paleocoastal lithic use on western santarosae … · 2015-10-26 · paleocoastal lithic use on...
Post on 16-Mar-2020
6 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
PALEOCOASTAL LITHIC USE ON WESTERN
SANTAROSAE ISLAND, CALIFORNIA*
NICHOLAS P. JEW
JON M. ERLANDSON
Department of Anthropology and
Museum of Natural and Cultural History
University of Oregon, Eugene
FRANCES J. WHITE
Department of Anthropology
University of Oregon, Eugene
ABSTRACT
California’s Northern Channel Islands have produced several Paleocoastalassemblages that include some of the most intricate and finely crafted lithictechnologies in the Americas. Current understanding of chert use and avail-ability on the islands comes primarily from research on Late Holocenesites from Santa Cruz Island, where chert sources played an important rolein providing microdrills for Late Holocene Olivella bead production. Newdata from Terminal Pleistocene and Early Holocene sites suggest thatPaleocoastal peoples relied heavily on other cherts from San Miguel andSanta Rosa islands. To examine the deeper history of lithic use on the islands,we analyzed eight Paleocoastal lithic assemblages from San Miguel andSanta Rosa, which were part of the larger island of Santarosae until about10,000 years ago. We discuss lithic availability and material preferencefor formal and expedient stone tool manufacture on the Northern ChannelIslands between ~12,000 and 7,500 years ago.
*Funding for this research was provided by the National Science Foundation (grants EAR 0746314to Erlandson, #BCS 0917677 to Erlandson and Rick, and #018512 to Erlandson and Jew), theNational Park Service, and the University of Oregon.
49
� 2013, Baywood Publishing Co., Inc.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/NA.34.1.b
http://baywood.com
NORTH AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGIST, Vol. 34(1) 49-69, 2013
California’s Northern Channel Islands (NCI) have produced some of theearliest evidence for seafaring and maritime adaptations in the New World(see Erlandson et al., 2011; Johnson et al., 2002). Recent evidence demonstratesthat Paleocoastal peoples manufactured a diverse array of formal and expedientchipped stone tools. The former include intricate and finely-crafted ChannelIsland Barbed points (CIB), serrated Channel Island Amol (CIA) points(Erlandson, 2013), and chipped stone crescents (Erlandson and Braje, 2008;see Figure 1). These formal tools were manufactured from a variety of chertsobtained from sources on San Miguel and Santa Rosa islands, and possibly theadjacent mainland (see Erlandson et al., 1997, 2008, 2012). On Santa Cruz Island,in contrast, four CIB points from an Early Holocene component (~8200-7800cal BP) at CA-SRI-109 probably were made from Santa Cruz Island cherts(see Glassow et al., 2008; Gusick, 2012).
50 / JEW, ERLANDSON AND WHITE
Figure 1. Paleocoastal chipped stone tools from CA-SRI-512, CA-SMI-679, and
CA-SMI-261. Top row: crescents (left to right SRI-512-513, SMI-679-67, and
SMI-679-214); middle row: CIBs (left to right SRI-512-28, 31, and 390) and
CIAs (SMI-679-376, 25b, and 28); bottom row: expedient tools (left to right:
SMI-261-7409, 7430, and 7735; and bifaces SMI-679-76 and SRI-512-297)
(photo by N. Jew).
Until recently, research on stone tool manufacture on the NCI had focusedprimarily on chert sources located on eastern Santa Cruz Island (SCRI; see Arnold,1987; Perry and Jazwa, 2010) that were heavily used during the Late Holocenefor microblade production. Microdrills fashioned from Santa Cruz Islandcherts were used to perforate Olivella shell beads which were an integral partof island craft specialization and extensive exchange systems (see Arnold, 1983;Preziosi, 2001). Study of this Late Holocene microblade industry has greatlyincreased our understanding of social complexity, resource control, and craftspecialization among the Chumash (see Arnold, 1987, 1990, 1992, 1995; Arnoldet al., 2001; Kennett, 2005; Perry, 2004, 2005; Perry and Jazwa, 2010; Pletka,2001; and others). While it is well established that some of the highest qualitycherts on the NCI come from eastern Santa Cruz Island (see Arnold, 1987;Perry and Jazwa, 2010) and the adjacent California mainland (see Erlandsonet al., 2008), there has been only limited discussion of earlier patterns of chertand other toolstone use on the NCI, including the Paleocoastal period. Erlandsonet al. (1997) analyzed a trans-Holocene sequence of chipped stone artifacts fromDaisy Cave (CA-SMI-261), for instance, noting a heavy reliance on Montereycherts and siliceous shales during the Early Holocene and Terminal Pleistocene.Paleocoastal components at Daisy Cave and recently identified Terminal Pleisto-cene sites on San Miguel and Santa Rosa islands (see Erlandson et al., 2011)predate the earliest known evidence for intensive quarrying of Santa Cruz Islandchert (see Gusick, 2012; Perry and Jazwa, 2010:180) by several millennia, pro-viding an opportunity to explore earlier patterns of lithic resource procurementand use by Paleocoastal peoples on the NCI.
To develop a better understanding of the use of chipped stone raw materialsby island Paleocoastal peoples, we examined the frequency and proportions ofraw material types from eight lithic assemblages dated between ~12,200 and 7,500years ago and distinguished formal artifact types from six assemblages. Throughour analyses, we provide a deeper history of lithic raw material procurement andavailability on the NCI, spanning a period during which there was a dramaticreduction in the size of the islands, a substantial increase in human populationdensity, and significant changes in settlement and subsistence. Some of theseearly changes undoubtedly contributed to the development of complex exchangenetworks and specialized craft production (see Arnold, 1983) that focused onintensive mining of Santa Cruz Island cherts, microdrill production, and shellbead making.
CHERT VARIABILITY ON THE NORTHERN
CHANNEL ISLANDS
Mineral and stone resources on the NCI include a variety of cherts, siliceousshales, metavolcanics, basalt, quartzites, sandstones, steatite, asphaltum, redochres, and others (Erlandson et al., 2008; Perry and Jazwa, 2010). For the past
PALEOCOASTAL LITHIC USE / 51
century, the distribution of lithic materials for the Santa Barbara Channel regionhas been of interest to geologists (Meyer, 1967; Muhs et al., 2008; Rand, 1930;Weaver, 1969; Weaver and Meyer, 1969) and archaeologists (Arnold, 1987;Curtis, 1964; Heizer and Kelley, 1962; King, 1971, 1981; Moore, 1989; O’Neil,1984; Orr, 1967; Perry, 2004, 2005; Rozaire, 1978; Rudolph, 1984). In the last15 years, however, four new and distinctive chert sources have been identifiedon the NCI (see Erlandson et al., 1997, 2008, 2012) and there is still no com-prehensive inventory of mineral resources available for the islands today, muchless the larger island of Santarosae in the past (Erlandson and Braje, 2008).
