early archaeology on the western edge of alta california: malcolm

EARLY ARCHAEOLOGY ON THE WESTERN EDGE OF ALTA

CALIFORNIA: MALCOLM ROGERS’ SAN NICOLAS ISLAND

COLLECTIONS

_______________

A Thesis

Presented to the

Faculty of

San Diego State University

_______________

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Arts

in

Anthropology

_______________

by

Cassandra E. Krum

Spring 2014

iii

Copyright © 2014

by

Cassandra E. Krum

All Rights Reserved

iv

DEDICATION

For my parents.

v

ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS

Early Archaeology on the Western Edge of Alta California:

Malcolm Rogers’ San Nicolas Island Collections

by

Cassandra E. Krum

Master of Arts in Anthropology

San Diego State University, 2014

Museum collections are often overlooked by archaeologists for the more exciting

work of excavating “new” information. However, museum collections can provide a wealth

of information on the ancient history of sites, landscapes, or regions. Malcolm Rogers

excavated and collected artifacts from thirty-two sites on San Nicolas Island in 1930 that are

now curated at the San Diego Museum of Man. This project cataloged the collection as well

as correlated artifact locations to known sites on the island and Malcolm Rogers’ field notes.

An in-depth look at settlement patterns, prehistoric material culture, and historical artifacts

highlights the research potential of this extensive collection for current researchers.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

ABSTRACT ...............................................................................................................................v

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................... ix

LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................ xii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................... xiv

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................1

2 ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND ........................................................................4

3 CULTURAL BACKGROUND ...................................................................................16

4 HISTORY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH ..................................................25

Archaeological Research on San Nicolas ..............................................................26

Malcolm Jennings Rogers: A Brief Biography ......................................................33

5 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND .............................................................................37

Malcolm Rogers’ Culture History .........................................................................37

Theoretical Approaches .........................................................................................40

6 METHODS ..................................................................................................................43

Importance of Museum Collections .......................................................................43

Field Procedures.....................................................................................................44

Analytical Procedures ............................................................................................48

Creating the Catalog ..............................................................................................50

The Collection Today ............................................................................................54

7 RESULTS: SITE DESCRIPTIONS AND CATALOG ...............................................55

MoM Collection .....................................................................................................55

Site Descriptions ....................................................................................................55

SN-1 (SNI-7) ..........................................................................................................56

SN-1A (SNI-119) ...................................................................................................57

SN-2 (SNI-5) ..........................................................................................................59

SN-3 .......................................................................................................................61

vii

SN-4 (SNI-3) ..........................................................................................................62

SN-5 (SNI-137) ......................................................................................................63

SN-6 (SNI-1, SNI-325, SNI-326, SNI-327) ..........................................................64

SN-6/SN-7..............................................................................................................65

SN-7 (SNI-54) ........................................................................................................66

SN-7A (SNI-318) ...................................................................................................66

SN-8 (SNI-150, SNI-319, SNI-320, SNI-322) ......................................................68

SN-9 (SNI-145, SNI-149) ......................................................................................68

SN-10(SNI-9, SNI-146, SNI-233) .........................................................................70

SN-11(SNI-10) .......................................................................................................73

SN-12(SNI-11) .......................................................................................................73

SN-13(SNI-12) .......................................................................................................74

SN-14(SNI-25), SN-14 Cremation ........................................................................75

SN-15(SNI-21) .......................................................................................................77

SN-16(SNI-16) .......................................................................................................78

SN-17(SNI-14, SNI-200) .......................................................................................82

SN-18(SNI-15, SNI-16) .........................................................................................83

SN-19 (SNI-151, SNI-152, SNI-158) ....................................................................84

SN-20 (SNI-56) ......................................................................................................84

SN-21 (SNI-19, SNI-40, SNI-162, SNI-163, SNI-172) .........................................86

SN-21A (SNI-55, SNI-119, SNI-164, SNI-170): SN-21A Cemetery 1

(SNI-157), SN-21A Cemetery 2, SN-21A Cemetery 3 (SNI-171), SN-21A

Cemetery 4 (SNI-160), SN-21A Cemetery 5 (SNI-160), SN-21A

Cemetery 6 (SNI-161), SN-21A Cremation 1 (SNI-159) ......................................89

SN-22(SNI-173, SNI-177) ...................................................................................101

SN-23(SNI-41) .....................................................................................................101

SN-24(SNI-20) .....................................................................................................103

SN-25 ...................................................................................................................105

SN-26(SNI-29, SNI-30, SNI-79, SNI-80, SNI-97)..............................................107

SN-27(SNI-42, SNI-43, SNI-52, SNI-204, SNI-207, SNI-209, SNI-211,

SNI-213) ..............................................................................................................107

SN-28(SNI-45, SNI-189, SNI-214) .....................................................................107

SN-29(SNI-103, SNI-104) ...................................................................................110

viii

SN-30 (SNI-349) ..................................................................................................110

SN-31 ...................................................................................................................111

SN-32 ...................................................................................................................112

8 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS .....................................................................113

Determining Chronology .....................................................................................113

Site Function and Settlement Patterns .................................................................116

Rogers’ Collection Methods ................................................................................122

Burial and Cremation Practices ...........................................................................122

Effigies .................................................................................................................126

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA)

Implications..........................................................................................................128

Historical Artifacts ...............................................................................................129

Conclusions ..........................................................................................................130

REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................132

ix

LIST OF TABLES

PAGE

Table 1. Cultural Chronologies for the California Channel Islands ........................................17

Table 2. Summary of Radiocarbon Data..................................................................................31

Table 3. Rogers’ Site Numbers Correlated to Known Trinomial Sites ...................................51

Table 4. Artifacts from SN-1 ...................................................................................................58

Table 5. Artifacts from SN-1A ................................................................................................59





Table 10. Artifacts from SN-6 .................................................................................................65

Table 11. Artifacts from SN-6/SN-7 ........................................................................................66


Table 13. Artifacts from SN-7A ..............................................................................................67



Table 16. Artifacts from the Upper Stratum at SN-9 ...............................................................69

Table 17. Artifacts from SN-9 Stratum 3.................................................................................69

Table 18. Artifacts from the Bottom Stratum at SN-9 .............................................................70

Table 19. Artifacts from the Human Burial East of SN-9 .......................................................70

Table 20. Artifacts from SN-10 ...............................................................................................72





Table 25. Artifacts from SN-14 Cremation .............................................................................79



x






Table 33. Artifacts from SN-21A Cemetery 1 .........................................................................93

Table 34. Artifacts from SN-21A ............................................................................................99

Table 35. Artifacts from SN-21B...........................................................................................101

Table 36. Artifacts from SN-21C...........................................................................................101

Table 37. Artifacts from SN-22 .............................................................................................102


Table 39. Artifacts from SN-23 Cremation 1 ........................................................................104

Table 40. Artifacts from SN-23 Cemetery 1 ..........................................................................104




Table 44. Artifacts from SN-26 Cache 3 ...............................................................................108

Table 45. Artifacts from SN-26A ..........................................................................................109

Table 46. Artifacts from SN-26AW.......................................................................................109






Table 52. Artifacts from SN-31A ..........................................................................................112


Table 54. Rogers Chronology for San Nicolas Island Compared to a Current

Chronology ................................................................................................................114

Table 55. Site Function Indicated by Artifact and Organized by Topographic Area ............119

Table 56. Features Organized by Topographic Areas ...........................................................120

Table 57. Malcolm Rogers’ Field Methods and Excavation Strategies.................................123

Table 58. Burial and Cremation Data ....................................................................................124

xi

Table 59. Location and Description of Effigies from the Rogers’ Collection at MoM .........127

Table 60. Historical Artifacts in the Malcolm Rogers Collection .........................................129

xii

LIST OF FIGURES

PAGE

Figure 1. This map of San Nicolas Island shows the geographic areas identified by

Martz. .............................................................................................................................5

Figure 2. A page from Malcolm Rogers’ notes on San Nicolas Island. ..................................49

Figure 3. A charmstone from SN-4. This photograph is named SN.4.8. .................................53

Figure 4. Rogers’ sketch profile of the excavation at SN-1A. .................................................59

Figure 5. Rogers’ drawing of the stratigraphy at SN-7A. ........................................................68

Figure 6. Rogers’ drawing of SN-9 stratigraphy. ....................................................................71

Figure 7. Rogers’ drawing of the stratigraphy at SN-10. .........................................................72

Figure 8. The two sea mammal gaming bones found at SN-11. ..............................................75

Figure 9. Brown war jar fragment from SN-12. This indicates a historical component

to SN-12. ......................................................................................................................77

Figure 10. Olivella Grooved Rectangle beads associated with Sk-1. ......................................81

Figure 11. Rogers drawing of the infant burial at SN-16. .......................................................81

Figure 12. Unusual artifacts found in SN-18. ..........................................................................84

Figure 13. Rogers’ drawing of the human burial and stratigraphic profile at SN-19. .............86

Figure 14. Burial beads and pendant associated with the human internment at SN-20. ..........88

Figure 15. Steatite boat (two views) and a small sandstone bowl associated with

looted burials at SN-20. ...............................................................................................88

Figure 16. Unusual spool artifact found at SN-20. ..................................................................89

Figure 17. Rogers’ sketch of the stratigraphic sequence at SN-20. .........................................91

Figure 18. Rogers’ sketch of the stratigraphy at SN-21A. .......................................................93

Figure 19. Pismo and steatite beads on a necklace with the latter in the center of the

chain. ............................................................................................................................94

Figure 20. Red ochre associated with SK-5 at SN-21A. Note: the ochre was kept in

the bag during photographing due to preservation concerns. ......................................95

Figure 21. Rogers’ sketch of SK-4 burial position. .................................................................96

Figure 22. “Sacrificed mortar,” artifact number 17591, associated with the human

cremation burials at SN-21A. ......................................................................................97

Figure 23. Rogers’ sketch of SK-7 from SN-21A. ..................................................................98

xiii

Figure 24. Bone tool from SN-23 with fragments of wood still attached..............................104

Figure 25. Rogers’ sketch of the stratigraphy from SN-24. ...................................................106

Figure 26. Sweathouse located at SN-30 ...............................................................................111

Figure 27. San Nicolas topographic zones. ............................................................................117

Figure 28. Malcolm Rogers’ site locations. ...........................................................................118

Figure 29. A selection of effigies. ..........................................................................................127

Figure 30. A bone toggling harpoon and eccentric shell fishhook with Aleut

characteristics. ............................................................................................................130

xiv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Foremost I would like to thank my thesis advisor, Todd Braje, for his continuous

support. Without your patience and dedication, I would never have finished grad school, let

alone this project. Your love of teaching shines through in your support of all of your

students.

I would also like to thank the other members of my committee, Seth Mallios and

Steven Colston for advising, editing, and waiting for this final product.

I never would have made it to this point without my fellow lab mates, Breana Campbell and

Linda Bentz. Without your constant editing and cheerleading I would have given up long

ago.

The information provided to me by René Vellanoweth and the extensive support and

information from Steven Schwartz made this project possible. Steven Schwartz provided

access to site information as well as invaluable research direction.

I can never thank the staff and volunteers at the San Diego Museum of Man enough.

Karen Lacy, Megan Clancy, Rosa Longacre, Devin McClain, Meylia Pflaum, and Rex

Garniewicz opened doors, answered questions, and assisted me along the way.

Direct help with my artifact catalog came from Ellen Waddell, Linda Bentz, and

Breana Campbell. For the suggestion and loan of the light box, I would like to thank Brenda

Wills.

I would like to thank my entire grad school cohort for editing and emotional support.

Happy hour conversations kept this project afloat. I would especially like to thank Annika

Adamson, Keshia Montifolca, David Hyde, and Olea Morris for extensive editing.

Finally, I would like to thank my parents, Wally and Janelle Krum, and my partner in

life, Garrett Hanson. Your emotional (and financial) support has meant everything. Thank

you for your patience!

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Archaeology has long been a discipline of explorers and hard working excavators.

But, Indiana Jones aside, all archaeologists must also spend a considerable amount of time

organizing and analyzing the data that they excavate. Often, this part of archaeology has been

ignored or deemed less important (and exciting) than fieldwork. Museums often bring to

mind dimly lit labs, endless rows of boxes, and dusty shelves of artifacts from the past, but

are rarely thought of as untapped resources. Most museums are full of collections that were

gathered in the past but no longer used for active research. Forgotten by all but a few

researchers, these collections offer a unique addition to current archaeological questions. The

people who originally stored these artifacts are gone and the purpose behind their research is

no longer known. Many of these artifacts have become so disconnected from provenience

information that they may never be useful for current archaeology projects. Some, however,

can still be connected back to their original, fading, handwritten documentation. These

collections are especially useful to the modern archaeologist as they provide access to rare

classes of artifacts, otherwise unavailable.

Although better kept than most, The San Diego Museum of Man collections

department has some of these relatively unstudied artifacts handed down to them from

previous curators. In the 1930s, Malcolm Jennings Rogers, acting as a staff archaeologist for

the San Diego Museum of Man, traveled out to the Channel Islands to excavate

archaeological sites (Hanna 1982; Rogers 1930, 1993). This expedition was designed by

Rogers to explore “the first occupation of the island by man” and was funded partly by the

Smithsonian Institution (Rogers 1993:6). During this expedition he collected over 10,000

individual artifacts and ecofacts that are still housed at the Museum of Man. Although

Rogers did submit a brief unpublished report to the Bureau of American Ethnology (Rogers

1993), he never published a comprehensive study of the artifacts collected from this

expedition and this report was published in 1993 by Steven Schwartz (Rogers 1993). This

2

collection has remained unpublished and inaccessible to most researchers for over eighty

years.

Only a few years after Malcolm Rogers’ (1993) expedition to San Nicolas Island, the

US Navy acquired control of the island and access to it became more restricted (Schwartz

1994). This restriction, as well as San Nicolas’ considerable distance from the mainland, has

led to comparatively few archaeological projects, especially when compared to the extensive

research on the Northern Channel Islands and the adjacent mainland southern California

Coast. Study of San Nicolas sites has also been hindered by the ecological changes

associated with human impacts. Sheep herding from 1857 until 1943 led to a decrease in

vegetation cover and an increase in wind and water erosion, this environmental degradation

has destabilized and created massive erosion at many important archaeological deposits

(Schwartz 1994). Malcolm Rogers’ 1930 collection offers a glimpse of the archaeology of

San Nicolas in the 1930s before some of this erosion took place and analysis of this existing

collection will provide a unique insight into the archaeology of the island.

For my thesis, I offer the first systematic study of Rogers’ San Nicolas Island

collection in over 80 years. While other researchers have described and analyzed portions of

the collection or referenced it in their studies (e.g. Girod 2010; Glenn 2012), no one (until

now) has systematically cataloged the collection, analyzed field notes, or engaged in a

holistic study of the curated artifacts and ecofacts. My study uncovered fascinating insights

on prehistoric settlement patterns and yielded important data on material culture rarely found

in modern excavations. As I will demonstrate, Rogers’ excavation techniques, focused on

large-scale exhumations of prehistoric cemeteries, produced a set of well-preserved and

unique material culture. His field methods, however, are not employed by modern

archaeologists as they violate a number of state and federal laws that now protect Native

American graves and cultural resources. Museum collections, then, can offer unique

perspectives on the local prehistory of a region unavailable from modern excavations.

Finally, one of the significant challenges of conducting museum collections research

has to do with the process of discovery by the researcher. Most modern research archaeology

is problem-based and an archaeologist sets out to answer one or more research questions by

conducting field and, then, laboratory research. In many ways, this process is reversed with

collections-based research. The significant research questions addressed in my thesis were

3

“discovered” after I had analyzed both Rogers’ Museum of Man collections and his field

notes. It was only by carefully documenting, cataloging, and analyzing the artifacts and

ecofacts that I was able to answer important questions regarding the prehistory and history of

San Nicolas Island (See Chapter 7-8). Initially, my research was guided by a few simple

questions: What is the research potential of the Rogers’ San Nicolas Island Collection housed

at San Diego’s Museum of Man?; What artifacts and ecofacts are included in the

collections?; From where on the island were these collections recovered and using what field

methodologies?; and What (if any) are the conclusions that can be drawn about the island

inhabitants from an initial cataloging and analysis of this collection? Surprisingly, these

simple questions resulted in some exciting results concerning prehistoric island settlement

patterns, ancient burial practices, and commercial exploitation by historical visitors from

thousands of miles afield.

4

CHAPTER 2

ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND

Los Angeles and San Diego are home to millions of people who have flocked to the

warm weather and beaches of southern California. In the process, these populations have

created housing developments, freeways, shopping malls, and urban sprawl. Although there

is some awareness of southern California’s precious archaeological resources, development

still has destroyed many important sites. Off the coast and isolated from the population crush

of southern California, lie the California Channel Islands. These islands remained largely free

from the development that has destroyed much of the archaeology of the mainland region. In

comparison, mainland southern California contains a wealth of undisturbed archaeology

resources.

The California Channel Islands are located in the Pacific Ocean off the southern

California Coast from Point Conception in the north to San Diego in the south (Rick et al.

2005). The islands range in size from about 2.6 km² to 249 km² (Schoenherr et al. 1999).

They are traditionally divided between northern and the southern island groups (Figure 1).

The Northern Channel Islands of San Miguel Island, Santa Rosa Island, Santa Cruz Island

and Anacapa Island are grouped together geologically, as they are part of an arm of the Santa

Monica Mountains that extend out into the Santa Barbara Channel (Rick et al. 2005; Weaver

1969). The northern islands share environmental similarities because of their geologic past

and are often grouped together archaeologically as well, because they were all historically

inhabited by the Chumash Indians. The Southern Channel Islands are Santa Catalina, San

Clemente, Santa Barbara, and San Nicolas. The southern islands are separated from each

other and the mainland by larger water gaps leading to greater differences in the environment

and cultures on the southern islands when compared to the parallels of the northern islands

(Weaver 1969).

The geologic origin of the California Channel islands is due, in large part, to their

location on the Ring of Fire, one of the most geologically active areas of the world.

Continental plate tectonics including shifting plates, continental fault lines, and volcanic

5

Figure 1. This map of San Nicolas Island shows the geographic areas identified by

Martz. Source: Martz, Patricia C. 2008 4000 Years on Ghalas-at: Part One of the

San Nicolas Island Index Unit Analysis Program. China Lake, CA: Naval Air

Weapons Station.

activity have all had a hand in the creation of the islands as we now know them. The Channel

Islands are located on the San Andres fault line (Schoenherr et al. 1999). This very active

fault line is located at the junction of the continental plate under the Pacific Ocean and the

continental plate of southern California (Schoenherr et al. 1999). As the plates collide, the

Pacific Ocean floor is subducting under southern California creating an uplift of a mountain

range of which the islands are a part (Schoenherr et al. 1999). Rather than a straight collision,

however, these tectonic plates are colliding at an angle and this movement has caused some

of the islands to rotate in relation to the mainland (Schoenherr et al. 1999).

Before settling in their current locations, the islands, and most of the southern

California coastline, were much further to the south (Schoenherr 1992). The northward drift

that has been occurring over the last 20 million years (Schoenherr et al. 1999) is substantiated

6

by many geologic features, including a distinctive conglomerate rock from Poway Creek,

currently flowing in San Diego, on San Miguel Island, Santa Rosa Island, and San Nicolas

Island (Schoenherr 1992). At some time in the past, Poway Creek must have flowed into the

ocean in such a way as to deposit conglomerate rock onto these islands. The current location

of these islands make the deposit of these rocks impossible without some northern movement

of the islands, leading researchers to conclude that these islands were once positioned much

further to the south (Schoenherr et al. 1999).

At the height of the last glacial period, during the Late Pleistocene and Early

Holocene, the sea levels were low enough that the Northern Channel Islands were connected

as one large island termed Santarosae (Braje 2010). During this time, the southern islands

were also larger and closer to the mainland, but the basins between them are deep enough

that they were never connected by land (Braje 2010). Compared to other continental shelves,

the slope of the sea floor around the Channel Islands is steep meaning that shorelines did not

change as much as other places in the world (Braje 2010). However, some shorelines have

shifted by as much as 15-20km (Braje 2010; Kinlan et al. 2005). The ensuing warming and

melting of ice caps caused the land bridges to flood and the northern islands to gradually

separate and the coastlines on the southern islands to shrink to their current size.

The composition of the islands has played a hand in shaping the materials obtainable

for prehistoric use. Metavolcanic and sandstone rocks are available and used on all of the

islands and can be found along modern beaches, ancient terraces, and other outcrops (Braje

2010). These materials were often used for production of common tools and ground stone

vessels (Conlee 2000). Asphaltum seeps are also found near all of the islands and washed up

asphaltum was used for glue and sealant for boats, baskets, and other goods (Braje et al.

2005).

Freshwater sources on the Channel Islands are limited, especially on the smaller

islands. Typically, the most reliable sources of fresh water are found on the northern coasts

(Braje 2010). Many of these springs and seeps only flow during the wettest season and

current water availability may be linked to the vegetation found on the islands. The

interaction between vegetation and freshwater has changed due to historical overgrazing,

however, negatively impacting the availability of freshwater seeps and springs by increasing

erosion (Braje 2010). After the removal of livestock, the vegetation on the islands has

7

recovered and studies suggest that some of the islands’ freshwater aquifers are recovering to

their pre-contact abundance (Braje et al. 2005).

The collection used in this project was excavated from San Nicolas Island, one of the

Southern Channel Islands. Of all the Channel Islands, San Nicolas is the furthest from the

mainland and the most isolated. It is located about 120 km (74.6 miles) southwest of Los

Angeles and 98 km (60.9 miles) from the mainland (Schwartz and Martz 1995; Vellanoweth

et al. 2002). In relation to the other islands, San Nicolas Island is relatively small at 5.6 km

(3.5 miles) wide and 13 km (8.1 miles) long with 35.4 km (22 miles) of coastline and a

maximum elevation of 910 ft. (Schoenherr et al. 1999:333; Vellanoweth et al. 2002). While

the Northern Islands are a part of Santa Barbara County, San Nicolas Island is a part of

Ventura County, California (Schoenherr et al. 1999).

Like the other southernmost island, San Clemente, San Nicolas Island consists mostly

of Miocene volcanic materials (Schoenherr et al. 1999). Around the outside of the island,

however, sedimentary rocks have eroded into terraces (Schoenherr et al. 1999). The island

consists of shale and sandstone with several raised marine terraces (Meighan and Eberhart

1953). The island topography is dominated by sand dunes, grassy slopes, and a terraced

plateau (Schoenherr et al. 1999). There are only 12 freshwater springs on the island and

terrestrial vegetation would have been sparse even in the prehistoric period prior to

overgrazing. This lack of water, and the vegetation associated with it, indicates that

carbohydrates and potable water would have been limiting factors for prehistoric populations

(Vellanoweth et al. 2002).

Today, all of the islands experience a relatively mild climate with cool wet winters

and warm dry summers (Braje 2010; Rick et al. 2005). The relatively protected Santa

Barbara Channel area is much safer from strong ocean storms than the rest of the California

coast. Instead of currents and coastline running north to south, the Channel’s currents and

coastline run east to west and offer protection from winter ocean storms and sheltered

beaches (Braje 2010; Schoenherr et al. 1999). The Channel area is located in a transitional

place between climates, with the cooler and wetter climate to the north and the warmer dryer

climate to the south (Braje 2010; Schoenherr et al. 1999). This mix allows a diversity of plant

and animal life to thrive.

8

As the outermost of the Channel Islands, San Nicolas Island is often subjected to

more extreme weather than the other islands. On a typical day, the weather usually consists

of low clouds and fog. Although the island’s weather often involves cloud cover, it does not

receive much rain with an annual rainfall of only 6.61in (16.8 cm) and a westerly wind that

often reaches 35-50 mph (Schoenherr et al. 1999). Much of the island is covered with sand

dunes and the strong winds have a substantial effect on the island typography and on

archaeological sites (Vellanoweth et al. 2002). This extreme weather no doubt was a concern

in prehistoric eras and wind shelters were probably critically important for survival on this

isolated island.

The mixing of the cooler waters from the north and the warmer waters from the south

creates an island environment ideal for increased biodiversity of marine animals balancing

the lack of terrestrial plants and animals. The waters surrounding the islands are very

productive as a function of nutrient rich upwelling that occurs in the southern California

Bight and the mix of warm southern and cold northern currents that converge along the

Channel (Schoenherr et al. 1999). Northern waters flowing south cool the northern shores of

the islands, while southern waters flowing north warm the southern shores of the islands

(Braje 2010; Schoenherr et al. 1999). The differing temperatures allow both cool and warm

weather animals and plants to thrive. Marine upwelling also occurs in the Santa Barbara

Channel creating places where high levels of nutrients come to the surface (Braje 2010). This

upwelling leads to high levels of plankton which feed the larger animals that populate the

waters surrounding the Channel Islands.

Both the upwelling and the water temperature provides the ideal environment for the

extensive kelp forests along the Channel Islands that are home to an array of fishes,

pinnipeds, shellfish, and cetaceans. The kelp forests are constantly changing, but in recent

years they have experienced a reduction in size. This reduction can lead to many negative

effects, including loss of beaches since kelp no longer softens the waves as they come into

shore and loss of the variety of plants and animals that thrive in the kelp (Schoenherr et al.

1999). The decrease in kelp forests has been traced back to rising sea temperatures, in part

because of ENSO fluctuations, but probably also because of a general rise in global

temperature (Schoenherr et al. 1999). The giant kelps (Macrocystis spp.) cannot live in water

warmer than 58°F and water during an ENSO event can reach 70°F (Schoenherr et al. 1999).

9

Sea urchins (Strongylocentrotus ssp.) also feed on the kelp forests by stripping the kelp away

from the ocean floor (Schoenherr et al. 1999). This feeding has increased in recent years and

in conjunction with ENSO events, has slowed the regrowth of this crucial habitat. Sea urchin

numbers have increased in recent years due to predation on their natural predators, the sea

otters (Enhydra lutris ssp.) and lobsters by humans. Sea otters have been all but eliminated

from the Channel Islands and lobsters are heavily exploited by the commercial fishery

(Schoenherr et al. 1999). However, human predation on sea urchins for their commercial

value has also helped to keep their numbers in check, providing some relief to kelp forest.

These rich marine resources were the focus of subsistence systems by prehistoric populations

for millennia (Rick et al. 2005).

Like the area surrounding the Channel Islands, the islands themselves also have

distinct flora and fauna. The Channel Islands maintain much fewer species of plants and

animals than the mainland (Rick et al. 2005; Schoenherr et al. 1999). Many island species are

subject to island dwarfism, where they evolve a smaller size than their mainland cousins

because of the scarcity of resources. There is a scarcity of land mammals on the islands, with

a few notable exceptions. The island fox (Urocyon littoralis) is found on all of the islands

except Anacapa and Santa Barbara (Rick et al. 2005; Schoenherr et al. 1999). The island

spotted skunk (Spilogale gracilis) is found on Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz and is about the

size of a house cat (Braje 2010). The only indigenous rodent on all of the islands is the island

deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus). Because they lack burrowing rodents that cause

bioturbation at many mainland archaeological sites, the islands boast a more complete

stratigraphic record (Rick et al. 2005).

Although animal diversity was never as great as on the mainland, there have been a

number of island species that once lived on the islands. During the Pleistocene, Santarosae

was home to a pygmy mammoth (Mammuthus exilis). This dwarf cousin of mainland

Columbian mammoths (Mammuthus columbi) went extinct about the 13,000 years ago when

sea levels were rising and lowland landforms were being flooded, possibly because of the

decreased land area available to them (Schoenherr et al. 1999). The earliest human

occupation of Santarosae dates to this same time, however, suggesting humans may have

played some role in the extinction. As opposed to the pygmy version of the mammoth, both

the Anacapa mouse (Peromyscus anyapahensis), and the giant island mouse, (Peromyscus

10

nesodytes), got larger than their mainland cousins (Braje 2010; Schoenherr et al. 1999). In

addition, a large, flightless sea duck (Chendytes lawi) seems to have been hunted to

extinction about 2,400 years ago (Jones et al. 2008; Rick et al. 2005).

Among the flora and fauna varieties specific to San Nicolas Island is the stink beetle

(Eleodopsis subvestitus) (Schoenherr et al. 1999). There are also endemic terrestrial

mammals of the San Nicolas Island deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus exterus) and the

San Nicolas Island fox (Urocyon littoralis dickey) (Schoenherr et al. 1999). Similar to the

other Channel Islands, the island fox on San Nicolas is smaller than its mainland cousin. This

species originated from populations on San Clemente Island, but the San Nicolas Island fox

has developed a slightly larger size and reddish-black hair color in contrast with the island

foxes on other islands (Schoenherr et al. 1999).

In addition to the endemic terrestrial species on San Nicolas Island, there are a

number of other animals. The reptiles found on San Nicolas include the island night lizard

(Xantusia riversiana), the side-blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana), and the southern alligator

lizard (Elgaria multicarinatus) (Schoenherr et al. 1999). It appears that both the side-

blotched lizard and the southern alligator lizard are more recently introduced to the island

(Schoenherr et al. 1999). The southern alligator lizard was not mentioned in earlier works,

leading to a study of the lizards’ mitochondrial DNA. This study has deduced that these

lizards appear to be from populations at Point Mugu and Port Hueneme Naval bases

(Schoenherr et al. 1999). From this evidence it appears lizards have been recent introductions

to the island as hitchhikers on Navy shipments.

Although less common than their marine cousins, a number of land birds still reside

on San Nicolas Island. The only species endemic to the Southern Channel Islands is the

house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus clementis). Both the white-crowned sparrow

(Zonotrichia leucophrys) and brewer’s blackbird (Euphagus cyanocephalus) are mainland

birds that breed on San Nicolas Island, but not on any of the others (Schoenherr et al. 1999).

Other land birds include the common raven (Corvus corax), mourning dove (Zenaida

macroura), horned lark (Eremophila alpestris) and the rock wren (Salpinctes obsoletus)

(Schoenherr et al. 1999).

While terrestrial mammals on the islands are limited, the bird populations are

expansive, including gulls (Larus spp.), cormorants (Phalacrocorax spp.), osprey (Pandion

11

haliaetus), eagles, (Accipitridae), auklets (Alcidae), brown pelicans (Pelecanus occidental),

among others (Braje 2010; Schoenherr et al. 1999). Although birds make up a smaller portion

of bone in archaeological sites, they are still used in many bone tools including gorges, pins,

and awls (Rick et al. 2005).

Marine animal populations are also abundant. The offshore kelp forests support over

900 fish species and many of them can be found both today and in the archaeological record

(Braje 2010; Love 1996). The most abundant fish species in the archaeological record are

sculpins (Cottidae), surfperch (Embiotocidae), greenlings (Hexagrammidae), California

sheephead (Semicossyphus pulcher), señoritas (Labridae), and rockfishes (Sebastes spp.)

(Braje 2010).

Pinniped (seals and sea lions) and cetaceans (dolphins, whales, etc.) are abundant in

the waters around the Channel Islands and their remains have been found in many

archaeological sites on the islands (Porcasi and Fujita 2000). Prehistorically, Guadalupe fur

seals (Archtocephalus townseni) were often utilized for food (Braje and Rick 2011). The

heavy exploitation of fur seals as well as harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) and sea otters can be

attributed to the fact that they were available for most of the year on the Channel Islands

(Braje and Rick 2011). However, Guadalupe fur seals also breed and feed their young on

shore making them easier to hunt than other species, this could have contributed to the higher

density of Guadalupe fur seals in the archaeological record of the Channel Islands (Braje and

Rick 2011). It is also curious that northern elephant seals (Mirounga angustirostris), which

are often found on the islands today, are rarely found in the archaeological record (Braje and

Rick 2011). This can be attributed to many possibilities, but was most likely due to early

intensive predation that drove the northern elephant seals away from islands that were

inhabited by humans (Braje and Rick 2011). Between Vizcaino Point and Seal Beach on the

southwest shore of San Nicolas Island, California sea lions (Zalophus californianus) can be

found in large herds as well as elephant seals, harbor seals, and northern sea lions

(Eumetopias jubatus) (Schoenherr et al. 1999).

