Pine Nut Processing in Southern California: Is the Absence of

The high density of fire-altered rock featuresat Torrey Pines State Natural Reserve (TPSNR) poses an enigma for the archae-

ologist. Over 200 fire-altered rock (FAR) fea-tures have been recorded within the reserve(Mealey 2005), an area of approximately 5.9 km2.Most are surface features, although some arefound in stream cuts buried by up to several me-ters of alluvial or dune deposits, suggesting thatadditional buried features are present. These fea-tures are particularly difficult to interpret becausethey lack food remains. Most have very few or nofaunal remains, even though these sites are withina few kilometers of the coast, where sandybeaches and rocky intertidal zones are common.

In this article we assess indirect and direct ev-idence for the use of these features and then pro-pose an interpretation of their function within thetheoretical framework of optimal foraging. Thisstudy illustrates a systematic analysis of the spa-tial patterning between FAR features and their lo-cations in relation to plant communities and view-sheds. Ethnographic sources supplement thearchaeological data. We consider all of the FARfeatures that have been identified at TPSNR, witha focus on two sites: CA-SDI-15557 and CA-SDI-9595. We conclude with a discussion of thepossible function of these features and the rele-vance of this study to the larger archaeologicalcommunity.

PINE NUT PROCESSING IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIAIS THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE THE EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE?

Lynn H. Gamble and Scott Mattingly

Burned rock features that were used for heat, light, the processing of resources, cooking, roasting, ceremonial purposes,and other functions are encountered all over the world. Over 200 prehistoric fire-altered rock (FAR) features have beendocumented at Torrey Pines State Natural Reserve, an area ethnographically occupied by the Kumeyaay Indians along thecentral coast of San Diego County in southern California. These features are more densely concentrated at sites within theboundaries of the reserve than at other nearby coastal locations, suggesting an association with a specific resource in thearea. Although many FAR features found in southern California and the Southwest are often interpreted as Agave desertior Yucca whipplei roasting pits, these species are rare at the reserve; the few that exist there today are believed to be mod-ern introductions. We propose that the FAR features in the project area were probably used to process Torrey pine nuts, ahigh-ranked resource that was valued by the Kumeyaay.

Las características de las piedras quemadas encontradas alrededor del mundo, muestran que fueron utilizadas para logrardistintos propósitos, como la calefacción, la luz, el procesamiento de recursos, para cocinar y asar, intenciones ceremonialesy otras funciones. Hay cientos de funciones de piedra quemada prehistórica (FAR) que han sido documentadas en la ReservaNatural Estatal Torrey Pines, que está ubicada a lo largo de la costa central del condado de San Diego en el sur de Califor-nia, una región etnográficamente ocupada por los Indios Kumeyaay. Estos rasgos se encuentran más densamente concentra-dos en emplazamientos dentro de los límites de la Reserva, en comparación con ubicaciones costeras cerca del área, lo cualsugiere que en los alrededores de la reserva hay una asociación a este recurso específico. Aunque hay varios rasgos de la FARque se encuentran en el sur de California y en el suroeste de los Estados Unidos, son frecuentemente interpretados como pozosde asar para las especies Agave deserti o Yucca whipplei. Estas especies son extremamente raras en la reserva, las pocas queexisten hoy en día, se cree que han sido por alteración moderna. Proponemos que estos rasgos de la FAR en la zona delproyecto, han sido utilizados para procesar piñones de Torrey, los cuales eran un recurso muy valioso para los Indios Kumeyaay.

Lynn H. Gamble � Department of Anthropology, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-3210([email protected])Scott Mattingly � Department of Anthropology, San Diego State University, 5500 Campanile Dr., San Diego, CA 92182

American Antiquity 77(2), 2012, pp. 263–278Copyright ©2012 by the Society for American Archaeology

263

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Am

eric

an A

ntiq

uity

acc

ess

(392

-89-

746)

IP

Add

ress

: 128

.111

.165

.153

T

uesd

ay, D

ecem

ber

10, 2

013

5:53

:49

PM

264 american antiquity [Vol. 77, no. 2, 2012

Human behavioral ecology (HBE) was intro-duced in archaeology as a framework for under-standing hunter-gatherer decision-makingprocesses. By seeking simple, generalist solu-tions to research topics concerned with specificcategories of behavior, HBE does not attempt tobe a holistic discipline. It is reductionist at itscore. This does not lessen the usefulness of HBEin archaeology, however. HBE is most applicableto research in specific behavioral categories, suchas the sexual division of labor or resource inten-sification (Winterhalder and Smith 2000:51–54).Optimal foraging theory (OFT) was the focus

of much HBE research during the 1980s. OFT iscomposed of a series of models that are con-cerned mainly with resource selection and habi-tat movement in relation to resource patches andis often most applicable to ethnographic researchdue to its dependence upon choices made by in-dividuals (Winterhalder and Smith 2000:54–57).In particular, central place foraging (CPF)

models address residential movement and fieldprocessing (Winterhalder and Smith 2000:57).CPF assumes that foragers will exploit resourcesthat require the least energy expenditure whilemaximizing energy intake. Since resources arerarely distributed evenly in space, CPF theorypredicts that primary habitation sites (centralplaces) will be located in areas that maximizeforaging returns from different patches.An example from southern California is Ken-

nett’s (2005:225) study of the Santa BarbaraChannel Island Chumash. Kennett demonstratesthat the Island Chumash located their primaryvillage sites in areas with relatively easy access toa wide range of resources. This choice, however,did not eliminate logistic exploitation of resourcesfrom more distant patches. Logistical foragingresulted in temporary occupation sites locatednear significant resources. Specifically, Kennett(2005:226) interprets sites that have thin lenses ofred abalone shell and limited tool and fauna di-versity as specialized processing camps. Thus, ingeneral, sites with relatively little material datacan be understood as logistical resource-process-ing sites that were repeatedly reoccupied, per-haps seasonally (Kennett 2005:226). Many siteswithin TPSNR, including CA-SDI-15557 andCA-SDI-9595, fit this description. The sites aredominated by dense concentrations of FAR, with

few other cultural remains or artifacts. Further-more, the sites are easily accessed from severalknown village sites.Another effective archaeological application of

OFT is a set of models within CPF theory that ad-dress the field processing of resources (Bettingeret al. 1997; Kennett 2005; Winterhalder and Smith2000). Bettinger et al. (1997:887) use a CPFmodel to consider the archaeological implica-tions of black oak (Quercus kelloggii) and mussel(Mytilus californianus) processing. They addressthe efficiency of field processing in cases whereforagers attempt to move usable resources quicklyto a central place (Bettinger et al. 1997; Kennett2005; Winterhalder and Smith 2000). Resourceprocessing involves the elimination of excess ma-terial that is of low or no utility, i.e., nut- and seedshells, mollusk shells, and lithic cortices. At thecore of CPF modeling is the determination of thedifference between the amounts of time involvedin field processing and travel. Field processingmay increase the amount of useful material pertrip, therefore decreasing total travel time requiredto obtain the resource. However, the amount oftime involved in the field processing may begreater than the amount of time required to makemore than one trip. For example, it will take moretime to collect and decorticate 2 kg of raw lithicmaterial into 1 kg of useful tools than it would totransport 2 kg of the raw material to the centralplace (Bettinger et al. 1997:888). According toBettinger et al., the decision to field process is de-pendent upon the following:

(1) the amount of time processing takes; (2) theamount by which processing increases the util-ity of material being transported; and (3) thedistance to the central place. If processing timeis low enough, and the resulting increase inresource utility is high enough, field process-ing will increase the rate at which useful mate-rial reaches the central place. Even if processingis time costly, it may still increase efficiency ifthe distance between the central place is large,because fewer trips will have to be made[1997:888].

