at depth, shell beads and ornaments
were found, the most spectacular being drilled abalone shell (Figs. 12, 13), a rare find
perhaps never before reported from the Coachella Valley.
In sum, an intact living floor, a buried site preserving remnants of past lifeways, exists
below the surface of Site CA-RIV-2936. When superimposed onto preliminary project
plans, the buried portion of CA-RIV-2936 lies for the most part under a planned
parking lot and sidewalk, with retail stores touching its northern edge (Fig. 14). The
site's significance in germs of research potential is discussed in the following sections.
NATIVE AMER:ICAN CONSULTATION
Regarding the buried site, the unanimous opinion of the Native American consultants
is that the artifacts should be excavated and the information collected at this time.
Whether or not the site could be preserved under a parking lot or a green. space made
no difference, the unhesitating conclusion was, it is better to excavate.
Anthony 'Riff" .Andreas, Cahuilla historian, said, "A parking lot would be OK,
landscaping as much as possible would be preferable, but it would be much better to
excavate the whole thing."
Ernest Morreo, Torres Martinez, said "Collect the artifacts, because we might be able to
find artifacts intact, something worth having, we need to get as much as possible, then
its OK to develop."
Marc Benitez, Cabazon, said "Collecting and researching is preferable." Addressing the
question of preserving it in an easement or open space, he said 'Preserving it in place
does not guarantee its protection. Fifty or a hundred years from now it could get dug
up and scattered."
The three younger Torres Martinez members, all working as archaeological crew people
on a nearby project, were likewise unanimous is saying that the information, the
knowledge, the ability to show people we were here, all these factors come together as
preferable to preservation in place.
23 039
Figure 9. Units with deep deposits. Unit 37, cultural material 80-100 cm; Unit 38, excavated to 70 cm only,
no material found; Unit 39, intact fire hearth, groundstone, fired clay, beads at L55-170 cm; Unit 40,
fire -affected rock and charcoal at 180-200 cm; Unit 41, charcoal and shell bead at 70 cm; Unit 42,
excavated to 100 cm only, no material found; Unit 43, fire -affected rock, burned clay, chipped stone at
80-120 cm; Unit 44, shaped mano, chipped stone, charcoal, fire -affected rock at 80-130 cm; Unit 45, shell
bead at 90-100 cm; Unit 46, excavated to 50 cm only, no material found.
040
24
0 200ft
0 60 m
p s
ried ite b
�. 1 \-0 e9. M1i • � i4
110 0
f 1/yam`.
.j[,'j \J >✓.-/dry. �,,... �.. f�
------------------
_�--
Property boundary
Property boundary
Figure 10. Location of the buried site on the western portion of the project area (Horn property).
25 - o 41
Figure 11. Intact fire hearth at 160 cm (5 ft) depth in a test unit, with constructed floor of burned clay.
Figure 12. Shell beads and ornaments, including abalone shell (upper center and right column).
26 042
Figure 13. Mano, shaped all around, whole, found at 120 cm (4 ft).
043
27
DISCUSSION
Based on the research results discussed above, the following sections present CRM
TECH's conclusions regarding the significance of sites CA-RIV-2936 on the Horn
property and -61.90 on the Troll property.
DEFINITION
According to PRC §5020.1(j), "'historical resource' includes, but is not limited to, any
object, building, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which is historically or
archaeologically significant, or is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific,
economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of
California." More specifically, CEQA guidelines state that the term "]historical
resources" applies to any such resources listed in or determined to be eligible for listing
in the California Register of Historical Resources, included in a local register of
historical resources, or determined to be historically significant by the Lead Agency
(Title 14 CCR §150645(a)(1)-(3)).
Regarding the proper criteria of historical significance, CEQA guidelines mandate that
"a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be 'historically significant' if the
resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources"
(Title 14 CCR §15064.5(a)(3)). A resource may be listed in the California Register if it
meets any of the following criteria:
(1) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to
the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage.
(2) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past.
(3) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or
method of construction, or represents the work of an important
creative individual, or possesses high artistic values.
(4) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in
prehistory or history. (PRC §5024.1(c))
Based on these criteria, Sites CA-RIV-2936 and -6190 are evaluated for their scientific
and archaeological importance.
SITE EVALUATION
As stated in the Phase I survey report for this project, "the surface finds ... are modest
but the subsurface potential is great" (Love et al. 1999:17). At Site CA-RIV-6190 in the
eastern portion of the project area (Troll property), nothing was found below the
surface to indicate the presence of a buried component. The pottery, burned bone,
chipped stone, and burned clay that was scattered across the surface of the site turned
out to be surface: manifestations only, and rather typical at that. Little could be gained
from further explorations at CA-RIV-6190.
29 045
At Site CA-RIV-2936 in the western portion of the project area (Horn property), the
aforementioned potential of subsurface finds was proven during this study, in fact
exceeding previous expectations. The buried site has demonstrated the potential to
answer a number of research questions posed at the beginning of this report.
• Chronology From the buried hearth in Unit 39, archaeologists recovered numerous
large pieces of charcoal, pieces large enough for secure radiocarbon dating. At most
sites in the Coachella Valley, bits and pieces of charcoal need to be combined in
order to be sufficient for dating. At this site, in comparison, single pieces are large
enough, giving better control over chronological interpretations. Even more
important, the charcoal lies in its original place of deposition, so that the
radiocarbon date obtained from the charcoal will reliably mark the time when
people were living at the site.
• Subsistence Since the buried site appears to represent a single living surface
preserved in place, and since the time of occupation can be reliably dated, the
comparative analysis of fish and land mammal bone can tell us more about
prehistoric reliance on ancient Lake Cahuilla, the presence or absence of the lake at
that time, and the vertebrate diet in general. Most surface sites are mixes of remains
from different episodes of deposition, often condensed together in blowouts
between sand dunes, causing uncertainty in the scientific interpretation. Finding
this buried layer uncontaminated by later deposits provides a rare opportunity for
testing some outstanding models regarding game animal exploitation.
• Settlement Pattern Since the site is some distance from the shoreline of ancient
Lake Cahuilla, it presents an opportunity to understand more about site locations
that are not directly related to the last high stand of the lake. In fact, the presence of
this site may be due to its proximity to the Whitewater River instead of the old
lakeshore.
• Trade Abalone shell ornaments are rare and unique in Coachella Valley
archaeology and demonstrate an intimate trading relationship with the people of
the Pacific Coast. Other shell beads tell more of the variety of trade. At present, the
chipped stone appears to be mostly local variety, but there is potential for more
information if this buried site were to be excavated more thoroughly.
• Ethnicity As mentioned above, this question is almost impossible to address
archaeologically, and probably will remain so.
• Clay Use One of the great benefits of excavating this site is the chance to finally test
and put to rest a number of hypotheses regarding the prehistoric use of baked clay.
An intact feature has been found with large clay chunks purposefully placed to
make a floor or platform associated with a fire hearth. More detailed analysis and
further exposure of this and other features like it will go far toward explaining this
valley -wide phenomenon of burned clay chunks at archaeological sites.
In sum, the buried site at CA-RIV-2936 meets CEQA Criterion 4 for listing on the
California Register of Historical Resources, and therefore should be considered
"historically significant" by the Lead Agency, namely the City of La Quinta.
30 046
PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION OPTIONS
CEQA establishes that "a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the
environment" (i?RC §21084.1). "Substantial adverse change," according to PRC
§5020.1(q), "means demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration such that the
significance of an historical resource would be impaired."
This study has concluded that Site CA-RIV-2936 meets the statute definition of a
historical resource. Therefore, pursuant to PRC §21084.1, a substantial adverse change
to this site would constitute a significant effect on the environment. In order to
prevent such an. effect, the potential adverse change to the site needs to be avoided by
preserving the site in place, or mitigated through data recovery, as outlined below.
• Preserving in Place Since the project is in its preliminary design phase, it could be
planned to avoid the buried archaeological deposit at CA-RIV-2936. The site ranges
in depth from 3 to 6 feet below the surface, depending on the surface topography. If
enough fill were brought in to assure the site's protection untouched below the
surface, then the site could be saved as is without further excavation. Thus project
impacts would be reduced to levels less than significant.
• Mitigation by Data Recovery On the other hand, if it were decided to excavate the
site, project impacts would again be reduced to levels less than significant, since the
important information that made the site significant in the first place would be
recovered and preserved.
In PRC §21083.2.1 CEQA appears to favor preservation over excavation, stating that the
lead agency may require any of the following:
• Planning construction to avoid archaeological sites;
• Deeding archaeological sites into permanent conservation easements;
• Capping or covering archaeological sites with a layer of soil before building on the
sites;
• Planning parks, greenspace, or other open space to incorporate archaeological sites.
CEQA goes on to mandate that, in the event that a unique archaeological resource
cannot be preserved in place, then excavation as mitigation shall be required. In either
event, preservation or excavation, project impacts would be reduced and the Lead
Agency could declare that the project would not cause a "substantial adverse change" in
the significance of an historical resource.
RECOMMENDATIONS
As discussed in the preceding section, there are two possible recommendations on Site
CA-RIV-2836: preservation in place or mitigation through excavation. As an
archaeologist, one is torn between the benefits of preservation in perpetuity, perhaps
saving an important site for archaeologists of the future to explore with improved
methods, and a full-scale excavation that would in essence destroy the site but gain
valuable scientific information. Thus, from the archaeological standpoint, the current
stance of this study is one of ambivalence, or one might say '50-50" leaning one way or
the other.
In the current political and cultural setting, however, with active Native American
groups watching and participating in cultural resource management, perhaps the Lead
Agency should sustain the wishes of the Tribal representatives, which, as documented
in this report, speak in a unanimous voice for excavation.
As consultant for the project, CRM TECH wears two hats in this process: one as
scientific archaeologist and the other as culturally sensitive Native American liaison.
In this case, the strength of the Indian viewpoint outweighs the ambivalence of the
scientific position, thus leading to a recommendation to the Lead Agency that
excavation as mitigation shall be required.
CONCLUSION
The foregoing report has provided background information on the project area,
outlined the methods used in the current study, and presented the results of the
various avenues of research. Since the commencement of the study, CRM TECH has
completed surface mapping of Sites CA-RIV-2936 and -6190, 100% collection of the
surface finds, and the excavation of and artifact recovery from 49 archaeological
excavation units, 111 surface scrapes, and 48 trenches. Sorting and cataloguing of all
collected artifacts has been accomplished.
Site CA-RIV-6190, on the Troll property, does not constitute a historical resource and
requires no further consideration in the planning process. A portion of CA-RIV-2936,
on the Horn property, contains a buried component that does constitute a "historical
resource." Based on Native American consultation, excavation as mitigation is
recommended, after which grading and construction could commence. Because of the
potential for as yet undiscovered archaeological sites, archaeological monitoring shall
be required during grading for both the Horn and the Troll properties.
1 c
32
REFERENCES
Laylander, Don
1997 The Last Days of Lake Cahuilla: The Elmore Site. Pacific Coast Archaeological
Society Quarterly 33(1/2):1-138.
Love, Bruce
1996 Archaeology on the North Shoreline of Ancient Lake Cahuilla: Final Results
from Survey, Testing, and Mitigation -Monitoring. Manuscript report on file (MF#
4159), Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside.
1997 Unpublished paper presented at the 1997 Kelso Conference, Ocotillo,
California.
Love, Bruce, Bai "Tom" Tang, and Harry M. Quinn
1998 Cultural Resources Report, La Quinta Corporate Centre, Located At Highway
111 And Dune Palms Road, La Quinta, Riverside County, California. Report on file,
Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside.
Rockwell, Thomas K
1995 Unpublish lecture given at the Coachella Valley Archaeological. Society.
1997 Personal communication with the authors.
Schaefer, Jerry
1994 The Challenge of Archaeological Research in the Colorado Desert: Recent
Approaches and Discoveries. Journal of California and Great Basin .Anthropology
16(1):60-80.
Wilke, Philip J.
