Significance of Ahmanson Ranch Archaeological Sites

1Significance of Ahmanson Ranch Archaeological Sites

Draft:Significance ofAhmanson Ranch

Archaeological Sitesby Chester King

Prepared for City of Calabasas

April 28, 2002

Introduction

Fourteen archaeological sites have been recorded in the areaof the Ahmanson Ranch project. The purpose of this reportis to describe the significance of sites occupied during theEarly period. This report integrates information concerningEarly period sites. It includes information obtained since thearchaeological studies at Ahmanson Ranch sites were pre-pared for the EIR. This report includes an analysis of theinformation presented in the W&S Consultants report used toassess the significance of the sites on Laskey Mesa.

Background information concerning the Ahmanson Rancharea is presented in Native American Indian Cultural Sites inthe Santa Monica Mountains prepared by Chester King forthe SMMNRA February 2000.

My first field experience was excavating at the Tank site(LAN-1) with the Anthropology club from Santa MonicaCity College in the Spring of 1960. My experiences at theTank Site were followed by excavation at the BatiquitosLagoon sites in the Summer of 1960. In the early 1960s, Iexcavated at other Early sites including LAN-215 at themouth of Topanga Canyon, LAN-267 in Malibu and LAN-225 at Century Ranch. I prepared reports on the last threementioned sites (King 1962, 1967, King, Blackburn andChandonet 1968). During the 1960s, I recorded many Earlyperiod sites in the Santa Monica Mountains including the twolargest sites on Laskey Mesa, LAN-221 and LAN-222.

In my dissertation, I synthesized information concerning theEarly period and presented information concerning beadsand ornaments found at Early period sites. I also presentedinformation concerning the organization of Early periodcemeteries (King 1990).

In 1997, a chapter coauthored with Lynn Gamble was pub-lished in a volume published by the UCLA Institute ofArchaeology "Archaeology of the California Coast Duringthe Middle Holocene" (Gamble and King 1997). In thechapter we discussed characteristics of Santa Monica Moun-tain Early period sites along the coast, in areas that are inlandbut on the south slope of the mountains and sites in interiorvalleys and plateaus. We concluded that the larger sites in allareas are the remains of permanent settlements. We ad-dressed the W&S Consultants interpretation of AhmansonRanch archaeological sites. No response to our refutation ofthe interpretations of the Laskey Mesa sites has been pub-lished or other wise made to my knowledge.

I wrote a section on the southern California Early period forthe North American volume of the Encyclopedia of Prehis-tory. The North American volume was published in 2001 byKluer Academic/ Plenum Press (King 2001).

In 2000, I completed a report for the Santa Monica MountainsNational Recreation Area concerning cultural resources inthe Simi Hills. In the report, I presented an analysis of sitesin the vicinity of Simi Hills including the Ahmanson Ranchsites (King and Parsons 2000). My analysis led to therealization that most of the Early period settlements havebeen destroyed by development. My research for the recentarticles concerning the Early period and my surveys andstudies for the Santa Monica Mountains National RecreationArea since 1993 have resulted in new information thatpertains to the evaluation of the Ahmanson Ranch sites.

Topanga Anthropological ConsultantsP.O. Box 826

Topanga, California 90290(310) 455-2981

2 Significance of Ahmanson Ranch Archaeological Sites

LAN-1 area where I excavated with the Santa Monica College Anthropology Club in 1960. Here I excavated arock line with a high concentration of manos, hammers, choppers and scraper planes between 18 and 24inches below the surface on top of bedrock.


In 1900, William Holmes of the Smithsonian Institutiondescribed an Early period site in Pasadena:

Mr. Rust's collection also contains an in-teresting series of objects from an ancientvillage site in the suburbs of Pasadena, andhe permits me to here introduce two plates,in which are seen a large number of theobjects collected - Plates 43 and 44. In thiscollection there are no globular mortars orcylindrical pestles, but numerous mealingplates showing extensive use and manyoblong and discoid mullers. Several anularand stelar shaped stones are unique. Thewhole group seems to indicate a peoplerelated in many ways with tribes of theSierra. The village site from which thespecimens illustrated were collected is situ-ated on the bluff overlooking South Pasa-dena and on the line of Buena Vista street.When the grading of this street was under-way, Mr. Rust watched the work daily,saving more than a hundred implementsand utensils. He was able even to locatesome of the lodge sites by the larger num-ber and greater variety of specimens foundwithin limited areas. Besides the stoneimplements shown in the plates, one boneawl and a fire stick were recovered. Fewflaked implements are found in the Pasa-dena region, and there is no pottery, and

burial places and human remains havebeen sought for in vain [1900:182].

In 1929, David Rogers of the Santa Barbara Museum ofNatural History published a summary of four years of re-search at Santa Barbara County coastal sites. He recognizedthree different time periods. The earliest was the Oak Grovepeople. Rogers distinguished sites of this time period on thebasis of the presence of many manos and metates, frequentabsence of shell and midden color in site soils and burialsunder cairns of metates. His next time period was the Huntingpeople. More recent excavations in Santa Barbara area sitesindicates that some of the sites placed in this period are Earlyperiod sites and others are Middle period. Rogers was thefirst to publish a description of the sequence of occupationsrepresented at Santa Barbara mainland coastal sites.

In 1930, Ronald Olson published a summary of the Univer-sity of California's 1927 and 1928 expeditions to SantaBarbara area sites he recognized different periods based onrelative frequencies of manos and metates to mortars andpestles and other changes in relative artifact frequencies. Heordered the Early period sites as Archaic, Early Mainland andEarly Island periods. I have studied Olson's collections andmany of the sites he excavated in including VEN-62 andSBA-1 at Rincon have been the subject of more recentexcavations and I have analyzed collections from the morerecent excavations. I discuss the Rincon sequence in a follow-ing section on Early period site distribution.

Rust collection from site on BuenaVista Street inPasadena (Holmes 1900:Pl 43).

Rust collection from site on BuenaVista Street inPasadena (Holmes 1900:Pl 44).

Chapter 1: History of Study of EarlyPeriod Sites in the Los Angeles,Ventura and Eastern Santa BarbaraArea


Shaped biface sandstone mano from LAN-218, theCorbin Tank site.

Shaped sandstone basin metate from LAN-267, theSweetwater Mesa site. Manos and metates arefrequently found in early Early period sites. Theywere apparently not used after the early Middleperiod until the Spanish conquest.

The Rogers and Olson chronological sequences were estab-lished through observations of stratigraphic superimpositionobservations of soil development and the assumptions thatearlier tools were less refined and fewer beads and ornamentswere used during earlier periods. The later assumptions

sometimes resulted in placing sites in the wrong chronologi-cal order based on whether or not cemetery areas with wealthitems were excavated.

In 1936 Edwin Walker directed excavations at the PorterRanch Metate Site in San Fernando. Here, he excavated anEarly period mortuary site that David Rogers visited andconfirmed that it was an "Oak Grove" site (Walker 1952:15-26).

Burials and features in large excavated area at LAN-1 from Treganza and Bierman (1958)


The LAN-1 (Tank site) and LAN-2 sites were the subject ofa UC Berkeley and UC Los Angeles archaeological expedi-tion in 1947 and 1948. The sites like other sites in TopangaCanyon are close to outcrops of fractured columnar basaltthat has good flaking properties. The presence of a source ofgood local raw material results in a higher frequency of flakedstone artifacts than are present in surrounding areas. TheTopanga sites are at the opposite end of a continuum ofchipped stone tools compared to the Pasadena site describedby Holmes. There are no good material sources in the mostlygranitic San Gabriel Mountains. The presence of many basaltartifacts enables identification of archaeological sites inTopanga that might not be observed elsewhere. The reportsof the excavations were the first reports of university spon-sored archaeological research in the Los Angeles area andwere frequently referenced in discussions of early occupationin Southern California (Treganza and Malamud 1950 andTreganza and Bierman 1958). Artifacts and burials reportedfrom LAN-1 indicate the site was occupied during most of theEarly period and the beginning of the Middle period.

In 1955, Stuart Peck reported on excavations conducted at theZuma Creek site (LAN-176). Excavations had been con-ducted at the site by the Archaeological Survey association ofSouthern California between August 1942 and March 1948.A UCLA Archaeological field class assisted in March 1948.Artifacts and burials recovered from LAN-176 indicate thesite was occupied during much of the Early period and theearly Middle period (Peck 1955). Additional excavationswere conducted by a UCLA field class in 1952 and by R.Ascher in 1957 (Ascher 1959).

In the spring of 1952, a USC archaeological field classdirected by William Wallace excavated at site VEN-1 at themouth of Little Sycamore Canyon. A report of the excava-tions was published by Archaeological Research Associatesin 1956 (Wallace et al. 1956).

Artifacts, burials and radiocarbon dates from VEN-1 indicatethe site was occupied during much of the Early period and theearly Middle period. The presence of many manos andmetates at the site led to Wallace's definition of the MillingstoneHorizon. The Little Sycamore Shellmound site was the onlysite of its time period that Wallace had studied when hedefined a tentative southern California chronological se-quence (Wallace 1955).

In 1955, Charles Rozaire and Mildred Whistler investigateda millingstone cairn site at Saticoy with over 200 whole orbroken pieces and a few stone balls. The site was severalhundred yards from a similar cairn discovered in the early1930s with over 35 metates (Anonymous 1958:6).

In 1957, UCLA students under the direction of Keith Johnsonexcavated at LAN-2 adjacent to LAN-1 in Topanga. Radio-carbon dates from yucca roasting ovens indicate the site wasused into the early Middle period. Artifacts from the site

indicate occupation during the later Early period (Johnson1966). It is possible that the site was part of a settlement thatincluded LAN-1.

The Glen Annie site was excavated at in 1960 by a team fromUCSB before its destruction by highway construction. Theproject was directed by Roger Owen. A mortuary area wasexcavated in and four samples of aggregate shell were radio-carbon dated. Three of the samples were from the cemeteryarea. Shell beads recovered from the mortuary area includeddrilled Olivella rectangular beads, clam disc beads, Olivellaspire ground beads and Dentalium beads. A black serpentinedisc bead was also recovered. The beads were recoveredusing wet screening. The dates from the mortuary areaindicate the burials were buried approximately 7000 yearsago (Owen, Curtis and Miller 1964). Other early mainlandmortuary areas have not been as carefully excavated andbeads have rarely been recovered. The beads clearly indicatethat the Early Millingstone period is part of the Early period.I defined the period as Early period Phase x (King 1990).Owen and Curtis had different interpretations as to whetheror not the site was occupied throughout the year or seasonally(Owen 1964, Curtis 1965). Curtis argued that there was noevidence for seasonal occupation or logical reason to move toother locations except when seasonally gathering distantfood crops. I agree with Curtis. I have observed that thedistribution of large Early period sites is similar to thedistribution of historic settlements and cemeteries are oftenpresent at the sites. The simplest explanation given availabledata is that Early period sites with more than severalgroundstone artifacts are the remains of settlements that wereoccupied throughout the year. The debate concerning thepermanence of occupation at Early period sites continues;further research at Early period sites can resolve the issue.

In the years 1956-1959, William Harrison conducted re-search to document and refine David Rogers' sequence. Heexcavated at the Areophysics Site (SBa-53), Corona del MarSite (SBa-54), El Capitan Site (SBa-127), Dos Pueblos (SBa-78), Arozena Site (SBa-141) and Eakin's Site (SBa-119).Harrison attempted to document Roger's three different timeperiods by excavating in key sites. All of the sites excavatedat contained artifacts used during the Early period. TheHunting and Oak Grove components recognized by Harrisonwere occupied during the Early period. Harrison obtainedradiocarbon dates from various contexts. He believed hefound evidence for a migration of Hunting people who thenlived alongside earlier Oak Grove people for several thou-sand years (Harrison 1964, Harrison and Harrison 1966).Harrison's interpretations have not been supported by otherresearch.

In the early 1960s, I excavated at Early period sites includingLAN-215 at the mouth of Topanga Canyon, LAN-267 inMalibu and LAN-225 at Century Ranch. I prepared reportson these sites (King 1962, 1967, King, Blackburn andChandonet 1968). During the 1960s, I participated in exca-


vations at other Early period sites. I also recorded many Earlyperiod sites in the Santa Monica Mountains including the twolargest sites on Laskey Mesa, LAN-221 and LAN-222. TheSweetwater Mesa report presented a summary of my knowl-edge of the Early period as it was in 1967. Archaeologicalresearch I and others have conducted since 1967 has changedmany interpretations.

In the Century Ranch report, I observed that there appearedto be a hiatus between occupation at LAN-225 and occupa-tion at adjacent sites LAN-229 and LAN-227. The hiatus wasduring the later Early period. In the light of what I havelearned concerning site distribution since preparation of theCentury Ranch report, I now believe that there was occupa-tion during the later phases of the Early period. Parts of thisoccupation were probably excavated in at LAN-227 andareas at LAN-225 that were not excavated probably alsocontained occupation from the later Early period.

logical Survey assisted Roberta Greenwood with excava-tions in 1961 and 1962. In 1969 Roberta Greenwood pub-lished the results of the extensive excavations at this Earlyand early Middle period site. The excavations included alarge exposure of a mortuary area with metate cairns (Green-wood 1969).

William Wallace wrote a chapter for the Handbook of NorthAmerican Indians, California Volume on Post-PleistoceneArchaeology, 9000 to 2000 B.C.. Wallace used the terminol-ogy developed in his 1955 tentative sequence article. Heobserved that information concerning the Early period waspatchy (Wallace 1978:35-36).

In June 1968, excavations were conducted at VEN-100 in LaJolla Valley by a California Department of Parks and Recre-ation crew directed by Eric Ritter. The excavations wereconducted to evaluate the site because of planned develop-

During excavations at VEN-70,Nelson Leonard found dark shellmidden that contained Late pe-riod beads that also containedmanos and metates. This site ledus to believe that manos andmetates were used at some inlandsites during the Late period(Leonard 1966). In the light ofthe apparent absence of manosand metates at most Late periodand later Middle period sites, it iseasier to explain the VEN-70 siteas a case where an early site wasreoccupied during the Late pe-riod. Bioturbation of the Lateperiod midden resulted in mixingLate period midden and artifactsinto the Early period site.

In 1967, the UCLA Archaeologi-cal Survey conducted test exca-vations at sites that were to bedestroyed by construction of afreeway along the coast. One ofthese sites (LAN-352) was lo-cated at San Nicolas Canyon.James West wrote a report de-scribing the site (West 1967). Thesite was occupied during the Earlyperiod and early Middle period.

Robert Browne bought a house atsite VEN-150 in 1957 because ofhis interest in the site at the loca-tion. Hence the name "Brownesite." Browne began excavationsin 1958. The UCLA Archaeo- Burials and features in mortuary area at VEN-150 from Greenwood (1969)


ment. James West produced a report of the excavations in1978. The site contained Early period components. TheVEN-100 Early period site area differs from the typical Earlyperiod site because it is in an area of soil deposition. Colluvialsoil has washed down the slope above the site has resulted inburial of site deposits before rodents had time to form stonelines and destroy soil features such as house floors.

In 1973, the friends of Mammoth decision resulted in appli-cation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)to projects on private property. CEQA required analysis ofarchaeological sites in areas of housing developments andother projects. Developers began to recruit archaeologists toconduct archaeological studies. Prior to the application ofCEQA to private projects most archaeological research in theSanta Monica Mountains had been conducted by volunteersand university field classes. During the last 28 years, mostarchaeological projects have been sponsored by developers.Developers have seldom chosen archaeologists for theirability to recognize the significance of archaeological sites.They have not chosen archaeologists that advocate preserva-tion.

At the same time as developers began to choose archaeolo-gists, a new group of archaeologists with little experiencestudying archaeological sites in the area were at the UCLAArchaeological Survey. The Chief Archaeologist was Wil-liam Clewlow. The survey had become subsumed as part ofan Institute of Archaeology that concentrates on study ofEuropean and South American archaeology.

The first large project that a team under Dr. Clewlow workedon was a data recovery mitigation program for the Oak ParkDevelopment in the upper Medea Creek and Lindero Canyonarea. The Clewlow team included Brian Dillon and AlanPastron who had been fellow graduate students at UC Berke-ley and David Whitley a UCLA student..

The entire Oak Park development area was surveyed in 1975.This survey was directed by William Clewlow. The culturalresource section of the Oak Park Environmental ImpactReport prepared by Greenwood and Associates in 1977 noteddeficiencies in the study by Ancient Enterprises:

Before a complete program for the mitiga-tion of unavoidable adverse impacts canbe proposed, certain inadequacies of theinformation must be overcome. The meth-odology employed in the 1975 Archaeo-logical survey has not been adequatelydescribed. Although it was stated that “theentire land surface should be thoroughlysearched” (Clewlow 1975b: 3-4) this ap-parently was not done. If only 36 man dayswere invested in a parcel of 2,665 acres, acontrolled transect survey may not havebeen performed, according to prevailing

professional averages of land coverage.Apparently only drainage, ridges, outcrops,and flat lands were inspected, and the basisfor selection of the sample is not defined orjustified. There is no description of thevegetation cover or other factors affectingvisibility, and no summary or map of theactual areas investigated. ..... There hasbeen no contact with the Native Americancommunity, despite the known presenceof burials at Ven-294 and the high prob-ability for cemeteries in association withother sites [Olson Laboratories 1977: IV-261].

Archaeological sites, including an Early period site, werelater found in areas that had been surveyed by the Clewlowteam in 1975. Discovery of unidentified sites in the surveyedarea confirmed the inadequacy of the survey (King et al1991).

The Clewlow team conducted excavations in selected sites inthe Oak Park Development between 1976 and 1978. Theyproduced three volumes of reports through the UCLA Insti-tute of Archaeology (Clewlow, Wells and Pastron 1978a,b,Clewlow and Whitley 1979). Excavations were apparentlyconcentrated in areas where soil color and texture appearedmidden like. Except for VEN-294, all of the Early periodsites they excavated in were recorded in 1962 by ChesterKing and Michael Glassow (VEN-39-45), and in 1966 byChester King, Nelson Leonard and Clay Singer (VEN-122-125).

Brian Dillon described excavations at Early period site VEN-123 and surface collections from VEN-44 and VEN-124. Itwas believed that all the artifacts at the last two sites were onthe surface and no excavation was conducted at them. Theywere interpreted as "surface scatters atop two small knolls"(Dillon 1978: 71). Dillon concluded VEN-123 was a residen-tial site:

Oak Park development area near VEN-44 beforedevelopment.


The small size of the buried component atVen-123 tends to support an interpretationof the site as a specialized focus of limitedindustrial activity rather than as a village,and this might have been in operationcontemporaneously with the late occupa-tion of Ven-294 across the stream to theeast. The probable house floor in level 7 atthe eastern end of the site, however, im-plies some form of permanent occupation,at least by a small family group, and therange of artifact types denoting differentusage and activities is not what one wouldexpect of a "single industry" site[1978:124].

A Late period site (VEN-294) adjacent to VEN-123 alsocontained Early period occupations . A radiocarbon date ofover eight thousand years before present was obtained froman abalone shell found at the site (Rosen 1978). VEN-123was excavated in and not VEN-124 and VEN-44. The siteapparently contained site deposits that were less altered thanthe other Early period sites and the site was believed to havedepth.

Apparently the Clewlow team did not expect artifacts belowthe surface at archaeological sites whose soils had substan-tially changed since the sites were abandoned. It appearsthey assumed that artifacts floated on the surface of soils formillennia. They apparently assumed that soils do not changebecause they appear solid. They also assumed that allartifacts were either originally placed on the ground surfaceor that an undescribed force caused them to migrate to thesurface. It is remarkable that they believed that artifacts havestayed floating on the surface even in plowed fields. TheClewlow team did not build on previous knowledge of siteformation..

Actually artifacts were left in housepits, storage pits, burialpits and on ground surfaces. Soil development includes themovement of different sized particles to the surface through

bioturbation. Earthworms bring only very small sized par-ticles to the surface. Gophers seldom bring rocks as large asone's fist to the surface. A discussion of rock lines andvertical size sorting of artifacts in soils is provided in thefollowing chapter. Research concerning soils has demon-strated that soils are dynamic and anything but stable.

David Whitley conducted studies at site VEN-40. In 1978,the site was surface collected and a series of power augerholes were excavated at 10 m intervals along N-S and E-Waxes from a datum. The datum and the axes were possibly notnear artifacts found in 1962 or 1978. Soil from the augerholes was dry screened with 8 mesh hardware cloth. Noartifacts were seen in the soil from the auger holes. There isno information in the report concerning the depths of theauger holes, the diameters of the holes or the numbers ofauger holes excavated. The report contains no map indicatingthe locations of surface artifacts, the topography of the site orthe locations of the auger holes (Whitley, Schnider andDrews 1979:78). The report contains no description ofartifacts collected in 1962 and currated at UCLA. Whitley etal. concluded:

The recovered artifacts from Ven-40 indi-cate that the site represents a limited activ-ity area. Artifacts collected in 1962 indi-cate that the predominant function at thissite involved the use of groundstone. Thepreparation of plant foods is, consequently,indicated. In this respect and in terms ofthe location of the site (specifically, on alow knoll situated within a large openspace), it can be seen as analogous to Ven-44 and Ven-124 in the South Complex,thus representing a winnowing station.

No temporally diagnostic artifacts wererecovered from the site. It has been sug-gested earlier, however, that these win-nowing stations may be manifestations ofLate period functional localization. WhileVen-40 very possibly was used through-out the occupation of the North Complex,

Oak Park development area view from above VEN-39 south towards VEN-44 before development.

Upper Lindero Canyon area between VEN-40 andVEN-43 before development.


it may correspond to the late occupation atVen-122 [Whitley, Schnider and Drews1979:78].

The artifacts recovered from the site included manos,hammerstones, other large cobble tools, cherty-siltstone coresand a chalcedony flake. None of these artifacts were used forwinnowing seeds or making winnowing baskets. They areartifacts most frequently associated with houses at residentialsites. The Whitley analysis of this site and other Early periodsites, conclude that the sites are specialized plant processingsites. Of the members of the Clewlow team, it appears thatBrian Dillon and David Whitley arrived at different conclu-sions from similar artifact collections. Whitley used the sameartifacts as indicators of "winnowing areas" that Dillon andother researchers have recognized as indicators of residentialsites. Whitley made no explanation of how the artifacts foundat VEN-40 indicate exclusive winnowing activity.

Whitley uses procedures that reduce chances of discoveringartifact concentrations or features. He normally stops exca-vation when he has excavated two 10 cm levels in secessionwithout finding anything in a quick go over of dry screenresidues that largely consist of clay soil lumps. (Unitsexcavated only 20 cm (8 inches) below the surface arediscontinued before reaching rock lines that center at 45 cm(18 inches) below the surface in many soils.) He placesexcavations away from areas where most artifacts werefound on the surface. He makes no attempt to interview meor other "old timers" who recorded sites. He makes noattempt to study the collections made when the sites wererecorded. The 1962 surface collection from VEN-40 wascatalogued and available for study at the UCLA Anthropol-ogy Museum.

After conducting excavations at the Oak Park development,the Ancient Enterprises team conducted studies of sites on theNorth Ranch development immediately west of the Oak Parkdevelopment (Whitley, Drews, Schneider and Clewlow 1980).At site VEN-43 in Lindero Canyon, they excavated threecollection units spread out near the edges of the site (thereport text and map differ in location of units). They mechani-cally bored 43 auger holes to between 6-60 cm below surface.Soil from all excavations was dry screened in the field with8 mesh hardware cloth. The report contains no log of augerdepths and/or map indicating depths of particular augerborings. The report contains no map of surface artifactlocations, although it is stated one was made. It is not possibleto see how units were placed in relation to the surface artifactdistribution. In 1962 we concentrated on collecting largeartifacts from the brow of the knolltop near the datumindicated for the auger borings. No excavations were appar-ently conducted within the 20 meter diameter area (60 footdiameter) where most artifacts were found in 1962. In 1962,the apparent men's area below the knoll top was not observed. Concerning VEN-43 they concluded:

The artifact collection recovered from Ven-43 can be interpreted as the remnants of theunsystematic surface collecting of the sitein 1962. This activity yielded a largegroundstone assemblage, according to thesurvey record, but no analysis and publica-tion of the collected data have been per-formed by the original investigators as of1979. The limited number of artifactscollected in this investigation, the absenceof any subsurface midden deposit, and theapparent original predominance ofgroundstone on the knoll surface indicatethat it functioned as the location of a rela-tively limited type of activity, which ap-pears to have been the processing of plantmaterials. Thus the area known as VEN-43 can be interpreted as a winnowing sta-tion, and is analogous functionally (and interms of its geographical situation on ahilltop and in an open valley) with the sitesVen-44 and Ven-124 in the south complex[Whitley, Drews, Schneider and Clewlow1980:53].

Map of VEN-43 from Whitley, Drews, Schneiderand Clewlow (1980). Indicates locations of augerholes, test pits and land elevation contours but notsurface artifacts. The 1962 collection came from thearea near the datum. No excavations were placed inthe area where surface artifacts were concentrated.


In 1962, it was common procedure at UCLA to collectartifacts from the surface of sites while they were beingrecorded; unfortunately it was not a practice to record thelocations of the artifacts. By the later 1960s it had becomepractice to only make surface collections when the locationsof collected artifacts was recorded on maps. This was theresult of reports of studies of surface distributions that wereused to predict subsurface distributions in sites that had beenplowed for centuries in other areas of the world. Althoughthey say they mapped surface artifacts at VEN-40 and VEN-43, they did not include the data in their reports.

VEN-45 was apparently an Early period site it was reportedon by Clewlow, McCann, Padon, Villanueva and Wells(1980)

Other sites investigated on the North Ranch that appear to beEarly period sites on the basis of the North Ranch reports areVEN-181, VEN-607 and VEN-608.

In 1980 Whitley, Drews, Schneider and Clewlow wroteinterpretations concerning VEN-607:

The artifact assemblage and limited sub-surface cultural deposit on Ven-607 indi-cate a situation similar to that found onVen-606. The proximity of Ven-606 toVen-607, in fact suggests that they bothare the result of the same prehistoric be-havioral patterns. Thus, the presence ofground stone, processing tools (e.g., scrap-ers), waste flakes, and projectile points canbe cited as evidence that a restricted amountof plant processing, tool production andhunting related activities were occurringat this locale. The minimal subsurfacecultural deposit suggests that its use as ahabitation zone was very sporadic in thatno substantial amount of organic refuseever developed on the site.

The projectile points recovered at Ven-607 are both concave-based and, thus, chro-nologically analogous to the specimen re-covered from Ven-606. If the use of Ven-607 is contemporaneous with the recov-ered projectile points, it can be infered thatthis occurred post A.D. 1300. Because ofthe functional and temporal similarity ofVen-607 and Ven-606, and their spatialproximity, Ven-607 can be interpreted as asporadically used activity area which wasancillary to Ven-606 [1980:89, 94].

In their draft North Ranch final report Whitley, Schneider,Villanueva, Drews and Clewlow concluded concerning VEN-607:

Ven-607 was thought to be a Late Prehis-toric occupation site, as a result of thepreliminary study, based on the presenceof two concave based projectile pointsfound during that excavation (Whitley etal. n.d.). It can be noted, in hindsight, thatone of these two ....is a size that could beconsidered within the range of theHumboldt Basal Notched point type, thussuggesting considerable more antiquity forthe artifact. The presence of a fused shalecrescent clearly supports the notion thatthe site dates from the Early MillingstonePeriod, and may be more than 7,000 yearsold. Ven-607, then, can be infered torepresent a small Early Millingstone com-ponent within the complex with some lateperiod use of the site.

The presence of an Early Millingstonedeposit within the site complex, howeverconfirms the notion that site complexeswitnessed very lengthy occupations. Atthe North Ranch site complex the presenceof the fused shale crescent indicates thethat the aboriginal use of this locale beganabout 7,000 years ago. The continuity ofprehistoric inhabitation is, then, stronglyemphasized [n.d.:59]

It appears that the discovery of a crescent was able to changean ancillary Late period site into and Early period settlement.Whitley and his associates do not use consistent criteria andcan alternately describe a site as an Early Millingstone periodsettlement or a specialized processing site or a seed winnow-ing site. They provide no criteria that enable an independentobserver to differentiate their site types.

VEN-65 Running Springs Ranch was excavated in by NelsonLeonard in 1970, and Clewlow and Pastron in 1975. Asurface collection was conducted in 1978. The site wasreported on by Prichett and McIntyre (1979)

In 1978, Ancient Enterprises, Inc. contracted with RingBrothers to conduct archaeological studies at a developmentsite in Thousand Oaks. The development site included threearchaeological sites, VEN-535, 536 and 537. VEN-535 wasoccupied during the Late period. VEN-536 was occupiedmostly during the Early period and VEN-537 was apparentlyoccupied during the Early part of Phase y when large sidenotched points were used. All of the sites were occupiedduring the Early period. Whitley and Clewlow wrote theconcluding chapter. They viewed the three sites as differentactivity loci of a single community that was occupied for along period of time. They concluded:


The Ring Brothers site complex [the sitesare named after the contractors who de-stroyed them], to summarize, can be inter-preted as an example of the basic settle-ment type for the Conejo Corridor. Thisindicates that it was inhabited by a rathersmall group of people for a lengthy amountof time. The occupation began during theEarly Millingstone period and extendedinto the 19th century. It is possible that thesite complex is the historic village of Sapwithat was visited by Portola during the 18thcentury. The artifact collection suggeststhat , in addition to the complex serving asa habitation locus, it contained a special-ized manufacturing workshop. This work-shop has been found to contain a substan-tial amount of siliceous siltstone blades.The quantity of siliceous siltstone debitagein this workshop suggests that these bladeswere made to be exported out of the sitecomplex [Clewlow, Whitley and McCann1979:125]

The Ring Brothers sites were among the first Early periodsites where Whitley observed artifacts below the groundsurface. Excavations at VEN-271 had also demonstrated thatEarly knoll top sites had depth and could be excavated torecover artifacts and features. If David Whitley had notdiscovered that Early period sites had depth, it is probablethat he would have not excavated at any of the Laskey Mesasites. Neither Whitley or Clewlow remark concerning thechange in their perceptions regarding excavation in Earlyperiod sites.

