THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF SANTABARBARA CHANNEL ARCHAEOLOGY

Jon M. Erlandson Department of Anthropology University of Oregon Eugene, OR 97403 and Department of Anthropology Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History 2559 Puesta Del Sol Santa Barbara, CA 93105

ABSTRACT

In this paper, I examine historical trends in the development of Santa Barbara Channel archaeology, with an emphasis on the last 30 years. Since 1960, 4 developments have been particularly significant in shaping the way archaeology is done in the Santa Barbara Channel today: (1) the dramatic increase in the amount of archaeology being done; (2) the fundamental shift in archaeology from an essentially academic discipline to one dominated by commercial enterprise; (3) the development of new techniques for analyzing archaeological remains, techniques that have expanded the range of questions we can address; and (4) the increasingly active role that Native Americans have played in archaeology. These trends reflect broader patterns in California and American archaeology, but they have followed a somewhat unique trajectory in the Santa Barbara area. Regarding where Santa Barbara Channel archaeology may be headed in the 1990s and beyond, I suggest that paradigms now being developed may lead to a "new synthesis· that will incorporate the best approaches of 20th century archaeologists into a revitalized record of California's cultural past.

INTRODUCTION literature (see Anderson 1980) on the ar­ chaeology and ethnography ofthe Chumash California's Santa Barbara Channel area, and their predecessors. The archaeological encompassing the northern Channel Islands record of the Santa Barbara Channel clearly and the main1and coast from Point Concep­ illustrates the vibrant and dynamic nature tion to Point Dume (Figure 1), has played a ofthe prehistoric cultures ofthe area, pivotal role in the defmition ofsouth and where many cultural developments now central coast prehistory. At the time ofEu­ known to be representative of a much ropean contact, the Santa Barbara Channel broader area were fIrst defmed. was the demographic and political center of the maritime Chumash. The Chumash Given these facts, it seems appropriate were one ofthe most populous and complex to look at the history of archaeology in the tribes in a state renowned for hunter­ Santa Barbara Channel to examine the con­ gatherer societies of unusually high popula­ text of current research in the area. Until tion density and remarkable social, political, recently, I had never seriously considered and economic complexity. Because of the the broader implications of the history of ar­ wealth of artifacts and data they contain, ar­ chaeology in the Santa Barbara Channel, in chaeological sites of the area have attracted California, or anywhere else. Inwriting this the attention of relic-hunters, antiquarians, paper, however, I found that there is value and archaeologists for over 100 years. This in periodically looking behind us -- if only to long history of research has generated a vast see where we have been. After all, a better

Proceedings ofthe Society for California ARhaeolollY, 1993, Vol. S, pp. 221·232. Copyrighte1993 by the Society for California Arehaeology. ., \ ._---.' ( ..... I ..... J j~, . ::.:. ~',- ....:. ,.-J" / ; .... , '.::':':' -... ( i ,'- \ .·:.:;:::~~:7:\~.:;;fhit t· ...~,'~ ~'.- ~.l__.• '.. ;,.,,;; ...... -'.• '. / /"...... c .'~':':'J~.. . /'~~; ~~~ ,:;;.;, ~~.¢,.~.\- /..J~" i­ "~"-.

, Y,; ~I ,-'} I / \ l'')...... , ,~·,ftuf_ /('WI... I I { I \ V..;.S:~ I...... 1 ~ \...... "; '-. ,...... /' 1 I \.. J -'­ .. : ... ;. Ait,.,,;;;:r-·-._ ..-i "".. "-." .~ i, Y' ,. .. -;:'i·;. 0... } I .....j (I '4' .~B;,I".'/;/I., '­ I . "::'::'~ " I') ( .J ~ 6111!jI ...... # .­ '­ ...... " S"",,, I'.. . I , i'"/"-.'. ,.j' _ ~ /;/,.1'".." ",. ". ~#, . ". \,;) '\. 1110jl. . 1;.'. .' .',' ...... i ~._-(.. ,.... I , ...... -'.., 1 Stsp.~IY" , . f.. I - \ ...... ­ I PoW Argu~ [!a:,., .. ,•. , : • ":..j.iu"",.,/;/t.4J07jI. -­ _-.1".. ~ ,.­ '--'l , ....., ~ ,,\;;" J _._-', C ~ ! J

N "" ...... ­

\

SanMlguel-/slatrd .' ...... <..... " ...... ' . '. ':1';•. , .f ,. o Sanla Rosa Island

Figure 1. Santa Barbara Channel region.