1976 Late Prehistoric Human Ecology at Lake Cahuilla, Coachella Valley,
California. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of
California, Iiverside.
Sutton, Mark Q.
1998 Cluster Analysis of Paloefecal Data Sets: A Test of Late Prehistoric Settlement
and Subsistence Patterns in the Northern Coachella Valley, California. American
Antiquity 63(1):86-107.
33 049
APPENDIX 1:
PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS
050
34
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
Bruce Love, Ph.D., ROPA (Register of Professional Archaeologists)
Education
1986 Ph. D., Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles.
1981 M.A., Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles.
1976 B.A., Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles.
1996 "CEQA 101," presented by the Association of Environmental Professionals.
1995 "CEQA Workshop," presented by Association of Environmental
Professionals.
1994 "Assessing the Significance of Historic Archaeological Sites," presented by
the Historic Preservation Program, University of Nevada, Reno.
1994 "CEQA 1994: Issues, Trends, and Advanced Topics," presented by UCLA
Extension.
1990 'Introduction to Federal Projects and Historic Preservation Law,"
presented by U.S. General Services Administration Training Center.
Professional Experience
1993- Owner and Principal, CRM TECH, Riverside.
1990-1993 Director, Archaeological Research Unit, UC Riverside; Coordinator,
Archaeological Information Center, UC Riverside.
1989-1990 Coordinator, Archaeological Information Center, UCLA.
1987-1990 Owner and Principal, Pyramid Archaeology, Palmdale, California.
1986-1987 Junior Fellow, Dumbarton Oaks Center for Pre -Columbian Research,
Washington, D.C.
1981-1986 Part-time cultural resources management consultant; doctoral student at
UCLA.
Memberships
Register of Professional Archaeologists.
Association of Environmental Professionals.
American Planning Association.
Society for American Archaeology.
Society for California Archaeology.
Coachella Valley Archaeological Society.
35 ., 051
PROJECT ARCHAEOLOGIST
Michael Hogan, Ph.D.
Education
1991 Ph.D., Anthropology, University of California, Riverside.
1981 B.S., Anthropology, University of California, Riverside,,
1980-1981 Education Abroad Program, Lima, Peru.
1992 "Southern California Ceramics Workshop," presented by Jerry Schaefer.
1992 "H:istoric Artifact Workshop," presented by Anne Duffield -Stoll.
Professional Experience
1999- Project Archaeologist/Field Director, CRM TECH, Riverside.
1996-1998 Project Director and Ethnographer, Statistical Research, Inc., Redlands.
1992-1995 Project Director, Archaeological Research Unit, University of California,
Riverside.
• Duties: supervision of all aspects of projects including communicating
with. clients and/or public agencies to determine appropriate scope of
work and scheduling of tasks; arranging logistics, including
transportation, food, and lodging; organizing crew people into
appropriate tasks and directing field work; overseeing laboratory
analysis of findings, including sending samples to outside researchers
for analysis and cataloguing/organizing all data recovered by the
fieldwork; producing final reports, including background research,
description of fieldwork, discussion of study results, preparation of site
records, and formulation of final recommendations.
1991-1992 Crew Chief, Archaeological Research Unit, University of California,
Riverside.
1984-1998 Part-time technician for various cultural resources management firms,
including CRM TECH; Archaeological Research Unit, University of
California, Riverside; Cultural Resource Facility, California State
University, Bakersfield; Greenwood and Associates; RMW Paleo
Associates; and WESTEC Services, Inc.
Publications
Author, co-author, and contributor to more than 35 archaeological publications and
CRM reports, including "Yuma Area Office Sediment Project: Contact with Native
Americans" (1998), "Early Hunter -Gathers and Historic Settlers along San Sevaine
Creek: Data Recovery Efforts at the Hunter's Ridge Community Development Project"
(1998), "Continuity and Change: 8,500 Years of Lacustrine Adaptation on the Shores of
Lake Elsinore" (1997), and "Historic Properties Management Report for the Whittier
Narrows Flood Control Basin" (1997).
36 052
PROJECT ARCHAEOLOGISTNIELD DIRECTOR
Harry M. Quinn, M.S.
BLM Cultural Resources Use Permit No. CA 99-01-013
Education
1978 Certificate in Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.
1968 M.S., Geology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
1964 B.S., Geology, Long Beach State College, Long Beach.
1962 A.A., Los Angeles Harbor College, Wilmington.
1996 "Cultural Resources and CEQA: Your Responsibility," presented by the
Association of Environmental Professionals, Hemet.
1991 "Ceramic Workshop," presented by Jerry Schaefer, Palm. Springs.
1990 'Introduction to Coachella Valley Archaeology," presented by Anne
Duffield, Palm Desert.
1989 'Prehistoric Rock Art and Archaeology of the Southern California
Deserts," presented by Anne Duffield, UC Riverside Extension (Course No.
ANT X434.15), Palm Springs.
Professional Experience
1998- Project Archaeologist/Field Director, CRM TECH, Riverside,
1994-1996 Environmental Geologist, E.C.E.S., Inc., Redlands.
1992-1998 Independent Geological/Archaeological/Environmental Consultant,
Pinyon Pines.
1988-1992 Project Geologist/Director of Environmental Services, STE Associates/Soil
and Testing Engineers, San Bernardino.
1987-1988 Senior Geologist, Jirsa Environmental Services, Norco.
1986 Consulting Petroleum Geologist, Loco Exploration, Inc., Aurora, Colorado.
1978-1986 Senior Exploration Geologist, Tenneco Oil Exploration and Production,
Englewood, Colorado.
1966-1978 Exploration and Development Geologist, Texaco, Inc., Los Angeles.
Memberships
Coachella Valley Archaeological Society (President, 1993-1994; Vice President, 1992,
1995-1999; Basic: Archaeology Training Course Instructor, 1996-1998; Environmental
Assessment Committee Chair, 1997-1999); Coachella Valley Historical Society; Malki
Museum; Southwest Museum; El Paso Archaeological Society; Ohio Archaeological
Society; Museum of Fur Trade.
Publications in Archaeology and History
Approximately fifty articles in the publications of the Southwest Museum, the
American Rock Art Research Association, the Colorado Archaeological Society, the
Utah Rock Art Research Association, the Coachella Valley Archaeological Society, and
the Coachella Valley Historical Society.
37 - 053
PROJECT ARCHAEOLOGIST/LAB DIRECTOR
Kathryn J. W. Bouscaren, B.S.
Education
1999 B.S., Anthropology with emphasis in Archaeology, University of
California, Riverside.
1998 Archaeological Field School, Plymouth State College, New Hampshire.
1996 A.A., Liberal Arts (including two intensive classes in field and laboratory
archaeology), San Diego City College.
Professional Experience
1999- Project Archaeologist, CRM TECH, Riverside.
Duties include surveying, sketch mapping, excavation, and supervision of
artifact cataloguing.
1998-1999 Project Archaeologist, Archaeological Research Unit, University of
California, Riverside.
Jobs included surveys and mapping of Death Valley and Anza Borrego
State Parks, several excavation projects in MCAGGC Marine Base at
Twentynine Palms, California, and two months of cataloguing artifacts
from MCAGGC projects.
Laboratory and Field Experience
1998 Field Survey and Documentation course under direction of Phil Wilke.
Surveyed and mapped numerous prehistoric and historic sites in the
Mojave Desert and Riverside County.
1998 Archaeological Field School, Plymouth State College, New Hampshire
Excavated significant Paleoindian site, catalogued artifacts and analyzed a
sampling of debitage and formed tools, helped with reorganization of lab.
1994-1995 San Diego City College courses under direction of Stephen Bouscaren.
Excavated Penasquitos Canyon site with prehistoric and historic
components, catalogued artifacts, co-authored analysis and report of
debitage assemblage.
38 1 054
DATE:
ITEM:
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
ARCHAEOLOGICAL
CONSULTANT:
BACKGROUND:
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
AUGUST 19, 1999
PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF 54.65
ACRES OWNED BY THE CITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WASHINGTON STREET AND
MILES AVENUE
CITY OF LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
ARCHAEOLOGICAL ADVISORY GROUP (JAMES BROCK)
A Phase I archaeological survey of 54.65 acres of Redevelopment Agency owned
property at the southeast corner of Washington Street and Miles Avenue has been
prepared. To date no development plans are proposed or approved for this site.
On June 17, 1999, the Commission granted approval of an interim Phase 1 report for
the northerly portion of the easterly one third of this site, adjacent to the Inco/Century-
Crowell Communities development. Field reconnaissance of this portion of the site did
not reveal any potential for buried sites. This permits, with archaeological monitoring,
grading down the sand dunes on the Redevelopment Agency site to minimize blowing
sand to the east.
DISCUSSION:
Three prehistoric sites and three isolated finds were identified during the Phase 1
investigation. The prehistoric sites are located generally in the southwest portion of
the property near the Whitewater River Channel. Two of the sites (CA-RIV-6275 and
CA-RIV- 6277) .are large habitation areas containing pottery, bone fragments, shell
fragements, baked clay fragments, and thermally affected rock. The third site (CA-
RIV-6276 is a pottery scatter containing six sherds. The isolates are each comprised
of one pottery sherd.
Sites CA-RIV-62:75 and CA-RIV-6277 are within an area that was a part of one+
square mile archaeological site (CA-RIV-150) until the early 1980's, at which time it
was decided to better refine the site. Site CA-RIV-150 is now made up of a number
of smaller sites.
C:hpc rpt se wash st i4L miles.wpd
055
The two larger sites under the California Environmental Quality Act and California
Register of Historical Resources criteria warrant additional investigation. There is
research potenl:ial and possibly significance based on the surface manufestations found.
Both sites appear ro have datable material (charcoal in midden forms) that could aid
in the refinement of local chronology, and bone, ceramics, and baked clay fragments
that could address questions of subsistence practices. Site CA-RIV-6277 exhibits
what may be a previously unidentified pottery technology (basket molding). The three
isolates could be indicative of buried deposits in their vicinities.
The report recommends a 100 percent surface collection at the three prehistoric sites.
Furthermore, systematic backhoe trenching in a grid system is recommended for the
western and southern portions of the study area, including the three sites. Following
the first two steps hand excavation should be conducted at sites identified in order to
sample the materials present.
Upon conclusion of the Phase II investigation, recommendations, as needed, for further
work on, or preservation of the cultural resources will be presented.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Minute Motion 99- , accepting :
1.) The "Phase I Archaeological Assessment of 54.65 Acres at the Southeast
corner of Washington Street and Miles Avenue, La Quinta, California", as
prepared by Archaeological Advisory Group
Attachment:
1. Phase I Archaeological Assessment of 54.65 Acres at the Southeast corner of
Washington Street and Miles Avenue, La Quinta, California (Commissioners
only)
Prepared by: Submitted By:
Stan B. Sawa, Principal Planner
Christine di lorio, Plann' g Manager
050
C:hpc rpt se wash st & miles.wpd
Phase I Archaeological Assessment
of 54.65 Acres at the Southeast
Corner of Washington Street
RAQI,,y
✓by�9 and Miles Avenue,
FFFi�Fo
I998
D ;rH
La Quinta, California
Preparedfor-,
City of La Quints
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
Prepared by:
James Brock and Brenda D. Smith
June 19"
USGS 7.5' Quadrangles La Quints
Acreage: 54.65
Key Words: Sites CA-RIV-6275, CA-RIV-6276,
and CA-RIV-6277; Isolates 33-8944, 33-8845, and
33-8946; Cahuilla Indians; Ancient Lake Cahuilla
AAG Job NO: 990508
VvV
ARCHAEOLOGICAL ADVISORY GROUP
P.O. BOX 491, PIONEERTOWN, CA 92268-0491
'Pei: (760) 228-1142 • Fax: (760) 369-4002
E-mail: archadvgrpC>aol.com
0 5 -1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ManagementSummary.........................................................................................
1
Introduction..........................................................................................................
1
Setting........................................