VEN-271 was excavated at in 1974 by Nelson Leonard andin the summer of 1978 by the UCLA Institute of Archaeol-ogy. A report of the excavations at this large Early period sitewas prepared by Mark Johnson (1980).

In 1979 and 1980 Robert Pence reported on three sites on theWood Ranch that appear to have been occupied during theEarly period. The sites were: VEN-622 Locus 2 knoll topsite, VEN-627 in saddle and a secondary locus of VEN-628.

In 1981, Jeannie Villanueva reported on a site in Calabasas(LAN-712) that contained both Late and Early period occu-pation deposits (1981).

In 1980, tests were conducted at the Escondido Canyon site,CA-LAn-189 (Wessel 1981, NARC 1980, Singer 1980).Different site areas were recognized at the site. Informationconcerning the site is presented in Chapter 4. The site wasdestroyed without data salvage.

The Chief Archaeologist position at the UCLA Archaeologi-cal Survey was held by members of the Ancient Enterprise

team during the late 70's and early 80's. Clewlow wasfollowed by Brian Dillon and David Whitley. In the mid 80'sthe UCLA Archaeological Survey was discontinued in partbecause public funds and facilities had been used to supportprivate businesses. It was also closed because no advocatesof a California archaeology program remained at UCLA.Since CEQA, universities have shied away from Californiaarchaeology because they neither want to subsidize archae-ologists who perform services for developers or fight forpreservation of archaeological sites against developers. Cali-fornia archaeology became a political liability during the1970s.

The last report concerning Santa Monica Mountains areaarchaeology published by Clewlow, Whitley and/or Simonwas in 1980. Since 1981, none of their reports concerningsites in the area have been published. Whitley's interpreta-tions of Early period sites as Middle period specialized campsis not referenced in reports by other archaeologists, except ina paper by Gamble and King that points out the absurdity ofthe interpretation of the Ahmanson Ranch sites (1997).

David Whitley and Joe Simon were part of the AncientEnterprises team during the 1970's. By 1985, David Whitleyand Joe Simon had formed W&S Consultants and werecontracting to conduct studies in the Lake Sherwood area. InMay 1985 while monitoring removal of silt at the west endof Lake Sherwood, Simon recorded two cairns containingmetates, and one cairn containing manos. A partly exposedburial was observed under one of the metate cairns. It appearsthat the cairns are part of an Early period cemetery located ina low area as was the Porter Ranch mortuary excavated byWalker.

Letter of support by David Whitley, UCLA ChiefArchaeologist for David Van Horn


never numbering over a few dozen inhab-itants. What seems to become clear witheach passing year; however, is that thenumber and density of these early sitesmay be greater than were earlier thought[Dillon and Boxt 1989:9].

Fieldwork for the W&S study of Ahmanson Ranch sites wasapparently conducted in 1988. The W&S report contains acatalogue and a simple artifact typology with no illustrations.The report contains maps that indicate the locations of selectartifact types. The W&S report contains no analysis of thedata they present. In the appended study by Michael Merrilldata presented in the report is subjected to a preliminaryanalysis.

In the W&S report it is concluded:

Although much has been written about‘Early Horizon’ or ‘Early MillingstonePeriod’ sites in the region [“Conejo Corri-dor”], it is now recognized that the distinc-tions upon which these chronological as-signments were made have little or norelationship to temporal placement. Todate we have no reliable evidence of anyoccupation or use of the region during theEarly Horizon. Such may have occurred,but it is yet undiscovered. Instead, it isapparent that the first significant occupa-tion of the region, marked by the establish-ment of site complexes [clusters of ar-chaeological sites], occurred during theIntermediate Period, which is to say some-time around 500 BC. These same sitecomplexes were occupied into the HistoricPeriod and remained the basic settlementunit for the region throughout its prehis-toric occupation [Whitley, Simon, Gotharand Whitley 1989: 100-101].

Gamble and King observed:

Whitley and Simon (1989) do not give anexplanation of why the interior of the SantaMonica Mountains was not used duringthe "Early Horizon." Their observationsmay be based on a relative dearth of radio-carbon dates from early interior SantaMonica Mountain sites [1997:71-72].

In our comparison of coastal and interior Early period settle-ments we found no substantial differences between coast andinterior Early period sites.

Although most archaeologists are willing and eager to de-mean Early period sites, Whitley, Simon, Gothar and Whitley

In 1981, the first map of the distribution of surface artifactsat an Early period site in the Santa Monica Mountains areawas presented in the Corbin Tank boundary assessmentreport (Dillon 1981)

In 1987, two sites, VEN-852 and VEN-853 were tested todetermine significance. The studies indicate the sites areEarly period residential sites (Greenwood, Romani and Fos-ter 1987)

In 1988, Robert Wlodarski reported on studies at LAN-1352an Early period site in Agoura (1988).

In the late 1980's Brian Dillon conducted studies for adeveloper who panned development at several sites inTopanga. Dillon was hired because I and other Topangaarchaeologists had objected to the planned destruction of thesites. He conducted a study at LAN-1248 "the MontevideoSite' (Dillon 1986). He conducted an additional study east ofTopanga Canyon Boulevard at the Santa Maria site (LAN-162) (Dillon and Hyland 1987). Dillon's experiences resultedin an increase in his appreciation of the Early period.

Dillon and Boxt present a discussion of Early period sites ina report of archaeology at Three Springs near WestlakeVillage produced the same year as the W&S Consultants'Ahmanson Ranch report.

Because of their age, Early Millingstonesites are frequently buried and lack easilyvisible surface features or artifacts... OtherEarly Millingstone characteristics includehardpan or "adobe" soil, very unlike thefamiliar middens of the late villages withtheir silty texture and black color; knolltopor ridgetop site locations; and frequently agenerally small proportion of artifacts rela-tive to the amount of earth excavated. ...

We know very little about the form thatEarly Millingstone horizon settlementstook. Most sites are so small that they canhardly be considered villages; even theTank site with its thousands of finishedartifacts contained so few burials that atbest it might be determined a "hamlet."While rock features are comparativelycommon at Early Millingstone sites, thesehave been variously interpreted and notvery frequently as architectural in nature.Evidence for actual dwellings is scanty butdoes exist (Dillon 1978); these were prob-ably shallow pit houses with walls androofs of branches and grass. Most archae-ologists would agree that Millingstonecommunities in most cases represent campsoccupied by extended families, probably


Grading at LAN-267A, The Sweetwater Mesa site.View to NE from near center of site.

Grading at LAN-267A, The Sweetwater Mesa site.Grading was to replace the Valentine Davieshouse with a Malibu style mansion. View to NW

Artifacts collected from graded areas.

have decided to speak as though they are the authorized to say"it is now recognized" as though there is a consensus concern-ing their far out speculations that Early sites do not occur.Their scheme is not even referenced by their colleagues andis counter to Dillon's observations.

In 1988 Clay Singer conducted test excavations at LAN-267B. He discovered intact deposits of an Early periodsettlement (Singer 1989).

In 1988 and 1989, studies were conducted at Early period siteLAN-453 (Raab 1989 and Foster 1989b).

In 1989, Brian Dillon conducted a Phase 1 study at EscondidoCanyon site CA-LAn-1107 and John M. Foster conducted aPhase 2 study. I commented on the Foster study (King 1990).Information concerning the organization of the site is pre-sented in Chapter 4.

Studies were conducted at the Malibu Hotel site LAN-266(Bissell 1984, 1990) a controled surface collection was madetest excavations were conducted and a map was prepared.The map indicated the locations of more artifacts than previ-ous maps of surface artifacts.

In 1990, I directed an evaluation study at Oak Park Zone 3.The sites appeared to be camp sites. One site appeared to bean Early period site although it lacked groundstone artifacts.The site, VEN-1019, included a downslope area with manyflakes (King et al. 1991).

In 1990 John Tunney, owned a large part of LAN-267A, theSweetwater Mesa site. He graded away a large area of the siteto build a new house. Clay Singer and others includingmyself collected artifacts during grading of LAN-267A(Singer, Atwood and Gomes 1993).

In 1980 Paul Chase conducted auger tests at an Early periodsite in Steep Hill Canyon (LAN-958) (Chase 1980). In 1987and 1988, salvage excavations were conducted at the siteunder the direction of Roy Salls. Students wrote papers thatwere edited into a report (Salls 1995).

Between 1993 and 2000, I served as Malibu City archaeolo-gist. I conducted surveys or reviewed survey reports in areaswhere planned development might damage archaeologicalsites. I also reviewed reports produced for significanceassessments. As Malibu City archaeologist, I mapped arti-fact distributions at several Early period sites.

CA-LAN-30 was first recorded by Chester King on February8, 1967. I visited the site with Qun-Tan Shup on March 18,1994 and April 7, 1994. We mapped the boundaries of siteareas. I walked transects across the site and defined theboundaries of dense shell midden and the boundaries of thedistribution of chipped stone artifacts. Three areas of the sitewere roughly defined. One is the crest of the hill in the

northwestern portion of the parcel with the densest shell andartifact concentration. Another is the area within which shellwas frequently observed. The third is the area where flakesbut little shell was observed. The types of artifacts and thecondition of the midden indicate that most occupation at CA-LAN-30 occurred during the Early period, perhaps between4000-6000 BC (King 1994b).


I visited LAN-1879 with Qun-Tan Shup on April 12, 1995.Our observations indicate that the western end of the ridgeabove 510 feet elevation and the southern slope of the ridgeextending to the paved driveway south to the south is withinsite CA-LAN-1879. Shell was found near the ridge top aswas also fire altered rock. It appears that residences wereconcentrated near the crest of the hill. The artifacts observedextending south of the ridge top were chipped stone artifactsand included many artifacts made from chert and chalcedony.Artifacts that have been found at the site and the condition ofthe soil at the site indicate the site was a small to medium sizedsettlement occupied during the Early period and/or earlyMiddle period (prior to ca. 300 BC) (King 1995a).

CA-LAN-451 was recorded by a team from UCLA in 1972.The site was recorded during a survey of the Point Dume areaas part of the Santa Monica Mountains project under thedirection of Nelson Leonard. Bernie Neuman and PeteGreenwood excavated a hole near a basketball basket at28931 Selfridge and found manos and mano fragments. Thesite record form filled out by the UCLA team noted a highconcentration of chipped stone in the northeastern part of thesite. In 1986 Dillon conducted an survey of a proposed sewerline. Concerning LAN-451 he observed: "This very rich andbasically undisturbed site lies south of PCH on a mesa top"(1986).

Between June 23 and August 18, 1998, I visited a parcel atLAN-451 and mapped the distribution of artifacts visible onthe surface. The locations of two hundred and seventy sixartifacts were mapped. It appears that residences wereconcentrated on the sides of the knoll in the middle of theparcel where manos, choppers and hammerstones are con-centrated. It appears that the lower lying areas were not thelocations of residences. The artifacts found at the siteindicate that most occupation occurred during the early partof the Early period approximately 6000-8000 years ago. In1999 I conducted a study in the NE part of the site. I observeda high frequency of chipped chert artifacts in intact middensoil in the area reported as a high flake frequency area on theoriginal site record (King 1999).

Susan Hector surveyed the SW part of LAN-19 in 1978. In1995, I conducted a surface study of three vacant lots southof the highway. I observed shell midden and artifacts alongthe southern edge of the parcels. My observations wereconsistent with observations made during the 1978 Hectorsurvey (King 1997).

In 1967, James West directed test excavations at CA-LAN-19 along the northern side of the Pacific Coast Highway.Eight units were excavated along the right-of-way of aproposed freeway. These excavations were conducted toenable the preparation of a highway salvage program. Theexcavations were north of lots 24834 to 24902. In 1989, ClaySinger and Associates conducted studies at 24903 and 24911Pacific Coast Highway in the western part of the area studied

by West to determine the extent of intact midden deposits. Heobserved that all deposits had been removed by grading in thewestern and northern parts of the area. He found intactdeposits in the southern and central parts of the lots (Kirkishet. al. 1989). Immediately east of 24903 Pacific CoastHighway, Whitley and Simon conducted studies related toconstruction of the Malibu Jewish Center at 24855 PacificCoast Highway. Their studies determined that most of thehigher, northern, parts of the site were destroyed by gradingand intact areas remain under fill immediately north of thePacific Coast Highway (Whitley and Simon 1992, 1995).

In 1997 a paper was published concerning the Early period inthe Santa Monica Mountains. I was a coauthor. In the paperwe criticized the W &S belief that the interior of the SantaMonica Mountains was abandoned during the Early periodand the related idea that the Laskey Mesa sites were vegetableprocessing camps used during the Middle period (Gambleand King 1997). No member of the W&S team has respondedto our comments.

I discovered two small Early period sites during surveys inMalibu in late 1998. They are discussed at the end of Chapter4.

In addition to my work in Malibu, I have contracted with theSanta Monica Mountains Recreation Area and the SantaMonica Mountains and Seashore Foundation and have re-corded many Early period sites during site inventory surveys.in 1993, 1997-1999 and 2001-2002.


Sequence of time periods recognized in SouthernCalifornia prehistory. Time periods are based on thesequence of changes in beads and ornaments (King1990), Correlations with calendar dates are basedon interpretation of carbon 14 dates and cross datingwith Southwestern and Great Basin sequences. Thedates of the begining and end of many phases andsubphases have not been determined, Serriationindicates that the discovered sequence is completeafter Phase z of the Early period. Prior to Phase z itis probable that bead and ornament which have beenstudied do not represent a complete sequence. Thebead and ornament sequence discovered forsouthern California is similar to the sequencediscovered in Central California (Bennyhoff andHughes 1987).

Chapter 2:Definition of theEarly PeriodIn 1939, Lillard, Heizer and Fenenga published a study ofCentral California burial lots in which they defined three timeperiods on the basis of differences in beads and ornamentsfound with burials. The earliest time period was character-ized by thick rectangle beads and double central perforatedabalone ornaments. The analysis of artifacts found in buriallots was refined by James Bennyhoff who also used carbon14 dating and cross dating between different areas (Bennyhoffand Heizer 1958, Bennyhoff and Hughes 1987, charts inElsasser 1976). Bennyhoff recognized the presence of simi-lar artifact types in southern and central California during theEarly period.

My dissertation research involved the seriation of burial lotsfrom the Santa Barbara Channel to discover the sequence ofbeads, ornaments and other artifacts placed with burials. Inmy dissertation, time periods are recognized on basis ofanalysis of artifacts found with burials. The adjacent figureindicates the time periods that were identified and theirestimated dating. The illustrations of Early period and earlyMiddle period beads and ornaments on the following pagesare from my dissertation (King 1990).

The Early period, dates from approximately 6000 to 800 B.C.It is the earliest period identified by archeologists in Califor-nia that contains the preserved remains of permanent settle-ments with associated cemeteries. Types of ornaments,charms, and other artifacts changed little throughout theperiod, although the numbers of artifact types increasedindicating a growth in social complexity. Several cemeteryand residential contexts have been excavated in Chumashterritory that are approximately 7,000 years old. Artifactsand food remains recovered from these contexts indicate thatpeople living along the coast were fishing with bone hooks,using boats or rafts to trade with the Channel Islands, andoccasionally were taking sea mammals and large fish. Thepresence of deer bones, other animal bones, stone points, andknives indicates that hunting was also important. The Earlyperiod lasted longer than other periods and is less well knownthan later periods because few well preserved cemeterieshave been carefully excavated. Because there are few collec-tions from cemetery areas and because the soil of Early periodresidential sites has not been frequently water screenedrelatively few beads and ornaments have been recoveredfrom well dated contexts and there is not a continuoussequence of burial lots. Because the known Early periodsequence is not continuous, I did not assign phase numbers in


my dissertation as I did for the Middle and Late time periods.Instead I labeled tentative phases x, y and z.

Changes in Beads

Beads and ornaments were important wealth items. Changesin these artifacts reflect changes in social organization. Therewas a change from ornaments most suitable for display asapplique to artifacts strung as necklaces, earrings or other usewhere ornaments were strung together separate from otherartifacts. This marks the change from the Early to the Middleperiod.

The illustrations on this page indicate the types of shapedbeads most frequently used during the Early and early Middleperiods. The graphs of percentages of types in differentcategories is shown on the opposing page. The discussion isaltered from my published dissertation (King 1990) inarrangement, to accommodate new information and to im-prove grammar..

On the basis of form, stringing and association in lots fourbasic categories of beads were used during most knownphases of the Early period. These were: (1) Clam and hardstone disc and/or cylinder beads were probably the mostcommonly used shaped beads during most of the Earlyperiod; (2) Olivella biplicata abalone, and mussel shell

Early period and Middle period Phases 1 and 2a shaped shell beads.

rectangular beads were other common types of shaped beadsused during the Early period. (3) Olivella biplicata shells withtheir spires removed by grinding or chipping, (base portionsof shell were also similarly removed on many Early periodspire removed beads, were the most common types found inall Early period contexts; (4) A number of whole, punched orabraded shells including Dentalium pretiosum, Cypraeaspadica and Trivia californiana were also used during differ-ent phases of the Early period. At the beginning of the Middleperiod, there was a shift from rectangular to disc shaped beadsand clam disc beads and hard stone beads decreased infrequency and softer materials were used.

Clam and Stone Disc or Cylinder Beads

During most of the Early period, clam disc-cylinder beadswere the most common type of shaped shell beads used in thesouthern California. They were made from Pismo Clamshells (Tivela stultorum). Clam disc and cylinder beads wereapparently not used in central California or Nevada during theEarly period (Bennyhoff and Heizer 1958: 65).

The earliest documented clam disc-cylinder bead from theChannel is the bead illustrated for Phase Ex which is the oneclam bead recovered by Phil Orr from Cemetery A at TecolotePoint on Santa Rosa Island. Ex clam disc beads from SBA-142 were uniformly small ranging between 4.9-6.5 mm indiameter and 1.7-2.3 mm thick. A thick stone disc bead 6.0


Relative frequencies of Early period and Middle period Phases 1 -4 shaped shell beads and Megathuracrenulata shaped rings

Olivella wall disc

mm in diameter and 5.1 mm thick was possibly strung inassociation with these clam discs. The beads from SBA-142were perhaps all from one disturbed burial association andthe small range in size probably does not indicate that all clamdisc beads were uniformly small during any particularsubphase of Phase Ex.

Burial associations from Phase Ey indicate that throughoutthis phase all sizes and shapes of clam disc beads were used(note: illustration of range of size and shape of Ey clam discbeads). Many Phase Ey burials were accompanied by severalsmall discs and several large disc-cylinder beads; others hadstrings of many uniform small disc beads. The thick disc-cylinder beads used during Phase Ey are larger than anyknown from Phase Ex contexts. The clam beads used duringPhase Ez were all thick disc-cylinders, varied little in size,and were of uniform shape. By Phase Ez, thinner clam discbeads, the most common type of shaped beads during PhasesEx and Ey, were no longer used. The hard stone (serpentine,serpentine-jadeite and jadeite) disc-cylinder beads used dur-ing Phases Ey and Ez (see following page) were usuallyassociated with large thick clam disc-cylinder beads. Theseincreased in frequency at the end of the Early period. In-creased standardization of large clam and stone beads andcessation of manufacture of smaller clam disc beads corre-sponded with a shift from relatively diffuse distribution inPhase Ey cemeteries to exclusive association with burials inthe center of the Ez cemetery with concentrations of wealth.

Early period clam and stone beads were probably usuallydisplayed strung end to end. Many were perhaps kept looseor on short strings as is indicated by the frequent occurrenceof only a few beads of various sizes with many Early periodisland burials.

The sequence of stone beads is indicated in the chart on page18. At the beginning of Phase M1, clam and stone (serpen-tine, serpentine-jadeite or jadeite) thick disc or cylinder beadscontinued to be made in essentially the same form as they hadbeen during Phase Ez. By Phase M2, however, clam beads

were no longer being used and cylinder shaped beads were nolonger used. Some Phase M1 clam discs are larger indiameter than Phase Ez disc-cylinders and also tend to bethinner; the range of size and shape was greater than duringPhase Ez. The sequence of changes in stone beads during theEarly Phases of the Middle period is at present poorly known.An explanation that accommodates available data is thatcylinder beads of hard stones differentiated during Phase M1into smaller disc beads and numerous types of incised discand globular beads. Unfortunately, except the one lot ofsmall serpentine disc beads from SBA-43 that is not associ-ated with other beads and ornaments and beads screened fromthe late Early period-Phase M1 midden at Rincon (SBa-119),small serpentine-jadeite beads cannot be accurately placed intime. These small serpentine beads preceded the chloriteschist disc beads used during Phase M2 as part of a develop-mental sequence. Likewise, the clam disc-cylinder beadsappear to have been followed by Olivella biplicata saucerbeads.

Chlorite schist stone beads were never common compared toOlivella biplicata disc (saucer) beads in the Santa BarbaraChannel. East of the Channel, chlorite schist beads wereprobably used more frequently than Olivella biplicata wallbeads. The center of the distribution of chlorite disc beadsappears to be in the area occupied historically by Uto-Aztecan speakers immediately east of the Chumash area.Blanks indicate manufacture of chlorite schist disc beads atMalibu (LAN-264) and a high frequency of chlorite schistdisc beads from early Middle period contexts in the easternChumash area indicate that they were an important bead typein the area. In the Channel, chlorite schist beads have usuallybeen found in direct association with Olivella biplicata wallbeads and evidently usually were strung with them in strandsas necklaces. North of the Santa Barbara Channel, stone discbeads were evidently used in the area historically controlledby Chumash speaking people during the early Middle period.Stone disc beads were apparently rarely used in centralCalifornia during the early Middle period.


The sequence of chlorite schist disc beads is similar to that ofdorsal ground Olivella biplicata disc beads. Phase M2 discsare usually thin and have relatively small perforations. Itappears that there is a tendency for the diameters of the discsto increase during Phase M2b. Associations of stone withshell beads at SBa-81 indicates thatchlorite schist beads wereused in politically controlled economic interactions.

Rectangular and Disc Beads of Olivella andAbalone

Rectangular beads of Olivella biplicata, abalone nacre, andmussel shell have been found in Early period contexts incentral California and the Great Basin as well as the SantaBarbara Channel (Bennyhoff and Heizer 1958: 63-64). Rect-angular beads of Olivella biplicata wall pieces have beenfound in contexts from all known phases of the Early periodin the Santa Barbara Channel. The beads from Ex contexts atSRI-3 and SBA-142 have rounded corners and are similar insize and shape to rectangular saddle beads found in centralCalifornia during the late Middle period. The Olivella

biplicata rectangles from Phase Ey and Ez contexts usuallyhave squared corners. Phase Ey Olivella biplicata rectanglestend to be larger than those from Ex contexts and are gener-ally larger than those used during Phase Ez.

Olivella biplicata rectangles with grooved perforations androunded corners have been recovered from late Early periodor Phase 1 Middle period contexts in southern California andthe Great Basin. On the basis of present information, itappears that beads with grooved holes were used at the end ofthe Early period and/or at the beginning of the Middle periodin areas where native people spoke Uto-Aztecan languages.

A few drilled Olivella biplicata rectangles were evidentlyused during Phase 1 of the Middle period in the Channel. Insouthern California, rectangular beads were not used afterPhase M1.

Mussel and abalone rectangular beads have not been found inPhase Ex contexts and apparently were first made duringPhase Ey. Mussel rectangles were never a common bead typein the Santa Barbara Channel. Abalone rectangles were themost common type of shaped bead found at the Phase Ez

Early period Phase y and z and Middle period Phase 1 and 2a stone beads and pendants.

M2a

M1

Ez

Ey 5 cm


cemetery at SCrI-3. Like Olivella biplicata rectangles in theChannel, abalone rectangles used during Phase Ez tended tobe smaller than those used during Phase Ey. The frequencyof abalone rectangles in relation to other beads was increas-ing at the end of the Early period in the Santa BarbaraChannel. The emphasis on use of shaped abalone beadscontinued into the early Middle period when most abalonebeads were disc shaped rather than rectangular.

At the Phase Eyb cemetery at SCrI-162, no rectangular beadswere recovered although all of the other bead types com-monly used during Phase Ey were found. In general, theburial accompaniments at SCrI-162 indicate that the peoplewho lived at this relatively small site were not as wealthy orpowerful as the people who lived at the large settlement ofSCrI-3 which was probably the largest Early period villageon Santa Cruz Island. Perhaps no one at this settlement hadthe ability or prerogative to own rectangular beads. Burialcontexts and their application with asphaltum to other arti-facts indicate that rectangular beads were frequently used inapplique or as sequins. I have suggested that the shift fromrectangular beads to disc beads reflects a decreased fre-quency of wealth display. I postulated that during most of theEarly period wealth was often displayed to maintain politicalpower in a context where political power was attained. Aspolitical power was increasingly controlled by hereditaryleaders, the need to display wealth to validate this powerdecreased and wealth was stored more often separate fromother artifacts.

The use of beads as applique or sequins restricted their use intrade in comparison to beads strung on strings or stored loosesince loose or strung beads can be easily divided into differentmeasures of value. Once sewn or stuck with asphalt to otherartifacts, they can be traded with the artifact they are attachedto or by removing them from the artifact. I have alreadydiscussed the increase in abalone rectangles and the corre-sponding decrease in use of clam disc beads toward the endof the Early period as being a response to an increase in theimportance of the political system and a correspondingdecrease in the importance of the economic system. Theabalone nacre that is used for most shell ornaments and formany late Early period and early Middle period beads iscomparatively soft in compared to Olivella biplicata andclam shell and has a higher degree of luster and is morecolorful than Olivella biplicata or clam. The choice ofabalone nacre for bead manufacture indicates that comparedto other common manufactured beads, abalone beads wereintended more for use in display to maintain political rela-tionships and probably less as counters in frequent economicexchanges.

Abalone disc beads made from nacre usually with the epider-mis removed were the most common type of shaped beadused during Phase M1. During Phase M2a, they remained animportant type although they were less frequently used thanOlivella biplicata saucer beads. Abalone disc beads were a

relatively rare type of bead by Phase M2b and most of theseretained their Haliotis cracherodii epidermis. After PhaseM3, abalone nacre beads were rarely used and most abalonediscs fit more into the category of abalone ornaments asopposed to beads. Abalone disc beads were also used duringthe Early Middle period in central California (Elsasser 1978:39, 40).

Abalone disc beads appear to have developed from abalonerectangles. The shift from rectangular to disc beads appearsto reflect a decreased frequency of wealth display resultingfrom development of inherited political positions. Thesepositions required less frequent display of wealth than hadbeen necessary when political power was more the result ofability to attain and maintain wealth. The decrease andvirtual cessation of the use of abalone nacre beads during theearly Middle period can be interpreted as the result of thecontinuation of a trend toward decrease in display with acorresponding increase in stored wealth.

Olivella biplicata disc (saucer) beads replaced Olivellabiplicata rectangle beads, abalone beads and Olivella biplicataspire removed beads and became the most common bead typeduring the early Middle period. They required more effort tomanufacture and were not as showy as some of the bead typesthat were replaced. During Phase M1, their relative fre-quency was close to clam disc-cylinder beads and it appearsthat there was a slight decrease in frequency of Olivellabiplicata wall beads when compared to the later phases of theEarly period. Olivella biplicata disc (saucer) beads have ina few cases been found in Early period contexts. These rarecases are illustrated. These occurrences may have resultedfrom mixing of collections or errors in collection although itis probable that at least one example actually was associatedas observed. The few Olivella biplicata disc (saucer) beadsthat I have observed from Phase M1 contexts have relativelysmall outside diameters and small perforations. At thebeginning of Phase M2a, most small Olivella biplicata discbeads were ground on their convex surfaces around theperforation; these are called dorsal ground Olivella biplicatadisc beads. The distribution of small dorsal ground Olivellabiplicata disc beads in the midden at the Malibu site (LAN-264)(Gibson 1975: 115) indicates that the use of small dorsalground Olivella biplicata beads preceded the frequent use oflarger saucer beads.

Bennyhoff and Hughes classify dorsal ground saucer beadsas type G4 (ground saucer). They note that they are a centralCalifornia type. The other early saucer beads from Phase M1contexts are their type G1 (tiny saucer) (1987: 132-3). Somedorsal ground beads are also ground on their ventral surfaceas were many Early period Olivella biplicata rectanglesincluding grooved rectangles. Small dorsal ground Olivellabiplicata disc beads were recovered from Early Lovelockassociations at Lovelock Cave (Bennyhoff and Heizer 1958:69). They were strung in an overlapping pattern so that halfof each dorsal ground face was displayed in much the same


way as the grooved rectangles from the same site (Orchard1975: 29). Small Olivella biplicata disc beads were usedmuch like Early period rectangles. They were used asapplique on stone pipes. Dorsal ground Olivella biplicatadiscs beads have a distribution similar to grooved Olivellabiplicata rectangular beads including the Santa BarbaraChannel and the areas to the east where Uto-Aztecan lan-guages were spoken at the time of European contact.

By Phase M2a, saucer (the term “saucer” used to refer to thelarger Olivella biplicata wall disc beads common duringmuch of the Middle period) or disc beads had become themost common type of bead used in the Santa Barbara Chan-nel. Olivella biplicata saucer or disc beads continued to bethe most common type of bead used through the rest of theMiddle period. A wide range of bead diameters was madeduring every phase of the Middle period after Phase M1.Changes in the size of perforations, the presence or absenceof dorsal or ventral grinding, and in the range of thickness anddiameter allow the beads used during many phases of theMiddle period to be distinguished from those of other phases.During Phases M2 and M3, the most common Olivellabiplicata wall beads were larger saucer beads often between6 and 8 mm in diameter with large perforations rangingbetween 1.8-2.5 mm in diameter. During Phase M2a, someof these saucer beads were dorsal ground and a few wereventral ground. Small disc beads with small perforations(usually ranging between 0.9 -1.2 mm in diameter) that werealmost always dorsal ground were also frequently usedduring Phase M2a. By Phase M2b, dorsal ground Olivellabiplicata disc beads with small perforations were no longerbeing used. Dorsal ground disc (saucer) beads with large (ca.2.0) perforations continued to be used during Phase 2b andthese tended to be generally smaller than saucer beads with-out dorsal grinding. Dorsal ground Olivella biplicata saucerswere a relatively rare type of a bead during Phase M2b.Dorsal ground Olivella biplicata saucer beads were evidentlynot used during the Middle period after Phase M2.

