REPORTS 303

San Nicolas Island Bifaces: (Glassow and Wilcoxon 1988:47). Peoples on A Distinctive Stone Tool soudiern California's Channel Islands, however, Manufacturing Technique apparently had a maritime economy from the time of their initial colonization until diey were E. JANE ROSENTHAL removed to mainland missions shortly after Petra Resources, Inc., 15 Corporate Park, Irvine, CA 92606. 1800. This economy at first emphasized sea mammal hunting and shellfish collecting, but eventually fishing predominated (Raab and Yat­ Recent archaeological investigations on San Nicolas Island resulted in the discovery sko 1990:19; Raab et al. 1995). Logically, diis and analysis of 14 abraded cherty shale bi­ changing maritime subsistence orientation re­ faces from CA-SNI-214. Because of their atyp­ quired specialized tools and technology. Were ical material, forms, and manufacturing tech­ the maritime technologies of the islanders dis­ nique, these bifaces represent a unusual arti­ fact association (at least three point types). tinctive? Did they develop a characteristic stone Several explanations for the occurrence and technology or simply use typical mainland stone function of the bifaces are explored. tools to perform fishing, sea mammal hunting, or shellfish collecting and processing tasks? In order to identify research, management, SAN NICOLAS, die farthest offshore of die and preservation options for San Nicolas Island, four southern Channel Islands, lies 98 km. (61 Martz (1994) developed a research design. As mi.) from the California mainland and is part of part of this design, I examined artifact collec­ the Pt. Mugu Naval Air Weapons Station (Fig. tions and previous stone artifact studies. My re­ 1). The Navy has an ongoing environmental view indicated that stone technology is a key program on San Nicolas Island that is committed factor in understanding not only the maritime to bodi preserving and enhancing its unique bio­ adaptadon on San Nicolas Island, but also its logical and cultural resources. Because the is­ cultural tradition. Material resources and mari­ land landscape was heavily impacted by inten­ time tasks were also identified as two variables sive sheep ranching before the military base was affecting stone artifact technology (Rosenthal constructed, archaeological research results are 1994). Specialized stone procurement, tool man­ being used to understand long-term cultural/envi­ ufacture, and hafting technologies could compen­ ronmental relationships as well as to characterize sate for limited and variable stone resources. the past environment. Since the late 1980s, ar­ Unique tools and special technological innova- chaeologists representing several regional col­ fions might occur in such isolated circumstances. leges and universities have been investigating middens and analyzing artifacts and fauna from SAN NICOLAS ISLAND RESOURCES the island's prehistoric sites. The joint research San Nicolas Island was first occupied over goal is to learn about the technology and re­ eight thousand years ago, yet it was probably source procurement activities of the maritime always sparsely populated and seldom visited hunter-gatherers of San Nicolas during the past (Schwartz and Martz 1992:61-63). The island is six thousand years (Schwartz and Martz 1992). low, windswept, and covered with shrubby veg­ At the time of Spanish contact, the Chumash etation. Its largest land animal is a small fox along the Santa Barbara Channel coast resided at brought to the island by Native Americans (Col­ estuaries, intensively fishing nearshore waters lins 1993:351). In contrast to die sparse land and collecting shellfish, while to the northwest mammal and plant resources, the rocky shoreline and southeast more mixed economies developed supports abundant shellfish, die coastal terraces 304 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY

Santa Barbara

Ventura

Los Angeles

San Diego

Fig. 1. Location of San Nicolas Island, among the Califomia Channel Islands. have large seabird colonies, and the sandy of island stone material sources have revealed beaches maintain sizable sea mammal rookeries. two primary local materials: metasedimentary Nearshore waters have extensive, fish-laden kelp (quartzite or argillite) and metavolcanic (often forests. There is ordy one small, sheltered har­ quite porphyritic) cobbles. Although they are bor on the island, barely large enough to moor abundant, these metamorphic rocks are not high­ a 30-ft. boat. It has no perennial streams, just ly workable as they contain dense, dark minerals springs and seeps. Throughout the year, the is­ and have minimal quartz content, they often land is shrouded in fog; when the fog lifts, a have large feldspar crystals (porphyritic), and steady breeze blows toward the mainland, result­ they generally lack homogeneity. Flaked stone ing in high seas. As a result of these conditions, tool makers could either employ diese less desir­ San Nicolas is somewhat isolated and inaccessi­ able rocks, or they could import finer textured ble (Fig. 2). stone. As a result, Santa Cruz Island and main­ The geology of San Nicolas consists primari­ land Monterey and Franciscan Formation cherts, ly of sedimentary rocks, sandstones, and con­ Santa Catalina Island soapstone, and mainland glomerates, providing few materials suitable for obsidians all appear in San Nicolas Island arti­ flaked stone tool manufacture. Ongoing surveys fact assemblages. REPORTS 305

Thousand NORTHERN Vizcaino P(

CA-SNI

ill Marsh

Fig. 2. San Nicolas Island, with approximate location of CA-SNl-214.

STONE TOOL TECHNOLOGY the stoneworker employed direct, freehand per­ ON SAN NICOLAS ISLAND cussion to produce additional flakes. My own research and informal replication studies have In a study of the island's Middle Period oc­ indicated that the San Nicolas Island split cobble cupation at CA-SNI-16, Lauter (1982) classified technique was used when larger, flatter flakes the tools discovered there on the basis of possi­ were desired. This technique produced straight- ble functions. However, in postulating a distinct er flakes with much less pronounced bulbs of stone technology, Clevenger (1985) described an force. Split cobble technology is a flake-pro­ extensive cobble reduction complex at CA-SNI- ducing technique that compensates for the dense II, a large northwest coastal dune site that em­ and heterogeneous character of the metamorphic phasized bipolar splitting and flake use which cobbles found on San Nicolas Island. she termed the "split cobble reduction" technol­ The split cobble technique is a specialized ogy. Although cobble choppers have been found toolmaking system diat was much more common on other Charmel Islands and the mainland, Ron­ on San Nicolas Island than elsewhere. How­ deau (1987:41) reported that bipolar techniques ever, a second percussion technique was also such as split cobble reduction occur primarily employed to manufacture San Nicolas stone where materials are small in size or relatively tools. This technique utilized mid-size cobbles scarce. and resulted in a unidirectional core which could The split cobble reduction described by Cle­ produce numerous 3-cm. to 5-cm. long, noncor- venger (1985) is not a traditional bipolar tech­ tical flakes. This second core reduction technol­ nique (Hayden 1980:2-5). Typically, metavolca­ ogy appears quite methodical when compared to nic and metasedimentary cobbles were placed on the expedient core technologies typical of Los an anvil and struck to initiate flake removal, Angeles Basin assemblages (Rosenthal and Pa- then the anvil was abandoned. Subsequently, don 1994:22). Despite these systematic ap- 306 