5
NaturalSetting................................................................................................
5
CulturalSetting...............................................................................................
7
Records and Literature Results..............................................................................
11
Archaeological Records Search........................................................................
11
ArchivalResearch...........................................................................................
12
ResearchDesign...................................................................................................
12
Methods................................................................................................................
18
FieldworkTechniques.....................................................................................
18
Findings................................................................................................................
19
SitesRecorded.................................................................................................
19
IsolatesRecorded............................................................................................
20
Discussion/Interpretation......................................................................................
22
Management Considerations.................................................................................
22
SiteEvaluation................................................................................................
22
Recommendations...........................................................................................
23
ReferencesCited...................................................................................................
24
Appendix 1: Persormel Qualifications...................................................................
27
Attachment A: Resource Forms (restricted information) ........................................
28
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.
General location of the study area ........................................................
2
Figure 2.
Specific location of the study area .........................................................
3
Figure 3.
Wide-angle general view of the study area from the northeast comer ....
4
Figure 4.
Wide-angle general view of the study area from the southeast comer ....
4
Figure 5.
US General Land Office Plat Map 1856-1857.......................................
13
Figure 6.
USGS 11904Indio map (1:125,000).......................................................
14
Figure 7.
US Army Corps of Engineers 1941 Toro Peak quadrangle (1:62,500) ...
15
Figure 8.
Pottery with basketry impression from CA-RW-6277 ............................
21
Figure 9.
Rim sheird of cooking vessel from CA-RIV-6277..................................
21
Figure 10.
Isolates collected during the survey .....................................................
21
ii
I.. .1 .. 058
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
This report presents the results of a Phase I archaeological survey of a 54.65-acre
property located at the southeast comer of Washington Street and Miles Avenue
in the City of La Quinta, California.
Three prehistoric sites (CA-RIV-6275, CA-RIV-6276, and CA-RIV-6277) and
three isolated finds (33-8844, 33-8845, and 33-8846) were identified during the
investigation. Sites CA-RIV-6275 (Primary No. 33-8841) and CA-RIV-6277
(Primary No. 33-8843) are large habitation areas containing pottery, bone
fragments, shell fragments, baked clay fragments, and thermally affected rock.
CA-RIV-6276 (Primary No. 33-8842) is a pottery scatter containing six sherds.
The three isolates each comprise one pottery sherd.
Sites CA-RIV-6275 and CA-RIV-6277 appear to have possible research
significance that needs to be addressed though a Phase II test program. There is
also a strong possibility for buried sites to be present in the study area.
A three -step Phase II test program is recommended for the further evaluation of
resources. This consists of surface collection of identified sites, systematic
backhoe trenching in the western and southern portions of the property, and hand
excavation of identified resources. Further recommendations are to be given after
completions of Phase II.
INTRODUCTION
This report presents the findings of a Phase I (archaeological survey) cultural resources study of
a 54.65-acre property located at the southeast corner of Washington Street and Miles Avenue, in
the City of La Quanta, Riverside County, California (Figures 1, 2. 3. and 4). The study included
recordation of three newly recorded sites and three newly recorded isolated finds.
I 059
yea � r`_ �...y , u-M y2uo � � � ✓ ��-� G t 1 ,(� � � _
Ra• �
STUDY AREA; ;
s; z, ti us rt, ,
c t
E'
t
Ila —`
I� l� 6 Irk-1� S i Ilrti t i�u Om}., TORR SM T1
MDIAi AR
�r(-@«.
0 MILES 10 _ to
0 KILOMETERS 15+
VATIU
Figure 1. General location of the study area plotted on a portion of the USGS 1:250,000 Western
United States Series Santa Ana, California map (1959, revised 1979).
2
060
J
3.II ilc-' Y
STUDY AREA
NX
��4V UE
�oint
1 \'
C.
�li o
U _ cG
_ / I
0��
l P .
30
1 so
i�
Feet 25W
i
0 Meters 1000
F%ure 2. Specific location of the project area platted on a portion of the USGS 7.5' La Quinta,
California topographic quadrangle (1959, photorevised 1990).
3 -- 061
Figure 3. A wide-angle general view of the study area from the northeast corner. Miles
Avenue is visible on the right. Point Happy is in the background.
s
Figure 4. A wide-angle general view of the study area from the southeast corner. The
top of the Whitewater River channel bank is in the center of the picture.
An archaeological records search, archival research, and a field reconnaissance were conducted
for the project. Fieldwork entailed a systematic, intensive pedestrian survey of the entire project
area and documentation of the identified resources. The project was conducted by
Archaeological Advisory Group for the City of La Quinta and was undertaken in compliance
with the City's own cultural resource requirements for development projects. These
requirements are intended to fulfill those aspects of the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970 (as amended) which pertain to the management of cultural resources that may be impacted
by development projects sponsored by state or local government agencies, or by private
developments requiring a discretionary permit or license. Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act may also be applicable.
This report was prepared in accordance with the recommended contents and format described in
the California State: Preservation Planning Bulletin Number 4(a) (California Department of Parks
and Recreation 1989).
The Principal Investigator for this study was James Brock. The field crew consisted of Mr.
Brock and Brenda D. Smith. Ms. Smith also assisted with data analysis and preparation of this
technical report. Qualifications of these individuals are presented in Appendix 1. All personnel
met and exceed the City of La Quinta's qualifications for their respective staffing level.
Field notes and other materials pertaining to this study are on file with Archaeological Advisory
Group (AAG Job No. 990509). Curation of the artifacts collected during the study will be the
responsibility of the City of La Quinta.
SETTING
NATURAL SETTING
The study area is a 54.65-acre parcel located within the City of La Quinta at the southeast comer
of Washington Street and Miles Avenue in the Coachella Valley, Riverside County, California
(Figures 1 and 2).
The study area falls within the central portion of the southern half of Section 119 of Township 5
South, Range 7 East, SBBM, as shown on the USGS 7.5' La Quinta, California topographic
quadrangle sheet (Figure 2). Study area elevations range from 60 to 120 feel: above mean sea
level (amsl).
The project area lies within rolling, semi -stable sand dunes containing intermittent blowouts.
This type of landform is typical of the remnant shoreline of ancient Lake Cahuilla, a large lake
that once occupied the basin to the south and east of the project area. Soil of this area comprises
a gray -tan aeolian sand that ranges from loose to well compacted.
5 ... - 06J
Formation of the study area's natural setting was much like that of the nearby Myoma Dunes
investigated by Wilke (1978). Production of sand dunes oftentimes occurs as a result of
deposition of aeolian sand around and near stands of vegetation. Because many vegetation
stands, particularly mesquite thickets, grew near the shoreline of Ancient Lake Cahuilla, sand
dune fields were commonly located marginal to the lakeshore.
Native vegetation of the study area comprises a Creosote Scrub community. Plants typical of
this community are creosote (Larrea tridentata), mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa)„ burrobush
(Ambrosia dumosa), and dicoria (Dicoria canescens). Schismus barbatus, an evasive, non-native
grass, is also common on contemporary sand dunes. Animal species of the area include
cottontail (Syvilagus audubonii), jackrabbit (Lepus californicus), woodrat (Neotoma spp.),
pocket mouse (Perognathus spp.), coyote (Canis latrans), scorpion (Hadrurus spp.), Western
Shovel -nosed Snake (Chionactic occipitalis), Sidewinder (Crotalus cerastes), Desert Iguana
(Dipsosaurus dorsalis), Side -blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana), Mourning Dove (Zenaida
macroura), Say's Phoebe (Sayornis saya), Gambel's Quail (Callipepla gambelii), Common
Raven (Corvus corax), Anna's Hummingbird (Calypte anna), Red-tailed Hawk (Buteo lineatus),
Lesser Nighthawk (Chordeiles acutipennis), and American Kestrel (Falco sparverius).
The study area falls within the Lower Sonoran Life Zone, as does approximately 60% of
Cahuilla territory (Bean and Saubel 1972:12). This zone extends from the desert floor (below
sea level) to the pinyon -juniper beh (about 3500 feet amsl). The Coachella Valley, due to its
placement on the eastern side of the Peninsular ranges (San Jacintos and Santa Rosas), is blocked
from receiving moisture moving eastward from the Pacific Ocean. This blockade results in low
rainfall of generally less than 5 inches of precipitation annually. Not only does this region have
little rainfall, but it also is one of the hottest deserts on the continent, having a mean maximum
temperature in July that easily exceeds 100' (Bailey 1966:42).
At present the nearest natural water source is the Whitewater River, which runs across the
southern border of the study area. As mentioned above, an ancient lake once: existed near the
study area. This lake, most commonly known as ancient Lake Cahuilla (also called Lake La
Conte or Blake's Sea), existed during periods of inundation of the area by the: Colorado River.
The River's usual course was to flow directly into the Gulf of California. Periodically,
fluctuations in distributary channels would create an accumulation of sediments at the river's
mouth. This would result in the formation of a delatic barrier which restricted access to the gulf,
causing the course of the river to shift. This diversion caused the Salton Trough, a geologic
depression that exitends northward 140 miles (225 km) from the gulf, to fill and form a fresh
water lake. The high stand of this lake was 42 feet (12 m) amsl, with a maximum depth of 312
feet (95 m), and a surface area of over 2200 square miles or 5700 square kilometers (Wilke 1988;
Waters 1983). Wilke (1978) and Laylander (1997) estimated that it would take 12.-20 years to
fill the basin to this level if the Colorado River emptied entirely into the lake:. Eventually, the
river's course would shift back to the gulf and desiccation of the lake would occur. It would
probably take 55-60 years (Wilke 1978; Laylander 1997) for the lake to completely desiccate
after flow was rediverted.
6
064
It is generally accepted that Lake Cahuilla has had at least three major lacustrine intervals in
which the 42 foot amsl. level was reached (Wilke 1978; Waters 1983); each of these intervals
probably lasted between 100-250 years. This chronology, originally presented by Wilke (1978),
proposed that there was a high lake stand between 100 BC and AD 600, another between AD
900 and AD 1250, and a final one between AD 1300 and AD 1500. He based his argument on
sequencing and clustering of radiocarbon dates obtained from charcoal, shell, and tufa deposits.
These dates were corroborated with historical accounts of the region. Waters (1983) argued for
yet another highstand occurring within Wilke's timeframe. He suggested that the first inundation
was around AD 701) and the final desiccation occurred circa AD 1580. Waters' chronology was
based on radiocarbon dates of stratified shell and charcoal deposits. His dates were also
supported by historical accounts. Recently, researchers (Quinn 1997; Gurrola and Rockwell
1996; Rockwell 1995; Schaefer 1994) have proposed additional stands of Lake Cahuilla. The
latest archaeological and geological research in the Coachella Valley has produced evidence
which leans toward a last highstand occurring in the seventeenth century. A summary of
highstand dates consistent with the most recent data is as follows: 1) AD 1600-1677, 2) AD
1425-1500, 3) AD 1200-1395, 4) AD 950-1150, and 5) AD 885 (Laylander 1998; Quinn 1997;
Waters 1983; Wilke 1978; Gurrola and Rockwell 1996; Rockwell 1995; Schaefer 1994). As is
evident, three major recessions, lasting 50 years or longer, have occurred since AD 900. A
smaller recession, lasting approximately 30 years also took place during the latter part of the
fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries.
Cahuilla oral history tells of the rising and falling of Lake Cahuilla. Blake's (1856:98 as cited in
Wilke 1978) version of the story, as told to him by "the chief' was of a great water (agua grande)
which covered the whole valley and was filled with fine fish. There were also plenty of geese
and ducks. Their fathers lived in the mountains and used to come down to the lake to fish and
hunt. The water gradually subsided `poco,' `poco,' (little by little), and their villages were
moved down from the mountains, and into the valley it had left. They also said that the water
once returned very suddenly and overwhelmed many of their people and drove the rest back to
the mountains.
