ON TIHE STUDY OF EARLY MAN IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

George W. Brainerd

This paper is an effort to define some of the archaeological problems
to be met in developing an understanding of human antiquity in southern

California, and further to raise certain questions as to the kind of arche-
ological work needed and as to its order of precedence.

The term "Early Man", as used in the Americas, has been generally applied
to archeological remains found associated with evidences of a climate, fauna,

or flora demonstrably different from that of the present. Thus the chronologi-
cal placement of such finds has started as a geological problem and has so

far inclined to remain so, save in certain areas where seemingly continuous
cultural sequences following the early finds have been discovered.

Fortunately for studies carried on in the desert area of southern

California, certain sites are located on long extinct water courses which
Dr. Antevs can date from his climatic studies. The Mohave and Pinto cul-

tures have been so dated and the large site at Little Lake under excavation
by M.R. Harrington, which shows features of both the Lake Mohave and Pinto

cultures, can also probably be so dated, adding assurance to the early dating
of the other two cultures. Unfortunately these cultures are not as yet

placed in a documented desert sequence, although there are increasing evidences
that explorations in Death Valley and elsewhere may soon establish sound work-
ing descriptions of other culture phases, datable on geologic evidence. The
earliest cultural materials at Gypsum Cave in Nevada have been placed with
reasonable certainty by radio carbon analysis which supports the earlier

tentative dating of the site, although unfortunately the scarcity of arti-

facts similar to those of Gypsum Cave in the California area has made place-
ment of these finds relative to the desert cultures extremely dubious. It
seems reasonable to expect that the desert sequences may eventually be

anchored at various stages by additional evidence in the form of bones of

extinct animals, found until now only in questionable association with cul-
ture remains, and by radioactive carbon dates.

The archeology of the coastal and adjoining areas which surround
Los Angeles has until recently lacked a sound chronological framework,

despite the large number of excavations and surveys which have been made

by various individuals and institutions over many years, Certain charac-
teristics of late sites as opposed to early have been generally conceded
such as the extensive use of mortars and pestles, of small projectile

points, of elaborate work in steatite, cremation and various other traits,
most of which are known to have been present at European contact in this
area. Geological evidences of climatic change such as have allowed the
desert datings have not thus far been recognized on the coast save at

Carter's site near La Jolla where the very early dates assigned have been
viewed dubiously by most archeologists. By the definitions with which I

started this talk, these materials are not at present eligible for designa-
tion as "early" cultures. I shall ask your indulgence to discuss them in
hopes that they may sometime become eligible.

- 18 -

The sequencing of archeological materials on internal evidence rather
than from the results of other sciences is usually feasible, and is indeed
the commonest archeological procedure. The simplest and most straight-

forxard manner of doing this is by stratigraphic excavation, Which, however,

is dependent on locating a site to which the technique is applicable. Records
of such sites in this area are rare. Even our best candidate, the Malaga

Cove site, dug by Mr. E.F. Walker, has yielded but very scanty materials from
its lower levels.   A second archeological sequencing technique is vaari;.ously
known as stylistic analysis, or (Spierts term) seriation. This sort of

analysis requires no stratigraphic superposition in the deposit, depending

instead on the detection of evidences of culture change for the chronological

ordering. The advantage of this technique is allowing the use of unstratified
material is a decisive factor at present in the Los Angeles area. A dis-

advantage is the possibility of the intrusion of nonchronological factors to

distort or disarray the order. We have been working for some time at U.C.L.A.
on chronological ordering by a statistical technique which, using a mathemati-
cally objective analysis of artifact tabulations of the sort standard among
archaeologists, will produce an ordering of sites. This technique looks

promising. By its use Mr. Charles Rosaire has recently been able to produce
an ordering of some 26 sites in the Los Angeles area which shows a very
logical pattern of the change in artifact use through time. It is fixed

in early-late direction by the ethnologically known late traits and European
trade objects. Tests of the statistical technique on previously formulated
chronological sequences have been made for the Santa Barbara area and for
the Sacramento Valley cultures by Mr. Russell Belous. These tests gave a
somewhat dubious and qualified confirmation of the Santa Barbara sequence
but in general a clear confirmation of the stratigraphically determined
Sacramento Valley sequence. As materials from more desert sites become

available there is no reason why the chronology of this area should not also
be amenable to statistical ordering.

