STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE

A CULTURAL RESOURGE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FOR \\ THE UPPER SANTA CLARA RIVER VALLEY1 AND VENTURA COUNTIES 1 CALIFORNIA

A thesis submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in

Anthropology

by

Michael James Mcintyre /

June, 1979 The Thesis of Michael James Mcintyre is approved:

Dr. Louis Tartaglia

Dr. Carol Mackey

Dr. Antonio Gilman, Chairperson

California State University, Northridge

ii DEDICATION

This Thesis is dedicated to Gary Worth Major (1945-1974)

iii TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page DEDICATION . . iii LIST OF TABLES vii LIST OF FIGURES ...... viii. LIST OF MAPS ...... vi·ii ABSTRACT ...... ix Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1

2 ENVI RONt"\ENTAL DESCRIPTION . . . . . 8 GEOGRAPHY • • • • • • • 8 GEOLOGY • . • • • • . • • • • • 10 STRUCTURAL FEATURES . • • • • • • • 12 CLIMATE.... • • • • • • 13 HYDROLOGY • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 14 VEGETATION • • • • • • • • • . • • • 16 FAUNA • • • • • • • • • • • • • 18

3 HISTORY AND ETHNOLOGY 21

CULTURAL SEQUENCE • • • 24 EARLY MAN • • • . • • ·• 25 MILLINGSTONE HORIZON (7,000 TO 4,000 B.P.) . . • • • • . • . . • 28 INTERMEDIATE HORIZON OR MIDDLE PERIOD (3,500 TO 1,500 B.P.) • • • • 32 LATE HORIZON OR PERIOD (1,500 TO 200 B.P.) • • • • • ••••• 35

Canaline 37 EUROPEAN CONTACT AND COLONIZATION (A.D. 1540-1771) •..•.•. 37 MISSION PERIOD (A.D. 1771-1821) 40 MEXICAN PERIOD (A.D. 1821-1848) 43

iv Chapter Page

AMERICAN PERIOD (A.D. 1848-PRESENT) 44

Rancho . . 45 Travel Corridors . 46 Mining • . . . . • 49 I ETHNOGRAPHIC SKETCH •••• 55

Population . . 55

Subsistence . . . ~ ...... 56 Hunting . 56 Gathering . 57 Seasonality . . . . . • . • . • . . . 57 Food Preparation ...... 58 Material Culture . . • . • . . 59 Clothing ...... 60 Structures ...... 60 Settlement . . • • . . • . • . . . . . 61

Trade ...... ·il • • • 62 Warfare ...... 64 Social and Political Organization 65 Kinship . . . . • . . . . • . . . 67 Religion ...... • . . . • • 67

4 CULTURAL RESOURCE OVERVIEW . 68 PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS •. 71

Rev. Stephen Bowers .... 72 A. Kroeber, C. Hart r1erriam, and John P. Harrington ...... 73 Richard Van Valkenburgh - Los Angeles Museum of History, Science and

Art ...... a • 74 Arthur Perkins, Jr...... •. 75 Herrick E. Hanks .....•..... 75 UCLA - Archaeological Survey . . . • . 76 California State University, Northridge ( State College) . . . . • • . . . . . 76 Robert Lopez . . . • ...... • . . 76 Gerald Reynolds - Santa Clarita Historical Society . . . • . . . • . 77 R. W. Robinson - Junior College - Antelope Valley Archaeological Society . • . . . • . 77 Chester King ...... • 78 Other Researchers ...... 78 Chapter Page

PRIVATE COLLECTIONS • 78 NATURE OF FUTURE WORK • 79 5 RESEARCH POTENTIAL . 81

6 EVALUATIVE SURVEY 92 SAMPLING DESIGN •• 94 SAMPLING SCHEME •••••••• 95 SAMPLING INTENSITY •••••• 97 SAMPLE UNIT SIZE 101 FIELD METHODOLOGY ••••• 104

7 MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS . 111 THE ROLE OF THE CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGER ••••••.•••••• 112 EVALUATION AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CULTURAL RESOURCE .•.•••• 114

Criteria for the Determination of Significance ...... 115 MANAGEMENT USES FOR CULTURAL RESOURCES. • 117

Socio-Cultural Use 117 Current Scientific Use 118 Management Use ...... 118 Conservation for Future Use 119 Potential Scientific Use . . • . . 119 CULTURAL RESOURCES IN THE PLANNING PROCESS • • . • • . • • • • • • • • • • 120 MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE UPPER • • • • • • • 122 Fee Simple Acquisition 124 Acquisition of Development Uses 127 Zoning . . . . . • . . . . . • • . 127 Adaptive Uses ...... 128 Restrictive Covenants . . . . 128 Relocation . . . . . • 128 Incorporation . . . . . • . • • • . 129

LIST OF REFERENCES 132

APPENDIX 151

vi LIST OF TABLES

Table Page 1 ROCKS AND MINERALS PRESENT IN THE UPPER SANTA CLARA RIVER VALLEY . . . . • . . • ...... 12 2 FLORAL SUB-LIFE ZONES OF THE UPPER SANTA CLARA RIVER VALLEY ...... • . . . . . 17 3 FAUNA OF THE UPPER SANTA CLARA RIVER VALLEY. . 19 4 ABORIGINAL SITES IN THE UPPER SANTA CLARA RIVER VALLEY WITH KNOWN TEMPORAL AFFILIATIONS ...... 38 5 HISTORIC SITES IN THE UPPER SANTA CLARA RIVER VALLEY WITH TEMPORAL AFFILIATIONS . . . . 52 6 STRATIFYING VARIABLES WITHIN THE UPPER SANTA CLARA RIVER VALLEY ...... • 98

7 ASSOCIATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL VARI~~LES WITH SURVEY QUADRATS . . . . . • . . • . . • . . • 102

8 NUMBER OF ENVIRONMENTAL COHBINATIONS PER QUADRAr.r...... 103

9 POSSIBLE SITE TYPES FOR THE UPPER SANTA CLA~~ RIVER VALLEY . . . . • • • . . . . . • . • . . 108

vii LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1 Geologic Formations in Eastern Ventura Basin ...... 9

LIST OF r~APS

Map Page

1 Overview of the Upper Santa Clara River Front Valley ...... Pocket

2 Geologic Map of the Upper Santa Clara Front River Valley ...... • . . Pocket

3 Sample Environmental Strata for the Front Upper Santa Clara River Valley . . . Pocket

viii ABSTRACT

A CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROGRM1 FOR

THE UPPER SANTA CLARA RIVER VALLEY, LOS

ANGELES AND VENTURA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA

by

Michael James Mcintyre

Master of Arts in Anthropology

The present influx of people and urbanization into the

Upper Santa Clara River Valley has led to a rapid, unnatural increase in the degree of impact to the various cultural resources present within the Upper Santa Clara

River Valley. This increase in the degree of impact is resulting in the unmitigated loss of scientific information and cultural heritage that these cultural resources repre­ sent, a loss that can be avoided via adequate cultural resource management planning. The program presented in this thesis will outline how the cultural resource poten­ tial of the Upper Santa Clara River Valley can be realized

ix through a comparison of the known cultural resources with

the existing archaeological, historical, and ethnographical

data, supplemented by a predictive field sampling program which would identify those variables, or corrbination of

variables, either natural or cultural, which would be

associated with the occurrences and interpretation of cul­

tural resources. The cultural resource potential would

serve as the basis for developing planning decisions regard­

ing the management and allocation of the potential use of

the cultural resource in terms of protection, preservation,

enhancement or consumptive utilization. The Cultural

Resource Management Program is the vehicle by which the

potential of all the cultural resources, either known or

unknown, within the Upper Santa Clara River Valley, will be

realized and adequately addressed in the planning process,

insuring against the wanton destruction of our heritage. Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

During the late 1960's and throughout the early

1970's, public awareness centered on the degradation of all aspects of our universe (environmental, cultural, recrea­

tional, sociological, etc.) caused by modern development and technological advancements. Due to this public aware­ ness and pressure, a large body of federal, state, and

local legislation (Appendix A) was enacted to protect these resources. The laws required that governmental agencies and private enterprises assess adequately both the direct and the indirect impact upon the cultural and natural resources that the developments planned by such agencies and enterprises may have. These assessments usually were described· within an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), and in the case of California, Environmental Impact Report

(EIR) •

This new approach to resource analysis has forced new

structural changes within many of the disciplines that now, due to this new legislation, have been given the guardian­

ship of these resources. Archaeology, and Anthropology as well, have been forced to make these changes. Archaeology has indirectly been given the "stewardship" of all cultural

1 2

resources due to the fact that legislation and many experts

have defined cultural resources as encompassing mainly

archaeological and historical sites:

~ •• potential knowledge, in the form of historic and prehistoric products and by-products of man, about human cultural systems (USDA Forest Service Manual 2361.05). • • • historic and prehistoric values ranging from the evidences of early man dating back more than 17,000 years, to sites and buildings relat­ ing to the lives of men who are making history today (State of California - Department of Parks and Recreation 1974:23) • • • • sites, structures, objects, and districts significant in history, architecture, archaeology or culture (Hanks 1974) • • • • historic, architectural, prehistoric or sym­ bolic in nature (Wylie 1975:2) •

• • • sites, structures, and objects of histori­ cal, architectural or archaeological significance (Executive Order No. 11593 1971).

However, a few farsighted individuals have applied the

-term "cultural resource" to encompass more than merely

historic and prehistoric objects; consequently, cultural

resources can and should be applied beyond those parameters

to include:

••• the potential for·ethnographic and lin­ guistic research within present remnants of aboriginal populations, properties of ideological significance to these native Americans, ethnic communities of some considerable time depth and generally many resources which anthropologists might apply the label of significance (Garfinkel 1976a:2).

Since most of the impact to cultural resources by recent

development has been to prehistoric and historic resources, 3 the major brunt of the development of an interdisciplinary approach to cultural resource management has been borne by the archaeologist.

The concept of Cultural Resource Management (CRM) developed both from the legislation, and from the growing concern over the destruction of the prehistoric and historic resources. Archaeologists and concerned laymen recognized the fact that these resources are non-renewable; that is, once they are destroyed or disturbed (through scientific and non-scientific activities), the contextual information that these resources possess is lost and cannot be replaced (i.e., _prehistoric Indian sites cannot be reduplicated). If a site is to be destroyed, it is crucial a scientific research design be employed to insure a maxi­ mum retention of information. Before recent legislation, scientific destruction or "salvage excavation" was the only recourse archaeologists had in regards to information recovery of the cultural resource since archaeologists were usually notified of the resource destruction after the

"bulldozer had already passed through it!" A general sum­ mary of this "dark" period of archaeology is available in the Death of the Past (Moratto 1970). Because of this new legislation, archaeology has been incorporated as a vital part of the planning process for any development project, which is in direct contrast to its previous role of being involved in the aftermath or cleanup of the destruction 4

caused by the bulldozer's blade. This extra time provides

archaeologists with an extra tool to help insure the ade-

quate interpretation of the cultural resource--conservation;

CRM is based on this conservation principle. It attempts

to apply "a conservation-management ethic, with emphasis

on avoidance rather than 'salvage,' ... replacing the

once free-for-all exploitation and attrition of the

resource" (Wylie 1975:5-6). Stated another way, CRH

assures that "exploitation (present use by scientists or

the public) will occur only when all other protection

options have been explored, and that this exploitation is a

form of data preservation that conforms to the highest

research standards" (Canouts 1975:1). The underlying pur-

pose for this conservation ethic is to insure that in the

future an adequate data base or representative sample for

research and public purposes (e.g., public interpretation)

.will still exist (King, T. 1976:1-2). In the light of the

present urbanization trends, the future of the cultural

resource would seem to be non-exis·tent without CRM.