It is also said that with the recession of Lake Cahuilla the mythical coyote "came down from the
mountains and planted mesquite beans on the lakebed (Bowers 1888 and 1891 as cited in Wilke
1978:6)." Mesquite later became an important resource for the Cahuilla.
Inundation of the lake would have produced a rich marshland environment that could have been
exploited along with the lake and desert resources. Many useful plants grow in this community
and were used by the Cahuilla. The marshland would have also drawn in many birds, mammals,
and herptiles. Undoubtedly, the Cahuilla also took advantage of these faunal resources.
CULTURAL SETTING
While the regional ethnography of the study area is fairly well accounted for, its precontact
history is poorly understood. Archaeologists have struggled for years to put together
comprehensive chronologies for what is referred to as the Prehistoric Period (time preceding
contact with Europeans) of Native American history. The sequence of prehistoric habitation
7 065
presented here is based primarily on the concordance of sequences presented by Warren (1984)
and Warren and Crabtree (1986), Warren's timeframe divisions were based on technological
changes in lithic use (i.e. millingstones and projectile points). His model was originally devised
for the Mojave desert region, but because of basic technological similarities in southern
California Indian cultures it is also applicable to the Colorado desert peoples.
Lake Mojave Period
This period probably represents the earliest phase of human occupation in southern California. It
began by at least '10,000 BC and lasted until around 5000 BC. This period is characterized by
hunting of larger games animals using spears and articulated spear -throwing devices termed
"atlatls." Spear points of this period initially were quite large, lanceolate in shape, and were
oftentimes fluted, having a longitudinal groove along the central portion of the body for
attachment to a spear. Other projectile points such as Lake Mojave, Parman, and Silver Lake
points, were somewhat smaller (though still large in comparison to later arrow points) and foliate
in shape. Crescents, specialized scrapers, leaf -shaped knives, drills, and some choppers/
hammerstones are other tools which have been identified with this period. Millingstones
typically are not present. The artifact assemblage of this period is indicative: of a generalized
hunting and gathering subsistence economy.
Archaeological sites from early on in this period were generally associated with Pleistocene lake
shorelines. As the Ahithermal (a warmer and drier climatic period that lasted from 6000 BC to
900 BC) set in, sites began to concentrate around desert oases, away from receding lakes that
were becoming too brackish for consumption. This movement likely spawned the technological
change that would lead to the Pinto Basin complex.
Pinto Period
The Pinto Period dates from around 5000 to 2000 BC, corresponding roughly to the Millingstone
Horizon in the coastal areas of California. Although desert and coastal peoples shared cultural
traits during this period, desert peoples probably did not have the same dependence on
millingstones as coastal peoples. Seed grinding does not appear to be an important economic
activity yet to the peoples of this period, but the presence of flat slab and occasionally shallow -
basin metates along with manos, indicates growing importance that plant seed resources were
beginning to have. Presumably these peoples were still maintaining a large and small game
hunting and vegetal gathering economy during this period. Pinto points, as defined by Campbell
and Campbell (1935), are the distinctive lithics of this period. These are usually found in
association with heavy -keeled scrapers, and millingstones.
Pinto Basin complex sites are generally found in association with ephemeral lakes, stream
channels, and springs, which to some suggests a break in the Altithermal warming. Presumably
there was a reoccupation of lakeshore areas around 4500 BC and then a retreat back to desert
oases by 3500 BC. This time period is known as the Little Pluvial.
H
066
Gypsum Period
The Gypsum Period is believed to date from around 2000 BC to about AD 500. Again, primary
artifacts indicative of this period are projectile points of various types, including Gypsum Cave,
Humboh series, and Elko series points. The early Gypsum period is characterized by larger
projectile points when use of the dart and atlatl were still common. Later, with the introduction
of the bow and arrow, smaller points become prominent. Manos and metates become more
common, and the mortar and pestle come into use --indicating a developing reliance upon fleshier
seed foods such as mesquite pods and acorns. Presence of Haliotis and Olivella shell beads in
sites of this period provide the earliest evidence for contact between desert and coastal peoples.
Saratoga Springs Period
The Saratoga Springs Period lasts from about AD 500 to 1200. During this period the southern
desert region, in which the Coachella Valley lies, deviates from the rest of the desert region due
to heavy cultural influence by the Hakataya, a lower Colorado River group. The Hakataya
influence brings drastic technological change to the peoples of this region. Buffware and
Brownware potter, made using the paddle and anvil technique, arc introduced and reliance on
the bow and arrow increases which leads to a new projectile point type called Cottonwood
Triangular. Millingstones, including manos, metates, pestles, and mortars are present in this time
period.
Shoshonean Period
The Shoshonean Period spans from AD 1200 to contact with Europeans. It is characterized
mostly by continuing regional development, which causes groups to differentiate
technologically, ethnographically, and linguistically. In the Coachella Valley region, Hakataya
influence continues, with Colorado Buffware and Tizon Brownware still present. Desert Side -
notched points have become the dominant point type.
Proto-Historic Period
Desert Cahuilla have inhabited the Coachella Valley region for at least the last 1000 years. They
are a Takic speaking people who are more closely culturally tied with coastal and Colorado
River groups thanwith most other Mojave desert peoples. First known contact with the Cahuilla
by a European was during the Juan Bautista de Anza expedition in 1774-1776. They were
largely ignored by the Spanish until the establishment of the Asistencias Sari Ant6nio de Pala
(1816), Santa Ysabel (1818), and San Bernardino (1830). Through these mission outposts the
Spanish managed to indirectly influence Cahuilla religious beliefs and culture. During the
Mexican occupation of California, the Cahuilla were largely left alone by intruders. It was not
until 1853 when the Southern Pacific Railroad began surveying the Coachella Valley for a
possible railroad route that the Cahuilla were again bothered. By this point the lands inhabited
by the Cahuilla had become desired by Americans. In response to this, President Ulysses S.
Grant began allotting Cahuilla lands in 1875 to give to American settlers. It was during this
9
067
period when the removal of the Cahuilla to government reservations began. Ten reservations
were created that affected the Cahuilla; of these, four are in the Coachella Valley.
Ethnography
Many studies of Cahuilla culture have been conducted over the years. Among the most
informative accounts are Bean (1972, 1978), Strong (1929), Hooper (1920), and Kroeber (1908).
Four excellent ethnobiological studies also exist (Ebeling 1986, Barrows 1900, Kroeber 1925,
and Bean and Saubel 1972), as well as archaeological accounts of prehistoric Cahuilla
adaptations to the desiccation of ancient Lake Cahuilla (e.g. Wilke 1978).
The Cahuilla are divided by anthropologists into three subgroups, the Desert Cahuilla of the
Coachella Valley, the Pass Cahuilla of the San Gorgonio pass area, and the Mountain Cahuilla of
the Santa Rosa and'. San Jacinto mountains. These divisions were based on geographic separation
and dialect differences, but they were not necessarily recognized by the Cahuilla themselves.
Actually, the Cahuilla did not consider themselves to be of one tribe as western anthropologists
have designated them to be. Bean (1972:85) reported that "the maximal level of social
identification among the Cahuilla was the NW?1y0atum, a linguistically and culturally defined
group ... [which] refers to persons speaking the Cahuilla language and recognizing a commonly
shared cultural heritage ... [hurt] a more precise membership criterion existed at. the next level of
group identity." A person's inclusion in his or her moiety and lineage (or clan) was primary to any
tribal affiliation.
The two moeities, or main divisions, of the Cahuilla were the Istam (coyote) and the Tuktum (wild
cat). Moieties were patrilinear and exogamous, meaning that lineage was followed through the
father and that members of one moiety had to marry into the other. Clans were numerous and were
named after or associated with the villages they comprised. Individual clans claimed ownership
over their village and the territories in which they hunted, gathered, and camped. Territories could
be several square miles in extent and were only for the use of a specific lineage. Mesquite grove
boundaries, for inslance, were drawn to include specific trees. Everyone knew who those trees
belong to so that if someone from another lineage was found trespassing, a fight could ensue. But
in times of need, areas were shared with other clans. This allowance occurred regularly with
mesquite because these groves do not produce bountiful crops each year. In the case of'crop failure,
a neighboring clan would invite the misfortunate person into their territory to gather.
A number of villages were located near the study area Cow on vah al ham ah, located at Point
Happy, was one such village. Gifford (1918:188-189) recounts the story of Cow on vah al ham ah
as:
The eagle .4swetsi was the mythical leader of the Sewakil clan of the coyote
moiety. In the mountains to the west of Coachella is a rock where this deity
rested. The marks in the rock show the position of his chin, elbows, and feet.
The marks of his feet have been damaged by white people.
Strong (1929:102) related the story as told by Alejo Patencio, "then aswitsei came up to the
mountains at kavinic where he leaned against a rock leaving the marks of his elbows and knees. He
10
looked toward maulmii (Toro), then he climbed up the mountain and lay down watching the people,
leaving the marks of his elbows and ribs. As he came down he slipped leaving the print of his hand
in the soft rocks. Near kavinic was a palm with which he talked." Aswitsei is believed to have
married the beautiful daughter of a man named kauicwikil and then settled at a nearby village called
Kotevewit (Strong 1929:86).
RECORDS AND LITERATURE RESULTS
Archaeological Records Search
An archaeological site record review of the study area was conducted on June 3, 1999 by James
Brock at the Eastern Information Center at the University of California, Riverside. This records
search revealed that all but the southernmost tip of the study area had been previously surveyed
for cultural resources. At the time of the record search, no sites were identified as being located
within the study ,area. However, one site, CA-RIV-150, was initially recorded in 1933 by
Dorothy Cowpe as including the western and southern portions of the project area. This all-
inclusive recordation of CA-RIV-150 continued into the early 1980s at which point the site area,
which consisted of over one square mile, was reduced to a core site with outlying areas re-
numbered as independent sites.
In 1974 Leslie Wildesen, chief archaeologist for the Riverside County Road Department, did a
study for the replacement of the Washington Street Bridge over the Whitewater River channel
that included the western portion of the present study area. She concluded that the bridge should
be relocated to avoid impacting cultural resources (Wildesen 1974).
The first systematic survey encompassing the entire present study area was conducted in 1980 by
Jean A. Salpas. She noted cultural material on the western and southern portions of the study
area and, as with previous researchers, lumped them together as part of CA-RIV-150 (Salpas
1980).
Scattered pottery sherds were noted during a cultural resources study for the 'Washington Street
bridge widening project (City of La Quinta 1993), but no formal recordation of archaeological
sites was completed.
The record search also reveled that area in the vicinity of the project is a region of high
archaeological sensitivity, with 19 sites falling within one-half mile of the study area. These
consist of two village sites (CA-RIV-64 and CA-RIV-150), habitation sites (CA-RIV-3005, CA-
RIV-3659, CA-RIV-3682, CA-RIV-3683, CA-RIV-3866, CA-RIV-4067) a habitation site with a
historic dump (CA-RIV-3679), special use/small habitation sites (CA-RIV-2200, CA-RIV-3680,
CA-RIV-3681, CA-RIV-5841, CA-RIV-5842, CA-RIV-6075), pottery scatters (CA-RIV-5843,
CA-RIV-5844), and pottery and lithic scatters (CA-RIV-5840, CA-RIV-5876). These sites tend
to cluster along the banks of the Whitewater River channel. Eleven additional archaeological
sites fall within a distance of one-half to one mile from the study area.
11 669
Archival Research
In addition to the records search, archival research was conducted by the author at the BLM
office in Riverside and the Rivera Library and Science Library (Map Room) at UC Riverside.
Supplemental information was provided by the BLM State Office in Sacramento.
The US General Land Office plat map for 1855-1856 at the UC Riverside Science Library shows
a road coming from the south and turning to the west along the Whitewater River (Figure 5). Due
to the poor scale of the map it is unclear if the road was on the north bank (within the study area)
or the south bank. This road is still apparent on the USGS 1904 1:125,000 Indio map (Figure 6)
and is clearly on the south bank. The road is not shown on the US General Land Office 1914 plat
map of the same area.