Thus it may be seen that the archeological chronologies of the Southern
California desert and of the Los Angeles areas, although not yet clear and
well ordered, still look hopeful. A major chronological problem in all the

California area is that of synchronizing regional sequences. The simplicity,
regional variability, loosely observed stylistic usages, and conservativeness
through time which characterize the artifacts of California Indians make

the recognition of trade and immediate cultural copying difficult to recognize.
These difficulties are illustrated by the contrasting published statements
of Heizer and Treganza on Topanga-Oak Grove culture relationships, and by
Heizer's recent claim for close relationships between Early Sacramento and

Oak Grove coupled with the explicit statement that the artifacts of the two
groups are not similar, the only stated cultural similarity between the two
being extended burial position. I should be harder put to it than was

Heizer, however, were I asked to show cultural relationships between the

coastal and desert cultures of this area. Trade relationships, if at all
present in the material we have, must have been tenuous.

Archeological chronology is but a starting point in the reconstruction
of culture history.  It provides the framework into which the reconstruc-
tion may be fitted. Perhaps the next type of information necessary for an
archeological reconstruction is information on population and economy and
the closely related data on settlement pattern and social organization.

The solution of some of these ecological problems is simplified in

- 19 -

California by the absence of plant domestication over most of the state;
this absence eliminates from the field of reasonable conjecture the

possibility of many elaborate cultural situations which are known to be

found only in agricultural communities. But the simplicity of aboriginal

California culture, on the other hand, should not be overstated; Kroeber' s
estimates on population density suggest this as do records of complexity
in perishable artifacts, and the advanced organization of food gathering
activities of various of the native groups. A factor which must be con-
sidered to have exercised a peculiarly strong effect in California pre-
history (as it does now), is the California climate; in interaction with

the varied physiography of California today it is coupled with a remarkably
closely spaced variation in types of flora and fauna, including man, If we

add to this complex situation the climatic changes of the last 10,000 years,
the problem appears bewildering, although certain constants can unques-

tionably be applied to simplify the picture. The prevalence of close-spaced
physiographic zones immediately suggests the likelihood of seasonal popula-
tion movements, and such movements are well documented ethnologically. It

seems entirely possible,to me at least, that we might classify as two separate
culture phases the dry and rainy season camps of the same people.

The problem of archeological sampling must certainly be the first point
of attack in the determination of the history of population density and

settlement patterning. This problem is far from solved for most archeologi-
cal situations but is much more difficult for nonagricultural groups than
for others.  An identifiable archeological habitation site is formed only
where a considerable group of people have lived for a considerable time,

and only when these people have left relatively imperishable remains. Dry
cave deposits constitute a partial exception to this rule, as do open
deposits in such an arid area as the Peruvian coast since in such dry

deposits the refuse per man-year is much greater due to better preservation.
The relationship between amount of refuse and the factors of population size
and duration among nonagricultural peoples is not well known, although

S.F. Cook and A.E. Treganza have made a valuable start in the study of this
problem.

There is certainly a minimum sized group who wirll form an identifiable
site, and a minimal length of occupation necessary to produce it, It is

theoretically conceivable that a preagricultural occupation of some density

might not leave remains identifiable by our present archeological techniques.
Artifact yields of certain California sites which are recognizable by con-
centrations of shell and stained earth are extremely small; and both shell

and carbon are known to have leached out of other sites, recognizable in their
turn only by artifact concentrations. This problem -- looking for people
whom one, archeologically speaking, can't see -- is a frustrating one.
Unfortunately, it is not merely a philosophical dilemma.