Applying HBE and CPF modeling to the currentproject is a productive avenue of research, as itprovides a conceptual framework to understandthe context of archaeological sites in the area.

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Am

eric

an A

ntiq

uity

acc

ess

(392

-89-

746)

IP

Add

ress

: 128

.111

.165

.153

T

uesd

ay, D

ecem

ber

10, 2

013

5:53

:49

PM

Torrey Pines State Natural Reserve

TPSNR is situated in southern California alongthe coast just north of San Diego on two erodingsandstone terraces (Del Mar Heights and theScripps Plateau), which are bisected by LosPeñasquitos Creek (Figure 1). Elevations in thestudy area, which is approximately 5.4 km fromeast to west and 14.5 km from north to south,range from sea level to approximately 132 mabove mean sea level.

The topography in the region is fragile (John-son 2004), with FAR features and sites activelyeroding. Eocene sandstones and siltstones are ex-posed in steep cliffs that are capped by basalsandstones and conglomerates of the Plio-Pleis-tocene seafloor known as the Linda Vista Ter-race (Inman 1983:27). Cobbles at the base of theLinda Vista Formation provided a readily avail-able source of rock for the features.Coastal sage scrub and chaparral are the dom-

inant natural vegetation communities (Holland

Gamble & mattingly] Pine nut PrOceSSinG in SOutHern caLiFOrnia 265

Figure 1. Torrey Pines State Reserve.

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Am

eric

an A

ntiq

uity

acc

ess

(392

-89-

746)

IP

Add

ress

: 128

.111

.165

.153

T

uesd

ay, D

ecem

ber

10, 2

013

5:53

:49

PM

and Keil 1995). Common shrubs of economicsignificance to the Kumeyaay at the reserve in-clude black sage (Salvia mellifera), lemonadeberry (Rhus integrifolia), coastal sagebrush(Artemesia californica), coastal prickly pear, man-zanita (Arctostaphylus spp.), California scrub oak(Quercus dumosa), toyon (Heteromeles arbuti-folia), Muhlenbergia microsperma, Juncus, Mo-have yucca (Yucca schidigera), ceanothus (Cean-othus spp.), and Torrey pines (Pinus torreyana[Gamble 2002]). Torrey pines are one of the rarestand most restricted pines in North America. Todaythey are present only on the northeastern portionof Santa Rosa Island and on the southern Cali-fornia coast between Del Mar and San Diego(Biondi et al. 1997). The greatest concentration ison the mainland at TPSNR. Charcoal samplesand pollen spores of core samples from the LosPeñasquitos Lagoon indicate that the Torrey pinehas been in the area at least 3,600 years (Cole andWahl 2000). Pollen studies on Santa Rosa Islandindicate that the species persisted on the islandduring the middle and late Holocene (Cole andLiu 1994:334). To date, no archaeological re-search related to pine nut processing has beenconducted in the vicinity of the Torrey pines onSanta Rosa Island.

Fire-Altered Rock Features

Two hundred fifty-five FAR features have beenrecorded at 47 sites at TPSNR (Mattingly 2007;Mealey 1997, 2002, 2005, 2006). The featuresrange in appearance from concave pits filled withburned rock, interpreted as rock ovens, to densescatters of fire-altered rock that can be over 2 min diameter. Although shell middens have beenrecorded at TPSNR, most FAR features in the re-serve are not associated with middens or siteswith many artifacts or faunal remains. The ma-jority of artifacts associated with these features arelightly used groundstone artifacts, most of whichare burned, and chipped stone, primarily deb-itage. No projectile points have been found in as-sociation with the features, and flaked tools arerare or nonexistent. Of the 28 radiocarbon dates ofFAR features from the reserve, 24 have conven-tional radiocarbon ages between 260 and 1,900years ago, two are older than 5000 B.P., and twoare less than 100 years old (Table 1).

Malcolm Rogers, who worked in the region inthe 1930s, was one of the first archaeologists tonote the profusion of these features at TPSNR. Herecorded nine sites at the reserve, commentingthat every knoll in the reserve had small middenswith hearths scattered between them (Barter1987:2). Our observations (Gamble 2002; Mat-tingly 2007) and those of others (Mealey 1997,2005) confirm Rogers’s observations. MarlaMealey (1997, 2002, 2005) recorded 223 prehis-toric burned features at 40 prehistoric archaeo-logical sites within TPSNR, most of which wereobserved on the surface.At one site in the reserve, CA-SDI-15557,

Gamble excavated a large buried cluster of fire-altered rocks, Feature A, with a field class fromSan Diego State University in 2001. The siterests on a marine terrace approximately 1 kmeast of the Pacific Ocean that is cut by a smalldrainage that bisects the Linda Vista and TorreySandstone formations. Of the five FAR featuresat the site, two were buried features observed inthe vertical section of the drainage (Gamble2002). Hammerstones, debitage, and a fewchipped-stone tools were a short distance fromthe FAR features. None of the FAR features ap-peared to be in direct association with the quar-rying activity. The chipped stone, which con-sisted of quartzite and volcanics, lacked evidenceof heat treatment, implying that the featureswere not used for heat-treating lithics to facili-tate production.Feature A at CA-SDI-15557 was buried under

approximately 65 cm of colluvium and, prior toexcavation, appeared to be a small cluster of fire-altered rocks (Figure 2). After excavation it be-came clear that the feature was larger than origi-nally thought and was intact (Figure 3), unlikemost FAR features at TPSNR that are dispersedscatters of rocks. Feature A measured approxi-mately 160 cm in diameter and 40 cm in depthand consisted of 237 fire-altered rocks in a matrixof blackened soil with charcoal in a concave de-pression (Table 2). The soil near the exterior of thefeature was light brown and differed markedlyfrom that in the interior, which was dark brown toblack with a greater abundance of charcoal. Twocharcoal samples from the central part of the fea-ture indicate that it was used approximately 1,600years ago (Table 1).


Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Am

eric

an A

ntiq

uity

acc

ess

(392

-89-

746)

IP

Add

ress

: 128

.111

.165

.153

T

uesd

ay, D

ecem

ber

10, 2

013

5:53

:49

PM


Table 1. Radiocarbon Dates (Presented in Conventional Radiocarbon Years) of Fire-Altered Rock Features at Torrey Pines State Reserve.

Beta #

Catalog #

Site

Unit

Level (cm BD)

Material

Analysis

Years B.P.