The US Army Corps of Engineers 1941 Toro Peak 1:62,500 quadrangle shows no cultural
activity on the study area, although the Washington Street corridor is now defined by a dirt trail
running along the section line (Figure 7).
The BLM research indicated that the study area comprised part of a 5291.44-acre railroad
grant patent, which included all of Section 19, that dated to June 30, 1905 (BLM Serial File No.
89).
It would appear that there have never been any buildings constructed on the 54.65-acre study
area.
As a further step in the research, the following "heritage property" registers were checked
for this tract: The National Register of Historic Places (American Association for State and
Local History 1991), California Historical Landmarks (California Department of Parks and
Recreation 1990), and California Inventory of Historic Places (California Department of
Parks and Recreation 1976). Additional registers were checked during the records search at
UC Riverside. No historical resources listed in these publications were found to be specific to
the study area environs.
The records search and background research indicated that the study area is in a location that
is highly sensitivity for prehistoric resources and moderately sensitive for historical resources.
RESEARCH DESIGN
INTRODUCTION
A research design is a guide document to organize research and interpret findings. It provides a
structure from which the evaluation of significance can be made. A research design is usually
regional in scope and based on some type of statistically -based sampling program (see
Binford 1964). A research design generally has the following elements: (1) a theoretical
12 070
/yi.O rev
43
79
7S
79
W
V/3:33:
V_/34'E
v/
409./
N
q�
A/60
,yv/oz
J
u�-•
�6
g
�6
ze
6
p
6
0
ABO
A/60
WP4/23''
9064,
'90.
00
BO
DO
V./.i'd9E
V,.
ABO
Ai60
2O
0
6'O
A_BO
:f1 /60
79.
80
79
"96
?' BD
72
_
s'
i
S
7
c
A6
.30
6.30
64,0
iTJhV
A4vE/
;w/
m
i
_AMR
ABO
A /60
4c6B
79.
6
79
92
A6O
Ai60
Se
.-5 '.
Figure 5. A portion of the US General land Office 1855-1856 plat map for Township 5S, Range
7E. The study area is in the southeast quarter of Section 19. A road is present along the
Whitewater River in this vicinity (note arrow).
13 . 071
C
�18""Y
0
,q
079
-0,
Figure 6. AL portion of the USGS 1904 Indio map (1:125,000) with a road clearly evident on the
south bank of the Whitewater River channel (see arrow).
14
0'7 .2
Figure 7. A portion of the US Army Corps of Engineers 1941 Toro Peak quadrangle (1:62,500).
Note the early alignment of Washington Street was along the western border of Section 19. No
cultural features are present on the study area
15
073
orientation, (2) research areas, or domains, under which come (3) specific research hypotheses
or questions which have (4) test implications for interpretation of field data.
THEORETICAL ORIENTATION
The theoretical orientation which structures this research design is cultural materialism. Cultural
materialism assumes that decision making by people and groups is based upon economic
considerations. It assumes that behavior, at least in the long term, is rational and therefore
adaptive. It recognizes that people and groups have not and do not always behave in a rational
manner but from the relatively gross temporal perspective of archaeology, such behavior is not
statistically significant.
RESEARCH DOMAINS
The research domains, or topics, which will be considered are chronology, subsistence practices,
settlement systems, exchange systems, and site structure and formative processes. Discussions
of these domains are provided below.
Chronology
Chronology is the backbone of archaeology. Establishing the sequence of cultural change
through time is a fundamental concern in archaeology. Unless a site can be placed in a
temporal context, its ability to address the evolution of a cultural system is seriously limited.
Fortunately, datable material (e.g. charcoal) is relatively abundant on sites in the La Quinta area,
including those investigated during the current project. From this data, it is clear that abundant
Late Period sites are present in the La Quinta area. A major concern in the region's archaeology
is establishing changes in Late Period settlement and subsistence patterns in relation to the
fluctuations in the water level of Ancient Lake Cahuilla. Furthermore, since evidence for
temporally earlier sites is lacking, any data helping to establish an Archaic Period chronology
for the area is extremely valuable.
Does the site contain sufficient material for absolute or relative dating?
Test implications: presence of carbon in sufficient quantity to provide absolute dates,
presence of temporally -sensitive artifact types.
■ Is there any evidence for an archaic period use of the site?
Test implications: absolute (e.g. carbon) date of pre -AD 900 or presence: of artifacts (e.g.
projectile points, beads) dated to pre -AD 900.
■ Can the site be tied in to one or more of the postulated stands of ancient Lake Cahuilla (see
e.g. Waters 1983)?
Test implication: absolute date(s) that corresponds to a postulated stand of Lake Cahuilla.
16 074
■ Is there any evidence for a post -Lake Cahuilla use of the site?
Test implication: absolute or relative date of post -AD 1650, presence of historical artifacts.
Subsistence Practices
Presence of faunal :remains should provide a good range of evidence for exploitation of faunal
resources. Examined with other sites in mind that are located in the vicinity, this assemblage
also presents a regional look at resource exploitation. Reconstruction of ceramic vessel forms
and the types of ground stone implements present could provide information on the types of
resources being exploited by the site's inhabitants.
■ Is there evidence of a change in subsistence strategies resulting from the desiccation of Lake
Cahuilla?
Test implication: change in frequencies of particular faunal species in stratigraphically
discrete contexts dating to the last stand and later periods.
■ Is there presence of ceramic forms and ground stone implements that are indicative of certain
types of resources exploitation activities?
■ Is there evidence of agriculture? If so, does it relate to changing subsistence practices forced
by the desiccation of :Lake Cahuilla?
Settlement Systemis
Information on settlement patterns should be present in the data from the site. Data may
present evidence of changing settlement patterns with the different lacustral episodes of Ancient
Lake Cahuilla and those caused by the final desiccation of the lake.
■ Can settlement location be related to a particular stand of Ancient Lake Cahuilla?
Is there evidence of a change in settlement patterns pertaining to the desiccation of Lake
Cahuilla?
■ Was shoreline occupation at Lake Cahuilla primarily seasonal or year round (Wilke
1978:14)?
Exchange Systems
Patterns of exchange should be evidenced in artifactual material from the site. Such things as
lithic types, ceramics, and beads present could indicate trade relations with other groups (e.g.
Colorado River or coastal California). The following research questions have been developed to
address this domain:
17 075
■ Are exotic resources present at the site? .Do these represent direct procurement or exchange
mechanisms?
■ Is there evolution through time in the types or quantities of non -local resources present?
■ Is the local catchment area sufficiently diverse in natural resources to discourage trade
relations?
• Is there evidence of the exchange of technologies or ideas, rather than material objects?
Site Structure and Formative Processes
The aeolian sand dune environment is atypical of southern California archaeological contexts.
Some assumptions that are taken for granted in California archaeology may not necessarily apply
to the special environment under consideration. Recent work in the La Quinta area (Brock and
Smith 1999) has lead us to put forward the following hypotheses:
Because of soil deflation in the aeolian sand environment sites with the most abundant
surface material will generally be shallow.
Test implication: cultural deposits in such scenarios will generally be less than 10
centimeters in depth.
Surface sites will generally evaluate as non -significant for two primary reasons: (1) relic
seekers will have picked the diagnostic artifacts from the surface and (2) they will be largely
undateable because surface charcoal will have blown away or be contaminated and
diagnostic artifacts will be gone.
Buried sites will be present in the aeolian sand dune environment and they will have the
greatest research potential. What goes up must come down. Sand accumulation will occur in
the dune environment, particularly in regenerative vegetation contexts (e.g. mesquite dunes)
or in areas of depressions, either natural or caused by the decay of brush or wooden
structures. This will result in cultural deposits being sealed and buried through time. These
deposits will have good integrity but, as Schiffer (1996:241) points out "... the result is often
near total loss of visibility for the resultant sites."
Test implication: discovery of archaeological sites with no, or minimal, surface indicators.
METHODS
FIELDWORK TECHNIQUES
A systematic pedestrian survey of the project area was conducted on June 5 and 12, 1999. The
property was walked in 5 to 10 meter interval transects, beginning at the northeast comer of the
18 076
study area and ending at the southeast. Site boundaries were flagged during the survey and were
formally recorded by transit upon returning to the sites after the property was entirely walked
over. An inventory of surface artifacts was taken as part of recordation done for the sites. Field
crew consisted of James Brock and Brenda D. Smith.
In accordance with State Historic Preservation Office guidelines, all cultural materials over 45
years in age were considered for potential cultural resource value.
FINDINGS
Three prehistoric sites (CA-RIV-6275, CA-RIV-6276, and CA-RIV-6277) and three isolated
finds (33-8844, 33 13845, and 33-8846) were identified during the investigation. Resource forms
for these sites and isolates are presented as Attachment A to this report.
SITES RECORDED
CA-RIV-6275 (Primary No. 33-8841, Field No. WM-I)
CA-RIV-6275 appears to be a large habitation site. As with most sites in the vicinity it falls on
the bank of the Wlvtewater River channel. The site measures 72 m east -west by 75 m north -
south The central portion of the site has been previously grubbed/cleared. A minimum count of
surface finds includes 23 pottery sherds (predominately brownware), 12 pieces of unshaped,
hardened clay fragments, 1 shaped clay disk, 2 small shaped clay pieces, 1 piece of quartz
debitage, 1 possible ground stone fragment, 5 small fragments of fire -affected rock, 5 rocks, 7 one
fragments, and 1 shell fragment. There is a blown out area at the north end of the site that exhibits
fragmentary bone, charcoal, and small rock pieces.
CA-RIV-6276 (Primary No. 33-8842, Field No. WM-2)
CA-RIV-6276 is a sparse pottery scatter containing six pot sherds. The pottery appears to be
predominately brownware. This rests in loose sand dunes on the bank of the Whitewater River
channel adjacent to Washington Street. The site measures 22 m east -west by 10 m north -south.
CA-RIV-6277 (Primary No. 33-8843, Field No. WM-3)
CA-RIV-6277 is a large habitation site covering an extensive area measuring approximately 110
m north -south by 85 m east -west. As with the other sites recorded, this site falls on the bank of
the Whitewater River channel.
A rough surface inventory shows the site minimally contains 50 pottery sherds, 35 pieces of
unshaped baked clay, six pieces of fire -affected rock, four manuported rocks, one lithic flake,
three shell fragments, and numerous scattered bone fragments.
19
077
There is a blow-out area at the northern end of the site where surface artifacts concentrate and
bone, rock, and charcoal fragments are present. It is possible that some of the bone fragments
represent human cremation remains.
While not a standard practice for AAG, four artifacts from three surface locations were collected
during the recording of this site because of their potential research value. These specimens will
be curated with the City of La Quinta collections. The locations from which the specimens were
collected are shown on the site map in Attachment A.
Two of the artifacts, collected together as "SC -I," are pottery sherds that have basketry
impressions on their external surfaces indicating that during manufacture the clay was molded
onto the inside sur;Face of a basket (Figure 8). This is a pottery manufacturing technology that
we have not recognized on other sites in the area. It brings forth a number of research questions
a few of which are: Was this technique used locally or was the item imported? Were some
baskets being manufactured solely for pottery production? What basketry techniques were being
utilized? Could this represent the work of one innovative local potter? Are these types of pots
chronologically sensitive?
Another specimen collected (SC-2) is a large rim sherd representing a cooking vessel (Figure 9).
This was collected. because it is a particularly nice, diagnostic specimen that would be easily
recognizable to relic seekers.
A third specimen collected (SC-3) is a baked clay fragment that may have a portion of a fish
body impression on one surface. This could address our hypothesis that clay was used in the
cooking of fish (see Brock, Smith, and Wake 1999).
ISOLATES RECORDED
Three isolates, all pottery sherds, were recorded and collected during the survey. These will be
curated with the City of La Quinta collections. Resource forms for these three isolated are
presented in Attachment A of this report.
33-8844 (Field No. WM-ISO-1)
This is an isolated brownware sherd measuring 58 by 55 by 4 mm and weighing 16.5 g.