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY proaches to core shaping and flake production, side, with his head oriented southeast. A dog complex stone tool percussion techniques, such skeleton, also flexed, lay in front of his arms. as Santa Cruz bladelet manufacture (Arnold Schwartz (personal communication 1994) sug­ 1985, 1987), have not been identified among gested that the burial had once been bundled in San Nicolas artifacts. Microblade drdls occur a woven mat or cloak that disintegrated. Pre­ infrequently and are always made from imported liminary analysis suggested that the individual chert. It is doubtful they were manufactured on had arthritis, spina bifida, and generally poor the island. The artifact assemblages from sites muscular development (S. Schwartz, personal such as CA-SNI-351 contain less dian 3% im­ communication 1994). ported stone, and almost no nonisland material Island interments often have no accompany­ is debitage (Rosenthal 1992:2). Islanders ap­ ing grave goods. However, this burial contained parenfly preferred to use locally available, but numerous grave goods, including stone, bone, not highly workable, metavolcanic and metasedi­ and shell artifacts. Stone pesfles, whalebone mentary rock for manufacturing flaked tools. abalone pries, steatite ornaments, two sandstone Island artifacts are similar to the expediently palettes, shell fishhooks and blanks, two water made, utilized flake tools found throughout the bottle fragments, and portions of 14 bifaces were Chumash Interaction Sphere (Hudson and Black­ also found (S. Schwartz, personal communica­ burn 1981, 1982, 1987). The main differences tion 1994). The burial and the artifacts appeared between mainland and island tools lie in the ma­ to be contemporaneous, although deflation had terials and manufacturing techniques. At CA- disturbed the relative associations of the arti­ SNI-214, a specialized manufacturing technique facts. was identified among a small number of stone artifacts. These artifacts, a set of variably sized, ANALYSIS OF THE hafted bifaces, are the focus of the following CA-SNI-214 BIFACES discussion. The bifaces from CA-SNI-214 are a tool as­ sociation that has not been previously reported SITE DESCRIPTION by San Nicolas researchers. Not only are bi­ CA-SNI-214 is a large site that lies near the faces infrequently encountered within island do­ western portion of the central plateau of San mestic refuse, but the commingling of large and Nicolas, and is essentially a longitudinal dune small forms has also not been observed. The bi­ overlying dipping Pleistocene terraces. There face set consists of 14 bifacially worked artifacts are extensive cultural deposits and a blowout produced from silicified shales (often called from the prevailing wind on the west side. This cherty shale). The only known source of this western face has considerable abalone refuse, material is the coastal California Middle Mio­ sea mammal bone, and whalebone, as well as cene Monterey Formation, which has interbed- numerous stone artifacts, but no obvious mid­ ded porcelinites, diatomites, siltstones, and den. In contrast, the eastern (leeward) third of shales with thin layers of microcrystalline quartz the site has an intact, stratified, charcoal-stained and opaline cherts. The microcrystalline quartz midden. chert, known as Monterey chert, is the preferred In 1989, Steven Schwartz, Pt. Mugu Naval local biface material throughout coastal southern Air Weapons Station archaeologist, learned that California. a burial was being exposed by dune deflation at Monterey Formation outcrops appear along CA-SNI-214. The burial was a male in his mid- the coast of California from San Francisco Bay thirties who was in a flexed position on his left to central Orange County (Newport Bay) and on REPORTS 307