CRM administrators usually formulate a three-stage

program which is designed to:

1. Inventory the resource (through identification and description);

2. Protect the resource (through preservation, conservation, or as a last resort scientific excavation) ;

3. Provide enhancement of the cultural resource through interpretation. 5

This "requires informal decisions during each phase of the

total job in order to make best use of money, time, man-

power, and the resource itself" (USDA Forest Service

1975:5). CRM can be considered 11 the process by which the

most equitable compromises are [effected] between progress

in the form of land-modification projects and the preserva-

tion of essentially non-renewable resources" (Grady 1975:1).

Basically, a cultural resource management program or

plan should be considered as "an early warning system, via

preservation planning, to make possible the resolution of

conflicts between preservation and land use before they

become crises" (King, T. 1976:2). It is designed to insure

adequate access to the resource through interpretation and

conservation to the·archaeologist or the general public.

McGimsey has stated this position for the archaeological

resource:

• • • it remains valid to assert that all archeo­ logical data, including archeological objects themselves, fall into the domain of public inte.rest or concern (J.V!cGimsey 1972:5) • • • . no one owns exclusive rights to an archeological object or even more important, to archeological data (McGimsey 1972:5-6).

This philosophy can be applied not only to prehistoric objects but to include all aspects that are legally and

idealistically included under the heading of Cultural

Resource. The resources belong to no one in particular and,

therefore, it is left up to the public (archaeologists and other concerned individuals) to insure the continued 6 availability of the cultural resource. At this point in time, the Cultural Resource Management Program is the best vehicle to express this assurance.

The topic of this thesis is a regional CRM approach to the Upper Santa Clara River Valley in northern Los Angeles and Ventura Counties. Presently, this area is suffering from the 11 pains 11 of an influx of people seeking to escape the City of Los Angeles. This rapid population migration has led to increased urbanization which subsequently will result in an unnatural increase in the impact on the vari­ ous cultural resources present within the Upper Santa Clara

River Valley drainage.

The Upper Santa Clara River Valley is a distinct unit in terms of its environmental and.cultural variables; therefore, any cultural resource management study must examine the vvhole drainage system as a single entity. The

Upper Santa Clara River Valley (Hap 1) is bounded on the north by the ; to the south by the.San

Gabriel and Santa Susanna Mountains; to the east by the

Porter and Ritter Ridge (the Zone) and the ; and to the west by the Alamo, Frazier, and Cobblestone Mountains (Singer 1970; Hanks 1971). Cul­ turally, the Upper Santa Clara River Valley was inhabited by a Shoshonean (Takic) speaking people called the

Allikliks or Tatavium (Kroeber 1925; Harrington 1934; Van

Valkenburgh 1935; Chace 1966; Van Dusen Eggers, et aZ. 7

1973; King, c., et al. 1974; King, C. and Blackburn n.d.). The Upper Santa Clara River Valley can be considered a transitional zone both environmentally and culturally because it represents the intermediate zone between the coast and the desert. Because of the Upper Santa Clara

River Valley's transitional character, it is imperative that this area, since so little is known about it, be sub­ jected to a cultural resource management program to insure that the information of the area will not be lost, but adequately interpreted for the benefit of the scientist and the public in general. The proposed cultural resource management program of the Upper Santa Clara River Valley will be modeled after the Bureau of Land Management CRM formats (Garfinkel 1976b) • Chapter 2

ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION

In any explanation of cultural processes or systems,

it is necessary to examine both the synchronic and dia­

chronic environmental change. The environment, which

includes such variables as climate, hydrology, soil types,

flora and fauna, influences the interaction between man and his cultural adaptations. This can be seen in the arti­

factual evidence and inferred subsistence strategies reflective of environmental adaptations (Hall and Barker

1975:4).

GEOGRAPHY

The Upper Santa Clara River Valley System, lying within the Transverse Mountain Range of Southern Califor­ nia, encompasses most of the northwestern portion of Los

Angeles County and the northeastern portion of Ventura

County (see Map 1). The Transverse Range "is characterized by a series of complex ridges and valleys running in a general east-west direction" (Reed 1951:9). The Upper

Santa Clara River Valley System consists of several sec­ tions with each having its own geographic and geological

identi~y (see Figure 1). The Upper Santa Clara River

8 9

Eastern Ventura Basin (Soledad & San Fernando Basins) RECENT AII uv i urn

I (/)f-W z Upper -w QUATERNARY wu -lO 0.... Lower Saugus fm w ____ , ______z ---- w Upper u Pico fm 0 ---- _j Lower ------0.... "Repetto" fm Trows ley fm Upper w Mode Io ------~n z (Puente) c:::::_~~'2_t Can'/tm w Middle u ------~---- -0 Tick Canyon ~ Lower fm >-cr: -cC 1- cr: OGLIOCENE w 1-

~ 1-'-----f\ LU u 0 u 1------l w 1----''------'--J------PALEOCENE "Martinez" fm

CRETACEOUS

JURASSIC Granitic rocks 1------+------TRIASSIC ? PERMIAN i Placerita series PENNSYLVANIAN

Fig. 1. Geologic formations in Eastern Ventura Basin (Based on Jennings and Troxel 1954} 10

·Valley proper is composed of ·the Soledad Basin and the

Eastern Ventura Basin. It "provides a natural corridor, linking the Mojave Desert with the coastal plains of the

Oxnard-Ventura region and the coastal lowlands of the Los

Angeles Basin" (Hanks 1971:2). The Valley occupies a long and narrow synclinal valley that runs approximately 40· miles in an east-west direction and is on the average 15-20 miles wide. Tributaries drain into the Santa Clara River mainly from the northeast and the south as 'it flows into the Pacific Ocean just south of the city of Ventura.

The topography of the area "represents a late youthful to early mature stage of the cycle, and sharp, rugged ridges and narrow, steep-sided, deeply incised valleys •.• " (Bailey and Jahns 1954:85). A major portion of the topography may have been recently altered due to the tectonic activity of the many faults present within the region (Lopez 1974:4). Elevation ranges from a low of approximately 640 feet near Piru to a high of 8,013 feet at

Frazier Mountain; the western ridge systems are generally higher than the eastern ridge systems of the region.

GEOLOGY

"The Transverse·Ranges are of a complex structural and stratigraphic province, they were formed by marine deposi­ tion throughout most of the Tertiary Period" (Hershey 1902:

6); however, the Upper Santa Clara River Valley System proper consisted of non-marine deposition throughout the 11.

Tertiary and t''uaternary with marine depositions occurring in the late M~ cene and early Pliocene. The major part of the Transvers, E

By the late riliocene, the Transverse Mountain Ranges we're developed which separated and created the various basins that are now present. Faulting in the area seems to have affected the geologic development by causing irregular sedimentation rates and diastrophism which in turn formed six distinct geographical areas which follow (Bailey and

Jahns 1954:83):

1. The Pine Mountain-Frazier Mountain Interior Range;

2. The Soledad Basin (east of the San Gabriel Fault);

3. The Eastern Ventura Basin (west of the San Gabriel Fault);

4. The Ridge Basin;

5. The Liebre Mountains and Sierra Pelona;

6. The . Generally, the Upper Santa Clara River Valley area has a crystalline basement complex composed mainly of metamor- phased, sedimentary, and volcanic rocks with a complex assemblage of migmatitic gneisses. The oldest known deposit is the pre-Cambrian Pelona Schist present within the Sierra

Pelona Ridge (Hershey 1902:279; Jahns and Mueh1berger 1954:

Map 6; Gay and Hoffman 1954:475). Other deposits 12 of'extreme age are the Anorthosite Complex, Placerita For- mations, and Mendenhall Gneiss Complex. The distribution within the Upper Santa Clara region of the above deposits, as well as later ones, is presented in Map 2 and Figure 1.

The lithology of the area ranges in age from pre-Cambrian to recent formations and embrace numerous metamorphic,· plutonic, volcanic, and sedimentary rock types (Jahns and

Muelberger 1954). The western and northern sections of the

Upper Santa Clara River Valley System are composed of sedi- mentary deposits, while the eastern and northeast sections are composed of igneous-metamorphic deposits. Table 1 lists the rocks and minerals available for historic and prehistoric utilization.

Table 1 ROCKS AND MINERALS PRESENT IN THE UPPER SANTA CLARA RIVER VALLEY (Brown, et al. 1955)

Chacocite Orthoclase Limenite t-1arcasite Cuprite Jasper Magnetite Petroleum Bormite Chalcedony Columbute Rhyolite Silver Granite Magnesite Basalt Quartz Coleinite Clinochlore Quartzite Diorite Howlite Clinozoisite Anorthosite Probertite Tourmalene Malachite Ulexite Molybdenite Feldspar Veatchite Muscovite Gold (placer Graphite Garnet. and lode) Schist Sulphur

STRUCTURAl FEATURES

The major faulting and folding zones for this region trend in west and northwest directions. The San Andreas 13

Fault is the major fault zone in this region which forms the eastern border of the Upper Santa Clara River Valley

System. Also present is the San Gabriel Fault Zone in the center of the region which marks the border of the Ridge

Basin, the Eastern Ventura Basin, and the Soledad Basin.

Between the major faults and folds are numerous smaller faults and folds trending east and northeast. In addition, many prominent features of the region (Sierra Pelona, Ridge

Basin, Santa Clara River Valley) are the anticlines and synclines of the folding action within the region.

CLIMATE

The climate of the Upper Santa Clara River Valley reflects its geographic location between the dry climate of the Mojave Desert and the humid mesothermal climate of the

Pacific Coast. The climate is classified on the Koppen

Scale as Mediterranean warm (Csa). The region is charac­ terized by warm dry summers and mild moderately wet winters, both of which are dependent upon the distance from the coast: the farther inland one travels, the winters will be cqlder and the summers warmer (Storey 1948:16).