222 idea of where we have been can give us a the world descended on California's coastal clearer picture ofwhere we are, how we got middens in search of relics for public and here, and hopefully where we are going. On private collections. In the Santa Barbara the other hand, my new appreciation for the Channel, the earliest crude attempts at ar­ history of California archaeology may simply chaeological research were conducted by reflect my own gradual evolution from a men like Schumacher (1875), Stephen Bow­ "young turk" into an "old hand." ers (1878,1883), Frederic Putnam (Putnam et al. 1879), and Leon de Cessac (1882). To really understand the current status With the goal of collecting skeletal remains of archaeology in the Santa Barbara Chan­ and display-quality artifacts, these antiquar­ nel area, we would have to examine broader ians plundered cemetery plots up and down developments in western science, anthro­ the Santa Barbara coast. They generally fo­ pology, and archaeology over the last 100 cused on large late prehistoric sites, whose years or more. Since this task is beyond the cemeteries contained a wealth offinely scope ofboth my paper and my expertise, I made artifacts. By modern standards, nearly focus on the development ofSanta Barbara all oftheir excavations were unsystematic Channel archaeology between 1960 and the and poorly documented. Thus, much ofthe present. Nonetheless, a brief overview of archaeological research of this period was the archaeology ofthe area will help place more destructive than constructive. Nu­ these later developments in a broader his­ merous important sites were damaged, while torical perspective. only minor contributions to the prehistory ofthe California coast were made. In their defense, however, the antiquarians had no AN ABBREVIATED HISTORY OF knowledge of the time depth ofPacific coast SANTA BARBARA CHANNEL prehistory or the dramatic cultural changes ARCHAEOLOGY that would be identified by later archaeolo­ gists. Relatively systematic archaeological work began in the Santa Barbara Channel The Culture Historians: 1925 to 1955 area by at least 1875, when Paul Schumach­ Reflecting broader trends in the devel­ er ofthe U.S. Coast Survey explored a opment ofAmerican anthropology, Santa number of major village sites, reportedly col­ Barbara Channel archaeologists ofthis peri­ lecting 15 tons ofartifacts in just a few od excavated sites with a new interest in de­ week's work (Chartkoff and Chartkoff fining cultural stages through stratigraphic 1984:347). In the intervening 117 years, in­ excavations and intersite comparisons (e.g., vestigations in the Santa Barbara area have Rogers 1929; Olson 1930; Orr 1943). The been instrumental in identifying cultural primary emphasis was on building a "culture patterns and defining regional chronologies history" or developmental sequence for the for the southern and central California area. During this era, burials and formal ar­ coast. As might be expected, the goals and tifact types remained the main objects of methods of archaeologists have changed study, but structures and refuse areas were dramatically during more than 100 years of systematically explored for the first time. research. Over the past 40 years alone, new Unlike the collections ofthe antiquarians, developments in archaeological method and however, many of the artifacts and burials theory have revolutionized our discipline. collected during this period continue to be Unfortunately, many ofthe sophisticated valuable sources of data for modern re­ questions we can now ask with the insights searchers interested in the prehistory ofthe gained from our new data and techniques California coast. cannot always be answered with collections recovered by early researchers. During this period, Santa Barbara Chan­ nel archaeologists laid the foundations ofa The Antiquarians: 1875 to 1925 culture history that profoundly influenced Little more than 100 years after the our view of California coastal prehistory. Spanish settlement ofAlta California, David Banks Rogers ofthe Santa Barbara antiquarians and curio-seekers from around Museum of Natural History explored dozens