On the NCI, the availability of chert and other knappable stone was influencedby dynamic paleoenvironments. Between 18,000 and 10,000 years ago, whensea-levels fluctuated between ~100 and 40 meters below present (see Kennettet al., 2008; Muhs et al., 2012), the NCI coalesced into a single larger island knownas Santarosae (Figure 2) (Orr, 1968). At the end of the Terminal Pleistocene andthe onset of the Holocene, sea-level was roughly 40 meters below modern (Muhset al., 2012). As sea-level rose, the surface area of the islands shrank dramaticallyand chert outcrops were likely submerged (see Erlandson et al., 2008; Wattset al., 2011) decreasing the number of available toolstone sources on Santarosae.Archaeological evidence shows that the inhabitants of western Santarosae utilizeda variety of lithic raw materials for stone tool manufacture—most of which wereaccessible during the Terminal Pleistocene and Early Holocene (see Erlandsonet al., 1997, 2008, 2012).
Santa Cruz Island chert sources are found primarily on eastern Santa Cruz,what would have been eastern Santarosae in the Terminal Pleistocene. There havebeen at least 26 chert quarries identified on Santa Cruz Island (see Arnold,1987; Perry and Jazwa, 2010). SCRI cherts are generally translucent and pre-dominantly blonde to light brown in color and found in shades of white, grays, andbrowns (Arnold, 1987:97). Among the Paleocoastal assemblages we analyzed,CA-SRI-666 is the closest study site to known SCRI chert quarries, locatedapproximately 30 km to the west.
On San Miguel and Santa Rosa islands, chert sources of various grades andtypes have been found ranging from scattered pebbles located in alluvium orraised beach deposits to bedrock outcrops of substantial size. Tools manufacturedfrom Tuqan, Cico, and Wima cherts represent some of the most complex andintricate Paleocoastal technologies in the New World (see Erlandson et al., 2011;Jew and Erlandson, 2013), although most of the more elaborate chipped stonetools appear to have been made from Tuqan chert.
Cico cherts, found in bedrock outcrops and as cobbles in raised beaches oneastern San Miguel Island, typically consist of cloudy translucent chalcedonies(see Erlandson et al., 1997). Cico chert can macroscopically overlap with SantaCruz Island cherts, but given the abundance of Cico nodules near the San MiguelIsland sites we studied—and clear Cico clasts in the assemblages—we assumedthat the few ambiguous artifacts were made from Cico chert. On San Miguel and
52 / JEW, ERLANDSON AND WHITE
PALEOCOASTAL LITHIC USE / 53
Fig
ure
2.
Map
ofS
an
taro
sae
sh
ow
ing
ap
roxi
mate
pale
osh
ore
lines
at
~12,5
00
calB
Pan
d11,0
00
calB
Pan
dkn
ow
n
ch
ert
ou
tcro
ps
an
dra
ised
beach
dep
osits
on
NC
Iin
rela
tio
nto
sele
cte
dP
ale
oco
asta
lsites
(map
ad
ap
ted
fro
m
Erl
an
dso
net
al.,2011,b
ased
on
an
ori
gin
alb
yB
rian
Fu
lfro
st
an
dJack
Watt
s).
Santa Rosa islands, most Tuqan (Monterey) chert nodules have a distinctive whiteor gray weathering rind (see Erlandson et al., 2008:26) and occur in colors rangingfrom black, gray, brown, and buff. Typically, Tuqan chert is found as cobbles orpebbles located in modern or raised beach deposits and artifacts such as corticalflakes and cores can be distinguished from mainland Monterey cherts. Without avisible cortex, however, most artifacts made from Tuqan and mainland Montereycherts cannot be effectively differentiated. Due to the relative abundance of Tuqanchert in the area, similarities in physical characteristics between source materialsand artifacts found in Paleocoastal assemblages (see Erlandson et al., 2008), andthe identification of Terminal Pleistocene quarry workshops (CA-SMI-678, 679)on San Miguel Island—we assumed that most of the Monterey chert came fromlocal Tuqan sources rather than being imported from the mainland. Recently,Wima cherts have been identified on Santa Rosa Island (see Erlandson et al.,2012), consisting of opaque cherts and cherty shales found in shades of brown(reddish brown, yellowish brown, greenish brown), with some black and grayvariants. On San Miguel Island, white or buff siliceous shales derived from theMonterey formation are also found in beach deposits and as artifacts in somearchaeological sites.
Another common toolstone on the NCI is andesitic metavolcanic rocks foundin cobble form in modern and ancient beach deposits. These metavolcanicsare accessible throughout various parts of the NCI, and are commonly usedfor hammer stones, cores, and large expedient flake tools or choppers. Althoughmuch less common, smaller numbers of quartzite and fine-grained basalt cobblesalso are found in raised beaches and alluvial deposits on the islands and wereoccasionally used to make stone tools.
METHODS
Paleocoastal peoples on the NCI relied heavily on stone for manufacturing avariety of tools but few studies have examined the overall proportions of specificmaterial types and their relative distribution among discrete tool types. For thecurrent study, 8,183 lithic artifacts from eight Terminal Pleistocene and EarlyHolocene assemblages (Table 1) were classified based on material compositionfrom descriptions above. San Miguel Island sites include Terminal Pleisto-cene components from CA-SMI-678 and CA-SMI-679, and Early Holocenecomponents from CA-SMI-169, CA-SMI-522, and CA-SMI-261 (Daisy Cave).Paleocoastal assemblages from Santa Rosa include Terminal Pleistocene siteCA-SRI-512 and Early Holocene site CA-SRI-666. All these sites have been14C dated and have well established chronologies based on the analyses oforganic samples from intact midden deposits (see Erlandson et al., 1996, 2011;Rick et al., 2005). Each site has also been excavated to some extent, producingsizeable lithic assemblages for comparative analysis.