Rainfall in the semi-arid Mediterranean climate regime is extremely variable ·from year to year. The Upper Santa

Clara River Valley receives most of its precipitation from the moisture-laden air masses from the Pacific Ocean. The majority of the rainfall occurs in the winter with 75 per­ cent of the precipitation occurring between December and 14

March and 96 percent occurring between October and April

(Oakeshott 1958:16). Dry sequences for the Los Angeles

Region range from six to 43 years (with a 15-year median) while wet sequences range from four to 24 years (with a

12-year median). Based on these figures, derived from tree-ring studies by Troxell and Hofmann (1954:7), there is an average 27-year median cyclic base period for rainfall.

Rainfall for the area averages between 14 and 22 inches, with a mean of 17.01 (Lopez 1974:7), with approximately 10 inches at the lower elevations and over 30 inches in the high mountains.

Temperature for the region is usually moderate, averaging less than 45°F in January {with periodic below­ freezing nights and snow at higher elevations). In August, the average temperature is 80°F with temperatures often over 100°F (Hanks 1971:4; Lopez 1974:8).

HYDROLOGY

The Upper Santa Clara River Valley System lies within the Santa Clara-Calleguas Hydrology Unit {State of Califor­ nia Department of Water Resources 1965:11). The major water courses through the area are: the Santa Clara River,

Piru Creek, , and more recently, the Los

Angeles Aqueduct. The standing bodies of water include:

Piru Lake, , Pyramid Reservoir, Dry Canyon

Reservoir, , , and Elizabeth

Lake. The system includes within it the Piru Watershed 15

{California Water Resources Board 1953), and the Castaic

Watershed (State of California Department of Water Resources

1965).

Generally speaking, the hydrology of the area is j highly irregular because of variations in relief as well as great extremes in seasonal and annual precipitation

(Oakeshott 1958:16). This is shown in the variability of

the Santa Clara River water runoff. It has an average

discharge of 16.0 cubic feet per second; this, however,

averages the 0.0 cubic feet per second discharge during the dry season and the 24,000 cubic feet per second discharge during the wet season. A large portion of this water run- off is retained in water-bearing present in the region, i.e., the recent alluvium, late Qua·t.ernary terraces, and the lower Pleistocene Saugus formation. The main areas

for groundwater are the Santa Clara River proper, the gen- eral region of Gorman, the general region of Acton, and the

Santa Clarita Valley. These water-bearing sediments,. over a non-permeable basement complex, give rise to an under- ground basin which fills up to form springs which are com- mon to these areas. These springs provide a year-around source of fresh water which is a necessity in permitting extensive human occupation (Hanks 1971:3).

With the problem of extensive faulting in the area,

steep topography, varied climate, and variation in the water runoff, erosion becomes a serious factor in terms of 16

environmental influences. The yield for the Piru

and Castaic Watersheds are 480 acre-feet per year (1.1 acre-feet per square mile) and 250 acre-feet per year (1.92

acre-feet per square mile) respectively; thus, erosion is a

problem in much of the Upper Santa Clara River Valley

system.

VEGETATION

The vegetation of the Upper Santa Clara River Valley

system is characteristic of the Upper Sonoran Life Zone

(Jepson 1925; Munz 1974) and the area lies within the

Tehachapan Endemic Area (Jepson 1925:12-13).

The vegetation of the Upper Santa Clara River Valley reflects a mosaic patchwork arrangement of different sub­

life zones. A listing of these sub-life zones and their characteristic flora is presented in Table 2. The major

flora in terms of economic importance are:

SaZvia coZumbariae (Chia)

Eriogonum fascicuZatum (California Buckwheat)

Yucca whippZei (Yucca)

Adenostoma fascicuZatum (Chamise)

Datura met.eZoides (Jimson Weed)

Quercus sp. (Oaks)

SaZvia sp. (Sages)

An extensive reporting of the flora of the region has been compiled by Charles Smith (King, C.~ et aZ. 1974), and it is recommended for further consultation. 17

Table 2

!FLORAL SUB-LIFE ZONES OF THE UPPER SANTA CLARA RIVER VALLEY (Munz 1974:4)

Sub-Life Zone Dominant Flora

Coastal Sage Scrub Artemisia californica (California Sagebrush) Salvia mellifera (Black Sage) Eriogonum fasciculatum (California Buckwheat)

Chaparral Adenostoma fasciculatwn (Chamise) Salvia mellifera (Black Sage) Salvia columbariae (Chia) Salvia apiana (White Sage) Quercus dumosa (Scrub Oak)

Valley Grassland · Ranunculus Delphiniwn Bronrns carinatus (California Biome Grass)

Southern Oak Woodland Quercus sp. (Oaks) Sambucus sp. (Elderberry) Platanus racemosa (Sycamore) Juglans ealifornica (Walnut) Rhus ovata (Sugar Bush)

Montane Coniferous Forest Quercus kelloggii (California Black Oak) Pinus sabiniana (Digger Pine) Pinus lambertiana (Sugar Pine) Pinus ponderosa (Ponderosa Pine) Pinus coulteri (Coulter Pine) PseudOtsoga macrocarpa (Big-Cone Spruce)

Pinyon-Juniper Woodland Pinus nvnophylla (Pinon Pine) Juniperus californica (California Juniper) 18

FA.UNA

The fauna of the Upper Santa Clara River Valley is

presently under severe stress due to the rapid rate of

urbanization. Several surveys have been undertaken of

parts of the Upper Santa Clara River Valley system (Hanks

1971; Lopez 1974), and based on the surveys and interviews with local residents, it can be assumed that the faunal

population for the whole general area has not changed since prehistoric times (Lopez 1974:13). A listing, based on the

surveys and interviews, is presented in Table 3. 19

Table 3

FAUNA OF THE UPPER SANTA CLARA RIVER VALLEY

Generic Name Common Name

Mammals:

Odocoileus hemionus californicus* California Mule Dee~ Ursus horr1~biUs magister** California Grizzly Ursus americanus Black Bear Ovis canadensis nelsoni** Big Sheep Canis sp. Dog Canis Latrans* Coyote Canis Lupus** Wolf Urocyon cinereoargenteus Fox FeLis concoZor Puma Lynx rufus aaLifornicus* Bobcat SpilogaLe gracilis Spotted Skunk Mephitis mephitis Striped Skunk Procyon Lotor Raccoon Taxidea taxus Badger DideLphis marsupiaLis Opossum Scapanus Latimanus Broad-Footed Mole CitelLus beecheyi beecheyi* Ground Squirrel Thomomys bottae negLectus* Pocket Gopher Peromyscus caLifornicus California Field Mouse Peromyscus manicuLatus gambeLi Garnbel's Field Mouse Peromyscus boyLei Bush Mouse Rerthrodontomys Harvest Mouse Neotoma Lepida* Wood rat Lepus caLifornicus* Jackrabbit SyLviLagus audubonii* Cottontail

Birds:

Anas pLatyrhynchos** Mallard FuLica americana Coot (Mudhen) Cathartes aura Turkey Vulture Gymnogyps caLifornianus California. Condor Bueto jamaicensis Redtailed Hawk Oreortyx picta Mountain Quail Lophortyx caLifornica California Quail

*Present in the archaeological record. **Recorded in the area but no longer present. 20

Table 3 (Continued)

Generic Name Common Name

Birds (Continued) :

Zenaidura macroura Mourning Dove Otus asia OWl Co1•vus corax Raven Archilochus alexandi Black-Chinned Hummingbird Calypte anna Anna's Hummingbird Balanosphyra formicivora Acorn Woodpecker Aphelocoma coerulescens Scrub Jay Toxostoma redivivwn California Thrasher SturneZZa neglecta Western Meadowlark Icterus buUockii** Bullocks Oriole Euphagus cyanocephalus Brewer's Blackbird PassereZZa iliaca sp. Fox Sparrow Melospiza Zincolni Lincoln's Sparrow Couris brachyrhynchos Crow

Reptiles and Amphibians:

Sceloporus occidentalis Western Fence Lizard Sceloporus graciosus Sagebrush Lizard .Petuophis cantenifer Gopher Snake Crotalus viridis Western Rattlesnake Lampropeltis zonata parvirubra California Mountain King Snake Scaphiopus hanmondi Western Spadefoot Frog Rana aurora Red-legged Frog Thoperus agassive Tortoise

*Present in the archaeological record.

**Recorded in the area but no longer present. Chapter 3

HISTORY AND ETHNOLOGY

Before undertaking any analysis dealing with the

nature and type of cultural resource present in any given

area, it is important to know about the history and mate­

rial manifestations of the culture responsible for the

resource. This entails as complete a documentation of the

cultural sequence and ethnology of a culture or series of

cultures as is possible; that is, who was occupying the

Upper Santa Clara River Valley, and how were they adapting

to and exploiting the area during any given era (these

features should be reflected by the material manifestations

associated with each culture and time period). In other

·words, one must document the cultural history of the region

starting·with the earliest known accepted evidence of human

occupation (such as the Early Man Period), examining subse­ quential periods up to European contact, and finally, pro­

ceeding up to the present.

Little is known about the cultural identity of the

earliest cultures of the Upper Santa Clara River Valley; however, at the time of European contact, the Upper Santa

Clara River Valley was inhabited by a Shoshonean (Takic)

speaking people called the Alliklik or Tatavium. They were

21 22

fi~st identified by Kroeber (1915) as "Ataplili'ish," a tribe bordering the Chumash, based on information gathered from an Indian informant, Juan Jose Fustero (Bright 1975).

Later, Kroeber (1925:613) identified the Alliklik or

Tatavium {names that will be used interchangeably in this chapter) as:

Bordering the Chumash, on the Upper Santa Clara River, there lived a Shoshonean tribe that was probably of Serrano affinities, although the two or three words preserved of their speech allow of no very certain determination.

These people were first known as "Alliklik" from the

Ventureno Chumash, a Hokan-speaking people, the term for them, "I'at'ap-alliklik" {VanValkenburgh 1935:4) or the plural "I'allilik" (Kroeber 1925:614) translated as

"Grunters" or "Stammerers." The Penutian-speaking Yokuts referred to them as 11 0'owiye'its," which also means

"Grunters." The Kawaiisu and Chemehuevi called the Kitane- muk, San Bernardino Serrano, and probably the Tatavium and

Gabrielino, "Pitadi" or "Southerners." The Kitanemuk, a

Shoshonean-speaking people just to the north of the Allik- lik, called them "Tatavium" or "people where the morning sun hits" (Harrington 1934:56).

Because of the similarities with the Kitanemuk lan- guage, the Tatavium language has been classified as one of four Serranish languages (the other three being Kitanemuk,

Vanyume, and Serrano) of the Takic·family (Shoshonean) of the Uta-Aztecan stock (Kroeber 1925, Lamb 1964). Recent 23 tentative linguistic analysis by Bright (1975) seems to indicate that the Alliklik may be a Chumashan dialect while the Tatavium may refer to a Takic dialect; the con­ fusion may be the result of alternating village settle­ ments (Chumash next to Tatavium) similar to what Forbes

(1966) has proposed for the Tongva.