The sea otter was once abundant in southern California waters but was hunted to

extinction during the historical period (Ogden 1933; Schoenherr et al. 1999). In the

nineteenth century, sea otters were extensively hunted by the Russians, Spanish and Euro-

Americans for the fur trade (Ogden 1933; Jones et al. 2011). Between 1801 and 1819, almost

12

80% of the California sea otters were captured for their fur (Jones et al. 2011). It has been

estimated that the California sea otter population before commercial exploitation was more

than 20,000 (Jones et al. 2011). After they had been extensively hunted it has been estimated

that only 30-50 California sea otters remained (Jones et al. 2011). However, efforts to

increase the sea otter population in California have been successful, primarily in central

California.

California sea otters have been reestablished on San Nicolas Island, but have not been

reintroduced to the other Channel Islands because their staple food, shellfish, is fished

commercially by humans (Braje 2010). However, prehistoric hunters have been shown to

have extensively hunted sea otters for their meat, fat, oil, fur, and bones (Braje 2010; King

1990). The sea otter was re-introduced to San Nicolas Island in an attempt to create a second

habitation of sea otters to protect against their extermination in the event of an oil spill or

other disaster (Schoenherr et al. 1999). This program ran from 1987 to 1990 and 139 sea

otters were taken out to the island (Schoenherr et al. 1999). However, the sea otters were in

direct competition with commercial fisherman for abalone, sea urchins, and other shellfish

(Jones et al. 2011). To appease the fisherman it was decided that San Nicolas would be the

only island where the sea otter was reintroduced. Even more detrimental to the reintroduction

of sea otters to San Nicolas, however, was the fact that many of the animals returned to the

places from were relocated (Schoenherr et al. 1999). As of 1995, only about fifteen sea otters

remained on the island, but they were reproducing and it appears the reintroduction of sea

otters was successful (Schoenherr et al. 1999). Sea otter populations in California have been

increasing steadily each year, with the population in 2007 recorded as 3,026 (Jones et al.

2011).

Shellfish were an important part of prehistoric diets and manufacturing industries.

The Channel Islands boast an abundance of shellfish, but those from the rocky intertidal

habitats appear to be the most productive in relation to human subsistence during prehistoric

times (Braje 2010). Species found in archaeological middens include California and platform

mussels (Mytilus californianus and Septifer bifurcates), black and red abalone (Haliotis

cracherodii and H. rufescens), owl limpets (Lottia gigantean), black and brown turbans

(Tegula funebralis and T. brunnea), sea, and small gastropods and chitons (Braje 2010).

Those species important for making beads and other ornamentation include: Olivella

13

biplicata (purple olive snail), red abalone, California mussel, giant keyhole limpets

(Megathua crenulata), and others (Braje 2010). Although sandy beach shellfish are present in

some sites, they are relatively rare.

Much of mainland southern California is covered with coastal sage, scrub, coastal oak

woodland, chaparral and grassland (Braje 2010; Schoenherr 1992). Many important plant

materials from the mainland were traded with the people living on the islands. These

included acorns, pine nuts and chia seeds (Braje 2010). This is because terrestrial vegetation

on the islands tends to be relatively limited. Currently on the Channel Islands, plant

communities consist of coastal bluff scrub, coastal sage scrub, coastal march, island

chaparral, valley and foothill grassland, oak woodland, pine forest, southern riparian

woodland, and southern beach and dune (Braje 2010; Philbrick and Haller 1977). Island plant

communities are erratic and each island is variable in its plant communities. Although some

tree patches are present on the larger islands, such as Santa Cruz, Santa Rosa and Catalina

islands, they lack acorn and other staples of the prehistoric mainland peoples’ diet (Braje

2010). It is supposed that islanders supplemented their diet with trade for these goods from

the mainland. The Channel Islands once consisted of a larger range of vegetal communities;

however, years of historical grazing have depleted their resources (Schoenherr et al. 1999;

Schwartz and Rossbach 1993). The islands have now become overrun with introduced

grasses that have replaced native vegetation (Rick et al. 2005).

The vegetation of San Nicolas today is much different from what it must have once

been before European contact. The first botanist did not visit the island until 1897

(Schoenherr et al. 1999), well after sheep grazing had begun on the island and the local

vegetation had been decimated. Today the island is home to mainly grasses and some shrubs.

A few introduced California Fan Palms (Washington filitera) can be found in the ravine

where the Thousand Springs freshwater spring is located (Schoenherr et al. 1999). In an

attempt to control erosion created by sheep overgrazing, the Navy dispersed seed and

fertilizer across the island introducing the grassland that now covers the island (Schoenherr et

al. 1999). The current vegetation is very different from what existed pre-contact. On his trips

to search for the Lone Woman, Captain George Nidever described the island as partly

covered with trees and brush (Schoenherr et al. 1999). These plants no longer exist on the

island and all that remains are their sandstone root casts. Erosion due to the lack of

14

vegetation is an on-going problem and hundreds of ravines have resulted from the legacy of

historical overgrazing (Schoenherr et al. 1999).

About half of the 270 plant and animal species found on San Nicolas Island are

introduced, which is the largest portion of nonnative species on any of the Channel Islands

(Schoenherr et al. 1999). San Nicolas is also the least diverse of the islands, both in habitats

and plant species (Schoenherr et al. 1999). This can be attributed to the smaller size of the

island, as well as its distant location from the mainland and exposure to ocean storms

(Schoenherr et al. 1999). Most of the island is covered with coastal bluff scrub. The majority

of plants found on San Nicolas fall into the species of coyote bush (Baccharis pilularis),

giant coreopsis (Coreopsis gigantea), box thorn (Lycium californicum), coastal prickly-pear

(Opuntia littoralis), coastal cholla (Opuntia prolifera), California saltbrush (Atriplex

californica), yarrow (Achillea millefolium), and bright green dudleya or green live-forever

(Dudleya virens).

Among the species on San Nicolas Island are ones that are endemic to all of the

Channel Islands. These include the island bird’s foot trefoil (Lotus argophyllus var.

argenteus) as well as trask’s milkvetch (Astragalus traskie) and the San Nicolas Island

lomatium (Lomatium insulare) (Schoenherr et al. 1999). There are only two species found

exclusively on San Nicolas Island. The first is the San Nicolas Island buckwheat (Eriogonum

grande), found on the sea cliffs of San Nicolas Island and the second is the San Nicolas

Island leafy malacothrix (Malacothrix foliosa subspecies polycephala) (Schoenherr et al.

1999). The San Nicolas Island leafy malacothrix has only recently been discovered and

appears very much like a pale yellow dandelion (Schoenherr et al. 1999). It can be found on

the clay slopes of the island near the west end at the elevation of 200 ft. (Schoenherr et al.

1999).

A number of natural climatic changes have affected island plant and animal

communities and native populations in the Santa Barbara Channel. The Santa Barbara

Channel area has a long, relatively clear history of climate change recorded in stratified

sediments from the Santa Barbara Basin as well as tree-ring sequences, sea level curves and

bathymetry profiles, and stable isotope analysis of shellfish (Braje 2010; Kennett 2005;

Kennett and Kennett 2000). These proxy record changes in sea surface temperatures and

marine productivity, allowing archaeologists to distinguish between general climate change

15

and the effect prehistoric human populations had on the environment (Braje 2010). Some

general climate changes include droughts, El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) events, and

winter storms (Braje 2010).

ENSO events happen when the usually westward flowing wind stops and warm

waters flow eastward and up the California coast for a period of time (Braje 2010). The

increase in warm water stops the upwelling and decreases productivity (Braje 2010). For

example, in 1982-1983, and ENSO event combined with a severe winter storm killed off

large portions of kelp forest which in turn affected the reproduction and survival of

pinnipeds, fishes, and shellfishes (Ambrose et al. 1993; Braje 2010:20). For the last sixty

years, ENSO events have occurred every seven to nineteen years (Kennett 2005). Rises in sea

surface temperature have been thought to have affected prehistoric populations as well, with

decreases in marine resources in prehistoric diets being attributed to them (Braje 2010;

Colton and Arnold 1998).

Disruption to climate and sea surface temperatures can also be longer than ENSO

events. During the Medieval Climatic Anomaly, AD 800 to 1400, while the rest of the world

was experiencing extreme weather, the southern California coastline was also experiencing

extreme weather in the form of droughts (Raab and Larson 1997). These changing weather

patterns affected the cultures of southern California as they struggled to deal with the

extreme weather changes. They brought about many shifts in habitation locations,

subsistence strategies, and cultural frameworks as people had to rapidly adjust to changes in

resource availability (Kennett and Kennett 2000; Raab and Larson 1997).

The California Channel Islands’ geology, climate, flora and fauna all created a unique

environment that was occupied by humans prehistorically. They were never connected to the

mainland in the Quaternary, and therefore have their own unique flora and fauna as well as a

distinct archaeological record (Rick et al. 2005). The species located on the islands today

may not be the same as they once were, but they can provide clues to how prehistoric

environments affect the lives of the people living on the Channel Islands. Today, their

isolation has created a reserve of archaeological sites that have experienced relatively little

impact from the massive population expansion along the mainland coast, making them an

ideal laboratory for archaeologists to study ancient populations.

16

CHAPTER 3

CULTURAL BACKGROUND

The California Channel Islands’ unique geologic and environmental histories have

combined to create the setting for cultural developments that played out over the last 13,000

years. The California Channel Islands cultural history is intrinsically connected to that of

mainland California, but because of the physical distance of each island from one another

and the mainland, they have distinct cultural histories. At the time of first Spanish contact,

island peoples were living complex, interconnected lives. Because there are no written

histories prior to early Spanish travel logs, archaeological studies have become important in

the discovery of how these cultures survived in relatively isolated island settings. The

archaeological record can help unravel the complex cultural changes that took place from

initial human colonization to the socio-politically complex lifeways recorded at European

contact.

Derived from a long history of archaeological investigation, several chronological

schemes have been developed for the Chumash region of southern California (e.g. Chartkoff

and Chartkoff 1984; Erlandson 1994; King 1990; Olson 1930; Orr 1968; Rogers 1929).

These schemes reference a similar set of cultural changes, identified in the archaeological

record, and, many times, relate to regional environmental changes. King’s (1990) chronology

is the most detailed and widely used for the Chumash area (see Table 1 with data from

Bennyhoff and Huges 1987; King 1990; Rogers 1930). Based on the seriation of shell beads,

pendants, and other decorative and functional artifacts from burials, King (1990) defined the

Early, Middle, and Late Periods in Santa Barbara Channel prehistory, with each period

divided into phases. Although this seriation is useful in this study for comparison purposes, it

is not directly applicable to the Nicoleño (Tongva) culture group of San Nicolas Island. Other

researchers have expanded this chronology in an attempt to make it more useful, especially

Arnold (1992), but it still does not explicitly include the Southern Channel Islands. The most

useful chronology was devised by Erlandson (1988) and Erlandson and Colton (1991). This

separates the history of the Channel Islands following geological and cultural time markers,

17

Table 1. Cultural Chronologies for the California Channel Islands

Geological Terminology King Bennyhoff and Hughes Rogers

6500 BC

Early Holocene

Early Period

Early Period Snail People

6000

5500

5000

Middle Holocene

4500

4000

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

Late Holocene

Middle Period

1000

500 BC

Middle Period Early Canaliño 0

500 AD

1000

Late Period 1500 Late Period Late Canaliño

1782- Historical Shoshonean

Sources: Bennyhoff, James A., and Richard E. Hughes 1987 Shell Bead and Ornament Exchange Networks

between California and the Western Great Basin. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural

History 64(2):82-164.; King, Chester D. 1990 Evolution of Chumash Society: A Comparative Study of Artifacts

Used for Social System Maintenance in the Santa Barbara Channel Region Before A.D. 1804. New York:

Garland Publishing.; Rogers, Malcolm J.1930 Field Notes 1930 Expedition to San Nicolas Island. Unpublished

MS, San Diego Museum of Man, San Diego.

largely related to natural climatic changes. These separations include the terminal Pleistocene

(>11,500 cal BP), the Early Holocene (11,500-7500 cal BP), the Middle Holocene (7500-

3500 cal BP), the Late Holocene (3500 cal BP- AD 1542), the Protohistoric Period (AD

1542-1822), and the Mission Period (post AD 1822) (Braje 2010; Erlandson 1988). I will

reference the chronology created by Erlandson (1988).

Some of the earliest and best-preserved sites along the New World Pacific Coast are

found in southern California. Although the mainland California coast has a relatively well

known, early record of coastal adaptations, it was long believed that the settlement of the

California Channel Islands occurred much later than the mainland coast (Rick et al. 2005).

Early archaeologists identified a Millingstone Horizon on the mainland dating to the Early

Holocene. These Millingstone sites contained abundant manos and metates, grinding stones

used to process small seed resources. Because the islands lacked a Millingstone Horizon,

likely the related to the dearth of seed resources on their terrestrially depauperate landscapes,

archaeologists assumed the islands had been settled much later than the mainland. More

recent survey and radio carbon dating projects have targeted island areas along steep

18

coastlines, freshwater springs, or caves, which may have attracted early settlement or contain

sites that have not been flooded by rising sea levels after the last glacial maximum. Even

with all of the challenges of finding terminal Pleistocene sites, over 50 sites have been

recorded on the Channel Islands that date between 13,00 and 7500 years ago, demonstrating

that a sizeable population likely lived on the islands during the terminal Pleistocene and the

Early Holocene (Erlandson et al. 2013; Rick et al. 2005).

Support for terminal Pleistocene occupation on the southern islands is relatively

scarce compared to the northern islands. This may be reflective of the settlement history on

the islands and the more isolated geography of the southern islands, but it may also stem

from the fact that more archaeological research has been completed on the northern islands.

The earliest human occupation of the Southern Channel Islands began at least 8500 years

before present (Rick et al. 2005; Schwartz and Martz 1992), but the recovery of at least one

chipped stone crescent (Davis et al. 2011) - a diagnostic terminal Pleistocene and Early

Holocene technology- suggests an even earlier occupation.

The best documented early site on the southern islands is Eel Point on the central-

western shore of San Clemente (Cassidy et al. 2004; Rick et al. 2005). The archaeological

record at Eel Point ranges from 8500 cal BP to European contact (Cassidy et al. 2004),

making Eel Point one of the most complete and continuous records of ancient populations on

the Channel Islands. The site has two separate loci dated to the Early Holocene and

interpreted as sedentism (Raab et al. 2002; Rick et al. 2005), a pattern that is unusual for the

islands where indications of sedentism are generally not seen until the Middle Holocene (see

Kennett 2005). Given the proximity to San Nicolas, it is likely the Eel Point inhabitants were

also using San Nicolas Island as a way point for fishing expeditions or more permanent

settlement. Although people were almost certainly using San Nicolas Island for hunting sea

mammals, many of these early sites may have been lost to terminal Pleistocene sea level

changes. San Nicolas lost almost one third of its land mass to eutastic, or worldwide, sea

level rise (Bickel 1978; Martz 2005).

The evidence for terminal Pleistocene and Early Holocene occupation on San Nicolas

Island is limited, however, and clear occupation of the island is not until the Middle

Holocene (Vellanoweth et al. 2002). Archaeological evidence from a large shell midden on

southeastern San Nicolas Island (CA-SNI-339) suggests that the earliest island occupation

19

occurred at least 7000 years ago (Martz 2005; Rick et al. 2005; Schwartz and Martz 1992). A

mussel shell from the base of this large southern coastal terrace site yielded a radiocarbon

date of 8505 cal BP, however, the only dates that are even close to this are about 1000 years

later (Martz 2005). This early date on the southern coast supports the hypothesis that the

earliest settlements on San Nicolas were on the south part of the island, and may have been

lost to the high incidence of erosion in that area (Martz 2005). Typical Middle Holocene sites

on the Channel Islands are temporary campsites or shellfish processing sites and data from

this time period show intermittent use which could indicate seasonal migrations to the island

from the mainland or migration between islands (Rick et al. 2005; Vellanoweth et al. 2002).

The transition to the Middle Holocene marked a move of populations toward

increased sedentism, intensified subsistence systems, and long distance exchange (Rick et al.

2005). A cultural division between the Northern and Southern Channel Islands began during

the Middle Holocene (Rick et al. 2005). All of these changes were probably aided, in some

part, by slowing of previously rising sea levels and an abundance of marine foods (Rick et al.

2005). It is thought that the Middle Holocene provided an optimal environment for the

exploitation of littoral resources, resulting in intertidal resource intensification with little

associated technological change (Rick et al. 2005). This period is seen as a transitional time

between the populations of the Early Holocene and the complexity of the Late Holocene.

Linguistic studies have provided additional context for decoding the prehistory of San

Nicolas. The only record of the Nicoleño language is from accounts of the Lone Woman or

Juana Maria, and this record is fragmentary at best (Munro 1999). However, from the few

words we know, the Nicoleño language was likely part of the Takic language group of Uto-

Aztecan speakers and probably related to the Gabrieliño (Bean and Smith 1978; Munro

1999). These speakers came from the interior into Coastal Southern California and drove a

wedge of Uto-Aztecan speakers through the existing languages in the area about 4000-3000

years ago (Bean and Smith 1978; Hopkins 1965; Johnston 1962; Wallace 1962).

Archaeologically, it is unclear when exactly this migration occurred, but by estimating the

time it takes languages to split, we know that the Gabrieliño probably differentiated by about

1500 cal BP (Johnston 1962).

On San Nicolas, most sites from the Middle Holocene are located along productive

coastlines with easy access to the ocean (Martz 2005; Rick et al. 2005). The Middle

20

Holocene site of Celery Creek (CA-SNI-351) is an exception to this rule as it is located on

the central plateau of San Nicolas Island. It is, however, located within clear view of the

ocean and near a freshwater source (Rick et al. 2005). The Middle Holocene is also when the

island fox arrived on the islands, with the earliest evidence of them on San Nicolas dating to

5200 cal BP (Rick et al. 2005; Vellanoweth 2001). Humans transported these animals from

the Northern Channel Islands and their arrival indicates intensified use of the islands and

increased trade between the islands. The Bird Blind site (CA-SNI-161) on San Nicolas Island

is a typical example of Middle Holocene resource intensification with an intensive

exploitation of shellfish and fish, but with little technological change (Rick et al. 2005). The

site also contains Santa Catalina trade items (Vellanoweth and Erlandson 1999). Another site

that indicates a transitional subsistence economy is the Thousand Springs site (CA-SNI-11)

which shows an increase in sea mammal hunting and intensified fishing practices (Rick et al.

2005).

The Late Holocene, the period from which most of the Rogers artifacts date, brought

an increase in sedentism, trade, and social and political hierarchies (Rick et al. 2005). More is

known about the Late Holocene, than earlier periods, because of this increased sedentism as

well as the availability of ethnohistoric accounts beginning at Spanish contact. Across both

the Northern and Southern Channel Islands, large, complex, permanent coastal villages and a

variety of other site types were common (Rick et al. 2005). Bead production and other trade

item production increased, likely aided by the increased use of the tomol or tiat, a sewn

redwood plank canoe invented at about 1500 years ago (Gamble 2002, 2005; Rick et al.

2005). Although Channel Islanders certainly had utilized ocean-faring craft before (since

none of the Channel Islands were attached to the mainland during the Quaternary), the tomol

provided a more trustworthy craft to make trade excursions to the mainland and between the

islands. Tomols could also carry large numbers of passengers (10-12 individuals) and more

cargo (Rick et al. 2005). Although a variety of other tools began to appear in the Late

Holocene, some of the most important included the single-piece shell fishhook with the

earliest date from CA-SNI-161 on San Nicolas Island at ca. 3000 years ago (Vellanoweth and

Erlandson 1999) and the bow and arrow around 1500 years ago which changed both hunting

strategies and increased interpersonal violence (Kennett 2005).

21

Artifacts that indicate interisland trade and wealth increase in number and complexity

in the Late Holocene (King 1990; Rick et al. 2005). Many of these artifacts are Olivella shell

beads (Rick et al. 2005). Although many of the production sites for these beads are found on

the Northern Channel Islands (Arnold 2001; Kennett 2005), bead production locations have

also been found on San Nicolas Island (Vellanoweth et al. 2002). There is some indication

that ground stone was also produced on San Nicolas for interisland trade (Vellanoweth et al.

2002). Some of the most interesting artifacts that are indicative of interisland trade are the

steatite effigies found on San Nicolas. Steatite is a trade item, most likely from Santa

Catalina, and the intricate carving of the rare material indicate that these artifacts were used

in ritual activities (Hoover 1974).

On San Nicolas, Late Holocene people used all parts of the island, expanding their

Early and Middle Holocene distribution on the northwest coast to include a diversity of site

locations and types (Martz 2005; Rick et al. 2005). Human populations spiked about 1000

years ago until contact with Europeans in the seventeenth century (Vellanoweth et al. 2002).

Work at CA-SNI-25, a Late Holocene village, reveals a diverse array of features and artifacts

indicating increased socio-political complexity (Rick et al. 2005). In general, Late Holocene

sites on San Nicolas Island are mostly located on the plateau away from the coast, possibly to

accommodate large groups (Martz 2005). There are fewer radiocarbon dates during the AD

1150-1295 drought that affected all of southern California, and it is likely that the population

of San Nicolas Island dropped during this time (Martz 2005).

In the Late Holocene, a shift from a focus on shellfish to an increase in the

importance of fish occurred in the Late Holocene and may have been accelerated by the

development of new technologies like the single piece fish hook and the plank canoe but was

probably most closely tied to population increases (Rick et al. 2005). An increase in the

diversity of shellfish used also occurred in this period (Rick et al. 2005). Contrary to this

trend, birds were exploited less in the Late Holocene (Porcasi 1999). On the Northern

Channel Islands, a decrease in the diversity of types of food used and an increase in fishing

as well as a general population growth led to a decrease in overall health indicators (Lambert

1993). However, this decline in health has not been identified on the Southern Channel

Islands (Ezzo 2001).

22

Along with changing subsistence and settlement patterns, the rise of cultural

complexity during the Late Holocene has been an important research topic for Channel

Islands archaeologists. Increases in trade and the development of a shell bead currency

indicate increasing social complexity. Much of the research done on social complexity has

drawn from cemetery and burial excavations during Rogers’ era of archaeology and subject

to many of the same limitations as this study (Rick et al. 2005). Much of this research has

been conducted on the Northern Channel Islands, with less attention to the south islands and

San Nicolas.

The historical record of the Channel Islands began in AD 1542 when the Spanish first

entered the Santa Barbara Channel region (Dartt-Newton and Erlandson 2006; Eisen 1904;

Johnston 1962). At contact, the northern islands were occupied by the Chumash and the

southern islands by the Gabrieliño. First contact with the Gabrieliño occurred in 1542 when

Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo visited Santa Catalina and again in 1602 when the Vizcaino party

stopped by the islands on exploration and trading expeditions (Johnston 1962). San Nicolas

was first seen by Sebastian Vizcaino in 1602, no earlier expeditions mention San Nicolas and

there are no historical accounts of the island before this time (Schoenherr et al. 1999).

Although the island was known to the Spanish, there is a dearth of Spanish-American

artifacts found on the island, indicating very little contact and trade with the Spanish

(Schoenherr et al. 1999).

While proto-historic disease and “crisis cults,” extreme religious reactions to contact,

likely resulted from these initial contacts, Gabrieliño and Nicoleño islanders were not

permanently affected by the European intrusion until otter hunters came to the islands

beginning in the nineteenth century (Heizer 1941). San Nicolas Island was especially altered

by this intrusion. Aleut Eskimos were dropped off on the island in AD 1811 by Russian

commercial interests to hunt otters and collect their furs. In AD 1815 a Russian commercial

fur trader, Boris Tarasov, was arrested for bringing Aleut hunters to San Nicolas, territory

that was controlled by the Spanish (Schwartz and Rossbach 1993). These hunters spent seven

months living and hunting on the island (Ogden 1933). Many Aleut artifacts have been found

on the island already and some have been mentioned as being included in the Rogers

collection at the MoM (Meighan and Eberhart 1953). The Aleut otter hunters are alleged to

23

have massacred the men of San Nicolas and confiscated their wives and children (Johnston

1962).

Excessive violence and the introduction of Old World diseases resulted in decimated

Islander populations and a Franciscan funded expedition was launched in AD 1835 to

remove the surviving population (Heizer and Elsasser 1966; Olivera 2011). It is possible that

the remaining Native Americans on San Nicolas were convinced to leave the island in part by

an earthquake with an epicenter near Santa Cruz Island that shook the California coast in

1812 (Schoenherr et al. 1999). This expedition brought about 20 survivors to San Pedro in

1835 (Heizer and Elsasser 1966; Johnston 1962), however, one woman was left behind, the

lone woman of San Nicolas island, who fell into legend until 1853 when an expedition to San

Nicolas discovered that she had been living by herself on the island for eighteen years

(Olivera 2011). After her removal, she lived with her rescuer, George Nidever, in Santa

Barbara; however, she became ill and only survived for a few months (Heizer and Elsasser

1966; Olivera 2011). Before she was buried in the Santa Barbara Mission Cemetery by

Franciscan friars, she was baptized as Juana Maria (Heizer and Elsasser 1966; Olivera 2011).

She is often referred to as Juana Maria in the literature because there is no record of her name

before her Franciscan baptism. No one could understand the language she spoke and no

members of the original group taken off the island could be found. However, a few of her

words were recorded and Kroeber (1907) later analyzed them and determined she spoke a

language in the Shoshonean family (Hudson 1981; Johnston 1962).

Soon after the Lone Woman was removed from San Nicolas, sheep were introduced

in to the island, in about AD 1857 (Schwartz and Rossbach 1993). It appears that, at its peak,

the sheep herd may have numbered some 40,000 animals, decimating the island’s vegetation

communities and causing widespread starvation. As a result, in AD 1919, when the herding

interest was sold, sheep numbered only around 11,000 (Schwartz and Rossbach 1993). The

original sheep ranching practices allowed the sheep to wander free, leaving no part of the

island unexposed to the effects of ranching (Schwartz and Rossbach 1993). This extensive

ranching not only cleared massive amounts of vegetation, it also stripped archaeological sites

exposing them to the elements and increasing erosion.

Another industry that made its way to San Nicolas in the mid to late nineteenth

century was abalone fishing. Because of the extensive overfishing of their natural predators,

24

the sea otter, and the removal of Gabrieliño fishers from the islands, the abalone populations

were booming by the mid nineteenth century (Braje et al. 2009). This opened an ideal fishing

area for immigrant Chinese abalone fisherman, who exploited intertidal black abalone

populations along the mainland and the islands (Braje et al. 2009). Although Chinese abalone

fishermen were reported along the Channel Islands as early as AD 1857, they probably came

to San Nicolas as early as AD 1870 (Schwartz and Rossbach 1993). The earliest documented

use of the island was by an American fisherman, who obtained the fishing rights for San

Nicolas Island from AD 1902-1907 and placed fisherman on the island (Schwartz and

Rossbach 1993).

Official control of San Nicolas Island was given to the US Navy in AD 1933 by an

executive order from President Hoover and a weather station was established (Schwartz and

Rossbach 1993). An airstrip was built for the Navy outpost by AD 1938 (Schwartz and

Rossbach 1993). The island changed ownership again in AD 1942, when the Army was given

temporary control (Schwartz and Rossbach 1933). The military constructed many buildings,

improved the airstrip, and used the west end of the island as a range to test bombs

transforming the island landscape. In AD 1947, the island was given back to the Navy when

the Naval Air Station, Point Mugu, began to administer it and in AD 1959 the current Navy

structure was built (Schwartz and Rossbach 1993). The Navy still uses San Nicolas today to

test weapons and for military training (Schwartz and Rossbach 1993). Because of this, much

of the archaeological research conducted on the island has been either by or working with

Navy archaeologists.

25

CHAPTER 4

HISTORY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH

Archaeological research in North America stemmed from a history of antiquarianism

from Europe. At the time of Malcolm Rogers’ (1930) work on San Nicolas Island, the

archaeological theories available in the United States had incorporated Boasian traditions but

were barely past the antiquarian stage of artifact collection with little to no understanding of

context. Archaeological theory underwent extreme shifts during the course of Malcolm

Rogers’ life and the theories and techniques that he was using in the 1930s have become

outdated. However, understanding the history of the field, the archaeology on San Nicolas

Island, and the personal history of Malcolm Rogers will help provide context for the

collection into its own context and allow for a richer modern interpretation.

Although early interest in the prehistory of the United States was active,

“archaeologists” of the 19th century were not conducting archaeology as we understand it

today. They were more interested in collecting artifacts that could be sold to museums for

display than in answering anthropological, historical and archaeological questions. Their

artifact driven collection techniques gutted many archaeological sites and disassociated

artifacts from their original context. However, they also set the basis for cataloging and

categorizing artifacts as well as building seriations (Trigger 2006). Because their primary

purpose in discovering prehistoric sites was to sell the artifacts, little to no attention was paid

to the context of discovery. Many archaeological sites suffered from these early collection

techniques, but they also served the purpose of exposing Channel Island archaeology to the

academic community. The extent that sites were destroyed by early collection cannot be

conclusively determined but by early newspaper accounts we do know that it was probably

extensive (Martz 2002).

As the influence of Franz Boas began to affect archaeology, a shift away from artifact

serration to a geographical culture focus occurred. In 1887, Boas suggested that

archaeological collections should be displayed by culture groups rather than in the arbitrary

sequences archeologists had placed them in (Trigger 2006). This focus on culture groups

26

redefined how archaeologists viewed artifacts and opened new research agendas. This

interest in regional archaeology also allowed for regional traditions that affected the history

of the field. Rogers learned much of what he knew from Southwestern archaeologists, thus

the theory and methods used in his archaeology projects were similar to those used in the

American Southwest.

As much as Malcolm Rogers’ methods had changed from those of the antiquarians

that came before him on the island, our techniques have changed from the 1930s to the

present. Malcolm Rogers took detailed notes, but often only sketch outlines of sites. Detailed

stratigraphic analysis was lacking and although his artifacts were very organized by the

standards of his era, today we see the lack of provenience in his collection. It is unclear

where many of the artifacts in his collection came from and, for many of the collected

artifacts and ecofacts, we only have site numbers with no stratigraphic information. Brief

sketches without detailed measurements make up most of the stratigraphic information

associated with this collection. However, this information combined with our knowledge of

both the theories Rogers was using, as well as the archaeology completed on the island since,

can flesh out his notes.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH ON SAN NICOLAS

Interest in San Nicolas Island archaeology began in the 1870s with antiquarians like

Paul Schumacher, Leon de Cessac, and Stephen Bowers making trips out to the island to

collect artifacts for museums around the world (Johnston 1962; Meighan and Eberhart 1953;

Reichlen and Heizer 1964; Schwartz and Martz 1992). These early explorers can be credited

for creating an interest in the ancient occupations of the Channel Islands, even if their field

techniques were often destructive and unscientific. Interest in southern California and the

Channel Islands region continued as professional archaeology developed into a rigorous

scientific discipline and turned away from artifact collecting. Early archaeologists like Phil

Orr, Arthur Woodward, and Malcolm Rogers conducted more scientific fieldwork on San

Nicolas Island and throughout the Santa Barbara Channel region (Johnston 1962; Meighan

and Eberhart 1953; Schwartz and Martz 1992). Even in this early phase of scientific

archaeology, however, much of the research was conducted using protocols that would be

considered substandard today. Many artifacts were collected on San Nicolas Island, for

27

example, but accurate provenience information was rarely recorded and professional

publications and field reports were seldom completed. Many excavations from this time

period have been lost to the years as notebooks went forgotten and information about

collections went unpublished. This intensive collection of rare and valuable artifacts has

removed an incredible amount of material on the island as they targeted burials and large

village sites (Martz 2005). This kind of large material collection is impossible today due to

laws protecting sites from the wholesale destruction that collecting of this type does to

archaeological sites. Previous to the 1950s, the archaeology of San Nicolas generally

followed that of the United States with many archaeologists simply collecting artifacts with

little to no documentation involved.