Reference

217718

P1476-2-38

aCA-SDI-16409

A10–20

Charcoal

AMS

260 ± 40

Mealey 2006

217719

P1477-3-86

aCA-SDI-10637

A20–30

Charcoal

AMS

5740 ± 40

Mealey 2006

217720

P1477-6-19

aCA-SDI-10637

B10–20

Charcoal

AMS

1900 ± 50

Mealey 2006

217721

P1477-7-20

aCA-SDI-10637

B20–30

Charcoal

AMS

1750 ± 40

Mealey 2006

217728

P1477-17-98

CA-SDI-10637

C70–80

Charcoal

AMS

1800 ± 40

Mealey 2006

217729

P1477-21-96

CA-SDI-10637

D20–30

Charcoal

AMS

1510 ± 40

Mealey 2006

217730

P1478-1-55

aCA-SDI-14448

A0–10

Charcoal

AMS

680 ± 40

Mealey 2006

217731

P1478-4-21

aCA-SDI-14448

A10–20

Charcoal

AMS

400 ± 40

Mealey 2006

217732

P1478-5-25

aCA-SDI-14448

B0–10

Charcoal

AMS

20 ± 40

Mealey 2006

217733

P1479-08-29a

CA-SDI-16404

C20–30

Charcoal

AMS

710 ± 40

Mealey 2006

217734

P1479-10-28a

CA-SDI-16404

C30–40

Charcoal

AMS

740 ± 40

Mealey 2006

217735

P1479-11-27a

CA-SDI-16404

C20–30

Charcoal

AMS

590 ± 40

Mealey 2006

217736

P1480-2-95

CA-SDI-16407

A10–20

Charcoal

AMS

840 ± 40

Mealey 2006

217737

P1480-3-99

CA-SDI-16407

A20–30

Charcoal

AMS

900 ± 40

Mealey 2006

217738

P1480-10-31a

CA-SDI-16407

B0–10

Charcoal

AMS

1270 ± 40

Mealey 2006

217739

P1480-12-97

CA-SDI-16407

C0–10

Charcoal

AMS

100 ± 40

Mealey 2006

92481

P1141-12-01

CA-SDI-9605

320–30

Shell

Radiometric

2120 ± 70

Mealey 1996

92482

P1141-14-03

CA-SDI-9605

340–50

Charcoal

Radiometric

1500 ± 60

Mealey 1996

92480

P1141-06-02

CA-SDI-9605

210–20

Charcoal

AMS

500 ± 50

Mealey 1996

156919

Sample #14

CA-SDI-15557

Feature A

110

Charcoal (Ceanothussp.)

Radiometric

1550 ± 50

Gamble 2002

156918

Sample #2

CA-SDI-15557

Feature A

114

Charcoal

Radiometric

1650 ± 60

Gamble 2002

217806

Sample #5

CA-SDI-9595

7, Feature F

14Charcoal

AMS

830 ± 40

Mattingly 2007

217807

Sample #7A

CA-SDI-9595

6, Feature D

15Charcoal

AMS

1190 ± 50

Mattingly 2007

(Adenostoma fasciculatum

and Ceanothussp.)

217808

Sample #17A

CA-SDI-9595

10, Feature D

11Charcoal (Ceanothussp.)

AMS

830 ± 50

Mattingly 2007

167268

P1264-57-013

CA-SDI-9595

110–20

Charcoal

Radiometric

970 ± 60

Mealey and Jenkins 2003

167269

P1264-61-003

CA-SDI-9595

220–30

Charcoal

AMS

960 ± 40


167270

P1265-15-001

CA-SDI-14451

10–10

Charcoal

AMS

780 ± 40


167271

P1266-10-002

CA-SDI-14452

110–20

Charcoal

Radiometric

7110 ± 120


Note: AMS = accelerator mass spectrometry.

a Extended counting.

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Am

eric

an A

ntiq

uity

acc

ess

(392

-89-

746)

IP

Add

ress

: 128

.111

.165

.153

T

uesd

ay, D

ecem

ber

10, 2

013

5:53

:49

PM


Figure 2. CA-SDI-15557, Feature A, in creek bank prior to excavation.

Figure 3. CA-SDI-15557, Feature A, after excavation.

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Am

eric

an A

ntiq

uity

acc

ess

(392

-89-

746)

IP

Add

ress

: 128

.111

.165

.153

T

uesd

ay, D

ecem

ber

10, 2

013

5:53

:49

PM

All of the soil (70.3 liters) from Feature A wasmanually floated using a decanting process (Gam-ble 2002). Virginia Popper (2001), at the CotsenInstitute of Archaeology at the University of Cal-ifornia, Los Angeles, completed the ethnobotan-ical analyses of 12 soil samples and eight hand-picked samples. Interestingly, only wood charcoalwas recovered in the samples, almost all of whichwas Ceanothus sp. (buckhorn). Ceanothus verru-cosus, a hard, dense wood that burns for a long pe-riod of time at a high temperature, is found at TPSNR and probably was the species recovered.It would be a very suitable wood for keepingrocks warm for cooking or roasting. In addition toCeanothus sp., a few fragments of Rosaceae (rosefamily), which includes the species chamise(Adenostoma fasciculatum) and toyon (Het-eromeles arbutifolia), were recovered. Bothchamise and ceanothus have been identified byChester King (1993:297) as fuel associated withrock ovens and hearths in other parts of southernCalifornia. Ceanothus sp., chamise, and toyonare common at TPSNR today and probably werefor thousands of years. Although relatively largesamples of plant remains were examined fromFeature A, the data only provide informationabout the fuel used in the oven.More recently, we conducted archaeological

investigations at CA-SDI-9595, a site that is ap-proximately 220 m southeast of CA-SDI-15557and in a similar habitat, with an abundance of cob-bles littering the surface. Southern maritime chap-arral and Torrey pine forest represent the mostcommon vegetation habitats at the site. Diegancoastal sage scrub is present at its southwesternedge near an unnamed drainage. Forty-seven FARfeatures have been recorded at CA-SDI-9595,more than at any other site at TPSNR. We exca-vated two features at the site in 2006 with a fieldclass from San Diego State University. Features D

and F were selected for excavation because theylooked more intact than many of the other featuresat the site. Feature D was larger than Feature Fand not too heavily eroded. The soil from thefeatures was dry screened through 1/8 inch, andseveral soil samples were collected from variousportions of the feature and where there was aconcentration of charcoal. Ten soil samples wereprocessed by Popper (2006) using the decantingprocedure.Feature D at CA-SDI-9595 consisted of a large

concentration of fire-altered rock and charcoalthat was approximately 4 m in diameter and 20 to25 cm in depth (Figure 4). The soil surroundingFeature D, a friable sandy loam, was light brownin color and in stark contrast to the dark brown-ish black sandy loam within the feature. The darksoils were visible just below the surface and be-tween the fire-altered rocks throughout the fea-ture, with the greatest concentration in the ap-proximate center of the feature. Of the 237fire-altered rocks that were excavated from Fea-ture D, most were igneous (49 percent, n = 116,weight = 28,559.9 g). Quartzite was the secondmost common rock material (10 percent, n = 24),followed by metamorphic (3 percent, n = 7), sand-stone (2 percent, n = 5), and metavolcanic mate-rials (.4 percent, n = 1), all of which occur in theimmediate vicinity of the site. Thirty-five per-cent (n = 84) of the fire-altered rock materialtypes were unidentifiable. Discoloration, crack-ing, spalling, and crazing were used to determinethat a rock had been affected by fire. Although theFAR in Feature D did not appear to have beenplaced in any particular order, baked clay andfire-reddened soils were immediately beneath thecharcoal concentrations and FAR, especially atthe eastern edge of the feature.Botanical remains recovered from Feature D

include some seeds and high densities of charcoal.Wood charcoal dominated the botanical remainswith a total weight of 136.99 g, 13.79 g of whichwere identifiable (Mattingly 2007:63; Popper2006). The most common type of wood identifiedwas Ceanothus sp. (8.56 g), followed by Adenos-toma sp. (4.72 g), Rhamnus sp. (.49 g), and Salviasp. (.02 g [Mattingly 2007:63; Popper 2006]).Only 101 seeds were recovered; all of the identi-fiable seeds (n = 96) were Adenostoma sp. andfound in Units 10 and 14. Adenostoma sp. leaves


Table 2. Weight and Number of Fire-Altered Rocks inFeature A at CA-SDI-15557.