Olivella biplicata saucer beads used during Phase M3 tendedto have smaller diameters than during Phase M2. In general,Phase M3 saucer beads were similar to those used duringPhase M2.

Olivella biplicata saucer beads were probably most com-monly strung convex to concave face in strands on a centerstring. There are few descriptions of their arrangement inassociation with burials. Jones observed the association ofOlivella biplicata saucer beads at SRI-154: “The manner inwhich the wampum is found leads me to believe that it wasstrung about the necks of the skeletons” (Jones 1956: 219).Olivella biplicata saucer beads were usually not strung withother bead types.

Olivella biplicata Spire Removed Beads

Olivella biplicata shells with their spires removed perpen-dicular to their long axis were used as beads throughoutcentral and southern California and the Great Basin duringthe Early period and constitute one of the most common beadtypes found in all areas. Bennyhoff and Heizer observed thatthe 52 large spire removed beads from Pe-14 (Leonard rockshelter) were the oldest dated beads found in the Great Basinwith a date of 6000 to 7000 years B.P. (1958: 63). The datefor these beads indicates that they were being traded into theGreat Basin during Phase Ex. Most central California andGreat Basin Early period collections seem to be contempo-rary with Phases Ey and Ez in the Santa Barbara Channel. Insome central California Early period contexts, rectangularbeads have been found in frequencies as high or higher thanOlivella biplicata spire removed beads. There is a lowerrelative frequency of Olivella biplicata spire removed beadsin most late Early period contexts north of the Channel regionthan in the Channel. There is a high relative frequency ofOlivella biplicata spire removed beads south of the SantaBarbara Channel.

During Phases Ey and Ez, Olivella biplicata spire and baseremoved beads were the dominant type of bead used in theChannel and along the southern California coast at least as farsouth as the Santa Ana Mountains. Olivella biplicata spireremoved beads with ground or chipped bases are relativelyrare in central California and Great Basin contexts. Bennyhoffand Heizer noted:

Slight grinding of the orifice end [ofOlivella biplicata shells] occurs on beadsfrom both Central and Southern Califor-nia, but has not been distinguished typo-logically. In Southern California the pro-cess was carried much further. . . A fewtype G1a [Olivella biplicata “barrel”] maybe represented in the Early Horizon collec-tion from Central California, but only onetype G1b [Olivella biplicata “cap”] speci-men has been noted. . . It seems probablethat all type G1b specimens [at LovelockCave] were traded from Southern Califor-nia. [1958: 83].

Bennyhoff and Heizer's postulated trend in southern Califor-nia toward more base removal over time is supported by myanalysis. The removal of part or all of the basal portion of theOlivella biplicata shells caused a reduction of bead size aswell as an increased manufacture cost. The removal ofincreasingly larger portions of the shells indicates an increasein the use of Olivella biplicata shells in economic as opposedto political contexts.


Early period and Middle period Phases 1-3 abraided, punched and chipped shell beads.

5 cm

Relative frequencies of Early period and Middle period Phases 1-4 abraided, punched and chipped shellbeads and all shaped beads.

The sequence of Early period Olivella biplicata spire re-moved beads has parallels with the Early period sequence ofclam disc-cylinder beads. In both sequences, there appears tobe an increase in the range of sizes from Phase Ex to Ey. Likethe clam disc beads, there is a great range in shape of Olivellabiplicata beads during Phase Ey; a few beads have no baseremoval, many have chipped spires and chipped or groundbases and some have ground spires and chipped or groundbases and some have ground spires and bases. During PhaseEz, only spire and base ground beads were used and theseusually have more base removed than those used during

were during most time periods, or at an oblique angle to thelong axis of the bead; beads thus ground are called obliqueground. These beads continued to be made into Phase M2aalthough in greatly reduced frequency.

Medium to large shells were made into beads by grinding offboth the spires and bases at right angles to the long axis of theshell. These were less common than the typically smallerbeads with only spires ground off and were not used duringPhase M2.

earlier phases. This reduc-tion in variability of beadshape during Phase Ez paral-lels the sequence of develop-ment of clam beads. Olivellabiplicata spire removed beadswere apparently usuallystrung end to end. Orchardillustrates two methods usedto string Early period Olivellabiplicata spire removed beads(1975: 28).

Phase M1 was the last Phasein the Santa Barbara Channelwhen Olivella biplicata spireremoved beads were the mostcommon type of bead used.Most of these beads weremade from small to mediumsized shells and were alteredby grinding off only thespires. Spires were removedboth at right angles to thelong axis of the shell as they

Olivella biplicata Cypraea spadica

Triv

ia c

alifo

rnia

na


The frequent oblique ground variety was possibly to facili-tate sewing them in place in applique or for tying them tostrings in the manner shown for spire removed beads fromLovelock Cave (Orchard 1975: 28 Figure 8).

Cypraea spadica and Dentalium pretiosumShells

The whole, punched or abraded shells and Olivella biplicataspire and or base removed beads required little effort tomanufacture and most were relatively easy to obtain Cypraeasp. shells used as currency through most of the Old World andOceania are colorful shells with uniform shape Cypraeaspadica vary in size, and the largest shells are very rare.Today even small Cypraea spadica shells are more valuablethan most other types of shells used as beads .

Large Cypraea spadica shells were selected for beads.Cypraea spadica punched shells were only frequent associa-tions with Phase Ey burials, and were rarely used in the SantaBarbara Channel during later periods. Dentalium pretiosumshells like cowry shells were used by historic cultures ascurrency. The small Dentalium pretiosum shells that arerelatively rare in the Santa Barbara Channel may have beenvalued similarly to Cypraea shells during some phases of theEarly period.

Excepting possibly for the use of Dentalium neohexagonumshells as beads during the late Middle period and the use ofMegathura crenulata shells during the Middle period for ringornaments, shells that are difficult to obtain because of theirrarity or environment were apparently only used frequentlyand as a common currency in the Channel during Phase y andpossibly Phase x of the Early period. Unlike the clam disc andcylinder beads they are frequently associated with, cowriescould not be manufactured according to need. The morevaluable large Cypraea spadica shells were probably usuallyobtained through social interaction since it would be nearlyimpossible to find one. Because of their size and colorfulappearance, Cypraea spadica shells were more ornamentalthan other common Early period beads.

Trivia californiana and other Punched orAbraded Whole Shell Beads

Trivia californiana beads were used during all phases of theEarly period as a relatively rare type. During Phase M1, theiruse increased and during Phase M2a they were the mostcommon type of unshaped bead being used and were secondonly in frequency to Olivella biplicata wall disc (saucer)beads. Since Trivia californiana shells were easy to obtainand it required relatively little time and effort to abrade orpunch a hole in them, these beads were probably not veryvaluable. The two main associations of Trivia californiana

at SBa-81 were of 2000+ and 1336 shells and were in the areaof the cemetery which contained the most wealth. They wereprobably strung or woven in long clustered strings in the sameway as similar small cowry shells are strung in New Guinea.The typically large number of Trivia californiana beadsfound together during Phase M2a differs greatly from thetypically small numbers found with Early period associations

During Phase M1, as during the Early period, other smallgastropod shells such as Cerethidea sp. and Mitrella carinatawere punched or abraded to make beads. At SCrI-83, onePhase M1 lot contained 853 Mitrella carinata shells. All ofthese punched shells are easy to obtain.

Bone Tube Beads

Small mammal tube beads were frequently used during PhaseM1 and persisted as a rare bead type through to the historicperiod. At SCrI-83, these small bone beads seem to have beencombined with Olivella biplicata spire removed beads. LikeOlivella biplicata spire removed beads these bone beadsrequired little effort in manufacture. Further study is neces-sary to determine the species of animals used to make thesebeads, it is possible that they are of ground squirrel or rabbit,and like large mammal bone beads were traded to the islandsfrom the mainland. At SCrI-83, Olson recorded one associa-tion (AIV5) of small bone tubes as “evidently in a necklace”and another (Y1) as “a wristlet or wrist band.”

Large mammal tube beads probably made from deer longbones from the mainland were frequently used at island andmainland sites during Phase M1. Large bone tube beads hadbeen used also although much less frequently during PhaseEz. They apparently were rarely used during Phase M2a andwere infrequently used during Phase M2b (both known PhaseM2b specimens have rounded rather than squared ends.Large bone tube beads were used more frequently duringPhase M3 and M4. Olson recorded two arrangements ofPhase M1 large bone tubes at SCrI-83. Three were describedas laying along the side of Burial AIII4, and 15 were foundaround the neck of Burial Y1.

Phase M1 large bone tubes were often decorated with punc-tate designs some of these were incised at their ends; otherbone tubes had incised designs. The punctate designs andedge incising on the tubes are similar to the decorations ofPhase M1 bone pendants and abalone and clam ornaments .The large size of these beads makes them more similar topendants and other ornaments in terms of visibility. Undeco-rated bone tubes were not difficult to manufacture since theyonly required grooving long bones to cut tubular sections. Onthe mainland, the bones were acquired from deer that werekilled for meat. The “decoration” of bone beads and pendantsby drilling punctate designs required less effort than drillingpunctations in either abalone or Pismo Clam shells. Previousdiscussion suggests that bone tube beads were used less as


Early period and Middle period Phases 1 and 2a bone beads and tubes.

money and more as badges indicating political position thanwere smaller and more valuable beads. On the islands, thesebeads perhaps indicated the presence of ties to the mainlandwhere they originated.

Megathura crenulata Ring Ornaments

Ornaments made from Giant Keyhole Limpet (Megathuracrenulata) shells first appear in the archaeological record atthe beginning of the Middle period. They rapidly increasedin frequency in the early Middle period. In Phase M2contexts, Olivella biplicata disc (saucer) beads and Triviacaliforniana beads were the only decorative artifacts thatoccurred in higher frequency. They are found in relativelyhigh frequencies in all later Middle period contexts.

Megathura crenulata ring ornaments are included in thediscussion of beads because they are related to discussion ofthe evolution of the Chumash economic system. Qualitiesthat distinguish Megathura crenulata ring ornaments fromother ornaments are their relatively larger number of burialassociations and their occurrence in large numbers in someassociations. The white color of the callus ring is also lesslustrous than abalone shell and more comparable to the callusof Olivella biplicata shells. Another feature of Megathuracrenulata rings is that the size of the shell determines the sizeof the callus ring in the center of the shell. The examples thatwere studied indicate large shells were chosen for ringornaments, especially during the early Middle period. Thepunched Cypraea spadica shell beads frequently used duringPhase Ey are similar because in both cases large shellsrepresenting higher values were selected for because of their

rarity. A final aspect of Megathura crenulata ornaments istheir widespread distribution compared to abalone ornamenttypes.

The sequence of early Middle period Megathura crenulataring ornaments is illustrated in the left column in the illustra-tion on the following page.. During Phase M1 and M2a, theornaments were made by chipping away all of the outerportions of the shells to obtain the oval-shaped callus ringlocated in the center of the shell. The outer edges of theserings were ground smooth. In many cases, the crenulatesurface remaining on the upper (convex) face of the ring waspartly ground down and in some it was removed. Most ringsthat were made during Phases M2b and M3 were prepared inthe same way excepting the crenulate surfaces were almostalways completely removed and the ends of some Phase M3ornaments were ground flat. During Phases M2 and M3,some Megathura crenulata ornaments were shaped so thatthe tip of the egg shaped outline came to a point. Some ofthese were further notched with two grooves to make a nipplelike tip (offset). During Phase M3 some were notched withthree grooves so as to from two adjacent offsets. The ringswith offsets perhaps represent effigies.

If the ring ornaments are oriented so that the tip end of theegg-shaped outline points down and the convex surface of theshell is facing up, traces of asphaltum impression indicatingthe presence of a tie can often be seen in the upper right handedge of Phase M2a rings and at the tops of Phase M2b throughM4 rings. Perhaps these were suspended as pendants. Olson’sfield notes indicate that Megathura crenulata ring ornamentswere at least once tied to each other to make a row of adjacentrings in a necklace. David B. Rogers noted that Megathura


Megathura crenulata ring ornaments. The sequence of formsof Fissurella volcano ring ornaments closely parallels that ofMegathura crenulata ring ornaments.

Summary: Early and earlyMiddle period Social Changes

The most apparent shift in the prehistoric artifact sequence isthe transition from the Early period to the Middle periodwhen there was a major change in bead and ornament types.This shift is apparent in the archaeological record of most ofCalifornia and the Great Basin (Bennyhoff and Heizer 1958:63-65, Elsasser 1979).

Differences in the organization of the Eya and Ez cemeteriesat SCrI- 3 indicate a change from a society in which artifactsused in the maintenance of power were attained by ability orage to a society in which material expressions of politicalpower were acquired through inheritance. In the earliercemetery, the presence of relatively equal amounts of wealthin different areas indicates that wealth was not concentrated

Early period and early Middle period (Phase M1 and M2a) abalone ornaments and Megathura crenulatashaped rings. The end of the Early period is marked by a shift from double perforated sewn on ornaments tosingle perforated suspended ornaments. The change from Early period applique to Middle period strung typesis a reflection of a decreased emphasis on frequent wealth display. Megathura crenulata shaped rings beginto be made during the first phase of the Middle period.

crenulata ornaments were usually found near the heads ofburials and he considered them to be hair ornaments (1929).It is probable that they were often used to make headbandsand combined with other types of hair ties. All except threeof the Megathura crenulata ring ornaments found at SBa-81were found in the western half of the cemetery in frequentassociation with beads.

During Phases M2 and M3, Megathura crenulata ornamentsand Olivella biplicata disc (saucer) beads served to unite anarea extending at least from the San Joaquin River to San JuanCapistrano and east including at least a large portion of theMojave Desert into a large economic interaction network.This network was evidently limited generally to the areasouth and east of Monterey where Megathura crenulatashells are found along the coast..

Fissurella volcano Callus Ornaments

Fissurella volcano (Volcano limpets) callus ornaments wereused from Phase M1 through Phase M5a. They were neveras common as the larger Megathura crenulata callus orna-ments. Their sequence is illustrated to the right of the


Middle period Phase 1 and 2a large abalone pendants..

Middle period Phase 1 and 2a large clam pendants

Clam abalone and bone pendants often with drilled punctate designs were most commonly usedduring the beginning of the Middle period and represent a significant portion of the wealth objectsfound from Phase M1 contexts. These could not be as easily evaluated as beads, because of theirless standardized form. They also could not be broken down into units of low value as could a stringof beads.

in any particular family. The concentration of wealth in onearea of the later cemetery indicates that wealth was to a largedegree accumulated by a particular group whose memberswere buried together. A more consistent eastward orientationof burials in this later cemetery perhaps reflects an increased

institutionalization of religious beliefs associated with amore centrally organized political system.

The artifacts associated with Phase Ey and Ez burials alsoreflect a change to a more centralized society. Shaped beads

5 cm


Large bone pendants with punctatedesigns used during Middle periodPhase 1. These are contemporarywith similar clam and abalonependants and bone tube beads.Similar punctate designs were alsomade on atlatl spurs of whales teethand large bone spearpoints.

worn it was probably worn by the members of differentgroups when together at festivals in the same way that wealthwas described as being displayed on the Trobriand Islands byMalinowski (1922: 87-88). There the leaders distributedwealth to villagers to be worn at feasts but normally stored itin their homes. The change from Early period applique toMiddle period strung types reflect a decreased emphasis onfrequent wealth display.

The changes occurring during the transition from the Early toMiddle periods can be interpreted as resulting from theculmination of a shift toward a more centrally organizedsociety. As a result of this shift, the economic system becamealmost completely controlled by hereditary political leaders.These leaders controlled the stores of food and wealth objectsused in exchanges between groups.

During the first phase of the Middle period, it appears tradewas almost completely controlled by political leaders whosetrade with other political leaders was in the context ofmaintaining alliances. Most transactions probably involvedlags in exchanges and strict equivalence of values was not asimportant as during times when participation by anyone inthe economic subsystem enabled them to attain power. Thedecrease in proportion of manufactured beads that occurredat the beginning of the Middle period reflects a decrease inimportance of the economic system. Olivella biplicata spireground and bone beads are the most common beads usedduring the beginning of the Middle period, They requiredvery little effort to manufacture and large numbers of thesetypes of beads were often strung together. These beadsrequired less effort to manufacture than the dominant spireand base ground Olivella biplicata beads of the terminalEarly period and reflect a shift away from investment inmaintaining the economic system. The increase in use of

have been found in approximately the same proportions inPhase Ey and Ez contexts. Clam disc beads (as opposed toclam cylinder beads), the most common shaped bead typemade during Phase Ey, ceased to be made by Phase Ez.Abalone rectangles increased in frequency and became themost common type of shaped bead found in the Ez cemeteryat SCrI-3. I interpret this shift from clam disc to abalonerectangles as resulting from a decrease in the use of beads asmoney by most people with a corresponding increase in useof beads as decoration to validate political status. A markeddecrease in occurrence of bone pins during the terminal phaseof the Early period probably also reflects a decrease inemphasis on attained political power.

The end of the Early period is marked by a change fromrectangular to disc beads made of abalone and Olivellabiplicata and a shift from double perforated abalone orna-ments to single perforated ornaments. In the Santa BarbaraChannel, the beginning of the Middle period is also markedby the use of clam and bone pendant ornaments and bone tubebeads often decorated with punctate designs, the first use ofMegathura crenulata ring ornaments, the use of numerousbone tube beads, the frequent use of Olivella biplicata spireground beads that were often diagonally ground, a decreasein manufacture of shaped beads, and an increase in the use ofpunched Trivia sp. shell beads and the first use of bonewhistles. Clam and stone cylinder beads continued to bemade in roughly the same size and shape as they were duringthe last phase of the Early period.

As wealth became more concentrated under centralized con-trol, valuables were less often worn to validate status sincerelatively few of these items were needed to distinguish thepolitical leaders from the other occupants of a settlement.Although most of the wealth of a group was less frequently

5 cm


Early period Phase ystone and bone pipes Early period siltstone effigies

Ez

Eya

5 cm

Early period Phase yclay and 'cement' objects

Early period 'charmstones'

Early period 'trumpet' shell and turtle shellrattle fragments 5 cm

5 cm

5 cm

5 cm

Ez

Eya

Pipes, disks with pole impressions, effigies, charms and turtle shell rattlesare all artifacts used by religiousspecialists in ceremonies. Their more frequent placement with Early period burials compared with laterperiods indicate they may have been owned by individuals. Charms, effigies and perforated disks wereseldom placed with burials during the Late period; although, their use is described in ethnographic sources.


5 cm

5 cm

Early period Phase y bone pins

Early period Phase zbone pins

Bone pins have been frequently found with Early period Phase y burials. Thereis a wide range of decoration. The sizes and numbers of pins with burials aremore similar than are early Middle period pins. It appears that few pins wereused during Phase Ez.


Early Middle period whistles and rattlss:Bonewhistles were first used at the beginning of theMiddle period. Bone whistles were usedhistorically by California Indian dancers indances sponsored by political leaders. Theseperformances were often paid for by guests andmoney or goods collected from the dances wasgiven to the sponsoring political leader. Use ofwhistles in coordinating and adding elaborationto ceremonial displays probably reflects thedevelopment of dancing groups. They reflect anincreased institutionalization of the religioussystem as it evolved to provide support for thepolitical system. During the Early period, dancesare predicted to have been performed by peoplewho individually attained power as dancers or bymembers of particular age groups or by entirevillages. The most elaborate dances would havebeen performed by individual specialists duringthe Early period and dancing societies at thebeginning of the Middle period.

Middle period Phase 1 and 2a siltstoneeffigies, plummet shaped charmstonesand other shaped stone "charms".These objects were later rarely placed incemeterisa and were apparently ownedby institutions. Charms were kept bychiefs who allowed them to be used byspecialist priests according toethnographic record.

Middle periodPhase 2a and 2b"libation" vessels

M2b

M2a

M2a

M1

M3

M2b

M2a

M1

5 cm

5 cm


The growth in importance of centralized political controlduring the Early period resulted in the maintenance oflarger stores of food. The shift from an egalitariansociety in which power was attained through personalability to obtain food, wealth, and religious power to anon-egalitarian society in which political power wasinherited was a basic structural change in Californiasociety.

During most of the Early period, political, economic, andreligious institutions were less differentiated than duringlater periods. Political power was the result of success byindividuals or households in maintaining stores andacquisition of knowledge. By the end of the Early period,the society had changed so that political and economiccontrol was mainly inherited in one family. It appearsthat at the beginning of the Middle period, there was adifferentiation of ritual specialists from political leaders.In the Ez cemetery at SCrI-3, ritual objects were placedwith burials that contained most wealth. The probablePhase M1 cemetery at SBA-43 appears to be an area usedby ritual specialists.

Rogers excavated the entire Phase M2a cemetery atSBA-81. Maps included in my dissertation (King 1990)indicate the distribution of artifacts in the cemetery.Shell beads, Megathura crenulata rings, and smallHaliotis sp. ornaments were concentrated toward thewestern part of the SBA-81 cemetery. The western halfof the cemetery contained most of the wealth objects.The majority of the bone pins used for headdresses werelocated in the center of the eastern half of the cemetery.Large dolphin jaw pins were only found, however, in thewestern portion of the cemetery. Ritual objects wereclearly concentrated in the eastern portion of the cem-etery in the same area as the concentration of headdresspins. The distribution of artifacts in the SBA-81 cem-etery indicates that during Phase 2a of the Middle periodthe society was divided into two groups of which one wasin control of the political and economic subsystems andthe other of ritual. An analogous differentiation of asociety was recorded by William Duncan Strong for theSerrano Indians of the San Bernardino Mountains. Strongobserved that Serrano society was divided into moieties(coyote and wildcat). Chieftainship was inherited bylineages in the coyote moiety and ceremonial manager(paha) positions were inherited in lineages of the wildcatmoiety (Strong 1972: 12-24).

By Phase M2a, the manufacture of shell beads was muchmore important than during Phase M1. Use of beads wasrestricted to the inherited leadership who used them andMegathura ornaments in exchanges with leaders of othersettlements.

M2b

M2a

M1

Sequence of early Middle period stone pipes.Pipes were most often placed in cemetery areaswith other ritual items and few beads andornaments

5 cm

Trivia californiana beads that occurs at the beginning of theMiddle period probably is also a function of this shift.Megathura crenulata ornaments were also used as wealthitems in political contexts.


Points, Atlatl Hooks andKnives

Points used during the Early and early Middle periods can bedivided into smaller dart points and larger spear points. Thechart on the following page indicates the range of types andtheir sequence (this new chart is presented in a draft form).

Sequence of early Middle period bone pins. Different types ofpins were found in different cemetery areas at SBA-81. The birdbone and long thin deer bone pins on the right side of the Figurewere concentrated in the area with most ritual objects

M2b

M2a

M15 cm

One observation of changes indicated is the large size of spearpoints used at the beginning of the Middle period and acorresponding decrease in size of large knives. It appears thatthe emphasis on political power at the beginning of theMiddle period was accompanied by elaboration of spearpointsand a corresponding decrease in emphasis in ceremonialknives, probably associated with feasts. The elaboration ofspearpoints was accompanied by use of whale tooth atlatlhooks with punctate designs. The sizes of spearpoints andknives returned to their original ranges after Phase M1. Otherchanges including notching to create firmer hafts, probably


relate to distances to hunting camps and lengths of stay atcamps. These changes are functions of the number and sizesof settlement sites. It appears that most obsidian spear pointswere traded into the Chumash area during Middle periodPhases 2b, 3 and 4.

Sequence of points, shaped knives and atlatl hooks used during the Early period and the Early Middleperiod in the Santa Barbara Channel region as determined from the study of burial lots, cemetery lots,collections from dated site contexts and stratified sequences. Dart points and spear points on leftand shaped knives on right. Bone and ivory atlatl hooks in center. o= obsidian. Large spear withpunctate design in center made from bone, possibly porpoise jaw. Other points are of stoneincluding Franciscan and Monterey cherts, and Grimes Canyon fused shale. Lozenge or laurel leafshaped points were used during all periods indicated. Stemmed points were probably also usedduring all periods. Apparently side notched points were most commonly made during the early partof Phase Ey. The sequence of points is the same in the Santa Monica Mountains as the Santa BarbaraChannel.

Fishing Implements

The sequences of fishing implements used during the Earlyand early Middle periods is indicated in the charts on thefollowing page. They indicate increases in intensity offishing in different environments.


5 cm

Early Middleperiod bonefishingimpliments.Darkened areasindicateasphaltum andstringimpressions inasphaltum. Fromleft to right arecanoe drills.Harpoon barbsand points, singlepiece mussel andabalonefishhooks, singlepiece bonefishooks,compound bonefishooks andbone fish gorges.

Early period bone fishingimpliments. Darkened areasindicate asphaltum andstring impressions inasphaltum. These artifacttypes are found at coastalsites

compound hooksgorges5 cm

Seed Grinding Implements

Changes in the types of artifacts used to prepare seed foodsreflect changes in seeds being used because of differences inthe efficiency of different artifacts to prepare particular seedfoods properly. They also can reflect changes in the socialsystem in which they are produced. The amount of shaping,hardness of material, distance to material source and othervariables involved in artifact manufacture represent a meansof storing energy equivalences. The effort spent in elaborat-ing utilitarian artifacts is similar to storing energy equiva-lences by manufacturing money. These changes probablyusually slightly increase the efficiency of an artifact bydeepening its depression or other alteration. The placementof shell applique on the rims of mortars was a purely sociallyoriented behavior. The size of grinding implements is also afunction of the number of people who usually share food. Themost apparent change in milling implements occurs duringthe Early period along the southern California coast. This isa shift from using manos and metates (handstone and

netherstone) to mortars and pestles. Both artifact types wereused during all time periods but there was a continual increasein the proportion of mortars and pestles from a small percent-age of the grinding implements during Ex. By the end of theEarly period, manos and metates virtually ceased to be usedon the mainland Channel coast.

Manos and metates apparently continued to be used later inthe interior. Walker included manos and metates in his listsof artifacts from the Chatsworth cairn sites (1951). Thecairns he excavated were apparently Middle period Phase 2and Phase 3 mortuary areas. Most groundstone artifacts in thecairns were mortar fragments. No manos or metates werefound at the terminal Middle -Late period site of Talepop(LAN-229). Manos were not found in the M2a or later levelsat Humaliwo (LAN-264). No manos were found duringextensive excavations at the late Middle- Late period Phase1 site at Pitas Point

Manos and metates most efficiently grind small hard seedsproduced by grasses, sages, and other small plants. These


small hard seeds most of which are produced by annuals area highly dependable food source since it is necessary forannuals to produce many seeds every year in order to survive.Mortars and pestles are more efficient for mashing nuts thanare manos and metates. Perennials such as bushes and treesdo not need to reproduce every year in order to survive but ingood years have excess stored energy that is used for theproduction of nuts and/or fruits. The shift toward usingmortars and pestles and away from the use of manos andmetates can be inferred to result from an increased reliance onlarge seeds such as acorns and islay. This increased relianceis hypothesized to have been made possible by increases inthe amounts of food that was stored against crop failures.Increased use of large seeds made stores of energy availablethat were used for investments to acquire more energy fromknown sources, to develop new sources, and/or increase thesize of food stores.

Adams studied the relation of morphology of grinding toolsto the uses for grinding wild and domestic seeds and observedthat the adoption of agricultural crops did not directly affecttypes of grinding tools. She observed that the use of manosthat are shorter than the width of metates resulted in theformation of basin metates (1999). Further study of grindingtools used at Early period sites will enable us to betterunderstand the wide range of types of grinding tools.

Early period mainland residential sites frequently containlarge numbers of milling stones (manos and metates) used toprocess seeds. The mortar and pestle, historically used topulp acorns and islay (wild cherry pits), although present, arenot found in large numbers in sites occupied during the earlierpart of the Early period. After 3-4000 BC mortars began tobe more frequently used. Because large seeds such as acornsand islay are not as consistently produced as smaller seeds,their use as staples required storage of large quantities for usein years of low crop yields. Obtaining and using new sourcesof energy required the development of a society able to storemore food and make greater capital investments, such asbuilding large boats and making large nets. The storage ofample amounts of food enabled people to increase theirreliance on crops with widely fluctuating yields.

Old Chronologies

Rogers, Orr and Wallace used criteria such as frequencies ofornaments as temporal indicators. Sites where cemeterieswere excavated that contained large grave lots were consid-ered later than sites where no cemeteries were excavated orfew burials with ornaments were excavated. Some of thesites that Rogers assigned to his Canalino period wereoccupied earlier than others he assigned to his Huntingperiod. Sites such as the Little Sycamore Shellmound whichWallace used to define particular periods were occupied atperiods separated by thousands of years and Wallace did not

recognize the different occupations. Orr attempted to distin-guish time periods within the three part sequence but againdid not use rigorous techniques such as burial lot serration todiscover the sequence and ended up placing occupations thatwere earlier as later than other occupations. At the time thatWallace came to southern California, other Berkeley stu-dents were discovering the detailed sequence of beads andornaments using burial lot serration. Wallace did not bringknowledge of the bead and ornament sequence with him. Useof burial lot serration, stratigraphic sequences, radiocarbondating and cross dating with other sequences have enabledthe discovery of a detailed sequence of beads and ornaments

Sequence of beads and points recognized in the1968 Century Ranch report. There have been nomajor changes in the sequence of point formsindicated in this chart (King, Blackburn andChandonet 1968:93).


and other burial associated artifacts. Southern Californiasequences have many similarities over time with centralCalifornia sequences. A discussion of the California se-quence is provided by Bennyhoff and Hughes 1987. There isno reason to use sequences that have been superseded bydiscovery of operationally defined and accurate sequences.