Santa Cruz, Santa Catalina, and San Clemente ries of flake scars is apparent. islands (see Fig. 1). Santa Cruz has highly Figure 3b (Cat. No. 17) illustrates die tip and workable quartz cherts that facilitated the devel­ midsection of a biface that is 23.8 mm. in opment of a sophisticated microblade industry on length, has a maximum width of 11.7 mm. at Santa Cruz Island (Arnold 1983, 1987, 1992), the midsection break, and is 2.0 mm. thick. and on Anacapa and San Miguel islands (Rozaire Several important manufacturing attributes can 1993). In contrast, Santa Catalina and San Cle­ be seen on this specimen. First, one face has mente (southern Channel Islands) cherts are been systematically abraded, exhibiting a pattern opaline. They are brittle, have a planar frac­ of parallel striae (visible at lOX magnification) ture, and are seldom used for tool production. that occurs both perpendicularly (from tip to In terms of workabUity, silicified, or cherty, base) and obliquely (angled from one edge to the shale lies midway between opaline and quartz other) across the face. Additionally, the entire chert. Stone workers occasionally used cherty edge has a single series of bifacial flakes. This shale for small tools. Cherty shale has been in­ retouching consists of deep, slighfly ovoid scars, frequently recovered from regional sites, partic­ suggesting that percussion methods shaped the ularly on Palos Verdes Peninsula in Los Angeles biface edge. Figure 3c (Cat. No. 44) clearly il­ County (Cooley 1982). Cherty shale exists lustrates the retouching technique. This speci­ within the northern Channel Island Monterey men is 35.3 mm. long, 13.2 mm. wide, and 2.6 Formation materials, but not on the southern mm. in thickness. Figure 3d (Cat. No. 27) is a Channel Islands. The cherty shale biface mate­ slighdy larger biface showing similar manufac­ rial is therefore probably derived from either turing attributes, and measures 41.7 mm. long, mainland or northern Channel Island deposits. 18.8 mm. wide, and 2.9 mm. in thickness. Cherty shale is an unusual stone to select for The base, midsection, and partial dp of a biface manufacture. It does not fracture conchoi- large biface is illustrated in Figure 3e (Cat. Nos. dally and its natural bedding inhibits stone frac­ 36 and 43). This specimen is broken in three ture, except along parallel planes. Percussion pieces, but it measures 97.6 mm. long, 29.5 and pressure forces follow homogeneous layers, mm. wide, and is 6.1 mm. thick. Both faces terminating abrupdy at the softer shale layers have multidirectional striae and the edges are and continuing to fracture where layers are more bifacially retouched. Asphaltum is present on silicified. Nevertheless, the 14 bifaces found as­ die base. Figure 3f (Cat. No. 77) is an identi­ sociated with the burial were produced from this cally manufactured biface diat measures 103.7 material. Five of the bifaces that best represent mm. long, 38.1 mm. wide, and 8.7 mm. thick. the manufacturing technique and size range are Figure 4a (Cat. No. 46) is a biface base and detailed below. Attribute data for all 14 speci­ midsection fragment that has broken parallel to mens are outlined in Table 1. the bedding plane of the stone. The two faces The first biface (Cat. No. 4, Fig. 3a) is a appear identically worked. A weadiered surface complete stemmed projectile point measuring indicates diat die biface may have been deliber­ 32.2 mm. in maximum length, 8.9 mm. in width ately fractured along die bedding plane before at its midsection, and 3.0 mm. in thickness. being deposited in the burial. The artifact The point is unbroken and has one weathered measures 37.3 mm. in length and 38.4 mm. in (oxidized) face. The manufacturing process ap­ widdi, and is 8.1 mm. diick. The fragment has pears to consist of serial percussion or possibly bifacially retouched edges, and multidirectional pressure flake scars, indicating bifacial removal striae indicate diat it was also abraded. Asphal­ from tip to base along the edges. Only one se­ tum adheres to its base. 308 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY

Table 1 ATTRIBUTES OF THE BIFACES FROM CA-SNI-214

Cat. No. Cortex Abrasion Length (mm.) Width (m Comments Fig. 4 unifacial unknown 32.2 8.9 3.0 stemmed point 3a 17 none yes 23.8° 11.7° 2.0 tip and midsection 3b 27 none yes 41.7" 18.8 2.9 3d 32 unifacial yes 30.2' 39.1" 5.9* base 39 none yes 21.3' 21.8" 2.8 41 none yes 28.8" 31.5" 6.2 42 bifacial yes 38.9' 39.4" 8.3" 43/36 none yes 97.6* 29.5 6.1 base, midsection, partial 3e tip (3 pes.); asphaltum 44 bifacial yes 35.3' 13.2 2.6 3c 45 none yes 44.8" 39.4" 8.2" asphaltum 46 none yes 37.3* 38.4" 8.1" base and midsection; 4a asphaltum 75 both yes 59.0 41.9 6.6 asphaltum 77 none yes 103.7" 38.1 8.7 asphaltum 3f 81 none yes 42.7" 40.2 5.0 base; asphaltum 4b

a Partial measurement.

The basal fragment of a large biface (Cat. DISCUSSION No. 81, Fig. 4b) measures 42.7 mm. in length, 40.2 in width, and is 5.0 mm. thick. The base These bifaces have several common attri­ is concave and both faces are flat, with multi­ butes. All were primarily shaped by abrasion by directional striations and deep scarring from rubbing with a coarse material, leaving parallel edge retouching. There is also a considerable striae on their surfaces. This type of abrasion amount of asphaltum adhering to the base. could be called grinding; however, a terminolog­ The bifaces described above could all be ical distinction has been made because the abrad­ functionally categorized as hunting or butchering ing appears to be solely for shaping. The term equipment (points or knives). The biface assem­ "grinding" has been confined to the heavy alter­ blage also contained a possible drill (Cat. No. ation shown in Figure 4b (Cat. No. 81), where 75). This artifact is complete and measures 59.0 the stone was thiimed by removing considerable mm. long, 41.9 mm. wide, and 6.6 mm. thick. amounts of the soft shale, producing a concave It has been bifacially percussion flaked along its hafting area. edges, and as a result has very deep scarring. AH of the bifaces were finishedb y percussion Multidirectional, linear abrasion striations are flaking along their edges, where silicified layers apparent on both faces under low magnification. were exposed by the abrading activity. Bifaces A thick cortical rind is present on part of the were apparenfly hafted to wooden or bone han­ artifact and a small amount of asphaltum adheres dles. Six bases have asphaltum adhering to their to die base. surfaces (Figs. 3e-f and 4a-b, Table 1). Flat REPORTS 309

3 20 mm.

Fig. 3. Bifaces from CA-SNI-214: (a) small abraded biface (Cat. No. 4); (b) small abraded biface (Cat. No. 17); (c) medium-size ground biface (Cat. No. 44); (d) large biface (Cat. No. 27); (e) large biface (Cat. Nos. 36 and 43); (f) large biface (Cat. No. 77). 310 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY

Fig. 4. Bifaces from CA-SNI-214: (a) large biface (Cat. No. 46); (b) large biface (Cat. No. 81). Figure 4c is a percussion flaked chert biface from CA-SNI-168 (Cat. No. 15). pads of soft asphaltum are found on the northern G9). One biface (Fig. 4a) has asphaltum with beaches of San Nicolas, and after melting could parallel lines imprinted on its surface, and under have been used to haft tools (Williams 1994:G8- 30 power magnification these lines look like a REPORTS 311