223 ofSanta Barbara Channel village sites dur­ the archaeology ofcoastal California by ing the 1920s and 1930s, and produced the unequivocally demonstrating the antiquity flrst and best synthesis ofSanta Barbara ofcoastal settlement in the region (Heizer Channel prehistory ever written (Rogers 1958). One ofthe pioneers in the use ofra­ 1929). The names ofhis cultural stages diocarbon dating on the California coast was have been changed by later investigators Phil Orr, who succeeded Rogers at the Santa (see Wallace 1955; Harrison 1964; Warren Barbara Museum of Natural History in 1938. 1968), but to this day much ofthe work in During the 1950s and 1960s, Orr used l~ the Santa Barbara area is oriented towards dating to build a 10,000 year chronology of reflning Rogers' chronology and fleshing out human settlement on Santa Rosa Island the adaptations ofhis archaeological cul­ (Orr 1952,1962,1968). Orr and his contem­ tures. poraries flrst established the great antiquity ofcoastal adaptations in California and pro­ Scientiflc Archaeology: 1955 to Present vided important new data on the lifeways of Between 1955 and the present, many the coastal peoples ofthe Santa Barbara theoretical, methodological, and technologi­ Channel. cal advances in American archaeology were made. These advances grew out ofthe ex­ The last 20 years have seen the imple­ plicit recognition by American archaeolo­ mentation ofnew federal, state, and local gists that archaeology should be a more rig­ laws that protect important archaeological orous and scientillc discipline, with the for­ sites threatened by development or other mulation and testing ofhypotheses, better forms ofdestruction (erosion, vandalism, quantitative methods, etc. In California, the etc.). With some ofthe strictest environ­ start ofthis period is marked by the publica­ mental laws in the nation, California has tion ofWilliam Wallace's (1955) classic seen particularly explosive growth in the summary ofcultural stages on the southern amount ofarchaeology being done. This California coast, a work followed by increas­ growth poses serious challenges for an ar­ ingly speciflc syntheses (e.g., Meighan 1959; chaeological community that flnds it in­ Harrison 1964; Warren 1968; Moratto 1984; creasingly difficult to absorb and synthesize King 1990) as additional data became avail­ the rapidly accumulating data. Generally able. During this period, Santa Barbara known as Cultural Resource Management Channel archaeologists focused increasingly (CRM), research mandated by such legisla­ on understanding the ecological and evolu­ tion makes up an increasing proportion of tionary contexts ofcultural changes. the archaeology done in the Santa Barbara area and around the nation. As rampant de­ More than any other single event, ar­ velopment has overtaken much ofthe chaeology was revolutionized by W.F. Lib­ southern California coast, a vast reservoir of by's development ofradiocarbon (14C) dating valuable data has been generated, much of in the late 1940s. For the flrst time, 14C dat­ which remains to be adequately synthesized. ing allowed the relatively accurate place­ ment ofprehistoric sites into an absolute chronological framework. This reduced the HOW MUCH HAS SANTA BARBARA reliance ofarchaeologists on formal artifact CHANNEL ARCHAEOLOGY REALLY typologies, allowing more emphasis to be CHANGED? placed on interdisciplinary and ecological aspects ofthe archaeological record. Thus, From a long historical perspective, Santa the focus ofmany California archaeologists Barbara Channel archaeology obviously has (Le., Landberg 1965; Warren 1968; Leonard changed a great deal since the 1870s. Much 1971) shifted gradually from artifacts to ofthis change accompanied advances in "ecofacts" (shell, bone, etc.), a change that general scientillc paradigms, however, and paralleled the development ofecological the accumulation ofmore and better data. perspectives in American anthropology. In this sense, the advances in Santa Barbara Channel archaeology over the decades re­ Itwas not until the mid-1950s that 14C flect broader developments in anthropology dating began to have a major influence on and western science. Since the 1870s, ar­

224 chaeology has evolved from a salvage opera­ systematically to recover more and better tion for the material remnants of"vanishing data, but we still survey by foot, dig square cultures" to a relatively sophisticated and in­ holes in arbitrary levels, and sort thousands terdisciplinary discipline that scientifically of shells and bones by hand. examines the patterns, contexts, and causes ofchanges in past human societies. The de­ In some ways, much of the revolutionary velopment of the "new archaeology," which promise ofthe New Archaeology may not descended on American archaeology with have been fully realized, a point I will return tremendous fanfare in the 1960s, has been to in a later section. Nonetheless, Santa credited with many ofthe theoretical and Barbara Channel archaeology has changed. methodological advances in archaeology as a From my perspective, some of the most in­ scientific discipline. Many ofthese advances fluential changes are not the theoretical de­ had roots in the earlier works ofthe 1940s velopments ofthe 1960s and 1970s, but the (e.g., Taylor 1948), however, and in quanti­ more pedestrian aspects of doing archaeolo­ tative analytical techniques pioneered by gy that generally have more widespread ef­ Albert Spaulding (1953) and others. fects on those working as archaeologists. These include: (1) the explosive growth in Has Santa Barbara Channel archaeology the amount and costs of the archaeology be­ changed significantly over the last 30 years? ing done; (2) a fundamental shift from ar­ Undeniably, we have made major advances chaeology as an academic pursuit to a com­ since the 1950s and early 1960s, when ar­ mercial enterprise; (3) the development of a chaeologists like Phil Orr and Clarence host ofnew analytical techniques; and (4) Ruth still excavated using methods little the increasing participation of Native Amer­ changed from those of D.B. Rogers in the icans in CRM-related issues. 1920s. In some ways, however, the changes are less dramatic than we might think. For The Growth of Commercial Archaeology decades, for instance, archaeologists focused From the 1920s to the early 1960s, the too much on excavating large, rich sites. It number of professional archaeologists who would be nice to think that this had changed lived and worked in the Santa Barbara area with the emphasis in recent years on more full-time could be counted on one hand. In representative sampling and understanding almost every case, these people were affili­ settlement patterns. Unfortunately, the ated with non-profit academic institutions idea that big, artifact-rich sites are the only like the University of California or the Santa ones that deserve detailed study still clouds Barbara Museum of Natural History. Today, the thinking of many California archaeolo­ there are dozens of archaeologists doing ar­ gists, even though we know little about less chaeology in Santa Barbara County full­ conspicuous site types (see Glassow 1985). time. The vast majority ofthese work in More evidence that things have not changed CRM-related jobs with government agencies so much is the fact that techniques many of or consulting firms. Santa Barbara archae­ us think ofas relatively recent develop­ ologists are fortunate to live in a county that ments (1/8" screening, soil flotation, and has one of the strictest interpretations of column sampling) were used by William CEQA and excellent guidelines that govern Harrison in Santa Barbara sites in the CRM-related research. We have worked 1950s. Many of us still do not systematically hard over the years to make it that way. use such techniques. Finally, the ecological midden studies pioneered in Santa Barbara The growth of Santa Barbara Channel Channel sites in the early 1960s by archae­ archaeology generally has been beneficial, ologists like Freddie Curtis and Roberta but it has disturbing aspects as well. One of Greenwood (and still used today), had his­ these is the increasing cost of doing archae­ torical precedents in quantitative midden ology. Not so many years ago, we could ex­ studies by earlier California archaeologists cavate and analyze a cubic meter ofshell (e.g., Gifford 1916; Cook and Treganza midden in a typical Santa Barbara coastal 1950). Some of us now have fancy new site for about $1,000. Today, the same gadgets like laser transits and Global Posi­ amount ofmidden may cost $10,000 or more tioning Systems, and we water-screen more to excavate and analyze. In part, costs have