Since there is the absence of analysis of good ethno­ graphic or archaeological data, detailed reconstruction of the Tatavium culture is difficult (Lopez 1974:31). What is known about them is assumed from other

Shoshonean groups such as the Kitanemuk to the north or the

Tongva (Gabrielino) to the south. Garces (Galvin 1965) and

Fages (Priestley 1937:17) , both early Spanish explorers in the area, considered the Tatavium similar to their southern

Takic neighbors in dress, political organization, and lan­ guage. Archaeological evidence, such as types of artifacts used in social interaction and the internal organization of cemeteries and villages, also indicates that the Tatavium resembled neighboring Takic groups (King, C. and Blackburn n.d.).

Tatavium occupation of the Upper Santa Clara River

System probably began almost 1,300 years ago (500 B.C.) with the arrival of Shoshonean elements in Southern Cali­ fornia (either through migration or assimilation).

Tatavium culture ended around A.D. 1800 when the Spanish removed most of the Tatavium to the San Fernando Mission 24

for indoctrination (Hanks 1971:19). There is evidence for

earlier occupation of the Upper Santa Clara River Valley by

non-Shoshonean groups who were practicing primarily a

gathering economy of hard seeds (inferred from an artifact

assemblage consisting of mainly and manes). How­

ever, this evidence is not wholly conclusive. It is based

on one site, LAn-358 (Hanks 1971:19); furthermore, evidence

for earlier occupations does not extend as far back in time

as archaeological evidence for the Los Angeles Basin (cf.

the Los Angeles Man date of 26,000 years ago [Bada, et al.,

1974]).

CULTURAL SEQUENCE

In any examination or explanation of human behavior, a

.detailed reconstruction of the cultural history is neces­

sary before any research questions or models are developed

(Sabloff and Willey 1967; Flannery 1967; Thompson 1972).

From this cultural history, a formulation of the various

cultural processes through the explication and explanation

of cultural similarities and differences can be generated

for any area (Hall and Barker 1975:41).

There has not yet been a cultural sequence which has

been specifically proposed for the Upper Santa Clara River

Valley, although general Southern California sequences have

been adapted to the area (Hanks 1971; Lopez 1974; King, C.,

et al. 1974) •. The basis of these chronologies are the 25 diagnostic artifacts for each.of Wallace's Cultural

Horizons (1955), and shell beads which have been seriated on the basis of burial lot analysis (King, C., et aZ. 1974).

Chester King (1974:78) points out the wide applicability of shell beads:

I have noted that in cases where types are comma~ to both Southern and Central California, the sequence of changes in form is the same in both areas. Other indicators of chronological place­ ment indicate that these types can be used to construct a sensitive chronological sequence covering both Southern and Central California.

Both ~vallace' s and King's chronologies are based on the result of analysis of "Coastal Archaeology"; thus, the dates for the inland areas such as the Upper Santa Clara River Valley must be adjusted to assume the acquisition of the technology and traits characteristic of each phase of the respected chronology would be a function of distance.

EARLY MAN

The question of the first human occupation in the

North American Continent has always been open to discussion among scientists from many academic disciplines. The earliest school of thought was that hunting and gathering populations were not here before 8,000 years ago. A. Hrdlicka (1936) was the chief proponent of this school, which forcefully rejected any "Early Man" find more than 10,000 years old by citing poor association, poor construc­ tion, poor stratigraphy, mixing, disturbance or fallacious racial characteristics. However, the discovery of projec- tile points directly associated with extinct Pleistocene 26

Bison, indicated that man had an antiquity of over 10,000 years ago. Recent finds and reanalysis of old finds, as well as new dating techniques such as amino acid racemiza- tion (Bada and Protsch 1973) have extended the date back- ' ward as far as 28,000 years ago (Wendorf 1966; Mullerbeck

1967; Willey 1971). Still, other researchers accept dates as old as 70,000 years ago (Birdsell 1951; Chard 1959;

Bryan 1969; MacNeish 1976). MacNeish (1976) has proposed a cultural chronology, based on tool morphology and func- tion, for Early Man consisting of four phases and spanning over 60,000 years. The earliest two phases (25,000 to

70,000 years B.P.) are based on a somewhat "pre-projectile" point typology which reflects a general hunting and gather- ing subsistence strategy. These two levels are very speculative, even by HacNeish's own admission. The latter two phases (8,500 to 25,000 years B.P.) are based on a

"projectile" point typology which reflects a Pleistocene megafauna (bison, mammoth, sloth, camel and horse) hunting subsistence strategies.

Due to the lack in Southern California of any real associative cultural material with these Early Man finds

(which consists only of skeletal remains), it is hard to formulate any real cultural affinities for these early populations; thus, any chronological sequence (i.e., Mac-

Neish [1976]) must be considered tentative until more data is analyzed. This is further documented when Wallace (1955) 27 documents his "Early Man phasen with just a brief summary of Early Man finds with no cultural affinities.

There are no known Early Man sites in the Upper Santa

Clara River;Valley even though Southern California possesses some of the earliest accepted Early Man sites in the New World, such as Los Angeles Man which has been dated by amino acid racemization at 26,000 B.P. and by Carbon-14 at more than 23,600 B.P. (Bada, et al. 1974). Dates pro­ posed for the California Desert range from 40,000 to

70,000 years B.P. at Calico (Leakey, Simpson and Clements

1968:1022) and Panamint Valley (Davis 1970); however, the dating of these sites and cultural inferences are not accepted by all archaeologists. For desert and south coastal Southern California the final "Early ~·Ian" phase

(which is also the first generally accepted by prehistori­ ans) is the San Dieguito Culture (Rogers 1966). vlhile there is no direct evidence for "Early Man" occupation of the Upper Santa Clara River Valley, it seems reasonable to suppose that the region would have been occupied by cul­ tures similar to those confirmed elsewhere in Southern

California. The absence of concrete evidence may be the result of its obliteration by human and natural forces.

The end of the "Early Man" phase corresponds to the end of the Pleistocene. It is during this time that the technological adaptations of •Early Man" were diverging into a more varied resource base exploitation due to the 28

climatic change of the moist Pleistocene to a dry Post-

Pleistocene or "Altithermal" (Antevs 1955); this is some-

times attributed to the over-exploitation of the previous

environment. In this period, Southern California popula­ i I tions shifted from a big-game hunting to a small game and

plant gathering and processessing subsistence strategies.

An associated shift in population distribution and density

· would have occurred. Because of the drier climate, water

was now less available in the desert. Thus, the gross

resource production (carrying capacity) of the desert would

have been lower. Because of the changing resource base, a

population movement from the inland deserts to the coastal

areas, a more suitable environment, occurred. This move-

ment to a more suitable environment resulted in a change in

environmental adaptations (in terms of settlement patterns

and subsistence resources) which also permitted a general

population increase (Leonard 1971:14). These new adapta-

tions have been commonly referred to as the Millingstone

Horizon (which is also referred to as the Early Period) .

MILLINGSTONE HORIZON (7,000 TO 4,000 B.P.)

Wallace (1955:219) defines this period by:

. • • the extensive use of millingstones and mul­ lers. There is also a general lack of well-made projectile points. . . . Bone tools and shell items are scarce or absent. No containers for storing or cooking food have been recovered. It is probable that these were of basketry and have left no traces in the archaeological deposits. These early people were primarily food collectors 29

with hunting and fishing definitely a secondary role. Mammal, bird, and fish bone refuse is scarce in the deposits.

Chester King (1967:66) defines the people of the

Millingstone as: ; •.• populations which exploit mainly the grass­ land and chaparral communities, gathering the seeds of various species of Salvia grasses and other plants which have small seeds.

The hallmark of this period is the millingstone (i.e., manos and metates) which is used in the processing of hard seeds like Salvia species (sages) and Eriogonum fascicula- tum (Buckwheat). These sites are characterized by the fact that a majority of artifacts are millingstones which also indicates the importance of vegetal resources to the diet. Another indication of the importance of the vegetal resource base is the location of coastal sites in grassland and sagebrush cornmunities. These hard seeds could support small populations for most of the year. However, during late fall and winter these vegetal resources would have been scarce so the diet would have to be supplemented by hunting (deer and small mammals) and gathering of shell- fish, a most important source of animal protein (Leonard

1971:118). The pattern of occurrence of items probably used for ritual and mortuary purposes indicates a rela- tively egalitarian social system (King, c., et al. 1974). Each Millingstone occupation site seems to be the focus of year-around activities and these sites seem to occur mainly in the coastal zone and in the hills of the 30

interior valley. There seems to be little interaction

between coastal village sites and interior village sites.

Thus shell is absent in the inland village sites, and there

is an absence of exotic raw source materials, except for

some obsidian and fused shale (King, C., et aZ. 1968:99;

Leonard 1971:118). These inland inhabitants were appa~­

ently restricted to the resource potential of their local area, a limitation transcended in later periods.

One problem in using a seed-grinding functioning tool assemblage such as millingstones as a hallmark is that

later sites exhibit similar functional assemblages which were integrated into different socio-cultural systems. tfuereas a Millingstone site during the Millingstone Horizon

served as the central locus of a village site (King 1967;

.Leonard 1971), later millingstone sites reflect a seasonal/ temporary settlement pattern. Most researchers (King 1967;

Kowta 1969; Leonard 1971) believe that the term Milling­

stone Horizon should not be used to designate a stylistic variation with geographical and temporal uniqueness

(Willey and Phillips 1958:33) but should refer to an adap­ tive strategy geared towards the acquisition and process­

ing of vegetal resources with the only temporal difference being the importance of these sites in a subsistence/

settlement system. Also, as Leonard (1971) points out, the

Millingstone Horizon occurs later in the inland valleys, as exhibited in the Upper Santa Clara River Valley. 31

There are two proposed Millingstone Horizon sites in

the Upper Santa Clara River Valley; both are located near

the area. CA-LAn-618 is tentatively dated to

this period because of a early barrel shell bead (King, C.,

et aZ. 1974). CA-LAn-358 possesses a surface yield of a

variety of millingstones that would suggest a late per-

sistence of the Millingstone (Hanks 1971:19). The Milling-

stone persisted until at least 1000 B.C. when it was

replaced by a more diversified economy of hunting and

gathering. Kowta (1969:50) postulates that this break in

the Millingstone economy to a more diversified economy of

hunting and gathering accompanied the Shoshonean invasion

that Kroeber and many other researchers have postulated to

occur around 1000 A.D. Kowta bas~d this earlier date on

·revised linguistic data for the divergence between Southern

Californian Shoshonean groups, and the occurrence of

Shoshonean traits (items that are considered diagnostic of

the Late.Period) in the Los Angeles Basin before 1000 A.D.

Since it is an important corridor between the desert and

the coast, the Upper Santa Clara River Valley was probably

used by these "Shoshonean Invaders" on their way to the sea.