wooden handle impression. Additionally, all of last century and now housed in European muse­ the larger specimens were broken into several ums) has not been performed, it is apparent that pieces, as if they had been deliberately snapped mainland arrow and dart point styles are un­ off. common in assemblages recovered during the There appear to be three size ranges among last 20 years at sites such as CA-SNI-11, -16, the bifaces, including a small biface approxi­ -38, -168, and -351. These sites produced very mately 30 mm. long, medium bifaces about 40 few bifaces, fewer projectile points, and no bi­ to 60 mm. long, and large bifaces about 80 to face production debitage. The larger bifaces diat 100 mm. long. This size distribution might be have been recovered are mosdy made of finer significant. In a review of historic records, textured metavolcanic or metasedimentary rock, Hudson and Blackburn (1987:75) noted Spanish while smaller ones are either chert or quartz. comments that the Chumash had three distinct They are often preforms with undamaged edges, knife sizes. and their bases seldom display asphaltum. Smal­ The abraded bifaces have not as yet been ler bifaces are fairly thick, and some appear to replicated, as an appropriate, accessible, cherty be harpoon points rather than arrow tips. The shale source has not been located. In an analysis large and medium size bifaces are percussion of artifact attributes, however, some very dis­ flaked using a stone hammer, while the small tinct patterns were discerned (Table 1). Regard­ points are often just flakes that are shaped by less of their overall size, the bifaces share a pressure techniques. A chert specimen from common manufacture style. Tabular pieces of CA-SNI-168 (Cat. No. 15, Fig. 4c), which was cherty shale appear to have been abraded to a recently recovered during an environmental thin, lenticular form. The abrasion striations are assessment (Rosenthal and Padon 1995), exhibits often oblique or multidirectional, and were prob­ deep, unpatterned, negative scars over much of ably produced with a sandstone rubbing tool the surface, the typical manufacture attributes of rather than a softer sharkskin abrader (Hudson the larger percussion flaked bifaces. The CA- and Blackburn 1987:74), because they are readi­ SNI-168 artifact is thicker and more ovoid in ly apparent at low magnification, or even with shape than the cherty shale bifaces, and is obvi­ the unaided eye. After the bifaces were roughed ously a much sturdier instrument (Rosenthal and out, a soft hammerstone may have been used to Padon 1995:16). Among the site assemblage, shape the edge. Percussion techniques were biface manufacture appears to be nonpatterned; probably used because the resulting flake scars no obvious parallel, converging, or overlapping are deep and rounded; elongated, thin, and shal­ reduction or thinning flake scars are present. low scars would indicate a pressure technique. Several large, elongated bifaces are on The bases were probably made by either pres­ display at die Santa Barbara Museum of Natural sure flaking, particularly on the smaller speci­ History. These bifaces appear to be manufac­ mens, or by heavy grinding on the larger speci­ tured predominandy by percussion reduction, mens. The final manufacturing step was to haft with their edges being shaped by pressure tech­ the biface onto wooden or bone shafts or handles niques. They are also made from Monterey For­ using asphaltum as a cement. mation quartz cherts radier dian the cherty shale. The bifaces from CA-SNI-214 are atypical of The only other similar bifaces of which I am bifaces and projectile points found among San aware are those that were photographed by Rob­ Nicolas Island artifact assemblages. Although a ert Heizer among island collections at the Musee complete review of all of the San Nicolas col­ d'Homme in Paris (Hudson and Blackburn lections (particularly those collected during the 1981). Aldiough only CA-SNI-214 has pro- 312 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY duced such items in recent times, Heizer's on San Nicolas Island. Chert was imported and photographs of the specimens of the nineteenth appears to have been used almost exclusively for century collector De Cessac imply that abraded smaller tools (e.g., drUls and harpoon points) or bifaces were found during the late nineteenth and occasionally for larger bifaces (e.g., knives). early twentieth centuries by national and inter­ The alternative use of cherty shale, as well as national museum expeditions to the California die toolmaking technique described herein, ap­ Islands. pears to argue for a ritual function for the bi­ There are at least three possible explanations faces. The abrading, grinding, and edge retouch for the occurrence of these atypical bifaces: (1) technique permitted bifaces to be made from a the bifaces may be a common but previously un­ substitute material without wasting valuable im­ recognized aspect of island assemblages; (2) the ported chert pieces. bifaces could represent a special use tool kit; Material that is easily broken is not practical and/or (3) the bifaces could represent a ritual for sustained use as a hunting, butchering, or tool kit. Each of these explanations is discussed processing tool. If the bifaces had a solely ritual below. function, however, then the lack of sturdiness of Since island archaeological research began, the cherty shale may not have been a concern. several archaeologists familiar with toolmaking It could be easily shaped, and its similarity in techniques, notably Meighan and Eberhart appearance to chert may have made it an attrac­ (1953) and Rogers (1993), have described stone tive alternative. For ceremonial use, size or assemblages from San Nicolas. No mention has shape may have been more important than mate­ ever been made, either by these researchers or rial. The tools may then have been buried with any others, of cherty shale bifaces. Abraded the deceased instead of being distributed to bifaces were not recovered during excavation at kinsmen or reworked into new tools. The use of sites such as CA-SNI-11, -16, -38, -168 or -351. substitute materials for objects that function in Although cherty shale breaks easily, it is doubt­ religious or curing activities is not an uncommon ful that broken biface sections would have gone practice among Native Americans. unrecognized at these sites. It is difficult to link an atypical manufactur­ These bifaces could also represent a special­ ing process to a tool user, particularly when the ized, hafted tool that was used on an occasional products of production (debitage) are tiny flakes basis for specific tasks. If this were die case, or small, dusty piles of sediment. Further, the they would occur infrequently, and because few tool user may not necessarily have been the sites have been excavated, they may not have manufacturer, and it is possible that all cherty been previously encountered. Careful descrip­ shale bifaces were produced at one location, tion and analysis of artifacts discovered during such as the Palos Verdes Peninsula, and distri­ survey and/or excavation, as well as a review of buted throughout the southern Channel Islands. existing collections, may eventually support this People living on the southern Channel Islands idea. had limited access to highly workable siliceous A third explanation is the possibility that stone. In contrast to northern Charmel Islanders, abraded bifaces had a ritual, rather than a secu­ they had an incentive to obtain and work alterna­ lar, function. Because these bifaces are pre­ tive materials. sumed to have been deliberately broken before being placed in the burial, they may have been CONCLUSIONS part of the ritual paraphernalia of the deceased. As opportunifies to study San Nicolas Island Access to highly workable chert was restricted collections at various museums become avail- REPORTS 313