225 risen because ofinflation and the growing from Santa Barbara County sites contribut­ acceptance of archaeology as a fundamental ed to 9 papers published in American An­ part of the environmental p1annjng process. tiguity (Arnold 1992; Bamforth 1986,1991; It is also due, however, to the growing ex­ Erlandson 1984, 1988; Glassow and Wilcox­ pectations that archaeology is a business on 1988; Johnson 1989; Jones 1991; Walker that should generate profits. Today, more and Erlandson 1986). Significantly, CRM and more archaeology is done by large, "full­ projects contributed data to at least 7 of service" environmental or engineering firms those papers. Today, we are in the midst of with very high overhead rates. At times, de­ a significant revitalization, one to which cisions about how to do archaeology are CRM data is making major contributions. made by non-archaeologists who do not un­ This suggests that our battles to institution­ derstand the expense and ethics involved in alize and regulate the research done under doing it right. We all know of cases where the auspices of Cultural Resource Manage­ the profit motive took precedence over good ment are paying significant dividends. science or protecting the resource. In gen­ eral, the public is getting less archaeology The Laboratory Revolution for their money, a trend that has disturbing Over the past 40 years, one ofthe most implications. During the best oftimes there fundamental revolutions in archaeology has are limits to what the public and private sec­ taken place in the laboratories of chemists, tors will pay for archaeological research. physicists, molecular biologists, palynolo­ Unless we do a better job of sharing our re­ gists, and other scientists. Computers and sults with the public, we may be seen as a software have fundamentally changed our luxury society cannot afford during econom­ profession, but it is new analytical tech­ ic hard times like those that threaten Cali­ niques developed in other sciences that have fornia today. extended the range of our interpretations. Geochemical "sourcing" of obsidian artifacts, The increase in the number of archaeol­ high power microwear analyses of chipped ogists working in the area has caused an ex­ stone tools, pollen washes ofground stone plosion in the amount of basic archaeological . tools, blood and other residue analyses, trace data being produced. Yet, despite what element and isotopic studies, accelerator 14C must be the highest per capita ratio ofar­ dating, and other technological wizardry chaeologists in the nation and a sharp rise in have provided us with the ability to see the number of theses and dissertations pro­ things in the archaeological record that duced on California topics, California ar­ could not have been dreamed ofin 1960. I chaeologists have generally been lax about can only hope that the technological devel­ publishing their research in major archaeo­ opments ofthe next 30 years will be equally logicaljoumals (Conkey 1992). Between dramatic. 1970 and 1984, this criticism was equally true ofSanta Barbara Channel archaeolo­ Unfortunately, archaeologists tend to gists. I believe our relative quiescence dur­ borrow many new techniques uncritically, ing this period was largely due to a preoccu­ enthusiastically applying them to our data pation with CRM: We were overwhelmed long before the bugs are worked out. Just a with the difficult job ofbuilding the in­ few examples of this include amino acid frastructure necessary to allow CRM pro­ racemization dating, the use ofobsidian hy­ jects to contribute consistently to research dration as an absolute dating method, and topics in California archaeology. analysis of shellfish seasonality via growth­ ring studies. Even a "tried-and-true" tech­ In recent years, California and Santa nique like radiocarbon dating has undergone Barbara Channel archaeologists have made over 40 years of experimental refinement remarkable progress in reversing the de­ and continues to have trouble with problem­ cline in our substantive contributions to atical materials or samples. We should re­ American archaeology. In 1984, 2 important sist the temptation to uncritically 'Jump on syntheses of California prehistory were pub­ the bandwagon" of new technologies applied lished (Chartkoff and Chartkoff 1984; Mor­ to archaeological problems. Although pre­ atto 1984). In the subsequent 8 years, data liminary data on new techniques are often