Malcolm Rogers came to San Nicolas Island in the 1930s in an attempt to answer

general questions about the prehistoric archaeology of all of southern California. Although he

was interested in seeking answers to research questions about past lifeways, the lack of

specificity in his research design led to large data collection with little attention to

provenience. Instead, he explored the island, collecting artifacts by targeting the richest

archaeological deposits. He did take detailed notes on what he discovered, but his excavation

notes are often fragmentary and unclear. Even with the lack of clear notes, the rare nature of

the artifacts as well as their consistent curation makes them noteworthy and useful.

In his 1928-1930 projects and especially in the San Nicolas Island project, Malcolm

Rogers appears to be more likely to utilize test trenches than both earlier and later in his

career (Hanna 1982). He often discusses the use of excavation in his field notes for San

Nicolas Island (Rogers 1930). Discussion of his techniques, however, is lacking. There is

often no way to know where the trenches were placed, their sizes, or how they were

excavated. In some cases, excavations are recorded in strata, indicating that they were

excavated along natural strata, rather than arbitrary levels. Although his reasons for

excavating are not always clear, he seemed to prefer to excavate at protected sites where

clearly stratified deposits were found. However, on the Channel Islands, he often excavated

sites that were exposed and speaks about the destruction that erosion had been causing to the

archaeological sites (Rogers 1930).

This cultural history approach began to change for San Nicolas archaeology in the

1950’s when Meighan and Eberhart (1953) published a paper documenting the shift toward a

28

more scientific, problem-solving, and research question driven archaeology, part of the larger

“processual archaeology” paradigm. Their study was an attempt to pull together both

previous research on San Nicolas as well as new surveys to answer questions about

settlement patterns. Their pedestrian survey separated the entire island into three different

archaeological zones, but they did not systematically cover the entire island and some

included sites were only “seen from a distance” (Meighan and Eberhart 1953:114). During

this survey, 68 sites were recorded and they determined that settlement patterns related to

access to beaches, fresh water, and good vantage points (Meighan and Eberhart 1953). These

68 sites were the first to be recorded on the island and they are still listed as CA-SNI-1

through CA-SNI-68 (Martz 2002).

The beginning of Fred Reinman’s work on San Nicolas marked the start of a

partnership between the US Navy and archaeologists at the University of California Los

Angeles that continues today (Schwartz and Martz 1992). Reinman undertook archaeological

projects in an attempt to answer specific questions about settlement patterns, accurate

population numbers and maritime adaptations (Reinman 1962, 1964; Reinman and

Townsend 1960). In 1962, Reinman recorded CA-SNI-69 through CA-SNI-118 and was one

of the first people to publish on the history of human occupations on San Nicolas Island.

Although his survey methods are not recorded, based on the locations of recorded sites, it

appears that he focused on the plateau region of the island (Martz 2002; Reinman 1962). He

revised earlier assumptions about the length of occupation based on shallow middens and

relatively few known sites (Reinman 1962). After radiocarbon dates were available for San

Nicolas Island, Reinman (1962) determined that the island was inhabited for at least 4000

years. Reinman also started projects to answer specific archaeological research questions. For

example, his 1964 excavations were completed on the plateau so he could compare these

sites to those on the coast (Reinman 1964).

In 1978, in order to provide information about the location and condition status of

archaeological sites for the Master Plan for the Pacific Missile Test Center, WESTEC

conducted a systematic survey of San Nicolas Island (Martz 2002). During this 30 meter

wide transect pedestrian survey, sites CA-SNI-119 through CA-SNI-149 were recorded

(Martz 2002). The 30 meter transects were determined to be sufficient to find all sites that

were already recorded on the island as well as discover any new sites (Martz 2002).

29

However, this survey did not include areas of the island that were considered to be of low

potential for prehistoric sites. These excluded areas consisted of regions that were difficult to

access, like steep cliffs. Areas considered unsuitable for habitation, such as sand dunes, sea

lion caves, and gull nesting regions were also excluded from the survey (Martz 2002). Even

with the limitations of the survey area, this project located 91 previously recorded sites as

well as 30 new sites (Martz 2002). All of the sites were assessed and ranked based on their

condition as well as their “archaeological sensitivity,” a determination based on the presence

of burials and the size of the midden deposit (Martz 2002:9).

Reinman continued his work on San Nicolas Island during this time and in 1983-

1984, he, along with Gloria Arden Lauter completed excavations and a survey with 15-20

meter transects of the entire island (Reinman and Lauter 1984; Schwartz and Martz 1992).

Reinman and Lauter’s team reassessed sites CA-SNI-1 through CA-SNI-149 as well as

recorded new sites CA-SNI-150 through CA-SNI-358. They discovered that three of the

previously recorded sites had been re-recorded and mistakenly given new site numbers

during the 1962 survey, SNI-27/86, SNI-30/81, and SNI-31/82 (Martz 2002). In instances

where cultural scatter was continuous, the entire scatter was recorded as a single site (Martz

2002; Reinman and Lauter 1984). If there was a break of more than 30 meters, a separate site

was recorded, unless it could be determined that the break was due to recent erosion, then the

site was recorded as continuous (Martz 2002; Reinman and Lauter 1984). Not only were

these sites assessed to determine those with the highest research potential, but those that had

already been recorded were assessed for any change in condition (Martz 2002). The majority

of sites were found to be Destroyed/Poor/Marginal/Moderate (75%), with only 25% of sites

listed as Good/Very Good/Excellent (Reinman and Lauter 1984; see Table 1). By separating

the sites by site density and topography, Reinman and Lauter (1984) divided the island into

the central plateau, the coastal terrace, and the southeast coastal terrace and discovered that

sites were clustered on the west end, where there were fresh water springs and a gentler

topography allowed for ready access to marine resources (Martz 2002).

During the 1980s and 1990s, archaeological research on the Channel increased as

archaeological interest in the United States increased (Rick et al. 2005). This was reflected in

the increase of university research and encouraged more collaboration between universities

and the Navy (Rick et al. 2005). This increased interest brought Channel Island archaeology

30

to the attention of many researchers and the need for more complete, inclusive studies was

realized. This lead to many complete archaeological surveys of islands and an increase in

comprehensive catalogs that can be used to more effectively address archaeological research

questions on the islands.

Twenty years ago, Schwartz and Martz (1992) reported that of the 500 known sites on

San Nicolas, only 10 were excavated, and only a few of these studies had been published.

Recently, however, archaeological interest in San Nicolas has increased leading to fresh

publications and an improved understanding of human use and occupation of the island.

Some recent archaeological projects have concentrated on using collections that were already

excavated. For example, Ezzo (2001) consolidated all known human skeletal collections

from San Nicolas Island and compared them to skeletal collections from the Northern

Channel Islands. Differences between the collections include more dental carries in the San

Nicolas collection, indications of an isolated population, and a heavy dependence on marine

resources (Ezzo 2001).

Between 1996 and 1998, the San Nicolas Island Prehistoric Archaeological Sites

Mapping and Recordation Project relocated, or located, mapped and created detailed records

of all the archaeological sites on San Nicolas Island (Martz 2002). This project was

sponsored by the Environmental Division, Naval Air Weapons Station (NAWS) (Martz

2002).The project was completed in three phases with phase one relocating and reassessing

problematic sites from Reinman and Lauter’s 1984 survey, phase two mapping and recording

half of the previously recorded sites and any new sites encountered, and phase three mapping

and recording of the remaining sites (Martz 2002). The majority of sites that were previously

recorded were shell middens (Martz 2002). Martz (2002) noted that Reinman and Lauter’s

(1984) criteria for archaeological significance had favored larger sites and she recommended

that a variety of habitation sites be studied. The 1996-1998 survey, then, attempted to place

the sites into site types (Martz 2002). These categories included substantial habitation, camp,

lithic manufacture and shell processing location, shell processing location, flaked stone

reduction, deflated hearths and destroyed sites (Martz 2002). Most of the sites radiocarbon

dated from this project date to the Late Holocene (35 sites), however 19 sites were occupied

during the Middle Holocene, and three during the Early Holocene (Martz 2002; see Table 2).

31

Table 2. Summary of Radiocarbon Data

Late Holocene (ca.

3350 B.P-Present)

Middle Holocene (ca.

6650-3350 B.P.)

Early Holocene (ca.

10,000-6650 B.P.)

Late/Middle/Early

Holocene

Late and Middle

Holocene

SNI-6 SNI-11 SNI-11 SNI-11 SNI-16

SNI-11 SNI-15 SNI-339 SNI-351 SNI-39

SNI-16 SNI-16 SNI-351 SNI-43

SNI-18 SNI-39 SNI-105




SNI-39 SNI-105

SNI-43 SNI-157

SNI-51 SNI-161

SNI-73 SNI-164

SNI-76 SNI-165

SNI-79 SNI-168

SNI-84 SNI-169

SNI-102 SNI-170

SNI-106 SNI-171

SNI-117 SNI-284

SNI-129 SNI-316

SNI-130 SNI-351

SNI-162

SNI-168

SNI-171

SNI-184

SNI-204

SNI-214

SNI-238

SNI-290

SNI-328

SNI-329

SNI-340

SNI-342

SNI-346

SNI-351

SNI-361

Total 35 Total 19 Total 3 Total 2 Total 6

Source: Martz, Patricia C. 2002 San Nicolas Island Prehistoric Archaeological Sites Mapping and Recodation

Project. Unpublished MS, South Central Coastal Archaeological Information Center, California State University

Fullerton.

Other research has focused on large excavations on the island in order to answer

questions that cannot be addressed with museum collections. Work at CA-SNI-39 and CA-

SNI-162 recorded data from rapidly eroding sites by using block excavation (Fagan et al.

2006). Vellanoweth and Erlandson (1999) excavated on San Nicolas Island at CA-SNI-161

and, through dietary reconstructions, concluded that intensive fishing happened earlier than

once believed, starting at least at 5000 years ago (Vellanoweth and Erlandson 1999).

32

Vellanoweth (2001) also argued that humans were responsible for the introduction of the

island fox to San Nicolas Island and its continued genetic variability.

In 2005, Martz completed a comprehensive mapping project of known sites on San

Nicolas Island to update the information using GIS and GPS (Martz 2005). In order to

complete this project, she drew upon the sites known from Reinman and Lauter’s (1984)

study, as well as some discovered by her projects, for a total of 535 sites (Martz 2005). With

a more accessible digital layout of the sites on the island, Martz (2005)conducted a

sophisticated settlement analysis as well as correlated her study with radiocarbon dates from

excavated sites. From these data, Martz (2005) determined that more sites were present in the

Late Holocene as well as more utilization of the different island environments and an

expansion in “special activity sites” (76-78). These data fall within the general pattern of the

Channel Islands discussed above.

In 2008, Martz completed an index unit project on San Nicolas Island. This study

built upon the survey complete in 1996-1998 (Martz 2002) and, in some cases, refined the

previously assigned site categories. By organizing the sites into environmental categories,

Martz (2008) was able to discuss general settlement patterns on San Nicolas Island (see

Figure 1). In the West End Topographic Zone, two residential sites dated to the Middle

Holocene and two residential sites and a fishing camp dated to the Late Holocene (Martz

2008). In the Central Plateau Topographic Zone, all of the sites besides a Middle Holocene

shell processing site dated to the Late Holocene (Martz 2008). On the Southern Coastal

Terrace, one fishing site dated to the protohistoric while the others dated to both the Middle

and Late Holocene (Martz 2008). In the Northern Coastal Terrace Topographic Zone, sites

dated to the Late Holocene (Martz 2008). Early settlement in the Middle Holocene appears to

be mainly located on the west end of the island, with expansion of residential sites to other

portions of the island during the Late Holocene (Martz 2008).

Archaeological research on the Channel Islands and on San Nicolas Island in

particular, has come a long way from the early explorers who were only interested in

collecting artifacts for sale to museums and personal collectors. We now have a much better

understanding of the time depth and the lifeways of people living on the islands. New

techniques like radiocarbon dating, skeletal analysis, ground penetrating radar, GIS, and trace

analyses have all opened many areas of research and increased the kinds of research

33

conducted on all of the islands. All of these new projects, whether with already excavated

data or with new excavations, are adding to our understanding of the history of San Nicolas

Island and the larger Santa Barbara Channel Region.

MALCOLM JENNINGS ROGERS: A BRIEF BIOGRAPHY

As one of the early archaeologists to work on San Nicolas Island, Malcolm Jennings

Rogers was influenced by both the era in which he worked as well as his life experiences. His

family and schooling focused his education in engineering and mining and opened doors for

Rogers as an archaeologist that may not have otherwise been opened. Rogers lived during a

time of transition in archaeology and his life story paved the way for his archaeological work.

Malcolm Jennings Rogers was born September 7, 1890 (Hanna 1982). His parents,

Frederick and Nellie Jennings Rogers lived in Fulton, New York, at that time (Hanna 1982).

His father was one of the founders of the Rogers Machine Company of Rochester, New York

(Leonard 1925). Frederick Rogers also held a patent to the Rogers Variable Speed Changer,

which reflected his engineering career (Leonard 1925). The Rogers’ family history in

engineering helped create their family fortune in the railroad industry (Hanna 1982).

This history of successful family engineers surely directed Malcolm Rogers’ early

life. During his childhood he attended Jenner’s Preparatory School and, then, he attended

college at Syracuse University, eventually studying mining geology (Ezell 1961; Hanna

1982). Although he attended university for six years, he never completed his degree,

indicating an early lack of interest in the field (Ezell 1961). Raphael Pumpelly, a family

friend who was known as a renaissance man, seems to also have had a considerable influence

on Rogers (Ezell 1961). Pumpelly was a mining geologist with an interest in archaeology and

may have sparked Rogers’ early interest in the field (Hanna 1982). This strong connection

with Pumpelly may help explain why Malcolm Rogers switched careers to archeology soon

after quitting his studies in geology. Rogers’ association with Pumpelly almost certainly

impacted his knowledge of archaeological field methods as Pumpelly was utilizing arbitrary

excavation levels in the early 1900s (Hanna 1982).

After his years in school, Rogers moved to Washington State to work as a miner from

1917-1918 (Hanna 1982). He left his position in Washington in order to join the Marine

Corps for less than a year in 1918 (Hanna 1982). After his short stint in the military, Rogers

34

moved to Escondido, California, with his father, who was his close companion and

photographer on many archaeological expeditions (Hanna 1982). This transition marked the

end of his mining career and the beginning of his career in archaeology (Hanna 1982;

Hayden 1961). After their move to the West Coast, Rogers began to read extensively on

archaeology and survey near his home in Escondido (Hanna 1982). Much of Rogers’

knowledge of archaeology was self-taught and his reading was aided by participation on the

Escondido City Library Board (Hanna 1982). This self-taught approach meant that Rogers

did not have much contact with professional archaeologists in his formative archaeological

years (Hanna 1982).

In 1920, Rogers discovered his first large site, the Harris site, by the San Dieguito

River (Hanna 1982; Rogers et al. 1966; Warren 1966). By 1920, he had gone as far as

Colorado on his archaeological explorations but it was not until 1926, that Rogers spent time

working with a professional archaeologist in New Mexico for the School of American

Research (Hanna 1982). During this time, he worked on both surveys and excavations and, in

1927, Rogers worked in Arizona for the Museum of Arizona resulting in a publication on his

archaeological survey of the area (Hanna 1982). During these first two years of working with

professional archaeologists, Rogers learned what professional archaeology entailed and by

the end of his tenure, the Arizona Museum considered him to be an Associate Archaeologist.

These two years also resulted in a publication on ceramic typology, A Question of Scumming

(Hanna 1982; Rogers 1928). In this publication, Rogers reviews the way that others have

typed ceramics in the Southwest and suggests that slip differences are due to firing rather

than stylistic choices. Within this work we can see his continued scholarship in archaeology,

both in his review of others’ work and in the application of contemporary theory to his own

archaeological analysis (Hanna 1982; Rogers 1928). The questions that Rogers addressed in

his southwest archaeology work were both a widening of his previous research in California

as well as a precursor to his interest in large culture circles of the western United States.

Building upon his previous friendships with the Museum of Man (MoM) and his

interest in southern California, Rogers began a formal position as a field archaeologist at the

MoM from 1928-1930 (Hanna 1982). It appears that this position was given to him in part

because of his reputation as a careful note taker and an organized collector (Hanna 1982).

The fact that he was one of the few people interested in local San Diego County archaeology

35

may have also aided in his hire by the museum. This position seems to have led to the two

later positions as staff archaeologist (1930-1932) and curator of anthropology (1930-1945)

(Hanna 1982).

As Rogers became more involved in the MoM, his interest in southern California and

his careful notes were a major boon to the museum. At the beginning of his professional

archaeological career, he started to fill notebooks with his continuously accumulating

knowledge. His notebooks include Ethnological, Anthropological and Archaeological Data

of Malcolm J. Rogers Gathered Between 1919 and 1945, Miscellaneous Ethnographic and

Archaeological Notes Compiled by Malcolm J. Rogers, and other notebooks that are

organized in a daily log format by site. His notebooks cover his early work in the Southwest

and along the California Coast. Through his notebooks, we can be see how his early work in

the southwest United States informed and shaped the methods and theories he used in later

excavations (Hanna 1982).

During the time that Rogers was transitioning to staff archaeologist, the MoM put

together a project to survey the prehistory of southern California in an effort to “save”

disappearing archaeological sites (Hanna 1982). A series of 1929 letters back and forth from

the MoM to the Smithsonian Institution documents their attempt to secure funding. It appears

that the museum put together this project based on their own finances, with the idea that they

would be able to get funds from other sources to continue the research (Hanna 1982). The

Smithsonian suggested that the museum apply for a grant from the Smithsonian (Hanna

1982). The correspondence also indicates that during this time, Rogers was completing small

projects as well as formulating a plan for a larger archaeological study (Hanna 1982). They

were also interested in collecting artifacts in an attempt to discern past ethnic divisions,

especially around San Diego and this project was a perfect opportunity to record the

chronology of San Diego by collecting artifacts and mapping their change throughout the

area (Hanna 1982; Rogers 1993).

It was likely that as a part of this project Malcolm Rogers (1930) first traveled to San

Nicolas Island, where he excavated and recorded 32 sites. Rogers’ San Nicolas Island

notebook and one brief unpublished paper were all that he wrote about his work on the island

(Rogers 1930, 1993). The extensive artifact and ecofact collection that Rogers curated at the

36

MoM from this work has never been completely cataloged, and the wealth of information

that could be gained from these artifacts has not been fully explored.

Rogers left Wilmington, California, with his crew on Monday July 7, 1930 aboard the

ship the Dreamer (Rogers 1930). They reached Crescent Bay on July 9 at which point,

Sanger, the captain of the Dreamer, stayed on the island for a day to loot archaeological sites,

much to Rogers’ chagrin, with the help of sheep herders that lived on the island (Rogers

1930). In an attempt to reach the archaeological sites before the looters, Rogers had his crew

work toward the ends of the island on the north side (Rogers 1930). Beginning on Friday,

July 11 Rogers and his crew recorded 32 sites on San Nicolas. In his notes about the sites,

Rogers often noted that many sites have been “dug out” or looted (Rogers 1930). Many of

the collections that were made were surface collections, but some sites were also excavated.

Rogers’ excavations often targeted human burials or known settlement structures (Rogers

1930).

The expedition and research on San Nicolas Island, and the Channel Islands area in

general, can be seen as an expansion of Rogers’ interest into greater southern California

archaeology. He gained expertise and built up his reputation by working in the American

Southwest and came back to California with the hope of synthesizing archaeological research

of the area. This period was one of professional expansion in Malcolm Rogers’ life, but his

excavation techniques and theories were already taking shape before this time, during his

years in the Southwest United States.

Old collections like Malcolm Rogers’ San Nicolas collection are some of the best

preserved artifacts in the world. They have been cared for by specialists for years while the

sites they came from have been subjected to wind and water erosion and, sometimes,

historical development. These artifacts are often from the largest archaeological sites and

early archaeologists often targeted the rarest artifacts that may be very difficult to find today.

Many of these collections come from sites where archaeologists struggle to get access, either

over logistical or Native American concerns. In many instances, analysis of these collections

is key to a richer understanding of human cultural and subsistence systems.

37

CHAPTER 5

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

Discussion of theory for this thesis must be two fold. Both the theories used by

Malcolm Rogers’ original project as well as the ones used in the current archaeological

analysis must be explored in order to make sense of both how and why the artifacts were

excavated and how they were interpreted in this project. Rogers excavated these artifacts in

the 1930s, during a time when culture-historical theory was popular and prior to the advent of

radiocarbon and other chronometric dating techniques that paved the way for many of the

deep temporal analyses used today (Trigger 2006). Describing the theoretical context of

Rogers’ project allows a deeper understanding of the areas he excavated, the artifacts he

collected, and the history of theory in southern California. Because of the kind of information

recorded about this collection and more applicably, not recorded during excavation, some

current analysis may not be suitable or even possible. A careful consideration of the

theoretical underpinnings involved both in the excavation as well as in the analysis can help

illuminate new research questions and breathe interpretive life into Rogers’ San Nicolas

collection. In true post-processual manner, this project recognizes that Rogers’ data as well

as my own are colored by the era as well as the theories we ascribe to. This project will come

from a lens of cultural materialism as I work to understand the Nicoleño as well as a broader

understanding of how this information fits within the greater cultural context of southern

California.

MALCOLM ROGERS’ CULTURE HISTORY

The theory that Malcolm Rogers was exposed to in the early 1900’s formed the basis

of his own archaeological projects. He spent many years working with prominent

archaeologists in the Southwestern United States. This exposed him to culture history in one

of the regions where it was first developed. The primary concern of culture history is to

define archaeological cultures by lists of traits or types of artifacts in the archaeological

38

record. In addition, Rogers also used Kroeber’s definition of linguistic and cultural divisions

(Rogers 1929).

Culture history was the dominant theoretical framework at the time. This was the

beginning of archaeology as a scientific field and was greatly influenced by the social and

political climate of the time. Archaeologists have only in the last 50 years, developed into a

professional field based on the scientific method. Rogers, however, was not simply an

antiquarian, collecting artifacts for museums. He was trying to discover more about the

people who once lived on San Nicholas Island. Antiquarians are interested in the objects of

the archaeological record, culture historians and archaeologists are interested in the people

who made those objects. In fact, Rogers bemoaned the looters who were on the island at the

same time as him, as well as those who had come before and decimated many of the obvious

sites (Rogers 1930). Although his recording methods leave something to be desired, he did

attempt to sketch stratigraphic outlines where he saw them and made an effort to record what

was done at each site.

Rogers was heavily influenced by his family and his choice to earn a degree in the

geological sciences. This helped him develop a deeper understanding of geological

stratigraphy in a period where archaeologists often ignored stratigraphic associations. Rogers

did not, however, develop the academic connections that other archaeologists acquired

during their college years. Rogers was notably self-taught and developed an understanding of

archaeology almost completely by himself. Combined with his reputed distrust of others,

Rogers struggled to keep professional collaborators (Hanna 1982). During his time working

in the Southwest, Rogers did acquire some professional connections that surely helped

influence his career. Rogers’ known professional relationships include his professional

colleagues that he met during his work in the Southwest and continued correspondence with.

These include archaeologists Emil W. Haury and Harold S. Gladwin, who both

corresponded with Rogers about both Rogers projects and their own (Hanna 1982). During

his time in the Southwest he also developed relationships with Charles Amsden from the

Southwest Museum and geologist Ernts Antevs (Hanna 1982). He also developed a long time

professional and personal friendship with southwestern archaeologist Julian Hayden, (Hanna

1982). He also had meetings with iconic socio-cultural anthropologists M. R. Harrington and

A. L. Kroeber, although his interactions with them seem more limited (Hanna 1982). While

39

these professional contacts may have played a role in shaping Rogers’ archaeological theory,

he was known to be reclosing and secretive with his data, often refusing to share knowledge

with others (Hanna 1982).

In the Southwest United States pueblo culture areas, archaeologists were discovering

the benefit of working both with historians and ethnologists. Rogers brought these methods

back to California with him and combined them with Kroeber’s idea of culture areas to create

his working theory used on San Nicolas Island (Buckley 1989). The fact that he worked in

the Southwest United States helps explain his ability to discover site locations based on

techniques often used in the American Southwest, mainly looking for their remnants on the

surface (Rogers 1930). There was no way for Rogers to realistically discover sub-surface

sites with no indication on the surface of their existence. Malcolm Rogers was working in a

period before radiocarbon dating, so he utilized the techniques of his time to understand the

archaeological chronology of southern California. In his work, he was attempting to separate

archaeological sites into time periods by using sets of characteristics and stratigraphy (Rogers

1929, 1930, 1993). Although this is still a technique used today, it is more often used in

conjunction with radiocarbon dating in order to avoid falling into the culture history trap of

assuming that a change in technology means a change in populations.

To this end, Rogers made lists of cultural traits that separated cultures in the

archaeological record without trying to interpret why these variations occurred. Rogers

identified the Early Period (Snail Period) by stratigraphic lenses of roasted land snails with

no human remains or artifacts (Rogers 1993). Rogers Middle Period (Early Canalino) was

identified by him by a high percentage of Red Abalone (haliotis rufescens) and butterfly

shells (cryptochiton stelleri), as well as little cultural material, with only some whalebone

tools, flakes, house structures, and no found human remains (Rogers 1993). He notes that he

does not fully understand this culture and it could be previous to the Canalino or Chumash

culture or it could be “transitional in nature” (Rogers 1993:8). The Late Period (Canalino

Culture) is identified by Rogers by the artifacts that are easily recognizable as similar to the

Chumash culture. The Late Period was identified by Rogers by large community houses,

imported materials, a greater variety of shell types and fishbone in the middens, fishhooks,

and dog burials (Rogers 1993). The Historic Period (Shoshonean) was identified by

cremations, metates, obsidian projectile points, and the sweathouse (Rogers 1993).

40

In a paper written about Western San Diego County in 1929, directly before his field

season on San Nicolas Island, Rogers wrote about different cultural traditions identified in

the archaeological record. Although he admits that his knowledge about the deep stratigraphy

of the region is superficial and incomplete (Rogers 1929), he infers that extensive, old, shell

middens indicate an older cultural tradition. He also identifies a mid-level culture which he

named “Scraper-Makers” (Rogers 1929:457). The name “Scraper-Makers” comes from the

large amount of “scraper-planes” produced, almost to the exclusion of any other artifact

associated with these sites (Rogers 1929:459). Rogers reveals his knowledge of archaeology

here by comparing the scrapers to those found in the Paleolithic Aurignacian Period in

Europe and assumes that they were used for the similar purpose of dressing hides (Rogers

1929). This is not to say that Rogers was not reaching for higher-level analysis. He compares

the size of scrapers by site as well as attempting to discover why and how these scrapers

were made. He also compares the artifacts from the mainland briefly to those of the Channel

Islands and discusses the idea that the different strata (cultures) may have grown from one

another (Rogers 1929).

THEORETICAL APPROACHES

Archaeologists today have embraced the changing theoretical perspectives of the last

eighty-four years since Rogers’ San Nicolas Island excavations. There has been a shift from

the era of listing cultural traits, to one of the application of scientific inquiry (processual

archaeology), and into the post-processual and postmodern, focused on questions of identity

and agency (among others). It is generally accepted that a mixture of both “middle” and

“high” level theories need to be used in order build strong archaeological inquiry (Trigger

2006:21-24). Low-level theories can be considered typologies of artifacts and the

identification of cultures by repeatedly observing certain artifacts (Trigger 2006). Although

many of the techniques in this study employ low level theories, or empirical research with

generalizations (Trigger 2006), the conclusions drawn from them extend into the middle and

high levels of theory. Middle-level theories are the generalizations that can be made when

similarities between two sets of data are found and include those theories that try and bridge

the gap between the archaeological record and human behavior (Trigger 2006). Finally, high-

41

level theories attempt to understand general cultural trends rather than the individual

experience.

Many different useful theoretical approaches to archaeological research have been

used successfully in recent years. Each one takes a slightly different approach and has its

own set of benefits and drawbacks. Rather than strictly subscribing to a theoretical approach,

a more useful way of looking at theory has been “theoretical plurality” (VanPool and

VanPool 2003:2) or using a “multitheoretical approach” (Rick 2007:5). This approach allows

a more open theoretical standpoint that incorporates multiple viewpoints and provides a more

complete view of a society. Although many theoretical approaches including practice theory

and agency theory are touched upon, the main theoretical lens of this project is cultural

materialism.

Practice and agency theory, or a focus on the everyday practice of individuals, is

useful in the abstract for this project. It is useful to think in terms everyday practices of

individuals when trying to understand how people organize their settlements and daily

activities, produce and consume technologies, and exploit local resources. I use practice

theory in this project to discuss the aspects of everyday life like subsistence and resource

location that eventually lead to settlement patterns and patterns of exchange.

Archaeological research on burials including location, burial goods, and skeletal

studies has proven useful to understanding cultural change through time as well as the health

of the Chumash. Gamble et al. (2001) correlated a cemetery of burials with ethnographic

knowledge of the site as well as with archaeological knowledge of the region to discuss a

change in complexity. Lambert and Walker (1991) use skeletal remains to discuss social

complexity. In this study I use burials to discuss social complexity. Individual status can

often be ascertained from burial data and can inform on changing social hierarchies and

complexity. These studies in changes of complexity can be supplemented by gender studies

and Marxist analysis that looks at resource control, craft specialization, and even responses to

environmental shifts (Rick 2007).

Cultural materialism was first introduced and explored in depth by Marvin Harris

(1979). Cultural materialists argue that technological and economic aspects play primary

roles in shaping a society and culture. Largely an expansion of Marxist theory, cultural

materialism views economic and demographic facts as important forcing elements in

42

structuring society (Harris 1979). Moreover, its interest in how the environment helps to

shape culture is relevant to archaeological research on the island environment of San Nicolas.

Subsistence, settlement, and even social aspects of the culture were all influenced by

environmental factors. Cultural materialism also has direct implications on ecological

studies. For example, speciation of bird effigies or analyzing shell midden placement may

allow a clearer picture of prehistoric land and seascapes.

43

CHAPTER 6

METHODS

IMPORTANCE OF MUSEUM COLLECTIONS

The basis for this study is the revitalization of museum collections for modern

archaeological inquiry. As archaeological methodological techniques, theories, and standards

evolve, additional information regarding ancient populations can be gleaned from museum

collections. The utility of museum collections, however, is entirely dependent on the

availability of the data. Due to the vast scope of archaeological interest in the Channel

Islands, there are many museum collections that could potentially be used to supplement

current archaeological fieldwork on the islands and adjacent mainland. On San Clemente

Island, for example, Spencer Rogers excavated a series of archaeological sites in 1950 but

never published his results. Thirty years later, San Diego State graduate student Anna Noah

(1987) worked with a collection of Spencer Rogers’ from San Clemente Island to analyze

ground stone artifacts discussing their production and use. University of Oregon graduate

student Tracy Garcia (2010) completed a thesis project on the life and archaeological

investigations of Paul Schumacher, an antiquarian who worked extensively on the Channel

Islands. Garcia (2010) connected original letters and documentation to museum collections.

Her work with the original documents of Schumacher illuminated not only the culture that

Schumacher was working in, but also that of the indigenous people he was in contact with

(Garcia 2010). Projects like these make information from past archaeological collections

available to archaeologists trying to synthesize information from various sites or regions.

Although archaeologists are still interested in rare artifacts, there has been a

diversification of the kinds of artifacts and data that are currently targeted. Rather than

burials that may contain rare artifacts, most archaeologists excavate middens and data

analysis includes ecological and settlement analysis. Archaeological field methods and

targeted areas have changed for this reason as well as due to considerations for Native

American tribes. In Malcolm Rogers’ time, ancient cemeteries and human burials were

targeted, since they were most likely to contain the highest density of unbroken artifacts.

44

Decades after Rogers, Native American remains were treated differently from Caucasian

remains and over 18,000 Native American skeletal fragments were located in the

Smithsonian alone in 1989 (Cryne 2010). Many museums were not actively studying the

remains, but storing them indefinitely. In response to this cultural affront, Native American

tribes lobbied for legislation that would protect the treatment of their dead. Today, the Native

American Graves Protection and Reparation Act (NAGPRA) legislation has restricted

excavations of burials that do not have the consent of tribal groups. This change in legislation

has limited the availability of new burial and skeletal information, increasing the value of

museum collections.