Material Weight (g) Number

Quartzite 39,496 139Igneous 43,209 42Sandstone 628 1Unidentified 27,033 55Total 110,366 237

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Am

eric

an A

ntiq

uity

acc

ess

(392

-89-

746)

IP

Add

ress

: 128

.111

.165

.153

T

uesd

ay, D

ecem

ber

10, 2

013

5:53

:49

PM

were also in these units. These data suggest thatAdenostoma sp. was used as fuel and was not a re-sult of a natural fire. Ethnographic accounts offerno mention of the use of Adenostoma sp. seeds asa food in California (see Bean and Saubel 1972;Hedges and Beresford 1986; Lightfoot and Par-rish 2009; Timbrook 2007), although the leaveswere sometimes boiled in a tea for medicinal pur-poses. The wood was used for a number of tech-nological purposes, including for constructionmaterials, arrows, and bull-roarers. Among theCahuilla Indians of southern California, the woodcoals of Adenostoma sp. were preferred for theroasting of foods (Bean and Saubel 1972:30).Chipped stone was rare at CA-SDI-9595. Of

the 30 chipped-stone flakes and shatter recov-ered from Feature D, none appeared utilized whenviewed under 10× magnification. All of thechipped-stone materials are available locally.

Discussion

Although the preponderance of FAR features atTPSNR is well documented, the function of these

features remains enigmatic. The relative paucity ofshell, ceramics, faunal remains, and chipped-stoneartifacts suggests that the burned rock featureswere not used for shellfish processing, kilns, ani-mal or plant roasting, or heat treatment of lithicmaterials. Human remains and ritual items havenot been found with any of the features, suggest-ing that they were not used in mortuary rites or rit-ual contexts. Viewshed analyses from CA-SDI-9595 and two other sites at the reserve demonstratethat these sites lack clear, unobstructed views ofthe surrounding area, making it unlikely that theywere used as observation stands or for signaling.A view of the entire lagoon and much of theScripps Plateau is afforded from atop a ridge justhalf a kilometer to the southeast of CA-SDI-9595,where no prehistoric sites are recorded.The most common types of FAR features at the

reserve have no definable structure and are lessthan 30 cm in depth (Mealey 2006:62–64). Rocksused to construct these features tend to be fairlyuniform in size and shape and from the immediatevicinity. All the FAR features are similar in thatcobbles were heated to relatively high tempera-


Figure 4. CA-SDI-9595, Feature D after excavation. Units 5 and 6 are 1 by 1 m; Units 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 14 are 50 by50 cm; Units 11 and 15 are 36 by 50 cm.

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Am

eric

an A

ntiq

uity

acc

ess

(392

-89-

746)

IP

Add

ress

: 128

.111

.165

.153

T

uesd

ay, D

ecem

ber

10, 2

013

5:53

:49

PM

tures, causing them to crack, craze, and spall. AtCA-SDI-9595, the rocks burned hot enough tobake the clay soils below the feature but not hotenough to calcine the rocks. The presence of FARin direct association with dense concentrations ofcharcoal at CA-SDI-15557 and CA-SDI-9595 alsoindicates that the rocks were heated in hot fires.FAR features in south-central and southwestern

America are frequently interpreted as being asso-ciated with Agave deserti and Yucca whipplei pro-cessing (Dering 1999; King 1993; Phippen 1999;True and True 1992). These interpretations are wellsupported by ethnographic accounts that describethe importance of A. deserti and Y. whipplei as foodand utilitarian resources in these regions (Castetteret al. 1938:9; Hedges and Beresford 1986:45–48;Hicks 1963:108–109; Michelsen 1974). AlthoughDiegan coastal sage scrub supports the naturalgrowth of Y. whipplei, less than 10 Y. whippleiplants are present at TPSNR today, and these prob-ably were recently introduced. It is unlikely that Y.whipplei was ever common at the reserve (DarrenSmith, California State Parks Environmental Sci-entist, pers. comm., February 22, 2007). Vegetationcommunities in which A. deserti grow naturally donot occur anywhere at TPSNR (Holland and Keil1995). Other species of agave and yucca (Agaveshawii and Yucca schidigera) do occur in the re-serve; however, A. shawii probably was not used asa resource by the indigenous communities, and Y.schidigera was used primarily for its strong fibers(Hedges and Beresford 1986:45). The process of ex-tracting yucca fibers involved burying the leaves inwet soil until the fleshy parts deteriorated, leavingonly the fibers behind (Hedges and Beresford1986:45). Sometimes the leaves were simply splitinto strips for lashing things together (Shipek1991:98). Delfina Cuero remarked that some peo-ple ate the flowers of the Y. schidigera and used theseeds in tea or for mush (Shipek 1991:98). None ofthese processes would warrant the construction ofroasting features.Other types of plants that may have been

processed in hearths or pit ovens are bulbs androots (Bean and Saubel 1972). The heating ofroots in earth ovens has been well documented inthe Columbia and Canadian plateau regions ofNorth America (cf. Peacock 2002). Bulbs androots such as mariposa lily (Calochortus weedii),brodiaea (Dichelsostemma capitatum), and wild

onion (Allium haematochiton) occur in some ar-eas of TPSNR but also are found outside theboundaries of the reserve. It is possible that theFAR features at TPSNR were used to heat bulbsand roots such as these. If so, however, one wouldexpect that FAR features would be common in ar-eas where these resources have been documentedoutside the reserve. To our knowledge, no one inthe general region has found hearths or pit ovensthat have been interpreted as features used toprocess roots and bulbs.High densities of wood charcoal, especially

Ceanothus sp. (wild lilac) and Adenostoma fas-ciculatum (chamise), and relatively few seeds orother plant remains have been associated withthe features at TPSNR (Barter 1987; Gamble2002; Mattingly 2007; Mealey 2006; Mealey andJenkins 2003; Popper 2006). Identifiable macro-botanical items associated with FAR features atthe reserve are presented in Table 3. Ceanothus sp.and A. fasciculatum were most likely used as afuel in the features at CA-SDI-9595 (Popper2006) and in other FAR features in the reserve(Barter 1987; Mealey 2002, 2006; Mealey andJenkins 2003). To date, no agave, yucca, or Lili-aceae remains have been identified from FARfeatures in the reserve.Palynological research at TPSNR (Cole and