54 / JEW, ERLANDSON AND WHITE
Tab
le1
.A
ge,Lo
catio
n,an
dD
escri
ptio
no
fS
ele
cte
dP
ale
oco
asta
lS
ites
on
San
Mig
uel(S
MI)
an
dS
an
taR
osa
(SR
I)Is
lan
ds
Site
(CA
-)A
ge
(calB
P)
Lo
catio
nS
ite
descri
ptio
nR
efe
ren
ces
SM
I-6
78
SM
I-6
79
SR
I-5
12
SM
I-5
22
SM
I-6
08
SM
I-2
61
(Dais
yC
ave)
SR
I-6
66
SM
I-1
69
~1
2,2
00
-1
1,4
00
~1
2,0
00
-1
1,5
00
~1
1,7
00
~1
0,0
00
~9
,50
0
~1
1,6
00
-8
,50
0
~8
,20
0-
7,8
00
~7
,55
0
East
en
do
fS
MIn
ear
Card
well
Po
int
East
en
do
fS
MIn
ear
Card
well
Po
int
No
rth
west
co
ast
of
SR
Ieast
ofA
rlin
gto
nC
an
yo
n
No
rth
west
co
ast
of
SM
I
So
uth
-cen
tralco
ast
ofS
an
Mig
uel
No
rth
east
co
ast
of
San
Mig
uel
No
rth
east
en
do
fS
RI
so
uth
ofS
ku
nk
Po
int
Fis
hR
idg
eo
nn
ort
heast
SM
I,n
ear
Card
well
Po
int
Qu
arr
y/w
ork
sh
op
lith
icscatt
er
with
at
least
fou
rd
istin
ct
sh
ell
mid
den
cam
psite
loci.
Qu
arr
y/w
ork
sh
op
lith
icscatt
er
with
sh
ell
mid
den
cam
psite
locu
s.
Str
atified
,d
eep
lyb
uri
ed
mid
den
with
div
ers
eassem
bla
ge
offo
rmalan
dexp
ed
ien
tch
ipp
ed
sto
ne
too
lsan
dfa
un
alre
main
s.
Sm
all
bu
td
en
se
sh
ell
mid
den
with
div
ers
eart
ifacts
an
dfa
un
alre
main
s.
Larg
esh
ell
mid
den
do
min
ate
db
ysh
ellf
ish
,w
ith
avari
ety
ofart
ifacts
,fa
un
alre
main
s,an
da
hu
man
bu
rial.
Mu
ltic
om
po
nen
tcave
an
dro
ck
sh
elter.
Den
se
Earl
yH
olo
cen
esh
ell
mid
den
co
mp
on
en
tsco
nta
inco
rdag
e,b
asketr
y,fish
ing
tech
no
log
ies,
an
dch
ipp
ed
sto
ne
art
ifacts
.
Larg
em
ulti-lo
cish
ell
mid
den
do
min
ate
db
yro
cky
sh
ore
sh
ellf
ish
an
dch
ipp
ed
sto
ne
tech
no
log
ies.
Larg
em
ulti-lo
cish
ell
mid
den
an
dq
uarr
yw
ork
sh
op
site.
Erl
an
dso
net
al.,2
01
1
Erl
an
dso
n&
Bra
je,2
00
8;
Erl
an
dso
net
al.,2
01
1
Erl
an
dso
net
al.,2
01
1
Erl
an
dso
n&
Ric
k,2
00
2;
Ric
ket
al.,2
00
5
Bra
je,2
01
0E
rlan
dso
net
al.,2
00
5
Co
nn
olly
et
al.,1
99
5;
Erl
an
dso
n&
Jew
,2
00
9;
Erl
an
dso
net
al.,1
99
6;
Ric
ket
al.,2
00
1
Ric
ket
al.,2
00
5
Th
isart
icle
PALEOCOASTAL LITHIC USE / 55
To calculate the distribution of material types for each assemblage, we includedall formal and expedient tools, cores, and debitage from excavated units oradditional systematic surface collections. Because we are interested in thefrequency of materials for each assemblage and tool type, we quantified allmaterials to determine the relative proportions present at each site. Lithic materialswere classified into six categories including Tuqan chert, Wima chert (includingsimilar siliceous shales for San Miguel Island sites), Cico chert, metavolcanic,and miscellaneous other material types. Miscellaneous material types includerare basalt, quartzite, Franciscan chert, and other rocks.
For each component, the frequencies and percentages that raw material typescontributed to various formal and expedient tool categories were calculated.We separated lithic artifacts (excluding miscellaneous other) into seven sub-groups including Channel Island Barbed and Amol points, crescents, other biface/point types (see Figure 2), expedient tools, cores, and debitage. Bifaces are definedas artifacts systematically flaked on both sides that are not recognized as specificpoint types. Expedient tools include macrodrills, scrapers, and/or flakes thatexhibit retouching or edge damage resulting from possible tool use. Debitageconsisted of waste flakes, shatter, and other chipped stone debris. The frequenciesof these seven artifact subgroups were calculated into percentages by artifactand material types.
We used G Tests of Independence (Sokal and Rohlf, 1995) to test for simi-larities or differences in proportions of: 1) lithic material types among sites;2) raw materials used for each artifact type; and 3) tool types among sites.G Tests of Independence (a.k.a., the log-likelihood ratio test) test for dependenceor independence between two or more variables of nominal values (e.g., artifactand material types) and multiple groups or categories such as archaeologicalassemblages. A significant result means the relative proportions are dependentbetween variables and groups. A non-significant result suggests that two variablesbetween groups are independent. Unlike the Chi-squared test, the results of G testsare additive, so that overall significant results can be teased out to identify whichvalues are significantly contributing to any overall differences between groups.
We tested for similarities (non-significant subsets) between each groupeddata set, using frequencies of Tuqan chert, Wima chert/siliceous shale, Cicochert, and metavolcanic for lithic material comparisons. The other lithic materialtypes were not included as they were rare and included a variety of materialtypes that were not present in all assemblages. Comparison of formal artifactsincluded CIAs, CIBs, crescents, bifaces, and expedient tools. Tests were run inBiomSTAT (Rohlf and Slice, 1995) and all G values are reported with Williamscorrection with degrees of freedom (df) and p values expressed as < 0.05 (unlessotherwise specified). The results were used to identify patterns which mightindicate differences between sites, material preference for specific tools, orchanges in formal or expedient artifacts between Terminal Pleistocene andEarly Holocene assemblages.
56 / JEW, ERLANDSON AND WHITE
RESULTS
Overall Assemblage Comparisons
For overall percentages, ~65% of the artifacts analyzed were made fromTuqan chert, followed by Cico chert (14%), Wima chert or siliceous shale (12%),miscellaneous rock types (6%), and metavolcanic andesites (3%). Except forCA-SMI-522, Tuqan chert represents the highest proportion of lithic materialspresent regardless of geographic location or type of occupation (e.g. quarryworkshop, bone or shell midden). Looking at frequencies for individual com-ponents (Table 2), Tuqan chert is substantially higher than any other materialpresent in the assemblages and the second highest material present varies bysite between Cico and Wima cherts.
