SU0013451 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BUCKEYE RANCH ( 4-1-92 ) 12 with the permission of the landowner the artifacts will be turned C104 over to the Central California Information Center of the L_California Archaeological Inventory. Based on observations made in the field by this reviewer the statement at the bottom of Page 4 . 9-4 and top of Page 4 . 9-6 is C105 simply not true . The consulting archaeologists have"NOT" adequately determined where the cultural resources are located. On Page 4 . 9-6 it indicates that no cultural deposits were located on the surface of the eastern shores of South Tracy Lakb yet evidence of a significant archaeological site was located along the south shore of Tracy Lake in the middle of Section 9 when the project was visited on January 24 . 1992 . and several possibly older midden remnants maybe located to the east of the dam. Page 4 . 9-5 contains many erroneous statements . There is no acceptable data to suggest that the Tracy Lakes had any significant prehistoric population until within the last 500 to 1 , 000 years . Even if the projectile point base and crescent do C106 represent a very limited PaleoIndian presence 7 , 500 to 11 , 500 years ago for several thousand years there is no evidence of use of the locality. Most professional archaeologists . while intrigued with the possibility of an early presence would not accept two isolated specimens from the surface as valid evidence of past use of the region . Even more disturbing , however. is the assertion that these sites are basically undisturbed . This is simply 'not true . Especially if .many of the suggested "house floors are in fact not cultural features . In a letter concerning this project written by this reviewer ( Johnson December 2 , 1991 ) it was indicated that the sites are important and that any midden deposits ( prehistorically derived C107 refuse remains ) were likely to contain burials . This is still true and Human bone was noted at the location of CA-SJO-43/-44 outside the project boundary, but since the consulting archaeologists have not identified , for the most part where most of the middens are located , it is not possible to determine where burials are most likely to be interred. Without this information it is difficult to determine what specific area should be completely avoided. FOn Page 4 . 9-9 the statement that "destruction of major portions of the area classified .as having high archaeological sensitivity as a result of landform alteration and construction" is unknown C108 at this time. Within the approximately 66 acres included within the area suggested to comprise the "TRACY LAKE SITE" the majority of the acreage does not include any excavatable archaeological deposits . In addition some of the remnants of some of the middens are so badly disturbed that little integrity remains. Therefore it is not appropriate to indicate that a major portion of the area classified as having high archaeological sensitivity will occur until it is known were the remaining archaeological important and excavatable deposits are located. Nor is it appropriate to indicate that the " loss of future research otential of the complex as an intact cultural focus" will occur. C109 `Much of the integrity of the sites have already been compromised and until the deposits are specifically located and evaluated it s unknown how important the remaining cultural resources may be. C110In addition the Brovelli woods present in 1840 when CA-SJO-43 was last occupied was undoubtedly quite different than that present Ea-92