Wahl 2000) and Las Flores Creek (Anderson andByrd 1998) indicates that modern vegetation com-munities in the region have been in place for atleast the last 2,600 years. Although macrobotan-ical remains from features at TPSNR provide ev-idence on the fuels used in the features, they of-fer limited information as to the use of thesefeatures. No carbonized Torrey pine remains havebeen positively identified by macrobotanists(Gamble 2002; Mealey 2006; Mealey and Jenk-ins 2003; Popper 2006); however, probable Tor-rey pine nut impressions have been found withFAR features at TPSNR. Mealey and Jenkins(2003) recorded molds in soils adhering to a fire-affected rock at CA-SDI-9595 that are interpretedas areas where pine nuts were once located. Asimilar mold was noted within an FAR feature atCA-SDI-14452 (Mealey and Jenkins 2003).Most FAR features at and near the reserve are

densely concentrated within the geographicallyrestricted Torrey pine forests and in the immedi-ately adjacent southern maritime chaparral com-


Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Am

eric

an A

ntiq

uity

acc

ess

(392

-89-

746)

IP

Add

ress

: 128

.111

.165

.153

T

uesd

ay, D

ecem

ber

10, 2

013

5:53

:49

PM

munities (Figures 5 and 6). Torrey pine nuts arethe only resource in these two communities thatwould warrant field processing.Pine nut exploitation throughout the Holocene

has been well documented in California and theGreat Basin (Bettinger 1977; Campbell 1999;Farris 1982, 1992, 1993; Hildebrandt and Ruby2006; McGuire and Garfinkle 1976; Rhode andMadsen 1998; Simms 1985; Sullivan et al. 2001).Pine nuts were and still are widely recognized bymany different Native American peoples as valu-able resources, in part because they are an im-portant nutritious food source, high in polyunsat-urated fat content (Farris 1993:230–231).Although the specific nutritional value of Torreypine nuts compared with other pine nuts has notbeen determined, the relatively large nut of theTorrey pine, in comparison with other edible pinenuts (Table 4), suggests that it is also likely to behighly nutritious (Warren 1964:75–76).The Kumeyaay living in the area of Sierra

Juárez, Mexico, are known to have establishedcamps near pine forests in the fall, when the nutswere ready to harvest (Campbell 1999:160–161).

The best ethnographic description on the use ofTorrey pine nuts as food among the Kumeyaay In-dians of the region is based on an account by Del-fina Cuero, a Kumeyaay Indian elder who was fa-miliar with traditional hunting and gatheringpractices in the region (Shipek 1991:27–28). Cuerostated the following in an interview with Shipek:

We used to gather pine nuts right near the oceannear San Diego beyond mat kula·xu·y (La Jollaor “land of holes”). If there weren’t so manyhouses maybe I could find my way to all theplaces again. It wasn’t far from Mission Val-ley to the place for pine nuts [probably TorreyPines, now a state park]. The men got fish andother things from the ocean when we got pinenuts [Shipek 1991:27–28].

Cuero added that “the pine nuts are generally col-lected in September (when ripened); sometimesthe cones had to be roasted to get the seeds out”(Shipek 1991:94).Glenn Farris (1982) describes of the process of

pine nut extraction based on ethnographic ac-counts in central and northern California, notingthat the cones were taken to a clearing, placed inpiles, covered with pine needles, and ignited. Heargues that the firing process did not actuallyopen the cones but simultaneously removed thepitch, slightly roasted the nuts, and rendered thecone easier to split. At this point, the pine nutscould be accessed by simply pressing down on thescales of the cone. In some cases, however, thecone may have been split lengthwise using a stonetool (Farris 1982:20–21). Farris (1982:137) addsthat in areas where cobbles are prevalent, distin-guishing those that were used for pine nut pro-


Table 3. Quantities of Identifiable Macrobotanical RemainsRecovered from Fire-Altered Rock Features at Torrey Pines

State Reserve.

Macrobotanical Remains Quantity

Adenostoma sp. charcoal 208Adenostoma sp. leaves 47Adenostoma sp. seeds 114Asteraceae charcoal 1Brassicaceae seedpod 1Ceanothus sp. seeds 1Ceanothus sp. charcoal 418Convulvulaceae seeds 1Cuscata sp. seeds 3Cyperaceae seeds 1Galium sp. seeds 3Pinus sp. seeds 5Polygonum seeds 1Quercus sp. charcoal 6Rhamnaceae charcoal 11Rhamnus sp. charcoal 36Rhus sp. charcoal 7Rosaceae charcoal 15Salvia sp. charcoal 2Salvia sp. seeds 1

Source: Barter 1987; Mealey 2006; Mealey and Jenkins2003; Popper 2006; Scott Cummings 2002.

Table 4. Comparison of Average Seed Lengths of Edible Pine Nuts.

Species Common Name Seed Length (mm)

Pinus coulteri Big-cone pine 15–22Pinus jeffreyi Jeffrey pine ≈10Pinus lambertiana Gray pine 10–20Pinus monophylla Piñon pine 15–20Pinus ponderosa Ponderosa pine 4–9Pinus sabiniana Sugar pine ≈20Pinus torreyana Torrey pine 17–24

Source: Adapted from Farris 1982:89 and http://www.eflo-ras.org (accessed February 17, 2007).

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Am

eric

an A

ntiq

uity

acc

ess

(392

-89-

746)

IP

Add

ress

: 128

.111

.165

.153

T

uesd

ay, D

ecem

ber

10, 2

013

5:53

:49

PM

cessing may be quite difficult, considering that theprocess leaves little wear on the tools. Farris dis-cusses the type of evidence one might find at apine nut–processing site:

The probable artifacts one might expect to findin such a processing site would be discardedstone cobbles, cobble choppers, and crude flatstones on which to chop or pound the cones.

There is occasional mention of the cones beingcut off the tree with a knife. Kroeber speaks ofthe Hill Patwin using a “flint” [obsidian?] tocut off the digger pine cones. If such a toolneeded re-sharpening or simply broke and wasdiscarded, one might expect some remains,particularly in the form of trimming flakes orthe broken remnants of a biface which may


Figure 5. Plant communities and number of fire-altered rock features in the Torrey Pines State Reserve Extension.

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Am

eric

an A

ntiq

uity

acc

ess

(392

-89-

746)

IP

Add

ress

: 128

.111

.165

.153

T

uesd

ay, D

ecem

ber

10, 2

013

5:53

:49

PM

have been used as a knife. Finally, if the burn-ing of the cones did get out of control, theremay be charred remnants of the cones or nuts.This would require ideal conditions, however,since such small processing sites would mostlikely be thin deposits with no midden accu-mulation [1982:131].

Except for the absence of charred remains ofpinecones or nuts, sites at TPSNR with denseconcentrations of FAR features are almost iden-tical to the pine nut–processing sites described byFarris (1982). The high density of the features andtheir proximity to the pines, along with directethnographic evidence (Shipek 1991), all strongly


Figure 6. Plant communities and number of fire-altered rock features in the main portion of the Torrey Pines StateReserve.