San Nicolas Island is a prime example of the usefulness of historically excavated

collections because of its uninterrupted conservation at the MoM. The island is subject to

erosion and difficulties of access making museum collections an important non-invasive tool

to answer a number of interesting questions about the history of the island and, larger,

southern California. While very little research has been conducted on these collections,

archaeologists recognize its potential to expand our understanding of the Nicoleño (Schwartz

and Martz 1992). By correlating known sites on San Nicolas to Malcolm Rogers’ collection

housed at the MoM, a unique picture of the Nicoleño can be constructed.

FIELD PROCEDURES

On July 7, 1930, Malcolm Rogers and his crew began their trip to San Nicolas Island.

His crew consisted of his father F.S. Rogers as staff photographer, George Carter as his field

assistant, and two laborers H. Sharo and S. Rodriguez (Rogers 1993). Although they left

from Wilmington, California that night, they were not able to land on San Nicolas at Brooks

Landing until July ninth due to storms (Rogers 1930, 1993). The first few days of the trip

were spent exploring the island and setting up camp for the crew. The base camp was

originally set up at Brooks Landing, located at the midpoint on the North side of the island

(Rogers 1993).

The team ran into some difficulties with the crew of the ship that brought them to the

island and Rogers complained about Captain Sanger looting archaeological sites with the

help of herders who lived on the island before his team even had a chance to record anything

(Rogers 1930). In fact, Rogers remarks many times on the general looting which had already

45

taken place before he got there (Rogers 1930, 1993). He comments that all of the late

cemeteries had been looted and that San Nicolas seemed to have been looted more than the

other Channel Islands because of its “small size and lack of protection” (Rogers 1993:4).

As Rogers and his crew began their work seriously, they worked out from Crescent

Bay both east and west so that they covered the entirety of the north coast (Rogers 1930).

They quickly gained a general understanding of the middens on the north shore of San

Nicolas Island, finding that most middens started on sand dunes that had previously existed,

and only a few on a sand stone base (Rogers 1930).

Burials were a large part of what Rogers and his team excavated (Rogers 1993).

Although they found many heavily looted late burials, with their locations readily seen by the

heaps of broken burial goods and exposed skeletons, they also found a fair amount of

undisturbed burials (Rogers 1993). These mostly included isolated burials and cemeteries

from an earlier time (Rogers 1993). These earlier cemeteries were left intact because they

lacked markers and often do not include the burial goods that looters were ultimately after

(Rogers 1993). Many of the intact burials were stumbled upon by Rogers’ team by

happenstance and often they perused cuts and cliff facings to discover eroding burials and

Roger remarked that many burials were exposed from wind and water erosion (Rogers 1993).

Rogers observed that while large, late cemeteries are placed at the top of middens and burials

are crowded together, the earlier cemeteries are placed between middens and the interments

are more spread apart (Rogers 1993).

Rogers observed that different cultural material and food complexes were present in

different strata across the island their observation matched what they observed on the

mainland (Rogers 1993). On July 13, 1930, Rogers divided his crew and sent two of them

west to record sites while he and the rest of the crew went east (Rogers 1930). The western

team recorded sites SN-10, SN-11, SN-12, SN-13, SN-14, and SN-15, while the eastern team

along with Rogers recorded sites SN-5, SN-6, SN-7, and SN-8 (Rogers 1930). As a result of

this split and the fact that no notes from the other members of the crew have been recovered,

there are very minimal notes associated with the sites that Rogers was not recording. On July

14, 1930, Rogers split his team again and sent two of them to cover the plateau on the east

side of the island; they found SN-25, while the rest of the crew continued along the coast

(Rogers 1930).

46

As their excavations took them farther from their base camp, Rogers and his team

moved base camp to the west end of the island where the majority of artifacts were

discovered (Rogers 1993). Both archaeological finds and the party’s equipment had to be

carried around the island by the people and no vehicles or pack animals were used.

Consequently, they ended up using much of their time to move their materials around the

island. This left the team unable to complete the work they originally had planned as they

had set a date and time with the Coast Guard to pick them up. On August 10, 1930, when

Rogers and his team left the island, they brought “45 cases of archaeological material” with

them, but left many unanswered questions, according to Rogers (Rogers 1993:3).

On August 2, 1930, Rogers and two of the crew started moving supplies back to the

base camp at Crescent Harbor (Rogers 1930). Then on the third, they moved the rest of the

crew and the supplies back to the base camp to prepare to be taken off the island (Rogers

1930). On August 10, the Tamora picked up Rogers, his crew, and all of their gear and

artifacts (Rogers 1930). The Tamora dropped the crew off at San Pedro and then brought

their materials and equipment to San Diego, while the crew drove from San Pedro to San

Diego (Rogers 1930).

Very few photographs were taken during the expedition because they only had “three

days of sunshine” (Rogers 1993:3). In general, Rogers found that black abalone was the most

abundant on the east end and red abalone was the most abundant on the west end (Rogers

1930). Although most of the artifacts in MoM’s collection are from Rogers’ first trip out to

the island in 1930, he did make notes of his two subsequent trips, one in 1934, and one in

1938 that included other Channel Islands (Rogers 1930).

Rogers was interested in collecting artifacts in an attempt to recreate ethnic divisions

of the past as well as to understand how the ancient occupants of San Diego lived (Hanna

1982). The San Nicolas Island project was originally undertaken in an attempt to record the

chronology of San Diego by collecting lists of artifacts, distinguishing their traits, and

tracking changes through time (Hanna 1982; Rogers 1993). These goals were some of the

primary goals of the culture historians of the early to mid twentieth century (see Chapter 5).

Rogers’ project was funded and sanctioned by the MoM (Hanna 1982; Rogers 1993). Even

on the island, the places that Rogers chose to excavate were influenced by his previous work

as well as the year in which he was working. While Rogers specifically targeted burials, only

47

the most obvious artifacts were collected. Many ecofacts or small and broken artifacts which

may have been important for reconstructing subsistence activities and other daily activities

were not collected.

Malcolm Rogers excavated these artifacts during a time when the ethical standards of

and field techniques were vastly different than those of today. Moreover, the attention to note

taking and field procedures were much more lax. Malcolm Rogers’ notes, for example, are

unclear about exactly how he excavated. Fortunately, Rogers did record some basic notes and

the MoM has maintained these records for nearly 85 years. In a time before Global

Positioning Systems and exact mapping standards, Rogers’ attempt to record stratigraphy and

site locations with sketch maps and brief descriptions was novel, and in many ways, ahead of

his time. Based on his field notes all 32 sites underwent at least a preliminary surface

collection (Rogers 1930). During this surface collection, Rogers often had his crew looking

specifically for burials as they “have been the zones most productive of culture material”

(Rogers 1930:3). Because the shell middens were so thin in some points “a more

comprehensive knowledge of the midden content was gained by surface collecting than

trenching” (Rogers 1993:5). At sites they determined to have two or more strata, Rogers

excavated subsurface trenches (Rogers 1930). At the eight sites which had no natural strata

exposed, Rogers (1930) excavated test trenches, often in burials or house pits. His excavation

procedures are not explicitly discussed in his notes, but it can be assumed that in most cases

he dug down to sterile soil recording the stratigraphy only after complete excavation. It

appears that only large, formal artifacts were kept from excavations. At eroding sites on sea

cliffs or where a gully cut through the deposits and exposed the stratigraphic sequence,

Rogers mapped out strata and excavated artifacts from the exposed area in lieu of trenching

(Rogers 1930).

As was typical of the time, Rogers and his crew paid little attention to detailed notes

during excavations or surface collections. Very few details on the provenience or context of

collected artifacts were recorded, including critical information for answering many modern

archaeological questions. Rogers did try to record certain details; however, he sketched

stratigraphy where he thought it was important and there are a few hand drawn pictures of in

situ artifact caches or burials (Rogers 1930). To the modern archaeologist, however, his notes

48

leave much to be desired. There are no detailed explanations of where and how artifacts were

excavated and much of the context of these artifacts has been lost over time.

After transporting the material back to the museum, Rogers cleaned and cataloged the

collection (Rogers 1930). Almost all of the artifacts have carefully penned site numbers on

them in what looks like Rogers’ handwriting. Unfortunately, Rogers’ original catalog has

been lost or it is possible that there was never a complete catalog of the collection (Karen

Lacy, personal communication, February 1, 2013). According to Roger’s notes, 33 skeletal

interments were brought back to the MoM (Roger 1930). As of July of 2013, these skeletons

were no longer correlated with their site numbers and had lost all of their original

provenience. Museum records indicate only seven nearly complete skeletons and 102 partial

remains. It is probable that skeletal remains were not lost, but rather than the partial remains

belong to the missing 26 skeletons.

When this project began, in November 2012, the Rogers collection was housed in the

curation department at the MoM with limited description and documentation. The collection

was housed in Lab Two in wooden drawers and in Lab Five in cardboard boxes. The artifacts

in most drawers were separated by site, although many drawers contained more than one site.

Each drawer contained archival quality bags housing artifacts by general artifact category.

Categories included lithic-modified, lithic-unmodified, bone-modified, bone-unmodified,

shell-modified, shell-unmodified, wood, basketry, asphaltum, soil, glass, and charcoal. The

artifacts located in Lab Five were generally large ground stone and were housed in cardboard

boxes with site numbers recorded on the outside of the box. Lab Five has seen less

revitalization than Lab Two because, in general, the artifacts are not as delicate. The summer

previous to my research, a general catalog was begun in Excel by Ellen Waddell, a museum

volunteer, who recorded the site number, general artifact category, number of artifacts, and

drawer location of each site. This catalog was the basis of my work and was expanded to

include detailed artifact categorization, modifications, and speciation/material when it was

possible for me to identify, as well as a photographic catalog of every item.

ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES

The MoM houses copies of Malcolm Rogers’ original field notes copied from his

original notebooks (Figure 2). They are handwritten and contain his drawings, sketches,

49

Figure 2. A page from Malcolm Rogers’ notes on San Nicolas Island.

50

and revisions. They also house maps of San Nicolas Island from Malcolm Rogers’ project

and three photographs assumed to be from Roger’s trip to the island. The photographs have

been attached to display cards. I read Rogers’ notebook carefully for both his thoughts on the

island and information that can be used to connect artifacts back to their original

provenience. These include sketch maps, lists of artifacts, and descriptions of sites (Rogers

1930). There is also one published document by Malcolm Rogers summarizing his trip to the

island (Rogers 1993). It was originally sent to the Bureau of American Ethnology, but was

published for a wider audience in 1993 in Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly by

Steven Schwartz (Rogers 1993).

Rogers was working before our current trinomial system of archaeological site

number designation was used in southern California. Rogers used temporary site numbers to

designate site locations, which now must be correlated to contemporary site designations.

This was first accomplished by US Navy archaeologist Steven Schwartz and a table of

correlated numbers is included in Table 3. Because Rogers often combined multiple sites into

one large site, these locations are often correlated to more than one current site. I found it

more helpful to talk about them in areas rather than individual sites. For example, Rogers’

largest site, SN-21, is actually a group of sixteen sites including site numbers CA-SNI-18,

CA-SNI-19, CA-SNI-39, CA-SNI-40, CA-SNI-55, CA-SNI-119, CA-SNI-157, CA-SNI-159,

CA-SNI-160, CA-SNI-161, CA-SNI-162, CA-SNI-163, CA-SNI-164, CA-SNI-170, CA-

SNI-171, and CA-SNI-172. Grouping the sites in this way generalizes the data, but also gives

a more realistic picture of where Rogers excavated.

CREATING THE CATALOG

Artifacts are located in two separate labs at the Museum of Man. The majority of

artifacts are in Lab Two in wooden storage drawers where they have been organized by site

number and material type. Large stone artifacts are housed in Lab Five in cardboard boxes.

As artifacts were already mostly separated by site within each drawer, the catalog begins at

the first drawer with Rogers’ site number SN-1. The catalog for Lab Five artifacts has been

kept separate at the request of the collections manager, Karen Lacy, but has been included in

my analysis. Artifact housing and placement was not changed in this process in order to

respect the wishes of the museum. Where an artifact was not located with the other artifacts

51

Table 3. Rogers’ Site Numbers Correlated to Known

Trinomial Sites

Site # SNI

SN1 SNI-7

SN1A SNI-119

SN2 SNI-5

SN3

SN4 SNI-3

SN5 SNI-137

SN6 SNI-1/325/326/327

SN7 SNI-54

SN7A SNI-318

SN8 SNI-150/319/320/322

SN9 SNI-145/149

SN10 SNI-9/146/233

SN11 SNI-10

SN12 SNI-11

SN13 SNI-12

SN14 SNI-25

SN15 SNI-21

SN16 SNI-16

SN17 SNI-14/200

SN18 SNI-15/16

SN19 SNI-151/152/158

SN20 SNI-56

SN21 SNI-19/40/162/163/172

SN21A SNI-55/119/164/170

SN21A cem1 SNI-157

SN21A cem2

SN21A cem3 SNI-171

SN21A cem4 SNI-160

SN21A cem5 SNI-160

SN21A cem6 SNI-161

SN21A crem1 SNI-159

SN21B SNI-18

SN21C SNI-39

SN22 SNI-173/177

SN23 SNI-41

SN24 SNI-20

SN25

SN26 SNI-29/30/31/79/80/97

SN27 SNI-42/43/52/204/207/209/211/213

SN28 SNI-45/189/214

SN29 SNI-103/104

SN30 SNI-349

SN31

SN32

52

of the same site, it was rehoused in an archival quality bag, labeled, and noted in the catalog,

but not moved from its location.

Artifact descriptions were kept within the previously set museum organizational

system which had separated the artifacts by material. In this system, all artifacts had been

classified by museum staff, first by material type (ex: lithic, bone, shell, etc), and then by

whether the artifact had been modified intentionally (ex: modified, unmodified). While the

system used by museum staff was useful as a starting point, it was too general to allow

researchers to see what was available in this large collection.

In this project, artifacts were described when possible following standard procedures

described by Channel Island archaeologists (e.g., Arnold 2001; Braje 2010; Rick 2007; Rick

et al. 2005). All material types were identified to the greatest detail possible following

descriptions by Arnold (1987), Erlandson (1994), Glassow (1996), Pletka (2001), Rick

(2004), and Wake (2001). Bone and shell artifacts were described and documented in detail

following methods described by Arnold and Graesch (2001), King (1990), Rick (2004), and

Wake (2001). Most artifacts were identified to the greatest detail possible based on

comparisons to Hudson and Blackburn’s (1979) five volume ethnographic and archaeological

encyclopedias, Material Culture of the Chumash Interaction Sphere. Since the function and

classification of some artifacts is still in question (see “Weight” in Hudson and Blackburn

1979:247-251) an attempt was made towards general terms in the artifact description with

more specific attributes noted in the comments section of the catalog. Artifacts were

separated by artifact description, rather than the original general artifact category (ex: Flake

rather than Lithic-Modified). Shell and non-human bone was speciated to the most specific

taxonomic level possible.

Rare artifacts like effigies and charmstones are not seen as often in the archaeological

record today because they are usually found in graves and cemeteries that are not often

excavated because of changing attitudes toward human remains. Because of their rarity,

effigies and charmstones were recorded in more detail, following the work of Cameron

(2000) and Van Bueren and Wiberg (2011). For effigies, and charmstones, weight and

dimensions were taken as well as detailed descriptions.

The comparison of collections to ethnographic data is known as the direct historical

approach (Binford 1962). This assumes that ethnographic use of tools would be the same as

53

in the past. Care must be taken, though, as functions and meanings change through time. For

example, in the case of charmstones in the Chumash/Gabrieliño region, artifacts originally

grouped with charmstones may actually have had other purposes like atlatl weights (see

Elsasser and Rhode 1996; Van Bueren and Wilberg 2011). In cases like this, if a comparable

artifact could be found named in the Hudson and Blackburn (1979) volumes, that name was

used. If there was any uncertainty about an artifact’s use or material, the most general term

that could be used with certainty was recorded and a note was added in the comment section

of the artifact catalog.

In order to create a catalog that will be useful to archaeologists, photographs were

taken of all artifacts. Photographs were taken with a Nikon D3 100 in a portable light box. A

black background was used in an effort to have similar lighting and surroundings so that

artifacts may be compared to one another. All photographs were recorded in the artifact

catalog and have been named to correspond to Rogers’ site numbers. Therefore a photograph

of the eighth artifact recorded for site SN-4 will be recorded as SN.4.8 (Figure 3).

Figure 3. A charmstone from SN-4. This photograph is named SN.4.8.

54

THE COLLECTION TODAY

All records created with this project were digitized in order to allow the information

to be easily shared by the MoM. The photographs and copies of the catalog have been given

to the museum to aid in future research with this collection. This collection is in the process

of being revitalized by the MoM and while access is limited due to budget constraints, I hope

that the digital records that I was able to create may offer researchers a more effective way to

study these artifacts.

55

CHAPTER 7

RESULTS: SITE DESCRIPTIONS AND CATALOG

MOM COLLECTION

Although Rogers wrote about many artifacts in his notes, he did not cover all of the

artifacts that are stored at the museum and his original artifact catalog has been lost. Many of

these artifacts have been labeled in ink in what appears to be Malcolm Rogers’ handwriting

and the museum does not have any record of the collection being rearranged after Rogers’

death. This project was completed working under the assumption that the provenience listed

on these artifacts is the correct provenience from Rogers’ trip to San Nicolas Island.

Much of the detailed provenience of the collection has been lost along with the

original artifact catalog. This has left most artifacts with no provenience other than a site

number that corresponds to one of Rogers’ original tract numbers described above. Some

artifacts, however, can be correlated to more specific information by matching them with

their physical descriptions in Rogers’ notes. For example, although there are many bead

necklaces in SN-21, specific ones can be matched with burials by their qualitative

descriptions (e.g. flat beads with steatite). These have been noted in the artifact catalog and

interesting correlations are discussed in the next chapter.

Some of the language used in Rogers’ notes is difficult to understand, or references

colloquialisms that are unfamiliar. In some places, Rogers’ exact wording is referenced as

well as what it is assumed that he meant. Especially in shell types, colloquialisms were

changed to reflect what it is assumed Rogers was referencing. For example Rogers uses

“butterfly shells” in reference to what has been determined to be chitons and “tent shells” in

reference to a member of the Trochidae family, or commonly named top shells.

SITE DESCRIPTIONS

There are 31 sites listed in Rogers’ notes where he collected artifacts in 1930.

Although site 32 is listed in Rogers’ notes, it was excavated later in 1934 during a subsequent

trip. However, since the artifacts from the 1930, 1934, and the 1938 field seasons have been

56

stored together and there is no way to distinguish between them, they are considered together

in this project. The only clear provenience left to separate the artifacts is the corresponding

site numbers that Rogers assigned. Rogers found the island to be what he considered “one

great continuous village” (Rogers 1993:2). Rather than individual sites, Rogers separated the

island into numbered tracts based on the topography as well as the archaeology (Rogers

1993). This does little to help distinguish living areas of prehistoric people, but it is the only

remaining identification still associated with the artifacts. Therefore, I have separated each

section by Rogers’ original classification system.

Rogers’ site numbers have been aligned with their corresponding current site numbers

by Navy archaeologist Steven Schwartz. These associations have been made through a

careful reading of Rogers’ notes as well as Schwartz’s topographic and archaeological

knowledge of the island. Site numbers are referenced by both Rogers’ field numbers (SN-) as

well as the current numbers in parenthesis for easy reference to archaeological sites on San

Nicolas (SNI-). For each numbered tract Rogers’ notes on location, features, excavation

methods, artifacts, and chronology will be discussed, as well as the artifacts in the MoM

collection and any other relevant research.

SN-1 (SNI-7)

Rogers’ first site was recorded on July 11, 1930; the day after the team arrived on the

island. SN-1 is located on the central north coast of San Nicolas Island, very near the East

side of Crescent Bay (Rogers 1930; Schwartz, personal communication, November 13,

2012). The site was determined to be about three acres wide and 16 inches deep, although

Rogers hypothesized that it may have been about two feet deep previously (Rogers 1930). An

acre on an adjoining hill to the rear was labeled as “1-A” and had a depth of about eight

inches (Rogers 1930:3).

Among the features mentioned in Rogers’ notes were three different kinds of hearths,

“a basin type in the fossil dune, the square shaped pavement of sandstone slabs and a single

slab horizontally supported on cobbles” (Rogers 1930:5). He also found a burial of three

dogs, one of them pregnant, about fourteen inches under the midden, with no evidence of

violence (Rogers 1930). In a washed out cemetery, they found parts of a skeleton that was

badly damaged by erosion (Rogers 1930). Rogers estimated the composition of many of the

57

middens around the island and in site SN-1 he estimated a 10% composition of fishbone and

terrestrial bone and 90% shell composed mostly of mussel, abalone, and land snail with sea

urchins, sea snail, chitons and red abalone present (Rogers 1930).

Although Rogers does not specifically mention what if any excavation he completed

at this site, it is obvious from his notes that at the very least he did some surface collecting as

well as some excavation to uncover both the human and canine burials listed in his notes.

The artifacts from SN-1 that are housed in the MoM collection are varied (Table 4).

Many of the decorative artifacts like shell beads and stone and shell ornaments were likely

found in the cemetery area, although there is no clear provenience linking them with burials.

There are also artifacts that indicate domestic production (awl and stone flakes) as well as

fishing practices (one fishhook and a possible fishing net weight).

Rogers dated this site as mostly Middle Period with some Late Period midden. His

only proof for a Late Period occupation was the presence of fishhooks and a smashed

sandstone bowl with a squared off rim (Rogers 1930). He found that SN-1 was “started

directly on an indurated dune” although he also stated that it was possible that Late Period

culture was not seen because of erosion and that the Early Period shows on the point (Rogers

1930:5).

SN-1A (SNI-119)

Rogers labeled SN-1A as a subset of SN-1 because of its location on a hill behind

SN-1 and the similarities between their midden deposits (Rogers 1930). SN-1A has a depth

of about eight inches (Rogers 1930). Among the features that Rogers found at this site were

community houses, quartz working, a dog burial and a human burial. Rogers found SN-1A to

be less eroded than SN-1 allowing him to find at least one, and possibly two, large

community houses outlined on the top of the site (Rogers 1930). The community house that

was definitely visible measured north to south 39 feet and east to west 35 feet (Rogers 1930).

Upon reworking SN-1A, Rogers excavated a trench through another large community house

that measured 34 feet in order to find the floor. His sketch of the community house

(Figure 4) located a shell layer with a sandstone hearth in its center within the excavated

trench (Rogers 1930). He also found “much quartz working” and that the shell ratio followed

about the same as site SN-1 but without patches of sea urchins (Rogers 1930:6).

58

Table 4. Artifacts from SN-1

Artifact Number Modification Material

Abalone

Fragment 9 Ground

Red Abalone, Black Abalone

Asphaltum 15

Asphaltum

Awl 2 Chipped Unidentified Stone

Biface 21 Chipped Quartz, Quartzite, Chert, Slate, Unidentified Stone

Blank 27 Ground, Chipped Red Abalone

Bone Point 10 Ground Unidentified Bone

Choppers 3 Pecked Unidentified Stone

Core 6 Chipped Unidentified Stone

Dog Burial 3

Dog Bone

Donut Stone 11 Ground Sandstone, Steatite, Soapstone

Drill 14 Ground Concretion

Flake 14 Chipped Unidentified Stone

Fishhook 19 Ground Red Abalone

Limpet Ornament 11 Ground Limpet

Mano 3 Ground, Pecked Sandstone, Unidentified Stone

Mixing Dish 1 Ground Sandstone, Asphaltum

Mortar 1 Ground Sandstone

Needle 4

Drilled, Ground,

Burnt

Unidentified Bone

Pendant 1 Ground Serpentine

Pestle 5 Ground, Pecked Sandstone

Point 1 Ground, Incised Steatite

Pry Bar 6 Ground Unidentified Bone

Red Ochre 4

Red Ochre

Scraper 7 Chipped Sandstone, Unidentified Stone

Shell Bead 130 Ground, Punched Olivella, Unidentified Shell

Shell Pendant 7 Drilled, Ground Cowry, Cardium, Unidentified Shell

Stone Bead 7 Ground Serpentine

Unidentified

Bone 13

Ground, Incised,

Drilled

Unidentified Bone

Unidentified

Shell 23 Ground, Chipped

Unidentified Shell

Unidentified

Stone 10 Ground

Sandstone, Soapstone, Unidentified Stone

Unidentified

Wood 1

Wood

Unmodified Bone 136 Burnt Bird, Sheephead, Dog, Unidentified Bone

Unmodified Shell 27

Astrea, Snail, Mussel, Clam, Unidentified Shell

Weight 2 Ground Sandstone

Whistle 3 Drilled, Incised Bird, Unidentified Bone

One human burial was found at SN-1A by accidentally finding the top of a skull

exposed near the side of a house pit (Rogers 1930). SK-1, as Rogers labeled it, was a female

with no mortuary offerings (Rogers 1930). Rogers noted that livestock had broken a hole

through the right parietal bone which could enable a researcher with access to the skeletal

collections at the MoM to identify this particular burial (Rogers 1930). Her body was found

59

Figure 4. Rogers’ sketch profile of the excavation at SN-1A.

flexed on her face with the head to the east, although it had tilted over to the right side

(Rogers 1930). Rogers found more than one pit in this location and a section of a dog’s

cervical column was found three feet south of the burial which could indicate that more

burials were present in this location at one time (Rogers 1930). Rogers clearly excavated two

trenches and a burial at his site. He excavated a north to south trench where he found artifacts

as well as the trench that he excavated to find the floor of a community house (Rogers 1930).

The artifacts listed in Rogers’ notes are very few and include a broken pestle and a

mortar fragment excavated from the north-south trench (Rogers 1930). However, the artifacts

found in the MoM collection under SN-1A do not include these two artifacts (Table 5). They

consist mostly of the beads, pendants, and decorations associated most often with burials as

well as one piece of chipped quartz and a bone fishhook.

Table 5. Artifacts from SN-1A


Biface 1 Chipped Quartz

Bone Fishhook 1 Ground Unidentified Bone

Limpet Ornament 1 Ground Keyhole Limpet

Lithic Pendant 1 Ground, Drilled Unidentified Stone

Shell Bead 2 Ground Olivella, Unidentified Shell

Shell Pendant 2 Punched, Ground Cowry, Unidentified Shell

Although Rogers does not specifically address the age of SN-1A, because of its

association with SN-1, it can be assumed that he thought of SN-1A as a Middle Period site.

SN-2 (SNI-5)

Rogers recorded sites SN-2 and SN-3 together on July 12, 1930 (Roger 1930). SN-2

is located on the north coast of San Nicolas, just south of SN-1. SN-2 was listed as eroded,

and encompassing an area of two acres and a max depth of 14 inches. No features were

60

recorded at this site and midden composition was not recorded. This site seems to have

consisted of a temporary cache in a shell midden, but Rogers did record that whalebone

markers, usually associated with burials were found (Rogers 1930). The only excavation

recorded as being completed at this site was the excavation of the “jewel case” discussed

below. The shell in the midden was similar to SN-1 but with more mussel, abalone, and sea

urchin and bone both fish and sea mammal.

Many artifacts were listed as found at SN-2, including mortars, pestles, bowls, and a

carved bowl fragment. SN-2 was the first site that Olivella Grooved Rectangle beads were

found by Rogers. This discovery began Rogers’ discovery of archaeological evidence to

support the intrusion of Uto-Aztecan speakers onto San Nicolas Island. At the end of their

trip, the crew found a 'jewel case' cache here with a small asphaltum-covered basket listed to

have housed one top shell (whole ground in rim) one fossil shell pendant, one fossil shell

bead (disk shaped), two fishbone beads, two stone beads, one long slender stone pendant, and

two asphaltum melting stones. Two red abalone shells were found inverted over the cache.

The artifacts had not been polished and the drilling of one bead was incomplete, so Rogers

regarded this as “a temporary cache left by a woman who expected to return to this village

after a sojourn elsewhere but never did return to recover her hidden horde” (Rogers

1930:530).

Many of the artifacts listed in Rogers notes could reference those found in the MoM

collection, however there are more artifacts than Rogers listed and some of his descriptions

are too vague to match with the artifacts (Table 6). There is an incompletely drilled stone

bead as well as a long pendant, a disk shaped shell pendent, 32 complete shell beads

including at least three Olivella Grooved Rectangle beads, and asphaltum tarring stones

along with asphaltum fragments. There are also other artifacts in the collection including

fishhooks, chipped stone bifaces, and ground stone artifacts, as well as a finely constructed

celt.

Although the first occupational stratum could not be found, Rogers determined that

the SN-2 midden was the same as SN-1. He, therefore, dated the site as a part of the Middle

and Late Periods. According to Schwartz (Schwartz, personal communication, November 13,

2012) a recent project dated SN-2 (SNI-5) to 910+/-40 (Schwartz, personal communication,

November 13, 2012).

61



Asphaltum 9

Asphaltum with Stones

Biface 6 Chipped Unidentified Stone

Blank 4 Ground Red Abalone, Unidentified Shell

Bone Beads-Possibly Floats 2 Drilled, Ground Unidentified Bone


Celt 1 Ground Unidentified Stone

Donut Stone 4 Ground Sandstone

Hook 7 Burnt, Ground Abalone


Lithic Pendant 1 Drilled, Ground Steatite

Mano 2 Ground Unidentified Stone

Pestle 3 Ground Sandstone

Shell Bead 32 Drilled, Ground Olivella, Unidentified Shell

Shell Disks 2 Ground Unidentified Shell

Shell Pendant 5 Drilled Cowry, Unidentified Shell

Stone Bead 4 Drilled, Ground Steatite, Unidentified Stone

Unidentified Bone 2 Ground Unidentified Bone

Unmodified Bone 4

Sheephead Bone

Unmodified Shell 2

Red Abalone, Snail

Unmodified Shell 2

Clam, Unidentified Shell


SN-3

SN-3 is on the north coast of San Nicolas Island, just to the southeast of SN-2 and

northwest of SN-4. SN-3 has not been associated with a current site located on San Nicolas

Island and is likely an extension of SN-2(SNI-5). Rogers recorded SN-3 as badly eroded, but

still with an area of three acres. The features were not specifically recorded at SN-3, but were

instead listed as the same as those at SN-2 including midden composition, occupational

strata, cemeteries, and artifacts. It is unclear the specific strategy that Rogers used to study

SN-3, but it is clear that a combination of surface collection and at least a minimal amount of

excavation was completed.

At SN-3, Rogers also found a cache of fishhook blanks along with manufacturing

tools associated with fishhook manufacture including two reamers, bone awls, and rhizo-

concretion grinders about 14 inches deep (Rogers 1930; see Table 7). The fishing artifacts

are present in the artifact catalog from MoM as well as bone and groundstone tools, beads,

and a fragmented soapstone effigy. A large monolith is noted at this site that was 40 inches

long and had been worked (Rogers 1930). Due to similarities with SN-2, Rogers placed SN-3

in the same age categories of Middle and Late Periods.

62



Awl 1 Ground Deer Bone


Blank 11 Chipped, Ground Red Abalone



Donut Stone 2 Ground Sandstone, Steatite

Double Ended Bone

Point 4 Ground

Unidentified Bone


Effigy 1 Ground Soapstone

Fishhook 6 Ground Abalone


Hafted Tool 2 Ground, Stained Unidentified Bone


Lithic Pendant 1 Drilled, Ground Unidentified Stone

Mano 1 Ground Sandstone




Pestle Fragment 1 Ground Sandstone


Red Ochre 4

Red Ochre

Root Cast 4

Sandstone

Shell Bead 26 Ground, Punched Olivella, Unidentified Shell

Shell Pendant 2

Drilled, Ground,

Punched

Olivella, Mussel, Limpet, Unidentified Shell


Unidentified Shell 7 Ground, Chipped Unidentified Shell

Unidentified Stone 1 Ground Unidentified Stone

Unmodified Bone 3

Sheephead, Unidentified Bone

Unmodified Shell 5

Bowl Limpet, Pectin, Tegula, Unidentified

Shell


SN-4 (SNI-3)

SN-4 is located on the north coastline of San Nicolas Island to the southeast of SN-3

and northwest of SN-5. Rogers describes this site as having two mounded shell middens with

an arroyo between them (Rogers 1930). He estimated the size to be about three acres with a

maximum depth of about 15 inches, but assumes an original depth of about a foot, but more

had probably been warn away due to erosion (Rogers 1930). There is very little recorded

about SN-4 and nothing on exactly what Rogers did or collected there. The MoM collection

houses a variety of artifacts that are similar to most of the sites in the Rogers’ collection with

63

the exception of a finely carved charmstone (Table 8). Rogers did not discuss a proposed date

for this site.