For Santa Rosa Island, CA-SRI-512, a stratified Terminal Pleistocene middencontained a large lithic assemblage (n = 3,382) where 2,565 artifacts (76%)were made from Tuqan chert, followed by Wima chert (17%). Tuqan chertalso dominated (61%) the assemblage from the Early Holocene shell middenCA-SRI-666, followed by Wima chert (30%). For San Miguel Island, the 10,000-year-old shell midden at CA-SMI-522 produced the smallest lithic assemblage(n = 86) and had the lowest percentage (40%) of Tuqan chert and a higherpercentage (44%) of metavolcanic andesite—most of which was small shatterand chipped stone cobble debris. The high proportion of metavolcanic rock atCA-SMI-522 is probably due to the fact that it is located near the far west endof San Miguel and Santarosae, 12 km or more from the nearest known sources ofTuqan, Cico, or Wima cherts. Terminal Pleistocene and Early Holocene quarry/workshop sites at Cardwell Bluffs near the east end of San Miguel Island con-tained high proportions of Tuqan chert (51-71%) and Cico chert (11-40%).High percentages of Cico chert at CA-SMI-678 (30%) and CA-SMI-169 (40%)were not surprising given the presence of abundant nearby Cico sources (seeErlandson et al., 1997). The dearth of Cico chert at Daisy Cave is more difficultto explain as it is located just a kilometer or so from sources of both Cico andTuqan chert, but it is consistent with an overall preference for the use of Tuqanchert by Paleocoastal peoples for the production of formal tools (see below).Tuqan chert for Terminal Pleistocene components averaged ~66% where EarlyHolocene assemblages contained ~60%, demonstrating that from ~12,000-7,500cal BP Tuqan chert remained the highest ranked material used for chippedstone tool manufacture on western Santarosae.
Overall, the results of the Test of Independence between all sites and cherttypes were significant (G = 2604, df = 21, p < 0.001). However, this data setcontained over 30 statistically non-significant subsets that show similarity amongsome sites and chert types. These subsets include: CA-SRI-512 and CA-SRI-666(G = 20.3), CA-SMI-679, and CA-SMI-169 (G = 19.2), and CA-SMI-261 andSRI-666 (G = 16.6). These data reveal similarities between the overall frequencies(proportions) of chert types present in certain assemblages.
PALEOCOASTAL LITHIC USE / 57
Tab
le2
.P
rop
ort
ion
so
fLith
icM
ate
rials
an
dP
erc
en
tag
es
by
Site
an
dM
ate
rialT
yp
efo
rS
an
Mig
uelan
dS
an
taR
osa
Isla
nd
s
Site
(CA
-)P
eri
od
Site
typ
e
T-M
ch
ert
Wim
a
ch
ert
-
s.sh
ale
aC
ico
ch
ert
MV
Oth
er
To
tal
SM
I-6
78
SM
I-6
79
SR
I-5
12
SM
I-5
22
SM
I-6
08
SM
I-2
61
SM
I-1
69
SR
I-6
66
To
tal
Term
inal
Ple
isto
cen
e
Term
inal
Ple
isto
cen
e
Term
inal
Ple
isto
cen
e
Earl
yH
olo
cen
e
Earl
yH
olo
cen
e
Earl
yH
olo
cen
e
Earl
yH
olo
cen
e
Earl
yH
olo
cen
e
Qu
arr
ysite/
lith
icscatt
er
Qu
arr
ysite/
lith
icscatt
er
Resid
en
tialb
ase?
Den
se
sh
ell
mid
den
Resid
en
tialb
ase?
Cave/r
ock
sh
elter
Qu
arr
y/w
ork
sh
op
/
sh
ell
mid
den
Resid
en
tialb
ase
34
8(5
3%
)
53
7(7
1%
)
25
65
(76
%)
34
(40
%)
16
8(8
8%
)
63
4(5
8%
)
97
5(5
1%
)
81
(61
%)
53
42
(65
%)
9(1
%)
18
(2%
)
57
8(1
7%
)
1(1
%)
—
32
2(3
0%
)
23
(1%
)
40
(30
%)
99
1(1
2%
)
19
4(3
0%
)
84
(11
%)
11
7(3
%)
7(8
%)
10
(5%
)
8(<
1%
)
75
1(4
0%
)
8(6
%)
11
79
(14
%)
33
(5%
)
31
(4%
)
28
(<1
%)
38
(44
%)
6(3
%)
61
(6%
)
6(<
1%
)
4(3
%)
20
7(3
%)
68
(10
%)
83
(11
%)
94
(3%
)
6(7
%)
8(4
%)
62
(6%
)
14
3(8
%)
—
46
4(6
%)
65
2
75
3
33
82
86
19
2
10
87
18
98
13
3
81
83
(10
0%
)
aM
ate
rial
typ
eis
pre
do
min
ate
lysili
ceo
us
sh
ale
for
San
Mig
uel
Isla
nd
assem
bla
ges
an
dW
ima
ch
ert
for
San
taR
osa
Isla
nd
.D
ue
tocert
ain
overl
ap
sin
mate
rialvari
ab
ility
,w
esele
cte
dto
rep
ort
these
tog
eth
er.
58 / JEW, ERLANDSON AND WHITE
Formal Artifacts
For the 581 formal and expedient artifacts (excluding debitage), Tuqan chertcomprised ~81% (n = 468) of the total, 13% Cico (n = 74), 3% Wima (n = 21),and 2% metavolcanic (n = 18) (Table 3). Tuqan chert is the primary materialused to manufacture CIBs (88%), CIAs (72%), and crescents (77%) duringthe Paleocoastal period. CIB points have also been reported in otherEarly Holocene assemblages on the NCI (e.g., CA-SCRI-109, CA-SMI-575,CA-SMI-608), where many of these formal artifacts also appear to have beenmade from local island cherts. Crude and roughly shaped bifaces, preforms, andexpedient tools are present in both Terminal Pleistocene and Early Holoceneassemblages and are also fashioned primarily from island cherts—of the305 bifaces examined, ~88% of them were made from Tuqan cherts. Expedienttools comprised just 10% of identified tools, ranging from utilized flakesto retouched scrapers and macrodrills, but if crudely-shaped bifaces areincluded, the total rises to 62%. Among cores and core tools (n = 41), 51% ofthe total (n = 21) are made from Tuqan chert, 20% from Wima chert andsiliceous shale (n = 8), and 15% from Cico chert (n = 6) and metavolcanic(n = 6). Not surprisingly, Tuqan is also the highest represented materialtype among the debitage, totaling 72% (n = 3731), with 18% Wima chertand siliceous shale (n = 947), 6% Cico chert (n = 344), and 3% metavolcanic(n = 177).