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Am

eric

an A

ntiq

uity

acc

ess

(392

-89-

746)

IP

Add

ress

: 128

.111

.165

.153

T

uesd

ay, D

ecem

ber

10, 2

013

5:53

:49

PM

suggest the use of these sites as Torrey pinenut–processing areas.We propose that the Kumeyaay actively ex-

ploited Torrey pines and that the FAR features atTPSNR were used to field process pine nuts bycollectors traveling from nearby village sites. Themajority of the features are densely concentratedwithin Torrey pine forests and the contiguousvegetation communities. The most likely re-sources that would necessitate field processing inthese vegetation communities are Torrey pinenuts. At sites that are characterized primarily bythe presence of FAR features and few other cul-tural items, the features are only located in Torreypine forests, southern maritime chaparral, andDiegan coastal sage scrub communities. Fire-al-tered rock features at these sites are greater thanthree times more densely concentrated withinTorrey pine forests than in the neighboring south-ern maritime chaparral and Diegan coastal sagescrub communities (Figures 5 and 6).The scarcity of direct botanical evidence for

the roasting of Torrey pine nuts at TPSNR is dis-appointing but understandable since charred conesor seeds would be a result of a failed attempt atroasting the cones properly. An example of pre-historic root processing on the Canadian Plateauserves to illustrate the point. Sandra Peacock(2002) focused her research at Komkanetkwa,where she interpreted the remains of 170 earthovens as root-processing facilities. Peacock sup-ports her hypothesis with extensive ethnographicdata in conjunction with archaeological evidencefrom 11 earth ovens. In her analysis of the ar-chaeobotanical remains from the features, shefound that wood charcoal, which probably wasused as fuel in the cooking of the roots, dominatedthe assemblages. Peacock found no evidence ofcharred root resources and concludes that thiswould be expected since the users of the ovens didnot want to char the roots they were cooking. Ifwe assume that the features at TPSNR were usedfor the processing of pine nuts, their users alsowanted to avoid burning the seeds or cones.During the Late Prehistoric period in the San

Diego region, diet breadth expanded consider-ably to include a wide range of botanical and an-imal food resources (Byrd and Raab 2007; Reddy1999). Dietary expansion that includes the use ofmore peripheral resources has been described as

resource “intensification” by human behavioralecologists and is often a result of populationgrowth and the overexploitation of staple re-sources (Winterhalder and Smith 2000:58). In-terpreted as pine nut–processing areas, the sites atTPSNR reflect resource intensification. Radio-carbon dates for 26 of 28 FAR features at TPSNRindicate that most features are less than 2,000years old (Table 1). The greater quantities of FARfeatures at the reserve during the last two millen-nia may reflect the increasing importance of theTorrey pine nut as a supplementary dietary itemand possibly as an important trade item during thelate Holocene.Several radiocarbon dates suggest that the sites

with FAR features at TPSNR and the Kumeyaayvillage of Ystagua were contemporaneous (Car-rico and Taylor 1983:147–149; Harris et al. 1999).The Torrey pines area was close to Ystagua, andpeople could have easily traveled along the east-ern and northern shores of the Los PeñasquitosLagoon and north through the canyon at the re-serve. Interestingly, Florence Shipek, the ethnog-rapher who worked with Delfina Cuero, recordedthe archaeological site for a portion of Ystaguaand noted that the name translates to “Trees arethere” and that it was this village that “wouldhave had control of Torrey Pines” (1976:2). Todate, no studies of the Ystagua collections have in-dicated the presence of Torrey pine nuts.The relationship between the features at

TPSNR and Ystagua fits well with predictions ofcentral place foraging theory. The village of Ys-tagua is a logistically located central place be-tween two major drainages and less than 5 kmfrom Los Peñasquitos Lagoon and the PacificOcean. This location facilitated the exploitation ofa wide range of marine and terrestrial resources,including the use of plant resources. Of particularrelevance to this argument is Farris’s statement that

in virtually all accounts of the collecting of dig-ger pine cones one reads that the cones wereprocessed in the immediate vicinity where theywere obtained. This was due to the heavy pitchaccumulation that had to be removed from thecones, plus the sharp nature of the scales, and,finally, the fact that the edible kernelsamounted to only 5% or less of the total weightof the cones. . . . Rather than process the conesback at camp, it made more sense to extract


Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Am

eric

an A

ntiq

uity

acc

ess

(392

-89-

746)

IP

Add

ress

: 128

.111

.165

.153

T

uesd

ay, D

ecem

ber

10, 2

013

5:53

:49

PM

the seeds near the place where the cones wereobtained [1982:129].

Descriptions of green pinecone–processingsites used by the Paiute of eastern California sup-port this argument (Eerkens et al. 2002). Eerkensand his colleagues (2002:23) state that one bene-fit of green cone processing (as compared withcollecting nuts from brown cones that have fallen)is that it reduces competition with rodents. Theyalso note that most extracted nuts probably werebrought to the valley, not consumed in the field.From the perspective of central place foraging

theory, sites with FAR features at TPSNR mayvery well have been used by inhabitants of Ys-tagua to field process Torrey pinecones. In a dis-cussion on the basic principles of CPF models,Bettinger et al. (1997:888) propose that field pro-cessing is worth the effort if the efficiency of de-livering resources from foraging locations to acentral place is increased. The requirements de-scribed by Bettinger et al. (1997:888) that are in-volved in the decision to field process appear tohave been met in the Torrey pines situation. Fieldprocessing of Torrey pinecones would have beena logical decision for people traveling to these lo-cations from nearby habitation sites because of theratio of pine nut to cone weight. Cracking the nut-shell and extracting the seed probably were com-pleted once the unshelled nuts had been trans-ported, because the shell is relatively small andlightweight. The collector’s time would have beenmore efficiently spent extracting the pine nutsfrom the cones and taking the nuts back to thecentral place for further processing. This mayhelp explain why no carbonized Torrey pine nutsor shells associated with FAR features in the studyarea have been identified. Finally, the Torrey pineforests are less than 7 km over relatively easyterrain from Ystagua (Mattingly 2007).In this article we consider why such a high

density of FAR features exists in the Torrey PinesState Natural Reserve. Although we lack directmacrobotanical evidence of charred pinecones ornuts, we use multiple lines of evidence within theframework of optimal foraging theory to suggestthat the FAR features were used for the process-ing of Torrey pine nuts. Evidence to support thisproposition includes (1) the high density of fire-altered rock features in proximity to the Torreypines, in contrast to the surrounding areas that

have no Torrey pines trees and few, if any, FARfeatures; (2) the high density of fuel associatedwith the features; (3) the absence of agave andyucca in the region and in the macrobotanical re-mains from the features; (4) the high density ofFAR features in sites that lack evidence of habi-tation; (5) the paucity of artifacts, especially thosethat might be associated with a habitation site orwith religious activities; (6) the lack of faunal re-mains associated with these features; (7) theethnographic accounts that specifically mentionthat the local Kumeyaay Indians visited the Tor-rey pine forests to collect and roast pinecones; and(8) the region’s proximity to Ystagua, a historicand prehistoric habitation site whose inhabitantsmost likely would have utilized the pine nuts.