226 encouraging, only time and careful experi­ serving archaeological sites and the conduct mentation can tell if some of our most prom­ of quality archaeology in the Santa Barbara ising techniques can truly produce the re­ area. sults that are claimedfor them. Like medi­ cal doctors afraid to be sued, we sometimes Nobody has a more fundamental right to follow a kind of"cookbookll approach to anal­ be involved in the control ofthe past than ysis, running whole batteries of tests on as­ the Native peoples whose past we study. semblages just because it is possible ,to do so. Native American perspectives sometimes Such approaches often waste precious dol­ conflict with the scientific paradigms we lars that might better be spent interpreting have learned as members of a dominant, rel­ proven data more effectively. There is no atively affluent, and historically repressive substitute for carefully using those types of white majority. In our dealings with Native analyses that provide the data needed to an­ Americans, we have much to live down. swer well-formulated research questions. Many tribal members will never forget the stories they have heard or read about grave­ Native Americans and Archaeologists digging lIanthros" like Ales Hrdlicka, who For me, one of the most important de­ sometimes robbed Indian graves even before velopments of the last 30 years is the in­ the flesh of the interred had fully decayed. creasinglyactive role Native Americans have played in CRM. As far as I know, Native Cal­ Despite such historical differences, we ifornians were fIrst regularly used as crew share much in common with living Native members and monitors in Santa Barbara Americans. Many of us have dedicated our County. Native American involvement in lives to studying and preserving the past of Santa Barbara Channel archaeology began Native Californian cultures. Most ofus are in the early 1970s, when members ofthe deeply interested in Native American his­ Quabajai Chumash Indian Association, the tory and have a fundamental respect for the Brotherhood of the Tomol, and the Santa diversity and accomplishments of Native so­ Ynez Indian Reservation organized to pro­ cieties. Most of us are compassionate in our test the development ofHammond's Mead­ views ofthe multiple tragedies that over­ ow in Montecito, the location ofthe historic took America's native peoples as a result of village ofShalwai (SBA-19) and other sites. European diseases, violence, dispossession, In 1977, Chumash tribal members were in­ and government neglect. Given our fascina­ cluded in a large archaeological project asso­ tion and respect for past Native American ciated with a controversial proposal to build societies, it is strange that many ofus have a Liquefied Natural Gas plant on sacred resisted the reforms that are overtaking us lands near Point Conception (King and Craig now. Trained in the cross-cultural ap­ 1978). This proposed development galvan­ proaches ofanthropology, we should be par­ ized the local Native American community, ticularly sensitive to the concerns ofindige­ leading to an occupation of the Point Con­ nous peoples and the needs of dispossessed ception 'area led by the Chumash and a minorities trying to revitalize their cultures. heightened awareness of the importance of heritage-related preservation issues. All too often, however, educated white anthropologists have tried to dictate how Over the years, the involvement of the past should be studied, interpreted, and Chumash tribal members in CRM projects preserved. Many of us have wasted years in the Santa Barbara area has expanded. trying to fight the legitimate concerns of Because of their activism and 15 years of Native Californians. Some ofus have inter­ CRM experience, many Native Americans of fered in tribal politics in futile attempts to the Santa Barbara area now have a sophisti­ protect our own interests. I often hear col­ cated knowledge ofarchaeological methods, leagues attack the integrity, character, and historic preservation law, and the consulta­ heritage of Native Americans who are out­ tion and compliance processes. As their standing people and strong advocates for knowledge has increased, so has their protecting archaeological sites -- even influence. Over the years, the Chumash EuroAmerican sites. Countless times, I people have been a powerful force for pre­ have heard archaeologists accuse Native