Since Wallace suggested a chronology many radiocarbondates have been run, stratified deposits have been studied,and burial lots have been serrated. In the 1968 Century Ranchreport, I presented a chart that indicated the sequence ofartifact types in the Santa Monica Mountain area. It wasbased on my observations of bead types and stone point typesin Santa Monica Mountain sites and study of reports from theSanta Barbara area and other areas of California. Portions ofthe chart are shown on page 34. The time periods recognizedby W&S Consultants in their 1989 Ahmanson ranch reportare their unique interpretation of the Wallace Chronologyand are not operationally defined.


Tom Blackburn field class at LAN-225.


Chapter 3: Soil Development at Early Sites and Vertical Artifact DistributionAfter people stop living at a site, the site begins to be altered by natural soil development processes. The organic humic material decreases and humin erodes away in 4000 to 5000 years. Other organic material including bone, shell and carbon also erode away. In addition to erosion of organic material over time, bioturbation results in vertical sorting of artifacts and rocks within sites .

After rains earthworms deposit small sized soil particles on the surface. The action of earthworms if not disturbed by gophers or soil cracking would eventually result in the burial of most artifacts under fine soil. The action of earthworms, gophers and soil cracking probably account for most size sorting of artifacts after sites have been abandoned.

Pocket Gophers (Thomomys bottae) cause the formation of rock lines and sort the soils of archaeological sites (Johnson 1989, 1990, Pierce 1988, 1992, Erlandson 1984).

As gophers burrow, they bring soil to the surface. The soil that is brought to the surface does not contain large rocks and most rocks brought to the surface are less than 5 cm in diameter. Larger rocks move down in the soil profile to the lower levels that are excavated in by gophers as the smaller material is brought to the surface. The soil brought to the surface contains smaller sized artifacts including points, scrapers and flakes. These smaller artifacts may in cases fall back into lower levels through soil cracking. It appears that many remain near the surface and smaller soil particles wash back into gopher holes and soil cracks. This results in a sorting process in which small to medium sized rocks and artifacts migrate to the upper levels of sites in residual soils and large artifacts migrate to lower soil levels sometimes ending up in cracks between bedrock.

The graph on the right indicates artifact distribution by depth and the graph on the following page indicates midden constituent distribution both indicate the degree artifacts and other materials have been size sorted at the Sweetwater Mesa site (LAN-267A). The graphs are taken from the Sweetwater Mesa report (King 1967).

LAN-267A Sweetwater Mesa, distribution of artifact types by depth.

Chris Pierce modeled the rates of rodent burrowing and their consequences for artifact distribution in archaeological sites. His abstract reads:

The construction of burrows and move-ment of sediment by pocket gophers alter archaeological deposits by causing vertical size sorting of artifacts, destruction of fragile artifacts, disruption of sedimentary

38 Significance of Ahmanson Ranch Archaeological Sites 39Significance of Ahmanson Ranch Archaeological Sites

LAN-267A Sweetwater Mesa, distribution of midden components by depth.

LAN-267A Sweetwater Mesa, excavation wall showing rock line and caliche deposits

LAN-267A Sweetwater Mesa, excavation floor showing exposed rock line. Metate feature in foreground left.

structures, and organic enrichment of the subsurface. To evaluate the long-term effects of exposure to burrowing, a simu-lation was developed based on quantitative information on pocket gopher burrows and rates of sediment movement. Simulation results indicate the development of a dis-tinct stone zone composed predominately of particles greater than 6 cm after 4000-5000 years, and a logarithmic pattern to the rate of strata disruption. The pattern produced by the simulation compare well with patterns exhibited by actual archaeo-logical deposits belonging to California's Milling Stone Horizon and other aspects of

California Prehistory may require revision, and that more emphasis must be placed on formation process research in such settings [1992:185].

In 1960, I excavated near the tank at LAN-1 and observed the presence of a stone line containing many large artifacts between 18 and 24 inches below the surface. Treganza and Bierman observed that there was a higher density of artifacts in shallower areas of the site at LAN-1. In a discussion of artifact yield they observed:

One explanation for the great increase for this season is that most of our excavations were conducted in the shallow part of the site (0-8 inches) where most of the artifacts occurred [1958: 46].

The higher artifact density in shallower areas was a conse-quence of shallower soil development and consequent higher


density of large artifacts because there is less soil. On the following page, profiles and a map indicating the vertical and horizontal distribution of artifacts at LAN-225 are pre-sented. Most artifacts at the site were concentrated near the surface of the bedrock and were at the base of the soil. It appears that in site areas where the underlying material is more resistant to soil formation or in locations where soil is more apt to erode away the soil is shallower. In areas where substrate are less resistant to soil formation (largely caused by burrowing in substrate) or soil is apt to be deposited, deeper profiles develop. At LAN-225, we excavated in a mortuary area where burial pits were excavated into bedrock.

Mark Johnson wrote concerning the distribution of artifacts at LAN-271 (on the basis of illustrated artifacts the site was occupied during Phases x and y of the Early period):

Artifacts from the lower levels of the site, including large crudely manufactured im-plements, compare favorably with the as-semblages from LAn-1, LAn-2, LAn-225, Ven-1 Ven-123 and Ven-150. The upper levels of the subsurface deposit exhibit a pattern found in most late period contexts, containing predominately lithic debitage but little indication of intensive stone tool production [1980:254].

In 1967, I concluded that a similar vertical distribution of artifacts at the Sweetwater Mesa (LAN-267) and LAN-225 sites was the result of size sorting by gophers (King 1967:54). Few archaeologists have referenced the Sweetwater Mesa report. It appears that Johnson confused size sorting with stratigraphic superimposition. The soils at VEN-271 were residual soils on knoll tops and were subjected to size sorting by gophers.

LAN-225 Century Ranch, Distribution of Metate burial cairns in mortuary area.

LAN-225 Century Ranch, Excavations in mortuary area

LAN-225 Century Ranch, Excavations in mortuary area. This site was removed to construct a movie set.


LAN-225 Century Ranch, excavation floor showing exposed rock line.

LAN-225 Century Ranch, excavation floor showing exposed rock line and cairn features.

LAN-225 Century Ranch, profiles indicating variable depth of soil deposit

LAN-225 excavation units and numbers of artifacts by depth.


LAN-1341A. Views of site area to the southeast. The last two pictures show the area graded to bedrock where artifacts were collected from pockets of soil in crevaces. Pin flags indicate the locations of artifacts in bedrock crevaces.

LAN-225 Century Ranch, excavation floor showing exposed cairn features.

LAN-1341A. Map of artifacts collected from cracks between bedrock at VEN-1341A

At Early period site LAN-1341A grading exposed an area that appeared to be solid bedrock. The soil at the base of the oak adjacent to the graded are appears to be less than 10 cm thick. The pin flags visible in the illustrations on this and the following page indicate the locations of arti-facts including a large metate fragment. manos, hammers, scraper planes, and flakes and flake tools. The artifacts are in small areas of soil between layers of bedrock. The map below indicates their locations. The illustrations of artifacts that follow the site pictures are artifacts found in the area. It is expected that similar conditions where artifacts are present between cracks in bedrock will be observed at the Laskey Mesa sites.


LAN-1341A. These pictures show the area graded to bedrock where artifacts were collected from pockets of soil in crevaces. Pin flags indicate the locations of artifacts in bedrock crevaces


These pictures illustrate artifacts collected from pockets of soil in crevaces between bedrock at LAN-1341A.


These pictures illustrate artifacts collected from pockets of soil in crevaces between bedrock at LAN-1341A.


There is potential to use soil development and degree of size sorting to date Early period sites. The degree of size sorting can be compared to determine the sequenceof occupations in an area such as Laskey Mesa. Changes in vertical distributions of artifacts and destruction of soil features including house floors are important to understand when planning strategies for excavating and identifying houses and other features in Early period sites.

Failure to account for soil development has resulted in des-ignation of many well developed and intact Early period sites as surface flake scatters or has resulted in failure to see the sites. Immediately east of Laskey Mesa, a survey was conducted of a parcel in November 1979, no artifacts were found during the survey. During monitoring five cobble manos, four quartzite hammerstones, two quartzite choppers, two quartzite flakes and one chalcedony flake were discovered (Chace 1988). These artifacts indicate the presence of houses or open air camps on the ridge where they were found. The site was designated LAN-1413. similar sites are expected to be encountered on the Ahmanson Ranch. A uniface and a biface manowere discovered on another ridge adjacent to the Ahmanson Ranch project in 1977 (Tadlock 1977). No monitoring of the destruction of the ridge occured. It is prob-able that artifacts were removed from the ridge.

Paul Porcasi conducted an analysis if size sorting of material from the Shoban Paul site (LAN-958) (The site was named for the man who destroyed it). Unfortunately he combined all of the excavation units from both deep and shallow areas of the site so that areas that might have had a stone line at 20 cm below the surface were combined with units with stone lines between 60 to 70 cm below the surface. It appears from his graph that gophers moved small artifacts down into cracks at least 40 cm below the lowest stone lines. The report at-tempts to demonstrate that bioturbation did not exist at the site (Salls 1995:9-11).

VEN-70 and several other sites contain artifacts used during the Late and Early periods (Leonard 1966). The sites are in residual soils. Bioturbation has resulted in the mixing

VEN-70 a site with manos and metates and Late period points and beads

Excavated unit at VEN-70 note shell midden in sidewall.

of artifacts, shell and soil organics into older site deposit. Archaeologists working in the Santa Monica Mountains during the 1960's believed that the presence of both Late and Early artifacts together indicated that manos and metates were used at special purpose sites during the Late period. Knowledge concerning soil development in sites is necessary to interpret and compensate for changes in the distribution of artifacts in soil.


Excavations in mortuary area at LAN-225. Pit in foreground is similar to pits under cairns that contain bones. It appears that in this cemetery burial pits were excavated into bedrock. If soil had been waterscreened we would have recovered many more small artifacts including beads.

Excavation of two adjoining manos in a rock line. at LAN-225


Distribution of Early period SettlementsMy research concerning settlement distribution has used an historical approach. I have studied the distribution of set-tlements occupied at the time of Spanish colonization and identified the archaeological sites that were occupied at the time of European contact. I then compare the distribution of settlements occupied during earlier periods. Similarities in the distribution of sites occupied during the historic and earlier periods can be observed. Settlement sites are often at locations near springs or other permanent water sources and along routes of travel. At locations suitable for settlements, there are choices of living on hilltops or along streams. Changes in choices of most suitable site situation results in clusters of sites of different time periods refered to as Site Complexes in the Oak Park and Ring Brother's studies.

The occupation of many sites in the eastern half of the Santa Barbara Channel can be dated on the basis of excavated materials. The sequence of occupations at Rincon Point, Carpinteria, Santa Barbara, Goleta Slough, Tecolote Canyon, Dos Pueblos Canyon, and other areas indicates regularities in changes of site locations on the Channel mainland coast. I have explained changes in the locations of Early period set-tlements as resulting from changes in social organization.

Most of the historic settlements listed in early colonial records have been identified as archaeological sites. It is possible to compare the distributions of historic archaeological sites with the known distribution of historic sites. The small settle-ment at Burro Flat contains evidence of residence during the period of mission recruitment but is not listed as a settlement in mission records. It was probably included as part of the El Escorpion settlement.

Our ability to identify early mission period native settlements with archaeological sites indicates that a large portion of set-tlements have been identified as archaeological sites. It is possible to compare the distribution of archaeological sites from different periods and observe changes in settlement distribution.

Most settlements recorded by Spanish colonists were founded long before the Spanish conquest. Some such as the Agua Amarga village site (LAN-243) were founded only 70-150 years before the Spanish Conquest but after Cabrilloʼs 1542 visit. Changes in settlement distribution in the Santa Barbara

Channel are indicated by Cabrilloʼs lists of coastal settle-ments and the distribution of archaeological sites. There was development of nucleated centers and a decrease in numbers of small settlements after Cabrilloʼs visit (King 1975). There appears to be a similar decrease in number of small settlements during the protohistoric period in the Santa Monica Mountains. When the distribution and sizes of Late period Phase 1 settlements excavated in the Simi Hills area is compared with the distribution of historic settlements, it appears that the Agua Amarga settlement on Medea Creek may have formed as the result of consolidation of two to four earlier settlements in the Medea Creek area (map top page 19). At the settlement of Talepop in Las Virgenes Canyon (LAN-229), new areas were added to the settlement during the protohistoric period. The addition of these areas may have corresponded to the abandonment of several small Late period sites located upstream in Las Virgenes Creek in the Simi Hills area including VEN-220, 754 and LAN-669.

Interior Late period and early protohistoric settlements other than the sites of late protohistoric and early historic settlements include many sites that have been recently excavated. Sites that appear to be the remains of hamlets with only several houses include the following sites: Oak Park (CA-VEN-294) (Rosen 1978), North Ranch (CA-VEN-606) (Whitley et al. nd.), Daon (CA-LAN-669) (Brock 1986; Van Horn 1987), Agoura Hills (CA-LAN-466)(Raab et al. n.d.), Ring Brothers (CA-VEN-535)(Clewlow, McCann, and Whitley 1979), and Three Springs (CA-LAN-807)(Dillon and Boxt 1989). Oc-cupation at these sites apparently continued into Late period Phase 2a after which they were abandoned. A cemetery was discovered at CA-VEN-606 (Whitley et al. nd.). None of the artifacts described from these sites indicates occupation during Late period Phase 2b or the historic period. In addition to these Late period sites, many Early and Middle period sites are also found in the vicinity of these sites as well as in the vicinities of historic village sites. It appears that there were more small settlements during most time periods than during the Spanish conquest and late preconquest time periods.

There may have been even more settlements during the Early period. The distribution of both large and small Early period sites near the bases of hills where areas of deep colluvial soils are present may relate to locations of fields The following discussion of regularities in changes in site location in the Santa Barbara Channel region is from (King 1990). It has been edited for this discussion

The occupation of many sites in the eastern half of the Santa Barbara Channel is dated on the basis of excavated samples.

Chapter 4: Distribution and Organization of Early period Settlements


The sequence of occupations at Rincon Point, Carpinteria, Santa Barbara, Goleta Slough, Tecolote Canyon, Dos Pueblos Canyon, and other areas indicates regularities in changes of site locations on the Channel mainland coast. I have explained changes in the locations of Early period settlements as the result of changes in social organization. The first identified changes occurred around 3500 B.C.

Settlements occupied before 3500 B.C. were positioned in defensive locations where high elevation and wide field of view were optimal for protection from small neighboring groups. This indicates that the ties between adjacent set-tlements were loose and that there was a relative absence of centralized leadership. The larger settlements that were occupied between 3500 and 2500 B.C. were usually lower in elevation than earlier settlements. They did not have as

Archaeological sites at the mouth of Rincon creek. Map reconstructed to pre-graded condition. The lower sites on the east side of Rincon Creek are the remains of the historic village of Rincon. The sites on the west side of the creek were occupied from Early period Phase x through Middle Period Phase 2a. The earliest occupation was apparently at the highest point at SBA-141 the Aronzena site. This site had many manos and metates. During Early period Phase ya the settlement was moved to the low rise overlooking the mouth of the creek to SBA-1. The settlement then moved to SBA-119A,-the Eakins site, during the later part of Phase y. During Phase z and Middle period phase1 the settlement was concentrated at SBA--119B . During Phase 2a of the Middle period the settlement returned to SBA-1. By Phase 2b and during following periods the settlement was at VEN-62 on the east side of the creek.


VEN-220

VEN-151

VEN-535

VEN-69

VEN-632

VEN-606, 181

VEN-125

VEN-294

LAN-669

LAN-413

LAN-249, 250

LAN-712?

LAN-867?LAN-238LAN-314?

VEN-122

VEN-179

VEN-629 VEN-624

VEN-1029

Distribution of Late period Phase 1 Settlements in the vicinity of the Simi Hills

Small open site or rockshelterLarger open site 0 1 2 3 4 5 k

scale N

LAN-466

VEN-807

VEN-242

Distribution of early Historic Native Settlements in the vicinity of the Simi Hills

0 1 2 3 4 5k

scale

Hipuc

Huam

VEN-179 LAN-243

VEN-629

VEN-39

VEN-68

VEN-69 VEN-151

N

Sapue

Larger open site,described in Crespi diary

Small open site or rockshelter

Settlements listed in mission registers


VEN-78,79

VEN-556 VEN-682

VEN-759, 766, 927

VEN-803

VEN-536,

VEN-271

VEN-45

VEN-123, 124, 44

VEN-640

VEN-43 VEN-1153

LAN-1521LAN-1914

LAN-1236 LAN-1352

LAN-973, 1580, 1581

LAN-315

LAN-129

LAN-1883

LAN-416

LAN-712, 1060

Distribution of Early period Settlements and sites with manos or metates in the vicinity of the Ahmanson Ranch Project

Larger Sites where many artifacts were found 0 1 2 3 4 5 k

scale N

VEN-622

VEN-180,181,

VEN-628

View of the Sweetwater Mesa from the beach.

View of the Sweetwater Mesa from the northwest. View across Sweetwater Mesa (LAN-267) from the south.


View of LAN-40 from the northwest.

View of LAN-1

View of LAN-215 from east before grading

View of LAN-215 from the northwest.

The Encino site LAN-111 before grading

The Encino site LAN-111 after grading

The Encino site Ven-1019 before grading


View of LAN-225 from the south. View of LAN-225 from the east.

View of LAN-3--25 from the south.

Map of ridge top sites LAN-1 and 2

Conejo Plateau Early period sites


clear a view of the surrounding countryside as the earlier settlements. The sizes of sites occupied during this period indicates that social groups were larger than they had been. These larger groups were probably less apt to be attacked by small groups, and could afford to choose sites less defensively advantageous than previously (King 1980b: 3-29).

There appears to have been a return to higher elevation loca-tions offering good views of their surroundings during the Early period around 2500 B.C. This may be explained as the result of the development of small subsidiary settlements around major centers. A slight reduction in the size of the centers resulting from the development of satellite commu-nities perhaps increased the importance of locating them in defensive locations. Satellite communities were also situ-ated in defensive locations because of their small size. The development of subsidiary settlements indicates the evolution of larger more hierarchically organized societies.

Following the trend during Phase Eya to move to more de-fensive locations, there was again a trend toward moving to lower shoreline locations. By 600 B.C., the development of stronger regional organizations and increases in the population of villages had significantly reduced the value of defensive locations. By the end of the Middle period and in many cases by Phase M2b, villages were frequently located at boat landings immediately above the beach (King 1980a: 64-69; 1980b: 27-30). I interpret the movement of villages closer to the beach to be the result of the increased importance of sea resources, which is obvious from the contents of coastal middens and the range of types of fishing impliments and facilities, and the correlated importance of protecting fish-ing craft as investments in canoe construction increased. It appears that a similar sequence of changes in site locations occurred on the Channel Islands. Besides the general shift from high locations to shoreline villages, a general decrease in the number of permanent villages occurs during the Late period. This decrease can be accounted for by growth in size of village sites that continued to be occupied and the establishment of large new towns (King 1978: 65-67; 1975; 1980a: 64-65). During the Late period, there was also appar-ently an increase in the use of small temporary settlements and camps.

In in the interior of the Santa Monica Mountains (and else-where in California), there was a similar shift from knoll top to valley bottom sites during the Early period and early Middle period.

On the basis of information concerning the size of village sites and the dates of their occupation, there is an observ-able trend towards larger villages over time. Further studies oriented toward measuring village sites along with the use of artifact chronology will result in accurate measurements of population growth.

Site Size and Situation.Maps of sites occupied during the Early period are presented on the following pages. The maps indicate the ranges of sizes of Early period sites. They also indicate the location of sites in relation to landforms The first three maps indicate three of the largest Early period sites in the Santa Monica Mountains. The largest site is LAN-19

Artifacts found at CA-LAN-19 indicate the site was formed during the Early period and early Middle period (prior to ca 200 BC). Beads, other artifacts, and radiocarbon dates indicate Humaliwo at CA-LAN-264 and CA-LAN-690 was founded during the early Middle period, near the beginning of Phase M2a (ca. 200 BC). Humaliwo was a regional political center before its citizens were taken to San Fernando Mis-sion. The other large site near the Humaliwo village site is CA-LAN-267 which was a large settlement occupied during Early period Phase x (ca. 5500-4000 BC). It appears that no large settlement site closer to Humaliwo than CA-LAN-19 was occupied during Phases y and z of the Early period and Phase 1 of the Middle period. CA-LAN-19 is the largest site in the Santa Monica Mountains.

The location of CA-LAN-19 is unique in the Malibu area. It is the largest relatively flat area bounded by cliffs on most sides except on the west where a ridge connects the area to higher hills. The north edge of the site is bounded by Puerco Canyon where it flows from west to east and forms a marsh area adjacent to the site. The east edge of the site is bounded by Puerco Canyon where it turns south to the ocean. The south side of the site is marked by the edge of the bluff that overlooks Malibu Road and the ocean. During the Early period, many sites are located in situations that are the most defensible available.. The CA-LAN-19 site is the most defensible situation for a large settlement on the Malibu coast.

In the Chumash area, settlements occupied during Phases y and z of the Early period and Phase 1 of the Middle period were in situations similar to CA-LAN-19. Some settlements occupied during these time periods were large and were appar-ently important ceremonial centers. My observations of dif-ferences in artifact frequencies and forms found in cemeteries of different Early period sites and observation of differences in size and organization of Early period sites have led me to conclude that individuals living at ceremonial centers were usually wealthier than individuals living at small settlements. CA-LAN-19 is larger than many other large sites occupied during the later part of the Early Period including large sites at Rincon Creek, the Goleta slough and the large site at Forneys Cove on the west end of Santa Cruz Island where Early Period house depressions are visible on the surface of the site. The large size of the contiguous shell midden at LAN-19 may be the remains of a large village that was home to many of the residents of the western Santa Monica Mountains during


100 feetscale N

Map of LAN-19


1947 Air Photograph of the Puerco Mesa- Malibu area

Oblique 1949 Air Photograph of the Puerco Mesa area. Large elipse indicates approximate location of LAN-19 and smaller elipse the location of LAN-803


the end of the Early Period. CA-LAN-19 was probably the main ceremonial center in the Santa Monica Mountains area during Phases y and z of the Early period and Phase 1 of the Middle period. CA-LAN-19 is composed of several areas that probably differ in their times of occupation. The largest area was probably all occupied at one time.

The largest area of CA-LAN-19 is on the relatively flat marine terrace bounded on the north and east by Puerco Canyon, bounded on the south by bluffs that overlook the beach, and on the west by a rise in the land. High frequencies of manos and metate fragments indicate higher spots in the area of CA-LAN-19 north of the Pacific Coast Highway were occupied during Early period Phase x. These areas may have also been occupied later. CA-LAN-19 is surrounded by other Early period sites on the east side of Puerco Canyon and to its west but still on the marine terrace bounded on the north by Puerco Canyon. These sites may have been occupied at the same time as CA-LAN-19. CA-LAN-19 may be the site of the largest town in Southern California at the end of the Early period (King 1997).

Other large sites probably occupied earlier than the large area of LAN-19 were LAN-30, LAN-451 and LAN-267. Maps of LAN-30 and LAN-451 are illustrated on the page on the right.. Also illustrated to the right are some of the smaller and medium sized Early period sites that have been recorded. Four of these are from the Topanga area and the smallest is from the Malibu coast.

On the six pages that follow, many maps are presented. All the maps except inset maps are shown at the same scale. They all range between the sizes of the sites shown on the page to the right. The size of most sites indicate that except the few largest and poorly studied sites in the vicinity of Point Dume and Malibu, most sites had one row of between one and eight houses. Most probably had two or three houses.

At sites where we have information concerning the distribution of groundstone artifacts or shell midden, it appears that early site houses were often on the brows or less often on the crests of hills with a relatively flat hilltop behind them. Most areas below houses contain a high concentrations of flakes. It ap-pears that outdoor and away from the house manufacturing and possibly butchering often occured downslope of house areas. Work areas are often on the edges of draws in areas with views downslope.

View of Running Springs Ranch site.

Nelson Leonard surveying near edge of the Conejo Plateau in area of Early period sites

Early period site near edge of the Conejo Plateau

Early period site near edge of the Conejo Plateau


area of flake con-centration indi-

artifact locations indi-cated by dots

100 feetscale

Map of LAN-2248 with area of artifact concentration indicated

Map of LAN-162 from Dillon and Hyland 1987

Map of LAN-218 from Dillon 1981

Map of LAN-2 from Johnson 1966

Map of LAN-1 from Treganza and Bierman 1958

Map of LAN-451 from King 1999

Map of LAN-30

58 Signifi cance of Ahmanson Ranch Ar chae o log i cal Sites 59Signifi cance of Ahmanson Ranch Ar chae o log i cal Sites

100 feetscale

Map of LAN-803 with artifacts

Map of VEN-1 from Wallace et al. 1958

Map of VEN-150 from Greenwood 1966

Map of VEN-536 from Clewlow, McCann, and Whitley (editors) 1979

Map of VEN-537 from Clewlow, McCann, and Whitley (editors) 1979

Map of LAN-266 from Bissell 1984


100 feetscale

Map of LAN-111 from Rozaire 1960 Inset map of LAN-111 and LAN-186 from Rozaire 1960

Map of VEN-853 from Greenwood, Romani and Foster 1987

Map of VEN-854 from Greenwood, Romani and Foster 1987


100 feetscale

Map of LAN-1326 and 1327 from Raab 1987: Maps 1 and 2

Map of LAN-1352 fromWlodarski 1988

Map of LAN-225 fromKing Blackburn and Chandonet 1967

Inset map of LAN-225 fromKing, Blackburn and Chandonet 1967

Map of VEN-65 from Prichett and McIntyre 1979


100 feetscale

Map of LAN-215 from King 1962

Map of VEN-123 from Dillon 1978

Map of VEN-100 from West 1979


100 feetscale

Inset map of VEN-271 from Johnson 1980

Map of VEN-45 from Adams et al. 1980

Map of VEN-1019 from King et al. 1991

Map of LAN-1879

Map of VEN-271A from Johnson 1980

Map of VEN-271B from Johnson 1980


Air photo of Laskey Mesa indicaqting large area of grasslands in the vicinity of the sites. Most Early period sites are in areas with soils and grasslands. The following page includes maps of the sites where the largest collections were made.

The Laskey Mesa and VEN-709 Ahmanson Ranch site maps are presented on the following page. The airphoto above indicates that the Laskey Mesa area is largely grassland. Early period sites are concentrated in grassland areas. The Ahmanson Ranch sites are similar in size and situation on knoll tops to other Early period sites. The closest Late period

View of LAN-1View across LAN-227 from LAN-225. This site probably contained later Early period components.

and probably late Middle period occupation sites are south near the 101 Freeway or northwest in Las Virgenes Canyon. The apparent absence of Late period occupation in the area may indicate that protection of fields in grassland areas was less important during later time periods. Seed grinding tools are less frequently found in Late period sites.


Map of VEN-707

Map of VEN-222A

Map of VEN-709

Map of VEN-222B

Map of VEN-221A

Maps of Ahmanson Ranch archaeological sites from Whitley, D., Simon, Gothar and T. Whitley 1989

Map of VEN-706


Internal Organization of Early Period Sites: Areas within SitesIn 1900, Holmes noted that Rust was able to locate house sites at a site in Pasadena by the variety and density of artifacts found in limited areas (1900:182).

At SCRI-3 near Forney's Point, Early period house depressions are visible on the surface of the site. Olson excavated two Early period cemeteries at the site and Richard VanValkenberg excavated a third (dating between the cemeteries excavated by Olson.. Several houses were excavated in by Larry Wil-coxon. Wilcoxon noted differences in the sizes of structures at the site (1993).

In 1972, I participated in directing a field class excavation at an Early period site in Saratoga in the San Francisco Bay area. We only found a few flakes on the surface of what had been a sawmill site. We first excavated in an area of the site that

had little color but contained points, flakes and a hearth. We later found darker soil along the bluff overlooking Saratoga Creek. This soil contained manos and other large tools. We also discovered a cemetery area above and almost adjacent to the area with manos and core tools. The cemetery contained burials under metate cairns. When the site was graded for construction, I observed the area with manos and large tools extended along the bluff. Because we did not know where the site was when we started excavation, we discovered site areas that we probably would not have chosen to excavate. These areas included a cemetery area and apparently an outdoor men's working area. These areas were behind and above the apparent house row near the edge of the bluff. This is the first Early site where I recognized different site areas.

In 1970, I directed excavations at the Pitas Point site. The site was occupied between Middle period Phase 5c and Late period Phase 2a. Gamble studied the distribution of artifacts at the site (1983). Many of the artifacts are the same types found in Early period sites. The people who lived at the Pi-tas Point site specialized in the manufacture of pestles from elongated cobbles found on the local beach. Because there

Map of Pitas Point site (VEN-27) indicating locations of excavations and features.

House at Pitas Point site (VEN-27) upper level. House at Pitas Point site (VEN-27) lower level.


Distribution of surface artifacts at LAN-189, maps from NARC 1980

was extensive groundstone manufacture there were many large hammers and choppers at the site. Gamble's analysis demonstrated that mortars and pestles and choppers and ham-mers were most often found in houses. Gamble discovered that different artifacts were found in different site areas.

In 1972, when LAN-451 was first recorded by a team from UCLA The recorders mapped a distinct area of flake con-centration on the site record. In 1999, I observed "The high frequency of chipped chert artifacts in the intact midden soil indicates that the project area includes part of the area of high flake concentration reported on the original site record" (King 1999).

After conducting studies at LAN-189 near Escondido Canyon, Richard Wessel observed:

By plotting the aereal distribution of artifact types and frequencies (Figure 5[Figure at top of this page], a clearly bimodal pattern presents itself. One area of high density is located within the midden area in the southern portion of the site, and another smaller cluster, containing all artifact classes except angular hammers and abraiders, microblades, and fire affected rock, exists to the north, some 150 meters away. ... The absence of the maintenance items mentioned above allows for the suggestion that the locus may represent a peripheral activity area, and not a domicile or habitation area.

The surface distribution of thermally altered rocks, flake scrapers, and milling-stones shows a distinct clustering near the site datumin the southern portion of the site. From this, we may hypothesize the pres-ence of one or more prehistoric household units here. Towards the eastern portion of the midden area, a high density of cores and core tools is present suggesting a work area of some sort.

The overall distribution pattern suggests a village or hamlet with households centered around cooking, with associated processing and maintenance areas [NARC 1980:24-25].

