INTRODUCTION

Walter Goldschmidt

The three papers included in the symposium on the antiquity of man in

California were presented before the Southwestern Anthropological Association
in the Fall of 1951, The writing of this introduction and editing these

papers has been one of the pleasanter aspects of my role as president of the
Association. In this symposium there were brought together three of the

outstanding scholars of California and inter-mountain pre-history. Bringing
as they do a variety of background and special interests and techniques to

a common problem, they serve to highlight the present state of knowledge of

this particular aspect of anthropology, and to point toward future needs and
expectations.

Though the scholars themselves and other specialists in far Western

archaeology may here and there see points of disagreement and even perhaps

of controversy, the outsider to this special interest is impressed with the
general concordance. This unity of opinion rests upon the solid foundation
of empirical research, for each of these scholars has devoted himself to the
evidence at hand; neither endeavoring to press some exceptional claim nor
refusing to be swayed by the data before him.

One is impressed in this with the strong evidence that man's tenure in
California can be reckoned in millennia but does not go beyond the confines

of the late Pleistocene. I take it that none of the three scholars would be
shocked to discover a dated human remains as old as 20,000 years, though it
is clear from the content of these papers that such antiquity is not yet

established by any satisfactory archeaological technique. Indeed, the cul-
tures that have been examined would appear to have their maximum antiquity
at about 10,000 years; that is, nothing in the presentations of Heizer and
Brainerd would question the antiquity that Antevs presents in Chart 1 of

his paper. Such a scholarly approach to archaeological evidence stands in

strong contrast to the kind of assertions that were made in the earlier part

of the century with regard to specific finds of human remains in the Americas.
Such assertions, it would appear from the recent publications of GC. Carter,
are not a thing of the past and while intriguing claims for higher antiquity
may turn out ultimately to be correct, the development of a science of
archaeology rests with these more modest assemblages of evidence.

The development of new scientific techniques in archaeology is most

impressive to a person whose archaeological experience terminated over 15

years ago. The recent surge of popularity of what might be called atomic-

age dating has, of course, caught the attention of all persons interested in
anthropology. What impresses me here, however, is that these specialized

techniques do not provide the touchstones for the solution of chronological
problems. Each specific technique is fraught with its own problems and the
blind use of any of them would undoubtedly lead the archaeologist to error.
The lesson goes beyond the limits of archaeology itself and applies to any

technique used in all the sciences.  The scholars here seem to recognize this

-, e -

problem and are beginning a critical use of carbon iL, fluorine and similar
dating methods.  I would be derelict, however, if I did not point out that
occasionally their use seems a little opportunistic; that is, they quote

the carbon 14 date where it serves the purpose at hand, but deny it wdhere it
leads to embarrassment. This it seems to me is an inevitable stage in the

development of new technical methods; it means merely that a carbon 14 dating
is substantiating evidence and must be seen in the perspective of the total
assemblage of archaeological data.

The present symposium collates many evidences on the antiquity of man
in California, and raises important methodological and cultural problems.

Heizer reviews the data from ethnology, linguistics and physical anthropology,
and discusses the problems inherent in carbon 14 and fluorine dating. He

closes his discussion with an effort to summarize the positive evidences for
antiquity and offers his view of the early peopling of the area under dis-
cussion.

Brainerd? s investigations focus attention on the more arid portions of
the state. He calls attention to the virtue of survey technique in develop-
ing knowledge of culture history. This is made possible by the development
of a statistical means of seriating a number of assemblages from different
sites. Brainerd is also interested in going beyond the problem of culture

sequence and facing the ecological involvements. He recognizes the relation-
ship between the technological accomplishments and the environment, on one

hand and the density of population and the character of social organization.
These are problems that stand before the prehistorians of the California
area.

Antevs' presentation of the climatic conditions of the past 20,000

years offers a detailed framework within which the archaeologist must examine
his data. The implications for the climatological changes both for dating
specific sites and for understanding the social economy of the ancient
cultures is of extreme importance. Even more significantly Antevs has

ventured a placement of the more important archaeological findings of the
desert area lwirthin this chronology.

The three papers presented here serve, I believe, as a summary of

achievement and a benchmark for further research on the antiquity of man
in California.

Department of Anthropology and Sociology
University of California, Los Angeles

- 2-