227 Americans ofbeing interested primarily in complishments. As a profession, we made the money and the power that come from major strides in the study of hunter­ CRM. In recent years, however, when I have gatherers in the past 3 decades. Much of called for volunteers to help restore and pro­ our progress resulted from the development tect a looted cemetery or site, concerned of ecological and evolutionary perspectives Native Americans always outnumber ar­ in anthropology (see Hardesty 1980; Dun­ chaeologists by a substantial margin. All too nell 1980), with major contributions made often, it seems to be we archaeologists who by studies ofmodern hunter-gatherers, are obsessed with the power and profits as­ analyses ofsite formation processes (Schiff­ sociated with historic preservation. er 1987), the development of cultural ecolog­ ical models (Jochim 1981), and the accumu­ Recent legislative decisions show that lation ofnew archaeological data. Many of the tide ofpublic opinion and political power our best and most cherished paradigms con­ are going against archaeology as it has been tinue to be highly relevant to current ar­ practiced in California and America in the chaeological problems. Others, however, past. Instead offighting the inevitable, I seem to have reached a point ofnear senes­ wish today's reactionaries had spent the last cence. Today, important new paradigms are 15 years in constructive dialog with Native being developed that will revolutionize the peoples. Ifall ofus had, emotional issues way we think about past societies. As with like repatriation and reburial might not the older roots of the new archaeology, the weigh so heavily on our profession today. development of these new paradigms also Native Americans should not just be work­ should not detract from the accomplish­ ing with us when we dig, they should be tak­ ments of the past 30 years. ing part in our surveys, working in our labs, and participating in project planning. Sepa­ Just about the time I finally figured out rately, we can both be advocates for preser­ what a processual archaeologist was -- and vation and scientific archaeology. Working realized I was one of them -- it seemed that and speaking together, however, our voices "post-processual" archaeology came along. are much more likely to be heard. Not wanting to be perceived as an intellec­ tual dinosaur before I turned 40, I have watched the development ofpost-processual NEW PARADIGMS FOR THE 1990S archaeology with some interest. A remark­ able discovery I have made is that Ian Hod­ Today, the label"New Archaeology" is a der's post-processual writings are just as in­ bit out of fashion, largely supplanted by a comprehensible to me as the Lewis Binford more current jargon: "Processual archaeolo­ articles I was forced to read early in my col­ gy". I dislike labels that are unintelligible to lege career. I have also found many early the public, but using the more current label post-processual interpretive case studies to allows me to dodge the question ofwhether be fundamentally weak. The more recent we are entering a period of"newer" or "new contributions are becoming increasingly so­ and improved" archaeology. Whatever we phisticated, however, and these new para­ call the archaeology of the 1990s, there is no digms have made some real advances. If, as doubt that the cumulative changes of the Albert Spaulding (1986:307) pointed out, it past 30 years reshaped archaeology as it is took 15 years for the work ofW.W. Taylor practiced in the Santa Barbara Channel, Cal­ (1948) and his predecessors to crystallize ifornia, and America. into a coherent "new archaeology," certainly we should give these new pioneers equal During the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, time to reach their full potential. there were fundamental advances in our knowledge, our methods, and our theories. Among the "new" paradigms I find ap­ These advances gave us powerful new para­ pealing is the return of the individual to digms for understanding past human cul­ prehistory. Many ofus (myself included) tures. The fact that the roots ofsome of had reached a point where we marched these developments were in the 1940s and "populations" (not people) inexorably around 1950s does not detract from our later ac­ the proverbial landscape like automatons

228 reacting mechanically to external forces like fmd especially disheartening. Most ofus be­ population pressure or environmental came archaeologists because we loved the change. Into this somewhat sterile ap­ excitement ofthe field work and the intel­ proach, I welcome back human aspirations lectual stimulation of discovering the past. and active individuals, although these may Archaeology should be more than ajob, it be hard to identify in a somewhat homog­ should be a passion. Once money, stability, enized shell midden. I welcome, too, recent or security become the primary objectives, attempts to "engender" archaeology (e.g., archaeology becomes just a job, and the Cero and Conkey 1991; Walde and Willows whole profession suffers. 1991; Claassen 1992) and the application of feminist perspectives to problems old and Despite some ofthe troubling patterns I new. Much ofthe work ofthe past 120 years have discussed in this paper, I see much is hopelessly androcentric and must be cor­ room for optimism. As archaeologists, we rected before we can truly move forward. have weathered a difficult period oftransi­ tion. Archaeology has been institutionalized I welcome these new perspectives, par.­ in the environmental protection process, ticularly ifthey do not throw the processual despite the attempted retrenchments ofthe baby out with the post-processual bath wa­ Reagan years. Furthermore, we have not ter. Ultimately, the best innovations from just institutionalized the methods ofthe the 1920s to the 1990s may be combined 1970s, we have steadily extended the scope into a kind of"new synthesis" in archaeology ofour work, the range ofinformation we -- a label I like much better than processual­ routinely collect and analyze, and the so­ ism, post-processualism, or the contradic­ phistication ofour interpretations. tory "post-modernism." Such a "new synthe­ sis" has the potential to combine the best of Ultimately, however, we are losing our many distinct paradigms and techniques in sites at an alarming rate to development, archaeology into a vital and very human erosion, and looting. We have accomplished story ofour collective past. I would like to much over the last 30 years, but we have see California archaeologists playa leading much more to do. With mutual respect and role in producing such a synthesis. true collaboration between the archaeologi­ cal and Native American communities, we can be a powerful force for the preservation CONCLUSIONS ofarchaeological sites, increased funding for archaeology, and the more effective use of I am not always optimistic about the di­ that funding. To succeed, however, we des­ rections in which California archaeology is perately need to better interpret the past going. After an apprenticeship working on for the public, to revive the spirit ofcom­ Spanish Mission Period sites under Julia munity and volunteerism among archaeolo­ Costello, I cut my teeth in CRM working on gists, and to combine the talents and re­ small survey and excavation projects with sources ofagency, contract, and academic people like Steven Craig, Michael Macko, archaeologists in cooperative regional re­ Pandora Snethkamp, and Larry Wilcoxon. search studies. In some ways, those were the good old days: budgets were small, projects and paperwork were less complex, regulations were few, and ACKNOWLEDGMENTS we policed our own. We got paid for much of what we did -- though not very well by to­ A very different version of this paper was day's standards -- and worked for nothing read in a symposium on "Southern Califor­ whenever we had to. Today, the situation nia Research Orientation: 1960 to 1990" at has changed somewhat, and not always for the 1992 Society for California Archaeolo­ the better. gy's Annual Meetings in Pasadena. I am grateful to Dennis Gallegos for organizing The new emphasis on money and profits the symposium and urging me to write this has caused a decline in the spirit ofvol un­ paper, to Richard Carrico for his comments teerism among archaeologists -- a trend I as discussant, to Mike Glassow, Claude War­