AT LAN-266, Bissell mapped point proveniences of surface artifacts. His map contained more artifacts than previously recorded .. The data collected is amenable to spatial analysis. The map is shown reduced with the other site maps. Manos and other household artifacts were concentrated near the crest of the hill (Bissell 1984).

On April 3, 1990, I reviewed a report by John Foster (1989c) concerning LAN-1107 an Early period site in Malibu. I ana-lyzed the data contained in the report by Foster and a report by Clay Singer on the artifacts. I observed that the report was not supported by the data they recorded. I observed that many flakes were present downslope from the area of the site where shell and groundstone were found. Maps and data presented in my review are included on this page (King


Table indicating the distribution of chipped stone artifacts by STP and depth at LAn-1107.

Map of distribution of shell in STPs at LAN-1107: Shaded STPs indicate the location of recovered shell, six pieces from STP-3 and one piece found in others.

Map of distribution of chipped stone artifacts recovered from STPs at LAN-1107. The distribution of chipped stone in STPs B-S20 and B-S60 and the auger sample in the bottom of STP W-N20 indicate that the highest frequency of deeply buried artifacts were in STPs located on the slopes.

Map of test excavations at LAN-1107 from Foster 1989

100 feetscale

1990b). The data indicate that outdoor working areas were downslope of the residential area. They also indicate that the downslope areas may be small and descrete.

A descrete upper edge of shell midden in the central part of Sweetwater Mesa site (LAN-267A) was observed in 1990 when the land owner John Tunney had the site graded. The abrupt edge of the shell midden indicates a possible stockade or other descrete barier. The descrete edge indicates houses were in same general area throughout the occupation at the site.


Distribution of Flakes at CA-Ven-1019 Distribution of Cores, Chunks and Fine Grained Spalls at CA-Ven-1019

Cores and quartzite flakes at Ven-1019

quartzite flake

core

Scale50 meters

In 1990 I directed an evaluation study at Pak Park Zone 3. The sites appeared to be campsites. One site appeared to be an Early period site although it lacked groundstone artifacts. VEN-1019 included a downslope area with many flakes (King et al. 1991). Several plots of artifact distribution from the report are included on this page.

During studies at LAN-30, I observed that the upper edge of the shell midden was very descrete. In less than a meter there was a transition from dense shell midden to sioil with few flakes on its surface. The shell midden edge is as descrete as the edge at the Sweetwater Mesa site.

At LAN-1879, I observed that shell, and fire altered rock were concentrated near the crest of the hill. Chipped stone artifacts extended south of the ridge top. These included many artifacts made from chert and chalcedony (King 1995a).

Between June 23 and August 18, 1998, I mapped the locations of two hundred and seventy six artifacts in a parcel in site LAN-451. It appears that residences were concentrated on the sides of the knoll in the middle of the parcel where manos, choppers and hammerstones are concentrated. It appears that the lower lying areas were not the locations of residences. Plots of artifact types are presented on the opposing page In 1999, I conducted a study in the NE part of the site. I observed a high frequency of chipped chert artifacts in intact midden soil in the area reported as a high flake frequency area on the original site record .(King 1999).


Distribution of types of artifacts in a part of LAN-451.

Hea

vy h

amm

ers,

chop

pers

and

scra

p-er

pla

nes

Silty

che

rt ch

unks

, co

res a

nd fl

akes

Man

os a

nd m

etat

esFi

re a

ltere

d ro

ckA

ndes

ite fl

akes

, co

res a

nd fl

akin

g ha

mm

ers

Che

rt an

d ch

al-

cedo

ny a

rtifa

cts

and

flake

scra

pers


Andesite hammer

scale= 4 cm

scale= 4 cm

scale= 4 cmSandstone metate fragmentFire altered rock

Map of LAN-2812 from site record

100 feetscale

Studies at a northeastern part of the midden at (LAN-267A) were conducted by Clay Singer. He identifi ed an area with many fl akes an bone tools, that are probably fragments of fi shing implements (Singer 1999, 2000).

In 1997, I mapped the locations of over 700 artifacts at LAN-803. I collected pictures of the artifacts with a video camera. Mike Merrill took on the task of analyzing the surface dis-tribution of the artifacts and the artifact photos. His study is attached to this report. He has also analyzed data from the Laskey Mesa sites. His research hopefully introduces a new era in the study of site organization in California.

On October 8 and November 2, 1998, I discovered a small site indicated by an andesite hammer, a metate fragment and a piece of fi re altered rock. The artifacts indicate an Early period occupation (see illustrations on this page. The fi re altered rock in di cates the pres ence of a hearth or oven. The artifacts indicate that people were eating and probably sleep ing in the area. The apparent low density of artifacts present at the site indicate that the oc cu pa tion was infrequent or of short du ra tion.

On December 23,1998 i recorded anoter samll site near Delaplane. A mano was found on the surface and the pro-

fi le of a subsurface pit was discovered in the geotest trench sidewall (see ilustrations on facing page.

Data con cern ing surface artifact locations have been re cord ed but not analyzed. The data provides an op por tu ni ty to study the or ga ni za tion of dif fer ent Early sites.. Anal y sis of Ahmanson Ranch surface collections and col lec tions from other similar sites is pre sent ed by Michael Merrill in the attached paper.

Artifacts from surface LAN-2812.

View of LAN-2812 from southeast.. View of LAN-2812 from south.


Map of LAN-2821 from site record.Mano from surface LAN-2821.

Profile of pit into subsoil at LAN-2821.

scale= 4 cm

Site found near back dirt from trench above drill rig at LAN-2821.

View of LAN-2821 from southeast..

Organization of Features Including HousesThere is little information concerning the organization of activities within Early period houses. We are only begining to identify them. Hopefuly analysis of the organization of houses based on controled archaeological excavations will follow their identification.


LAN-803 a medium sized Early period Phase x settlement in Malibu. This map indicating different site areas is based on observations of over 700 artifacts on the surface of the site. There is little available information concerning the organization of settlements.

10 meters

Expected size of cemetery

Area of highest concentration of artifacts associated with houses

Area of high concentration of artifacts associated with houses

Area of highest concentration of artifacts associated with mens activities

Flat area with virtually no artifacts surrounded by artifacts

Depression, possibly remains of mens house

Large flat area above concentration of household artifacts

Manos and other stone artifacts from LAN-803


Analysis Procedures and ConditionsThe W&S Consultants team collected information concerning the distribution of surface artifacts but performed no analysis of the artifact distribution. Michael Merrill has developed procedures to analyze surface artifact distributions at an Early period settlement in Malibu (LAN-803). I entered the data presented in the W&S Associates Ahamanson Ranch report (Whitley, Simon, Gothar and Whitley 1989) and Michael Merrill analyzed the data so that comparisons could be made with LAN-803 and the Ahmanson Ranch sites and other Early period sites. Michael Merrill's report is attached to this report. Merrill's summaries concerning Ahmanson Ranch sites are quoted in this chapter. His report ia attached

The handwritten catalogues of artifacts collected by W&S Consultants are included as an appendix to the W&S As-sociates Ahamanson Ranch report. The catalogues were entered into Panorama, a data management program, saved as a text file and opened in Microsoft Excel for analysis by Michael Merrill.

The W&S report contains maps indicating the locations of surface collected artifacts. The maps were accompanied by lists of numbered surface artifacts. These numbers were en-tered into the catalogues. Coordinates of numbered mapped artifacts were measured from a grid of 100 foot squares with a superimposed grid of 10 foot squares. Mapped artifacts were recorded to the nearest foot by visually interpolating within the 10 foot grid squares. The coordinates were entered into the catalogue.

Problems encountered using the catalogue in the W&S Consultants report included difficulty reading numbers on maps because of their reduced size and unclear copying, differences between the catalogue and artifact descriptions in the report, and limitations of the typology. The debitage category although defined as waste includes stone tools of more than one use and many materials. The distribution of

types of debitage and fire altered rock are not indicated on maps in the report. The catalogue includes a category called utilized debitage not described in the artifact descriptions.

Comparison of artifact distributions at LAN-803 and other sites with mapped surface artifacts, indicate similar organization of Laskey Mesa to other Early period settlements. The informa-tion from LAN-803 was collected after the preparation of the Ahmanson Ranch EIR. The data from the Ahmanson Ranch sites was not analyzed by the W&S team. Mathematical techniques are used by Merrill to discover and analyze spatial patterns at the Ahmanson Ranch sites. The analysis of the data collected by the W&S team indicates that the sites they studied are Early period settlements. The data do not support the conclusions drawn by the W&S team.

Descriptions of Studied Ahmanson Ranch Archaeological SitesSite VEN-221

This site was first recorded by myself and James Bard on June 13, 1970. We recognized that the site was similar to other Early period sites such as LAN-1 and LAN-225 that I had excavated in and we described the site as a "Millingstone Horizon" type site.

Two pieces of obsidian from this site were studied for hy-dration rims. One had no hydration value present and one had a rim 1.1 micron thick, estimated as dating from AD 1747 from Unit 10 in the 10-20 cm level. The W&S team do not explain the Late dates implied by these pieces of obsidian, perhaps they are glass.

Michael Merrill identified house and outdoor activity areas at VEN-221A. He observed:

Chapter 5: Organization of the Ahmanson Ranch Archaeological Sites and their Significance for the Study of History


"Houses”

VEN-221 contains two significant (3% and 7% level) clusters which are interpreted as “houses” The nearest neighbor statistic for both clusters when compared to the results of LAn-803 identifies them as “house” ar-eas. Both of these clusters can be enclosed in a 20 x 20 foot area. One cluster ("House” #1) contains 3 whole manos and the other (“House” #2), what has been called in the Whitley typology as a handstone (like a small mano). ... I interpret this as an error in Whitleyʼs typology and that both “hand-stones” are probably manos. Unfortunately the collection of VEN-221 artifacts has not been made available to Chester King to confirm this. It is therefore assumed that "House” #2 in VEN-221 contains one whole quartzite mano. “House” #1 also contains a hammer and core, which can be seen, as associated with manos in houses based on the interpretation of principal component 1 from the principal components analysis performed on LAn-803 (refer to the appendix).

Outdoor Working Areas.

VEN-221 contains one significant (3% level) cluster, which is interpreted as an outdoor working area based on the com-parison of the nearest neighbor statistic for this cluster (R= 0.67) with the results of the analysis performed on LAn-803. This cluster can be contained in a 50 x 50 foot area. It contains a predominance of ham-mers. It also contains one metavolcanic mano sitting next to an agglomeration of hammers. It is probable that the mano was being used as a hammer in this area. Scrap-ers and other tools in this area are consistent with the types seen in the outdoor working areas in LAn-803 [2002:16].

W&S designated the western part of the site Locus B. Here a whole pestle was found in an excavation unit placed near a single surface artifact. The excavation was probably in a house area. Pestles are most often found in houses.

Site VEN-222

This site was first recorded by myself and James Bard on June 13, 1970. We recognized that the site was similar to other Early period sites such as LAN-1, LAN-267 and LAN-225 that I had excavated in and we described the site as a

"Millingstone Horizon" type site.

The W&S report states that a base fragment of what was interpreted as a large side notched point was found in the 30-40 cm level of Unit 8 at VEN-222B (1989:67). Large side notched points were used most frequently around 5000 years ago.

Michael Merrill identified house and outdoor activity areas at VEN-222A. He observed:

“House” Area

VEN-222A has one significant (2% level) cluster of surface artifacts that are inter-preted as being part of a “house” area. This cluster covers an area less than 6,300 square feet. It contains several whole manos and its nearest neighbor statistic (R= 0.79) by comparison with LAn-803 suggests this cluster is within a residential area. The sur-face artifact density in VEN-222 Locus A is lower than in the sites already examined. The paucity of surface artifacts suggests this site may be a seasonal camp (occupied during the harvest of managed fields of an-nual seed crops) and not a residential site occupied year round. More artifact posi-tions are needed to precisely determine the positions and number of residences. This can only achieved through an excavation of the site.

Outdoor Activity Area

VEN-222A contains one significant (3% level) cluster that is interpreted as an outdoor activity area based on the near-est neighbor statistic (R= 0.65), which by comparison with LAn-803 infers this is an outdoor activity area. This area has one whole meta-sedimentary mano along with several hammers and cores, and what has been called an abrader. The mano in this area may well have seen use as a hammer [2002:17-18].

Michael Merrill identified a house area at VEN-222B. He observed:

The surface artifact concentration in VEN-222 Locus B can aptly be described as low. One highly significant (1/10th of 1% level) cluster was identified in this site. The nearest neighbor statistic (R= 0.46) is slightly below the range for the outdoor working areas in LAn-803. This


area contains three quartzite hammers, a quartzite chopper, a quartzite scraper plane, and a quartzite core. The nearest neighbor statistic and tool content point to this cluster being part of an outdoor working area. The nearest neighbor statistic (R= 0,87) for a marginally significant (12% level) and the presence of two whole manos suggests, by comparison with LAn-803 that this cluster might be part of a residential area. Excavation is needed in this site to identify the locations of features and the types of organization they contain [2002:18].

Site VEN-705

This site was first recorded by Thomas Banks during the Muleback survey on October 11, 1979.

W&S found three surface artifacts and excavated one unit at this site. They found artifacts in the excavated soil More information should be gathered concerning this site. The available data is inadequate to determine the activities con-ducted at the site or its age.

Site VEN-706


The W&S report states that a fragment of a large, 'eared' tang of a dart point was found on the surface at VEN-222B. It states 'Stylistically, chronologically and functionally it is equivalent to the example from CA-Ven-222" (1989:77). It is probably an Early period point fragment.

W&S obtained an obsidian hydration measurement of 5.9 microns that they interpret as indicating a date of ca. AD 691. The obsidian was from Unit 1, 0-10 cm level. The date may indicate Middle period use of this site. It does not date occupation at the probable house identified by Merrill.

Michael Merrill identified a house area at VEN-706. He observed:

VEN-706 contains a diffuse (or regular) distribution of artifacts over the entire site, as is demonstrated by the high value of 2.76 for the nearest neighbor statistic calculated from this distribution. The null hypothesis of random artifact distribution is rejected at the 1 % level of significance. A significant (4% level) cluster of artifacts is seen in a house size area near the cen-

ter of the artifact distribution. The nearest neighbor statistic for this cluster (R= 0.82) along with the presence of a whole mano, by comparison with LAn-803 suggests this may be a “house”. Excavation is needed in this site to better understand its organization [2002:18].

Site VEN-707


W&S obtained an obsidian hydration measurement of 6.9 microns that they interpret as indicating a date of ca. AD 471. The obsidian was from Unit 2, 0-10 cm level. The date may indicate Middle period use of this site. It does not date oc-cupation at the probable house identified by Merrill. Another piece of obsidian had no value. Perhaps it is glass.

Michael Merrill identified a house area at VEN-707. He observed:

VEN-707 contains a low density of mapped surface artifacts. Examination of the artifact distribution revealed one significant (5 % level) cluster. The nearest neighbor statistic (R = 0.74) when compared to LAn-803 infers this to be a “house” area. Manos are absent in this cluster. Hammers, a core, and a scraper plane constitute this cluster and are interpretable as being part of a house tool association based on the principal components analysis performed on LAn-803. Additional excavation is also needed in this site to better understand its organization. As with all the previous sites examined it is apparent VEN-707 contains valuable and substantial information that can answer important questions concerning prehistory [2002:19].

Site VEN-708

This site was first recorded by Thomas Banks during the Muleback survey on November 7, 1979. W&S say they determined the artifacts observed by Banks were natural rock fragments. The original report says three cores and more than 25 flakes of gray quartzite cobbles were observed. Independent assessment has not been allowed


Site VEN-709


W&S obtained an obsidian hydration measurement of 2.6 microns that they interpret as indicating a date of ca. AD 1417. The obsidian was from Unit 2, 40-50 cm level. It does not date occupation at the probable house identified by Merrill.

Michael Merrill identified house and outdoor activity areas at VEN-709. He observed:

“House”

VEN-709 has one significant (6% level) artifact cluster sampled in a 30 x 30 foot quadrat that contains whole manos and a nearest neighbor statistic (R= 0.81) when compared to LAn-803 suggests this cluster is in a “house”. A marginally significant (8% level) cluster has a nearest neighbor statistic (R= 0.76) that when compared to LAn-803 suggests this cluster is part of a “house” area. Manos are absent from this cluster.

Outdoor Working Area

VEN-709 has another significant (3% level) cluster with a nearest neighbor statistic (R= 0.56) that suggests by comparison with LAn-803 that this small cluster is part of an outdoor working area. The three artifacts in the cluster are consistent with types ex-pected in an outdoor working area.

Excavation in this outdoor working area as well as in the “house” area would provide more detailed information about the orga-nization of this site. It is certain that this site contains substantial and important infor-mation about a poorly understood period in early California prehistory [2002:20]..

Potential to Contribute Information Concerning HistoryThe Ahmanson Ranch sites on and in the vicinity of Laskey Mesa provide the last opportunity to study a contiguous group of Early period sites. The sites probably contain the record of

over 6000 years of continuous occupation on Laskey Mesa. The record includes the remains of houses cemeteries and areas used for dancing, sweating (also sleeping by men) and manufacturing. In the few areas of the Santa Monica Moun-tains and Simi Hills where particular Early period sites have been preserved, other nearby Early period sites have been destroyed or badly damaged. The Laskey Mesa area contains many sites that are only slightly disturbed.

The Laskey Mesa group of archaeological sites apparently do not include Late period occupations or late Middle period occupations. It is possible that the types of crops harvested in grassland areas such as Laskey Mesa were not as important during the Late period. It is also possible that it was more important to locate settlements along routes of travel during the Late period. It appears that the unique situation of Laskey Mesa resulted in abandonment of the area as a location of houses before AD 500.

The issues of whether sites were permanent or seasonal can be determined by studying the organization of the sites. It appears that cooking tools are concentrated in residential areas. If residential areas are excavated, they can be com-pared to types of residential structures used at seasonal sites or houses occupied throughout the year. Discovery of the whole organization of sites in which activity areas in the site and within houses are all studied will result in the answers to most questions being presently asked. An understanding of settlement organization and analysis of data concerning activities conducted in sites will result in a major advance in study of the Early period. It will enable us to ask more sophisticated questions than whether people were sedentary or not or whether or not people lived in the area. Merrill's analysis identifies areas to excavate in to discover the internal organization of houses and other activity areas.

Serious research can provide us maps of settlements and understanding of the operation of the settlements. Maps constructed using careful data collection controls will contain information concerning the sizes of houses, cemetery areas and other activity areas. Settlement at Laskey Mesa can then be viewed over time and the history of the occupation and use of the area can be discovered. It is possible to study the organization within houses occupied during different times

The Laskey Mesa sites provide an opportunity to discover the organization of settlements during the times the sites were occupied. Excavation of structures, open areas with artifacts around them and other features recognized at Early period settlements will add to our knowledge of organiza-tion of activities.. There is an opportunity to water screen and obtain controlled lab sort samples from different site areas that will allow more detailed mapping of activities conducted at the sites.


Whenever mortuary areas are discovered, they should be carefully excavated and all soil should be water screened to obtain stone beads and any shell or bone artifacts as well as teeth and small pieces of human bone. All these objects must be repatriated according to provisions of Federal law. Information concerning the artifacts and ages and sexes of burials would allow observation of the sequence of mortuary areas. Occupation areas can probably be linked to mortuary areas with time sensitive artifacts.

The relative temporal sequence of sites can be determined from changes from original midden deposits including size sorting, organic composition and other chemical changes, that are time dependent. Charred walnut hulls, manzanita pits and other preserved carbon should allow dating of houses and other features

A serious effort to recover the information that will be lost as a consequence of construction of the Ahmanson Ranch project will require a substantial amount of time to conduct initial tests and to excavate whole houses, cemeteries and other features. The large scope of adequate mitigation of all of the sites that will be completely destroyed will require a large amount of money to pay crew to excavate, sort and catalogue and pay consultants to conduct specialized studies.

There should be controlled excavation of 2% of the site area on Laskey Mesa with at least one excavation in every area in a 10 X 10 meter square grid. This will result in the col-lection of information concerning the distribution of small artifacts and information concerning their relative frequen-cies to larger artifacts. In areas where features are found or where artifact distributions indicate were the locations of residences the controlled excavations should be expanded into area exposures. The expansion of excavations to record features should not be included as part of the 2% sample. The controlled excavations should use fine mesh screens, water screening, and laboratory sorting of small materials remaining in screens after smaller particles are washed through the screens. Excavations should remove all soil from cracks in bedrock because many artifacts are found in cracks in bedrock at shallow Early period sites.

All of the soil on Laskey Mesa will be removed during grad-ing. It appears that Early period sites were located adjacent to fields of plants whose seeds were gathered. Before the soil is destroyed samples should be collected and pollen, phytoliths and seeds should be extracted and identified to enable recon-struction of pre-European invasion vegetation cover.

I have discussed research goals that should be considered in a background document produced for the Santa Monica Mountains recreation area (King and Parsons 2000). Research concerning the Laskey Mesa sites should incorporate the Santa Monica Mountains reearch goals in a research design.

Michael Merrill concluded:

In the case of the Ahmanson Ranch sites further research is needed to understand precisely what activities occurred in the house and outdoor activity areas and exactly where within these areas activities were tak-ing place. Such questions must be addressed using larger data sets than the positions and corresponding identities of surface ar-tifacts, along with more sophisticated types of mathematical analysis. Such data sets can only be obtained through scientifically designed, well implemented, and thorough excavation of identifiable features within a site [2002:20-21]..

Because they contain information that will increase knowl-edge concerning history the Ahmanson Ranch sites should be treated as eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.

Quartzite flake from LAN-218. Similar flakes are used as knives for butchering. This artifact is classified as debitage (refuse) by Whitley and Simon.


LAN-31 Early period site closeup.

LAN-31 Early period site view north from south of Pacific Coast Highway. Site was destroyed by development by Peperdine University.


BiblographyAdams, Jenny1999 Refocusing the Role of Food-Grinding Tools as Corre-

lates for Subsistence Strategies in the U.S. Southwest. American Antiquity 64(3):475-498.

Adams, Therreese, C.W. Clewlow, E.L. McCann, B. Padon, J. Vil-lanueva and H.F. Wells

1980 Archaeological Investigations at VEN-45. In Inland Chu-mash Archaeological Investigations edited by Whitley, David S., Ellen L. McCann, and C. William Clewlow, Jr. Monograph XV. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.

Anonymous 1958 Concentration of Metates found at Saticoy. The

Newsletter of the Archaeological Survey association of Southern California. Vol 5 No.1 page 6, February.

Ascher, R. 1959 A Prehistoric Population Estimate Using Midden Analysis

and Two Population Models. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, 15 (2) :168-178. Albuquerque.

Bennyhoff, James A. and Robert F. Heizer1958 Cross-Dating Great Basin Sites by Californian Shell

Beads. Reports of the University of California Ar-chaeological Survey 42: 60-92. Berkeley.

Bennyhoff, James A. and Richard Hughes1987 Shell Bead and Ornament Exchange Networks Between

California and the Western Great Basin. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History 64, Part 2, New York.

Berger, Ranier and W. F. Libby 1965 UCLA Radiocarbon Dates V. Institute of Geophysics

and Planetary Physics 480. Los Angeles: University of California.

Binford, L. R., S. R. Binford, R. Whallon, and M. A. Hardin1970 Archaeology at Hatchery West. Memoirs of the Society

for American Archaeology No. 24. American Antiquity 35(4).

Bissell, Ronald M. 1984 Report of an Archaeological Survey of a 28 Acre Par-

cel in Malibu, California by RMW PaleoAssociates for Bright and Associates. On file South Central Coastal Information Center #L-1329.

1989 Cultural Resources Summary of the Ahmanson Ranch Property, 5500 Acres in Ventura County, California. Prepared by RMW Paleo Associates for McClelland Consultants, Inc., Ventura.

1990 Position Paper, Site CA-LAN-266, Malibu, Los Angeles County.

Blackburn, Thomas C., and Kat Anderson1993 Before the Wilderness: Environmental Management by

Native Californians, Ballena Press, Menlo Park.Boxt, Mathew A. and R. Reichman 1981 The Dry Canyon Site: comparisons between VEN-711

and LAN-712. Journal of New World Archaeology 4 (4):50-57.

Breece, William1978 Archaeological Investigations at LAn-973 and LAn-

969H, Oren Ranch, Agoura, California. Prepared by WESTEC Services, Inc

Brock, J.

1986 Beads From the Daon Site (CA-LAn-669). Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 22(4)1-17.

Chase, Paul1980 An Archaeological Survey of the Township Property,

Tract Map No. 10535 Near Malibu Rivera, County of Los Angeles. Prepared for Township, Inc., Tujunga Cali-fornia. Ms on file South Central Coastal Information Center CSU Fullerton

1988 Archaeological Survey and Monitoring for Valley Circle Estates, City of Los Angeles.Prepared for Valley Circle Estates by Paul Chace and Associates. Ms on file South Central Coastal Information Center CSU Fullerton #L-256.

Clewlow, C. William 1981 Report on Preliminary Archaological Testing and

Recoomendations for Mitigation at site LAN-267, Locus C, Los Angeles County, California. Ancient Enterprises. On file UCLA Archaeological Information Center.

Clewlow, C. W.Jr., E. L.McCann, and D. S.Whitley (editors)1979 Archaeological Investigations at the Ring Brothers

Site Complex, Thousand Oaks, California. Institute of Archaeology Monograph XIII, University of California, Los Angeles.

Clewlow, C. W.Jr., H. F. Wells, and A. G. Pastron (editors) 1978a The Archaeology of Oak Park Ventura County, California.

Institute of Archaeology Monograph V, Vol. I, University of California, Los Angeles.

1978b The Archaeology of Oak Park Ventura County, California. Institute of Archaeology Monograph V, Vol. II, University of California, Los Angeles.

Clewlow Jr., C. W. and D. S. Whitley (editors) 1979a The Archaeology of Oak Park Ventura County, Cali-

fornia. Institute of Archaeology Monograph V, Vol. III., University of California, Los Angeles.

Curtis, Freddie1965 The Glen Annie Site (SBa-142): A Case for Sedentary

Village Life. Archaeological Survey Annual Report 1965:1-18. Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles.

Dillon, Brian D.1978 Millingstone Sites at Oak Park, VEN-123, VEN-44 and

VEN-124. In The Archaeology of Oak Park Ventura County, California. edited by Clewlow, C. W.Jr., H. F. Wells, and A. G. Pastron. Institute of Archaeology Monograph V, Vols. I., University of California, Los Angeles.

1981 Report on the Boundary Test Program Carried out at LAn-218, The Corbin Tank Archaeological Site on Muholland Drive, City of Los Angeles , California. SCC Information Center Ms. #LA-1006.

1982 Archaeological Salvage Excavations at CA-LAN-218 The Corbin Tank Archaeological Site, City of Los Angeles , California. SCC Information Center Ms. #LA-1130.

1986 Archaeological Boundary Test Excavations at CA-LAN-1248, The Montevideo Site.

1987 Preliminary Summary of Archaeological Boundary Test Excavations on the Malibu Coast: CA-LAN-19, 210, 226, 264 and 1298, Los Angeles County, California. (South Central Coastal Information Center Ms. #LA-1653).

Dillon, Brian D. and Justin Hyland1987 Archaeological Boundary Test Excavations at LAN-162,

The Santa Maria Site Topanga Canyon, California. on


file South Central Coastal Information Center Ms. #LA-1668.

Dillon, Brian D., and M. A. Boxt 1989 Archaeology of the Three Springs Valley, CA: A Study in

Functional Cultural History. Institute of Archaeology Monograph 30, University of California, Los Angeles.

Eberhardt, Hal1962 Mesarica: A San Gabriel Valley Site. The Masterkey 36:

69-76. Southwest Museum, Highland Park.Eberhardt, Hal and Warren Wasson1975 The Sassone site (LAn-339): A Millingstone Horizon

station in the San Gabriel Valley, California. The Cali-fornia Anthropologist 5(2):9-45.

Elsasser, Albert B.1978 Development of Regional Prehistoric Cultures. In Cali-

fornia edited by Robert Heizer pp. 37-57. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8, William G. Sturtevant, general editor. Washington, D.C., Smithsonian Insti-tution.

Erlandson, Jon M.1984 A Case Study in Faunalturbation: Delineating the Effects

of the Burrowing Pocket Gopher on the Distribution of Archaeological Materials, pp. 785-790 American An-tiquity vol. 49.

1994 Early Hunter-Gatherers of the California Coast, Plenum Press, New York.

Finnerty, Patrick1964 Excavations at SBa-119 (SBa-1). Ms. on file at University

of California Archaeological Survey, Los Angeles.Flannery, K. V. (editor), and M. C. Winter1976 Analyzing Household Activities: The Early Mesoameri-

can Village. Academic Press, New York.Flint, R. F. and E. S. Deevey (editors)1962 American Journal of Science Radiocarbon Supplement

4.1963 American Journal of Science Radiocarbon Supplement

5.Foster, John1989a Archaeological Assessment of CA-VEN-1, CA-VEN-

264, and CA-VEN-265, Ventura County, California. Greenwood and Associates, Pacific Palisades.

1989b Cultural Resource Investigation of CA-LAN-453, Los Angeles County, California. Prepared for Mr. Sam Tuch-man. Greenwood and Associates, Pacific Palisades.

1989c Cultural Resource Investigation of CA-LAN-1107, Los Angeles County, California. Prepared for Vitalis Petrusis. Greenwood and Associates, Pacific Palisades.

1994 “Results of Archaeological Phase II Testing at 7107 Birdview Road, Point Dume, City of Malibu” Febru-ary 15, 1994

Gamble, Lynn H.1983 The Organization of Artifacts, Features and Activities

at Pitas Point: A Coastal Chumash Village. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 5(1,2):103-129. Malki Museum, Banning.

1990 Archaeological Investigations at Helo ̓on Mescalitan Island. Department of Anthropology University of California Santa Barbara. Ms. submitted to County of Santa Barbara.