Geographical or regional variations for the Milling-

stone Horizon are:

1. The Oak Grove culture of Santa Barbara County (Rogers 1929). 32

2. The Topanga culture of Los Angeles County (Treganza 1950).

3. The La Jolla and Pauma complexes of San Diego County (Warren, True, and E ud ey 1961).

Recent researchers such as Warren (1968) have sug- gested that the above variations should not be examined in

the light of geological variation, but in terms of eco~

logical adaptations and should be grouped under the term

"Encinitas. 11

INTERMEDIATE HORIZON OR MIDDLE PERIOD (3,500 TO 1,500 B.P.)

Wallace (1955:222-223) describes this period as fol-

lows:

Excluding San Diego County, the major cultural change during this period, aside from an increased dependence upon hunting, was the shift in grinding implements from the milling- and hand-stone combination to the mortar·-pestle, though the former continued in use on a reduced scale. This may signify a change in food habits or emphasis from hard-shelled seeds to larger fleshier fruits such as the acorn, the great staple of the historic California Indians. Mor­ tars and pestles are regarded as being more effi­ cient for pulverizing and grinding oily and fleshy acorn preparatory to leaching out their tannic acid content. This superseding of one set of grinding tools by another is duplicated else­ where in California. The millingstone and muller apparently were kept because they filled a special need.

The characteristics of this period include the basket- hopper mortar, mortar, pestle, more diversified chipped stone implements, stemmed projectile points, bone and antler tools, personal ornaments such as beads and shells, 33 ,, ' asphaltum, and steatite use (Wallace 1955:221). These people were shifting primarily from a food-collecting strategy to a combination of hunting-maritime adaptation- gathering subsistence base. Larger mammals were now pre- dominately hunted and the shift J:r::g~Irl. the ma.no and metat.e ...... ,__.~·. ·-'~,-- (although sti 11 used) to the mortar and pestle indica teE;,, a ch§lnge in em:ehasis Qf vegetal :resourc~s from thehc:t:rcieeec1~ to th~_:fl,esJ:lier fruits such as acorns. The major sub- sistence change is the increased exploitation of the sea.

Marine resources (seals, porpoises, etc.), other than shellfish which were already important, became incorporated in their diet. The occurrence of varied bone and shell fishhooks, harpoon barbs, drills, net weights, large knives and blades, ~nd the plank canoe enabled these people to exploit the various marine ecozones; thus, fish and sea marr~als were now a major part of the diet of the coast dwellers.

At this time period, there was no shift in the coastal village sites from the previous period; however, the inland villages were still centered on the processing of vegetal materials as exhibited by the continued presence of millingstones (Leonard 1971:122). In addition to their original locations, new coastal villages were located so as to facilitate exploitation of the various kinds of ocean resources such as sheephead along rocky shores, and bottom fish-like halibut (King, C., et al. 1968:100). The coastal 34 villages retained the same broad spectrum of activities exhibited in the previous period with some activities (like hunting ~nd acorn gathering) now being conducted elsewhere in temporary sites. Cemeteries are well defined, larger, and possess grave lots containing exotic materials and stone effigies (Leonard 1971:121-122). These lots indicate the existence of incipient social stratification (Leonard

1971; King, C., et al. 1974). The existence of an elite class implies certain functions, responsibilities or privileges that go with that elite class of leaders. The bureaucratic leaders of the village were probably entrusted with the village food storage of surplus (as with acorns and shellfish) to guard against occasional periods of scarcity. The storage of these resources (acorns, dried fish, and shellfish) resulted in a food surplus which resulted in a population increase, thereby leading to bureaucratic controls and a religious system that could validate and maintain this economic and political system

(King, c., et al. 1974). Evidence for food storage is abundant in the ethnohistorical literature: cf. Kroeber

1925; Bean 1972; and Strong 1972. Evidence of an intensi­ fied regional economic exchange and interaction is the increased bead production (a system of trade exchange) and the increased utilization of serpentine, steatite, fused shale, Franciscan chert, and obsidian (Leonard 1971:122;

King, C., et al. 1974). 35

Towards the end of this period, village sites become differentiated in size and purpose. With the coastal vil-

lages diversifying in terms of location, one can see an

increasing variety of site size and activities. More and more activities are being carried out in the temporary

camps. This decentralization of village activities reaches

the inland villages by the end of this period where hunting

predominates as the most important subsistence activity

compared with marine exploitation for the coastal villages

(Leonard 1971:123).

There are many sites from this period in the Upper

Santa Clara River yalley ranging from villages to rock

shelters, single-component workshops to multi-component workshops, and permanent camps to temporary activity loci.

Geographical or regional variations, grouped by

Warren (1968:2-3) as the Campbell tradition, for this

period are:

1. The Hunting People of Santa Barbara County (Harrison and Harrison 1966).

2. The Sand Dune People of Ventura County.

LATE HORIZON OR PERIOD {1,500 TO 200 B.P.)

Wallace (1955:223) describes this period as:

••• more complex with many more classes of arti­ facts present which in general show a high order of workmanship. There appears to be a number of distinctive local complexes but all share certain traits, most of which were known to be present at the time of European penetration. 36

This period is characterized by a greater amplifica­ tion of the social system components than in the previous periods (Leonard 1971:123). The populations during this time had a greater utilization of food sources with more land and sea mammal hunting and fishing along with a con­ tinued interest in seed collecting. Elaborate mortuary practice with associated grave goods are noted during this period. Artifacts of this period are of a wider variety with a higher order of workmanship. The types of projec­ tile points suggest an increase in the use of the bow and arrow; steatite and pottery vessels, circular shell fish­ hooks, and personal ornaments are also common (Wallace

1955).

Villages tend to be in the same locations but, by the end of this period, they decrease in frequency but increase in site size. Along with this change comes an increase in the number of more specialized and diversified sites

(either seasonal or temporary) in terms of location and function (based on ethnographic evidence). It seems reasonable to hypothesize (with Leonard 1971) that the village now becomes the center of a satellite arrangement with these sites. The village would be the focus of cere­ monial and redistribution functions, while the satellites carry out, based on the evidence of artifact frequencies, various maintenance activities. Inter-village interaction and inter-regional interaction continues on the rise during 37 this period. Economic transactions are now being partici­ pated in by a greater number of individuals. The use of shell beads which served as the basis of economic trans- actions is increased. The evolution of a money-based economy resulted in a shift to a more stratified society. The money economy was also useful in controlling the flow of various floral, faunal, and lithic resources and pro­ vided increased benefits from the maintenance of economic systems and local specializations (King, C., et aZ. 1974). But by the end of this period, there seems to be no regional variation as most every site seems to possess the same general adaptive strategies due to the increased interaction sphere between villages and regions. 'rhis is reflected in the journals of the European explorers who visited this area.

Canaline Geographic or regional variations include the Canaline culture of the Santa Barbara County. Warren (1968) docu- ments the following traditions for Southern California:

1. Chumash.

2. Shoshonean.

3. Yuman.

EUROPEA~ CONTACT AND COLONIZATION (A.D. 1540-1771)

The first reported European contact in this area was in 1769 when the expedition of Gaspar de Portola traveled through the Santa Clara River Valley on the way to :t-1:onterey Table 4

ABORIGINAL SITES IN THE UPPER SANTA CLARA RIVER VALLEY WITH KNOWN TEMPORAL AFFILIATIONS

Site Temporal Affiliation Diagnostic

LAn-36 Late Period Artifacts (includinl pottery) . 2 LAn-324 Middle-Late Period Obsidian Hydration, Projectile Po~nts LAn-361 Middle Period Obsidian Hydration, C-14 - A.D. 600 + 401 LAn-362 Late Period Obsidian Hydration, Beadsl LAn-363 Late Period Beads1 LAn-364 Middle, Middle-Late Transition Obsidian Hydration, Beadsi LAn-365 Middle Period Obsidian Hydration, Beads LAn-369 Middle, Late Period Obsidian Hydration, Beads1 LAn-370 Middle, Late Period Beadsl LAn-371 Middle, Late Period Obsidian Hydration, Beads1 LAn-381 Late Period Beadsl . 2 LAn-393 Late Period Projectile Po~nts LAn-394 Late Period Projectile Points~ LAn-396 Late Period , Projectile Points .LAn-438 Late Period Projectile Points2 LAn-440 Late Period Beads1 LAn-582 Middle Period Obsidian Hydration, Beadsl LAn-618 Early, Late Period Beads1

1 . K1ng, C., et al., 1974. 2 . s~nger, 1972.

w OJ 39 via Ventura. The Expedition entered the Santa Clara River

Valley from the San Fernando Valley, entering the Newhall-

Saugus area, after camping near the present site of the

San Fernando Mission. Pedro Fages, one of Portola's officers, described entering the Valley as follows:

Eleventh: four leagues after entering the moun­ tains, passing in part through a narrow canyon and in part along very high barren hills, the ascent of which is very difficult for beasts of burden, one reaches a small valley; it extends into a pleasant sightly field, on the level expanse of which are seen many poplars and oaks of great size. There is a copious supply of water in the stream of moderate width running amid numerous willows and poplars. This place was called the Rancheria del Corral (Priestley 1937:17).

They are believed to have camped near the rancheria of

Chaguya-vit, near the Newhall Ranch (Van Valkenburgh 1935:

8). Portola provides this description of the area:

••. Some natives appeared and begged us to go to their village which was near; there we found eight villages together--which must have numbered more than three hundred inhabitants--with a great supply of grain. We rested (for one day) where there was a village of about fifty natives (Smith and Teggart 1909:55).

The next European to enter the Valley was Father

Francisco de Garces in 1776, who, with Mojave guides, was traveling from San Gabriel Mission in an attempt to dis- cover a more direct route from Yuma to Monterey. He describes his visit to the Upper Santa Clara River Valley as follows:

April 13. I passed over a sierra that comes off from the Sierra Nevada and runs to the west­ northwest, and entered into the Valle de Santa 40

Clara, having gone a league and a half northwest, I arrived at the Cienega de Santa Clara. One of the Jamajabs having been taken sick, I tarried in this place until the twenty-third day; during which time I visited various rancherias that there are in these sierras, as also the caxones and arroyos, with much water and most abundant grass, 'and from whose inhabitants I experienced particular meakness and affability. I baptized one infirm old man, the father of the chief of these rancherias, having instructed him by means of Sevastian, though with difficulty. There came other Indians from the north-northeast and promised to conduct me to their land, as also they did with five more Jamajabs who arrived these days to trade (Coues 1900:267-268).

Father Garces preceded to travel northeast out of the Santa

Clara Valley via Elizabeth Lake Canyon, transversing the

Liebre-Sawmill Range into the Antelope Valley, stopping at a village at Lake Hughes where Pedro Fages had visited in

1772 looking for Spanish deserters (Hanks 1971:12-13}.

There is very little known archaeological evidence for this period (see Table 5}. Material remains would probably be limited to the camps along the various explorers' routes.

MISSION PERIOD (A.D. 1771-1821)

Father Crespi, who accqmpanied Portola, had described the area, also known as Rancheria del Corral, of the

Chaguaya-vit Rancheria as a suitable place for a mission.