229 ren, John Johnson, John Ruiz, and Larry Claassen, Cheryl (editor) Wilcoxon for their comments and assistance, 1992 Exploring Gender Through Archae­ and to Martin Rosen, Lynne Christenson, ill.Qgy. Prehistory Press, Madison, WI. Susan Hector, and Don Laylander for help­ ing edit and produce the manuscript. Natu­ Conkey, Margaret W. rally, the opinions expressed in this paper 1992 Lots of Heat, But We Need the Light: are peculiarly my own. The Place of California Archaeology in the Construction of Archaeological The­ ory. Paper presented at the 26th Annual REFERENCES CITED Meeting of the Society for California Ar­ chaeology, Pasadena. Anderson, Eugene N., Jr. 1980 A Revised Annotated Bibliography of Cook, Sherburne F., and Adan E. Treganza the Chllm8§h and their Predecessors. 1950 The Quantitative Investigation of In­ Ballena Press Anthropological Papers dian Mounds. University of California No. 11. Socorro, NM. Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 40(5):223-262. Arnold Jeanne E. 1992 Complex Hunter-Gatherer-Fishers of Dunnell, Robert C. Prehistoric California: Chiefs, Special­ 1980 Evolutionary Theory and Archaeolo­ ists, and Maritime Adaptations ofthe gy. Advances in ArchaeoloiPcal Method Channel Islands. American Antiquity and Theory 3:35-99. Academic Press, 57:60-84. New York. Bamforth, Douglas B. Erlandson, Jon M. 1986 Technological Efficiency and Tool 1984 A Case Study in Faunalturbation: De­ Curation. American Antiquity 51:38-50. lineating the Effects ofthe Burrowing Pocket Gopher on the Distribution of 1991 Technological Organization and Archaeological Materials. American An­ Hunter-Gatherer Land Use: A California tiquity 49:785-790. Example. American Antiquity 56:216­ 234. 1988 The Role of Shellfish in Prehistoric Economies: A Protein Perspective. Bowers, Stephen American Antiquity 52:102-109. 1878 History and Antiquities ofSanta Rosa Island. Smithsonian Institution Annual Gero, Joan M., and Margaret W. Conkey Report for 1887, pp. 316-320. Washing­ 1991 Engendering Archaeology: Women ton,D.C. and Prehistory. Basil Blackwell, Oxford. 1883 Fishhooks from Southern California. Gifford, Edward Winslow Science 1:575. 1916 Composition of California Shell­ mounds. University of California Publi­ Cessac, Leon de cations in American Archaeology and 1882 Observations sur des Fetiches de Ethnology 12(1): 1-29. University of Cali­ Pierre Sculptes en Forme d'Animaux fornia Press, Berkeley. Decoverts a l'ne de San Nicolas (Califor­ nie). Revue d'Ethnographie 1:30-40. Glassow, Michael A Paris. 1985 The Significance ofSmall Sites to California Archaeology. Journal of Cali­ Chartkoff, Joseph L. and Kerry Kona fornia and Great Basin Anthropology Chartkoff 7:58-66. 1984 The Archaeology of California. Stan­ ford University Press.

