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,