33-8845 (Field No. WM-ISO-2)
This is an isolated brownware sherd measuring 38 by 23 by 7 mm and weighing 6.6 g.
33-8846 (Field No. WM-ISO-3)
This is an isolated brownware sherd measuring 52 by 40 by 5 mm and weighing 13.6 g.
20
078
f
rc i
i
i
t E
k
.'�
� k 1
=�
°a�
...::
r r.
a:.
�
a'ti`
-
[
�x �
i
f,
a
�
'i
1
�
�
l
p
�xk _.
a �
P
���s
�"
a �CW 3' `%'
t '
�
*�
L.
�
e„
��
1>
.i
,�
S
`R�»d
�'
� ,�f�tl
�I i�„
`r'
DISCUSSIONANTERPRETATION
It is not surprising that cultural resources were identified in the course of this study. Indeed, it
would have been surprising had they not been. As noted under the records search section above,
the southern and western portions of the study area had been recorded as part of a huge (over one
square mile) archaeological site, CA-RIV-150, up until it was decided to better refine the site
records in the early 1980s.
The two main deposits identified, CA-RIV-6275 and CA-RIV-6277, appear to relate to
subsistence/settlement activity in the late pre -contact period. Whether this activity pertains to
exploitation of resources associated with the ancient Lake Cahuilla or to the later use of the area
in association with the nearby well, or wells, at Indian Wells, remains to be seen.
MANAGEMENT CONSIIDERATIONS
SITE EVALUATION
Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) an archaeological resource is
significant if it meets one of the following criteria: (a) it is associated with an event or person of
recognized significance in California or American history, or recognized scientific importance in
prehistory; (b) it can provide information which is both of demonstrable public interest and
useful in addressing scientifically consequential and reasonable archaeological research
questions; it has a special or particular quality such as oldest, best example, largest, or last
surviving example of its kind; it is at least 100 years old and possesses substantial stratigraphic
integrity; or (e) it involves important research questions that historical research has shown can be
answered only with archaeological methods.
Additional criteriaof significance is found in eligibility for the California Register of Historical
Resources (CRHP), which is based upon the criteria used for Federal undertakings whereby
resources are evaluated for their eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places:
A. Association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of'history.
B. Association with the lives of persons significant in our past.
C. Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or
that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a
significant distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction.
D. Have yielded or may be likely to yield information important in history or prehistory.
22 080
Two of the sites identified, CA-RIV-6275 and CA-RIV-6277, would appear to have research
potential, and are possibly significant (Criterion D), based on their surface manifestations. Both
sites would appear to have datable material (charcoal in midden deposits evidenced in the
blowouts) that could aid in the refinement of the local chronology. Both sites contain bone,
ceramics, and baked clay fragments that could address questions of subsistence practices.
Furthermore, the blow out areas exhibited at both of these sites could be indicative of more
substantial buried deposits at these localities. One site, CA-RIV-6277, exhibits what may be a
previously unidentified pottery technology (basket molding). This site may contain significant
data to address questions pertaining to this technology.
The one pottery scatter site, CA-RIV-6276, probably cannot qualify as significant but is in an
area that could contain potentially significant buried deposits. The three isolates individually
cannot be regarded as significant but they could be indicative of buried deposits in their vicinities
(except perhaps 33-8844).
RECOMMENDA'rIONS
Specific plans for the development of the study area have yet to be formulated. In order to better
understand the nature of the cultural resources present and to plan for their proper management, a
Phase II test excavation program is recommended. This should allow for a determination of the
research significance of the resources present and give recommendations for Phase III data
recovery or preservation, as necessary.
Specifically, we offer the following recommendations for the test program, based on the results
of research on similar projects in the La Quinta area (Brock and Smith 1999). These should be
conducted in the order indicated:
1. Surface Collection: A 100 percent surface collection should be conducted at the three
sites identiled in order to determine their surface horizontal extent. 'This will produce
relevant infbrmation on the distribution and density of surface artifacts in the region and
will provide data from which subsurface findings can be compared.
2. Systematic Deep Mechanical Testin¢: It is recommended that systematic backhoe
trenching by grid in intervals of not greater than 50 meters be conducted over the western
and southern portions of the study area. The northeastern portion of the property can be
excluded because much of it has been impacted and site density falls of dramatically as
one moves north from the river channel. The backhoe trenching should not be confined
to known site areas only. Given the aeolian sand dune environment, there is a high
potential for buried archaeological deposits to be present on the study area. Buried sites
could have the greatest research potential (see Brock and Smith 1999) and thus should be
identified prior to hand testing so that they can be given adequate treatment. These
buried deposits could be components of identified sites or new sites that are as yet
unidentified. The backhow soil should be screened through '/.-inch or finer mesh.
Trenches should be dug to a minimum depth of two meters. To avoid potential
23 081
disturbance to resources the trench lengths should only be as long as needed to dig to the
required depth.
3. Hand E:ccavation: Traditional hand excavation should be conducted at sites identified
after the completion of the first two steps in order to sample the materials present.
Standard hand excavation techniques should be utilized with samples taken for
radiocarbon and other scientific analyses (microbotanical, pollen, etc.). For statistical
validity probabilistic sampling of the cultural deposits is recommended.
A professional -quality report should be prepared on the findings that provides a full analysis of
material recovered, a determination of significance for the resources identified, and
recommendations, as needed, for further work on, or preservation of, the cultural resources.
REFERENCES CITED
American Association for State and Local History
1991 National Register of Historic Places. American Association for State and Local
History, Nashville.
Bailey, Harry P.
1966 Weather of Southern California. California Natural History Guides 17.
University of California Press, Berkeley.
Barrows, David P.
1900 Ethno-botany of the Coahuilla Indians. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Bean, Lowell John.
1972 Mukat's People: The Cahuilla Indians of Southern California. University of
California Press, Berkeley
1978 Calmilla. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 575-587. Handbook of
North American Indians, Vol. 8, William G. Sturtevant, general editor.
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Bean, Lowell Johry and Katherine Siva Saubel
1972 Ternalpakh: Cahuilla Indian Knowledge and Usage of Plants. Malki Museum,
Banning.
Binford, Lewis R.
1964 A Consideration of Archaeological Research Design. American Antiquity 29:425-
441.
24 ,.. 082
Brock, James, and :Brenda D. Smith
1999 Digging in Desert Dune Fields: Methodological Considerations. Paper presented
at the 1999 Annual Meeting of the Society for California Archaeology,
Sacramento.
Brock, James, Brenda D. Smith, and Thomas A. Wake
1999 Investigations at the Burning Dune Site (CA-RIV-4754), La Quinta, California.
AAG Monograph 1. Archaeological Advisory Group, Pioneertown, California.
California Department of Parks and Recreation
1976 California Inventory of Historic Places. California Office of Historic
Preservation, California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento.
1989 Archaeological Resource Management Reports (ARMR): Recommended Contents
and Format. California Office of Historic Preservation, California Department of
Parks and Recreation, Sacramento.
1990 California Historical Landmarks. California Department of Parks and Recreation,
Sacramento.
Campbell, E.W.C., and W.H. Campbell
1935 The Pinto Basin Site: An Ancient Aboriginal Camping Ground in the California
Desert. Southwest Museum Papers 9:1-51.
City of La Quinta
1993 Preliminary Cultural Resource Study for the Washington Street Bridge Widening
Proiject (92-3), La Quinta, California. Ms. on file at the Eastern Information
Center, University of California, Riverside.
Ebeling, Walter
1986 Handbook of Indian Foods and Fibers of Arid America. University of California
Press, Berkeley, California
Gifford, Edward W.
1918 Clans and Moities of Southern California University of California Publications
in American Archaeology and Ethnology 8:29-68.
Gurrola, Larry D. and Thomas K. Rockwell
1996 Tuning and Slip for Prehistoric Earthquakes on the Superstition Mountain Fault,
Imperial Valley, Southern California. Journal of Geophysical Research
101(B3):5977-5985.
Hopper, Lucille
1920 The Cahuilla Indians. University of California Publications in American
Archaeology and Ethnology 16:316-379. Berkeley.
25 083
Kroeber, A.J.
1908 Ethnography of the Cahuilla Indians. University of California Publications in
American Archaeology and Ethnology 8:29-68. Berkeley.
1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. 1976 reprint edition. Dover Publications,
Inc., New York.
Laylander, Don
1997 The Last Days of Lake Cahuilla: The Elmore Site. Pacific Coast Archaeological
Society Quarterly 33(1 and 2): 1-138.
Quinn, Harry M.
1997 Reconnaissance Geologic Investigation along the Old Shoreline of "Ancient Lake
Cahuilla" Exposed in a Pipeline Trench Along Avenue 48 Just West of Jefferson
Street, La Quinta, California. Ms. on file. Archaeological Advisory Group,
Pioneertown, California.
Rockwell, Thomas
1995 Lecture to the Coachella Valley Archaeological Society at the Palm Springs
Desert Museum, March 17, 1995.
Salpas, Jean A.
1980 An Archaeological Assessment of Tract 16449. Ms. on file, California Historical
Resources Information System, Eastern Information Center, UC Riverside.
Schaefer, Jerry
1994 The Challenge of Archaeological Research in the Colorado Desert: Recent
Approaches and Discoveries. Journal of California and Great Basin
Anthropology 16(1):60-80.
Schiffer, Michael 113.
1996 Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record. University of Utah Press,
Sall Lake City.
Strong, William Duncan.
1929 Aboriginal Society in Southern California. University of California. Publications
in American Archaeology and Ethnology 26:1-349. Berkeley.
Warren, Claude N.
1984 The Desert Region. In California Archaeology, by Michael J. Moratto, pp. 339-
430. Academic Press, New York.
Warren, Claude N., and Robert H. Crabtree
1986 Prehistory of the Southwestern Area. In Great Basin, edited by Warren L.
D'Azevedo, pp. 183-193. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 11,
William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institute, Washington D.C.
26
084
Waters, Michael R.
1983 Late Holocene Lacustrine Chronology and Archaeology of Ancient Lake
Cahuilla, California. Quaternary Research 19:373-387.
Wildesen, Leslie E.
1974 Letter report for proposed Washington Street Bridge replacement. Ms. on file,
California Historical Resources Information System, Eastern Information Center,
UC Riverside.
Wilke, Philip J.
1978 Late Prehistoric Human Ecology at Lake Cahuilla, Coachella Valley, California.
Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility
No. 38. University of California, Berkeley.
1980 Prehistoric Weir Fishing on Recessional Shorelines of Lake Cahuilla, Salton
Basin, Southeastern California. Proceedings of the Desert Fishes Council
11:101-102.
1988 The Natural and Cultural Environment. In Archaeological Investigations at CA-
RIV-1179, CA-RIV-2823, and CA-RIV-2827, La Quinta, Riverside County,
California. Coyote Press, Salinas, California.
APPENDIX 1: PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS
AAG STAFF
James Brock (President/ChiefArchaeologist)
• BA (Anthropollogy) UC Santa Barbara
• MA (Archaeology) University of Durham, Durham, England
• Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA), i.e. listed on Registry of Professional
Archaeologists, formerly the Society of Professional Archaeologists (SOPA). SOPA
certifications in field research, theoretical/archival research, and historical archaeology.
• 18 years of experience as a Principal Investigator on cultural resource management projects
throughout southern California
Brenda D. Smith (Research Associate/Arcbaeologist)
• BS (Anthropology) UC Riverside
• MA (American Indian Studies) UCLA
• 8 years of cultural resource management experience in southern California
27
08D
ATTACHMENT A:
RESOURCE FORMS FOR SITES
AND ISOLATES IDENTIFIED
Restricted Information
Not for Public Distribution
28 086
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # 33-8841
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial: CA-RIV-6275
NRHP Status Code:
Other Listings:
Review Code: Reviewer: Date:
Page 1 of 4 *Resource Name or #:WM-1
Pl. Other Identifier:
*P2. Location: X Not for Publication Unrestricted
*a. County Riverside
*b. USGS 7.5' Quad La Quinta Date 1959/1990 T SS, R 7E, NW 114 of SE 1/4 of See 19 ; San Bernardino B.M.
c. Address City Zip
d. UTM: Zone 11; 565560 in Easting 3731200 in Northing
e. Other Locational Data: On north bluff overlooking the Whitewater River channel east of Washington Street.
