paleocoastal lithic use on western santarosae … · 2015-10-26 · paleocoastal lithic use on...

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



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.


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


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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


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


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


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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: [email protected]


paleocoastal lithic use on western santarosae … · 2015-10-26 · paleocoastal lithic use on...

Documents