Another deterrent to proper archeological sampling which may cause even
more spectacular errors, but at the same time is fortunately more likely to
be solved, is the error introduced by geologic action following cultural

deposition. In simplest terms, the earth's surface seldom stays as it was

over a long period. Either soil is taken array by air or water action, or a
soil mantle is deposited by the same and other agencies. 'Where extensive

erosion has occurred and modern vegetative cover is slight, surface sampling
is the only possible procedure, and customarily gives excellent material
for analysis of population and settlement pattern. For the materials

20 -

gathered in such situations, statistical seriation is the indicated procedure
for -recovering chronology, When geological deposition has been heavy, ex-

cavation is necessary and proper sampling is difficult unless arroyo cutting
has occurred or some efficient artificali earth-moving technique is available.
Although archeological survey is difficult and unreliable in country which
bears a heavy overburden, the deposits aire usually in good condition for

stratigraphic work and for detailed dissection and study. Good examples of
generally eroded archeological areas are the Southern California deserts,
Yucatan, and many parts of the Southwest. Examples where deposition has

complicated sampling are most large river flood plains, probably including
the Sacramento Valley as a local example, and many areas such as Guatemala,
the Northwest United States, and parts of central Arizona and the Valley of
Mexico where recent vulcanism has mantled the landscape.

If we assume that man lived wherever he could get to, and wherever he

could economically support himself in the past, and I believe this is a safe
assumption, there are many archeological blanks in well explored country

which must be a direct result of incomplete sampling.  Rigorous, properly
conducted sampling should be the first aim of an archeologist studying any

area. This is the only way whereby the fundamental facts of population size
and distribution, and the patterns of settlement can be studied. It should
be pursued, and its techniques improved. The search for the strategic site
which will lay down a clean cut chronology of an area, and its meticulous

excavation at considerable cost in time may at times have to be postponed to
allow time for the less spectacular but even more exacting work of survey.
Either excavation or survey will produce chronology, but only survey will
allow reliable estimates on population patterning. It is only after we
know the chronology, general economics, and population patterning of a
culture that we can properly fit more detailed knowledge into place.

So much for the primary value of survey in the California area in the

determination of population density and settlement patterns. Density is of
course closely associated with the economy which allows it and with the

environment which in turn limits the economry. This is short-circuiting the
cultural as well as biological factors with a vengeance! There is one cul-
tural factor active in much of California which must certainly have com-

plicated the relationship between the food supply and the population size in
California. This is the eating of acorns, which presumably depends on the

process of acorn meal leaching. If we accept the well documented fact that
in many areas the dense aboriginal California population was overwhelmingly
dependent on acorns for food it is obvious that the advent of leaching that
permitted acorn eating wrought a change in population density of the same
general order as did the advent of plant domestication in other areas,

Archeological criteria for the recognition of the use of acorns would be of
crucial value. Perhaps directed research might produce such criteria.

The degree and type of social organization is a partial function of
settlement pattern, which is dependent in turn on population density.

Population density depends to a major degree upon economy. In all of these
relationships a variety of cultural factors, often undiscoverable to the

archeologist, may at times exert a major influence. Direct, although only
partial, archeological evidence on the last three factors named can be
gotten, but social organization can only be inferred, usually on quite
fragmentary evidence.

- 21 "

In the Los Angeles area, the southern desert area, (and this situation
is true for most of California) we can claim only a tentative chronology,

and we still have many weak spots there.  I am convinced that the most fruit-
ful approach both for an immediate chronology and eventually for a more

finely graded one is in typological analysis. I think that surface collect-
ing, particularly in the desert area, is likely to be a rewarding procedure

and that, at this stage, survey techniques are likely to yield more important
results than concentration on intensive excavations.

I am also particularly enthused, as you may have gathered, by the

possibilities of demographic archeological studies in relation to climatic
and physiographic factors.  California is particularly well suited to such
studies due to its strong geographic variability and to the presence of a
long sequence of nonagricultural peoples whose final culture period has

been intensively recorded ethnologically. Techniques and general theory

tich can be evolved here may shed light on man's past at many other times
and places.

University of California and Southwest Museum
Los Angeles

- 22 -