Acknowledgments. Without the permission, support, and fund-ing from the California State Parks, this research would nothave been possible. We are especially grateful to a number ofpeople at California State Parks, including Marla Mealey,John Foster, Therese Muranaka, Mike Sampson, Mike Wells,Darren Smith, and Glenn Farris (now retired). We thank theSouth Coastal Information Center for its help with archaeo-logical records of the region. We are also grateful for the as-sistance of the SDSU students who excavated the fire-alteredrock features at CA-SDI-9595 and CA-SDI-15557. More-over, we acknowledge the help and support of Carmen Lucas,the Kwaaymii elder who served as monitor for the project. Weappreciate the advice of Glenn Russell, Patricia Masters, Dou-glas Inman, Linda Scott Cummings, Kristina Gill, AmberVanDerwarker, Greg Wilson, Susan Hector, Allison Jaqua,Gail Wright, Brian F. Smith, Johnna Buysse, Richard Carrico,and Eric Wohlgemuth. Finally, we acknowledge the editor ofAmerican Antiquity, Alison Rautman, Glenn Farris, and threeadditional anonymous reviewers who provided comments thathelped improve the article.

References Cited

Anderson, R. Scott, and Brian F. Byrd1998 Late-Holocene Vegetation Changes from the LasFlores Creek Coastal Lowlands, San Diego County, Cal-ifornia. Madroño 45:171–182.

Barter, Eloise R.1987 CA-SDI-10636, the Cache Site, Torrey Pines State Re-serve: A Report of Work Done Under Statewide ResourceManagement Program Project 403-630-3-2. State of Cal-ifornia Department of Parks and Recreation, Southern Ser-vice Center. Submitted to the State of California Depart-ment of Parks and Recreation. Copies available from SouthCoastal Information Center, San Diego State University, SanDiego.

Bean, Lowell John, and Katherine Siva Saubel1972 Temalpakh: Cahuilla Indian Knowledge and Usage ofPlants. Malki Museum Press, Banning.

Bettinger, Robert L.1977 Aboriginal Human Ecology in Owens Valley: Pre-


Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Am

eric

an A

ntiq

uity

acc

ess

(392

-89-

746)

IP

Add

ress

: 128

.111

.165

.153

T

uesd

ay, D

ecem

ber

10, 2

013

5:53

:49

PM

historic Change in the Great Basin. American Antiquity42:3–17.

Bettinger, Robert L., Ripan Malhi, and Helen McCarthy1997 Central Place Models of Acorn and Mussel Process-ing. Journal of Archaeological Science 24:887–899.

Biondi, Franco, Daniel R. Cayan, and Wolfgang H. Berger1997 Dendroclimatology of Torrey Pine (Pinus torreyanaParry ex Carr.). American Midland Naturalist138(2):237–251.

Byrd, Brian F., and L. Mark Raab2007 Prehistory of the Southern California Bight: Modelsfor a New Millennium. In California Prehistory: Colo-nization, Culture, and Complexity, edited by Terry L. Jonesand Kathryn A. Klar, pp. 215–227. AltaMira Press, Lan-ham, Maryland.

Campbell, Paul D.1999 Survival Skills of Native California. Gibbs-Smith, SaltLake City.

Carrico, Richard, and Clifford V. Taylor1983 Excavation of a Portion of Ystagua: A Coastal ValleyIpai Settlement. Westec Services, Inc. Submitted to the Cityof San Diego Environmental Quality Division. Copies avail-able from South Coastal Information Center, San Diego StateUniversity, San Diego.

Castetter, Edwin Franklin, Willis Harvey Bell, and Alvin R. Grove1938 The Early Utilization and the Distribution of Agave inthe American Southwest. University of New Mexico Bul-letin: Ethnobiological Studies in the American SouthwestVol. 6. University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

Cole, Kenneth L., and Geng-Wu Liu1994 Holocene Paleoecology of an Estuary on Santa RosaIsland, California. Quaternary Research 41:326–335.

Cole, Kenneth L., and Eugene Wahl2000 A Late Holocene Paleoecological Record from Tor-rey Pines State Reserve, California. Quaternary Research53:341–351.

Dering, Phil1999 Earth-Oven Plant Processing in Archaic PeriodEconomies: An Example from a Semi-Arid Savanna inSouth Central North America. American Antiquity64:659–674.

Eerkens, Jelmer W., Jerome King, and Eric Wohlgemuth2002 The Prehistoric Development of Intensive Green-ConePiñon Processing in Eastern California. Journal of Field Ar-chaeology 29(1/2):17–27.

Farris, Glenn J.1982 Aboriginal Use of Pine Nuts in California: An Eth-nological, Nutritional, and Archaeological Investigation intothe Uses of the Seeds of Pinus lambertiana Dougl. and Pi-nus sabiniana Dougl. by the Indians of Northern Califor-nia. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,University of California, Davis. University Microfilms, AnnArbor.

1992 “Women’s Money”: Types and Distributions of PineNut Beads in Northern California, Southern Oregon, andNorthwestern Nevada. Journal of California and GreatBasin Anthropology 14(1):55–71.

1993 Quality Food: The Quest for Pine Nuts in Northern Cal-ifornia. In Before the Wilderness: Environmental Man-agement by Native Californians, edited by Thomas C. Black-burn and Kat Anderson, pp. 229–240. Ballena Press, Men-lo Park.

Gamble, Lynn H.2002 Archaeological Investigations at CA-SDI-15557, Tor-rey Pines State Reserve with Appendix 1 by Virginia S. Pop-per. San Diego State University and Cotsen Institute of Ar-chaeology at University of California, Los Angeles. Sub-

mitted to the California Department of Parks and Recre-ation. Copies available from California Department of Parksand Recreation, Southern Service Center, San Diego.

Harris, Nina M., Tracy Stropes, and Dennis R. Gallegos1999 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Villageof Ystagua Water Main Break City of San Diego, Califor-nia. Gallegos & Associates. Submitted to the City of SanDiego Water Department. Copies available from SouthCoastal Information Center, San Diego State University, SanDiego.

Hedges, Ken, and Christina Beresford1986 Santa Ysabel Ethnobotany. San Diego Museum of ManEthnic Technology Notes No. 20. San Diego.

Hicks, Frederic1963 Ecological Aspects of Aboriginal Culture in the West-ern Yuman Area. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of An-thropology, University of California, Los Angeles. UniversityMicrofilms, Ann Arbor.

Hildebrandt, William R., and Allika Ruby2006 Prehistoric Pinyon Exploitation in the SouthwesternGreat Basin: A View from the Coso Range. Journal of Cal-ifornia and Great Basin Anthropology 26(1):11–31.

Holland, V. L., and David J. Keil1995 California Vegetation. Kendall/Hunt, Dubuque.

Inman, Douglas L.1983 Application of Coastal Dynamics to the Reconstruc-tion of Paleocoastlines in the Vicinity of La Jolla, California.In Quaternary Coastlines and Marine Archaeology: Towardsthe Prehistory of Land Bridges and Continental Shelves,edited by P. M. Masters and N. C. Flemming, pp. 1–49. Aca-demic Press, London.

Johnson, Jeffery A.2004 Coastal Erosion Survey Torrey Pines State Reserve. Jef-fery A. Johnson, Inc. Submitted to the California Depart-ment of Parks and Recreation. Copies available from Cal-ifornia Department of Parks and Recreation, Southern Ser-vice Center, San Diego.