1991 Organization of Activities at the Historic Settlement of Heloʼ: A Chumash Political, Economic and Religious Center. PhD Dissertation, UCSB Department of An-thropology

Gamble, Lynn H., and Chester King1997 Middle Holocene Adaptations in the Santa Monica Moun-

tains, pp. 61-72, Archaeology of the California Coast During the Middle Holocene, edited by J.M. Erlandson and M.A. Glassow, Perspectives in California Archaeol-ogy Volume 4, Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.

Gibson, Robert O.1975 The Beads of Humaliwo. The Journal of California

Anthropology, 2:10-119.Gibson, R., and C. A.Singer1970 Ven-195: Treasure House of Prehistoric Cave Art.

UCLA Archaeological Survey Annual Report 12:163-183. University of California, Los Angeles.

Glassow, M. A.1965 The Conejo Rock Shelter: An Inland Chumash Site

In Ventura County, California. UCLA Archaeological Survey Annual Report 7:19-80, University of California, Los Angeles.

Gladkih, M. I., N. L. Kornietz, and O. Soffer1984 Mammoth Bone Dwellings on the Russian Plain. Sci-

entific American 251(5):164-175.Greenwood, Roberta S.1959 Early Dwellers in Topanga Canyon. Archaeology 12:4:

271-277.1969 The Browne Site: Early Millingstone Horizon in South-

ern California. Memoirs of the Society for American ArchaeologyNo. 23.

1972 9000 Years of Prehistory at Diablo Canyon, San Luis Obispo County, California, San Luis Obispo County Archaeological Society Occassional Paper No. 7.

1976 Archaeological Investigation - Palisades Highlands, Tracts 31076, 31395, 32184, 32185, 32186, and Open Space. Prepared for Stephen W. Cunningham and As-sociates. On file at UCLA, South Central Coastal Infor-mation Center.

Greenwood, Romani and Foster 1987 Archaeological Investigation of CA-VEN-852 and CA-

VEN-853, Ventura County, California. Prepared for Lang Ranch Company. Report on file at South Central Coast Information Center #V-525.

Greiser, S. T.1984 Behavioral Interpretation of Floor Space Utilization in

Hunter-gatherer Campsites. Paper presented at the 49th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archae-ology, Portland, Oregon.

Hammett, Julia1989 Chapter 10: Analysis of Carbonized Plant Remains

from Site SBa-1816. In Draft Technical Report, Space Transportation System Natural Gas Pipeline and SLC-4 Security Fence Treatment Programs, Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. Submitted by Environmental Solutions, Inc., Irvine to Department of the Air Force Headquarters Space Systems Division, Department of Environmental Planning, El Segundo.

1990 Appendix 2: Analysis of Plant Remains from 1987 Exca-vations at Talepop, (CA-LAN-229) In Archaeological Studies at Site CA- LAN-229, Malibu Creek State Park: A Study of Archaeological Interference Justification. edited by L. Mark Raab. Northridge Center for Public Archaeology, California State University, Northridge.


Hammett, Julia E. and Eric Wohlgemuth1982 Chapter 9: Charred Plant Remains from Talepop, CA-

LAN-229. In Archaeological Investigations at Talepop (LAN-229) by Chester King et.al. Report submitted to the California Department of Parks and Recreation by the Office of Public Archaeology, University of California, Santa Barbara.

Harrison, William M.1964 Prehistory of the Santa Barbara Coast, California. Unpub-

lished Ph.D.dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona.

Harrison, William and E. S. Harrison1966 An Archaeological Sequence for the Hunting People of

Santa Barbara, California. Archaeological Survey An-nual Report 1966:1-90. Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles.

Hector, Susan1978 An Archaeological Resource Survey and Impact As-

sessment of 25040 Pacific Coast Highway, Los Angeles County. Report prepared for John L. Price and Associates, Whittier (South Central Coastal Information Center Ms. #LA-293).

Hoover, Robert L.1971 Some Aspects of Santa Barbara Channel Prehistory.

Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of An-thropology, University of California, Berkeley.

Holmes, William Henry1900 Anthropological Studies in California. In: Report of the

US National Museum under the direction of the Smith-sonian Institution for the Year Ending June 30, 1900. pp161-187.

Johnson, Donald Lee1989 Subsurface Stone Lines, Stone Zones, Artifact-manuport

Layers and Biomantles Produced by Bioturbation via Pocket Gophers (Thomomys bottae), American Antiquity 54(2):370-389.

1990 Biomantle Evolution and the Redistribution of Earth Materials and Artifacts, Soil Science 149(2):84-102.

Johnson, Keith L.1966 Site LAN-2: A Late Manifestation of the Topanga Com-

plex in Southern California Prehistory. Anthropological Records 23. Berkeley, University of California Press.

Johnson, Mark1980 Archaeological Investigations at VEN-271, In Inland

Chumash Archaeological Investigations. edited by Whitley, David S., Ellen L. McCann, and C. William Clewlow. Monograph XV. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.

Jones, Philip Mills1956 Archaeological Investigation on Santa Rosa Island in

1901. Edited by R.F. Heizer and A. B. Elsasser. Anthro-pological Records 17: 20-280. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Kent, S.1984 Analyzing Activity Areas: An Ethnoarchaeological Study

of the Use of Space. Albuquerque, University of New Mexico.

King, Chester D.1962 Excavations at Parker Mesa. Archaeological Survey

Annual Report 1961-1962:91-157. Department of An-thropology, University of California, Los Angeles.

1967 The Sweetwater Mesa Site (LAN-267) and its Place in Southern California Prehistory. Archaeological Survey Annual Report 1967:25-76. Department of Anthropology,

University of California, Los Angeles.1975 The Names and Locations of Historic Chumash Vil-

lages (assembled by Thomas Blackburn). The Journal of California Anthropology 2(2): 171-179. Banning, Malki Museum Press.

1976 Chumash Inter-village Economic Exchange. In Native Californians: A Theoretical Perspective, edited by L.J. Bean and T.C. Blackburn. Ballena Press, Ramona. (First Published in Indian Historian 4(1).)

1980 Chapter 3 Prehistoric Background. In Cultural Resources Technical Report: Rincon Tract No. 12932. Social Pro-cess Research Institute, Office of Public Archaeology, University of California, Santa Barbara.

1988 Oakbrook Regional Park Archaeological Report. Pre-pared for the Ventura County Archaeological Society. Ms. on file South Central Coastal Information Center.

1990a Evolution of Chumash Society: A Comparative Study of Artifacts Used in Social System Maintenance in the Santa Barbara Channel Region Before A.D. 1804. Re-vised Ph.D. dissertation, with a new preface and updated bibliography. In The Evolution of North American In-dians, a 31-Volume series of outstanding dissertations edited by David Hurst Thomas and published by Garland Publishing, New York.

1990b Comments by Chester King concerning Report of Cultural Resource Investigation at CA-LAn-1107, April 3, 1990. Prepared for Los Angeles County Hearing. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, CSU Fullerton.

1994a Draft: Comments by City Archaeologist, Chester King concerning “Results of Archaeological Phase II Testing at 7107 Birdview Road, Point Dume, City of Malibu” February 15, 1994-J Foster report

1994b Archaeological Reconnaissance and Recommendations for a Phase 2 Archaeological Evaluation at 27975 Winding Way, Malibu, California. City of Malibu File Number 94-015 April 25, 1994

1995a Archaeological Reconnaissance and Recommendations for Avoidance or Phase 2 Archaeological Evaluation at 27311 Winding Way, Malibu, California. City of Malibu File Number 94-050 May 29, 1995 [LAN-1879]

1995b Archaeological Reconnaissance and Recommendations for a Phase 2 Archaeological Evaluation at 28933 Self-ridge Drive, Malibu, California. May 19, 1995

1995c Archaeological Reconnaissance and Recommendations for Phase 2 Archaeological Evaluations at 24900 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California. City of Malibu no File Number.

1995d Addendum: Archaeological Reconnaissance and Recom-mendations for Phase 2 Archaeological Evaluations at 24900 Pacific Coast Highway (Lots 1, 2, and 3), Malibu, California. City of Malibu no File Number.

1996a Comments Concerning 1995 Report “Phase II Test Exca-vation and Determination of Significance at (CA-LAN-19) Locus C, Malibu, Los Angeles County, California” prepared by W & S Consultants and Recommendations for Analysis of Project Impacts. City of Malibu File Number 95-182. January 28. 1996

1996b Archaeological Reconnaissance at 24824 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, California. City of Malibu File Number 96-166

1997a Archaeological Reconnaissance 25000 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California. City of Malibu File Number 96-050.


1997b Reconnaissance and Recommendations for Archaeo-logical Evaluation at 24734 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California. City of Malibu File Number 96-286.

1997c Archaeological Reconnaissance and Recommenda-tions for Archaeological Evaluation at 24900, 24902 and 24904 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, California. June 14, 1997

1998a Archaeological Reconnaissance and Recommendations for Archaeological Evaluation at 28943 Selfridge Drive, Malibu, California. August 23, 1998

1998b Archaeological Reconnaissance and Recommendations for Mitigation at 5941 Kanan Dume Road Malibu, Cal-ifornia. City of Malibu File Number 97-101 December 27, 1998

1999 Archaeological Reconnaissance and Recommendations for Archaeological Monitoring at 28901 Selfridge Drive, Malibu, California. City of Malibu File Number PPR 99-155. November 29, 1999

2000 Native American Indian Cultural Sites in the Santa Monica Mountains prepared for the SMMNRA.

2001 Early Southern California. In, Encyclopedia of Prehistory Volume 6: North America edited by Peter Peregrine and Melvin Ember pp. 144- 157. Published in conjunction with the Human Area Relation Files at Yale University. Kluer Academic/ Plenum Press.

King, Chester, Thomas Blackburn, and Earnest Chandonet1968 The Archaeological Investigation of Three Sites on the

Century Ranch. Western Los Angeles County. California. Archaeological Survey Annual Report 11:12-107. Los Angeles, University of California.

King, Chester D., W. W. Bloomer, E. Clingen, B. E. Edberg, L. H. Gamble, J. E. Hammett, J. R. Johnson, T. H. Kemper-men, C. D. Pierce, and E. Wohlgemuth

1982 Archaeological Investigations at Talepop. Ms. on file, Office of Public Archaeology, Social Process Research Institute, University of California Santa Barbara.

King, Chester and Jeff Parsons2000 Maluʼliwini, Archaeological record of settlement and

Activity in the Simi Hills. Prepared by Topanga An-thropological Consultants for Santa Monica Mountains and Seashore Foundation and National Park Service Santa Monica Mountains National Recreational Area Cooperative Agreement No. LA 8540-94-003.

King, Chester, Judy Triem, Jeff Parsons, Natalie Anikouchine, Bruno Texier, Linda Cummings, and, Molly Alexander

1991 Oak Park Zone 3 Phase II Archaeological Resource Assessment t: Two Processing and Camping Sites in Southeastern Ventura County. edited by Chester King. Ms on file at Ventura County Resource Management Agency.

King, Linda B.1969 The Medea Creek Cemetery (LAN-243): An Investig-

ation of Social Organization from Mortuary Practices. Archaeological Survey Annual Report 11:23-68. Los Angeles, University of California.

1982 Medea Creek Cemetery: Late Inland Chumash Patterns of Social Organization, Exchange and Warfare. Unpub-lished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Califn«îia, Los Angeles.

Kirkish, Alex, Clay A.Singer and John E. Atwood1989 Archaeological Testing at 24903 and 24911 Pacific Coast

Highway in Malibu, A Portion of Site CA-LAN-19, Los

Angeles County, California. Prepared for Mojtaba Taba-tabaee, Los Angeles (South Central Coastal Information Center Ms. #LA-1818).

Klein, R. G.1973 Ice-age Hunters of the Ukraine. University of Chicago,

Chicago, Illinois.Kowta, Makoto and James C. Hearst1960 Site Ven-15: The Triunfo Rockshelter. UCLA Archaeo-

logical Survey Annual Report 2:201-230. University of California, Los Angeles.

Leonard, N. Nelson III1966 Ven-70 and its Place in the Late Period of the western

Santa Monica Mountains. Archaeological Survey An-nual Report 1966:215-242. Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles.

1969 The Santa Monica Mountains Research Project: An Introduction. Archaeological Survey Annual Report 1968:9-11. Department of Anthropology University of California, Los Angeles.

1971 Natural and Social Environments of the Santa Monica Mountains (6000 B.C. to 1800 A.D.). Archaeological Survey Annual Report 1971:97-135, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles.

Lillard, J.B., R. F. Heizer, and F. Fenenga1939 An Introduction to the Archaeology of Central California.

Sacramento Junior College. Department of Anthropology Bulletin 2. Sacramento.

Malinowski, Bronislaw1922 Argonauts of the Western Pacific, reprinted in 1962. E.P.

Dutton and Co., Inc., New York.Merrill, Michael2002 A Spatial analysis of Mapped Surface Artifacts in several

Early Period Sites in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties. Attached to this report.

Moratto, Michael J.1984 California Archaeology, Academic Press, New York.NARC (Northridge Archaeological Research Center)1980 Report on Excavations at Tentative Tract 40912 (CA-

LAN-189), Los Angeles County, California. On file South Central Coastal Information Center. CSU Fullerton.

Olson Laboratories1977 Final: Master Environmental Report on the Oak Park

Community Plan. Prepared for Ventura County Planning Division.

Orchard, William C.1975 Beads and Beadwork of the American Indian (second

edition). Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foun-dation, New York.

Owen, Roger1964 Early Milling Stone Horizon (Oak Grove). Santa Bar-

bara County, California: Radiocarbon Dates. American Antiquity Vol 30 No. 2, Part 1. Salt Lake City

Owen, Roger, Freddie Curtis and Donald S. Miller1964 The Glen Annie Canyon Site, SBa-142: An Early Horizon

site of Santa Barbara County. Archaeological Survey Annual Report 1963-1964:435-503. Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles.

Pastron, Allen G., H. F. Wells, and C.W.Clewlow 1978 Preliminary Archaeological Investigations at VEN-294,

VEN-375, VEN-125 and VEN-123. In The Archae-ology of Oak Park Ventura County, California. edited by Clewlow, C. W.Jr., H. F. Wells, and A. G. Pastron. Institute of Archaeology Monograph V, Vol. I., University of California, Los Angeles.


Peck, S. L. 1955 An Archaeological Report on the Excavation of a Pre-

historic Site at Zuma Creek, Los Angeles County, Cali-fornia. Archaeological Survey Association of Southern California Paper 2.

Pierce, Christopher D.1984 Analysis of Cooking Stones from A Late Period Chumash

Village. Paper presented at the Forty-ninth Annual Meet-ing of the Society for American Archaeology, Portland Oregon.

1988 California s̓ Milling Stone Horizon: Of Mice and Men?, Paper presented at the 53rd Annual Meeting, Society for American Archaeology, Marina del Rey.

1992 Effects of Pocket Gopher Burrowing on Archaeological Deposits: A Simulation Approach. Geoarchaeology: An International Journal, 7(3):185-208.

Pence, Robert L. 1979 Archaeological Assessment of the Wood Ranch, Volume

I. Ms. on file, City of Simi Valley. 1980 Archaeological Assessment of Wood Ranch Volume II,

Ven-622. Ms. on file, City of Simi Valley. Prichett, Jack and Allen McIntyre1979 The Running Springs Ranch Site: Archaeological Inves-

tigations at Ven-65 and Ven-261. Institute of Archae-ology, Monograph XII. University of California, Los Angeles.

Raab, L. Markn. d. (editor) Report of Archaeological Test Excavations at Site

LAn-466, Agoura Hills, California. Prepared for Lincoln Properties Company. On file, Center for Public Archae-ology, California State University, Northridge. 1987 Decker Canyon, Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, Archaeological Assessment Report. March 1987. On File at the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area.

1989 Report of Archaeological Testing of Site CA-LAN-453, Point Dume, CA. Prepared for Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area. On file South Central Coastal Information Center. CSU Fullerton.

1990 (editor) Archaeological Studies at Site CA- LAN-229, Malibu Creek State Park: A Study of Archaeological Interference Justification. Northridge Center for Public Archaeology, California State University, Northridge.

1993 When is a village? A Study of Archaeological Inference at Site LAN-229, Malibu Creek State Park, California. In There Grows a Green Tree, Papers in Honor of David A. Fredrickson edited by Greg White, Pat Mikkelsen, William R. Hildebrant, and Mark Basgall. Center for Archaeological Research at Davis, Publication Number 11.

Raab, L. Mark and Roy A. Salls1989 Evaluation of Archaeological Resources within Tract

45360, Nettleship Ranch, Woodland Hills, CA. Prepared for Grupe Development Company. On file South Central Coastal Information Center. CSU Fullerton.

Rogers, David Banks1929 Prehistoric Man of the Santa Barbara Coast. Santa

Barbara, Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History.Romani, John1978 Bell Canyon: Assessment of the Cultural Resources

Located on 280 Acres of Land in Bell Canyon, California (The Bell Canyon Site Complex). Prepared by the North-ridge Archaeological Research Center, California State

University, Northridge. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, CSU Fullerton #LA-351.

Rosen, M. D.1978 Archaeological Investigations at VEN-294, an Inland

Chumash Village Site. The Archaeology of Oak Park Ventura County, California. Institute of Archaeology Monograph V, Vol. II, pp. 7-113. University of California, Los Angeles.

Rozaire, Charles1960 The Archaeology At Encino, California. Archaeological

Survey Annual Report 1959-1960:307-343. Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Ange-les.

Ruby, Jay W.1961a Excavations at Zuma Mesa (LAN-40) Los Angeles

County. Archaeological Survey Annual Report 1960-1961:190-232. Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles.

1961b Surface Collections from Two Coastal Sites, Los Angeles County. Archaeological Survey Annual Report 1960-1961:190-232. Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles.

Salls, Roy A. (Editor)1995 The Shoban Paul Site (CA-LAN-958) Archaeological

Investigations of a Coastal Millingstone Horizon Occu-pation. Coyote Press Archives of California Prehistory No. 43. Salinas.

Schiffer, M .B.1987 Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record.

Albuquerque, University of New Mexico.Singer, Clay A.1980 Cultural Resource Survey and Impact Assessment for

Tentative Tract No. 40912 near Escondido Canyon, Los Angeles County, California. Submitted to John Martin, Solar Design, Inc. On file South Central Coastal Infor-mation Center. CSU Fullerton.

Singer, Clay A. and John E. Atwood1989a Archaeological Investigations at CA-LAN-267B, A Por-

tion of the Sweetwater Mesa Site in Malibu, Los Angeles County, California. Prepared for John Paul Jones de Joria. On file South Central Coastal Information Center. CSU Fullerton.

1989b Archaeological Site CA-LAN-453: Sample Processing, Analysis of Artifacts and Interpretation of 1988 Test Data. Prepared for Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area. On file South Central Coastal Infor-mation Center. CSU Fullerton.

1999 Archaeological Investigations at CA-LAN-267A East: Phase II Testing at 3516 Sweetwater Mesa Road In the cityof Malibu, Los Angeles County, California Prepared for Steve Potter

2000 Archaeological monitoring of seismic trenching at 3516 Sweetwater Mesa Road, aportionof CA-LAN-267A East: in the cityof Malibu, Los Angeles County, California Prepared for Steve Potter

Singer, Clay A., John E. Atwood, and Shelley Marie Gomes1993 Cultural Resources Survey and Impact Assessment for

the Serra Road Water Main Replacement Project, in the City of Malibu, Los Angeles County, California. Prepared for ASL Consultants. On file South Central Coastal Information Center. CSU Fullerton.


Singer, Clay A., John E. Atwood, and Kaja Lausten1989 CA-LAN-1107, Material Analysis. Prepared for John

M. Foster, Greenwood and Associates. On file South Central Coastal Information Center. CSU Fullerton.

Singer, C. A. and Gibson R. O.1970 The Medea Creek Village Site (4-LAN-243v): A Func-

tional Lithic Analysis. UCLA Archaeological Survey Annual Report 12:184-204. University of California, Los Angeles.

Stickel, Gary E.1968 Status Differentiation at the Rincon Site. UCLA Ar-

chaeological Survey Annual Report 1968, pp. 209-261. University of California, Los Angeles.

Strong, William Duncan1972 Aboriginal Society in Southern California. Malki Mu-

seum Press, Banning.Tadlock, Jean1977 Archaeological Study - Tract 33095, Hidden Hills, Los

Angeles County, California. CSU Fullerton for Cooper-Sherman Engineering Co. Ms on file South Central Coastal Information Center CSU Fullerton #L-2032

Thomas, David B. and John Beaton1968 The Trancas Canyon Cemetery Site (4-LAN-197); An

Analysis of Mortuary Customs. Archaeological Survey Annual Report 1968, pp. 162-175. University of Cali-fornia, Los Angeles.

Treganza, A.E and A. Bierman1958 The Topanga Culture, Final report on excavations, 1948.

University of California anthropological Records 20(2):45-86 Berkeley.

Treganza, A.E. and E.G. Malamud1950 The Topanga Culture, First Season's excavation of the

Tank Site, 1947. University of California anthropological Records 12(4):129-157. Berkeley.

Van Horn, David M.1980 Archaeological Survey Report: The Ventura County Por-

tion of the Las Virgenes Ranch. Prepared by Archaeo-logical Associates, Ltd. for Ultrasystems, Inc., Irvine

1987 Trade and Subsistence in Humaliwu: A Focused Review of Two Decades of Archaeology in the Conejo Corridor. Pacific Coast Archaeological Quarterly 23(1): 59-77. Costa Mesa.

Villanueva, Jeannie1981 Archaeological Investigations at LAn-712 . Journal of

New World archaeology 4 (4):30-49.Institute of Archae-ology University of California, Los Angeles.

Walker, Edwin F.1951 Five Prehistoric Archaeological Sites in Los Angeles

County, California. Publications of the Frederick Webb Hodge Anniversary Publication Fund, Volume VI. Los Angeles, Southwest Museum.

Wallace, William J.1955 A Suggested Chronology for Southern California

Coastal Archaeology. Southwest Journal of Anthro-pology 11(3).

1978 Post-Pleistocene Archaeology, 9000 to 2000 B.C.. Handbook of North American Indians, California Vol-ume 8. Edited by Robert Heizer. Smithsonian Institution, Washington.

Wallace, W.J., E.S. Taylor, R.J. Desautels, H.R. Hammond, H. Gonzales, J. Bogart, and J.P. Redwine1956 The Little Sycamore Shellmound, Ventura County, Cali-

fornia. Archaeological Research Associates, Cantribu-tions to California Archaeology 2. Los Angeles.

Wessel, R.L.1981 Report on archaeological testing of site LAN-189, Escon-

dido Canyon, Malibu, Los Angeles County, California. Ms. on file South Central Coastal Information Cented , California State University Fullerton. file # L-1376).

West, James1968 Preliminary Report on Test Excavations at LAN-352: A

Millingstone Horizon Culture of the Coast of Southern California. Ms listed as on file, UCLA Archaeological Survey but has not been found at the UCLA Archaeo-logical Information Center. Copy probably on file with author.

1979 The Archaeology of VEN-100. California Archaeological Reports 17. Cultural Heritage Section, State of California Departmant of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento

Whitley D.S., M. Drews, M. Schnider and C.W. Clewlow1980 Preliminary Investigations at a Site Complex on the

North Ranch, Westlake, Ventura County, California. In Inland Chumash Archaeological Investigations edited by Whitley, David S., Ellen L. McCann, and C. William Clewlow, Jr. Monograph XV. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.

Whitley, David S., Ellen L. McCann, and C. William Clewlow, Jr.

1979 Chapter 3 Surface Archaeology at Oak Park. In The Archaeology of Oak Park Ventura County, California. Institute of Archaeology Monograph V, Vol. III., Uni-versity of California, Los Angeles. Clewlow Jr., C. W. and D. S. Whitley (editors)

1980 Inland Chumash Archaeological Investigations Mono-graph XV. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. Whitley, D.S,. M. Scheider, and M. Drews

Whitley, D.S., M. Scheider and M. Drews1979 Chapter 3: Surface archaeologyat Oak Park. In The

Archaeology of Oak Park Ventura County, California. Institute of Archaeology Monograph V, Vol. III., Uni-versity of California, Los Angeles. Clewlow Jr., C. W. and D. S. Whitley (editors)

Whitley, D.S., M. Scheider, J.M. Simon, and M. Drews1979 Chapter 4: Preliminary Excavations at CA-Ven-122. In

The Archaeology of Oak Park Ventura County, California. Institute of Archaeology Monograph V, Vol. III., Uni-versity of California, Los Angeles. Clewlow Jr., C. W. and D. S. Whitley (editors)

Whitley, D. S., M. Scheider, J. Villanueva, M. Drews, and C. W. Clewlow

n. d. Final Archaeological Investigations at a Site Complex on the North Ranch, Westlake, Ventura County, California (Preliminary Draft). On file, Archaeological Information Center, University of California, Los Angeles.

Whitley, David and Joseph M. Simon1987 Archaeological and Historical Resource Survey and Im-

pact Assessment of the Jordan Ranch, Ventura County, California. On file South Central Coastal Information Center #V-695.

1989a Preliminary Archaeological Investigations at Sites CA-VEN-147, -882, -883, -884 and -885 on the Jordan Ranch, Ventura County, California. On file South Central Coastal Information Center #V-769.

1989b An Archaeological and Historical Resource Survey and Impact Assessment of the Liberty Canyon Ranch, Los Angeles County, California. On file South Central Coastal Information Center #L-1841.


1992 Phase II Archaeological Testing at a Portion of Site CA-LAN-19, Malibu, Los Angeles County, California. Prepared for Mr. Stuart Seidner, Malibu Jewish Center and Synagogue.

1995 Phase II Test Excavation and Determination of Signifi-cance at CA-LAN-19, Locus C, Malibu, Los Angeles County, California. Prepared for Malibu Jewish Center and Synagogue.

1997 Phase II Archaeological Evaluation of CA-LAN-19 at 24734 Pacific Coast Highway. Prepared for Mike Barsocchini and Associates, Malibu.

Whitley, David, Joseph M. Simon, Bruce Gothar and Tamara Whitley

1989 Preliminary Archaeological Investigations at Sites CA-VEN-221, -222, -705, -706, -707, -708, -709, and-710 on the Ahmanson Ranch, Ventura County, California.

Wilk, R. R., and W. L. Rathje1982 Household Archaeology. American Behavioral Scientist

25(6):617-616.Wilcoxon, Larry1993 Subsistence and Site Structure: An Approach for Deriving

Cultural Information from Coastal Shell Middens. In Archaeology on the Northern Channel Islands of Cali-fornia. M. Glassow, ed. Salinas: Coyote Press

Wlodarski, Robert. J.1985 A Preliminary Report on the Excavation of CA-VEN-629,

A Simi Valley Rockshelter. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 21(2)15-31.

1988 An Archaeological Assessment of CA-LAN-1352, [The Lundin Site] Agoura Hills, Los Angeles County, Cali-fornia for Woodland American Homes. South Central Coastal Information Center # L-0126

Wood, W.R., and D.L. Johnson1978 A Survey of Disturbance Processes in Archaeological

Site Formation, pp. 315-381, Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Volume 1, edited by M.J. Schiffer, Academic Press, San Francisco.


1A Spatial Analysis of Mapped Surface Artifacts in Several Early Period Sites in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties

A Spatial Analysis of MappedSurface Artifacts in Several Early

Period Sites in Los Angeles andVentura Counties

By Michael Merrill

April 2002

Introduction.

The spatial distributions of artifacts are amenable to math-ematical analysis at many different scales and dimensions. Inthe case of a single archaeological site, choosing the level ofscale to be analyzed is directly dependent on artifact densityand the types of features and organized activities within subregions of the site that are being searched for and subse-quently examined. In the present work the discovery andexamination of spatial pattern and association is limited tomapped surface artifacts.

A tacit assumption in the present analysis is that reoccurringassemblages of surface artifacts can be diagnostic of particu-lar features (e.g. residences) and/or locations in a site whereorganized activities such as the preparation and cooking offood took place. To be diagnostic artifact assemblages mustpossess a consistent and statistically significant spatial andassociational pattern in the distribution, relative frequencies,abundance, diversity, and types of artifacts.

A danger in making this assumption is realized when pro-cesses that change artifact position and remove or introduceartifacts into an archaeological site are considered. These“blurring” effects in the spatial data contained in a site stemfrom a number of processes. These include:

1. Overlap and superimposition of areas of activity fromdifferent time periods.

2. The post-depositional vertical and horizontal reposition-ing and size sorting of artifacts through: bioturbation, sedi-ment expansion and contraction, alluvial or colluvial soiltransport, etc.

To address this problem, systematic excavation and/or coresampling is required to identify the severity of these effects.

Through excavation or core sampling the patterns of stratifi-cation and occupation (e.g. Was the site occupied continu-ously for a long period of time?) can be identified andanalyzed. Kroll and Isaac (1984:21) provide an example of asubjective technique using conjoining sets of “stones andbones” to assess post-depositional disturbances in artifactdistribution. They say:

...the distribution patterns of conjoiningpieces have been a powerful tool in spatialanalysis. First, at sites where archaeologi-cal materials are dispersed through an ap-preciable thickness of sediments, the ver-tical distribution of the network of con-joining pieces can help to assess post-depositional disturbances and analyticunits. Secondly, at sites where conjoiningpieces tend to cluster spatially, we gainconfidence that there has been minimalpost-depositional disturbance and that thespatial configuration can be used for be-havioral inferences.

The choice of the Early period coastal village site LAN-803as a model for comparison with the other Early period sitesexamined in this paper directly relates to consideration ofstate of preservation at the time of mapping, length ofoccupation and post-depositional disturbances. LAN-803was nearly pristine at the time of its mapping in July 1997. Itsoccupation is believed to have been continuous and some-what brief, lasting approximately 500 years. No evidenceindicating use following its abandonment in the Early periodwas observed during the artifact mapping. There was also novisual evidence indicating substantial movement of soil on toor off the site following the cessation of it use. Anotherconsideration for using LAN-803 as a “model” site comesfrom both its modest size and artifact composition (withrespect to the range and relative frequencies of artifact types)If site area and surface artifact composition were formally

2 A Spatial Analysis of Mapped Surface Artifacts in Several Early Period Sites in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties

compared to other Early period sites in Los Angeles andVentura Counties it is believed LAN-803 would classify as a“typical” Early period residential site (Chester King, per-sonal communication).