The G Test of Independence showed significant differences in the proportionsof chert types among the different artifact types (G = 77.1, df = 12, p < 0.001).There were, however, many similarities (non-significant subsets) between tooland material types for CIB and CIA points, crescents, and bifaces. The statisticalsignificance in the data was due to a different pattern of material type in expedientand formal tools. This difference suggests that there is a consistent preferencefor the type of chert (i.e., Tuqan) selected to create projectile points and bifacesand Paleocoastal people were less selective over materials used for expedienttool manufacture.
The final Test of Independence found that the proportion of tool typeswas significantly different between site types (G = 221.7, df = 20, < �2 =231.4, p < 0.001). Only two sites were similar in tool type frequencies,CA-SMI-678 and CA-SMI-679, both having produced high numbers ofbiface preforms, crescents, and CIA and CIB points. These two large sitesare found side-by-side at Cardwell Bluffs and appear to be part of a singlelarge quarry/workshop site complex containing multiple small shell midden locithat represent short-term campsites used by Paleocoastal peoples (Erlandsonet al., 2011). All other sites had significantly different ratios of tool typespresent, with the greatest variation in the proportion of expedient tools,which may be related to differences in site function, site preservation, orother factors.
PALEOCOASTAL LITHIC USE / 59
Tab
le3
.A
rtifacts
fro
mT
erm
inalP
leis
tocen
ean
dE
arl
yH
olo
cen
eC
om
po
nen
tsC
lassifie
db
yS
ite,A
rtifact,
an
d
Mate
rialT
yp
ean
dR
ep
ort
ed
inC
ou
nt
an
dA
pp
roxi
mate
Perc
en
tag
es
Art
ifact
typ
eM
ate
rial
SM
I-6
78
SM
I-6
79
SR
I-5
12
SM
I-2
61
SM
I-5
22
SR
I-6
66
To
tal
CIB
Po
int
CIB
su
bto
tal
CIA
Po
int
CIA
su
bto
tal
Cre
sce
nt
Cre
scen
tsu
bto
tal
Oth
er
Bif
ace
Oth
er
Biface
su
bto
tal
M-T
Wim
a/S
S
Cic
o
M-T
Wim
a/S
S
Cic
o
M-T
Wim
a/S
S
Cic
o
M-T
Wim
a/S
S
Cic
o
MV
8(1
1%
)
1(1
00
%)
4(4
5%
)
6(3
7%
)
6(1
00
%)
14
(26
%)
—
2(1
2.5
%)
86
(32
%)
15
(45
%)
—
15
(20
%)
— 3(3
3%
)
10
(63
%)
— —
20
(37
%)
— 2(1
2.5
%)
14
2(5
3%
)
—
15
(45
%)
—
51
(68
%)
—
2(2
2%
)
— — —
18
(34
%)
—
12
(75
%)
27
(10
%)
—
2(6
%)
—
1(1
%)
— — — — —
1(2
%)
— —
10
(4%
)
— — —
— — — — — — — — — — —
1(3
%)
1(1
00
%)
— — — — — — — — —
3(1
%)
3(1
00
%)
— —
75 1 9
85
16 0 6
22
53 0
16
69
26
8 3
33 1
30
5
60 / JEW, ERLANDSON AND WHITE
Exp
ed
ien
tto
ols
Exp
ed
ien
tto
olsu
bto
tal
Co
res/C
ore
too
ls
Co
resu
bto
tal
De
bit
ag
e
Deb
itag
esu
bto
tal
To
tal
M-T
Wim
a/S
S
Cic
o
MV
M-T
Wim
a/S
S
Cic
o
MV
M-T
Wim
a/S
S
Cic
o
MV
14
(40
%)
2(2
2%
)
— — 5(2
4%
)
—
3(5
0%
)
1(1
6%
)
21
5(6
%)
6(<
1%
)
16
4(4
8%
)
32
(18
%)
58
4
2(6
%)
— — —
1(5
%)
1(1
2.5
%)
1(1
6%
)
1(1
6%
)
34
7(9
%)
17
(2%
)
63
(18
%)
30
(17
%)
67
0
8(2
3%
)
1(1
1%
)
— —
4(1
9%
)
2(3
0%
)
1(1
6%
)
—
24
57
(66
%)
57
5(6
1%
)
10
0(2
9%
)
28
(16
%)
32
88
8(2
3%
)
3(3
3%
)
2(5
0%
)
5(4
5%
)
10
(47
%)
4(5
0%
)
1(1
6%
)
1(1
6%
)
60
4(1
6%
)
31
5(3
3%
)
5(1
%)
55
(31
%)
10
25
2(6
%)
—
2(5
0%
)
6(5
5%
)
1(5
%)
— —
3(5
0%
)
31
(<1
%)
1(<
1%
)
4(1
%)
28
(16
%)
80
1(2
%)
3(3
3%
)
— — —
1(1
2.5
%)
— —
77
(2%
)
33
(35
%)
8(2
%)
4(2
%)
13
3
35 9 4 11
59
21 8 6 6 41
37
31
94
7
34
4
17
7
51
99
57
80
PALEOCOASTAL LITHIC USE / 61
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Between ~12,000 and 7,500 years ago, early maritime peoples on westernSantarosae acquired Tuqan, Cico, and Wima cherts from multiple sources onwhat are now San Miguel and Santa Rosa islands, possibly from bedrock outcropslater submerged by rising seas or from raised beaches largely exhausted inantiquity (Erlandson et al., 2008). There is little evidence that Paleocoastalpeoples on western Santarosae took significant advantage of Santa Cruz Islandcherts once thought to be the only chert sources on the NCI (see Arnold, 1987).This is true even at CA-SRI-666, an ~8,000-year-old site on eastern Santa RosaIsland situated closest to the Santa Cruz Island sources. Overall, there is a strongpreference for high quality Tuqan chert in the analyzed Paleocoastal assemblages.A similar raw material type, mainland Monterey chert, is also found along theadjacent mainland coast where it was heavily used by Millingstone peoples duringthe Early Holocene (Erlandson, 1994). In the island Paleocoastal assemblages weanalyzed, however, the artifacts containing intact cortex show that Tuqan chert(not mainland Monterey chert) was the primary material used. On eastern SanMiguel, the preference for Tuqan chert is apparent at CA-SMI-169, CA-SMI-261,CA-SMI-678, and CA-SMI-679, all located near outcrops and raised beachdeposits that still contain knappable Tuqan and Cico cherts, but where Cico chertis much more abundant today. Otherwise, the proportions of material typespresent in each assemblage appear to be related to the proximity of local chertsources. CA-SMI-522, for instance, the only site with a majority of metavolcanicsand the lowest proportion of Tuqan chert, is located near the west end of SanMiguel, more than 12 km from the nearest known chert source.