Asphaltum 1 Asphaltum

Awl 1 Broken Unidentified Bone

Blank 6 Ground Red Abalone, Black Abalone

Bone Chisel 3 Shaped, Burnt Unidentified Bone


Charmstone 1 Ground, Drilled,

Polished

Steatite

Core 1 Chipped Granite


Drill 3 Ground Sandstone, Concretion

Effigy 1 Ground Soapstone

Filigree 1 Ground Unidentified Bone

Fishhook 1 Broken Abalone



Point 1 Ground Soapstone

Point 11 Chipped Shale, Chert, Limestone, Unidentified Stone

Scraper 1 Chipped Unidentified Stone

Shell Bead 7 Drilled, Ground Olivella

Shell Pendant 3 Ground Cowry, Unidentified Shell

Stone Bead 1 Ground Steatite

Stone Pendant 1 Ground Unidentified Stone

Unidentified Bone 2 Shaped, Burnt Unidentified Bone

Unidentified Shell 1 Ground, Incised Unidentified Shell

Unidentified

Stone

1 Shaped Soapstone

Unidentified

Stone

1 Ground, Burnt Shale, Limestone

Unmodified Bone 7 Sheephead, Bird, Unidentified Bone

Unmodified Shell 6 Pectin, Cowry

Vessel Fragment 2 Ground, Burnt Sandstone, Soapstone


SN-5 (SNI-137)

SN-5 was located south of SN-4 on a point of land that extends to the north. At the

time site SN-5 was recorded by Rogers, it was already badly eroded. He describes the site as

“drawn out along the top of a sea cliff” (Rogers 1930). Although it was eroded, Rogers

estimated that the original area covered two and a half acres with a maximum depth of 12

inches (Rogers 1930). He notes that many “house sites” are located on the mesa behind the

site, that many square sandstone slab hearths are present, and broken pieces of mortars were

64

found (Rogers 1930:8-9). He found little terrestrial bone and fishbone with the midden

consisting mostly of mussel (by Rogers’ estimation 65%) and abalone (35%) (Rogers 1930).

Rogers’ crew studied the stratigraphy of this site by studying the sea cliff exposure. The first

occupational stratum contained mussels, land snails, and fishbones, but no worked stone

(Rogers 1930). The artifacts found at SN-5 are similar to those found all over the island and

include bone tools, donut stones, abalone fishhooks, shell beads, and a cowry pendant

(Table 9). There was, however, more asphaltum collected at this site than at most others its

size. Rogers dated this site to the Middle Period (Rogers 1930).




Awl 5 Ground Bird, Unidentified Bone

Blank 1 Ground Abalone


Cobble tool 1 Chipped Unidentified Stone

Donut Stone 4 Ground Sandstone, Steatite, Possible Limestone

Fishhook 5 Ground Abalone, Unidentified Shell

Flake 2 Chipped Chert, Unidentified Stone


Lithic Point 1 Chipped Chert, Quartzite

Lithic Tool 1 Chipped Quartzite, Chert

Pendant 1 Punched Cowry

Shell Bead 17 Ground Olivella


Unidentified Shell 2 Ground Unidentified Shell

Unmodified Bone 1 Unidentified Bone


SN-6 (SNI-1, SNI-325, SNI-326, SNI-327)

SN-6 is located on the north coast of the eastern tip of San Nicolas Island north of

SN-7. SN-6 was recorded by Rogers as a relatively small site at only an eighth of an acre

large (Rogers 1930). Almost nothing was recorded about the features located at SN-6 except

a dog burial that was found in the exposed sea cliff about sixteen inches below the surface in

a hardened dune with no other artifacts present (Rogers 1930). The artifacts from the MoM

collection list more than this dog burial, but it is a smaller site collection than others, and

there are no beads or decorative artifacts that are usually associated with burials (Table 10).

He specifically recorded that no mortars were seen but he believed the site was from the

65



Abalone Fragment 1 Red Abalone

Anvil 1 Ground Sandstone



Chisel 1 Ground Unidentified Bone

Core 1 Chipped Chert

Dog Burial 1 Dog Bone


Flake 1 Chipped Chert


Pendant 3 Punched, Ground Cowry, Unidentified Shell


Shaft Straightener 1 Ground Unidentified Stone

Unmodified Bone 1 Ground Unidentified Bone

Middle Period because he found red abalone scrapers and fishhooks (Rogers 1930). A radio

carbon date of 1650+/-30 cal BP was acquired from the Navy and dates the site to Rogers’

Late Period rather than the Middle Period (Schwartz, personal communication, November

13, 2012).

SN-6/SN-7

On the north coast of the eastern tip of San Nicolas Island between sites SN-6 and

SN-7, Rogers and his crew found surface evidence of numerous house pits. Rogers did not

record these house pits as a new site, but instead labeled artifacts located there as from SN-

6/SN-7. Although Rogers did not provide exact numbers of the house pits, he described them

as being both large (9-10 ft) and small (6-7 ft) (Rogers 1930). They excavated a large house

pit and determined that originally the house pit was about two feet deep and whalebone was

probably used for the frame (Rogers 1930).

Rogers recorded a burial found here in an area he called “Pit-house Mesa” (Rogers

1930:15). The burial was found badly eroded and Rogers determined that the skull had

previously been washed down slope (Rogers 1930). The body was flexed on the left side with

its head to the east and asphaltum had been spread under it prior to burial (Rogers 1930).

Although the sex was unable to be determined, there were two black abalone shells between

the knees that had three small pieces of beveled steatite cupped between them (Rogers 1930).

Both the burial and the house pit were excavated, but it is unclear what method of

excavation Rogers used. The artifacts in the MoM collection do include the two black

66

abalone found with the burial, but the steatite is not in the MoM collection (Table 11). There

are also two shell asphaltum mixing dishes that were collected from this site. Rogers did not

attempt to place these house pits in his chronology.

Table 11. Artifacts from SN-6/SN-7


Mixing Dish 2 With asphaltum Red Abalone, Pacific Razor Clam, Asphaltum

Unmodified Shell 2 Black Abalone

SN-7 (SNI-54)

SN-7 was a one acre mound site on the northern shore of the eastern most tip of San

Nicolas Island. When it was recorded, its cemetery had already been looted although both

whalebone markers and large sandstone slabs were still present (Rogers 1930). Rogers

recorded a finger of the site extended to the east and ended in a sea cliff with exposed

stratigraphy. Rogers mapped this exposed stratigraphy as SN-7A and attributed certain

artifacts to this locus (Rogers 1930). The shell recorded in the midden was noted at 75%

mussel, 15% abalone, and 10% other (Rogers 1930). Because of the exposure of the site in

the sea cliff, it appears that Rogers did not excavate. The artifacts in the collection at MoM

are similar to the others on the island with bone and stone tools, but with no shell artifacts

(Table 12). There was one steatite vessel fragment found as well. Steatite is not a locally

produced stone, so its presence indicates interisland trade, likely with Santa Catalina Island.

Both mortars and pestles were recorded as present as well as five different steatite donut

stones (Rogers 1930). There are five steatite donut stones, a mortar, and a percussion tool

listed in the MoM catalog, there is no pestle. When Rogers returned to this site in 1938, he

located on the north side of the site five human cremation burials near the surface of a

midden (Rogers 1930).

SN-7A (SNI-318)

SN-7A was recorded by Malcolm Rogers’ team as an extension of SN-7, which they

used to determine the stratigraphy of both sites (Rogers 1930). The team also found a human

burial that Rogers excavated himself (Rogers 1930). The burial was determined to most

67



Anvil 2 Pecked, Ground Sandstone

Bone Dish 1 Ground Whalebone

Bone Drill 1 Ground, Burnt Unidentified Bone


Core 2 Chipped Chert, Unidentified Stone


Donut Stone 5 Ground Sandstone, Steatite, Limestone

Flake 3 Chipped Steatite, Unidentified Stone

Lithic Drill 2 Ground Sandstone

Mano 1 Ground Concretion



Percussion Tool 1 Pecked Unidentified Stone

Point 5 Chipped Steatite, Chert, Shale, Limestone

Point 16 Ground, Burnt, Asphaltum traces Bird, Unidentified Bone

Pressure Flaking Tool 2 Ground Unidentified Bone

Pry Bar 4 Ground, Burnt Unidentified Bone

Root Cast 2 Ground Sandstone

Scraper 1 Chipped Shale

Stone Dish 1 Ground Sandstone

Unidentified Bone 2 Broken, Possibly Painted Unidentified Bone

Unidentified Stone 2 Ground, Chipped Steatite, Shale

Unmodified Bone 25 Unmodified Unidentified Bone

Vessel Fragment 1 Ground Steatite


likely be female and was “flexed on the left side with head to the north” and had no offerings

(Rogers 1930:14).

There is only one unmodified bone recorded from this site in the MoM collection

(Table 13). Rogers also described and dated the strata exposed in the cliff face and

determined that three separate stratum were present. He concluded that stratum one was more

different than the later two with estimated amounts of fishbone (40%), mussel (40%), red

abalone (20%), some mammal bone and a few pieces of chipped stone (Rogers 1930). He

found stratum two and three to be very similar but with a fishhook present in stratum three

(Rogers 1930). His sketch of the exposed stratigraphy highlights both the ratios of midden to

sterile deposits as well as the location of the burial (Rogers 1930; see Figure 5).




68

Figure 5. Rogers’ drawing of the stratigraphy at SN-7A.

SN-8 (SNI-150, SNI-319, SNI-320, SNI-322)

SN-8 is located on the eastern tip of San Nicolas Island (Rogers 1930). Rogers

described the site as a “scattered occupation” and recorded one house site with whale ribs,

assumed to be a part of the frame for the house (Rogers 1930:13). Little else was recorded for

SN-8 besides a single fishhook blank from the site located in the MoM collection (Table 14).




SN-9 (SNI-145, SNI-149)

SN-9 was located northwest of SN-1 and Crescent Bay along the north coast of San

Nicolas Island. When SN-9 was first recorded by Rogers, it was about a quarter of an acre,

but he estimated that it had once been about half an acre (Rogers 1930). No features were

recorded in Rogers’ notes, although a salt water spring was recorded.

69

It is unclear what research Rogers did here but from the amount of artifacts and

stratigraphic drawings it is clear that he spent considerable time working at the site. The

artifacts noted in Roger’s notes include “worked stone, two bone awls, [and] one fossil root

file” as well as a broken human tibia and metatarsal, all from the middle stratum (Rogers

1930:18). From the upper stratum, he found “fishhooks, worked stone, planes, choppers, a

steatite ring, beads, and hair limpet beads, bone awls, [and] abalone scrapers” (Rogers

1930:18). Although the artifacts in the MoM collection do include some of these artifacts, not

all of them are represented (Tables 15-19).



Abalone Fragment 5 Chipped, Ground Red Abalone

Bone Drill 2 Ground Unidentified Bone

Bone Point 2 Ground Bird and Unidentified Bone



Decoration 1 Ground Soapstone


Limpet Ornament 1 Chipped, Ground Keyhole Limpet

Lithic Drill 1 Ground Concretion

Lithic Point 1 Ground Soapstone

Pendant 2 Ground Sandstone

Pry Bar 1 Ground Unidentified bone

Root Cast 1 Sandstone

Stone Tool 1 Chipped Unidentified Stone

Unidentified Bone 4 Ground, Cut Marks Seal, Unidentified Bone

Unmodified Shell 5 Snail, Unidentified Shell

Vessel Fragment 2 Ground Soapstone


Table 16. Artifacts from the Upper Stratum at SN-9




Table 17. Artifacts from SN-9 Stratum 3


Shell Bead 7 Pectin, Unidentified Shell

Lithic Bead 1 Unidentified Stone

In order for Rogers to date SN-9, he examined the stratigraphy of the site

(Figure 6). He found two distinct occupational strata, which he determined to be Middle and

70

Table 18. Artifacts from the Bottom Stratum at SN-9



Unidentified Shell 2 Broken Unidentified Shell

Table 19. Artifacts from the Human Burial East of SN-9




Pendant 1 Drilled, Ground Unidentified Shell

Shell Bead 16 Ground, Drilled Olivella, Unidentified Shell

Late Periods. He did find another layer visible in an exposed cliff that may have been from

the Early Period as it included many land snail shells but no formal artifacts (Rogers 1930).

The Middle Period stratum was about 14 inches thick with the majority being fishbone (40%)

and sea urchin (40%) and the rest made up of mussel (15%), abalone, and some land snail

(Rogers 1930). The upper stratum, 12 inches thick, consisted of mostly of sea urchins (30%),

black abalone (20%), astrea (20%), land snail, sea snail, chiton shells and more fishbone than

in the middle stratum.

SN-10(SNI-9, SNI-146, SNI-233)

SN-10 was located to the northwest of SN-9 and to the south of SN-11 on the north

coast of San Nicolas Island. Rogers’ team members discovered SN-10 and made surface

collections before Rogers saw the site and made notes himself (Rogers 1930). Then, as they

were moving camp locations, Rogers recorded this site as a two acre late site with a

previously excavated cemetery (Rogers 1930). He recorded the shell ratios of SN-10 as

mostly urchin, mussel, and abalone with snail and top shell present but in lesser densities

(Rogers 1930). He also recorded “plentiful” fishbone in localized places (Rogers 1930:20).

This site was not trenched but the stratigraphy was recorded from a western cliff and

included in his notes with the drawing in Figure 7 (Rogers 1930). No artifacts were recorded

in Rogers’ notes for this site, but the MoM collection has many artifacts including gaming

bones, beads, and pipe fragments (Table 20). Rogers dated SN-10 as a late site with

underlying midden that may be from an earlier period.

71

Figure 6. Rogers’ drawing of SN-9 stratigraphy.

72

Figure 7. Rogers’ drawing of the stratigraphy at SN-10.




Asphaltum

Applicator

1 Ground Unidentified Bone, Asphaltum


Bone Bead 1 Ground Unidentified Bone

Bone Blank 1 Ground Unidentified Bone


Bone Tool 2 Ground Unidentified Bone, Asphaltum

Chisel 1 Ground, Stained Bone Unidentified

Core Fragment 2 Chipped Unidentified Stone

Decoration 1 Ground Unidentified Bone


Drill 2 Ground Whale, Unidentified Bone

Drill 3 Ground, Chipped Sandstone, Chert, Steatite

Effigy 2 Ground, Carved Steatite


Gaming Bone 2 Ground Small Mammal Bone

Hook Effigy 1 Ground, Carved Unidentified Bone


Lithic Bead 1 Drilled Unidentified Stone

Mixing Dish 1 Black Abalone, Asphaltum

Pendant 4 Punched, Drilled Cowry, Unidentified Shell


Pipe 2 Ground Steatite, Unidentified Stone

Pressure Flaking

Tool

1 Ground Unidentified Bone

Pry Bar 3 Ground, burnt Unidentified Bone




Shell Blank 3 Chipped Red Abalone

Unidentified Bone 8 Ground Small Mammal Bone

Unidentified Shell 9 Cardium, Barnacle, Razor Clam, Cowry,

Unidentified Shell

Unidentified Stone 4 Chipped, Ground Steatite, Soapstone, Unidentified Stone


Vessel Fragment 11 Ground, Incised Soapstone


73

SN-11(SNI-10)

SN-11 is located on the north coast of San Nicolas Island northwest of SN-10 and

southeast of SN-12. Site SN-11 was in the group of sites that Rogers’ team originally

discovered on the north coast of the island. Like many of the other sites on the island, SN-11

is composed of shell midden mounds but SN-11 was heavily eroded. Although he wondered

why the people were living on such a steep slope, it seems probable that the site was eroded

down slope out of primary context (Rogers 1930). The only features noted at this site were

shell middens that were composed of mussel, abalone, urchin, and land snail shell with a few

areas of fishbone (Rogers 1930). He also noted many manos and other grinding implements,

although in the MoM collection there are only two manos (Rogers 1930; see Table 21). Two

of the most interesting artifacts in the MoM collection are two sea mammal bones that have

both been circularly incised and match descriptions of gaming bones listed in Hudson and

Blackburn’s (1979) volumes (see Figure 8). Rogers (1930) described SN-11 as being a Late

Period site based on its artifacts.

SN-12(SNI-11)

SN-12 was on the west end of the north coast just northwest of SN-11. SN-12 was

one of the sites that the Sanger party investigated before Rogers and their looting of the

cemetery was apparent to Rogers (Rogers 1930). The site was about two and a half acres.

The shell midden composition was similar to SN-11, only with more land snail and fewer

urchins (Rogers 1930). Although Rogers did not trench at this site, he did note that an Early

Period midden was visible in eroding exposures (Rogers 1930). He also noted that one Late

Period human male was collected along with the first steatite donut stone of their trip (Rogers

1930). On their way back to base camp at the end of the trip, Rogers and his crew also found

a washed out human male skull at SN-12 with the dentition still intact but the facial bones

missing (Rogers 1930). The artifacts in the MoM collection include some interesting pieces

including a small obsidian flake, and a steatite donut stone that may be the one that Rogers

notes (Table 22). The collection also includes two fragments of a brown ware jar with a

brown drip glaze (Figure 9). The fragments have been glued back together. Although this

brown ware jar is almost certainly of historical origin and probably belonged to historical

74



Abalone Fragment 1 Ground Red Abalone

Anvil 1 Ground, Drilled/Pecked Sandstone


Awl 1 Ground Unidentified Bone



Bone Pendant 1 Ground, Drilled Unidentified Bone




Core Fragment 1 Chipped Unidentified Stone

Donut Stone 3 Ground Sandstone, Steatite, Unidentified Stone

Drill 5 Ground, Chipped Concretion, Steatite, Unidentified Stone

Gaming Bone 2 Incised Sea Mammal Bone

Large Flake 1 Chipped Unidentified Stone



Needle 1 Ground Unidentified Bone


Pipe Fragment 3 Ground Steatite


Scraper 4 Chipped Steatite, Unidentified Stone

Shell Pendant 1 Punched Cowry

Stone Pendant 1 Ground, Drilled Steatite

Tool Fragment 2 Ground, Asphaltum traces Unidentified Bone

Unidentified Bone 2 Ground Small Mammal Bone

Unidentified Shell 3 Ground, Chipped Pectin, Unidentified Shell

Unidentified Stone 3 Chipped, Ground Limestone, Shale

Unmodified Bone 8 One Burnt Sheephead, Pinniped, Unidentified Bone

Unmodified Bone 1 Cut Marks Unidentified Bone

Unmodified Shell 5 Olivella, Limpet, Unidentified Shell

Vessel Fragment 1 Ground Unidentified Stone


Chinese fishermen, Rogers only dated the site to the Late Period. It is possible that he did not

recognize the historical component of the site or that he did not think it noteworthy.

SN-13(SNI-12)

SN-13 was located on the north tip of the west end of San Nicolas Island just to the

north of SN-16. SN-13 was recorded by Rogers as being a four acre Late Period site (Rogers

1930). Although the site was mostly made up of shell midden, Rogers does note whalebone

houses as a visible feature (Rogers 1930). It is unclear how he determined the stratigraphy of

the site. It is highly probable that he excavated a trench, however, since he discussed a sea

otter skull about 18 inches below the shell midden surface (Rogers 1930). He also notes that

75

Figure 8. The two sea mammal gaming bones found at SN-11.

fishhooks were found associated with deposits of fishbone (Rogers 1930). Three fishhooks

were located in the MoM collection in association with this site. Rogers determined SN-13’s

Late Period date based on the presence of a keyhole limpet used for hair ornaments as well as

beads (Rogers 1930). There is only one bead and one Limpet Ornament in the MoM

collection (Table 23). Rogers only discusses this site as a Late Period site, he does indicate a

lower stratum with hardened sterile sand in between it and the upper stratum.

SN-14(SNI-25), SN-14 CREMATION

SN-14 was located on the northwest portion of San Nicolas Island on the northern

edge of the central plateau. The four acre site had midden composed of mussel, abalone,

limpet, fishbone, and land snail (Rogers 1930). Of the four cemeteries found at SN-14, three

of them had been extensively looted and the fourth was partially exposed due to erosion

(Rogers 1930). In the eroded cemetery, Rogers’ team excavated a human male, possibly in

his thirties, who was flexed on his right side, folded with his arms and legs bent in front of

him and his cheek against his legs below the knees (Rogers 1930). Rogers notes that he had a

76





Bone Biface 2 Ground Unidentified Bone

Biface 2 Chipped Obsidian, Unidentified Stone

Blank 1 Ground, Drilled Red Abalone

Brown Ware Jar 1 Painted Brown Ware, Drip Glaze


Donut Stone 6 Ground Sandstone, Steatite, Unidentified Stone

Fishhook 18 Ground Red Abalone, Black Abalone


Hafted Tool 1 Ground Whalebone


Mixing Dish 1 Oyster, Asphaltum

Pendant 1 Punched Cowry



Stone Point 1 Ground Serpentine

Possible Flute 1 Ground Unidentified Bone

Pressure Flaking

Tool

3 Ground, Chipped Unidentified Bone

Pry Bar 3 Ground Whalebone

Pry Bar 1 Chipped Shale

Reamer 3 Ground Shell Concretion, Unidentified Stone

Unidentified Bone 1 Broken, Ground,

Drilled

Bird, Unidentified Bone

Unidentified Shell 5 Ground, Punched Conch, Cardium, Unidentified Shell

Unmodified Bone 5 Sheephead, Sea Mammal, Unidentified Bone

Unmodified Shell 2 Cardium, Keyhole Limpet

Vessel Fragment 6 Ground Steatite, Soapstone




Donut Stone 2 Ground Sandstone and Steatite


large bone tumor on the right side of his head. Based on the position of the body, the man

must have been very sick (Rogers 1930). Although no burial goods were recovered, along the

eroded portion Rogers and his team found smashed mortars, steatite bowls, and shell beads

(Rogers 1930). They also discovered a cremation cemetery that had been partially looted and

eroded (Rogers 1930). Rogers’ crew removed a steatite effigy that he thought was a seal, a

chert knife, a Franciscan chert blade, an incised steatite tablet, a small obsidian knife (point

broken off), a steatite bowl in four fragments, a steatite tablet with incised diamonds, eight

steatite donut stones, three fossil root files, a boat shaped steatite bowl with asphaltum inside,

a bone harpoon, two sandstone mortars, two sandstone pestles, seven broken whalebone

77

Figure 9. Brown war jar fragment from SN-12. This indicates a historical

component to SN-12.

tools, two fragments of steatite bowls, steatite and shell beads, bone projectile points, a

burned fishhook, carved bone, bone inlaid with hematite, two metavolcanic mortars, and a

painted mortar (Rogers 1930; see Tables 24 and 25).

SN-15(SNI-21)

SN-15 is located to the west of SN-14 on the north end of the central plateau. This

site was almost completely eroded and only a quarter of an acre of Early Period midden

remained with a small layer of Late Period midden capping the deposits (Rogers 1930). The

Early Period midden was composed of snail, red abalone, mussel, and limpet (Rogers 1930).

The Late Period middle was similar with more top shell (Rogers 1930). The Late Period

midden was likely younger than that at SN-14 since no elaborate pestles were present

(Rogers 1930). They found a cremation and collected parts of a cranium and half of a lower

jaw. He also collected a fossil root file, a bone projectile point, two steatite bowls, a keyhole

limpet ring, four fragments of burned whalebone tools, a sandstone bowl or small mortar, and

78





Biface 14 Chipped Slate, Shale, Unidentified Stone

Decoration 1 Ground Keyhole Limpet

Blank 5 Ground Abalone, Unidentified Shell

Bone Pendant 2 Drilled, Incised, Broken Unidentified Bone

Bone Point 11 Ground Bird, Unidentified Bone


Donut Stone 4 Ground Sandstone, Soapstone

Effigy Fragment 3 Ground Soapstone, Limestone

Fishhook 3 Ground Abalone and Unidentified Shell

Lithic Bead 1 Ground Sandstone

Mortar 1 Ground Unidentified Stone

Pendant 10 Punched, Drilled Cowry, Cardium, Unidentified Shell


Pick 1 Chipped Unidentified Stone




Stone Bead 1 Ground Sandstone

Talisman 1 Ground Cowry

Unidentified Bone 33 Ground, Stained Unidentified Bone

Unidentified Stone 2 Ground, Carved Soapstone

Unmodified Bone 15 Sheephead, Unidentified Bone

Unmodified Shell 2 Barnacle, Olivella



Whistle 1 Drilled Bird Bone

a sacrificed fishhook reamer (Table 26). West of the cremation, there was a washed out

jewel-case cache (Rogers 1930).

SN-16(SNI-16)

SN-16 was located on the northwest tip of the island just to the south of SN-13 and to

the north of SN-17. It was recorded as two acres with a shell midden composed of both black

and red abalone, mussel, land snail, and others (Rogers 1930). Both whalebone houses and

burials were among the features at this site (Rogers 1930). Most of Rogers’ field notes from

SN-16 describe the three human skeletons they found (Rogers 1930). The first individual,

labeled SK-1, was a six year old child found flexed on his right side with his head to the

north (Rogers 1930). Rogers notes that with the burial three “Pismo beads,” three fish teeth

beads and about 15 Olivella Grooved Rectangle beads were found in the chest cavity

indicating a Late Period age (Rogers 1930:22; see Figure 10). Although the burial had been

79




Bead 18 Ground Unidentified Shell

Bead 2 Ground Unidentified Stone

Biface 55 Chipped Shale, Quartzite, Soapstone, Unidentified Stone

Blank 10 Ground Abalone, Keyhole Limpet, Unidentified Shell

Bone Bead 2 Ground Unidentified Bone

Bone Effigy 1 Ground Unidentified Bone

Bowl Fragment 3 Ground Sandstone


Dagger 1 Ground Steatite

Donut Stone 35 Ground, Incised Steatite, Sandstone, Unidentified Stone

Drill 10 Ground Shell Concretion

Effigy 2 Ground Steatite, Unidentified Stone


Flake 4 Chipped Steatite, Obsidian, Unidentified Stone

Hafted Tool 7 Ground Unidentified Bone with Asphaltum

Lithic Pendant 1 Drilled Steatite



Pestle 5 Ground Sandstone, Unidentified Stone


Points 11 Chipped Unidentified Stone

Pry Bar 6 Ground Sea Mammal

Pry Bar 1 Chipped Unidentified Stone

Red Ochre 1



Shell Pendant 8 Drilled Cowry, Snail, Unidentified Shell

Spearpoint 1 Ground, Burnt Burnt Bone

Unidentified Bone 26 Ground,

Chipped

Bird and Unidentified Bone


Unmodified Bone 2 Sheephead Bone

Unmodified Shell 6 Chione, Pectin, Abalone, Snail, Unidentified Shell

Vessel Fragment 40 Ground, Incised Soapstone, Steatite, Sandstone, Unidentified Stone


Table 25. Artifacts from SN-14 Cremation


Donut Stone 14 Ground, Incised Steatite, Unidentified

Fishhook 1 Ground, Burnt Abalone

Hafted Tool 3 Ground, Burnt Bone-Unidentified and Asphaltum

Pendant 2 Ground, Drilled Steatite, Unidentified

Pipe 2 Ground Lithic-Unidentified

Bone Point 4 Ground, Burnt Unidentified

Pry Bar 3 Ground, Burnt Bone-Unidentified

Unidentified 24 Ground, Incised Soapstone, Unidentified


80



Abalone Fragment 2 Abalone

Axe Head 1 Chipped Sandstone

Bead 21 Ground Olivella, Unidentified

Biface 13 Chipped Soapstone, Unidentified

Blank 10 Ground, Punched Abalone, Keyhole Limpet

Bone Point 31 Ground Bone-Bird, Unidentified


Donut Stone 7 Ground Steatite, Sandstone, Unidentified

Drill 4 Ground Concretion, Unidentified


Mano 1 Ground, Pecked Sandstone

Mixing Dish 1 Abalone Asphaltum

Pendant 4 Drilled, Ground Pectin, Abalone, Unidentified

Pendant 3 Drilled, Ground Soapstone, Sandstone, unidentified


Pipe 1 Ground Soapstone

Pry Bar 12 Ground Bone- Sea Mammal, Unidentified

Reamer 1 Ground Bone- Unidentified

Red Ochre 2

Scraper 6 Chipped Lithic- Unidentified


Unidentified 14 Chipped, Ground Soapstone, Steatite, Sandstone, Unidentified

Unidentified Shell 3 Punched, Ground Barnacle, Unidentified

Unmodified Shell 1 Cardium

Unmodified Bone 7 Sheephead, Sea Mammal, Unidentified

Whistle 2 Drilled, Ground Bone-Bird

severely damaged by livestock, Rogers speculated that the child probably fell off a sea cliff

(Rogers 1930).

The second individual, SK-2, was an adult male with severe bone ulcers. The

individual also was missing half of his right arm (Rogers 1930). SK-2 was flexed on his

back, with his head to the south and no offerings (Rogers 1930). The third individual, SK-3,

was a baby determined to be no more than a few months old (Rogers 1930). Over SK-3’s

chest were multiple Olivella Grooved Rectangle beads over which a cardium and a small

paphia shell were placed (Rogers 1930). A second cardium shell covered the head. A

fishhook reamer and a string of Olivella beads were coiled around the head (Rogers 1930).

Other artifacts associated with this burial include four bone projectile points (Rogers 1930).

Just to the west of SN-16 Rogers found a human baby burial with no associated

midden (Rogers 1930; see Figure 11). Above the head was a large shell, a medium size shell

was placed over the torso and a smaller shell rested above the pelvis. Rogers also identified a

81

Figure 10. Olivella Grooved Rectangle beads associated with Sk-1.

Figure 11. Rogers drawing of the infant burial at SN-16.

sandstone donut stone, two bone projectile points, and a long string of shell beads (Rogers

1930). Although no bones could be saved, the child was estimated to be in its first year and it

was flexed on its right side with its head to the south (Rogers 1930). There were many

Olivella Grooved Rectangle shell beads scattered over the torso that, in Rogers’ words, had

been “grooved for sewing on clothing.” Rogers did not discuss the dating of SN-16 in his

notes, but from the presence of Olivella Grooved Rectangle beads, the site would have fallen

in the Late Period (Table 27).

82



Basket Imprint 1 Asphaltum

Biface 27 Chipped Shale, Limestone, Unidentified

Blank 8 Chipped, Ground, Drilled Abalone

Bone Pendant 1 Ground, Drilled Unidentified Bone

Core 1 Chipped Unidentified

Donut Stone 7 Ground Steatite, Sandstone, Soapstone,

Unidentified



Gaming Bone 1 Incised Unidentified Bone

Hafted Tool 7 Ground, Burnt, Stained Sea Mammal, Unidentified Bone

Harpoon 1 Ground Unidentified Bone

Pelican Effigy 1 Ground, Incised Steatite



Pipe 3 Ground, Broken Steatite, Serpentine

Point 10 Ground Bird, Unidentified

Pry Bar 9 Ground Unidentified Bone, Sea Mammal

Reamer 1 Ground Concretion

Shell Bead 540 Ground, Punched, Drilled,

Burnt

Olivella, Unidentified

Shell Pendant 16 Punched, Ground, Drilled Cowry, Abalone, Mussel, Unidentified

Shell

Stone Bead 5 Ground, Drilled Serpentine, Unidentified

Unidentified 1 Quartz

Unidentified

Stone

4 Ground Soapstone, Unidentified

Unmodified

Bone

3 Unidentified Teeth

Unmodified

Shell

1 Unidentified Shell

Unmodified

Shell

3 Chiton, Unidentified

Unmodified

Shell

7

Pectin, Chione, Unidentified Shell


SN-17(SNI-14, SNI-200)

SN-17 was located on the west end of San Nicolas Island, with SN-16 just to the

northeast and SN-18 to the southwest. SN-17 was a four acre site with two large shell midden

mounds (Rogers 1930). He found two human burials, and evidence of whalebone houses

(Rogers 1930). Rogers found the midden composed of sea snail, land snail, urchins, abalone,

and limpets with fishbone only in the top stratum (Rogers 1930). Rogers dated the large

83

mounds to the Late Period but found no exposures of the Early Period (Rogers 1930; see

Table 28).