In each site a selected grid of NxN quadrats was superim-posed on the entire site surface Then the Clark & Evansnearest neighbor statistic (R) was computed for all of themapped surface artifacts contained in each of the quadratsenclosing three or more artifacts. This provided a simplemeasure of clustering or repulsion tendencies among theartifacts in a particular quadrat. A test of the null hypothesisthat artifact distribution is random was then performed foreach of these quadrats. Rejection of the null hypothesisoccurred in most instances at the 5% level of significance. Insome instances because of the suspected “noisy” and incom-plete nature of the data, significance was extended to the 7%level.

A principal components analysis using a Spearman rankcorrelation matrix instead of the usual Pearson correlationmatrix was applied to the surface artifact data in LAN-803 toclarify and better understand tool associations within the site.The results of this analysis are used to support the claim thatcertain tool associations in Early period sites are present andidentify specific areas of activity.

Previous Use of the Clark &Evans Nearest NeighborStatistic in Archaeology

Numerous workers in archaeology over the past 30 yearshave used the Clark & Evans nearest neighbor statistic in theattempt to identify non random patterns at all scales, from thelevel of large regional center or village Earle (1976) down tothe tiny scale of stone tools distributed on occupation floors(Whallon, 1974). As it turns out an analytical formula for thedistribution of the nearest neighbor distances has yet to bederived. So in their attempt to assess the significance ofdeparture from random expectation these researchers as-sumed the nearest neighbor statistic could be reasonablycompared to a known analytical distribution. For example,Hodder and Hassell (1971) used the Pearson type III distribu-tion in their significance tests. In the case of Whallon (1974)I would like to give a somewhat detailed account of his use ofthe nearest neighbor statistic, since his analysis dealt with atypology of stone tools over small areas, which is the topic ofresearch in the present paper.

In his 1974 paper Whallon applies a Clark & Evans nearestneighbor analysis to four tool types distributed on aProtomagdalenian occupation floor at the Abri Pataud insouthwestern France. The four types are: endscrapers, worked

bone and antler, retouched blades, and partially backedblades. His results were that in the site, the mean nearestneighbor distances of each tool type was much less than theaverage nearest neighbor distances expected in a randomdistribution. In his test of significance for clustering at the 5%level he assumes that the statistical distribution of nearestneighbor distances is approximately normal. For his signifi-cance test Whallon uses a chi-square standard normal deviateof the form:

He found all four tool types to be significantly clustered at the5% level. However, Whallon (1974: 33) acknowledges apotential problem with assuming that the distributions of theobserved nearest neighbor distance are approximately nor-mal. He says:

The distributions of the observed nearestneighbor distances certainly look far fromnormal in most cases, also. Indeed, fromthese four cases plus numerous others fromthis same occupation, one gets the impres-sion that the distribution of actual nearestneighbor distances in a clustered patternmay be positively skewed, multimodal,and may frequently have several high,outlying values far greater than the bulk ofthe distances. Exactly how to handle thisand to adequately and reasonably define a“cut-off” point are obviously in need offurther work.

It is clear that a better hypothesis test for rejecting random-ness using the Clark & Evans nearest neighbor statisticshould be used in the case of the complex nature of archaeo-logical data. What follows is such a test.

A Monte Carlo Test of SpatialRandomness.

Besag and Diggle (1977: 327-328) define the Monte Carlotest as a method for detecting spatial randomness. They say:

Given a simple null hypothesis Ho and a set

of relevant data, Monte Carlo testing con-sists simply of ranking the value u

1 among

a corresponding set of values generated byrandom sampling from the null hypothesisof u . When the distribution of u is effec-tively continuous, the rank of the observedtest statistic u

1 among the complete set of

values

S F= − −2 2 12χ , where F N= >2 30 is the number of degrees of freedom.

u i mi : ,...,={ }1


determines an exact significance level forthe test since, under H

o, each of the m

possible rankings of u1 are equally likely...

To obtain an exact assessment of the sig-nificance of u

1 (in reference to the Clark &

Evans nearest neighbor statistic

, where

is the mean observed nearest neighbordistance and is the average nearestneighbor distance expected in an infinitelylarge random distribution of density (thenumber of objects per unit area) we needonly carry out m-1 simulations of n eventsdistributed uniformly and independentlyin a given finite region S and hence calcu-late the corresponding quantities u

2,...,u

m.

The significance level is then evaluatedfrom the rank of among the order-statistics. Note that any shape of region can beaccommodated and that no correction foredge-effects is required, although somedegree of conditioning on the locations ofevents near the boundary of, S may bedesirable.

How do we determine the significance of a measured Clark& Evan’s nearest neighbor statistic () for an NxN quadratcontaining L>1 surface artifacts? Here we choose a squarequadrat as our “sampling window” on the surface of anarchaeological site. It is true that a square has a shorterperimeter and is therefore less subject to edge effects than arectangle. But as was stated above, correction for edge effectsis not a concern with this test and our choice of a squarequadrat for sampling surface artifacts is mainly one of conve-nience.

Using a computer we generate pairs of pseudo randomnumbers within an NxN square, L times. This is accom-plished for each random point (a, b) by multiplying bothcomputer generated pseudo random numbers a and b by N.Note that (0<=a<=1) and (0<=b<=1). Therefore each com-puter simulated random point in an NxN quadrat will have theform (a*N, b*N). We then compute the Clark & Evansnearest neighbor statistic. We will then compute an approxi-mate sampling distribution (Eddington, 1969: 152) for theClark & Evans nearest neighbor statistic for L planar pointsin an NxN square from the entire sampling distribution of thestatistic. We do this by iterating or simulating the aboveprocedure a large number of times. But how many times? Wefind the procedure for answering this question in Marriot(1979) The procedure follows.

Here we decide whether to accept or reject our null hypoth-esis H

o that L surface artifacts in an NxN quadrat are

randomly distributed. As is usual in statistical practice wewill reject the null hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.This means that if the null hypothesis is true there is aprobability of no greater than 0.05 of rejecting it.

Next we consider the probability P of rejecting the nullhypothesis using a Monte Carlo test at the 5% level given aspecific number of iterations (n). We will examine differentvalues of P against several values at different levels ofsignificance from the entire sampling distribution Each ofthese values from the entire sampling distribution has aprobability p of rejecting the null hypothesis. We now de-termine an acceptable number of Monte Carlo simulations(n) to test whether the spatial pattern of L surface artifacts inan NxN quadrat is non random.

First we calculate a Clark & Evans statistic R from real data.Then suppose we want to carry out a one-tailed significancetest of size .

We have already decided that for our purposes .We choose m and n such that and n-1. MonteCarlo simulations are then performed. This gives us n-1random samples R

1,..., R

n-1. If R is among the m largest values

of the statistic then we reject our null hypothesis Ho that the

L surface artifacts in the NxN quadrat have a random planardistribution.

Suppose P is the probability that exceeds a randomvalue from the entire sampling distribution of R based on H

o.

Then if q=1-p < , a conventional test would reject Ho . The

probability of rejecting Ho using our Monte Carlo test is:

Rr

rrA

EA= = ∗ ∗2 ρ

rN

rA ii

N

= ∗=

∑1

1

i

rE

ρ

α

α = 0 05. . m

n = α

Pn

ii

nn i ip q=

−

=

−− −

∑1

1

11

, where n

i

n

i n i

−

=−( )

1 !! !

pq

n=

α


Table 1

Table 1 was constructed using the following Excel4.0 Macro, written by M. Merrill.

=SELECT(OFFSET(ACTIVE.CELL(),0,1))=INPUT(“Enter the value of p”,1)=INPUT(“Enter the value of n”,1)=INPUT(“Enter the value of alpha”,1)=SET.NAME(“Counter”,0)=SET.NAME(“Q”,0)=FOR(“countb”,1,M3*M4)=COMBIN(M3-1,Counter)=M2^(M3-Counter-1)=1-M2=M10^Counter=M8*M9*M11=SET.NAME(“Q”,Q+M12)=SET.NAME(“Counter”, Counter+1)=SELECT(OFFSET(ACTIVE.CELL(),1,0))=NEXT()=SELECT(OFFSET(ACTIVE.CELL(),-Counter+1,0))=FORMULA(Q)=RETURN()

From Table 1 it is clear that the probability of rejecting thenull hypothesis using a Monte Carlo test at the 5% level ofsignificance becomes negligibly small for values of p<. 95,and effectively absolute for p>.95, after a thousand iterations.

1,000 iterations therefore seems adequate as a standardminimum for computing an approximate sampling distribu-tion of the Clark & Evans nearest neighbor statistic.

Calculating Probability p froman Approximate SamplingDistribution.

The first step in calculating p from the computed approximatesampling distribution is to calculate the mean. If n= numberof iterations of the Clark & Evans nearest neighbor statisticand (R

1, R

2,... R

n) are the n values of the statistic computed in

the Monte Carlo simulation, then the mean is calculated by:

If R< , and there are m Ri such that

What follows are two examples of approximate samplingdistributions computed for the Clark & Evans Nearest Neigh-bor statistic using the second Excel 4.0 macro in the appen-dix.

alpha=0.05p

m/n=alphaiterations (n) m 0.9 0.925 0.94 0.95 0.96 0.975 0.99

1 0 0 5 0.02540437 0.12771564 0.28497109 0.44498219 0.63683961 0.89704866 0.996712571 2 5 6.25 0.01224004 0.08998061 0.23965618 0.40932891 0.62314825 0.90826088 0.998364371 5 0 7.5 0.00599456 0.06429574 0.2038811 0.37987122 0.61288235 0.91855219 0.999184272 5 0 12.5 0.0009659 0.03501847 0.18058517 0.40712506 0.70376109 0.97595513 0.999989783 5 0 17.5 0.00016103 0.01930557 0.1580606 0.42156956 0.76299458 0.99237666 0.999999865 0 0 2 5 1.7138E-05 0.01049556 0.15193449 0.47543015 0.85002714 0.99900998 17 0 0 3 5 5.2175E-07 0.00335111 0.1158145 0.47923737 0.8939554 0.99988441

1 0 0 0 5 0 2.9471E-09 0.00063445 0.07905665 0.48263046 0.93455622 0.999995091 5 0 0 7 5 5.7345E-13 4.2399E-05 0.04351479 0.48581894 0.96914361 0.999999973 5 0 0 1 7 5 1.1729E-27 1.1545E-09 0.00488745 0.49071716 0.99804784 1

R Ri <= , pm

n= . If R > µ and

µ = ∗=

∑1

1nRi

i

n

. If R < µ ,

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 1 2 3 4

general

mean

Example 1. Approximate sampling distribution forthe Clark & Evans nearest neighbor statistic in aNxN area containing 3 points. 10,000 iterations.

µ =

R Ri >= , pq

n= .

there are q Ri such

that


Discovering Features within aSite

As was described in a previous section, the approximatesampling distribution of the Clark & Evans nearest neighborstatistic for a specified number (n) of randomly placed pointsin an NxN sampling window can be generated using acomputer. With this approximate sampling distribution (aswas described in the last section) the probability (p) that themeasured nearest neighbor statistic for L (=n) surface arti-facts in an NxN quadrat is the result of random chance can becalculated. This further gives the probability that the Lartifacts are distributed at random over the surface of the siteenclosed by the quadrat. If the value of p<0.05 we can also sayone of two things about the artifacts in the recognition thattheir spatial pattern contains significant structure.

(1) If R<1 the artifacts show a tendency for clustering. Thistendency increases as R becomes smaller.

(2) If R>1 the artifacts tend to be repulsed or regularly spaced.

Here all artifact types will be sampled together within eachNxN quadrat. The purpose of this in the present work is toidentify features such residences or residential areas andoutdoor working areas. This is possible because archaeologi-cal excavations have provided sufficient evidence that cer-tain artifact types within an assemblage are consistentlyfound in discrete association within sub regions of sites. Forexample, in an Early site manos, metates, hammers and fire-altered rock found in close proximity to one another almostcertainly identify an activity area within a site where foodprocessing and cooking were taking place. The joint use ofnearest neighbor analysis and Monte Carlo simulation asdescribed in this paper has been applied in an initial study ofthe spatial organization of mapped surface artifacts in severalEarly Period sites in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties in

southern California. The specific locations of what are inter-preted as residences and outdoor activity areas were identi-fied in nearly every site examined using this method. Whatfollows is a site-by-site discussion of the results of this study.

Interpretations of SignificantFeatures Identifiedin the Spatial Analysis ofLAN-803

“Houses”

Three 20 foot by 20 foot quadrats (sampling windows) of thesite containing artifacts associated with residential areaswere identified as significant after the probability (p) wascalculated from the computed approximate sampling distri-butions for each of these areas. For “House” #2 the signifi-cance level of the nearest neighbor statistic is 1/10 of 1%. Thesignificance of the statistic for both “House” #1 and “House”#3 is 7%. This may result from a smaller sample size or it maybe a consequence of accumulation of error (truncation error)in the mapping of artifact positions. If the site had beenmapped with high precision survey devices, such as a GPStotal station it is possible that the observed nearest neighborstatistic for both “houses” would be in the 5% level ofsignificance. Even though LAN-803 at the time of the 1997artifact mapping was in a remarkable state of preservation, itseems likely that the spatial structure recorded in the artifactpositions was slightly blurred by the horizontal and verticaldisplacement and size sorting of artifacts over time. Activityareas such as those found in houses may have been moreaffected by this than other activity areas. Also, analyticalmethods such as nearest neighbor analysis are more sensitiveto small changes in artifact position than methods that userelative frequencies of artifacts in quadrats. However, Hiverneland Hodder (1984:100) comment on the advantage of usinginter-artifact distances over counts in a spatial analysis.

They say:

Quadrat methods of point pattern analysishave been shown (Hodder and Orton,1976:36-38) to be heavily dependent onthe size of the quadrat used. Any methodbased on frequency occurrence of artifactsin grid units results in a loss of spatialinformation.

Three statistically significant artifact clusters are interpretedas activity areas found inside houses because they containmanos as well as other probable grinding tools. These clus-ters are also believed to be sufficiently large to be considered

Example 2. Approximate sampling distribution forthe Clark & Evans nearest neighbor statistic in anNxN area containing 8 points. 8,625 iterations.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

generalmean


individual house floors.

“Houses” #1 and #3 contain whole manos. “House” #2contains a bifacial mano fragment and an unidentified housetool (“House Kitchen Tool”). No evidence of shaping, grind-ing, or battering is present on the “house kitchen tool”.Artifacts very similar to this were seen in VEN-27, PitasPoint (Chester King, personal communication). ”House” #3"contains one metate fragment. Manos and metates are asso-ciated with the grinding of small annual seeds such as thoseof Hemizonia fasiculata. Gamble (1983:124) says:

Historic accounts and the archaeologicalrecord suggest that foods were groundinside of the houses by women.

Unfortunately an Early period house has yet to be completelyexcavated in either Los Angeles or Ventura County (ChesterKing, personal communication).

House 2 in Area C at San Jose Mogote, Oaxaca (Flannery andWinters 1976:41) contains more than two dozen stone tools,the majority of which are found in Early period sites insouthern California. This house is given as 5 meters in lengthN-S and the E-S is assumed <= 5 meters. This would certainlyfit in a 20 x 20 foot quadrat. Its age is given as approximately1,000 B.C. House 1 in Area A at Tierras Largas, Oaxaca(Flannery and Winters 1976:44) dates at approximately 900B.C. and also contains a predominance of stone tools foundin Early period sites in southern California. House 2 in areaC is seen to contain two mano fragments. Please refer toFigure 1.

Fire altered rock (FAR) is present in “House” #2 and “House”#3 of LAN-803. FAR is also at the edge of the artifactdistributions in these “houses”. One interpretation is thatcooking took place at the periphery of these “houses”, possi-bly near a doorway. It is possible that the absence of FAR in“House” #1 is because this house predates the other two orbecause different houses have a different range of activitiesthat occur within them, and some activities occurring in ahouse may be specialized and limited to one or to a smallsubset of houses in a village. Flannery and Winters (1976:36)say:

Some types of tools seemed to be of nearlyuniversal distribution, but the activity ar-eas where they were manufactured werefound at only one or two houses. We inter-pret these as activities carried out at everyvillage, but perhaps by only one or twohouseholds in each village.

It is also possible FAR is below the surface in “House” #1 orthat this “house” was organized around non cooking activi-ties and storage. In each of these areas the nearest neighborstatistic shows slight to moderate clustering tendency and

falls within the range (0.7, 0.9), which appears to be diagnos-tic of houses in Early period residential sites. This belief isbased on the consistency of the results obtained in theanalyses of LAN-803, the Corbin Tank site in Topanga(LAN-218) and the Ahmanson Ranch sites.

Outdoor Working Areas

Four 20 x 20 foot areas with statistically significant nearestneighbor statistics are placed into the general categoryOutdoor Working Area. These areas are located next to ornear a draw on the ocean side of the LAN-803 and arespatially disjunct from the “house area”. None of these areascontain whole manos or metate fragments and are thereforenon admissible as house areas. Outdoor working area #4contains one mano fragment, which was probably being usedas a hammer. The nearest neighbor statistic shows a moder-ate clustering tendency in these four areas and is in the range(0.55, 0.65). This pattern was also seen explicitly in sitesLAN-218, VEN-221, VEN-222A, and VEN-709. This rangeof the nearest neighbor statistic appears to be diagnostic forthese areas. The higher clustering tendencies in these areasmay indicate, that at least some types of organized behaviortaking place in outdoor activity areas required less space thanhousehold activities

Figure 1. House 2 in Area C at San Jose Mogote,Oaxaca (Flannery and Winters 1976:41)


- 4 0 0

- 3 0 0

- 2 0 0

- 1 0 0

0- 4 0 0 - 3 0 0 - 2 0 0 - 1 0 0 0

Outdoor Working Area #1Outdoor Working Area #2Outdoor Working Area #3Outdoor Working Area #4House #1House #2House #3All other artifacts

Figure 2. Map of surface artifacts in LAn 803

- 1 5 8

- 1 5 6

- 1 5 4

- 1 5 2

- 1 5 0

- 1 4 8

- 1 4 6

- 1 4 4

- 1 4 2

- 1 4 0

- 1 3 8

- 2 8 0 - 2 7 5 - 2 7 0 - 2 6 5 - 2 6 0 - 2 5 5

Sandstone Wedge Mano

Andesite Hammer

Andesite Core/Hammer

Andesite Chopper/Hammer

Andesite Chopper

Andesite ChopperFragment

Andesite Core Fragment

Quartzite Flaking Hammer

Chert Core

Chert Flake Scraper

R= 0.87p= 0.076

Figure 3. LAn 803 House #1


Figure 4. Artifacts in LAn 803 House #1


Figure 5. LAn 803 House #2

- 1 6 5

- 1 6 0

- 1 5 5

- 1 5 0

- 1 4 5

- 1 4 0

- 1 3 5

- 2 6 0 - 2 5 0 - 2 4 0 - 2 3 0

Sandstone Biface ManoFragment

Sandstone Kitchen Tool

Sandstone FAR

Sandstone FlakingHammer Fragment

Sandstone PossibleGround Fragment

Andesite Core-Chunk

Andesite Flake

Quartzite Flake

Quartzite Spall

Quartzite Chopper orScraper Plane Fragment

R= 0.73p= 0.0073

0

Figure 6. Artifacts in LAn 803 House #2


-120

-100-280 -260

sandstone biface mano

sandstone possible manofragmentsandstone metate fragment

andesite chopper

chert scraper

chert core/chunk

chert flake

sandstone FAR

chert scraper, also

R= 0.84p=0.0731

Figure 7. LAn803 House #3

Figure 8. Three stone tools in LAn 803 House #3


- 2 4 0

- 1 8 0

- 2 0 0 - 1 8 0andesite cortex basedscraper

quartzite flake scraper

chert flake scraper

chert point tip

andesite flake fragment

chert flake

quartz flake

chert chunk-flake

chert chunk

siltstone flake-spall

Outdoor Working Area #1R= 0.65

p=0.0013

Figure 9. LAn 803 outdoor working area #1

Figure 10. Four stone tools in LAn 803 OutdoorActivity Area #1

- 2 4 0

- 2 0 0

- 2 0 0 - 1 8 0

chert domed scraper

chert flake scraper

chert core fragment

andesite flake

quartzite flake

chert flake

chert chunk


p= 0.0013

chert domed scraper, also

Figure 12. Two stone tools in LAn 803 OutdoorActivity Area #2.

Figure 11. LAn 803 outdoor working area #2.


- 2 2 0

- 2 0 0

- 1 6 0 - 1 4 0

chert flake scraper

andesite flake

chert flake

chert chunk


p= 0.00525


Figure 14. Chert flake scraper in LAn 803 outdoorworking area #3.

-240

-180-280 -260 -240 sandstone mano

fragment

chertknife/graver/scraper

chert flake scraper

chert core

chert flake

chert chunk

andesite flake


p= 0.0027


Figure 16. Three stone tools in LAn 803 outdoorworking area #4.


Principal ComponentsAnalysis

One example of the use of principle component analysis inarchaeology was by Straus (1975a). Binford (1977:72) says:

In fact, the Solutrean site with the clearestindication of specialized red deer hunting(El Cierro) has the lithic industry that sta-tistically most closely resembles that ofthe El Juyo industry—the type industry forthe lower Magdalenian (Straus 1975b).Perhaps it is not merely a coincidence thatspecialized red deer hunting in westernCantabria peaks during these two periodswhen the densities of sites (especially pre-cisely in Santander and Asturias) seemhighest. There is undoubtedly a functionalrelationship between the typical industriesduring these periods in these areas and theheavy exploitation of red deer (consis-tently together with bovines and horses insmaller numbers), perhaps related to somedegree of increased population pressure.The relationships between these animalsand important elements in the lithic toolassemblages is supported by the results ofprincipal components analyses of theSolutrean artifact and faunal data (Straus1975a).

Tool Associations in LAN-803

The purpose in applying principle component analysis tosurface artifact data in LAN-803 is to search for multivariatestructure in these data in the form of clustering tendencies, orin other words spatial associations of tool types on the surfaceof LAN-803.

The relative frequencies (or abundances) of all tool typescontained in each of forty-one 25 x 25 foot quadrats, as asubset of quadrats contained in a grid placed on the map ofsurface artifacts in LAN-803 were calculated. It turned outthat twenty-seven recognized tool types were contained inthe site area (25,625 square feet) covered by the forty-onequadrats. The relative frequencies were entered as percent-ages in the (41 row by 27 column) data matrix. From thismatrix a (27 row by 41 column) Spearman rank correlationmatrix was computed. From this matrix the principal compo-nent analysis was performed.

It is obvious that the first few principal components of a PCAshould contain the majority of information about tool typeassociations because they account for the majority of the

variance in the sample It has been shown by Gauch (1982)that truncating the results of a PCA, and thereby retainingonly the first few principal components does more thanmerely permit a multidimensional data structure to be visu-alized; it suppresses “noise” in the data. One qualitativemethod for deciding how many principal components to keepis the scree plot. Please refer to Figure 17. Clearly principalcomponent #1 accounts for the most variance, principalcomponent #2 a little less, and so on down the line. Byplotting Eigenvalue:Eigenvalue # a monotonically decreas-ing curve is realized. Where the curve is seen to be noticeablyconcave-up (the beginning of the scree) is the accepted cut-off point for retaining principal components. In the case ofLAN-803 the scree plot suggests that only five principalcomponents out of twenty-seven should be retained forinterpretation. As can be seen in the results of the principalcomponent analysis performed on the tool type relativefrequency data from LAN-803, the first five principal com-ponents account for about 47.5% of the variance in the data.Accounting for the majority of variance in the data, such as88.1% would require retaining fifteen principal components.This suggests that the data is either quite “noisy” or that themulti-modality of the data is highly complex and that reten-tion of more dimensions of the analysis is warranted.

Figure 17. Scree Plot.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

0 5 10 15 20

Eigenvalue #

Eig

en

va

lue

Manos and metates have already been discussed in thecontext of houses and it goes without further discussion thatthe high loadings of one or both of these tool types onprinciple components #1, #2, #3, and #5 leads to the interpre-tation of these independent dimensions of variation as housetool associations.

We will now discuss the high positive loading (0.452155) ofchert burins on principle component 1 and the negativeloadings of this tool type on principle components #2, #3, and#5. As was detailed earlier there is some similarity in thehousehold “tool kits” in LAN-803 identified by the principalcomponents analysis and those of Early Formative villagehouseholds at San Jose Mogote and Tierras Largas, Oaxacastudied by Kent Flannery and others. Flannery and Winter(1976:39) say:


Certain kinds of shell ornament produc-tion may have been restricted to house-holds in the northwestern, or Etla, regionof the Valley of Oaxaca during Early For-mative times. Two villages in that—TierrasLargas and San Jose Mogote—have evi-dence of shell working in almost everyhousehold of the period 1150-850 B.C.that has been extensively excavated... A“typical shell-working area at San JoseMogote would be an area of 1-2 sq m,small enough to suggest a single indi-vidual (rather than a group) was at work.Such areas were usually in the corner of ahouse, and they were littered with smallflint chips and fragments of cut and dis-carded shell. They would usually include 1or more chert knives or burins (for cuttingshell) and from 1 to 10 small chert drills orperforators (for drilling shell).

Figure 18. Artifacts and workshop debris fromEarly Formative shell-working activity areas atSan Jose Mogote, Oaxaca. (a) and (b) Chertburins for cutting shell; (c) chert graver; (d) and(e) small chert drills; (f) utilized chert flake; (g)fragment of cut and engraved shell ornament; (h)broken fragment of mother-of-pearl holder formagnetite mirror; (f) fragment of shell bead; (j)broken fragment of drilled pearl oyster [Flanneryand Winter’s Figure 2.14].

It is quite likely if the house areas and especially the three“houses” identified in the spatial analysis had been excavatedin LAN-803 shell beads in association with chert burins,chert gravers, utilized chert flakes, knives and other toolswould have been found in at least one of them. It is alsosuggested by the high positive loading of chert burins on onlyone of the four household artifact dimensions and negativeloadings on the other 3 that shell working (e.g. bead making)or other specialized activities associated with chert burinsmay not have taken place in every household.

Interpretations of SignificantFeatures Identified in theSpatial Analysis of LAN-218

“House”

LAN-218 contains one certain “house”. The presence ofmanos and a corresponding nearest neighbor statistic of R=0.82 when compared to LAN-803 suggest this significantcluster is a “house”. This “house” is contained in a 30 x 30foot quadrat. Manos, choppers, cores, and scrapers are closelyassociated in the central and northern areas of the “house”.This association of stone tools is interpreted as comprising afood processing and cooking activity area within the house.This “kitchen” tool association is significantly denser nearthe center of the house. It is possible that in this “house” thehearth was centrally located. (Martinez in Simpson 1939:4)says:

In the center of the room they make a firefor cooking seeds, fish, and other foods,for they eat everything cooked or roasted.

Fernando also described the hearth in a house as centrallylocated. He said:

The firepit was called sapi’wil. It was inthe middle of the house below thesmokehole. They cooked in this fire in thehouse [Hudson and Blackburn 1983:330-331].

It is possible that the placement of hearths in Early periodhouses was in one of two places. It is expected that houses inthe Early period approximated a hemispherical shape. Theinference of “Houses” #2 and #3 in LAN-803 having periph-eral hearths near doorways and the suggestion that the “house”in this site had a hearth near its center represent the twooptimal places for venting a cooking fire in a dome-shaped orhemispherical structure. The close spatial association ofseveral manos and choppers hints at the possibility ofgroundstone tool manufacture within this “house”. Ethno-


mers in an outdoor working area. This illustrates the impor-tance of noting the presence of edge battering or surfacepitting on manos in a site record. A mano made from a hardmaterial such as quartzite could serve as a multifunction tool.

Outdoor Working Areas

LAN-218 contains three significant clusters within 30 x 30foot quadrats that are interpreted as outdoor working areas.These areas are noticeably smaller than the site area coveredby the “house” artifact cluster. They also are peripheral to the“house” and on site edges, which is the same pattern seen inLAN-803. This pattern from a strategic point of view appearsdefensive. Flakes and scrapers are the predominant artifactsin these areas. Flake tool manufacture cannot be inferredbecause of the absence of hammers. It seems likely thatbutchering and woodworking are two plausible activities thattook place in these areas. This remains speculative withoutlaboratory analysis to study micro wear patterns on theartifacts and to identify plant and animal DNA and lipids aswell as other forensic evidence that may still be present on thecutting edges or other surface areas of these artifacts.

Figure 19. Spatial Analysis Map LAn 218.

0

3 0

6 0

9 0

1 2 0

1 5 0

0 3 0 6 0 9 0 1 2 0 1 5 0 1 8 0 2 1 0 2 4 0

Sandstone ManoSandstone Biface ManoQuartzite ManoQuartzite Biface ManoBasalt ManoQuartzite ChopperGranite ChopperBasalt CoreChert CoreQuartzite Core ScraperBasalt ScraperChert Flake ScraperQuartzite KnifeBasalt KnifeChert DebitageQuartzite ManoQuartzite Biface ManoBanded Chert CoreBasalt Core ScraperBasalt ScraperChert ScraperQuartzite Flake ScraperChert KnifeBasalt KnifeChert Burin?Chert DebitageChert ScraperChert Burin?Fused Shale DebitageSandstone MetateAndesite Cobble HammerChert ScraperChert Flake ScraperChert DebitageChert ScraperChert Flake End ScraperQuartzite Flake ScraperChert DebitageBanded Chert CoreChert DebitageChalcedony Debitage

HouseR= 0.82

p= 0.014

Outdoor Working Area?

R= 0.63

p=0.002

R= 0.63

Outdoor Working Area #3

p= 0.0475


R= 0.56

p= 0.0147


R= 0.57

Highly Clustered AreaR=0.22

p=0

p= 0.006

House Area?

graphic research in the Maya Highlands provides evidencethat chopping tools may be used in the manufacture of manosand metates (Hayden and Nelson, 1981). A close and discretespatial association consisting of a basalt knife, a quartziteknife and chert debitage (flakes?) near the southwestern edgeof this “house” points to a second activity area. The smallnumber (or low density) of cutting tools in this area does notfit the pattern of a butchering area. It seems more likely thatthis was a general-purpose cutting area that supported anumber of household activities. These activities may haveincluded cutting meat prior to cooking, the cutting of bone inthe manufacture of whistles, the cutting of feathers used todecorate dancing costumes, etc.