For Santa Rosa Island, recent surveys by Erlandson and Rick have foundlesser quantities of Tuqan chert cobbles on modern beaches and raised terracedeposits, especially near the west end of the island. These include small andplaty pebbles with thin sheets of pure Tuqan chert between layers of siliceousshale. These plates, both worked and unworked, have been found at many ofthe Paleocoastal sites recently discovered on Santa Rosa Island (see Ricket al., 2013), including CA-SRI-512 where they appear to have been splitand fashioned into small, thin CIB points. Although dominated by Tuqanchert, lithic assemblages from CA-SRI-666 and CA-SRI-512 both containrelatively large percentages of Wima chert, sources of which have only beenfound on Santa Rosa Island. Wima chert artifacts are relatively rare in San MiguelIsland sites, however, probably because higher quality Tuqan and Cico chertswere available.
If the frequencies of material present at these Paleocoastal sites reflect thegeneral accessibility of local materials on western Santarosae, it seems likely thatthis paleo-landscape had extensive Tuqan, Cico, and Wima chert sources, with avail-ability of such lithic resources varying through space and time. The general corre-lations between the abundance of various chert types in Paleocoastal assemblages
62 / JEW, ERLANDSON AND WHITE
and the known distribution of cherts in primary or secondary geological contextssuggests that most submerged sources were likely located in the same generalareas they are known from today, but there may have been more extensive sourcesof Tuqan chert around the margins of Santa Rosa Island than are apparent today.
Our results indicate that the proportion of formal artifacts varied between sites,differences that relate primarily to site function. CA-SMI-678 and CA-SMI-679had similar distribution of artifact types, for instance, which is best explainedby their relative proximity to chert sources and to one another, as well as theirapparent function primarily as quarry/workshop sites (Erlandson et al., 2011).The 7,500-year-old component at CA-SMI-169, in contrast, is located near thesame chert sources but after numerous surveys has produced no diagnostic Paleo-coastal artifacts. With 40% of its assemblage consisting of Cico chert, this is theyoungest assemblage we analyzed and may be transitional in nature, supportinga trend identified at Daisy Cave toward a greater emphasis on Cico chert use inthe Middle Holocene (Erlandson et al., 1997).
Overall, there is a reduction in the manufacture of crescents and CIA andCIB points from the Terminal Pleistocene to the Early Holocene, with a shift tomore expedient stone tools. This is a trajectory that continues into the MiddleHolocene with an intensification of shellfish harvesting and an expansion of boneand shell technologies (see Erlandson et al., 2008; Reeder et al., 2008; Rick et al.,2005). Changes in both resources and stone tool technologies from the TerminalPleistocene through the Holocene may have been influenced by sea-level risewhich restructured ecosystems, submerged lithic sources, and changed the near-shore ecology around the Channel Islands. As the islands shrank, human popula-tion densities probably grew, even as kelp forest, terrestrial, and estuarine habitatswere shrinking. One result was a subsistence shift toward a heavier reliance onshellfish, which require little in the way of formal technologies and less emphasison hunting (see Erlandson et al., 2009; Reeder et al., 2008). If Paleocoastalprojectile points were used primarily for hunting marine mammals and waterfowl(see Erlandson et al., 2011; Rick et al., 2005), the intensification of shellfishharvesting and a decrease in hunting may help explain an apparent decline in theintensity of Tuqan chert use, as well as a shift toward other lithic materials (e.g.,Cico and Wima cherts, metavolcanics) and more expedient chipped stone tools.
A trans-Holocene review and more thorough analyses of NCI lithic assem-blages is necessary to reconstruct and explain broader temporal changes in lithictechnologies and material preference. Nonetheless, our preliminary findings forPaleocoastal lithic resource use on western Santarosae provide a very differentview from that gained through the study of specialized Late Holocene micro-blade production sites on Santa Cruz Island. From Paleocoastal times to the LateHolocene, did the center of gravity for lithic production on the NCI shift from westto east? Answering that question will require comparative data from Paleocoastalsites on Santa Cruz Island, as well as greater knowledge of Middle Holocenelithic resource use. There is little evidence for extensive trade networks, resource
PALEOCOASTAL LITHIC USE / 63
control, or craft specialization during the Terminal Pleistocene and EarlyHolocene on the NCI. In contrast, it is well documented that a specialized bladeletproduction industry associated with intensive shell bead production developedduring the Late Holocene, an industry that focused on the abundant, high quality,and suitably blocky cherts found on eastern Santa Cruz Island (see Arnold,1983, 1987, 1990; Arnold et al., 2001; Kennett, 2005). Questions that remain to beresolved include how lithic resource use on the NCI was transformed from thePaleocoastal to Late Holocene patterns and why other NCI cherts do not appearto have been used in the specialized Island Chumash bladelet industry.
Less than a decade ago, we knew relatively little about Terminal Pleistoceneoccupations of the NCI (see Erlandson and Braje, 2008; Rick et al., 2005). Sincethat time it has become apparent that cherts were much more abundant and variedon the NCI than previously thought, that the islands were much less marginalthan once believed, and that Paleocoastal patterns of lithic resource use were verydifferent than those of the Middle and Late Holocene. Our research demonstratesthe importance of a variety of chert sources on western Santarosae. Only recentlyhave we begun to recognize the tremendous diversity of resource availability, use,and associated technologies on the NCI. While there is no doubt that Santa CruzIsland chert sources were some of the most intensively exploited on the NCI, theavailable evidence demonstrates that Paleocoastal peoples relied heavily on chertsources located on western Santarosae that were not even known to exist untilrelatively recently. The difference between restricted access over large SCRIquarries used to mine materials for microblade production in the Late Holoceneand widely accessible chert sources used for specific tools in the TerminalPleistocene presents a number of questions related to long-term technologicaland cultural changes on the NCI.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank Torben Rick, Todd Braje, Melissa Reid, Erik Erlandson, TracyGarcia, Jack Watts, Keith Hamm, Jena Rizzi, and Casey Billings for help incollecting and cataloging artifacts from various sites over the years. We alsothank North American Archaeology editor Anthony Boldurian, Amy Gusick, andan anonymous reviewer for comments and assistance in the review, revision,and publication of this article.