It was not until 1773 that the foundation of the Santa

Clara Mission was again written about by Father Crespi but nothing was done (Bolton 1926}. In 1795, Father Lasuen

(who replaced Father Sierra upon his death} had considered 41

the Chaguaya-vit site for a new mission before selecting

the San Fernando Valley. With the founding of the San

Fernando Rey de Espana Mission in 1797, the Upper Santa

Clara River Valley came under its control and was known as

the "." The Rancho boundaries ranged

roughly from just beyond the crest of the · on

the south, Castaic on the north, on the west,

and the on the east.

The founding of this Mission had a most profound

effect on the original inhabitants of the Upper Santa Clara

River Valley. Forbes (1966:147) states:

In general, the native villages located within 10 miles of the mission were depopulated in the first few years (after the mission was established). Thereafter, the mission drew in its converts from more remote areas [such as the Upper Santa Clara River Valley].

The Allikliks suffered from this policy of "reducci6n

or congregaci6n," ~n attempt to provide control over the

population·while at the same time saving their "souls", and

providing a base for economic development/support of the

Spanish establishments such as the clergy and the military

.(Hanks 1971:15). Kroeber (1925:613) states that once the

Allikliks were taken to the San Fernando Mission that:

••. they dwindled rapidly, and the few survivors seem to have been thrown in and intermarried with people of other speech that their language became extinct in a couple of generations.

It has been reported that those Alliklik still

existent were taken to the Reservation; and with 43

MEXICAN PERIOD (A.D. 1821-1848)

With the independence of in 1821, the Mission

lands carne under Mexican control. In 1824, the Mexican government passed legislation to encourage settlement, in the form of land grants, within its domain. In order to provide land for the grants, it became necessary to take over the Mission lands (which were some of the most choice land under its control). Land grants created in the Upper

Santa Clara River Valley include Rancho San Francisco

(48,612 acres), (48,000 acres), and Rancho·

Ternescal (13,339 acres). In 1833, the government passed the bill to desecularize the missions. Lt. Antonio del

Valle was appointed to oversee the desecularization in

1834. In 1839, he petitioned Governor Alvarado for the

Rancho San Francisco for his personal use even though he might have been using it since 1824 (Perkins 1958:106-107).

The Rancho was granted to del Valle and the Asistencia became the first horne of the new owners.

In 1842, Francisco Lopez discovered gold in Placerita

Canyon. It was the first authenticated discovery of gold in California and prompted a "" of miners from as far away as Sonora, Mexico. Out of this gold rush carne the first mining law in California (Arguello letter of 1842).

The next year saw the start of the San Feliciana placer up

Piru Creek. Gold mining activity persisted up to modern times, interrupted at times by Indian raids (Miwok-Yokuts) 44 and depleted ore veins.

Archaeological evidence for this period is more sub­ stantial than the previous periods due to the increased ranching and mining activ~ty (see Table 5). One would expect to find outbuildings not only of the Ranchos but also of buildings associated with early homesteading and mining.

AMERICAN PERIOD (A.D. 1848-PRESENT)

This period starts with the Treaty of Guadalupe

Hidalgo when California became an Arnerican possession. The

Treaty still guaranteed the Mexican or Californian land­ ownership; however, this area, as well as California on a whole, had already felt the effects of Anglo-American interests. English and American trading ships had been stopping along the California coast for years, providing an economic market for the local merchants and Rancho owners.

!-1any had settled in the area, coming first as traders but later captured by the natural beauty of the area. The earliest recorded instances of overland American intrusion are by Jedediah Smith (1826) and Ewing Young (1832), moun­ tain men who passed through the Valley from Los Angeles to

Northern California.

The development of ·the Upper Santa Clara River Valley during this period had its roots in the previous periods, and it can be examined, in terms of cultural resources, 45 through three perspectives:

1. Rancho San Francisco/Newhall Ranch.

2. Travel corridors.

3. Mining.

Rancho San Francisco

The Rancho was still in the hands of the del Valles during the beginning of the American Period; however, over the years, due to loans, debts, crop and livestock fail­ ures, title transfers, and auctions, the Rancho passed through many hands until in 1875 it was acquired (except for the on the east which still belonged to the del Valle family) by Henry Mayo Newhall, the railroad and auction baron, for $90,000 (Newhall 1958). H. M. New­ hall added the Rancho to his other large land holdings

(most of which were former Ranchos) all over the state.

The principal interest of the Rancho was still cattle.

When Newhall bought the Rancho, the railroad was encroaching on the Rancho from two directions--Soledad

Canyon and San Fernando Pass. Newhall helped create the town of Newhall (formerly known as Kent) on the railroad right-of-way (now the site of the town of Saugus) but in

1876 he moved the town up the road to its present location because its previous location was too sandy for prospective buyers.

In 1883, a year after Newhall's death, the Newhall Land and Farming Company was incorporated by the Newhall 46 family to supervise the various activities of its land holdings, including stock raising, agriculture, and leasing mineral rights.

There is substantial evidence for the Newhalls' activi- ties (see Table 5). The remains of mines, ranches, and townships are present in the Upper Santa Clara River

Valley.

Travel Corridors

Travel through the Upper Santa Clara River Valley has always been important because of its location as a passage- way to the to the north, San Fernando and Los Angeles to the south, the desert to the east, and the ocean and Ventura to the west. Use of the Valley has been documented back to prehistoric times with two main aboriginal trails running through the Valley. Many of the

Spanish explorers followed these Indian trails when they

'passed through the Valley; however, the Spanish trail,

Cuesta Viejo (Old Grade), was no great improvement over

its Indian predecessors. Many reports from early travelers

can attest that it was very steep and rugged and suitable only for carretas (ox-carts) and horses (Ripley 1947:18-

19):

The carretas were well loaded and on his return trip he took the route along the River la Por­ ciuncula (Los Angeles River), then through the San Fernando Valley and past the Mission on to the canyon where their troubles commenced. At the foot of the grade, in some way or other he hitched three pair of ox-teams, and the hor.semen 47

with their lariats, one end attached to the rig, the other to the horns of the saddle, at the signal all pulled together and in this way assisted in pulling the carretas up the steep grade. On this trip, at the heavy grade of the divide, one of the carretas and ox-teams went over the precipice and in the fall two ox-teams were killed.

The Cuesta Viejo, even in such a poor condition, was a major artery in the early Anglo period for the military, miners, and merchants of the general area.

In 1851, the Los Angeles Government, under pressure from local merchants to have an easier access to the paten- tial "markets" in the San Joaquin Valley, appropriated funds for improving the Cuesta Viejo, which mainly involved cutting the rocks to reduce the grade of the road in the area of Grapevine Canyon. In 1854, Fort Tejon was founded along with an associated Indian Reservation, creating a closer market, along with the new goldfields of the Kern

River, for the Los Angeles merchants. A new road district was formed to improve the wagon road now called the Tejon

Road. In 1854, Cuesta Viejo was abandoned for a new pass

(San Fernando Pass) to the southwest. Also in that year, the first crude oil from the Upper Santa Clara River Valley was carried over this road. Also in 1854, the first stage, part of the new line· running from Los Angeles to the Kern

River mining camps with stops in the Valley, passed through the pass. In 1858, Edward F. Beale, owner of the La Liebre

Rancho and former Indian Com.<1tissioner for Fort Tejon, picked up the option to improve the·road of the San Fernando 48 l

Pass and excavated 50 feet of rock with picks and shovels to reduce the grade of the pass. It was completed in 1863, and in 1864, a toll booth was set up immediately south of

Beale's Cut as well as on the northern boundary of the i Tejon Road under Beale's supervision to defer the cost of road maintenance. The toll ranged from $2. 50 for a 12'- animal team to $.03 per sheep (the Upper Santa Clara was part of a transhumance sheep trail). The cut lasted until

1876 when the railroad came to the Valley and was "killed" with the advent of the auto which was too large for the pass.

The Butt.erfield-Overland Stage Route ran through the

Upper Santa Clara River Valley from 1858-1861. It ran from the San Fernando Mission to Hart Ranch (formerly Lyons) up

San Francisquito Canyon 12 miles to Kings Station then 10 miles to Widow Smith's, then French John's, then Reed's

Station and on to Fort Tejon. Wells Fargo maintained two offices in the Valley as well as one at Fort Tejon ..Lyon's

Stage Station was the scene of the first permanent Anglo settlement in the Valley. It was also the scene of the first post office for the area.

The railroad came to the Upper Santa Clara River

Valley in 1876 when on September 5, 1876, Charles Croker, president of the Southern Pacific Railroad, drove a Golden

Spike at the town of Lang in the Valley to mark the first rail connection of Los Angeles with San Francisco and 49

Transcontinental Lines. In the area of the San Fernando

Pass, a railroad tunnel, called the Newhall Tunnel, was

carved in the hills, much of the work being done by Chinese

laborers.

Automobile traffic necessitated the creation of a good

road to travel on. In the mid-1900's, the road was a long

curvy road, called the , running up San Francis­

quito Canyon and north along the ridgetops. With the

advent of modern technology, and the ability to compensate

for grades, super highways now run where centuries before,

men found they could not pass without hardship.

Archaeological evidence centers on the successional

nature of the travel through this area (see Table 5). In

the area of Beale's Cut, one can see many different routes

of travel, all of different ages, all a response to a dif­

ferent mode of travel. Also, one will find the material

.remains of centers along the travelfares--stage stations

and railroads.

Mining

The first instance of mining centered around the gold

discoveries in Placerita in 1842 and San Feliciano in 1843.

But following this period, mining activities were divided

between ores and oil.

Gold has, even to this day, been an important mineral

in the Valley. Gold camps sprang up in many places in the Valley, died out only to be revived later by a new crew of 50 miners with new techniques. The San Feliciano District was a productive gold lode in the 1850's but declined in the

1860's only to be revived with the influx of Chinese laborers from the completed railroads, and miners from other closing mining districts in the area. In 1853, gold mining was started at Frazier Mountain, and by 1861, copper was being mined in the at Ravenna. By 1863, gold and silver were also being mined at Ravenna to keep the camps bustling. The Soledad Mining Copper Company was the chief benefactor of this boom until in late 1863, the ores played out; however, Mexican miners using the arrastra method of crushing.ore with a large boulder found more gold and by 1868, everything was rolling again and the town of

Ravenna was thriving. But the ores were geographically

·shifting to other locations and the town of Ravenna was packed up and moved over to Acton to be nearer the working claims. There are still reports of placer mining occurring in the Soledad Canyon in 1894 .and some claims are being worked up to this present day.

Other minerals mined in the Valley include borax, colemanite, graphite, magnesite, labradorite, steatite, gypsum, chalcoate, magnetite, tin, sand and gravel.

Oil is perhaps the most important mineral in the Upper

Santa Clara .River Valley. It was first being used histori­ cally in the mid-1850's as distilled lighting fuel. But in

1865, Ramon Pereida discovered a major seepage in the Pico 51

Canyon but the price of oil and the lack of productivity of

other test wells in the area postponed any exploration.