Outdoor Working Area?

A significant and large cluster also in a 30 x 30 foot quadratand immediately below the “house” is more difficult tointerpret. The presence of two quartzite manos and onequartzite biface mano infer this is a house area. It can be seenby examining Figure 19 that these three tools are on the sideof the cluster closest to the “house”. The nearest neighborstatistic for this cluster (R= 0.63) by comparison with LAN-803 suggests this is an outdoor working area. It is possible thethree manos present in this area were transported down slopefrom the “house” or that these manos were curated as ham-


Interpretations of SignificantFeatures Identifiedin the Spatial Analysis ofVEN-221 (Ahmanson Ranch)

“Houses”

VEN-221 contains two significant (3% and 7% level) clus-ters which are interpreted as “houses” The nearest neighborstatistic for both clusters when compared to the results ofLAN-803 identifies them as “house” areas. Both of theseclusters can be enclosed in a 20 x 20 foot area. One cluster(“House” #1) contains 3 whole manos and the other (“House”#2), what has been called in the Whitley typology as ahandstone (like a small mano). Referring to Table 2, it canbe seen that there are manos with less weight than the twoquartzite “handstones”. I interpret this as an error in Whitley’stypology and that both “handstones” are probably manos.Unfortunately the collection of VEN-221 artifacts has notbeen made available to Chester King to confirm this. It istherefore assumed that “House” #2 in VEN-221 contains onewhole quartzite mano. “House” #1 also contains a hammerand core, which can be seen, as associated with manos inhouses based on the interpretation of principal component 1from the principal components analysis performed on LAN-803 (refer to the appendix).

Outdoor Working Areas.

VEN-221 contains one significant (3 % level) cluster, whichis interpreted as an outdoor working area based on thecomparison of the nearest neighbor statistic for this cluster(R= 0.67) with the results of the analysis performed on LAN-803. This cluster can be contained in a 50 x 50 foot area. Itcontains a predominance of hammers. It also contains onemetavolcanic mano sitting next to an agglomeration of ham-mers. It is probable that the mano was being used as a hammerin this area. Scrapers and other tools in this area are consistentwith the types seen in the outdoor working areas in LAN-803.

VEN 221 Groundstone

Mater ial Mano Type Weight (grams)

Met ased 9 80.6

Met avol 9 85.5

Sandst one 9 85.8

Sandst one 1 104.2

Quartzi te 1 168.5

Quartzi te 3C 185.9

Met ased 3C 221.9

Met ased 9 242.8

Grani t e 9 246.4

Quartzi te Hands tone 251.7

Quartzi te Hands tone 277.3

Quartzi te 3B 299.5

Grani t e 9 302.8

Volcanic 3B 303.7

Grani t e 9 326.9

Grani t e 9 345

Grani t e 9 346.1

Grani t e 3C 430

Met ased 2B 475.2

Grani t e 3C 497.3

Grani t e 9 524

Met avol 9 540.3

Quartzi te 1 652.8

Silt st one 4B 663

Met avol 9 670.5

Met avol 9 699.5

Quartzi te 1 760.9

Grani t e 1 100 1.7

Volcanic 5 102 6.7

Met ased 3A 104 4

Met ased 3A 128 1.3

Table 2.


0

5 0

100

150

200

250

300

0 5 0 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

Quartzite Hammer

MetaVolcanic Hammer

MetaVolcanic mano

Quartzite Chopper

Quartzite Core

Quartzite Scraper

Quarzite Scraper, concave edge

Fused Shale Point Tip

Fused Shale Scraper, concaveedge

Quartzite Hammer

Quartzite Handstone

MetaVolcanic Mano

Sandstone Mano

Quartzite Hammer

R= 0.82House #1

p= 0.038


R= 0.67p=0.0345

House #2

R= 0.8

p= 0.0745

Figure 20. Spatial analysis map VEN 221.

Interpretations ofSignificant FeaturesIdentifiedin the SpatialAnalysis of VEN-222Locus A (AhmansonRanch)

“House” Area

0

100

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Meta-sed Mano

Quartzite Hammer

Quartzite Chopper

Quartzite Core

Quartzite Scraper plane

Granite Mano

Meta-sed Mano

Granitic Hammer

Quartzite Hammer

Quartzite Scraper plane

Quartzite Scraper

Marginally Significant Cluster

R= 0.87

p= 0.119

Highly Significant Cluster

R= 0.46

p= 0.00067

Figure 21. Spatial Analysis Map of VEN 222 Locus A.

examined. The paucity of surface artifacts suggests this sitemay be a seasonal camp (occupied during the harvest ofmanaged fields of annual seed crops) and not a residential siteoccupied year round. More artifact positions are needed toprecisely determine the positions and number of residences.This can only achieved through an excavation of the site.

Outdoor Activity Area

VEN-222A has one significant (2% level) cluster of surfaceartifacts that are interpreted as being part of a “house” area.This cluster covers an area less than 6,300 square feet. Itcontains several whole manos and its nearest neighbor statis-tic (R= 0.79) by comparison with LAN-803 suggests thiscluster is within a residential area. The surface artifact densityin VEN-222 Locus A is lower than in the sites already


VEN-222A contains one significant (3% level) cluster thatis interpreted as an outdoor activity area based on the nearestneighbor statistic (R= 0.65), which by comparison withLAN-803 infers this is an outdoor activity area. This area hasone whole meta-sedimentary mano along with several ham-mers and cores, and what has been called an abrader. Themano in this area may well have seen use as a hammer.

Interpretations of SignificantFeatures Identified in theSpatial Analysis of VEN-222Locus B (Ahmanson Ranch)

The surface artifact concentration in VEN-222 Locus B canaptly be described as low. One highly significant (1/10th of1% level) cluster was identified in this site. The nearestneighbor statistic (R= 0.46) is slightly below the range for theoutdoor working areas in LAN-803. This area contains threequartzite hammers, a quartzite chopper, a quartzite scraperplane, and a quartzite core. The nearest neighbor statistic andtool content point to this cluster being part of an outdoorworking area. The nearest neighbor statistic (R= 0,87) for amarginally significant (12% level) and the presence of twowhole manos suggests, by comparison with LAN-803 thatthis cluster might be part of a residential area. Excavation isneeded in this site to identify the locations of features and thetypes of organization they contain.

0

5 0

100

150

200

250

0 100 200 300

Quartzite ManoGranitic ManoMeta-sed ManoGranitic Mano Frag (untyped)Meta-sed Mano Frag (untyped)Quartzite HammerGranite HammerQuartzite ChopperQuartzite Scraper planeQuartzite ScraperQuartzite CoreQuartzite Abraider

Outdoor Activity AreaR= 0.65

p= 0.0258

House AreaR= 0.79

p=0.0173

Figure 22. Spatial analysis map of VEN 222 Locus B.

Interpretation of SignificantFeatures Identifiedin the Spatial Analysis ofVEN-706 (Ahmanson Ranch)

VEN-706 contains a diffuse (or regular) distribution ofartifacts over the entire site, as is demonstrated by the highvalue of 2.76 for the nearest neighbor statistic calculated fromthis distribution. The null hypothesis of random artifactdistribution is rejected at the 1 % level of significance. Asignificant (4% level) cluster of artifacts is seen in a housesize area near the center of the artifact distribution. Thenearest neighbor statistic for this cluster (R= 0.82) along withthe presence of a whole mano, by comparison with LAN-803suggests this may be a “house”. Excavation is needed in thissite to better understand its organization.



VEN-707 contains a low density of mapped surface artifacts.Examination of the artifact distribution revealed one signifi-cant (5 % level) cluster. The nearest neighbor statistic (R =0.74) when compared to LAN-803 infers this to be a “house”area. Manos are absent in this cluster. Hammers, a core, anda scraper plane constitute this cluster and are interpretable asbeing part of a house tool association based on the principal

0

5 0

100

150

200

250

0 5 0 100 150 200

Quartzite Hammer

Granite Mano

Quartzite Biface Mano

Quartzite Scraper Plane

Quartzite Scraper

Fused Shale Point

Centroid

Significant RepulsionR= 2.76, p=0.0115

Significant Cluster

R= 0.82, p= 0.044

Figure 23. Spatial Analysis Map of VEN 706.

Figure 24. Spatial Analysis Map of VEN 707

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 100 200 300 400

Quartzite Hammer

Quartzite Core

Quartzite Core/ScraperplaneAll Other MappedSurface Artifacts

House Area

R= 0.74

p= 0.051

components analysis performed on LAN-803. Additionalexcavation is also needed in this site to better understand itsorganization. As with all the previous sites examined it isapparent VEN-707 contains valuable and substantial infor-mation that can answer important questions concerning pre-history.



“House”

VEN-709 has one significant (6% level) artifact clustersampled in a 30 x 30 foot quadrat that contains whole manosand a nearest neighbor statistic (R= 0.81) when compared toLAN-803 suggests this cluster is in a “house”. A marginallysignificant (8% level) cluster has a nearest neighbor statistic(R= 0.76) that when compared to LAN-803 suggests thiscluster is part of a “house” area. Manos are absent from thiscluster.


VEN-709 has another significant (3% level) cluster with anearest neighbor statistic (R= 0.56) that suggests by compari-son with LAN-803 that this small cluster is part of an outdoorworking area. The three artifacts in the cluster are consistentwith types expected in an outdoor working area.

Excavation in this outdoor working area as well as in the“house” area would provide more detailed information aboutthe organization of this site. It is certain that this site containssubstantial and important information about a poorly under-stood period in early California prehistory.

Conclusion

A mathematical method has been presented in this paper thatallows an investigator to identify significant features in acultural site using only mapped and typed surface artifacts.Significant and variable spatial structure was found in at leastone sub area in each of the Early period sites examined in thispaper. Based on archaeological and ethnographic data, aswell as consistent values of the nearest neighbor statistic thatfall into two clear cut groups, these areas have been inter-preted as both residences, and as belonging to outdoor work-ing areas. A previous interpretation of the Ahmanson Ranchsites as simple “winnowing stations” did not result from arigorous scientific analysis. It was merely an opinion. As withany difference of opinion between scientists additional re-search is needed to resolve discrepancies in interpretation. Inthe case of the Ahmanson Ranch sites further research isneeded to understand precisely what activities occurred in thehouse and outdoor activity areas and exactly where withinthese areas activities were taking place. Such questions must

Figure 25. Spatial Analysis Map of VEN 709.

0

3 0

6 0

9 0

120

150

180

210

0 3 0 6 0 9 0 120

Quartzite Mano

Quartzite Biface Mano

Granite Mano

Meta-sed Mano

Quartzite Hammer

Quartzite Chopper

Quartzite Core

Quartzite Hammer

Quartzite Scraper

Quartzite Hammer

Quartzite Scraper

Quartzite Utilized Debitage

Non Significant Structure

R= 0.81

p= 0.061

House

R= 0.56

p= 0.03

R= 0.76

p= 0.078

House Area?



be addressed using larger data sets than the positions andcorresponding identities of surface artifacts, along with moresophisticated types of mathematical analysis. Such data setscan only be obtained through scientifically designed, wellimplemented, and thorough excavation of identifiable fea-tures within a site.

Bibliography

Besag, Julian and Peter J. Diggle1977. Simple Monte Carlo Tests for Spatial Pattern. Applied

Statistics Vol. 26, No. 3:327-333.

Binford Lewis R. (Editor)1977. For Theory Building in Archaeology. Essays on Faunal

Remains, Aquatic Resources, Spatial Analysis, and Sys-temic Modeling. Academic Press, New York.

Eddington, Eugene S.1969 Statistical Inference: The Distribution -free Approach.

McGraw-Hill, New York.Earle, Timothy K.1976 A Nearest-Neighbor Analysis of Two Formative Settle-

ment Systems. In: Flannery, Kent V. (Ed.) The EarlyMesoamerican Village: 196-223, Academic Press, NewYork.

Flannery, Kent V. and Marcus C. Winter1976 Analyzing Household Activities. In: Flannery, Kent V.

(Ed.) The Early Mesoamerican Village: 34-47.Gauch, H.G., Jr.1982, Noise Reduction by Eigenvector Ordinations. Ecology

63: 1643-1649.Gamble, Lynn C.1983. The Organization of Artifacts, Features, and Activities

at Pitas Point: A Coastal Chumash Village. Journal ofCalifornia and Great Basin Anthropology Vol. 5, Nos. 1and 2: 103-129,

Hayden, Brian and Margaret Nelson1981. The Use of Chipped Lithic Material in the Contempo-

rary Mayan Highlands. American Antiquity 46(4): 885-898.

Hodder I. and M. Hassall1971. The non-random spacing of Romano-British walled

towns. Man 6: 391-407.Hodder, I. And C. Orton1976. Spatial Analysis in Archaeology. Cambridge University

Press. Cambridge.Hivernel, F. and I. Hodder1984. Analysis of artifact distribution at Ngenyn (Kenya):

depositional and postdepositional effects. In: Intrasitespatial analysis in archaeology: 97-115. CambridgeUniversity Press. Cambridge.

Hudson, Travis and Thomas Blackburn1983. The Material culture of the Chumash Interaction Sphere:

Vol. 2: Food Preparation, and Shelter. Los Altos andSanta Barbara: Ballena Press and Santa Barbara Mu-seum of Natural History.

Kroll, Ellen M. and Glynn L. Isaac.1984. Configurations of artifacts and bones at early Pleis-

tocene sites in East Africa. In: Intrasite spatial analysis

in archaeology: 4-31. Cambridge University Press. Cam-bridge.

Marriot, F.H.C.1979. Barnard’s Monte Carlo Tests: How many simulations?

Applied Statistics Vol. 28 No. 1: 75-77.Simpson, Lesley B.1939. California in 1792: The Expedition of Longinos Martinez.

San Marino: Huntington Library.Straus, L.G.1975a, A Study of the Solutrean in Vasco-Cantabrian Spain.

Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Department of An-thropology, University of Chicago.

1975b. Solutrense o Magdaleniense inferior cantabrico?:Significado de las “diferencias.”Boletin del Instituto deEstudios Asturianos 86:781-790.

Whallon, Robert1974. Spatial Analysis of Occupation Floor II: The Applica-

tion of Nearest Neighbor Analysis. American AntiquityVol. 39, No. 1: 16-34.


Appendix

PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS RESULTS:========= ========= ======== =======NOTE:====

USING SPEARMAN’S RANK CORRELATION MATRIXEIGENVALUE 1 = 3.466585 OR 12.8392 %—————CUMULATIVE % = 12.83921EIGENVECTOR 1 COMPONENT % OF TOTAL House “Tool Association” #1 LOADINGS VARIANCE————— ———— ————— 0.323137 0.601642 1.340640 Sandstone Mano 0.119178 0.221895 0.182361 0.310053 0.577281 1.234272 Sandstone Triface Mano 0.108378 0.201786 0,150806 0,295931 0.550987 1.124397 Rhyolite Biface Mano 0.327742 0.610215 1.379122 Sandstone Metate Fragment 0.203953 0.379736 0.534071 Sandstone Flaking Hammer-0.038397 -0.071491 0.018929 0.175290 0.326369 0.394507 Andesite Scraper Plane 0.268097 0.499164 0.922832 Andesite Hammer-0.113957 -0.212173 0.166732 0.024787 0.046150 0.007888 0.239246 0.445447 0.734901 Andesite Chopper 0.191268 0.356118 0.469703 Andesite Flaking Hammer-0.034014 -0.063330 0.014854-0.074592 -0.138881 0.071437 0.068175 0.126933 0.059674 0.320369 0.596487 1.317767 Chert Graver 0.242849 0.452155 0.757200 Chert Burin-0.005243 -0.009762 0.000353 0.094340 0.175650 0.114270 0.131530 0.244893 0.222121 Chert Core 0.158917 0.295884 0.324249 Quartzite Flake Scraper-0.065454 -0.121868 0.055007 0.274616 0.511300 0.968252 Quartzite Chopper Hammer-0.063764 -0.118720 0.052202 0.131096 0.244085 0.220658 Quartzite Flaking Hammer

EIGENVALUE 2 = 2.977526 OR 11.02788 % House Tool Association #2—————CUMULATIVE % = 23.86708EIGENVECTOR 2 COMPONENT % OF TOTAL LOADINGS VARIANCE————— ———— —————-0.121854 -0.210265 0.163745-0.290913 -0.501985 0.933291 0.336494 0.580637 1.248665 Sandstone Triface Mano 0.229066 0.395265 0.578646 Andesite Mano-0.169512 -0.292501 0.316878-0.015905 -0.027445 0.002790


0.309907 0.534760 1.059141 Sandstone Flaking Hammer-0.115844 -0.199895 0.147992-0.083400 -0.143912 0.076706-0.111625 -0.192614 0.137409-0.012525 -0.021613 0.001730-0.239532 -0.413324 0.632729-0.197387 -0.340601 0.429663 0.313416 0.540816 1.083266 Andesite Flaking Hammer-0.167213 -0.288534 0.308341-0.025914 -0.044716 0.007406 0.146489 0.252773 0.236646 Chert Scraper/Graver 0.101297 0.174794 0.113159-0.034351 -0.059274 0.013013 0.032710 0.056443 0.011799 0.279582 0.482434 0.862009 Chert Carinate Scraper-0.243926 -0.420906 0.656156 0.181832 0.313760 0.364612 Quartzite Flake Scraper-0.167613 -0.289225 0.309820-0.292958 -0.505515 0.946464 0.034782 0.060019 0.013342-0.183778 -0.317119 0.372461

EIGENVALUE 3 = 2.475872 OR 9.169897 % House Tool Association #3—————CUMULATIVE % = 33.03698EIGENVECTOR 3 COMPONENT % OF TOTAL LOADINGS VARIANCE————— ———— ————— 0.161842 0.254658 0.240187 Sandstone Mano 0.025841 0.040661 0.006123 0.181313 0.285294 0.301454 Sandstone Triface Mano-0.237529 -0.373750 0.517366-0.121068 -0.190500 0.134408-0.324232 -0.510176 0.964000 0.019804 0.031161 0.003596 0.200039 0.314759 0.366938 Andesite Scraper 0.139465 0.219447 0.178359-0.333769 -0.525182 1.021542-0.101986 -0.160475 0.095378 0.339662 0.534455 1.057935 Andesite Chopper/Hammer 0.377574 0.594109 1.307278 Andesite Chopper 0.227940 0.358662 0.476438 Andesite Flaking Hammer 0.192068 0.302217 0.338278 Chert Scraper-0.065357 -0.102839 0.039170 0.162886 0.256299 0.243293 Chert Scraper/Graver 0.163056 0.256567 0.243802 Chert Graver-0.072379 -0.113888 0.048039 0.099948 0.157268 0.091604-0.085461 -0.134471 0.066972-0.111599 -0.175601 0.114206 0.133755 0.210462 0.164052 0.255722 0.402376 0.599654 Quartzite Hammer-0.140397 -0.220913 0.180750-0.104007 -0.163654 0.099195-0.171555 -0.269940 0.269879


EIGENVALUE 4 = 2.159579 OR 7.998439 % Outdoor Working Area Tool Association—————CUMULATIVE % = 41.03542EIGENVECTOR 4 COMPONENT % OF TOTAL LOADINGS VARIANCE————— ———— —————-0.287530 -0.422540 0.661258 0.010108 0.014854 0.000817-0.056807 -0.083480 0.025811-0.144282 -0.212029 0.166505-0.232685 -0.341942 0.433053-0.288674 -0.424220 0.666530-0.085765 -0.126037 0.058834 0.064232 0.094392 0.033000 0.134587 0.197783 0.144882-0.096024 -0.141111 0.073750 0.067356 0.098983 0.036287-0.282561 -0.415238 0.638602 0.088353 0.129839 0.062438 0.132258 0.194359 0.139909-0.122053 -0.179363 0.119153 0.053671 0.078873 0.023040 0.252591 0.371196 0.510319 Chert Scraper/Graver 0.331577 0.487269 0.879375 Chert Graver 0.246796 0.362678 0.487169 Chert Burin 0.263063 0.386585 0.553510 Chert Domed Scraper-0.064276 -0.094457 0.033045 0.203594 0.299192 0.331539 Chert Core-0.208342 -0.306170 0.347184-0.274048 -0.402728 0.600702 0.243825 0.358313 0.475511 Quartzite Chopper/Hammer 0.094979 0.139577 0.072154 0.230256 0.338373 0.424060 Quartzite Flaking Hammer


EIGENVALUE 5 = 1.733209 OR 6.419294 % House Tool Association #4—————CUMULATIVE % = 47.45471EIGENVECTOR 5 COMPONENT % OF TOTAL LOADINGS VARIANCE————— ———— ————— 0.004085 0.005378 0.000107 0.033493 0.044094 0.007201-0.128752 - 0.169504 0.106414 0.186033 0.244915 0.222160 Andesite Mano 0.091580 0.120566 0.053838 0.157842 0.207801 0.159931-0.005078 -0.006685 0.000166-0.130096 -0.171273 0.108646 0.044943 0.059167 0.012966 0.220426 0.290193 0.311897 Andesite Hammer 0.018233 0.024004 0.002134-0.017428 -0.022944 0.001950 0.279399 0.367833 0.501115 Andesite Chopper-0.140123 -0.184474 0.126039 0.179772 0.236673 0.207460-0.153091 -0.201547 0.150448 0.355009 0.467374 0.809031 Chert Scraper/Graver 0.105538 0.138943 0.071500-0.372458 -0.490346 0.890517 0.333244 0.438720 0.712873 Chert Domed Scraper-0.006574 -0.008655 0.000277-0.305725 -0.402491 0.599996-0.374782 -0.493406 0.901666-0.124457 -0.163849 0.099431-0.226283 -0.297904 0.328693-0.027855 -0.036671 0.004981 0.065876 0.086727 0.027858


=SELECT(OFFSET(ACTIVE.CELL(),0,3))=INPUT(“Enter the length of the sides of the square sampling window:”,1)=INPUT(“Enter the number of artifact locations within the sampling window:”,1)=SET.NAME(“ArtNo”,B4)=SET.NAME(“Counter”,0)=SET.NAME(“counterR”,0)=FOR(“counta”,1,ArtNo)=OFFSET(ACTIVE.CELL(),Counter,-2)=OFFSET(ACTIVE.CELL(),Counter,-1)=FOR(“countb”,1,ArtNo)=OFFSET(ACTIVE.CELL(),0,-2)=OFFSET(ACTIVE.CELL(),0,-1)=SQRT((B9-B12)^2+(B10-B13)^2)=SET.NAME(“D”,B14)=FORMULA(D)=SELECT(OFFSET(ACTIVE.CELL(),1,0))=NEXT()=SELECT(OFFSET(ACTIVE.CELL(),-(ArtNo-1),0))=SET.NAME(“NN”,10^8)=IF(Counter=0,SET.VALUE(OFFSET(ACTIVE.CELL(),-1,0),10^8),SET.NAME(“NN”,OFFSET(ACTIVE.CELL(),-1,0)))=IF(NN>ACTIVE.CELL())=SET.NAME(“NN”,ACTIVE.CELL())=END.IF()=IF(AND(Counter=1,ArtNo<>2))=SET.VALUE(ACTIVE.CELL(),10^8)=END.IF()=SET.NAME(“CounterD”,2)=FOR(“countc”,1,ArtNo-2)=SELECT(OFFSET(ACTIVE.CELL(),1,0))=IF(AND(Counter=CounterD,ArtNo<>2))=SET.VALUE(ACTIVE.CELL(),10^8)=END.IF()=IF(ACTIVE.CELL()<NN)=SET.NAME(“NN”,ACTIVE.CELL())=END.IF()=SET.NAME(“CounterD”,CounterD+1)=NEXT()=SET.NAME(“up”,-(ArtNo-(Counter+1)))=IF(Counter<=ArtNo)=SELECT(OFFSET(ACTIVE.CELL(),up,1))=FORMULA(NN)=SELECT(OFFSET(ACTIVE.CELL(),-Counter,-1))=END.IF()=SET.NAME(“Counter”,Counter+1)=NEXT()=SELECT(OFFSET(ACTIVE.CELL(),0,1))=SET.NAME(“Sum1NN”,0)=FOR(“counth”,1,ArtNo)=SET.NAME(“Sum1NN”, Sum1NN+ACTIVE.CELL())=SELECT(OFFSET(ACTIVE.CELL(),1,0))=NEXT()=SELECT(OFFSET(ACTIVE.CELL(),-ArtNo,0))=Sum1NN/ArtNo=ArtNo/(B3^2)=2*SQRT(B55)=B54*B56


=SELECT(OFFSET(ACTIVE.CELL(),CounterR,1))=FORMULA(ROUND(B57,2))=SELECT(OFFSET(ACTIVE.CELL(),-CounterR,-4))=SET.NAME(“CounterR”,CounterR+1)=RETURN()

The preceding Excel 4.0 Macro was written by M. Merrill to compute the Clark & Evans nearest neighborstatistic from actual data.

The following Excel 4.0 Macro was written by M. Merrill to compute approximate sampling distributions for theClark & Evans nearest neighbor statistic.

=SELECT(OFFSET(ACTIVE.CELL(),0,3))=SET.NAME(“CounterErase”,0)=WHILE(OR(ACTIVE.CELL()<>””,OFFSET(ACTIVE.CELL(),0,1)<>””,OFFSET(ACTIVE.CELL(),0,2)<>””))=FORMULA(“”)=SELECT(OFFSET(ACTIVE.CELL(),0,1))=FORMULA(“”)=SELECT(OFFSET(ACTIVE.CELL(),0,1))=FORMULA(“”)=SELECT(OFFSET(ACTIVE.CELL(),0,1))=FORMULA(“”)=SELECT(OFFSET(ACTIVE.CELL(),1,-3))=SET.NAME(“CounterErase”,CounterErase+1)=NEXT()=SELECT(OFFSET(ACTIVE.CELL(),-CounterErase,-2))=INPUT(“Enter the length of the sides of the square sampling window:”,1)=SET.NAME(“Length”,B17)=INPUT(“Enter the number of artifact locations within the sampling window:”,1)=SET.NAME(“ArtNo”,B19)=INPUT(“Enter the no.of iterations to be performed:”,1)=SET.NAME(“IterNo”,B21)=SET.NAME(“CounterIter”,0)=WHILE(CounterIter<IterNo)=FOR(“countq”,1,ArtNo)=FORMULA(Length*RAND())=SELECT(OFFSET(ACTIVE.CELL(),0,1))=FORMULA(Length*RAND())=SELECT(OFFSET(ACTIVE.CELL(),1,-1))=NEXT()=SELECT(OFFSET(ACTIVE.CELL(),-ArtNo,2))=SET.NAME(“Counter”,0)=FOR(“counta”,1,ArtNo)=OFFSET(ACTIVE.CELL(),Counter,-2)=OFFSET(ACTIVE.CELL(),Counter,-1)=FOR(“countb”,1,ArtNo)=OFFSET(ACTIVE.CELL(),0,-2)=OFFSET(ACTIVE.CELL(),0,-1)=SQRT((B34-B37)^2+(B35-B38)^2)=SET.NAME(“D”,B39)=FORMULA(D)=SELECT(OFFSET(ACTIVE.CELL(),1,0))=NEXT()=SELECT(OFFSET(ACTIVE.CELL(),-(ArtNo-1),0))=SET.NAME(“NN”,10^8)=IF(Counter=0,SET.VALUE(OFFSET(ACTIVE.CELL(),-1,0),10^8),SET.NAME(“NN”,OFFSET(ACTIVE.CELL(),-1,0)))


=IF(NN>ACTIVE.CELL())=SET.NAME(“NN”,ACTIVE.CELL())=END.IF()=IF(AND(Counter=1,ArtNo<>2))=SET.VALUE(ACTIVE.CELL(),10^8)=END.IF()=SET.NAME(“CounterD”,2)=FOR(“countc”,1,ArtNo-2)=SELECT(OFFSET(ACTIVE.CELL(),1,0))=IF(AND(Counter=CounterD,ArtNo<>2))=SET.VALUE(ACTIVE.CELL(),10^8)=END.IF()=IF(ACTIVE.CELL()<NN)=SET.NAME(“NN”,ACTIVE.CELL())=END.IF()=SET.NAME(“CounterD”,CounterD+1)=NEXT()=SET.NAME(“up”,-(ArtNo-(Counter+1)))=IF(Counter<=ArtNo)=SELECT(OFFSET(ACTIVE.CELL(),up,1))=FORMULA(NN)=SELECT(OFFSET(ACTIVE.CELL(),-Counter,-1))=END.IF()=SET.NAME(“Counter”,Counter+1)=NEXT()=SELECT(OFFSET(ACTIVE.CELL(),0,1))=SET.NAME(“Sum1NN”,0)=FOR(“counth”,1,ArtNo)=SET.NAME(“Sum1NN”, Sum1NN+ACTIVE.CELL())=SELECT(OFFSET(ACTIVE.CELL(),1,0))=NEXT()=SELECT(OFFSET(ACTIVE.CELL(),-ArtNo,0))=Sum1NN/ArtNo=ArtNo/(B17^2)=SET.NAME(“rho”,B80)=2*SQRT(B80)=B79*B82=SELECT(OFFSET(ACTIVE.CELL(),CounterIter,1))=FORMULA(ROUND(B83,2))=IF(CounterIter=IterNo-1)=SELECT(OFFSET(ACTIVE.CELL(),-CounterIter,1))=4-PI()=4*PI()*rho*ArtNo=SQRT(B88/B89)=FORMULA(B90)=END.IF()=IF(CounterIter<>IterNo-1)=SELECT(OFFSET(ACTIVE.CELL(),-CounterIter,-4))=END.IF()=SET.NAME(“CounterIter”,CounterIter+1)=NEXT()=RETURN()

Date post:	14-Jul-2015
Category:	Science
Upload:	michael-merrill
View:	188 times
Download:	11 times