REFERENCES CITED
ARNOLD, JEANNE E.1983 Chumash Economic Specialization: An Analysis of the Quarries and Bladelet
Production Villages of the Channel Islands, California, Ph.D. dissertation,University of California, Santa Barbara.
64 / JEW, ERLANDSON AND WHITE
1987 Technology and Economy: Microblade Core Production from the ChannelIslands, in The Organization of Core Technology, J. Johnson and C. Morro(eds.), Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado, pp. 207-237.
1990 Lithic Resource Control and Economic Change in the Santa BarbaraChannel Region, Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology, 12(2),pp. 158-172.
1992 Early Stage Biface Production Industries in Coastal Southern California, inStone Tool Procurement, Production, and Distribution in California Pre-
history (Vol. 2), J. E. Arnold (ed.), Perspectives in California Archaeology,University of California, Los Angeles, pp. 66-129.
1995 Social Inequality, Marginalization, and Economic Process, in Foundations
of Social Inequality, T. D. Price and G. M. Feinman (eds.), Plenum Press,New York, pp. 87-103.
ARNOLD, J. E., A. M. PREZIOSI, and P. SHATTUCK2001 Flaked Stone Craft Production and Exchange in Island Chumash Territory,
in The Origins of a Pacific Coast Chiefdom: The Chumash of the Channel
Islands, J. E. Arnold (ed.), University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City,pp. 113-131.
BRAJE, TODD2010 Modern Oceans, Ancient Sites: Archaeology and Marine Conservation
on San Miguel Island, California, University of Utah Press, Salt LakeCity.
CONNOLLY, THOMAS J., JON M. ERLANDSON, and SUSAN NORRIS1995 Early Holocene Basketry and Cordage from Daisy Cave, San Miguel Island,
California, American Antiquity, 60, pp. 309-318.CURTIS, F.
1964 Microdrills in the Manufacture of Shell Beads in Southern California,Masterkey, 38, pp. 98-105.
ERLANDSON, JON M.1994 Early Hunter-Gatherers of the California Coast, Plenum Press, New York.2013 Channel Islands Amol Points: A Stemmed Paleocoastal Point Type form
Santarosae Island, Alta California, California Archaeology, 5(1), pp. 105-122.ERLANDSON, JON and TODD BRAJE
2008 Five Crescents from Cardwell: Context and Chronology of Chipped StoneCrescents at CA-SMI-679, San Miguel Island, California, Pacific Coast
Archaeological Society Quarterly, 40(1), pp. 35-45.ERLANDSON, JON, TODD BRAJE, and TORBEN RICK
2008 Tuqan Chert: A “Mainland” Monterey Chert Source on San Miguel Island,California, Pacific Archaeological Society Quarterly, 40(1), pp. 23-34.
ERLANDSON, JON, TODD BRAJE, TORBEN RICK, and TROY DAVIS2009 Comparing Faunal Remains and Subsistence Technology at CA-SMI-507: A
9,000-Year-Old Paleocoastal Shell Midden on San Miguel Island, California,Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology, 4, 195-206.
ERLANDSON, JON, TODD BRAJE, TORBEN RICK, and JENNA. C. PETERSON2005 Beads, Bifaces, and Boats: An Early Maritime Adaptation on the South
Coast of San Miguel Island, California, American Anthropologist, 107,
pp. 677-683.
PALEOCOASTAL LITHIC USE / 65
ERLANDSON, JON M. and NICHOLAS P. JEW2009 An Early Maritime Biface Technology at Daisy Cave, San Miguel Island,
California: Reflections on Sample Size, Function, and Other Issues. North
American Archaeologist, 31(2), pp. 145-165.ERLANDSON, JON, DOUGLAS KENNETT, RICHARD BEHL, and IAN HOUGH
1997 The Cico Chert Source on San Miguel Island, California, Journal of Cali-
fornia and Great Basin Anthropology, 19(1), pp. 124-130.ERLANDSON, JON, DOUGLAS KENNETT, B. LYNN INGRAM, DANIEL GUTHRIE,DON MORRIS, MARK A. TVESKOV, G. JAMES WEST, and P. WALKER
1996 An Archaeological and Paleontological Chronology for Daisy Cave(CA-SMI-261), San Miguel Island, California, Radiocarbon, 38(2),pp. 355-373.
ERLANDSON, J. and T. RICK2002 A 9700 Year Old Shell Midden on San Miguel Island, Antiquity, 292,
pp. 315-316.ERLANDSON, J., T. RICK, T. BRAJE, M. CASPERSON, T. GARCIA, D. GUTHRIE,N. JEW, M. MOSS, L. REEDER, J. WATTS, L. WILLIS, and B. FULLFROST
2011 Paleoindian Seafaring, Shell Middens, and Maritime Technologies onCalifornia’s Northern Channel Islands, Science, 331(6021), pp. 1181-1185.
ERLANDSON, JON, TORBEN RICK, and NICHOLAS JEW2012 Wima Chert: ~12,000 Years of Lithic Resource Use on California’s Northern
Channel Islands, Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology, 32,
pp. 76-85.GLASSOW, M., J. PERRY, and P. PAIGE
2008 The Punta Arena Site: Early and Middle Holocene Development on Santa
Cruz Island, Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History Contributions inArchaeology.
GUSICK, AMY2012 Behavioral Adaptations and Mobility of Early Holocene Hunter-Gatherers,
Santa Cruz Island, California, Ph.D. dissertation, University of California,Santa Barbara.
HEIZER, R. F. and H. KELLEY1962 Burins and Bladelets in the Cessac Collection from Santa Cruz Island,
California, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 106,
pp. 94-105.JEW, NICHOLAS and JON ERLANDSON
2013 Paleocoastal Lithic Heat Treatment Practices on Alta California’s NorthernChannel Islands, California Archaeology, 5(1), pp. 77-102.
JOHNSON, JOHN R., THOMAS W. STAFFORD JR., HENRY O. AJIE, and DONP. MORRIS
2002 Arlington Springs Revisited, in Proceedings of the 5th California Islands
Symposium, D.R. Browne, K. L. Mitchell, and H. W. Chaney (eds.),Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, Santa Barbara, California,pp. 541-545.
KENNETT, DOUGLAS J.2005 The Island Chumash: Behavioral Ecology of a Maritime Society, University
of California Press, Berkeley.
66 / JEW, ERLANDSON AND WHITE
KENNETT, DOUGLAS J., JAMES KENNETT, G. WEST, J. M. ERLANDSON,J. JOHNSON, I. HENDY, A. WEST, B. CULLETON, T. JONES, and T. STAFFORD
2008 Wildfire and Abrupt Ecosystem Disruption on California’s NorthernChannel Islands at the Allerod-Younger Dryas Boundary (13.0-12.9 ka),Quaternary Science Review, 27, pp. 2530-2545.