*133s. Description: Large habitation site located within sand dune complex on northern bluff overlooking Whitewater River.
*P3b. Resource Attributes: AP15 Habitation Debris
*P4. Resources Present: _ Building; _ Structure; _ Object; X Site; _ District; _ Element of District; __ Other
P5a. Photo or Drawing: None included with site record.
*P6. Date Coustructed/Age and Sources: X Prehistoric— Historic _ Both
*P7.Owner and Address: City of La Quinta, 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA 92253
*P8. Recorded by: James Brock and Brenda D. Smith, Archaeological Advisory Group, P.O. Box 491, Pioneertown, CA 92268-0491
*P9. Date Recorded: 12 June 1999
*P10. Survey Type: CEQA Phase I intensive pedestrian survey
*Pl 1. Report Citation: Brock, James, and Brenda D. Smith 1999. Phase I Archaeological Assessment of 54.65 acres at the Southeast
Corner of Washington Street and Miles Avenue, La Quinta, California.
*Attachments: _ None; _L ]Location Map;.X Sketch Map; _ Continuation Sheet; _ Building, Structure, and Object Record;
X Archaeological Record; _. District Record; _ Linear Feature Record; _ Milling Station Record; __ Rock Art Record;
Artifact Record; _ Photograph Record; _ Other
*Required information
DPR 523A (Rev. 1/95)
087
n.m.nwcd M. Co
M/26/" 135PM
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # 33-8841
DEPARTMENT OF PAILRS AND RECREATION Trinomial CA-RIV-6275
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE RECORD
Page 2 of 4 *Resource Name or #: WM-1
*Al. Dimensions: a. Length 72 in (E-W) x b. Width 75 in (N-S)
Method of Measurement: _ Paced; _ Taped; _ Visual Estimate; X Other: transit
Method of Determination: X Artifacts; _ Features; _ Soil; _ Vegetation; _ Topography; _ Cut Bank;
_ Animal Burrow; _ Excavation; _ Property Boundary; _ Other:
Reliability of Determination: —_ High; _2L Medium; _ Low; Explain:
Limitations: _ Restricted Access; _ Paved/Built Over; __ Site limits incompletely defined; X Disturbances; _ Vegetation;
Other:
A2. Depth: _ None; X Unknown; Method of Determination:
*A3. Human Remains: _ Present; __ Absent; _ Possible; X Unknown:
*A4. Features: None on surface.
*A5. Cultural Constituents: surface manifestations of the site include 23 pottery sherds, 12 pieces of unshaped, hardened clay fragments, I
shaped clay disk, 2 small shaped clay pieces, 1 piece of quartz debitage, 1 possible ground stone fragment, 5 small fragments of fire -affected
rock, 5 rocks, 7 one fragments, and 1 shell fragment.
*A6. Were Specimens Collected? X No; _ Yes.
*A7. Site Condition: _ Good; X Fair, _ Poor. Disturbances: Site has been graded in portions, vehicle tracks run through site, and there
is evidence of wind and water erosion.
*A& Nearest Water. Whitewater River is located approximately 150 meters to the south of the site. If this site was used during a highstand
of Ancient Lake Cahuilla, the lake would have been located about 1.5 miles from the site.
*A9. Elevation: 80 to 110 feet AMS1.
A10. Environmental Setting: Site is located within a sand dune complex, on a northern bluff overlooking the Whitewater River.
Vegetation on site consists of Creosote Bush scrub (Larrea tridentata, Dicoria canescens, and Schismus barbatus).
All. Historical Information: This location was originally recorded in 1933 by Dorthory Cowpe as a portion of CA-RIV-150, the Cahuilla
village of Cow on vah at ham ah.
*Al2. Age: X Prehistoric;._ Prou historic; _ 1542-1769; __ 1769-1848; _ 1848-1880; _ 1880-1914; __ 1914-1945; _ Post 1945; _
Undetermined
A13. Interpretations:
A14. Remarks:
A15. References: Brock, James, and Brenda D. Smith 1999 Phase I Archaeological Assessment of 54.65 Acres at the Southwest Corner of
Washington Street and Miles Avenue, La Quinta, California.
A16. Photographs: None included with site record.
*A17. Form Prepared by: Brenda D. Smith and Jim Brock Date: 13 June 1999
Affiliation and address: Archaeological Advisory Group, P.O. Box 491, Pioneertown, CA 92268-0491
*Required information
n,�dna.:o.r°Aw
DPR 523A(Raw 1/95) �" - 088 M/w/w 3' 8PM
S�tea[Cali[ocnRe3he.ResonrcEs�9 Primary# 33 884E
�1 1Mr+ OEFAiFK,SA1�TDuTCPYATI(3Id IY�nomwl,�CA RiV=fi275
{7 r
Page 3 of 4
*Resoarce Name or # (assigned by recorder): WM-1
*Map Nam: La Quints, Calif. *Scale: 124,000
*Date of Map: 19591p0980
*Renxiewl 1nfn�n+Ainx
089
0 Meters 25 TfN
i
La Quinta \
i --
DunesBlow Out Area
\,
l� Datum
{I I \
1 I
Area � \
Previously Grubbed _
II I 01
Note: Datum is white stake
I I Location
"W W1fAAG".
Locatlon triangulated
Font from nearby mountahm
Estimplad of Site `J Dunes are sham
gene"dinsd-
>PR 523K (1N5) Archaeological .Advisory Group
06/17/99
•.. 090
State of California - The. Resources Agency Primary # 33-8842
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial: CA-RIV-6276
NRHP Status Code:
Other Listings:
Review Code: Reviewer: Date:
Page 1 of 4 'Resource Name or #: WM-2
Pl. Other Identifier:
*P2. Location: X Not for ]Publication Unrestricted
*a. County: Riverside
*b. USGS 7.5' Quad: La Quinta Date: 1959/1980 T 5S, R 7E , NW 1/4 of SE 1/4 of See 19; San Bernardino B.M.
c. Address City Zip
d. UTM: Zone 11 ; 565475 in Fasting 3731000 m Northing
e. Other Locational Data: On top of sand dunes east of Washington Street, north of bridge over Whitewater River.
*103a. Description: Site is a pottery scatter containing six pot sherds located on the surface.
*P3b. Resource Attributes: AP3 Ceramic Scatter
*P4. Resources Present: _ Building; _ Structure; _ Object; X Site; _ District; _ Element of District; _ Other
P5a. Photo or Drawing: None included with site record.
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources: X Prehistoric — Historic _ Both
*P7. Owner and Address: City of La Quints, 78-495 Cane Tampico, La Quints, CA 92253
*P8. Recorded by: James Brock and Brenda D. Smith, Archaeological Advisory Croup, P.O. Box 491, Pioneertown, CA 92268-0491
*P9. Date Recorded: 12 June 1999
*P10. Survey Type: CEQA Phase I intensive pedestrian survey
*PI I. Report Citation: Brock, James, and Brenda D. Smith 1999. Phase I Archaeological Assessment of 54.65 Acres at the Southeast
Corner of Washington Street and Miles Avenue, La Quinta, California.
*Attachments: _ None; X Location Map; X Sketch Map; _ Continuation Sheet; _ Building, Structure, and Object Record;
X Archaeological Record; __ District Record; _ Linear Feature Record; _ Milling Station Record; __ Rock Art Record;
Artifact Record; _ Photograph Record; _ Other
*Required information
G ANumlur� Ademq
DPR 533A (Ree. 1/95) ov
091 %/W"4. ra
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # 33-8842
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION Trinomial CA-RIV-6276
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE RECORD
Page 2 of 4 *Resource Name or #: WM-2
*Al. Dimensions: a. Length 22 m (E-W) x b. Width 10 m (N-S)
Method of Measurement: _ Paced; _ Taped; _ Visual Estimate; X Other: transit
Method of Determination: X Artifacts;_ Features;_ Soil; Vegetation; _ Topography; _ Cut Bank;
_ Animal Burrow; _ Excavation; _ Property Boundary; _ Other:
Reliability of Determination: __ High; _ Medium; X Low; Explain: Shifting sand dunes.
Limitations: _ Restricts Access; _ PavedBuilt Over; __ Site limits incompletely defined; _ Disturbances; _ Vegetation;
Other:
A2. Depth: _; _ None; _X Unknown; Method of Determination:
*A3. Human Remains: _ Present; __ Absent; _ Possible; X_ Unknown:
*A4. Features: None on surface.
*A5. Cultural Constituents: Six pottery sherds.
*A6. Were Specimens Cotlected? X No; _ Yes.
*A7. Site Condition: _ Good; X Fair; _ Poor. Disturbances: Some vehicle tracks, grading, and erosion.
*A8. Nearest Water. Whitewater River is located approximately 50 meters to south. If this site was used during a highstand of Ancient
Lake Cahuilla, the lake would have been located about 1.5 miles from the site.
*A9. Elevation: approximately 70 feet AMSL
A10. Environmental Setting: Site is located within a sand dune complex overlooking and to the north of the Whitewater River. Vegetation
on site consists of Creosote Bush scrub (Larrea tridentate. Dicoria canescens, and Schismus barbatus).
All. Historical Information:
*Al2. Age: X Prehistoric, ._ Protohistoric, _ 1542-1769; __ 1769-1848; _ 1848-1880; _ 1880-1914; __ 1914-1945; _ Post 1945; _
Undetermined
A13. Interpretations:
A14. Remarks:
A15. References: Brock, James, and Brenda D. Smith 1999 Phase I Archaeological Assessment of 54.65 Acres at the Southeast Comer of
Washington Street and Miles Avenue, La Quinta, California.
A16. Photographs: None included with site record.
*A17. Form Prepared by: Lames Brock and Brenda D. Smith Date: 13 June 1999
Affiliation and address: Archaeological Advisory Group, P.O. Box 491, Pioncertown, CA 92268-0491
*Required information
(' Aw.d.1:a Aa. GA
DPR 523A ote .. IN5) r,r O ( M/M/w 4A PM
SisfealF(' m-'16a somcesA a3 prmury# 3378842
7�gQ]Y*1(S AND RECREATION Ij''lYiaa�ai- CA RIV 6276
Page 3 of 4
*Resource Name or # (assigned by recorder): WM-2
*Map Name: La Qimda, Calif. *Scale: 1:24,000
*Required Informati0a
*Date ofMap: 19591pr1980
��.,. 099
WM 2 \ Extent of Surface
La QUIt[la1 \ / I / Matedal \
/ Dunes
Datum
"�
bd I Dunes
1
h
I Z
E
3
e)
2
p.
pisturbedlLeveled Area
Fire Hydrant t
DPR 523K (1/95)
0 Meters 20
Advisor' Group
ll. ,.,.,
094
State of California - The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PA MS AND RECREATION
PRIMARY RECORD
Primary # 33-8843
HRI#
Trinomial: CA-RIV-6277
NRHP Status Code:
Other Listings:
Review Code: Reviewer:
Page 1 of 4
Pl. Other Identifier:
*P2. location: X Not for Publication Unrestricted
*a. County Riverside
*b. USGS 7.5' Quad La Quinta Date 1959/1980 T 5S , R 7E,
c. Address City Zip
d. UTM: Zone 11; 565695 in Easting 3730900 in Northing
e. Other Locational Data: On north bank of Whitewater River channel.
Date:
*Resource Name or #: WM-3
SW 1/4 of SE 1/4 of See 19 ; San Bernardino B.M.
*P3a. Description: Large habitation site located within sand dune complex on northern bluff overlooking Whitewater River.
