Marine fauna constituted a distinctive and important set of resources for prehistoric San Diegans. Their archaeological residues are found primarily at processing and habitation sites located within 1-2 kilometers of the coast. However, smaller quantities of marine remains, particularly shell, occur at sites farther inland. Terry L. Jones (1992:2) suggested the use of 10 kilometers from the coast as the cutoff distance for distinguishing a “coastal foraging radius” from a zone of “terrestrial habitat away from the coast.”<\/p>\n
The interpretation of marine residues at inland sites may shed light on prehistoric mobility patterns, exchange systems, and the uses to which marine resources were put. Several scenarios may be suggested to explain the occurrence of marine faunal remains at inland sites:<\/p>\n
PROSPECTS<\/b><\/p>\n
Future archaeological investigations may be able to clarify the ways in which inland communities made use of marine resources. Relevant aspects of the issue may include the chronology of such use, the specific invertebrate and vertebrate resources that were selected, their use for subsistence or other purposes, and the processing strategies that were employed.<\/p>\n
| Site<\/b><\/td>\n | Distance from Coast (km)<\/b><\/td>\n | Abundance of Fish Bone<\/b><\/td>\n | Abundance of Shell<\/b><\/td>\n | Shellfish Genera<\/b><\/td>\n | References<\/b><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n| SDI-149, etc.<\/td>\n | 11<\/td>\n | —<\/td>\n | trace<\/td>\n | Astraea<\/i>, | \nMytilus<\/i>, \nChione<\/i>, \n4 others<\/td>\n Carrico et al. 1991<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | SDI-186, etc.<\/td>\n | 18<\/td>\n | trace<\/td>\n | trace<\/td>\n | Laevicardium<\/i>, | \nChione<\/i>, \n7 others<\/td>\n Byrd et al. 1993<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | SDI-674<\/td>\n | 19<\/td>\n | trace<\/td>\n | trace<\/td>\n | Donax<\/i>, | \nChione<\/i>, \n4 others<\/td>\n Rosen 1984<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | SDI-731<\/td>\n | 37<\/td>\n | —<\/td>\n | trace<\/td>\n | Argopecten<\/i>, | \nTivela<\/i>, \n11 others<\/td>\n Waugh 1986<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | SDI-860<\/td>\n | 65<\/td>\n | —<\/td>\n | trace<\/td>\n | Chione<\/i>, | \nArgopecten<\/i>, \nDonax<\/i>, \nTivela<\/i>, \n2 others<\/td>\n True 1970<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | SDI-2537<\/td>\n | 92<\/td>\n | —<\/td>\n | trace<\/td>\n | —<\/td>\n | Wilke et al. 1986<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | SDI-4608<\/td>\n | 32<\/td>\n | trace<\/td>\n | —<\/td>\n | —<\/td>\n | Tuma 2004<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | SDI-4648, etc.<\/td>\n | 19<\/td>\n | trace<\/td>\n | trace<\/td>\n | Trachycardium<\/i>, | \n5 others<\/td>\n Cardenas and Van Wormer 1984<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | SDI-4763, etc.<\/td>\n | 18<\/td>\n | —<\/td>\n | trace<\/td>\n | Haliotis<\/i>, | \nChione<\/i><\/td>\n Rosen 1982<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | SDI-4807, etc.<\/td>\n | 21<\/td>\n | —<\/td>\n | moderate<\/td>\n | Donax<\/i>, | \nArgopecten<\/i>, \nChione<\/i>, \n12 others<\/td>\n Cook 1978<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | SDI-5383<\/td>\n | 13<\/td>\n | trace<\/td>\n | trace<\/td>\n | Chione<\/i>, | \nArgopecten<\/i>, \nPolinices<\/i><\/td>\n Laylander 1989<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | SDI-5669<\/td>\n | 22<\/td>\n | —<\/td>\n | moderate<\/td>\n | Chiton, | \nLaevicardium<\/i>, \nTivela<\/i>, \n19 others<\/td>\n Berryman 1981<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | SDI-5680<\/td>\n | 28<\/td>\n | trace<\/td>\n | trace<\/td>\n | 11 genera<\/td>\n | Dominici 1985<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | SDI-5935, etc.<\/td>\n | 18<\/td>\n | trace<\/td>\n | —<\/td>\n | —<\/td>\n | Kyle 1987<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | SDI-6153<\/td>\n | 32<\/td>\n | trace<\/td>\n | moderate<\/td>\n | Mytilus<\/i>, | \nChione<\/i>, \nArgopecten<\/i>, \nAstraea<\/i><\/td>\n Christenson 1981<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | SDI-9203, etc.<\/td>\n | 53<\/td>\n | trace<\/td>\n | trace<\/td>\n | —<\/td>\n | Phillips and Carrico 1986<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | SDI-9243, etc.<\/td>\n | 17<\/td>\n | trace<\/td>\n | trace<\/td>\n | Chione<\/i>, | \nArgopecten<\/i>, \n7 others<\/td>\n Corum and White 1986; Corum 1986<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | SDI-9446, etc.<\/td>\n | 49<\/td>\n | —<\/td>\n | trace<\/td>\n | —<\/td>\n | Laylander and Christenson 1986<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | SDI-9476<\/td>\n | 19<\/td>\n | trace<\/td>\n | moderate<\/td>\n | Mytilus<\/i>, | \n10 others<\/td>\n Hector 1984<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | SDI-10,998, etc.