KING, CHESTER1971 Chumash Inter-Village Economic Exchange, Indian Historian, 4(1), pp. 30-43.1981 The Evolution of Chumash Society: A Comparative Study of Artifacts Used
in Social System Maintenance in the Santa Barbara Channel Region before
A.D. 1804, Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Davis.MEYER, G. L.
1967 Pliocene-Quaternary Geology of Eastern Santa Cruz Island, MA thesis,University of California, Santa Barbara.
MOORE, JERRY1989 Lithic Procurement and Prehistoric Exchange on the Santa Barbara Coast:
The Role of Franciscan Chert, North American Archaeologist, 10(2), pp. 79-93.MUHS, DANIEL R., JAMES R. BUDAHN, DONALD L. JOHNSON, MARITH REHEIS,JOSH BEANN, GARY SKIPP, ERIC FISHER, and JULIA JONES
2008 Geochemical Evidence for Airborne Dust Additions to Soils in ChannelIslands, Geological Society of America Bulletin, 120, pp. 106-126.
MUHS, DANIEL R., KATHLLEEN R. SIMMONS, RANDALL R. SCHUMANN,LINDSEY T. GROVES, JERRY MITROVICA, and DEANNA LAUREL
2012 Sea-Level History during the Last Interglacial Complex on San NicolasIsland, California: Implications for Glacial Isostatic AdjustmentProcesses, Paleozoogeography and Tectonics, Quaternary Science
Reviews, 37, pp. 1-25.O’NEIL, D.
1984 Late Prehistoric Microblade Manufacture in San Diego County, California,Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology, 6, pp. 217-224.
ORR, PHIL1967 Geochronology of Santa Rosa Island, California, in Proceedings of the
Symposium on the Biology of the California Islands, R. N. Phillbrick (ed.),Santa Barbara Botanic Garden, Santa Barbara, California, pp. 317-325.
1968 Prehistory of Santa Rosa Island, Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History,Santa Barbara, California.
PERRY, JENNIFER E.2004 Quarries and Microblades: Trends in Prehistoric Land and Resource Use
on Santa Cruz Island, in Foundations of Chumash Complexity, JeanneArnold (ed.), Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California,Los Angeles, pp. 113-132.
2005 Early Period Resource use on Eastern Santa Cruz Island, in Proceedings of
the Sixth California Islands Symposium, D. Garcelon and C. Schwemm(eds.), National Park Service Technical Publication CHIS-05-01, Institute forWildlife Studies, Arcata, California, pp. 43-53.
PERRY, JENNIFER and CHRIS JAZWA2010 Spatial and Temporal Variability in Chert Exploitation on Santa Cruz
Island, California, American Antiquity, 75(1), pp. 177-198.
PALEOCOASTAL LITHIC USE / 67
PLETKA, SCOTT2001 Bifaces and the Institutionalization of Exchange Relationships in the
Chumash Sphere, in The Origins of a Pacific Coast Chiefdom: The Chumash
of the Channel Islands, J. E. Arnold (ed.), University of Utah Press, SaltLake City, pp. 133-150.
PREZIOSI, AIMEE2001 Standardization and Specialization: The Island Chumash Microdrill Industry,
in The Origins of a Pacific Coast Chiefdom: The Chumash of the Channel
Islands, J. E. Arnold, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, Utah,pp. 151-163.
RAND, W. W.1930 The Geology of Santa Cruz Island, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Cali-
fornia, Berkeley.REEDER, LESLIE, TORBEN RICK, and JON ERLANDSON
2008 Forty Years Later: What Have we Learned about the Earliest Human Occupa-tions on Santa Rosa Island California? North American Archaeologist, 29(1),pp. 37-64.
RICK C. TORBEN, JON M. ERLANDSON, NICHOLAS P. JEW, and LESLIE A.REEDER-MYERS
2013 Archaeological Survey and the Search for Paleocoastal Peoples of SantaRosa Island, California, USA, Journal of Field Archaeology (in press).
RICK C. TORBEN, JON M. ERLANDSON, and RENÉ L. VELLANOWETH2001 Paleocoastal Marine Fishing on the Pacific Coast of the Americas: Perspec-
tives from Daisy Cave, California, American Antiquity, 66, pp. 595-614.RICK C. TORBEN, JON M. ERLANDSON, RENÉ L. VELLANOWETH, andTODD J. BRAJE
2005 From Pleistocene Mariners to Complex Hunter-Gatherers: The Archaeologyof the California Channel Islands. World Prehistory, 19, pp. 169-228.
ROHLF F. and D. SLICE1995 BIOMstat for Windows, Statistical Software for Biologists, Version 3.3,
Exeter Software, Setauket, New York.ROZAIRE, CHARLES
1978 A Report on the Archeological Investigations of Three California Channel
Islands: Santa Barbara, Anacapa and San Miguel, Archives E 78 U5c C45no. 14 NPS.
RUDOLPH, T.1984 Analysis of Chipped Stone Artifacts, in Archaeological Investigations
at CA-SBA-1203, Results of Mitigation, J. D. Moore (ed.), University ofCalifornia, Santa Barbara, pp. 185-222.
SOKAL, R. R. and F. J. ROHLF1995 Biometry (3rd Edition), Freeman and Co., New York.
WATTS, JACK, BRIAN FULFROST, and JON ERLANDSON2011 Searching for Santarosae: Surveying Submerged Landscapes for Evidence
of Paleocoastal Habitation off California’s Northern Channel Islands, inArchaeology of Maritime Landscapes, When the Land Meets the Sea, BenFord (ed.), Springer, New York, Vol. 2, pp. 11-26.
68 / JEW, ERLANDSON AND WHITE
WEAVER, D. W.1969 Geology of the Northern Channel Islands Southern California Borderland:
Introduction, in Geology of the Northern Channel Islands, D. W. Weaver(ed.), Special Publication of the American Association of PetroleumGeologists and Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists,pp. 1-8.
WEAVER, D. W., and G. L. MEYER1969 Stratigraphy of North Eastern Santa Cruz Island, in Geology of the Northern
Channel Islands, D. W. Weaver (ed.), American Association of PetroleumGeologists, Special Publication, pp. 95-104.
Note: The preceding article was subjected to formal peer review prior to beingaccepted for publication.
Direct reprint requests to:
Nicholas P. JewDept. of AnthropologyUniversity of OregonEugene, OR 97403-1218e-mail: njew@uoregon.edu
PALEOCOASTAL LITHIC USE / 69
top related