*P3b. Resource Attributes: AP15 Habitation Debris
*P4. Resources Present: _ Building; _ Structure; _ Object; X Site; _ District; _ Element of District; _ Other
P5a. Photo or Drawing: None included with site record.
*P6. Date Construeted/Age and Sources: X Prehistoric—. Historic_ Both
*P7. Owner and Address: City of La Quinta, 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quints, CA 92253
*P8. Recorded by: James Brock and Brenda D. Smith, Archaeological Advisory Group, P.O. Box 491, Pioneertown, CA 92268-0491
*P9. Date Recorded: 12 June 1999
*P10. Survey Type: CEQA Phase I intensive pedestrian survey
*Pll. Report Citation: Brock, James, and Brenda D. Smith 1999. Phase I Archaeological Assessment of 54.65 Acres at the Southeast
Corner of Washington Street and Miles Avenue, La Quinta, California.
*Attachments: _ None; X Location Map; X Sketch Map; _ Continuation Sheet; _ Building, Structure, and Object Record;
X Archaeological Record; __ District Record; _ Linear Feature Record; _ Milling Station Record; __ Rock Art Record;
Artifact Record; _ Photograph Record; _ Other
*Required information
_.. r..... OJ
n.a„mWd e /cAw
DPR 523A (Rev. INS) m/miw *nra
State of California - The: Resources Agency Primary # 33-8843
DEPARTMENT OF PARRS AND RECREATION Trinomial CA-RIV-6277
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE RECORD
Page 2 of 4 *Resource Name or #: WM-3
*AL Dimensions: a. Leogth 110 in (N-S) x b. Width 85 m (E-W)
Method of Measurement: _ Paced; _ Taped; _ Visual Estimate; X Other: transit
Method of Determination: X Artifacts; _Features; _Soil; _Vegetation; _Topography; _Cut hank;
Animal Burrow; _ Excavation; _ Property Boundary; _ Other:
Reliability of Determination: __ High; X Medium; _ Low; Explain: Shifting sand dunes
Limitations: _ Restricted Access; _ Paved/Built Over; __ Site limits incompletely defined; _ Disturbances; _ Vegetation;
Other:
A2. Depth:_; _None; _X Unknown; Method of Determination:
*A3. Human Remains: _ Present; __ Absent; X Possible; __ Unknown:
*A4. Features: None on surface.
*A5. Cultural Constituents: Surface manifestations of the site include approximately 50 pottery sherds, 35 pieces of unshaped, hardened
clay, six pieces of fire -affected rock, four manuported rocks, one lithic Bake, three shell fagnents, and numerous scattered bone fragments.
*A6. W ere Specimens Collected?No; No; X Yes. Curated with City of La Quinta collections.
*A7. Site Condition: _Good; X Fair; _ Poor. Disturbances: Site has been graded in portions, vehicle tracks run through site, and there
is evidence of wind and water erosion.
*A8. Nearest Water. Whitewater River is located approximately 100 meters to the south of the site. If this site was used during a highstand
of Ancient Lake Cahuilla, the lake would have been locoed about 1.5 miles from the site.
*A9. Elevation: 80 to 120 feet AMSL
A10, Environmental Setting: Site is located within a sand dune complex, on a northern bluff overlooking the Whitewater River.
Vegetation on site consists of Creosote Bush scrub (Larrea tridentata, Dicoria canescens, and Schismus barbatus).
All. Historical Information:
*Al2. Age: X Prehistoric; -_ Pmtohistoric; _ 1542-1769; _. 1769-1848; _ 1848-1880; _ 1880-1914; __ 1914-1945; _ Post 1945; _
Undetermined
A13. Interpretations:
A14. Remarks:
A15. References: Brock, James, and Brenda D. Smith 1999 Phase I Archaeological Assessment of 54.65 Acres at the Southeast Corner of
Washington Street and Miles Avenue, La Quinta. Ms. on file, Eastern Information Center, CHRIS, UC Riverside.
A16. Photographs: None included with site record.
*A17. Form Prepared by: Brenda D. Smith and James Brock Date: 13 Jane 1999
Affiliation and address: Archaeological Advisory Group, P.O. Box 491, Pioneertown, CA 92268-0491
*Required information
oc.
A'd—�' M w' G�
DPR 523A (Rev. I/95)
06/M/" C16PM
State of Calitornia•Tike Resources Ageaey Primary # 3 3 - 884 3
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION Trinomial
LOCATION MAP CA—RIV7627
Page 3 of 4
*Resource Name or # (assigned by recorder): WM-3
*Map Name: La Quints, Calif. *Scale: 1:24,000 *Date of Map: 1959/prl980
*Required Information
097
------------
` WM-3
\ ! Dunes La Quinta
/ \ ` 0 Meters 25
Datum `
c S
ones
TN
I/ ,disturbed, �` J
Estimated odetd
of SRO � J
(\ SC-3 aoe.: o.u.n a..ea..m
/�Llcgi-*"AAG•. L.ocLlbn
+Fwnni�eel 7nfnr�nolinn
DPR 523K (1/95)
Arduca BCel Advisory Cheep
06J17/99
' 098
Page 1 of 2 *Resource Name orft:WM-ISO-1
PI. Other Identifier.
*P2. Location: X Not for Publication Unrestricted
*a. CmWy Riverside
*b. USGS 7S Quad La Quinta late 1959/1980 T 5S, R 7E, NW 1/4 of SE 114 of See 19 ; San Bemardino B.M.
e. Address City zip
d. UTM: Zone 11; 565490 in Easting 3731260 in Northing
e. Other Locations] Data: In dune field southeast of the intersection of Washington Street and Miles Ave.
*P3a. Description: isolated trownaw,ae sherd (58 x 55 x 4 mm). 16.5 grams. Collared--asated with CrtY of La Quima collections.
*P3b. Resource Attributes: AP3. Ceramics scatter.
*P4. Resources Present: — Building; — Structure; — Object; _ Site; — District; — Element of District; X Other
P5a. Photo or Drawing: See report.
*P6. Date Constincted/Age and Sources: X Prehistoric— Historic— Both
*P7. Owner and Address: City of La Quinta, 78d95 Calle Tampico, La Qwrrta, CA 92253
*P& Recorded by: lames Brock and Brenda D. Smith, Archaeological Advisory Croup, P.O. Box 491, Pioreertown, CA 92268-0491
*P9. Date Recorded: 12 Junt:1999
*P10. Survey Type: CEQA Phase 1 intensive pedestrian storey
*P11. Report Citation: Brock, James, and Brenda D. Smith 1999. Phase l Archaeological Assessment of 54.65 Acres at the Southeast
Corner of Washington Street and Miles Awemre, La Qahra, California Ms. on file, Eastern information Center, CHRIS, UC
Riverside.
*Attachments. — None; X ]Location Map; _ Sketch Map; _ Continuation Sheet; — Building, Structure, and Object Record;
— Archaeological Record; — District Record; — Linear Feature Record; — Milling Station Record; — Roder Ail Record;
Artifact Record; — Photograph Record; — Other
-Required iinformation
Q99
DPR 523A (It". 1195)
^°� N
Page 2 of 2
*Resoum Name or # (assigned by recorder): WM-ISO-1
*Map Name: La Quinta, Calif *Scale: 1:24,000 *Date of Map: 1959/pr1980
*Regaved Inform fim
L
loo
StaleofCalifornia - The Resources Agency Primary# 33-8845
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION 11"
PRIMARY RECORD' Trinomial; -
NRHP Status Codes
Other Listings: _
- - Review Code: Reviewer:- - Date:
Page 1 of 2 *Resource Name or#:WM4SO-2
PI. Other Identifier.
*P2. Location: X Not for Publication Unrestricted
*a. County Riverside
*b. USGS 75' Qtad La Quints Date 1959/1990 T 5S, R 7E, NW 1/4 of SE 1/4 of See 19 ; San Bernardino B.M.
e Address City tip
d. UTM: Zane 1 I; 565395 in Easting 3731100 m Northing
e. Other Locational Data: In dune field southeast of the intersection of Washington Street and Miles Ave.
*P3a. Description: Isolated bmwnware sherd (38 x 23 x 7 man). 6.6 grants. Collxtad—curned with City of La Quints collections.
*P3b. Resource Attributes: AP3. Ceramics scatter.
*P4. Resources Present: Building; Struc"we; _Object_Site; _District; _Element of District; X Other
P5a. Photo or Drawing: See report.
*P6. Date Constracted/Age and Sources: X Prehistoric_ Historic— Both
*P7. Owner and Address: Cady of La Quinta, 79d95 Calie Tampico, La Quints, CA 92253
*P& Recorded by: James Brock and Brenda D. Smith, Archaeological Advisory Group P.O. Box 491, Pioneertown, CA 92268-0491
*P9. Date Recorded: 12 June 1999
*PJO. Survey Type: CEQA Phase 1 intensive pedestrian survey
*P11. Report Citation: Brock, James, and Brenda D. Smith 1999. Phase J Archaeological Assessment of 54.65 Acres at the Southeast
Corner of Washington Street and Miles Avenue, La Quinta, California. Ms. on file, Eastern Information Center, CHR1S, UC
Riverside.
*Attachments: _ None; X 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
*Required information
OPR523A(Ray.M) ro. .L V ��w. .mot
33-8845
DEPARTMENT
Page 2 of 2
*Re.,, Name or # (assigned by recorder): WM4SO-2
*Map Name: La QLtinta, Calif *Scale- 1:24,000 *Date of Map: 1959/prI980
*Required InformstiOm
State of California The Resources Agency _ Primary # 3 3-884 6
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION IM#
PRIMARY RECORD` ,` Trinomial:
... NRHP Statue Coder
... Other Listings:
Review'Cudr Reviewer: Date:
Page I of 2 *Resource Name or#:WM4SO-3
Pl. Other Identifier.
*P2. Location: X Not for Publication Unrestricted
*a. Con arty Riverside
*b. USGS 7S Quad Ls Quinta Date 1959/1990 T 5S , R 7E, NW 114 of SE 1/4 of See 19 ; San Bernardino B M.
a Address City zip
d. UTM: Zone 11; 565670 in Easting 3731040 m Northing
e. Other Locational Data: In dune field southeast of the intersection of Washington Street and Miles Ave.
*P3a. Description: Isola" ]xownware sherd (52 x 40 x 5 man). 13.6 grams. Collected -mated with City of La Quints collections.
*P3b. Resource Attributes: AP3. Ceramics scatter.
*P4. Resources Present: -Building; _ Structure; _ Object; _ Site;_ District;_ Element of District; X Other
P5a. Photo or Drawing: Sex report.
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources: X Prehistoric_ Historic _ Both
*P7. Owner and Address: City of La Quinta, 7&495 Calle Tampico, La Quints, CA 92253
*P8. Recorded by: James Brock and Brenda D. Smithy Archaeological Advisory Group, P.O. Box 491, Pioneertown, CA 92268-0491
*P9. Date Recorded: 12 Jum: 1999
*P10. Survey Type: CEQA Phase 1 intensive pedestrian survey
*PI1. Report Citation: Brock, James, and Brenda D. Smith 1999. Phase I Archaeological Assessment of 54. 65 Acres at the Southeast
Corner of Washington Street and Miles Avenue, La Quinta, California. M& on file, Eastern Information Center, CH MS, UC
Riverside.
*Attachments: _ None; -& Location Map; _ Sketch Map; _ Continuation Sheet; _ Build'ing, Structure, and Object Record;
_ Archaeological Record; _ District Record; _ Linear Feature Record; _ Milling Station Record; _. Rock Art Record;
Artifact Record; _ Photograph Record; _ Other
*Required information
103
DPR 523A (Rev. IM) norm LL
g�
0
i)
IMIMI
i
V Trailer
Park'
VENUE
o C \ T .•
yy
7 ry B 72 O
D o
C� G
l '
F o '• 30
ML-vim -
0 Feet 2500
0
0 motem loco
•xeyohva lnfwmWioa
1U4