able, I am convinced diat more evidence for Collins, Paul W. ground or abraded bifaces will be found. What 1993 Taxonomic and Biogeographic Relation­ is more intriguing, however, is that other exam­ ships of the Island Fox {Urocyon littoralis) and Gray Fox (U. cinereoargentus) from ples of specialized technologies may also be re­ Western North America. In: Third Cali­ cognized. The discovery of these bifaces has fomia Islands Symposium, Recent Ad­ provided insight into the choices made by people vances in Research on the Califomia Is­ lands, F. G. Hochberg, ed., pp. 351-390. with limited access to desired resources. Isola- Santa Barbara: Santa Barbara Museum of don and distance from material sources are often Natural History. incentives for technological innovation, some­ Cooley, Theodore G, times creating distinctive artifacts. When these 1982 Analysis and Interpretation of CA-LAn- factors are combined with the maritime setting 844: A Prehistoric Quarry Workshop and of San Nicolas Island, many opportunities to Factory in the Upper Palos Verdes Hills, Los Angeles County, Califomia. Master's study peoples' imaginative answers to technolog­ thesis, California State University, Los ical questions may appear. Angeles. Glassow, Michael A., and Larry R. Wilcoxon ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 1988 Coastal Adaptations Near Point Concep­ tion, Califomia, with Particular Regard to I thank Pat Martz, Steven Schwartz, and Stephen Shellfish Exploitation. American Antiquity WiUiams for their assistance with my island lithic 53(1):36-51. study, and John Brogan for his careful illustrations. I also thank Michael Rondeau and Michael Glassow Hayden, Brian for their helpful comments, which focused on perti­ 1980 Confusion in the Bipolar Worid, Bashed nent issues. Pebbles and Splintered Pieces. Lithic Technology 9(l):2-7. REFERENCES Hudson, Travis, and Thomas C. Blackbum 1981 The Material Culture of the Chumash Li- Arnold, Jeaime E. teraction Sphere, Vol. 1: Food Procure­ 1983 Chumash Economic Specialization: An ment and Transportation. Los Altos and Analysis of the Quarries and Bladelet Santa Barbara: Ballena Press/Santa Bar­ Production Villages of the Channel Is­ bara Museum of Natural History Coopera­ lands. Ph.D. dissertation, University of tive Publication. Califomia, Santa Barbara. 1982 The Material Culture of the Chumash In­ 1985 The Santa Barbara Charmel Islands Blade- teraction Sphere, Vol. 2: Food Prepara­ let Industry. Lithic Technology 14(2):71- tion and Shelter. Los Altos and Santa Bar­ 80. bara: Ballena Press/Santa Barbara Muse­ 1987 Technology and Economy: Microblade um of Natural History Cooperative Publi­ Core Production from the Channel Is­ cation. lands. In: The Organization of Core 1987 The Material Culture of the Chumash In­ Technology, Jay K. Johnson and Carol A. teraction Sphere, Vol. 5: Manufacturing Morrow, eds., pp. 207-237. Boulder: Processes, Metrology, and Trade. Menlo Westview Press. Park and Santa Barbara: Ballena Press/ 1992 Complex Hunter-Gatherer-Fishers of Pre­ Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History historic Califomia: Chiefs, Specialists Cooperative Publication. and the Maritime Adaptation of the Chan­ Lauter, Gloria nel Islands. American Antiquity 57(1):60- 1982 Defining the Intermediate Period in San 84. Nicolas Island, Califomia, Chronology: Clevenger, Joyce M. Test Excavations at SNl-16. Master's the­ 1985 The Split Cobble Reduction Technology sis, Califomia State University, Los An­ on San Nicolas Island, Califomia. Mas­ geles. ter's thesis, California State University, Martz, Patricia Los Angeles. 1994 Research Design for San Nicolas Island 314 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY

Prehistoric Archaeology. Report on file at land Prehistoric Archaeology, Patricia Environmental Division, Naval Air Weap­ Martz, ed., Appendix E. Report on file at ons Station, Pt. Mugu. Environmental Division, Naval Air Weap­ Meighan, Clement W., and Hal Eberhart ons Station, Pt. Mugu. 1953 Archaeological Resources of San Nicolas Rosenthal, E. Jane, and Beth Padon Island, Califomia. American Antiquity 1994 Archaeological Investigations Along the 19(2): 109-125. Proposed Northwest Dune Road, San Ni­ Raab, L. Mark, and Andrew Yatsko colas Island, U. S. Naval Air Weapons 1990 Prehistoric Human Ecology of Quinquina, Station, Pt. Mugu, Califomia. Report on A Research Design for Archaeological file at the South Central Coast Archaeo­ Studies on San Clemente Island, Southem logical Information Center, University of Califomia. Pacific Coast Archaeological Califomia, Los Angeles. Society Quarterly 26(2&3): 10-37. 1995 An Archaeological Assessment of CA- Raab, L. Mark, Judith F. Porcasi, Katherine Brad­ SNI-168, San Nicolas Island, U. S. Naval ford, and Andrew Yatsko Air Weapons Station, Pt. Mugu, Califor­ 1995 Debating Cultural Evolution: Regional Im­ nia. Report on file at the South Central plications of Fishing Intensification at Eel Coast Archaeological Information Center, Point, San Clemente Island. Paper pre­ University of Califomia, Los Angeles. sented at the annual meetings of the Soci­ Rozaire, Charles E. ety for Califomia Archaeology, Eureka. 1993 The Bladelet Industry on Anacapa and San Rogers, Malcolm J. Miguel Islands, Califomia. In: Archaeol­ 1993 Report of Archaeological Investigations on ogy on the Northem Chaimel Islands of San Nicolas Island in 1930. Pacific Coast Califomia: Studies of Subsistence, Eco­ Archaeological Society Quarterly 29(3): nomics, and Social Organization, Michael 17-21. A. Glassow, ed., pp. 63-74. Coyote Press Rondeau, Michael F. Archives of Califomia Prehistory No. 34. 1987 Bipolar Reducdon in California. In: Cali­ Schwartz, Steven J., and Patricia Martz fomia Lithic Studies: 1, Gary S. Breschi­ 1992 An Overview of the Archaeology of San ni and Trudy Haversat, eds., pp. 41-56. Nicolas Island, Southem Califomia. Paci­ Coyote Press Archives of Califomia Pre­ fic Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly history No. 11. 28(4):46-75. Rosenthal, E. Jane Williams, Stephen L. 1992 Preliminary Analysis of Stone Artifacts 1994 Geological and Paleoenvironmental Re­ from CA-SNI-351. Report on file at De­ search Design. In: Research Design for partment of Anthropology, Califomia San Nicolas Island Prehistoric Archaeol­ State University, Los Angeles. ogy, Appendix G, pp. G1-G30. Report 1994 A Research Design for Stone Artifacts. on file at Environmental Division, Naval In: Research Design for San Nicolas Is­ Air Weapons Station, Pt. Mugu.