<\/td>\n | 11<\/td>\n | trace<\/td>\n | moderate<\/td>\n | Chione<\/i>, | \nTivela<\/i>, \nArgopecten<\/i>, \nMytilus<\/i>, \n14 others<\/td>\n Laylander 1992a<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | SDM-W-223A<\/td>\n | 20<\/td>\n | moderate<\/td>\n | moderate<\/td>\n | Chione<\/i>, | \nDonax<\/i>, \nArgopecten<\/i>, \n21 others<\/td>\n Quintero 1987<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | SDM-W-1556<\/td>\n | 14<\/td>\n | trace<\/td>\n | trace<\/td>\n | Chione<\/i>, | \nArgopecten<\/i>, \n5 others<\/td>\n O’Neil 1982<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | Kitchen Creek<\/td>\n | 58<\/td>\n | —<\/td>\n | trace<\/td>\n | Argopecten<\/i>, | \nChione<\/i>, \n2 others<\/td>\n May 1975<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" | Marine fauna constituted a distinctive and important set of resources for prehistoric San Diegans. Their archaeological residues are found primarily at processing and habitation sites located within 1-2 kilometers of the coast. However, smaller quantities of marine remains, particularly shell, occur at sites farther inland. Terry L. Jones (1992:2) suggested the use of 10 kilometers from the coast as the cutoff distance for distinguishing a “coastal foraging radius” from a zone of “terrestrial habitat away from the coast.” The interpretation of marine residues at inland sites may shed light on prehistoric mobility patterns, exchange systems, and the uses to which marine resources were put. Several scenarios may be suggested to explain the occurrence of marine faunal remains at inland sites: The shell or bone may represent a food resource that was brought to an inland base by foraging parties that had made extended trips to the coast. The marine faunal remains may represent food resources acquired by residents of inland communities through exchange with their coast-based procurers. The remains may represent food resources that were carried inland at the time of a seasonal shift from a coastal to an inland settlement base. This was the interpretation offered by Leslie Quintero (1987) for marine fish bone recovered from the Deer Springs Site (SDM-W-223A). Quintero reported seasonality studies indicating that the fish found at the site had been procured during the warm months, probably late summer or early fall, whereas the occupation of the site had occurred primarily from fall through spring. The marine shell may represent debris from the manufacture of shell beads, ornaments, or shell tools. Arguing against this interpretation are the observations that the shell species most commonly represented among the inland residues were not typically used for beads or ornaments, and that shell tools seem to be rare at either coastal or inland sites in this region. Shell may have been utilized as a material in crushed form, perhaps for its color or its chemical properties. Shell was apparently used in other regions to neutralize the tannic acid of unleached acorns. If the material was used for such purposes in inland San Diego County, it is important to note that usable shell might have been collected from geologic sources and that interpretations based on radiocarbon dating of the shell or based on the marine habitats associated with the shellfish might be fallacious. Shells may have served as charms, children’s toys, or other items valued for their novelty rather than for any utilitarian function. The interpretive cautions noted above concerning geological sources for such shell would apply in this case as well. PROSPECTS Future archaeological investigations may be able to clarify the ways in which inland communities made use of marine resources. Relevant aspects of the issue may include the chronology of such use, the specific invertebrate and vertebrate resources that were selected, their use for subsistence or other purposes, and the processing strategies that were employed. Site Distance from Coast (km) Abundance of Fish Bone Abundance of Shell Shellfish Genera References SDI-149, etc. 11 — trace Astraea, Mytilus, Chione, 4 others Carrico et al. 1991 SDI-186, etc. 18 trace trace Laevicardium, Chione, 7 others Byrd et al. 1993 SDI-674 19 trace trace Donax, Chione, 4 others Rosen 1984 SDI-731 37 — trace Argopecten, Tivela, 11 others Waugh 1986 SDI-860 65 — trace Chione, Argopecten, Donax, Tivela, 2 others True 1970 SDI-2537 92 — trace — Wilke et al. 1986 SDI-4608 32 trace — — Tuma 2004 SDI-4648, etc. 19 trace trace Trachycardium, 5 others Cardenas and Van Wormer 1984 SDI-4763, etc. 18 — trace Haliotis, Chione Rosen 1982 SDI-4807, etc. 21 — moderate Donax, Argopecten, Chione, 12 others Cook 1978 SDI-5383 13 trace trace Chione, Argopecten, Polinices Laylander 1989 SDI-5669 22 — moderate Chiton, Laevicardium, Tivela, 19 others Berryman 1981 SDI-5680 28 trace trace 11 genera Dominici 1985 SDI-5935, etc. 18 trace — — Kyle 1987 SDI-6153 32 trace moderate Mytilus, Chione, Argopecten, Astraea Christenson 1981 SDI-9203, etc. 53 trace trace — Phillips and Carrico 1986 SDI-9243, etc. 17 trace trace Chione, Argopecten, 7 others Corum and White 1986; Corum 1986 SDI-9446, etc. 49 — trace — Laylander and Christenson 1986 SDI-9476 19 trace moderate Mytilus, 10 others Hector 1984 SDI-10,998, etc. 11 trace moderate Chione, Tivela, Argopecten, Mytilus, 14 others Laylander 1992a SDM-W-223A 20 moderate moderate Chione, Donax, Argopecten, 21 others Quintero 1987 SDM-W-1556 14 trace trace Chione, Argopecten, 5 others O’Neil 1982 Kitchen Creek 58 — trace Argopecten, Chione, 2 others May 1975<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"nf_dc_page":"","footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-576","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"yoast_head":"\n |