Biface 5 Chipped Unidentified

Blank 2 Keyhole Limpet

Bone Point 15 Ground, Shaped Bird, Sea Mammal, Unidentified

Bone Pry Bar 9 Ground Sea Mammal, Unidentified

Bowl Fragment 1 Ground Sandstone

Core 1 Chipped Unidentified

Donut Stone 2 Ground Sandstone, Steatite

Hafted Tool 4 Ground, Stained Unidentified

Lithic Pendant 2 Drilled Steatite, Serpentine



Shell Pendant 3 Punched Cowry, Unidentified

Unidentified 2 Chipped Soapstone, Unidentified

Unmodified Bone 4 Sheephead, Fish, Sea Mammal, Unidentified

SN-18(SNI-15, SNI-16)

SN-18 was located on the west end of San Nicolas Island on a point that juts out into

the ocean. SN-17 was just to the northeast and SN-19 just to the southwest. Rogers recorded

SN-18 as an area of about eight acres with three of the acres on detached knolls (Rogers

1930). He notes that the erosion between the knolls probably is what caused the separation

(Rogers 1930). Whalebone houses were also present here (Rogers 1930). He notes that all of

the three cemeteries in this site were exposed by erosion, although only two showed evidence

of looting (Rogers 1930). He noted that all the cemeteries had beads present and two of them

had sacrificed mortars (Rogers 1930). Rogers recorded shell ratios to be similar to other sites

on the island (abalone, sea snail, land snail, limpets, and mussel), but he also noted that there

is more red abalone at this site (Rogers 1930:24). It appears that some patches of shells were

only one kind of shell as if they were targeting certain species (Rogers 1930). Interesting

artifacts found at this site include a drilled bone artifact (Figure 12), an unusually shaped

soapstone needle (Figure 12) and 714 shell beads (Table 29).

He found all three periods at this large site (Rogers 1930). The cemetery that had not

been looted was late Middle Period rather than Late Period as there were no sacrificed

mortars, but there were two steatite beads and a lot of Olivella beads (Rogers 1930). The two

84

Figure 12. Unusual artifacts found in SN-18.

looted cemeteries were deemed Late Period as he found sacrificed mortars, Late Period

beads, and whalebone burial markers (Rogers 1930).

SN-19 (SNI-151, SNI-152, SNI-158)

SN-19 was located on the west end to San Nicolas Island along the coast. It is

southwest of SN-18 and northeast of SN-20.Features at the site included whalebone houses, a

dog burial, and a human burial. The burial was found face down with no burial goods and the

dog burial was found in Late Period midden (Rogers 1930; see Figure 13).

Rogers made surface collections at SN-19 even though the site was steeply sloped

and washed out (Rogers 1930; see Table 30). He found three “asphaltum baskets” in an

earlier burned feature (Rogers 1930:27). The baskets found at this site all were made of

seagrass and Rogers determined that they were probably all covered with asphaltum for

either water storage or cooking and they appear in all the strata (Rogers 1930). Although no

baskets were found in the MoM collection for this site, there are asphaltum fragments that

may be all that is left from these baskets. He noticed that all three of his determined periods

were present at this site, although all of them were thin (Rogers 1930).

SN-20 (SNI-56)

SN-20 was located on the west end of San Nicolas Island northeast of the large site of

SN-21.Among the features of this site were whalebone houses, dog burials, and human

burials (Rogers 1930). A female burial showed many signs of violence. Two bone projectile

points had entered through the back. One was in her right pelvis, one in the back of the

85



Unmodified

Bone

16 Bat Ray, Sheephead, Bird, Sea Mammal

Decoration 1 Drilled, Ground Unidentified Bone

Pry Bar 11 Ground Sea Mammal Bone

Bone Point 37 Chipped, Ground Bird, Sea Mammal, Unidentified Bone

Hafted Tool 16 Burnt, Ground Bird, Sea Mammal Bone

Harpoon 1 Ground Sea Mammal Bone

Pendant 1 Drilled, Ground Unidentified Bone

Whistle 1 Drilled, Shaped Bird Bone

Bead 711 Drilled, Ground, Punched Olivella, Unidentified Shell



Pendant 4 Drilled, Punched Cardium, Cowry, Keyhole-Limpet

Abalone

Fragment

2 Red Abalone

Decoration 1 Drilled Abalone

Unidentified 1 Ground Unidentified Shell


Unmodified 1 Unidentified Stone

Unmodified 1 Fishbone

Pendant 1 Drilled, Ground Steatite


Reamer 1 Ground Shell Concretion


Unmodified 1 Unidentified Stone

Donut Stone 6 Ground Sandstone, Serpentine, Steatite

Unidentified 1 Chipped Quartz

Point 2 Shaped Soapstone

Drill 1 Shaped Soapstone


Biface 8 Chipped Shale, Unidentified Stone


Bead 3 Drilled, Ground Unidentified Shell

Bead 2 Drilled, Ground Serpentine, Steatite

Unmodified

Stone

1 Unidentified Stone



sternum and her right zygomatic arch was badly damaged from blunt trauma (Rogers 1930).

A bicuspid was also found below her larynx (Rogers 1930). Although no grave marker was

present, grave goods included bone beads with a soapstone pendant and an alabaster bead, as

well as a large abalone placed below the left pelvis (Rogers 1930, see Figure 14). Rogers

recorded the midden as composed mostly of limpet, land snail, mussel, and abalone. Sea

snails and chiton shells were also present (Rogers 1930). They also identified an unrecorded

86

Figure 13. Rogers’ drawing of the human burial and stratigraphic profile at SN-19.

number of dog burials and more steatite than anywhere else on the island. Rogers excavated a

trench at this site on the north end in order to record the stratigraphy of the site.

Malcolm Rogers and his team made surface collections from this three acre site and

in his notes he records finding more steatite and bone than at other sites, with many

whalebone tools mostly chisels, but also projectile points (Rogers 1930:25). Although many

of the other human burials had already been looted, Rogers’ team found a broken steatite

boat and a small sandstone bowl under the looted areas (Rogers 1930:26, Figure 15). An

unusual spool-like artifact was also found at this site (Figure 16). Other interesting artifacts

found at this site include many beads as well as a pelican effigy (Table 31).

Rogers found the stratigraphy more complicated than expected (Rogers 1930:26;

Figure 17). He found more subsurface site connections between surface concentrations

(Rogers 1930). Although he found two midden strata, the lower stratum had a black band

with very few artifacts (Rogers 1930). This made dating SN-20 quite complicated.

SN-21 (SNI-19, SNI-40, SNI-162, SNI-163, SNI-172)

Rogers recorded all of the western peninsula of San Nicolas Island as SN-21 (Rogers

1930). He found this area to be three quarters of a mile long and three quarters of a mile wide

87





Bead 10 Ground Olivella, Unidentified Shell


Bone Pendant 1 Drilled, Ground Unidentified Bone


Decoration 1 Incised, Ground Unidentified Bone

Dog Burial 10 Dog Bone

Donut Stone 5 Ground Sandstone, Unidentified Stone

Donut Stone, In

Production

1 Ground Sandstone



Gaming Bone 1 Incised Bird Bone

Harpoon 1 Shaped Unidentified Bone


Pendant 2 Drilled, Ground Serpentine, Unidentified Stone


Point 1 Shaped Bird Bone

Pry Bar 10 Ground Sea Mammal, Unidentified Bone

Shell Pendant 3 Drilled, Ground, Punched Cowry, Unidentified Shell

Stone Bead 2 Ground Sandstone, Unidentified Stone

Stone Mixing Dish 1 Ground Unidentified Stone and Asphaltum

Unidentified Bone 3 Burnt, Chipped Unidentified Bone


Unidentified Stone 2 Ground Steatite

Unmodified Bone 15 Fish, Dog, Unidentified Bone

Unmodified Shell 4 Burnt Snail Shell



and covered with midden (Rogers 1930). Whalebone houses were present (Rogers 1930). He

recorded numerous eroded human burials as Cemetery 1 (Rogers 1930). Although the

cemetery was heavily eroded, they still excavated two burials. On their first day at the site,

they excavated a human skeleton (SK-1) that only had its toes and the crown of the skull

exposed (Rogers 1930). Although in bad condition, the burial was determined to be female

and had been buried on its back with its knees drawn up to the abdomen and the arms folded

across the body (Rogers 1930). Around her neck, Rogers found a necklace of Olivella beads

and one stone bead as well as a canine tooth near her forehead (Rogers 1930:28). On their

second day at the site, the crew enlarged the excavation and found SK-2, a female buried

flexed on her right side with no clear offerings, but small whole Olivella shells scattered

around the body (Rogers 1930).

88

Figure 14. Burial beads and pendant associated with the human internment at SN-

20.

Figure 15. Steatite boat (two views) and a small sandstone bowl associated with looted

burials at SN-20.

The third burial excavated at SN-21, SK-3, was composed of disarticulated body parts

that appear to be from a single individual (Rogers 1930). First arms, legs, and then a torso

were found, but no skull (Rogers 1930). The arms and legs were recorded as SK-3 and the

torso was recorded as SK-4. It was unclear whether the skeletal elements were originally

buried in the Early Period level and disturbed or if they had been buried separately (Rogers

1930). SK-4 was flexed on its right side, oriented toward the south. Although the head was

missing, the individual had some cervical vertebrae and small lumps of asphaltum in the

thorax indicating that the head was disarticulated before burial rather than by erosion (Rogers

89

Figure 16. Unusual spool artifact found at SN-20.

1930). In the same area as the burials, Rogers found evidence for abundant bead

manufacture, including bead blanks and steatite beads and pendants (Rogers 1930). Many

artifacts were collected at SN-21 including more shell beads than at any other site (Table 32).

The entire surface of the midden was identified as Late Period (Rogers 1930).

SN-21A (SNI-55, SNI-119, SNI-164, SNI-170): SN-21A

CEMETERY 1 (SNI-157), SN-21A CEMETERY 2, SN-21A

CEMETERY 3 (SNI-171), SN-21A CEMETERY 4 (SNI-

160), SN-21A CEMETERY 5 (SNI-160), SN-21A

CEMETERY 6 (SNI-161), SN-21A CREMATION 1

(SNI-159)

Within SN-21, Rogers grouped clusters of dense midden and recognizable cemeteries

into separate loci (Rogers 1930). The exact location of SN-21A is unclear from Rogers’

descriptions, but it appears that many loci, including six cemeteries and a cremation area

were included under this designation. Most of the recorded features of SN-21A are

cemeteries and burials (Figure 18).

90



Abalone

Fragment

4

Abalone

Anvil 1 Pecked Sandstone


Basket

Imprint

1

Asphaltum

Blank 12 Ground, Shaped Abalone

Bone Bead 13 Ground Bird Bone

Bone Pendant 1 Drilled, Ground Unidentified Bone

Bone Point 44 Ground, Shaped Sea Mammal, Bird, Unidentified Bone

Bowl 1 Ground Steatite

Canoe Effigy 1 Ground Steatite

Charcoal 1 Burnt Charcoal

Charmstone 1 Ground, Drilled Serpentine


Donut Stone 6 Ground Steatite, Sandstone, Unidentified Stone

Drill 10 Ground Concretion, Sandstone



Hafted Tool 21 Burnt, Ground Sea Mammal, Unidentified Bone

Harpoon 1 Ground Pelican Bone

Harpoon 1 Broken, Chipped Steatite

Limpet

Ornament

5 Ground

Key hole Limpet

Mixing Dish 2 Abalone, Asphaltum


Pelican Effigy 1 Ground Steatite

Pendant

7 Drilled, Ground,

Punched Cardium, Cowry, Unidentified Shell

Pendant

7 Drilled, Incised,

Ground, Shaped

Sandstone, Serpentine, Soapstone, Steatite,

Unidentified Stone

Pestle 1 Ground Unidentified Stone


Pipe Fragment 2 Ground, Drilled Soapstone, Steatite


Shell Bead 40 Drilled, Ground Olivella, Unidentified

Spool 1 Ground Soapstone

Stone Bead 1 Ground Alabaster

Stone Point 17 Chipped Shale, Quartz, Unidentified Stone

Unidentified

Bone

13 Ground, Incised Sea Mammal, Unidentified

Unidentified

Shell

2

Abalone

Unidentified

Stone

4 Ground

Soapstone, Concretion, Unidentified Stone

Unmodified

Bone

12 Sheephead, Bird, Fish, Unidentified Bone

Unmodified

Bone

4 Unidentified Bone

(table continues)

91

Table 31. (continued) Artifact Number Modification Material

Unmodified

Shell

4

Pectin, Mussel, Chiton, Unidentified Shell


Whistle 2 Drilled, Incised Bird Bone

Figure 17. Rogers’ sketch of the stratigraphic sequence at SN-20.

The only provenience provided for Cemetery 1 was that it was located on a shelf on

the east end of the midden and contained numerous human cremation burials (Rogers

1930:71). It was unclear how many individuals were in the cemetery, but Rogers estimated

12 cremations along with three adults, an adolescent, and a child, all of whom were cremated

(Rogers 1930:71). Only five artifact numbers are listed in Rogers’ notes and three of them

belong to the three obsidian spear points (17629, 17630, 17631) located at this cemetery

(Rogers 1930).These three spear points still retain their original artifact numbers. Recovered

from the cremated remains along with the three obsidian spear points were 12 human jaws,

the tip of an obsidian knife, fragments of an incised steatite cup, fragments of a steatite bowl,

whole Olivella beads, Olivella wall beads, a “tufa” bead, keyhole limpet beads, a steatite

effigy canoe, a steatite pendant, a fragment of an incised steatite bowl with a hole drilled

inside, “Pismo” shell cylindrical beads, a broken flowerpot mortar, nine broken whalebone

tools, a carved deer bone awl fragment, two whalebone cylindrical harpoon points, a side-

notched chalcedony spear point, and a root cast file (Rogers 1930: 71; see Table 33).

Five human burials were excavated from Cemetery 2 (Rogers 1930). The first burial

excavated, SK-1, was a male flexed on his right side with his head to the north and no burial

goods (Rogers 1930). The second burial, SK-2, was flexed on his left side with his head to

the west and no artifacts buried with him (Rogers 1930). Both the third and fourth burials,

SK-3 and SK-4, were so badly eroded that very little information could be gleaned (Rogers

92





Basket Imprint 1 Asphaltum


Bone Pendant 3 Drilled, Ground, Painted Unidentified Bone


Cleat 1 Ground Sea Mammal


Decoration

1 Ground, Ground

Decoration Unidentified Bone

Donut Stone 11 Ground Steatite, Soapstone, Sandstone

Drill 2 Ground Sea Mammal Bone



Hafted Tool 26 Ground, Burnt, Stained Sea Mammal, Unidentified Bone

Harpoon 1 Burnt, Ground Unidentified Bone



Metate 1 Ground Sandstone

Mixing Dish 1 Abalone, Asphaltum




Point 2 Chipped, Broken/Refit Shale, Unidentified Stone

Portable Metate 1 Ground Sandstone

Pry Bar 38 Ground, Burnt Sea Mammal, Unidentified Bone


Scraper 2 Chipped Sandstone


Shell Bead 2000+ Ground Olivella, Mytilus






Shell Bead 247 Ground Olivella, Unidentified Shell

Shell Bead 21 Burnt, Ground Olivella


Shell Pendant 2 Drilled, Punched Cardium, Unidentified

Stone Bead 2 Ground Steatite, Serpentine

Stone Bead 4 Ground Steatite

Stone Pendant 1 Drilled Unidentified Stone

Tarring Pebble 1 Ground Unidentified Stone

Unidentified 13 Ground Sea Mammal, Unidentified Bone

Unidentified Bone 20 Ground, Burnt Unidentified Bone

Unidentified

Stone

27 Ground, Drilled

Soapstone, Sandstone, Unidentified Stone

Unmodified Bone 6 Burnt Fish, Unidentified Bone

Unmodified Shell 1 Paphia

(table continues)

93


Vessel Fragment 8 Ground, incised Soapstone


Whistle 4 Drilled, Ground Bird Bone

Yellow Ochre 1 Yellow Ochre

Figure 18. Rogers’ sketch of the stratigraphy at SN-21A.

Table 33. Artifacts from SN-21A Cemetery 1


Bead Blank 662 Shaped Olivella, Mytilus, Abalone

Blank 18 Ground Black Abalone, Red Abalone



Shell Pendant 19 Drilled, Ground, Punched Cardium, Cowry, Unidentified Shell

94

1930). The fifth burial, SK-5, was a male flexed on his left side with his head to the west

(Rogers 1930). SK-5 was recorded as having Pismo shell and steatite beads in a necklace

with the latter in the center of the chain (Rogers 1930; see Figure 19). He also identified a

chunk of “red paint stone” near the head of the burial which was likely the red ochre in the

MoM collections (Rogers 1930:40, see Figure 20). Rogers dated this cemetery to the Middle

Period (Rogers 1930).

Figure 19. Pismo and steatite beads on a necklace with the latter in the center of

the chain. Source: Rogers, Malcolm J. 1930 Field Notes 1930 Expedition to San

Nicolas Island. Unpublished MS, San Diego Museum of Man, San Diego.

At Cemetery 3, four human burials were excavated because they had been exposed by

erosion (Rogers 1930). All four excavated burials were female (Rogers 1930). Grave goods

associated with these burials include pelican bone sections that were sawed off, two

conglomeration fishhook reamers, and a steatite donut stone fragment (Rogers 1930). The

first human burial at Cemetery 3, SK-1, was heavily disturbed and the position of her body

could not be ascertained. However, the head was probably oriented to the west (Rogers

1930). SK-2 was flexed on her right side with her hands resting near the chin and her head

oriented to the west (Rogers 1930). SK-3 was flexed on the left side with the head to the

95

Figure 20. Red ochre associated with SK-5 at SN-21A. Note: the ochre was kept in

the bag during photographing due to preservation concerns.

north and her hands near her face. SK-1, SK-2, and SK-3 were all intrusive into the lower

midden, but SK-4 did not exhibit any indications of being from a later burial (Rogers 1930).

SK-4 was exposed and eroding (Rogers 1930, see Figure 21). She was extended on her back

with legs bent at the knees “back under the thighs” and her torso was twisted to the right

(Rogers 1930:38). More burials were seen washed out by erosion on the west end of the site

and, based on examination of the femurs, Rogers determined that at least one female and two

males were present (Rogers 1930). The shell ratio in this part of the site was mostly land

snail with smaller amounts of mussel and abalone (Rogers 1930). Rogers (1930) also

identified two broken sandstone mortars. Finally, Rogers identified at least one and possibly

two human cremation burials, labeled Cremation 2. Associated with this feature, Rogers

identified two sacrificed pestles (museum numbers 17591, 17592) and a red hued steatite

bowl with some green steatite fragments. Like the obsidian spear points from Cemetery 1, the

artifact numbers of the two sacrificed pestles were listed in Rogers’ notes. However, only one

of the sacrificed pestles was located in the MoM collection (see Figure 22).

96

Figure 21. Rogers’ sketch of SK-4 burial position.

Cemetery 4 is a Late Period site on a ridge with very little associated shell midden

(Rogers 1930). Three human burials were located at this site (Rogers 1930). The first, SK-1,

was a male flexed on his left site with his head to the north in a small pit with no burial

artifacts, although a steatite bead was found on the surface (Rogers 1930). SK-2 was a female

burial north of SK-1, however, the burial was disturbed by looting (Rogers 1930). SK-3 was

a male burial about nine feet north of SK-2 that was flexed on the left side with arms flexed

to the face and the torso twisted to the right (Rogers 1930). There was no evidence of

disturbance but the head was missing from the burial. Interestingly, there were what Rogers

termed “side section Olivella beads” around the neck that had not been ground (Rogers

1930:44). It has been assumed that a “side section” bead refers to a shell bead made out of

the outer wall of the Olivella shell- more commonly called an Olivella wall bead (Bennyhoff

and Hughes 1987; Rogers 1930).

97

Figure 22. “Sacrificed mortar,” artifact number 17591, associated with the

human cremation burials at SN-21A.

Placed in the early Middle Period, Cemetery 5 was found between two shell middens

and about 100 feet north of Cemetery 4 (Rogers 1930). All the burials were at this cemetery

were exposed by erosion (Rogers 1930). Burials 5, 6, and 7 were buried in a cemented matrix

making them difficult to excavate (Rogers 1930). SK-1 was completely eroded from its

primary context and, although the individual was adult, they could not be confidently sexed

(Rogers 1930). SK-2 and SK-3 were male and adult, and buried with no artifacts (Rogers

1930). SK-4 was an older woman who had lost her teeth (Rogers 1930). SK-5 was also

female, flexed on her right side with her head to the south and hands near her face. She had

two bone ulcers and one Olivella bead was found under the right cheek, although the bone

was poorly preserved and Rogers did not collect the remains (Rogers 1930). SK-7 was a male

burial extended on his back with his head oriented to the northwest and tilted on his left

cheek (Rogers 1930; see Figure 23).

Cemetery 6 was the largest cemetery on the western peninsula. Rogers describes its

location on a hillside at the western part of SN-21A. Unfortunately, antiquarians and looters

had disturbed the cemetery before Rogers was on the island (Rogers 1930). Because of this

98

Figure 23. Rogers’ sketch of SK-7 from SN-21A.

disturbance, Rogers did not conduct any formal excavation here and took very few notes. He

found broken mortars and pestles as well as whole Olivella beads and also collected a few

human long bones and mandibles (Rogers 1930). Rogers believed that Cemetery 6 was

associated with the early phase of the Late Period (Rogers 1930).

In general the shell midden on the north side of SN-21A was mostly land snail,

urchin, mussel, abalone, limpet and other shell. On the surface of the shell midden, Rogers

found pockets of speciated shell (Rogers 1930). He also found many large stacks of red

abalone (Rogers 1930). On July 24, Rogers’ crew found a cache of fishhook blanks, a stone

reamer, and a grooved hammerstone about six inches below the surface (Rogers 1930;

Table 34). A cremation area was also found at SN-21Awhich Rogers recorded as producing

99



Abalone

Fragment

9

Abalone


Asphaltum

Melting Pebble

1

Quartzite

Basket

Fragments

2

Vegetal, Asphaltum

Biface

43 Chipped Obsidian, Shale, Soapstone, Steatite, Unidentified

Stone

Blank 47 Burnt, Ground Abalone

Bone Bead 1 Drilled, Ground Sea Mammal

Bone

Decorative

Point

1 Ground

Unidentified Bone

Bone Pendant 1 Drilled Unidentified Bone

Bone Point 109 Ground Sea Mammal, Bird, Unidentified Bone

Bone Reamer 1 Burnt, Ground Unidentified Bone

Bone

Spearpoint

1 Burnt

Whalebone

Canoe Effigy 1 Ground Soapstone

Charcoal

Hearth

1+

Ash

Cleat 3 Ground Unidentified Bone


Decoration

1 Ground, Ground

Decoration Unidentified Bone

Decoration 1 Ground, Incised Unidentified Stone

Decoration-

Button

1 Drilled

Abalone

Donut Stone 18 Ground Sandstone, Soapstone, Unidentified Stone

Drill 12 Ground Shell Concretion, Sandstone

Fishhook 41 Ground Black Abalone, Red Abalone


Hafted Tool

19 Ground, Burnt,

Stained Sea Mammal, Unidentified Bone

Harpoon

(Aleut)

4 Ground

Unidentified Bone

Harpoon Points 5 Ground Sea Mammal

Limpet

Ornament

21 Burnt, Ground

Limpet


Mixing Dish 1 Black Abalone, Asphaltum

Mortar

4 Ground,

Patinated Sandstone

Pipe 2 Ground Steatite, Unidentified Stone

Point 16 Chipped Unidentified Stone

Pressure Flaker 1 Ground Deer Antler


Reamer 2 Ground Shell Concretion

(table continues)

100


Red Ochre 2 Red Ochre


Shell Bead

66 Drilled, Ground,

Punched Olivella, Unidentified Shell

Shell Bead 500 Drilled, Ground Mytilus, Unidentified Shell

Shell Bead 1088 Drilled, Ground Olivella

Shell Bead 93 Drilled Olivella

Shell Bead 6 Burnt, Ground Conus, Olivella

Shell Pendant 18 Drilled, Ground Cardium, Cowry, Pectin, Unidentified Shell

Soil 1 Soil

Spearpoint 1 Chipped Unidentified Stone

Squid Effigy 1 Ground, Incised Soapstone

Stone Bead 5 Ground Steatite, Soapstone, Unidentified Stone

Stone Pendant 12 Drilled, Ground Sandstone, Steatite, Serpentine, Soapstone

Stone

Spearpoint

1 Chipped

Unidentified Stone

Unidentified

Bone

17 Burnt, Incised,

Ground Dog, Bird, Unidentified Bone

Unidentified

Shell

1 Broken

Paphia Shell

Unidentified

Stone

10 Ground

Sandstone, Serpentine, Soapstone, Unidentified Stone

Unmodified

Bone

66

Sheephead, Dog, Fish, Unidentified Bone

Unmodified

Shell

3

Mussel, Barnacle, Key-Hole Limpet

Vessel

Fragment

73 Ground, Drilled

Soapstone, Unidentified Stone

Weight 10 Ground Sandstone, Unidentified Stone

at least three individuals with Pismo beads, multiple whalebone tools, three steatite bowls, a

steatite boat, three obsidian blades, and a mortar, all burnt (Rogers 1930).

He notes that SN-21B and SN-21C are both Middle Period sites with an Early Period

component buried below (Rogers 1930). Rogers also comments that both the sites have very

thin layers of Late Period debris near the surface but that the shell content changes “abruptly”

from red to black abalone (Rogers 1930:30). Although both SN-21B and SN-21C had visible

house pits, and abundant red abalone, excavations produced very few artifacts (Rogers 1930;

see Tables 35 and 36). It may be that the area was used for shell-fishing in the Historic

Period rather than the Late Period.

101

Table 35. Artifacts from SN-21B


Awl 1 Ground Unidentified Bone


Unmodified Bone 1 Dog Bone

Unidentified Bone 1 Unidentified Bone

Table 36. Artifacts from SN-21C


Pry Bar 1 Ground Sea Mammal

Unidentified Bone 1 Ground Sea Mammal

SN-22(SNI-173, SNI-177)

Rogers recorded SN-22 to be about 200 meters by 500 meters wide. The shell midden

deposits consisted of sea urchins, mussels, and black abalone (Rogers 1930). No trenching

was done at this site, but Rogers noted abundant snail midden exposed in the eroded points

between the shell midden mounds (Rogers 1930). Mortars and an eroded human cremation

were observed, along with minimal amounts of donut stones and fishbones (Rogers 1930; see

Table 37). In total, the site contained six mounds of Late Period shell midden with Early

Period deposits underlying (Rogers 1930).

SN-23(SNI-41)

SN-23 was located on the west end of San Nicolas to the south of SN-21 and SN-22.

This site was determined to be about two miles long (Rogers 1930; see Table 38). The shell

midden was mostly of land snail, abalone, mussel, and limpet. In the basal deposits of one of

the mounds, a human burial was found extended on its back, face up (Rogers 1930). Near the

burial Rogers found a bone tool with fragments of the wood hafted along one of its margins

(Rogers 1930, see Figure 24). They also found a human cremation burial associated with a

sacrificed knife, a steatite bowl, Olivella beads, and a dog burial (Rogers 1930; Table 39).

Rogers' crew recorded this site as a Late Period mound site with some smaller amounts of

Early Period deposits (Rogers 1930).

This is the last area on the southwestern shore of the island that was recorded by

Rogers and his crew because, according to Rogers, there were no other large sites past this

point due to the steep terrain of the south shore (Rogers 1930). A human cremation feature,

102




Anvil 1 Ground Sandstone

Awl 1 Ground Sea Mammal Bone

Blank 1 Punched Black Abalone

Bone Point 7 Ground Bird, Sea Mammal Bone

Bowl 1 Ground Sandstone


Decoration 1 Ground Soapstone

Decoration 1 Ground, Incised Soapstone

Donut Stone 14 Ground Sandstone, Steatite, Soapstone



Hafted Tool 9 Ground, Stained Sea Mammal, Unidentified Bone

Mano 3 Ground Sandstone, Unidentified Stone


Pendant 10 Drilled, Punched Cowry, Chione, Unidentified Shell


Pipe Fragments 3 Ground Steatite

Point 22 Chipped Shale, Unidentified Stone



Shell Bead 2 Drilled, Ground Unidentified Shell

Stone Pendant 3 Drilled Steatite, Unidentified Stone

Stone Tube 1 Ground Soapstone

Unidentified Bone 11 Ground Bird, Sea Mammal Bone


Unidentified Stone 9 Ground, Incised Unidentified Stone

Unidentified Stone 1 Ground Serpentine

Unmodified Bone 9 Dog, Fish, Unidentified Bone

Unmodified Shell 4 Snail, Unidentified Shell


containing an unidentified number of burials, was located at the top of a large shell midden.

Associated with the burial were a flint spear point, abundant whole Olivella shell beads, a

bone projectile point, numerous Olivella bead shell blanks, a keyhole limpet bead, small flat

steatite bead, several Olivella beads, a steatite donut stone, a steatite cup, five fragmentary

whalebone tools, burnt dog bones, a flowerpot sandstone mortar, a steatite pendant, and a

whalebone flaker (Rogers 1930). Only some of these artifacts remain identifiable in the MoM

collection (Table 40).

103



Abalone

Fragment

3

Abalone

Awl 1 Ground Sea Mammal Bone

Blank 27 Ground Red Abalone, Black Abalone

Bone Harpoon 1 Ground Unidentified Bone

Bone Point 55 Ground Bird, Sea Mammal, Unidentified Bone


Decoration 2 Incised, Ground Sea Mammal Bone



Hafted Tool 27 Ground Sea Mammal, Asphaltum, Unidentified Bone


Metate 1 Ground Sandstone




Shell Pendant 7 Punched, Burnt Cowry, Unidentified Shell

Unidentified Bone 2 Ground Bird, Unidentified Bone


Unmodified Bone 2 Dog Bone, Unidentified Bone

Unmodified Shell 28 Sea Urchin Spines


Weight 1

Whistle 5 Drilled Bird, Unidentified Bone

SN-24(SNI-20)

SN-24 is a Late Period site measuring 900 feet by 200 feet that was looted by Sanger

and his team before Rogers’ crew record the location (Rogers 1930). Sanger gathered and left

the human remains he excavated from two cemeteries and Rogers estimated that they

represented between seven and 15 individuals, although the remains may have been from

more than one site (Rogers 1930). On the west end of the site along a flat mesa, three human

cremation burials were found with a large amount of broken steatite, two broken obsidian

spears, two manos, and numerous dog burials (Rogers 1930; see Table 41).

Rogers and his crew excavated a trench through the shell midden, identifying three

distinct components (Rogers 1930; see Figure 25). They also found two human cremation

burials at the top of the site, about 15 feet apart and located in two possible house depressions

(Rogers 1930). Cremation 1 was on the highest part of the shell midden at the west end and

contained a Franciscan flint spear point broken in three pieces, cranium fragments, steatite

bowl fragments, and a steatite donut stone broken into two fragments (Rogers 1930).

104

Figure 24. Bone tool from SN-23 with fragments of wood still attached.