230 Glassow, Michael A, and Larry Wilcoxon Leonard, N. Nelson, ill 1988 Coastal Adaptations Near Point 1971 Natural and Social Environments of Conception, California, with Particular the Santa Monica Mountains (6000 B.C. Regard to Shellf18h Exploitation. Ameri­ to 1800 AD.). University ofCalifornia can Antiguity 53:36-51. Archaeological Survey Annual Report 13:97-135. Los Angeles. Hardesty, Donald L. 1980 The Use of General Ecological Prin­ Meighan, Clement W. ciples in Archaeology. Advances in Ar­ 1959 California Cultures and the Concept chaeological Method and Theory 3:157­ ofthe Archaic Stage. American Antigui­ 187. Academic Press, New York. ty 24:289-318. Harrison, William M. Moratto, Michael J. 1964 Prehistory ofthe Santa Barbara 1984 California Archaeology. Academic Coast. California. Ph.D. dissertation, Press, New York. University ofArizona. University Micro­ fIlms International, Ann Arbor. Olson, Ronald L. 1930 Chumash Prehistory. University of Heizer, Robert F. California Publications in American Ar­ 1958 Radiocarbon Dates from California of chaeology and Ethnology 28:1-21. Archaeological Interest. In University of Berkeley. California Archaeological Survey Reports No. 44, pp. 1-16. Berkeley. Orr, Phil C. 1943 Archaeology of Mescalitan Island and Jochim, MichaelA the Customs of the Canalino. Santa Bar­ 1981 Strategies for Survival. Academic bara Museum of Natural History Occa­ Press, New York. sional Papers No.5. Johnson, Donald L. 1952 Review ofSanta Barbara Channel Ar­ 1989 Subsurface Stone Lines, Stone Zones, chaeology. Southwestern Journal ofAn­ Artifact-Manuport Layers, and Bioman­ thropology 8:211-226. tles Produced by Bioturbation via Pocket Gophers (Thomomys bottae). American 1962 The Arlington Springs Site, Santa Antiguity 54:370-389. Rosa Island, California. American An­ tiguity 27:417-419. Jones, Terry 1991 Marine-Resource Value and the Pri­ 1968 Prehistory ofSanta Rosa Island. ority of Coastal Settlement: A California Santa Barbara Museum of Natural His­ Perspective. American Antiguity 56:419­ tory. 443. Putnam, Frederic W., C.C. Abbott, S.S. Hal­ King, Chester D. deman, and H.C. Yarrow 1990 Evolution ofChumash Society. Gar­ 1879 Archaeological and Ethnological Col­ land Publishing, New York. lections from Vicinity ofSanta Barbara, California and from Ruined Pueblos of King, Chester D., and Steven Craig Arizona and New Mexico, and Certain 1978 Cultural Resources Technical Report Interior Tribes. Report Upon United No.8, in Support ofPoint Conception States Geographical Surveys West ofthe LNG Project EIR. Arthur D. Little, San One Hundredth Meridian, vol. VII: Ar­ Francisco. chaeology. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington. Landberg, Leif 1965 The Chumash Indians ofSouthern California. Southwest Museum, Los An­ geles.

231 Rogers, David Banks 1929 Prehistoric Man ofthe Santa Barbara Coast. Santa Barbara Museum of Natu­ ral History. Schiffer, Michael B. 1987 Formation Processes ofthe Archaeo­ logical Record. University ofNew Mexi­ co Press, Albuquerque.

Schumacher, Paul 1875 Ancient Graves and Shell Heaps of California. Smithsonian Institution An­ nual Report 1874, pp. 335-350. Washing­ ton, D.C. Spaulding, Albert C. 1953 Statistical Techniques for the Dis­ covery ofArtifact Types. American An­ tiquity 18:305-313.

1986 Fifty Years of Theory. American An­ tiquity 50:301-308. Taylor, Walter W. 1948 A Study ofArchaeology. Memoirs of the American Anthropological Associa­ tion No. 69. Washington, D.C. Walde, Dale, and Noreen D. Willows 1991 The Archaeology of Gender: Proceed­ ings of the 22nd Chacmool Conference. The Archaeology Association of the Uni­ versity of Calgary.

Walker, Philip L., and Jon M. Erlandson 1986 Dental Evidence for Prehistoric Die­ tary Change on the Northern Channel Islands, California. American Antiquity 51:375-383. Wallace, William J. 1955 A Suggested Chronology for South­ ern California Coastal Archaeology. Southwest Journal ofAnthropology 11:214-230. Warren, Claude N. 1968 Cultural Tradition and Ecological Adaptation on the Southern California Coast. In Archaic Prehistory in the Western United States, edited by C. Ir­ win-Williams, pp. 1-14. Eastern New Mexico Contributions in Anthropology No.1, part 3. Portalles.

282