Kennett, Douglas J.2005 The Island Chumash: Behavioral Ecology of a Mar-itime Society. University of California Press, Berkeley.

King, Chester1993 Fuel Use and Resource Management: Implications forthe Study of Land Management in Prehistoric Californiaand Recommendations for a Research Program. In Beforethe Wilderness: Environmental Management by Native Cal-ifornians, edited by Thomas C. Blackburn and Kat An-derson, pp. 279–298. Ballena Press, Menlo Park.

Lightfoot, Kent G., and Otis Parrish2009 California Indians and Their Environment: An Intro-duction. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Mattingly, Scott A.2007 Archaeological and Geospatial Investigations of Fire-Altered Rock Features at Torrey Pines State Reserve, SanDiego, California. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Departmentof Anthropology, San Diego State University, San Diego.

McGuire, Kelly M., and Allen P. Garfinkle1976 The Development of Pinyon Exploitation in CentralEastern California. Journal of California Anthropology3(2):83–85.

Mealey, Marla M.1996 Statewide Resource Management Project Status Re-port: Salvage of Eroding Cultural Deposits at Three Ar-chaeological Sites in Torrey Pines State Reserve. Submit-ted to the California Department of Parks and Recreation.Copies available from South Coastal Information Center,San Diego State University, San Diego.


Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Am

eric

an A

ntiq

uity

acc

ess

(392

-89-

746)

IP

Add

ress

: 128

.111

.165

.153

T

uesd

ay, D

ecem

ber

10, 2

013

5:53

:49

PM

1997 Statewide Resource Management Project Status Re-port: Archaeological Site Reevaluation and Mapping at Tor-rey Pines State Reserve. State of California Department ofParks and Recreation, Southern Service Center. Submittedto the California Department of Parks and Recreation.Copies available from South Coastal Information Center,San Diego State University, San Diego.

2002 Cultural Resource Management Program ProjectStatus Report: Archaeological Survey of the Extension Areaof Torrey Pines State Reserve. State of California Depart-ment of Parks and Recreation, Southern Service Center. Sub-mitted to the California Department of Parks and Recre-ation. Copies available from South Coastal Information Cen-ter, San Diego State University, San Diego.

2005 Archaeological Site Condition Assessment WithinTorrey Pines State Reserve for Storm Damage Following2004/2005 Rainfall Season. State of California Departmentof Parks and Recreation, Southern Service Center. Submittedto the California Department of Parks and Recreation.Copies available from South Coastal Information Center,San Diego State University, San Diego.

2006 Data Recovery at Storm-Damaged Sites in Torrey PinesState Reserve. State of California Department of Parks andRecreation, Southern Service Center. Submitted to the Cal-ifornia Department of Parks and Recreation. Copies avail-able from South Coastal Information Center, San Diego StateUniversity, San Diego.

Mealey, Marla, and S. Jenkins2003 Cultural Resource Management Program ProjectStatus Report; Testing and Data Recovery at Three Sitesin the Extension Area of Torrey Pines State Reserve. Stateof California Department of Parks and Recreation, South-ern Service Center. Submitted to the California Departmentof Parks and Recreation. Copies available from SouthCoastal Information Center, San Diego State University, SanDiego.

Michelsen, Ralph C.1974 Ethnographic Notes on Agave Fiber Cordage. Pacif-ic Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 10(1):39–47.

Peacock, Sandra L.2002 Perusing the Pits: The Evidence for Prehistoric RootResource Processing on the Canadian Plateau. In Hunter-Gatherer Archaeobotany: Perspectives from the NorthernTemperate Zone, edited by Sarah L. R. Mason and Jon G.Hather, pp. 45–63. Institute of Archaeology, University Col-lege, London.

Phippen, Robert1999 Burned Rock Features and Middens: 4,800 Years ofRoasting in Southeastern New Mexico. In Sixty Years ofMogollon Archaeology: Papers from the Ninth MogollonConference, Silver City, New Mexico, 1996, edited byStephanie M. Whittlesey, pp. 173–181. Statistical Research,Tucson.

Popper, Virginia S.2001 Macrobotanical Analysis of Soil Samples and Hand-Picked Specimens from CA-SDI-15557, San Diego Coun-

ty, California. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology at Univer-sity of California, Los Angeles. Report submitted to L. Gam-ble. Copies available from South Coastal Information Cen-ter, San Diego State University, San Diego.

2006 Macrobotanical Analysis of Soil Samples from CA-SDI-9595 San Diego County, California. Cotsen Institute of Ar-chaeology at University of California, Los Angeles. Reportsubmitted to L. Gamble. Copies available from SouthCoastal Information Center, San Diego State University, SanDiego.

Reddy, Seetha N.1999 Plant Usage and Prehistoric Diet: Paleoethnobotani-cal Investigations on Camp Pendelton, Southern Califor-nia. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly35(4):25–44.

Rhode, David, and David B. Madsen1998 Pine Nut Use in the Early Holocene and Beyond: TheDanger Cave Archaeobotanical Record. Journal of Ar-chaeological Science 25:1199–1210.

Shipek, Florence C.1976 San Diego Museum of Man Archaeological SiteRecord Sheet for SDM-W-939. F. C. Shipek. Submitted tothe San Diego Museum of Man. Copies available from theSan Diego Museum of Man, San Diego.

1991 Delfina Cuero: Her Autobiography, an Account of HerLast Years, and Her Ethnobotanic Contributions. BallenaPress, Menlo Park.

Simms, Steven R.1985 Pine Nut Use in Three Great Basin Cases: Data, The-ory, and a Fragmentary Material Record. Journal of Cal-ifornia and Great Basin Anthropology 7:166–175.

Sullivan, Alan P., III, Robert A. Cook, Matthew P. Purthill, andPatrick M. Uphus

2001 Economic and Land Use Implications of PrehistoricFire-Cracked-Rock Piles, Northern Arizona. Journal of FieldArchaeology 28:367–382.

Timbrook, Jan2007 Chumash Ethnobotany: Plant Knowledge Amongthe Chumash People of Southern California. Santa BarbaraMuseum of Natural History, Santa Barbara.

True, Delbert L., and Jack L. True1992 Earth Ovens and Hearths in Prehistoric Southern Cal-ifornia: A Dated Example from Western Riverside Coun-ty. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly28(4):1–24.

Warren, Claude N.1964 Cultural Change and Continuity on the San Diego Coast.Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthro-pology, University of California, Los Angeles.

Winterhalder, Bruce, and Eric Alden Smith2000 Analyzing Adaptive Strategies: Human Behavioral Ecol-ogy at Twenty-Five. Evolutionary Anthropology 9(2):51–72.

Submitted November 28, 2010; Revised January 31, 2011;Accepted February 23, 2011.

278 american antiquity [Vol. 77, no. 2, 2012]

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Am

eric

an A

ntiq

uity

acc

ess

(392

-89-

746)

IP

Add

ress

: 128

.111

.165

.153

T

uesd

ay, D

ecem

ber

10, 2

013

5:53

:49

PM

Documents

Pine Nut Processing in Southern California: Is the Absence of