Table 39. Artifacts from SN-23 Cremation 1



Shell Bead 113 Burnt, Drilled, Punched Olivella, Unidentified Shell


Vessel Fragment 1 Burnt, Ground Unidentified Stone

Table 40. Artifacts from SN-23 Cemetery 1


Bone Hook 1 Ground, Burnt Unidentified Bone

Bone Point 7 Ground, Burnt Unidentified Bone

Pendant 1 Drilled Steatite

Point 11 Chipped Limestone, Quartz, Unidentified Stone


105



Pry Bar 6 Ground, Burnt Sea Mammal Bone

Hafted Tool 10 Ground, Burnt, Stained Unidentified Bone

Point 24 Ground, Burnt Unidentified Bone



Unidentified Bone 2 Burnt, Ground Unidentified Bone

Button Decoration 1 Drilled, Ground Abalone

Pendant 8 Drilled, Ground Cardium, Pectin, Snail, Unidentified

Bead 21 Drilled, Ground Abalone, Olivella


Blank 3 Ground Abalone, Unidentified


Red Ochre 1 Red Ochre

Drill 6 Ground Concretion, Sandstone, Unidentified

Donut Stone 9 Ground Steatite, Sandstone, Unidentified



Pipe 1 Ground Sandstone


Unidentified Stone 9 Ground Steatite, Concretion, Unidentified

Whale Effigy 1 Ground Steatite


Pipe Fragments 2 Drilled, Ground Unidentified Stone

Stone Bead 3 Ground Steatite, Unidentified

Pendant 1 Drilled Unidentified Stone

Unidentified Stone 5 Soapstone, Quartz, Unidentified Stone



Point 9 Chipped Soapstone, Shale, Quartz, Unidentified Stone


Unmodified 1 Dog Bone



Cremation 2 was 15 feet north of Cremation 1 and disturbed by looters. Still, Rogers

identified cranium fragments, steatite fragments, half of a steatite donut stone, two burnt and

broken whalebone tools, and a burnt bone projectile point (Rogers 1930).

SN-25

SN-25 is located on the south side of the central plateau to the south of SN-26 and the

east of SN-30. This site was first recorded by part of Rogers' crew when they were sent to

investigate the plateau on the east half of the island (Rogers 1930). They found a large site,

about a half a mile long by a quarter of a mile wide and eight inches deep, at the head of the

drainage that flows down to Crescent Bay (Rogers 1930). Rogers identified SN-25 as a Late

106

Figure 25. Rogers’ sketch of the stratigraphy from SN-24.

Period site because of the presence of steatite, slate knives, mortars, pestles, and bowls

(Rogers 1930; see Table 42).




Unmodified Bone 2 Fish, Sheephead Bone






Shell Pendant 1 Punched Cowry

Mano 2 Ground Sandstone, Unidentified Stone

Donut Stone 4 Ground Sandstone, Soapstone

Pestle 2 Ground, Incised Sandstone


Decoration 1 Drilled Unidentified Stone

Point 2 Ground Unidentified Stone




Unmodified 1 Fishbone


107

SN-26(SNI-29, SNI-30, SNI-79, SNI-80, SNI-97)

SN-26 is located on the central plateau to the north of SN-25 and south of SN-2

(Table 43). Among the features found at the site was a cache on the second terrace that

contained a steatite effigy, two ground abalone rims, two bone gorgets, a bone whistle, and

seal bones, mostly flipper bones (Rogers 1930). A second cache was exposed by erosion and

contained a red abalone shell, two chunks of low grade obsidian, four flat serpentine beads,

and a steatite cylindrical bead (Rogers 1930). A third cache was discovered eroded from the

top stratum of the site with a red abalone pendent, a cardium pendant with two drill holes,

three beads, and a flat knife of yellow chert (Rogers 1930; see Table 44).

When Rogers revisited this site in 1934, he found five human cremation burials in a

shell midden dominated by mussel shells on the west end of the site. Each of the burials

contained steatite artifacts as well as sandstone mortars and pestles (Rogers 1930). He did not

excavate these cremations, however (Rogers 1930; see Tables 45 and 46).

SN-27(SNI-42, SNI-43, SNI-52, SNI-204, SNI-207,

SNI-209, SNI-211, SNI-213)

Very little is recorded in Rogers' notes about SN-27. It is located on the west end of

the island near SN-25, but farther inland. Rogers did note that an unknown number of human

cremation burials were seen eroding from a midden, but little other details were recorded

(Rogers 1930). Based on the relatively small number of artifacts from this locality in the

MoM collections, it is safe to assume that Rogers did not conduct formal excavations

(Table 47). However, Rogers did collect a steatite pelican effigy, which may have eroded

from the deposits on the surface of the site.

SN-28(SNI-45, SNI-189, SNI-214)

Nothing is recorded in Rogers' notes about SN-28. Using Rogers’ maps, Schwartz

(personal communication, November 13, 2013) was able to determine that SN-28 was

located on the west side of the central plateau. Interesting artifacts from the MoM collection

that are attributed to this site include a steatite effigy, four donut stones, and an un-worked

quartz fragment (Table 48).

108



Abalone

Fragment

2

Red Abalone




Blade 1 Ground Steatite

Blank 55 Ground Abalone, Unidentified Shell






Hafted Tool 5 Ground Asphaltum, Sea Mammal, Unidentified Bone

Hook Effigy 1 Ground Serpentine


Pelican Effigy 1 Ground, Incised Steatite

Pendant 1 Drilled, Incised Steatite



Pipe 1 Ground Serpentine

Point 9 Ground Steatite, Soapstone, Unidentified Stone




Shell Bead 17 Drilled, Ground Olivella, Unidentified Shell

Shell Pendant 6 Punched, Drilled Unidentified Shell

Stone Bead 5 Drilled Steatite, Unidentified Stone


Unidentified Bone 12 Burnt Unidentified Bone

Unidentified Shell 2 Barnacle, Unidentified Shell

Unidentified

Stone

11 Ground

Soapstone, Sandstone, Steatite



Whistle 2 Drilled Bird, Unidentified Bone

Table 44. Artifacts from SN-26 Cache 3


Bead 3 Ground Olivella

Point 1 Ground Unidentified Stone

Shell Pendant 2 Drilled, Ground Abalone, Cardium

109








Table 46. Artifacts from SN-26AW






Shell Pendant 2 Drilled, Ground Unidentified Shell


Unidentified Stone 4 Drilled, Ground Steatite, Unidentified Stone

Point 10 Chipped Steatite, Shale, Unidentified Stone





Bead 1 Ground Unidentified Shell


Effigy 1 Ground Steatite

Fishhook 1 Ground Unidentified Shell

Pendant 1 Punched Unidentified Shell


Bone Point 4 Ground Bird Bone


Pressure Flaker 1 Shaped Unidentified Bone



Unidentified 1 Ground Bird Bone

Unidentified Stone 6 Ground Steatite, Unidentified Stone

Unmodified 1 Quartz


110

SN-29(SNI-103, SNI-104)

SN-29 was located on the western end of the central plateau to the south of SN-28

and east of SN-23. Site SN-29 had the same shell midden composition as SN-26 and

produced some Shoshone projectile points (Rogers 1930). Rogers (1930) also recorded burnt

human bone that he determined must be from eroded. Rogers (1930) determined that SN-29

was a Late Period site because of its cremations and steatite forms. Interestingly, two steatite

effigies were found at SN-29 (Table 49).



Basket Impression 2 Asphaltum



Pendant 1 Drilled Unidentified Shell


Shell Bead 2 Ground Unidentified Shell



Charmstone 1 Ground Unidentified Stone


Unidentified Stone 3 Drilled Steatite, Unidentified Stone

Donut Stone 4 Ground Steatite, Unidentified

Donut Stone 1 Ground, Incised Steatite

Biface 11 Chipped Shale, Quartzite, Unidentified

Donut Stone 1 Ground Soapstone



SN-30 (SNI-349)

SN-30 was recorded a mile to the west of SN-25 and is located on the southern edge

of the central plateau. The shell midden located at this site was composed of mussel, abalone,

land snail, and limpet (Rogers 1930). Among the features of this site, Rogers identified the

remains of an eight foot sweathouse dug into the ground and built with sandstone slabs

(Rogers 1930; see Figure 26). Artifacts recorded as recovered from the site deposits include

manos, steatite bowls, mortars, and fishhooks, but only one soapstone bowl remains

associated with SN-30 in the MoM Rogers collection (Rogers 1930; see Table 50). Rogers

identified this site as Late Period (Rogers 1930:64).

111

Figure 26. Sweathouse located at SN-30. Source: Rogers, Malcolm J. 1930 Field

Notes 1930 Expedition to San Nicolas Island. Unpublished MS, San Diego

Museum of Man, San Diego.



Bowl 1 Ground Soapstone

SN-31

The exact location of SN-31 could not be determined from Rogers’ notes, but it was

recorded as continuous shell midden deposits over three miles on the south side of the island

(Rogers 1930). The shell midden was composed of mussel, fishbone, black abalone, urchins,

and lesser amounts of red abalone shell (Rogers 1930). A human cremation was recorded at

SN-31 located on the surface of a shell midden in 1930. It contained male skull fragments,

Olivella beads, small flat soapstone beads, burned whalebone tools, and whole Olivella beads

(Rogers 1930; see Tables 51 and 52). It had completely eroded, however, by the time Rogers

returned in 1934 (Rogers 1993).Although there was abundant fishbone, there were very few

fishhooks or reamers (Rogers 1930). Rogers also identified an unknown number of dog

burials (Rogers 1930). Sea grass cordage was found here and an exposed female burial was

excavated here that had a hearth built over it, so it was burnt (Rogers 1930; see Table 51).

Rogers identified SN-31 as a Late Period site even though he did not find stone mortars that

are commonly found at Late Period sites.

112




Blank 1 Ground Red Abalone

Bone Decoration 2 Drilled, Ground Sea Mammal Bone




Fishhook 4 Ground Red Abalone, Black Abalone


Pendant 2 Ground Unidentified Shell




Seagrass Skirt 1 Woven, Twisted Vegetal

Shell Bead 8 Drilled, Punched Olivella, Unidentified Shell






Spearpoint 1 Chipped Unidentified Stone

SN-32

It is not clear exactly where SN-32 was located on San Nicolas Island. Although

Rogers noted that he worked SN-32 in 1934, he did not provide much description. He

recorded this tract of land as hard packed sand with few artifacts on it, although he noted that

there was a midden near the east end of a sand spit (Rogers 1930). Only a few artifacts were

found at this site including five Olivella beads, three root casts, five cores, two drills, a flake,

and a pestle (Table 53).



Bead 5 Ground, Drilled Olivella



Drill 2 Chipped Unidentified Stone


Pestle 1 Ground Unidentified Stone

113

CHAPTER 8

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The purpose of this study was to provide a better framework so that other researchers

can use this extensive collection in their own research. In doing this many interesting topics

have been briefly touched upon. A brief discussion of a few of these topics is provided

below, but this is in no way an exhaustive use of the Malcolm Rogers MoM collection. In

studies like Glenn’s (2012) discussion of dog burials from this collection, small parts of this

collection have been published. However, there are many other artifacts that offer important

avenues of future research. This extensive collection still remains largely unpublished and

can provide useful reference material for archaeologists working on San Nicolas Island.

Malcolm Rogers never finished his work on San Nicolas Island, but he did make

some preliminary conclusions. Some of these are still supported today, while others have not

stood the test of time. Although Rogers touched on many topics, he did not address some of

the most interesting artifacts in the MoM collection. In his brief conclusions paper, Rogers

discusses the environmental degradation of San Nicolas Island, the settlement patterns of the

Nicoleño, and a chronology of the sites, as well as a short discussion of the burial goods he

collected. He did not, however, recognize the Aleut artifacts included in his artifact collection

nor did he address some of the more rare artifacts he collected.

DETERMINING CHRONOLOGY

Rogers’ collection at the MoM could be used to create a refined chronology of

prehistoric occupation on San Nicolas Island. Conclusive dates for the Rogers collection at

the MoM will only be obtained after radiocarbon dating, which was not allowed at the time

of this project. By comparing artifacts to other dated sites, however, we can place them

generally within the current chronology. The various burial goods in the Rogers collection

are especially useful for dating sites because we can assume that the artifacts were all placed

in the ground on a single occasion, rather than deposited unevenly over time like a midden.

At the very least a terminus date for a site can be reached by using this dating technique.

114

Artifacts that are especially helpful in this dating scheme are known bead chronologies and

artifacts with known cultural affiliations like asphaltum baskets (York 2012).

Rogers based much of his dating of sites on artifact typologies. As discussed above,

radiocarbon dating was not yet possible in the 1930s and dating was determined by

stratigraphic analysis and artifact typologies. Rogers assessed his chronology by changes he

identified in the archaeological record on the mainland coast of southern California (Rogers

1930). He (Rogers 1930) hypothesized four distinct time periods: the Early Period or Snail

Middens, the Middle Period or Early Canaliño, the Late Period or Late Canaliño, and the

Historic Period, or Shoshonean (see Table 54 with data from Kennett 2005). Many sites have

more than one period listed because they represent more than one occupation (Rogers 1930).

Because Rogers was not looking for historical sites, there is no specific discussion of

occupation after the Nicoleño left the island. It is possible some sites listed as Late Period

include historical fishing components. It is assumed that if he recognized a site that did not

have Native American artifacts or features, he would not have recorded it.

Table 54. Rogers Chronology for San Nicolas Island Compared to a Current

Chronology

Years Current Terminology Rogers' Proposed Periods

BC 11,000-8,000 Terminal Pleistocene Early Period

(Snail Middens) BC 8000-6120 Early Holocene

BC 6120-490 Early Period

BC 490-1150 Middle Period Middle Period (Early Canaliño)

AD 660-980 Late Middle Period Late Period (Late Canaliño)

AD 1150-1300 Middle/Late Transition

AD 1300-1782 Late Period Historic (Shoshonean)

AD 1782- Historic

Source: Kennett, Douglas J. 2005 The Island Chumash: Behavioral Ecology of a Maritime Society. Los

Angeles: University of California Press.

Most of Rogers’ chronology is very general when compared to today’s standards of

dating. He did, however, list some of the traits that he used to separate periods. These trait

lists can be compared to the more refined chronologies we use today. Rogers identified the

Early Period (Snail Period) by stratigraphic lenses of roasted land snails with no human

remains or artifacts (Rogers 1993). Rogers’ Middle Period (Early Canaliño) was identified by

a high percentage of red abalone (Haliotis rufescens) and butterfly shells (cryptochiton

stelleri), as well as little cultural material, with only some whalebone tools, chipped stone

flakes, house structures, and no human remains (Rogers 1993). He notes that he does not

115

fully understand this culture and it could be previous to the Canaliño or Chumash culture or it

could be “transitional in nature” (Rogers 1993:8). The Late Period (Canaliño Culture) is

identified by artifacts that are similar to historical Chumash culture. The Late Period was

identified by large community houses, imported materials, a greater variety of shell types and

fishbone in the middens, fishhooks, and dog burials (Rogers 1993). The Historic Period

(Shoshonean) was identified by cremations, metates, obsidian projectile points, and the

sweathouse (Rogers 1993).

The time periods Rogers assigned for each site are included with the site descriptions

above. When taken as a whole, sites fall into general patterns according to their topographical

locations. All of the sites on the central plateau were recorded by Rogers as being a part of

the Late Period. Sites on the west end and the north coast terrace are a mix of Middle and

Late occupations, with Middle Period occupations often capped by a later occupation.

Although Rogers refers to some sites as having lenses of early “Snail Midden,” he did not

classify any sites as early. Almost all of his work focused on Late Period sites, as these

provided the densest concentrations of formal artifacts.

The chronology of Rogers’ periods actually matches up well with what is already

known of San Nicolas Islands settlement chronology (see Chapter 4; Table 54). Because he

was basing his work off general stratigraphy patterns, Rogers recognized an increase in

complexity in the later periods. He also recognized that a Shoshonean, or Uto-Aztecan,

migration to San Nicolas occurred in the later periods of San Nicolas’ prehistoric occupation.

Rogers (1993) identified an increase in trade through the importation of stone artifacts. Most

of what he identified as the “Canaliño culture” was most likely part of this Uto-Aztecan

migration. He observed that “the development of the Canaliño Culture was made either on

the northern islands or the mainland and but little if any on San Nicolas Island.” (Rogers

1930:56).

Part of determining the chronology of the island has been a focus on the cultural

associations of the Nicoleño. Linguists have long associated the Nicoleño with the Takic

language group from the south, but before Rogers there was no archaeological evidence to

support this claim. He found cremations and artifacts that are indicative of the southern

Gabrieliño as well as earlier artifacts that looked like the Chumash (Rogers 1930). This led

him to believe that there was an intrusion of what he called Shoshonean people in the Late

116

Period (Rogers 1993). This claim has been supported by recent archaeological projects. It

appears that Rogers was right about the Shoshonean introduction, but it probably happened

much earlier than he believed. Rogers talks about the intrusion as happening very soon

before historical contact. Martz (2008) places the earliest Shoshonean occupation of the

island to be around 2125-2326 cal BP, by dating J-shaped fishhooks that are indicative of this

cultural change. Although this is the earliest date for the cultural influence, it is clear that

sometime between 3000-2500 years ago, Shoshonean populations moved onto San Nicolas

Island (Martz 2008). This is supported by both the cranial shape of remains (round replaced

by elongated) and by distinctive artifacts (Martz 2008).

These claims have been supported by a shift in the archaeological record (Ezzo 2001;

Martz 2008). The timing of this shift is still debated with linguists, archaeologists, and

biological archaeologists all proposing different times (Howard and Raab 1993; Rozaire

1959; Vellanoweth 1995; Wallace 1962). Some archaeologists propose that the shift occurred

as early as 6000 B.P based on trade interactions and the presence of Olivella Grooved

Rectangle beads (Howard and Raab 1993; Vellanoweth 1995). Others base their date of

4000-2500 B.P. on burial practices and a change in basket weaving techniques (Lauter 1982;

Rozaire 1959). Basket weaves with an S-design, with the twist to the right are often found on

the Southern Islands and are thought to be indicative of the Gabrieliño culture, while those

with a Z- design, twist to the left, are common on the northern Channel Islands and are

indictive of the Chumash culture (Rozaire 1967). The shift in this basketry technique was

first dated by Rozaire (1967) around 2500 cal BP. Recently, York (2012)has dated an S-

design basket to around 4200 cal BP which supports an earlier date for the transition to

Gabrieliño culture. The linguistic and the osteological findings support a shift of around 1500

cal BP). Regardless of the chronology of the cultural shift, it appears that there was an

intrusion of Shoshonean people onto San Nicolas sometime during the Middle to Late

Holocene.

SITE FUNCTION AND SETTLEMENT PATTERNS

After organizing sites by their location on the island, functional patterns start to

emerge. Location on the island can be a function of many things, including access to beaches,

fresh water, fishing grounds, or desirable topographic locations. The general categories used

117

in this project are adapted from Martz (2008; see Figure 4). Because Rogers split his study

into tracts of land instead of following prehistoric site boundaries, determining site functions

becomes difficult. Generalizing sites into topographic areas creates a broader picture that can

inform prehistoric choices for site placement. Rather than the arbitrary tracts that Rogers set

out, the larger topographic zones of Martz’s (2008) index unit project allows for a discussion

of the sites by geographic location and resource availability. When sites are organized in this

way, it becomes clear that Rogers and his crew spent more time on the north coast and west

end of San Nicolas. This skews all of the data toward these two areas. Although when

compared to Martz’s 2008 island-wide index project, the sites are also more numerous on the

west end and the north coastal terrace (Martz 2008; Schwartz, personal communication,

Novemebr 13, 2012; see Figure 27 and Figure 28). Rogers writes about moving the base

camp to the west tip of the island because the sites there are more numerous (Rogers 1930).

Figure 27. San Nicolas topographic zones. Source: Martz, Patricia C. 2008

4000 Years on Ghalas-at: Part One of the San Nicolas Island Index Unit

Analysis Program. China Lake, CA: Naval Air Weapons Station.

118

Figure 28. Malcolm Rogers’ site locations.

Rogers’ numbers are not specific enough to determine the function of each site as

most tracts include sites that were undoubtedly used for many different functions, so

combining sites into topographic areas rather than by Rogers’ tracts is useful when

discussing the sites in general. Most of the artifacts recovered from Rogers excavations are

related to human burials. He did not collect data that would clearly indicate production areas.

As discussed above, Martz (2002) organized most known sites on San Nicolas into five

distinct categories, including (1) substantial habitation, (2) camp, (3) lithic manufacture and

shell processing location, (4) shell processing location, (5) flaked stone reduction (Martz

2002). She also recorded the categories of deflated hearths and destroyed sites, although they

are not included in this analysis of Rogers’ sites (Martz 2002). Because of Rogers’

methodology and decision to separate the island into tracts of land, rather than sites, artifact

proveniences are often unclear. In general, the artifacts reflect a conglomeration of many

different areas including human burials, living areas, and production areas. Rogers quickly

passed over small sites, so it is no surprise that most artifacts in the collection are from what

Martz (2002)would have termed “substantial habitation” sites.

In fact, of the 32 sites that Rogers recorded, 30 of the sites are substantial habitation

sites. These all have multiple kinds of artifacts, burials, remnants of many structures and

119

shell middens. The two that are not classified as substantial habitation include SN-8 and SN-

27. SN-8 was a smaller site with mounded shell midden but only one ground keyhole limpet

ornament recovered. Because of its lack of artifacts, it is classified as a shellfish processing

location. It appears that SN-27 was also smaller than other sites, likely making it a camp site

rather than a substantial habitation site. However, at least one cremation was recorded and

Rogers did not record very much about it, so it is possible that SN-27 could be a more

substantial habitation site.

In an attempt to determine site function from Rogers’ individual tracts, artifacts were

assigned a function using Hudson and Blackburn’s (1979) volumes on the material culture of

coastal southern California. Although these volumes were written about the Chumash, the

majority of the artifacts listed in them are from San Nicolas Island (Hudson and Blackburn

1979). All of the sites were grouped by topographic location (Martz 2008). Although there

are some differences over the island, the results indicate that the artifact functions from all

the well documented areas are virtually the same (see Table 55).

Table 55. Site Function Indicated by Artifact and Organized by Topographic Area

Artifact categories North Coastal Terrace Cliffs West End Central Plateau

Ceremonial Paraphernalia 11 0 11 10

Food Preparation 12 0 13 8

Food Procurement 14 0 16 9

Historical 1 0 0 0

Manufacturing Processes 14 1 12 10

Ornamentation 14 0 14 10

Although Rogers’ (1930) sites are not easily placed into Martz’s (2008) framework

for site use, there are many recorded features associated with them. When organized by

topographic area, the features begin to suggest something about the settlement strategy of the

Nicoleño. The only site recorded on the southern cliff area is a site with a house pit (see

Table 56). In fact, house pits are found all across San Nicolas Island, while sweathouses are

only found on the west end of the island. Hearths are found across the entire island except on

the southern cliffs, which can be explained by the fact that only one site was recorded on the

cliffs and that area of the island is subject to much erosion. All of the whalebone houses

recorded on

120

Table 56. Features Organized by Topographic Areas

Area Hearths Sweathouse House

Pit

Community

House

Whalebone

House

Jewel

Case

Cache

Total

NCT 2

3

5

Cliffs

1

1

WE 2 2 3

9 2 16

CP 1 3 1 1

1 7

Unknown 1

1

Total 5 5 8 1 9 3 30

San Nicolas Island by Rogers were found on the relatively flat west end of the island where

the densest middens and later period sites were mostly found.

Since the time that Malcolm Rogers was working on the island, many other people

have done research on San Nicolas Island. This new information allows a comparison of

Rogers’ findings with what we know now. Malcolm Rogers chose to work mostly on the

west end of San Nicolas Island. This was a function of where he determined the largest and

most interesting sites were. Many other archaeologists, including numerous UCLA projects,

have worked on San Nicolas and also determined the west end to be an abundant place for

Nicoleño sites (Cannon 2007; Martz 2002, 2008). This part of the island contains the most

residential sites which are often the largest and most visible on the surface (Martz 2008). In

general, Middle Holocene and some Late Holocene sites are found on the west end while

there are fewer later period sites on the central plateau (Martz 2008, Rogers 1993).

Excavations on the west end of the island have been undertaken for other reasons, including

recovery archaeology due to historical construction. But the majority of project locations are

chosen by the dense archaeological material found on their surface (Vellanoweth 1996).

Fresh water on San Nicolas Island is limited. Although fresh water can be found on

the island, there are no permanent streams (Girod 2010; Vedder and Norris 1963). Seeps and

springs are found all over the island, but the springs on the west end of the island are the only

fresh water ones (Girod 2010; Martz 2008; Schwartz and Martz 1992). Rogers recognized

fresh water as a limiting factor on San Nicolas Island and made an effort to identify sources

(Rogers 1930). Although he found many salt springs, he only recorded three springs of fresh

water (Rogers 1993). He hypothesized that the Nicoleño had discovered ways to desalinate

the water from these springs (Rogers 1993), but given the discovery of asphaltum lined

baskets, it seems likely that the Nicoleño were transporting and storing water.

121

Fishing resources also impact settlement. Rogers felt that most of the larger sites were

located on the west end of the island. This is corroborated by recent work done by Martz

(2002, 2008). Martz (2008) found most Middle Holocene sites located on the west end, with

settlement patterns expanding and diversifying during the Late Holocene. Martz (2008) also

concluded that the west end contained the largest number of residential sites. Martz (2008)

and Rogers (1930) agree that the west end of the island must have been one of the most

desirable locations on the island and both attribute this to the landscape. Martz (2008) notes

that the west end has the easiest access to both fresh water and fishing areas as well a less

steep and treacherous landscape than the rest of the island. In her study, Martz (2008) noted

that all west end sites included in her study were within 600feet of the shoreline and that

fishing was the most important subsistence resource in all but one site. This exemplifies the

importance that fishing had on the choice of settlement location.

Seasonal rotations may also have had an effect on the locations of these sites. In a

Middle Holocene site on the west end of the island, Vellanoweth (1996) took an in-depth

look at fish otoliths in order to determine if the site was used on a seasonal basis. By

examining these small fish bones, he was able to determine which season the fish died,

reflecting the seasons of site use (Vellanoweth 1996). He discovered that CA-SNI-161 was

used during the late winter and early summer as well as the late summer and early winter

(Vellanoweth 1996). A closer examination of other sites may reveal a pattern of seasonal

settlement.

Another possible explanation of a later shift of villages to the central plateau may be

an increase in interisland conflict. Kennett (2005) proposed settlement patterns on the

Northern Channel Islands based on viewshed and defendable positions. The Nicoleño,

however, were not utilizing the high cliffs of the southern coastal terrace as much as the

central plateau. In all likelihood the proximity to fishing waters kept them on the central

plateau, closer to the western and northern coast, rather than on the southern cliffs.

Settlement patterns were probably influenced by a complex combination of these

factors. The shift on San Nicolas to a more diverse settlement pattern coincided with the rise

in population levels and changes in diet as well as more interisland trade (see Chapter 3).

Like most cultural change, the cause and effect are multi faceted.

122

ROGERS’ COLLECTION METHODS

Rogers did not utilize the same methodology for every site that he recorded. He did,

however, surface collect from every site (see Table 57). It seems clear from his notes that if

the site was on a cliff or an eroded area, he would not excavate a trench and would document

the stratigraphy from the exposure. At large sites, if he could not determine the stratigraphy

from an exposed section, he would excavate a trench to determine the chronology. Rogers

did not excavate in levels, but rather excavated down to expose the stratigraphy and record it.

In most cases, Rogers excavated trenches to record stratigraphy, but at sites SN-6 and SN-7

Rogers excavated house pits by clearing them down to their original floor. Unlike the

archaeology of today, Rogers also often focused on excavating burials. He exposed the

burials and expanded the excavation until he felt that everything associated with the burials

had been found. He, therefore, spent more time at large late sites that contained cemeteries,

rather than at smaller early sites.

BURIAL AND CREMATION PRACTICES

Although internment practices are not often studied by modern subsurface

excavations due to respect for Native Americans and the limitations of federal and state laws,

much can be learned from the study of how people treat their dead (Gamble et al. 2001).

Internment practices are one of the ways that archaeologists separate the Chumash and

Gabrieliño cultures (Hardy 2000). Chumash were usually buried, while Gabrieliño were

often cremated before burial (Hardy 2000). It is clear that San Nicolas Island material culture

has pieces of both Chumash and Gabrieliño influence. This is also true for their burial

practices-both burials and cremations appear on San Nicolas Island. A comparison of the two

revealed that 21 out of 32 sites (66%) had burials and 13 out of 32 (41%) had cremations.

This sample, however, maybe skewed. Cremations can be more difficult to identify than

burials and Rogers was not doing a comprehensive study, only a quick survey.

When used in conjunction with other avenues of research, burial studies can provide

information about the social dynamics of a culture (Gamble et al. 2001). Although the

skeletal remains of this collection were not available for study, Rogers’ notes provide some

information about how the burials were discovered and what artifacts correspond to the

burials. Rogers’ interest in the artifacts associated with burials led him to take more notes on

123

Table 57. Malcolm Rogers’ Field Methods and Excavation Strategies

Site # Method of Sampling Targeted Burials Trenched

SN1A Yes Yes

SN2 Excavated Cache

SN3 Excavated Cache

SN6 Excavated House Pits

SN7 Excavated House Pits

SN10 Yes

SN15 Excavated Cache

SN16 Surface Collections Yes

SN17 Surface Collections

SN18 Surface Collections Yes

SN20 Yes

SN21 Yes

SN21A Excavated Cache

SN21A cem1 Yes Yes

SN21A cem2 Excavated

SN21A cem3 Excavated Yes

SN21A cem4 Yes

SN21A cem5 Yes

SN21A cem6 Yes

SN21A crem 1 Yes

SN22 Yes

SN23 Yes

SN24 Surface Collections Yes Yes

SN26 Excavated Cache



SN31 Yes

both the skeletal and artifactual remains. Often he detailed the position the skeletons were in

as well as locations of artifacts (Rogers 1930). Burial goods include both ceremonial and

ritual goods. In both burials and cremations Rogers found effigies, dog burials, numerous

beads, whole shells, bone tools, bowls, mortars, fishhook reamers, and donut stones. The

inclusion of these artifacts in both burials and creamtions reflect the unique cosmology of the

Nicoleño.

Human remains were transported back to the museum by Malcolm Rogers and the

museum retains possession. Although Rogers’ discussion and assessment of the remains are

used, the physical remains were not examined as a part of this study. According to museum

records, they have lost their provenience. Identification of the remains was out of the scope

of this project but could be an avenue of future research. All identifications of skeletal

remains included in this project are based on Rogers’ notes (see Table 58).

124

Table 58. Burial and Cremation Data

Site # Dog

Burials

Unsexed

Burials

Male

Burial

Female

Burial

Child

Burial

Burial

Goods Cremations

SN1 Yes 1

SN1A Yes

1

SN6 Yes 1

Yes

SN7

5

SN7A

1

SN9

1

Yes

SN12

2

Yes

SN13

1

SN14

1

1 area, unknown

individuals

SN15

Yes 1

SN16

2

1 Yes

SN17 Yes 2

SN18

Yes

SN19 Yes 1

SN20 Yes

1

Yes

SN21

2

Yes

SN21A

1 to 2

Yes 3

SN21A

cem1 Yes

SN21A

cem2 2 3

Yes

SN21A

cem3 4

Yes 2

SN21A

cem4 2 1

Yes

SN21A

cem5 1 4 2

Yes

SN21A

cem6 1

SN21A

crem 1 1 Yes 12

SN22

1

SN23 Yes 1

Yes 2

SN24 Yes

Yes 3

SN25

2

SN26

Yes

Yes 5, unexcavated

SN27

unexcavated

SN29

unexcavated

SN31 Yes

1

Yes 1 male unexcavated

In 2001, Gamble and colleagues worked on a Chumash village in Malibu, California,

with the specific purpose of using an integrative method of combining archaeological,

historical, and ethnographic data to study social complexity using burials. Unlike Gamble et

al.’s (2001) Malibu study, there is almost no historical or ethnographic component to the

Rogers collection and excavation notes. Some of this can be aligned with Rogers’ lack of

125

interest in historical archaeology, but much of it probably stems from the distance of San

Nicolas from the trading circles of historical Spanish contact and the disappearance of the

Nicoleño. However, comparing Rogers’ work to Gamble et al.’s comprehensive study allows

us a brief look into what may be possible with the burial information from Roger’s study.