The first oil well was a spring poled hole drilled by

Sanford Lyon (owner of Lyons Stage Station). In 1876, the

newly formed California Star Oil Company, under the direc­

tion of Demetrius Scofield, put in several wells in Pico

Canyon; one, CSO 4 (Pico 4) became California's first com­

mercial oil well. The success of the oil company prompted

it to build the first commercial oil refinery, Pioneer Oil

Refinery, near Newhall in the same year. The success also

led to the formation of the Pacific Coast Oil Company which

in 1900 became Standard Oil of California. Through the

1900's, many more oil companies took leases out, and many

mere areas of the Valley were successively explored,but

the focus of oil is still on the Pico Canyon area.

Archaeological evidence for mines and oil wells are

.found throughout the area in the form of quarry areas with

associated buildings or towns, and oil wells with associ­

ated refineries, many of which have historical significance

(see Table 5).

The Upper Santa Clara River Valley possesses many more

historic points of interest, some of which are:

1. Formation of Los Angeles County.

2. Tiburcio Vasquez.

3. Los Angeles Aqueduct.

4. St. Francis Dam Disaster Table 5 HISTORIC SITES IN THE UPPER SANTA CLARA RIVER VALLEY WITH TEMPORAL AFFILIATIONS

Site Temporal Affiliation Listing

Vasquez Rocks 11-_boriginal-American National Register of Historic Places County List #153

Well No. sco 4 (Pico No. 4) American National Register of Historic Places State Landmark #516

Andrada Stage Station Adobe American County List #148

Beale's CUt American County List #152

Cascades-Los Angeles owens River Aque­ American State Landmark #653 duct

.Fremont Pass Mexican-American County List #9

Gorman's (Major) Stage Post American Historic Buildings Survey 1911 Catalog County List #149

Lang Station (SPRR) American State Landmark #590 County List #118

Lyons Station (Stage Coach Stop) American State Landmark #688

Martin Ruiz Adobe Mexican-American County List #186

Newhall Tunnel American County List #106

l11 hJ Table 5 (Continued}

Site Temporal Affiliation Listing State Landmark #168 Oak of the Golden Dream Mexican-P~erican County List #21 Ortiz Casa Mexican County List #66

Pioneer Oil Refinery American State Landmark #172 County List #45

La Liebre Rancho Casa Mexican-American County List #150

Soledad-Acton School House American County Point of Interest #14

Trails - Route of Pedro Fages Spanish County List #121 crossed the Path of Garces

Rancho San Francisco Mission-American Not Listed

(.]1 w 54

The Upper Santa Clara River Valley was split between

Mariposa, Santa Barbara, and Los Angeles Counties in 1850.

In fact, the northern boundary of the Rancho San Francisco

was the Los Angeles County original boundary. Later, in

1852, Los Angeles County expanded at the expense of

Mariposa County, but 11,000 acres of the Rancho was yielded

to Santa Barbara County. This eventually became part of

Ventura County when it was formed in 1872. The location of

survey markers should be able to be relocated with the aid

of County Surveyor Records.

Tiburcio Vasquez, whose name is carried on a distinc­

tive geologic form.ation in Soledad Canyon, used many loca­

tions in the Upper Santa Clara River Valley as his haunts

and hideouts during the early 1870's. It was at Vasquez

·Rocks that he maintained a hideout to run stolen horses

from the San Fernando Valley to the Antelope Valley for

sale and vice versa. He was also known to have used the

Pico Canyon area west of Newhall, and the Elizabeth Lake

area as hideouts before his capture {Thrall 1948). The

remains of many of his hideouts can be relocated with the

aid of County Surveyor Records.

In 1908, after several years of study, construction

was started on an Aqueduct to bring water from the Owens

Valley to Los Angeles to help satisfy the increasing need

for water. It was completed by 1913 at a cost of

$23,000,000. The Aqueduct crosses the Valley in primarily 55 closed concrete conduits with several reservoirs being fed by that water. It eventually surfaces at the Cascades on the south boundary of the Valley flowing into the Los

Angeles Reservoirs. On March 12, 1928, the St. Francis Dam (named for the site of St. Francks), up , broke sending as much as 38,000 acre-feet of water down the can­ yon to the Santa Clara River and onward to the sea. It is estimated that at least 450 lives were lost, making this the second largest disaster in California history, the largest being the San Francisco earthquake. Part of the dam still remains as a monument of this disaster.

ETHNOGRAPHIC SKETCH

As little is known about the Tatavium or Alliklik specifically, most information or conclusions have to be gleened from comparisons with other neighboring groups like the Chumash and the Tongva. This information is summarized in Strong (1972), Johnston (1962}, and King, C. (1974).

Population

Few studies deal with the population of the area.

Kroeber (1925:883} gives the total population for the

Alliklik (combined with the Serrano, Vanyume and Kitanemuk) as 3,500 in 1770 and 150 in 1910. Portola, in his 1769 expedition, found eight villages together, with a popula­ tion of over 300 people (Smith and Teggart 1909:55), a 56 total that indicated to most researchers that there was a mourning ceremony occurring, drawing people from surround- ing areas, thereby incre·asing the normal village population

(Hanks 1971; Lopez 1974; King, C., et aZ. 1974). Chester

King (1974} estimated that the Agua Dulce Village in the

Late Period was populated by between 200-300 individua-ls.

Subsistence

Hunting. Game animals were usually hunted with a variety of lures, disguises, traps, snares, throwing sticks, bow and arrows. Animals hunted included:

1. OdocoiZeus hemionus (mule deer).

2. AntiZocarpa americana (antelope).

3. Lepus caZ~fornicus (jackrabbit).

4. SyZviZagus audubonii (cottontail).

5. Coyotes.

6. Badger.

7. Rats.

8. Gophers.

9. Raccoons.

10. Skunks.

11. Wildcats.

12. A variety of snakes, not including the rattle­ snake.

Deadfalls with acorn trap triggers were used to capture such small game as raccoons, squirrels, rabbits and skunks.

Rabbits were also hunted with a stick that would twirl when 57

thrown and kill or maim the rabbit. Another method

involved a communal hunt with some hunters moving forward

driving scores of rabbits towards other hunters waiting with nets and clubs. Medium-sized mammals and deer were

probably hunted individually with bow and arro~while the

antelope was probably hunted on treks to their habitat· in

Antelope Valley, communally with hunters dressing in

antelope skins, creeping close enough to shoot them with a

bow and arrow.

Gathering. According to ethnographic accounts of

other Shoshonean groups (Strong 1972), vegetal resources were primarily gathered by hand with baskets and seed­ beaters for seeds, and digging sticks for roots and bulbs.

They were later processed into a more edible form, either mush or cake (which could be stored). Insects were also

gathered either by a digging stick or captured by hand.

Seasonality

The seasonality of resource availability must have

imposed constraints on the Tatavium annual round. The

annual round of the Tatavium is reflected by what the

environment represents: a transitional emphasis of various vegetal resources with meat protein augmenting the diet.

This seasonality of many of these resources, both vegetal and flesh, in terms of perishability and gatherability, was very sensitive so the Tatavium needed a precise know­

ledge of their availability so as to obtain a maximum 58 resource return as well as to avoid competition from vari- ous insects, birds and animals for these foods. The seasonal.round listed below is summarized from Bean (1972),

Strong (1972), and King (1974}:

Small game was usually hunted year around but probably only when other activities were less productive. Larger game such as deer (available locally) and antelope (which was obtained from the Antelope Valley) were hunted in Spring, Sum­ mer and Fall. Insects such as Ant (Formicidea), Grasshopper (Acrididae), Circades (Cicadidae), larvae and worms were also eaten.

Spring - In the Upper Santa Clara River Valley, as elsewhere, vegetal resources were heavily exploited. Yucca whippeli represents the most important resource due to its storage potential. Roots and bulbs were also gathered at this time.

Summer - Small seeds such as Salvia and roots and bulbs were gathered at this time.

Fall -At this time, food was prepared for storage. Acorns from Oaks (Quercus sp.) and Pine nuts (Pinus sp.) were gathered. Acorns were available in the canyons while pine nuts were available in the San Gabriel or Tehachapi ranges.

Winter - Food stores were primarily utilized, augmented by small game.

Food Preparation

Animal flesh was usually prepared by either broiling or smoking the meat after the carcass had been skinned.

Small mammals were sometimes pounded in a mortar to reduce the time needed to separate tissue and bone from meat and was baked. Insects were either roasted on a stick or parched tvi th heated rocks and sand.

Vegetal resources were prepared in a variety of ways. 59

Hard seeds like SaLvia were winnowed, then hulled with either the aid of a and mano or by parching in a basket with hot coals. Then the seeds were ground into a meal to be made into a mush or cakes for storage to be baked later. Fleshy seeds such as acorns were processed with the mortar and pestle into a meal which was then · leeched in a basin with water to diminish the tannic acid present after which the meal was prepared into cakes or mush. Stalky vegetables like yucca were usually baked in an earth oven while most roots were either eaten raw or cooked in an oven, roasted over a flame or broiled in a basket. Host boiling was done by adding hot rocks to the water or mush contained in the basket {Bean 1972) .

Material Culture

The material culture of the Tatavium reflects the lithic, floral, and faunal resources present within their

·environment. It represents an example of cultural adapta­ tion to the different environmental resources present within the area in which they inhabited.

All forms of resources were utilized, either in their natural state or a modified state. Wood was used in the manufacture of weapons {bows and arrows), storage vessels

(bowls), tools (digging sticks), utensils (plates and platters), houses and ceremonial objects. Vegetal fibers were used in the manufacture of mats, baskets and clothing.

Animal bones were utilized as tools {awls) and ceremonial 60

objects. Stone is used as the major material for tools and

storage vessels. A summary of the neighboring Tongva

(Gabrielino) material culture by Blackburn (1963) is use-

ful for establishing the nature of the similar Tatavium material culture.

Clothing

Clothing was relatively simple. Men and children

usually wore no clothing at all while women wore aprons made from strips of bark of cottonwood or willow in back

and strands of twine formed from fibers of dogbane or milk­ weed in front (Johnston 1962:29). In incliment weather,

furs were utilized as cover in the form of capes. Sandals made from yucca fibers were worn in the rough country

(Tartaglia, et aZ. 1977).

Structures

Harrington (1942:10) describes the houses of neighbor­

ing culture groups as domed, circular structures with the

peripheral posts a step apart and varied in number. The

thatch was of tule or other wild reeds and there was a

fireplace in the center. Chester King (1974) describes

each household as representing an extended family of 4-5

people and the houses were 18-20 feet in diameter, and

characteristic of Shoshonean patterns, arranged in a dis­ persed pattern within the loose boundaries of the village.

This is opposed to the Chumash where houses were arranged 61

l ' in' linear rows in one contiguous area.