Of the 84 burials and cremations that Rogers excavated, only 17 did not have artifacts

associated with them. The burials without associated goods are both male and female, but

there are no children found in this collection that were not associated with burial goods.

Gamble et al. (2001) argued that the Malibu Chumash village showed signs of ascribed social

hierarchy by the number and placement of burial goods. A small proportion of the burials in

the study held the majority of the burial goods (Gamble et al. 2001). This is consistent with

the Rogers’ collection burial information confirming the ascribed status among the Nicoleño.

Other consistencies with Gamble et al. (2001)’s findings in Malibu include that later

burials include more goods than earlier ones, indicating a shift towards social hierarchy.

Although the dates of the burials in this collection are unclear, in his notes, Rogers comments

that earlier burials have almost no burial goods in them making them less desirable for

excavation (Rogers 1930). Rogers also excavated groups of burials (cemeteries). Burying the

dead in a small area indicates a group consensus about using a ritualized space for the dead

(Gamble et al. 2001).

Gamble et al. (2001) also found that the position of the dead became more consistent

in the Middle and Late Prehistoric Period. Although this study is unable to discuss the

chronology of burials on San Nicolas Island, Rogers did discuss the flexed nature of many of

the burials as well as the directionality of the burial placement. Gamble discusses how

consistencies in burial practices indicate consistent religious beliefs across space and time. It

is possible that the San Nicolas burials share some of these consistent burial practices which

could indicate interesting correlations for religious consistency across the northern and

southern island groups.

According to the burial data from Rogers’ collection, the Nicoleño were a society of

ascribed status. In general, later burials included more burial goods than earlier ones

indicating an increase in social structure and hierarchy. The Nicoleño also had consistent

ritual burial practices, indicated by both burial location and body placement. These initial

126

findings could be expanded to allow for a more comprehensible understanding of changes in

social behavior of the Nicoleño through time.

EFFIGIES

Effigies are rare artifact types in the archaeological record. Often they are included

with burials, which are now protected from excavation by a number of state and federal laws.

The effigies used in this analysis include both formal effigies and hook stones, as well as any

artifact that was determined to be a possible effigy. An attempt was made to speciate the bird

effigies by the size and orientation of the beak in the manner of Hoover (1974). After

consulting with Philip Unitt, curator from the San Diego Natural History Museum and

specialist in California Birds, it was apparent that a clear speciation would be impossible.

Therefore, when effigies are referred to as “pelican effigies” in this study, it is in reference to

other projects which have used that title to refer to a specific shape of effigy, rather than the

actual bird.

Two of the sites with the most cemeteries in Rogers’ study, SN-21A and SN-14 were

predictably the sites with the most effigies collected (Table 59). As discussed above, a

scarcity of sites on the southern cliffs of the islands left the area with no effigies collected.

The other topographic areas were more similar in the number of effigies found. The north

coast terrace had four effigies, the west end had eight, and the central plateau had eight. This

is consistent with the number, size and age of sites in those areas. The north coast has

smaller, earlier sites with fewer formal cemeteries while the west end and the central plateau

both have larger, later sites with both formal cemeteries and cremation areas.

Like many other studies, Rogers recovered most of the effigies in this collection from

human burials. Their location in burials has made them an especially rare artifact, making

museum collections one of the only places to study an array of effigies (Figure 29). The

MoM Rogers collection is not only one of the rare collections to house many of these

effigies, but it has the added benefit of a relatively clear provenience and consistent curation.

In the early days of museum collection, some effigies were forged and sold as artifacts to

museums. The Rogers collection effigies have a clear enough provenience to be ruled out as

forgeries.

127

Table 59. Location and Description of Effigies from the Rogers’ Collection at MoM

Site # Site Location Description Material

SN-4 NCT Effigy Steatite

SN-7 NCT Effigy Serpentine

SN-10 NCT Pelican Effigy Sea Mammal Bone

SN-10 NCT Effigy Steatite

SN-13 WE Fish Effigy Soapstone

SN-14 CP Broken Pelican Effigy Unidentified Bone

SN-14 CP Pelican effigy Unidentified Stone

SN-14 CP Effigy Pendant Steatite

SN-16 WE Pelican Effigy Steatite

SN-20 WE Steatite Canoe Steatite

SN-20 WE Effigy Steatite

SN-21A WE Effigy Soapstone

SN-21A WE Effigy Unidentified Stone

SN-21A WE Canoe Effigy Steatite

SN-24 CP Sea Mammal Effigy Steatite

SN-26 CP Pelican Effigy Steatite

SN-26 CP Pelican Effigy Steatite

SN-27 WE Pelican Effigy Unidentified Stone

SN-28 CP Canoe Effigy Steatite

SN-29 CP Pelican Effigy Unidentified Stone

SN-Misc Unknown Whale Effigy Steatite

SN-Misc Unknown Pelican Effigy Whale Bone

SN-Misc Unknown Pelican Effigy Steatite

SN-Misc Unknown Pelican Effigy Serpentine

SN-Misc Unknown Porpoise Effigy Steatite

Figure 29. A selection of effigies.

128

Gamble et al. (2001) found fewer effigies in late prehistoric burials than those in the

Middle Period. She interpreted this as an indication of a decrease in religious power (Gamble

et al. 2001). When burials are dated, a comparison of the chronology of burials with and

without effigies as burials goods could indicate this shift on San Nicolas Island as well.

Although speciation was not possible with this collection of effigies, in conjunction with

other collections, it is possible that speciation of effigies could aid in an understanding of

prehistoric ecologies.

NATIVE AMERICAN GRAVES PROTECTION AND

REPATRIATION ACT (NAGPRA) IMPLICATIONS

Due to state and federal laws protecting ancient Native American human and

patrimonial remains, human burials are rarely excavated in North America, the Channel

Islands, or on San Nicolas Island today. The Rogers collection, excavated prior to the

implementation of NAGPRA laws, constitutes, therefore, an exceptionally rare set of

artifacts. These artifacts are not often found in current archaeological projects because of our

changing standards of excavation. While this project may be seen as a thesis in support of the

information that can be gained from burial goods, in fact it is a thesis on the need for more

legislation concerning culturally sensitive artifacts and remains. This collection is full of

interesting artifacts that may have many implications for our understanding of the prehistoric

populations of the California Channel Islands, but it has languished, in part because of

Rogers’ insistence on keeping data to himself and in part because of its lack of visibility.

This exceptionally rare set of artifacts and human remains, despite the lack of detailed

provenience information, is in desperate need of continued study. While NAGPRA laws have

changed the ways in which archaeologists design and implement archaeological field

research, museum collections are an important source of data- often otherwise inaccessible

with modern field techniques.

It is important to work with local Native American tribes to study these museum

collections as important sources of information on their cultural heritage. Rather than

allowing material like the Rogers collection to languish on museum shelves for decades, it is

time to dust these boxes off and glean what we can, in consultation with culturally affiliated

tribes. This might be more difficult than it first seems, however, as the repatriation of the San

129

Nicolas burial goods and remains is not a clear process. Many scientists have argued that

there are no direct descendants of the Nicoleño. It might be time to rethink NAGPRA in an

effort to make the repatriation and consultation processes more clear.

HISTORICAL ARTIFACTS

One of the best parts of being an archaeologist is making unexpected discoveries.

Rogers believed his San Nicolas Island collection contained only prehistoric artifacts. In

reality, he had collected some historical artifacts. Rogers was not looking for historical

artifacts, but he accidently collected them anyway (Table 60). These interesting artifacts have

been largely missed because people were not aware of them. At SN-12 on the north coast of

San Nicolas Island, Rogers collected two jar fragments that he later refitted. Since we now

know that the Nicoleño did not have ceramic wares, it is clear that the jar must be historical.

In fact, the glaze on the jar looks very similar to other wares attributed to Chinese fishermen

that were known to be on San Nicolas Island in the mid to late nineteenth century. The glass

beads found in the collection could be evidence of early trading with the Spanish or perhaps

even with Russian and Aleut sea otter hunters.

Table 60. Historical Artifacts in the Malcolm Rogers Collection

Site Number Description Modification Material

SN-Misc 1 Toggling Harpoon Drilled Unidentified Bone

SN-12 1 Brown Ware Jar Drip Glaze Ceramic

SN-Misc 26 Bead Glass

SN-Misc 1 Fish Hook Drilled Abalone

Recently more research has been devoted to researching the Historic Period on San

Nicolas Island. When the Nicoleño were removed from the island, one woman was left

behind who has been referenced as the Lone Woman in the literature because there is no

record of her name. Scott O’Dell (1960) popularized her story with the book Island of the

Blue Dolphins based off her life, which has captured the imaginations of generations of

young adults. Archaeologists have also been interested in her story and, recently, Erlandson

et al. (2013) published an article on the discovery of a cache dated between historical contact

and when the Nicoleño were removed from the island that may have been from the Lone

Woman. There are also mentions of “caches” in Rogers notes and one specific cache that he

assumes must have been left by a woman planning on returning to use the materials. These

130

are reminiscent of the cache that was found by Erlandson et al. (2013) and could have been

left by the Lone Woman.

Susan Morris has also aided in the discussion of this particular time with the

translation of some Russian trading documents that outline a story of Aleut traders and their

interactions with the Nicoleño (Morris et al. in press). There is an Aleut bone harpoon as well

as an eccentric abalone fishhook that appears to have Aleut influence in its construction

(Figure 30). It is not clear whether the harpoon was made on the island or brought to the

island and lost. The eccentric fishhook, however, is made of local abalone shell and was

probably produced on the island. This could be the work cultural diffusion from Aleut

fishermen that were stranded on San Nicolas and lived with the Nicoleño. These Aleut

artifacts are archaeological evidence of the culture contact that we have recently learned

more about in the historical documentation (Morris et al. in press). The next step should be to

obtain permission from the MoM to date these artifacts and determine conclusively if they

date from the time that both the Nicoleño and the Aleut were on San Nicolas Island.

Figure 30. A bone toggling harpoon and eccentric shell fishhook with Aleut

characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

Before research on San Nicolas Island can continue effectively, there has to be an

understanding of what has already been done. Returning to work with museum collections

can sometimes be tedious and often is without the glory of excavation, but sometimes you

can find things you did not know were there. The MoM’s Malcolm Rogers collection does

have some limitations including lost provenience and unclear maps, but it can still be useful

to many projects. Future research with this collection could take many avenues including:

131

Radiocarbon dating both prehistoric and historical artifacts for better chronologies

Skeletal analysis to determine health of populations

Complete site settlement analysis

Basket Weave Analysis for chronological and cultural purposes

Study of all effigies from San Nicolas Island

Mortuary artifact analysis through time

This study allows researchers to access unpublished archaeological information and provides

a complete photographic and descriptive catalog of the cultural materials excavated by

Malcolm Rogers currently located at the MoM. Publication of this study allows researchers

to better understand the research potential of collections housed at the MoM. This study

correlates the history of Malcolm Rogers’ expedition with the curated artifacts, provides an

analysis of artifacts, and creates a working data set from a previously unpublished collection.

Completing this study illuminates the need for publishing and analysis, as well as adds to the

understanding of past populations who lived on San Nicolas Island.

132

REFERENCES

Ambrose, R. F., J. M. Engle, J. A. Coyer, and B. V. Nelson

1993 Changes in Urchin and Kelp Densities at Anacapa Island, California. In The Third

California Islands Symposium: Recent Advances in Research on the California

Islands. F. G. Hochberg, ed. Pp. 199-209. Santa Barbara: Santa Barbara Museum of

Natural History.

Arnold, Jeanne E.

1987 Craft Specialization in the Prehistoric Channel Islands, California. Berkeley:

University of California Press.

1992 Hunter-Gatherer-Fishers of Prehistoric California: Chiefs, Specialists, and

Maritime Adaptations of the Channel Islands. American Antiquity 57(1):60-84.

2001 The Origins of a Pacific Coast Chiefdom: The Chumash of the Channel Islands.

Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

Arnold, Jeanne E., and A. P. Graesch

2001 The Evolution of Specialized Shellwork Among the Island Chumash. In The

Origins of a Pacific Coast Chiefdom: The Chumash of the Channel Islands. Jeanne

Arnold, ed. Pp. 71-112. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

Bean, L. J., and C. R. Smith

1978 Gabrieliño. In Handbook of North American Indians. R. F. Heizer, ed. Pp. 538-

549. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.

Bennyhoff, James A., and Richard E. Hughes

1987 Shell Bead and Ornament Exchange Networks between California and the

Western Great Basin. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural

History 64(2):82-164.

Bickel, Polly

1978 Changing Sea Levels Along the Califonia Coast: Anthropological Implications.

The Journal of California Anthropology 5(1):6-20.

Binford, Lewis R.

1962 Archaeology as Anthropology. American Antiquity 28:217-225.

Braje, Todd J.

2010 Modern Oceans, Ancient Sites: Archaeology and Marine Conservation on San

Miguel Island, California. Salt Lake City: The University of Utah Press.

Braje, Todd J., Jon M. Erlandson, and J. Timbrook

2005 An Asphaltum Coiled Basket Impression Tarring Pebbles, and Middle Holocene

Water Bottles from San Miguel Island, California. Journal of California and Great

Basin Anthropology 25(2):63-67.

133

Braje, Todd J., Jon M. Erlandson, Torben C. Rick, Paul K. Dayton, and Marco B. A. Hatch

2009 Fishing from Past to Present: Continuity and Resilience of Red Abalone Fisheries

on the Channel Islands, California. Ecological Applications 19:906-919.

Braje, Todd J., and T. C. Rick

2011 Perspectives from the Past: Archaeology, Historical Ecology, and Northeastern

Pacific Pinnipeds and Sea Otters. Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Buckley, Thomas

1989 Kroeber’s Theory of Culture Areas and the Ethnology of Northwestern California.

Anthropological Quarterly 62(1):15-26.

Cameron, Constance

2000 Animal Effigies from Coastal Southern California. Pacific Coast Archaeological

Society Quarterly 36(2):30-52.

Cannon, Amanda

2007 Passing Time Near Vizcaino Point: An Overview of Human Occupation and

Archaeological Investigations at CA-SNI-16, San Nicolas Island, California.

Technical Report 07-23. Los Angeles: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles

District.

Cassidy, Jim, L., Mark Raab, and Nina A. Kononenko

2004 Boats, Bones, and Biface Bias: The Early Holocene Mariners of Eel Point, San

Clemente Island, California. American Antiquity 69(1):109-130.

Chartkoff, Joseph L., and Kerry Kona Chartkoff

1984 The Archaeology of California. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Conlee, C.

2000 Intensified Middle Period Ground Stone Production on San Miguel Island.

Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 22:374-391.

Colton, R. H., and J. E. Arnold

1998 Prehistoric Marine Mammal Hunting on California’s Northern Channel Islands.

American Antiquity 63(4):679-701.

Cryne, Julia A.

2010 NAGPRA Revisited: A Twenty-Year Review of Repatriation Efforts. American

Indian Law Review 34(1):99-122.

Dartt-Newton, Deana, and Jon M. Erlandson

2006 Little Choice for the Chumash: Colonialism, Cattle, and Coercion in Mission

Period California. American Indian Quarterly 30(3-4):416-430.

Davis, Troy, Jon Erlandson, Gerrit Fenenga, and Keith Hamm

2011 Chipped Stone Crescents and the Antiquity of Maritime Settlement on San

Nicolas Island, Alta California. California Archaeology 2(2):185-202.

134

Eisen, Gustav

1904 An Account of the Indians of the Santa Barbara Islands in California. Paper

presented at the Meeting of the Royal Bohemian Society of Sciences, Prague, January

8.

Elsasser, Albert B., and Peter T. Rhode

1996 Further Notes on California Charmstones. Salinas: Coyote Press Archives of

California Prehistory.

Erlandson, J. M.

1988 Of Millingstones and Mollusks: The Cultural Ecology of Early Holocene Hunter-

Gatherers on the California Coast. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,

University of California Santa Barbara.

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

Erlandson, J. M., and R. Colton, eds.

1991 Hunter-Gatherers of Early Holocene Coastal California. Los Angeles: Institute of

Archaeology, University of California Los Angeles.

Erlandson, J. M., Lisa Thomas-Barnett, René Vellanoweth, Steven J. Schwartz, and Daniel

R. Muhs

2013 From the Island of the Blue Dolphins: A Unique Nineteenth-Century Cache

Feature from San Nicolas Island, California. The Journal of Island and Coastal

Archaeology 8(1):66-78.

Ezell, Paul H.

1961 Malcolm Jennings Rogers, 1890-1960. American Antiquity 26(4):532-534.

Ezzo, Joseph

2001 The Ancient Mariners of San Nicolas Island: A Bioarchaeological Analysis of the

Burial Collections. Technical Report, 01-64. Tucson: University of Arizona,

Department of Anthropology.

Fagan, Brian, Donn R. Grenda, David Maxwell, Angela H. Keller, and Richard Ciolek-

Torrello

2006 Life on the Dunes: Fishing Ritual, and Daily Life at Two Late Period Sites on

Vizcaino Point, Archaeological Testing at CA-SNI-39 and CA-SNI-162, San Nicolas

Island, California. Technical Series, 88. Tucson: University of Arizona, Department

of Anthropology.

Garcia, Tracy

2010 Colonial Encounters with the Past: Paul Schumacher, the Smithsonian Institution

and the Origins of Pacific Coast Archaeology. Unpublished Masters thesis,

Department of Anthropology, University of Oregon.

Gamble, Lynn H.

2002 Archaeological Evidence for the Origin of the Plank Canoe in North America.

American Antiquity 67(2):301-315.

135

2005 Culture and Climate: Reconsidering the Effect of Paleoclimatic Variability

Among Southern California Hunter-Gather Societies. World Archaeology 37(1):92-

108.

Gamble, Lynn H., Phillip L. Walker, and Glenn S. Russell

2001 An Integrative Approach to Mortuary Analysis: Social and Symbolic Dimensions

of Chumash Burial Practices. American Antiquity 66(2):185-212.

Girod, Catherine

2010 A Preliminary Investigation of the Sociopolitical Organization of Prehistoric

Populations on San Nicolas Island. Unpublished Masters thesis, Department of

Anthropology, California State University Los Angeles.

Glassow, Michael

1996 Purisemeno Chumash Prehistory, Maritime Adaptations Along the Southern

California Coast. Case Studies in Archaeology. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.

Glenn, Ryan J.

2012 Osteometric Comparisons of San Nicolas Island Dogs: Analysis of the Malcolm

Rogers’ Collection, San Diego Museum of Man, San Diego, California, U.S.A.

Unpublished Masters thesis, Department of Anthropology, California State University

Los Angeles.

Hanna, David

1982 Malcolm J. Rogers: The Biography of a Paradigm. Unpublished Masters thesis,

Department of Anthropology, San Diego State University.

Hardy, Ellen T.

2000 Religious Aspects of the Material Remains from San Clemente Island. Pacific

Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 36(1):78-96.

Harris, Marvin

1979 Cultural Materialism: The Struggle for a Science of Culture. New York: Random

House.

Hayden, Julian

1961 Malcolm Jennings Rogers 1890-1960. American Anthropologist 63(6): 1323-

1324.

Heizer, Robert F.

1941 A Californian Messianic Movement of 1801 Among the Chumash. American

Anthropologist 43:127-128.

Heizer, Robert F., and Albert Elsasser

1966 Original Accounts of the Lone Woman of San Nicolas Island. In Aboriginal

California: Three Studies in Culture History. Robert Heizer, ed. Pp. 121-181.

Berkeley: University of California Archaeological Research Facility.

Hopkins, Nicolas A.

1965 Great Basin Prehistory and Uto-Aztecan. American Antiquity 31:48-60.

136

Hoover, Robert L.

1974 Some Observations on Chumash Prehistoric Stone Effigies. Journal of California

Anthropology 1:33-40.

Howard, William J., and L. Mark Raab

1993 Olivella Grooved Rectangle Beads as Evidence of an Early-Period Southern

Channel Islands Interaction Sphere. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly

29(3):1-11.

Hudson, Travis

1981 Recently Discovered Accounts Concerning the “Lone Woman” of San Nicolas

Island. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 3(2):187-199.

Hudson, Travis, and Thomas C. Blackburn

1979 The Material Culture of the Chumash Interaction Sphere. Banning: Ballena Press.

Johnston, Bernice Eastman

1962 California’s Gabrieliño Indians. Los Angeles: Southwest Museum.

Jones, T. L., B. J. Culleton, S. Larson, S. Mellinger, and J. F. Porcasi

2011 Toward a Prehistory of the Southern Sea Otter (Enhydra lutris nereis). In Human

Impacts on Seals, Sea Lions, and Sea Otters: Integrating Archaeology and Ecology in

the Northeast Pacific. T. J. Braje and T. C. Rick, eds. Pp. 243-271. Los Angeles:


Jones, T. L., J. F. Porcasi, J. M. Erlandson, H. Dallas Jr., T. A. Wake, and R. Schwaderer

2008 The Protracted Holocene Extinction of California’s Flightless Sea Duck

(Chendytes lawi) and Its Implications for the Pleistocene Overkill Hypothesis.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105(11):4105-4108.

Kennett, Douglas J.

2005 The Island Chumash: Behavioral Ecology of a Maritime Society. Los Angeles:


Kennett, Douglas J., and James P. Kennett

2000 Competitive and Cooperative Responses to Climatic Instability in Coastal

Southern California. American Antiquity 65(2):379-395.

King, Chester D.

1990 Evolution of Chumash Society: A Comparative Study of Artifacts Used for Social

System Maintenance in the Santa Barbara Channel Region Before A.D. 1804. New

York: Garland Publishing.

Kinlan, B. P., M. H. Graham, and J. M. Erlandson

2005 Late Quarternary Changes in the Size and Shape of the California Channel

Islands: Implications for Marine Subsidies to Terrestrial Communities. In

Proceedings of the Sixth California Islands Symposium. D. K. Garcelon and C. A.

Schwemm, eds. Pp. 131-142. Arcata, CA: Institute for Wildlife Studies.

Kroeber, Alfred

1907 Shoshonean Dialects of California. Berkeley: University of California Press.

137

Lambert, Patricia M.

1993 Health in Prehistoric Populations of the Santa Barbara Channel Islands. American

Antiquity 58:509-522.

Lambert, Patricia M., and Philip L. Walker

1991 Physical Anthropological Evidence for the Evolution of Social Complexity in

Coastal Southern California. Antiquity 65:963-973.

Lauter, G. A.

1982 Defining an Intermediate Period in San Nicolas Island, California, Chronology:

Test Excavations at SNI-16. Unpublished Masters thesis, Department of

Anthropology, California State University Northridge.

Leonard, John William, ed.

1925 Who’s Who in Engineering, A Biographical Dictionary of Contemporaries. New

York: Who’s Who Publications.

Love, M. S.

1996 Probably More Than You Wanted to Know About the Fishes of the Pacific Coast.

Santa Barbara: Really Big Press.

Martz, Patricia C.

2002 San Nicolas Island Prehistoric Archaeological Sites Mapping and Recodation

Project. Unpublished MS, South Central Coastal Archaeological Information Center,

California State University Fullerton.

2005 Prehistoric Subsistence and Settlement on San Nicolas Island. In Proceedings of

the Sixth California Islands Symposium. D. Garcelon and C. Schwemm, eds. Pp. 65-

82. Arcata, CA: National Park Service Technical Publication CHIS-05-01, Institute

for Wildlife Studies.

2008 4000 Years on Ghalas-at: Part One of the San Nicolas Island Index Unit Analysis

Program. China Lake, CA: Naval Air Weapons Station.

Meighan, Clement W., and Hal Eberhart

1953 Archaeological Resources of San Nicolas Island, California. American Antiquity

19(2):109-125.

Morris, Susan L., Glenn J. Farris, Steven J. Schwartz, Irina Vladi L. Wender, and Boris

Dralyuk

In press Murder, Massacre, and Mayhem on the California Coast, 1814-1815: Newly

Translated Russian American Company Documents Reveal Company Concern Over

Violent Clashes. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology.

Munro, Pamela

1999 Takic Foundations of Nicoleño Vocabulary. In Proceedings of the Fifth California

Islands Symposium. D. Browne, K. Mitchell, and H. W. Chaney, eds. Pp. 659-668.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior.

138

Noah, Anna C.

1987 A Meeting of Paradigms: A Late-Century Analysis of Mid-Century Excavations

of San Clemente Island. Unpublished Masters thesis, Department of Anthropology,

San Diego State University.

O’Dell, Scott

1960 The Island of the Blue Dolphins. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Ogden, Adele

1933 Russian Sea-Otter and Seal Hunting on the California Coast, 1803-1841.

California Historical Society Quarterly 12(3):217-239.

Olivera, Elena Vega

2011 If Only She Could Speak for Herself: Representations of a California Channel

Islands Woman, 1840s-2000s. Unpublished Masters thesis, Department of

Anthropology, University of California Santa Barbara.

Olson, R.

1930 Chumash Prehistory. University of California Publications in American

Archaeology and Ethnology 28:1-21.

Orr, Phil C.

1968 Prehistory of Santa Rosa Island. Santa Barbara: Santa Barbara Museum of Natural

History.

Philbrick, R., and J. Haller

1977 The Southern Channel Islands. In Terrestrial Vegetation of California. M.

Barbour and J. Major, eds. Pp. 893-906. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Pletka, S. M.

2001 Bifaces and the Institutionalization of Exchange Relationships in the Chumash

Sphere. In The Origins of a Pacific Coast Cheifdom: The Chumash of the Channel

Islands. J. Arnold, ed. Pp. 221-244. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

Porcasi, J. F.

1999 Prehistoric Bird Remains from the Southern Channel Islands. Pacific Coast

Archaoelogical Society Quarterly 35(2-3):38-59.

Porcasi, J. F., and H. Fujita

2000 The Dolphin Hunters: A Specialized Prehistoric Maritime Adaptation in the

Southern California Chanel Islands and Baja California. American Antiquity 65:543-

566.

Raab, L. Mark, and D. O. Larson

1997 Medieval Climatic Anomaly and Punctuated Cultural Evolution in Coastal

Southern California. American Antiquity 62:319-336.

Raab, L. Mark, A. Yatsko,T. S. Garlinghouse, J. F. Porcasi, K. Bradford

2002 Late Holocene San Clemente Island: Notes on Comparative Social Complexity in

Coastal Southern California. In Catalysts to Complexity: Late Holocene Societies of

the California Coast. J. Erlandson and T. Jones, eds. Pp. 13-26. Los Angeles: Cotsen

Institute of Archaeology, University of California Los Angeles.

139

Reichlen, Henry, and Robert F. Heizer

1964 The Scientific Expedition of Leon de Cessac to California, 1877-1879. Reports of

the University of California Archaeological Survey 61:1-74.

Reinman, Fred M.

1962 New Sites on San Nicolas Island, California. Archaeological Survey Annual

Report 4:11-21.

1964 Maritime Adaptation on San Nicolas Island, California: A Preliminary and

Speculative Evaluation. Archaeological Survey Annual Report 6:51-75.

Reinman, Fred M., and Gloria Lauter

1984 San Nicolas Island Cultural Resource Survey Report. Point Mugu, CA: Naval Air

Weapons Station, Environmental Division.

Reinman, Fred M., and San-Joe Townsend

1960 Six Burial Sites on San Nicolas Island, California. Los Angeles: University of

California Los Angeles.

Rick, Torben, C.

2004 Social and Economic Dynamics on Late Holocene San Miguel Island, California.

In Foundations of Chumash Complexity. J. Arnold, ed. Pp. 97-112. Los Angeles:

Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California.

2007 The Archaeology and Historical Ecology of Late Holocene San Miguel Island.

Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California.

Rick, Torben C., Jon M. Erlandson, Rene L. Vellanoweth, and Todd J. Braje

2005 From Pleistocene Mariners to Complex Hunter-Gatherers: The Archaeology of

the California Channel Islands. Journal of World Prehistoriy 19:169-228.

Rogers, Malcolm J.

1928 A Question of Scumming. Arizona Old New. The Arizona Museum Journal

1(2):5-21.

1929 The Stone Art of the San Dieguito Plateau. American Anthropologist 31(3):454-

467.

1930 Field Notes 1930 Expedition to San Nicolas Island. Unpublished MS, San Diego

Museum of Man, San Diego.

1993 Report of Archaeological Investigations on San Nicolas Island in 1930. Pacific


Rogers, Malcolm J., H. M. Wormington, E. L. Davis, and Clark W. Brott

1966 Ancient Hunters of the Far West. San Diego: Union-Tribune Publishing

Company.

Rozaire, C.

1959 Archaeological Investigations at Two Sites on San Nicolas Island, California. The

Masterkey 33(4):129–152.

1967 Archaeological Considerations Regarding the Southern California Islands. Los

Angeles: Los Angeles County Museum.

140

Schoenherr, Allan A.

1992 A Natural History of California. Los Angeles: University of California Press, Ltd.

Schoenherr, Allan A., C. Roberrt Feldmeth, and Michael J. Emerson

1999 Natural History of the Islands of California. Los Angeles: University of California

Press.

Schwartz, Steven J.

1994 Ecological Ramifications of Historic Occupation of San Nicolas Island. In The

Fourth California Islands Symposium: Update on the Status of Resources. W. L.

Halvorson and G. J. Maender, eds. Pp. 171-180. Santa Barbara: Santa Barbara

Museum of Natural History.

Schwartz, Steven J., and Patricia Martz

1992 An Overview of the Archaeology of San Nicolas Island, Southern California.

Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 28(4):46-75.

1995 An Overview of Recent Archaeological Research on San Nicolas Island. Pacific


Schwartz, Steven J., and Kelly A. Rossbach

1993 A Preliminary Survey of Historic Sites on San Nicolas Island. Proceedings of the

Society for California Archaeology 6:189-198.

Trigger, Bruce G.

2006 A History of Archaeological Thought. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Van Bueren, Thad M., and Randy S. Wiberg

2011 Putting Central California Charmstones in Context: A View from CA-CCO-548.

California Archaeology 3(2):199-248.

VanPool, C. S., and T. L. Van Pool

2003 Essential Tensions in Archaeological Method and Theory. Salt Lake City:

University of Utah Press.

Vedder, J. G., and R. M. Norris

1963 Geology of San Nicolas Island California. Geological Survey Professional Paper,

369. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior.

Vellanoweth, Rene L.

1995 New Evidence From San Nicolas Island on the Distribution of Olivella Grooved

Rectangle Beads. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 31:13-22.

1996 Subsistence, Settlement, and Marine Resource Utilization at CA-SNI-161, San

Nicolas Island, California. Unpublished Masters thesis, Department of Anthropology,

California State University Los Angeles.

2001 Coastal Archaeology of Southern California: Accounts from the Holocene. Ph.D.

dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Oregon.

141

Vellanoweth, Rene L., and Jon M. Erlandson

1999 Middle Holocene Fishing and Maritime Adaptations at CA-SNI-161, San Nicolas

Island, California. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 21(2):257-

274.

Vellanoweth, Rene L., Patricia Martz, and Steven J. Schwartz

2002 Complexity and the Late Holocene Archaeology of San Nicolas Island.

Perspectives in California Archaeology 6:82-100.

Wake, T. A.

2001 Bone Tool Technology on Santa Cruz Island and Implications for Exchange. In

The Origins of a Pacific Coast Chiefdom: The Chumash of the Channel Islands. J.

Arnold, ed. Pp. 183-197. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

Wallace, William J.

1962 Prehistoric Cultural Development in the Southern Californian Deserts. American

Antiquity 28(2):172-180.

Warren, Claude N.

1966 The San Dieguito Type Site: M. J. Rogers’ 1938 Excavation on the San Dieguito

River. San Diego: Museum of Man.

Weaver, D. W.

1969 General Geology of the Region. In Geology of the Northern Channel Islands. D.

Weaver, D. Doerner, & B. Nolf, eds. Pp. 9-10. Tulsa: American Association of

Petroleum Geologists and Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists

Pacific Section.

York, Andrew L.

2012 Archaeological Evaluation and Site Documentation at Site CA-SNI-41 Naval

Base Ventura County, San Nicolas Island, California. Oxnard, CA: Ventura County

Naval Base.