Ceremonial structures, based on Tongva evidence, were around 60 feet in diameter and formed of stakes set in the ground to a ' height of 3-6 feet and entwined basket fashion with willow twigs (Johnston 1962:47). Sweat baths were smaller and covered with earth.

Earth ovens., used to roast primarily yucca, are rock lined pits. They range in size depending on the need, length of use and available resources in the area. One oven excavated (LAn-373) was 18-24 inches deep and 8-9 feet in diameter (Allen and Hanks 1970). Other small rock-lined pits have been found in the Tatavium zone and have been hypothesized as possible granaries (King, C., et aZ. 1974).

Settl·ement

Settlement patterns have already been discussed in the previous sections. Location of sites or activity loci probably centered around minimizing energy losses and maximizing energy inputs (King, C., et al. 1974). Large villages were usually found .near or adjacent resources that were important in day-to-day activities such as water and firewood. Most importantly, they were located so that other resources not found in the immediate area can be effectively obtained. The village site, at the time of historic contact, served as the hub of a satellite arrange- ment with smaller temporary sites whose chief functions, 62 like primary lithic processing or vegetal gathering, are important in terms of maintenance of the main village.

Trade

Trade is an integral part of any aboriginal culture and was usually based on physical (i.e. geographical) and cultural (i.e. alliance) factors. Trade was usually multifunctional, serving economic as well as poli·tical aims (Tartaglia, et aZ. 1977:14). Most trade relationships cut across different environmental zones, maximizing bene- fits to groups with different resource bases. Political structures were organized to permit these groups to func- tion as an economic unit for the purpose of encouraging and regulating trade (King, C., et at. 1974). The Tatavium occupied a strategic position with their territory encom- passing the corridor, east-west, between the Los Angeles

Basin and the San Joaquin Valley, and the corridor, north- south, between the desert and the coast. Archaeological data seems to indicate that the Tatavium participated in economic transactions similar to those of adjacent Takic

,groups and the Yokuts to the north. However, it is quite probable that the Tatavium operated under the north-south enmity ahd east-west amity relationships that were present throughout Southern California (Blackburn and King n.d.).

With this strategic position, they could serve as middle- men between groups who were at odds with each other.

Father Garces was accompanied by Mohave Indian guides (who 63 were perhaps the most active traders in Southern California) who refused to cross the San Joaquin Valley because they were afraid of the "Nochii Tribes." This might indicate that the Indians of Tejon, Kitanemuk, or Alliklik were middlemen in the trade of Mohave and Southwestern goods into the San Joaquin Valley (Sample 1950:4-5).

Trade usually existed on two levels--local and non­

local. On the local level this trade usually centered on items of a perishable, temporary nature like food items.

It was not unusual to see acorns, seed foods, dried meat, basketry and lithic resources being traded to the coast for shell beads, dried shellfish and fish, sea otter pelts and steatite vessels (Davis 1974:36). On the non-local

level, items that were traded had a higher level of extrin-

·sic value such as shell beads from the coast and pottery from the Southwest. Pottery dating between A.D. 600-800 has been found in the San Fernando Valley (Walker 1951:116;

Johnston_l962:4; Ruby 1966, 1970} and in the Upper Santa

Clara River Valley (VanValkenburgh 1952:8).

Font describes the Beneme, who he included the

Tatavium under, as trading with the Mojave (Bolton 1933:

179, 250). Mohaves probably traveled down the Soledad

Corridor on their way to the coast for shell. Ruby (1970:

160-167) documents this coastal-southwest trade as a result of a series of peaceful, reciprocal arrangements with the shell moving indirectly through the intermediary Mojave 64 groups while the Southwest goods move both directly and

indirectly. Trails were important; two major ones ran through the Upper Santa Clara Valley--one running north- south from Oregon to Los Angeles, following roughly u.s.

99 {Latta 1936; Cook 1957:144), and one running east-west

from Ventura to the Antelope Valley, roughly following ·

Highway 126 (Gifford and Schenk 1926; Voegelin, C. F. 1935;

Voegelin, E. W. 1938; Sample 1950}.

Warfare

Though not much is known about the extent of warfare among the Tatavium, it is obvious that physical violence was a part of their life. Analysis of the Respuestas sub­ mitted by the Fathers of the San Fernando £-Iission to the

Spanish Government in 1811 indicate the following (Lopez

1974:42):

They are vindictive; and in their pagan state, they know no other chastisement than killing the evil-doer either by violence or poison. They had frequent wars to defend their wives and their collection of acorns and seeds.

Thus, besides righting a wrong, warfare also centered around defending seasonal surplus food stores from raiding parties. Father Garces, in 1776, indicated that the

Kitanemuk and the Alliklik were at odds with each other as he." .•. continued to counsel the captain that there

should be no more war against those of Santa Clara, where

they had killed another captain 11 (Coues 1900:302). 65

Social and Political Organization

Ethnographic data presented by Strong {1972), Bean

(1972), CJ.nd Chester King (1974.} show the basis of all organization for Southern California Shoshonean-speaking groups (and presumably for the Tatavium as well) was the

small extended family. This was the basic food sharing

unit. They were patrilineal, monogamous with village exogamy. Forbes (1966:138) states "many or most natives

from Tujunga to Malibu and.Piru to Topanga were bilingual

and intermarriage was apparently common." The small extended families were organized along lineages and it was not uncommon for large villages to have as many as six dif­

ferent lineage groups. Each lineage owned or had access to resources in certain tracts of land surrounding the village.

For the Tatavium, the lineage structure was relatively more important than the village as a whole, while for the

Churnash the village was the most important social unit

{King, C., et aZ. 1974). The fact of the lineage being the most important social unit implies that the social cohesiveness of large social groups for the Tatavium (as well as other Shoshonean groups) is less than that of the

Chumash. This is seen by the fact that the lineage that owned the better resource probably had control over food

stores and a certain amount of decision-making power.

The lineages were independent units complete with their own group food stores (supplementing each member's household 66

stores). The lineages were usually organized into two groups or moieties--coyote and wildcat. The hereditary

leaders of the coyote moiety were usually the chief or

kika'j while the leaders of the wildcat moiety were the ceremonial leaders or paka (King, C., et al. 1974). Based on mortuary analysis by Chester King (1974) of the Agua'

Dulce Village which showed concentration of exotic items

in certain cemetery_ areas, there appeared to be the presence of stratified societies based on hereditary or ascribed status.

One of the roles of the chiefs was to control energy flows (i.e., food s~ores) within the system (King, c., et al. 1974). He controlled access to various items like ritual objects, sacred objects, and other community pro­ perties. However, the chiefs usually did not govern by force but by pressure from the populace. They were usually assisted by minor bureaucratic officials in the performance of their tasks. Another important function of the chief was to preside over various public festivities that would have visiting dignitaries. Exchange on a primary level usually occurred here with the host chief presenting gifts such as shell money and beads to the visiting dignitaries.

Also, he was responsible to develop various political (and social through marriage) alliances for trade, ritual, and military functions. These were necessary to counteract any stresses on the system in the form of food shortages, 67

threats of invasion, etc.

Kinship Kinship was patrilineal with each village composed of

several lineages organized into two moieties-coyote and

wildcat. Each lineage was composed of 25-60 people or

5-12 exogamic households headed by a hereditary leader

(King, C., et aZ. 1974).

Religion

The Tatavium were most probably followers of a reli­

gion that originated with the Tongva Indians to the south,

and was one of the. greatest cultural influences among

Southern California Indians-the belief in "Chungichnish"

or creator of the elements and animals (Horiarty 1969;

·Heizer and Whipple 1971; Strong 1972:13-14; Bean and King

1974:18). Similarities between this religion and the

accounts of creation in Genesis or the Hesiod have been

documented {Johnston 1962:40). Much of the social organi­

zation present within Southern Californian Shoshonean

society traces its roots and justifications to this belief.

Also associated with "Chungichnish" are the various rituals

including the Mourning Ceremony (con~emorating the death of

an individual), boy's initiation, and girl's puberty

rites. Associated with the boy's initiation rites was the

Tolache Cult or the use of Datura meteZoides (Jimson Weed)

to aid in the visions that the boys see during this ritual. Chapter 4

CULTURAL RESOURCE OVERVIEW

The nature of the present inventory work centers

around the assessment of impacts, both direct and indirect,

posed by new development on cultural resources. This area

is rapidly developing into a suburb. The placement of the

housing tracts (though following a "systematic" General

Plan) is not related in any predictable way to the location

of sites. Thus, the archaeological survey that is per­

formed as part of an Environmental Impact Report necessary

for any development represents an unsystematic sample. Due

to this rapid rate of development, archaeologists and other

researchers devote their total time to these endeavors .

. They therefore lack the time necessary to formulate

research·programs and adequate sampling strategies for

assessing the nature of the cultural resource. As long as

the archaeologist and the researcher can derive a steady

source of income from Environmental Impact Reports, the

nature of future work will continue to center around EIRs.

The responsibility, as mandated by law, to conduct a

systematic cultural resource inventory and develop a

research program, with funding, must reside with the vari­

ous levels of government. Executive Order 11593 of 1971

68 69 states that-each branch of the federal government must inventory and assess the land under their jurisdiction for cultural resources. However, the two largest federal agencies in_ the Upper Santa Clara, the Bureau of Land Man­ agement (BLM) and the United States Forest Service (USFS), have yet to develop the programs necessary to implement

Executive Order 11593. The BLM has instituted a vast pro­ gram to inventory their lands all over the state. They are especially effective in the California desert where they have jurisdiction over most of the area. However, in the Upper Santa Clara River Valley, the holdings of the

BLM are small in comparison to their holdings elsewhere in the state, and the BLM is concerned with mainly mineral rights in the area of the Upper Santa Clara River Valley

{Boll 1976). The United States Forest Service maintains jurisdiction over a very large portion of the Upper Santa

Clara River Valley (Angeles and Padres National Forest); however, the degree of their program is to perform a~

Archaeological Reconnaissance Report (ARR) on areas where development, logging claims, mineral claims, or off-road vehicle parks are to be put in. At present, few ARRs have been performed in the Upper Santa Clara and the majority of these have been carried out by untrained Forest Service employees given only a brief course in archaeology. Thus, the outlook for direct federal funding is bleak. The same can be said for both state and county sources. Although 70 the inventory and research program developed by Chester

King at Vasquez Rocks was funded by the Los Angeles County

Parks and Recreation, the General Plan for North Los

Angeles County presents one full page to the archaeology ! of the Upper Santa Clara River Valley dealing with the significance of the research, the potential for research, the lack of ongoing research, and concludes with "thorough archaeological field investigation is necessary" {Los

Angeles County Department of Regional Planning 1975:11-12).

There is no indication within the plan on how to alleviate the lack of research or fieldwork necessary for planning decisions. The only apparent method to obtain funds would be to incorporate a research program into a Ph.D. program which would be eligible for grants. It is crucial that these programs be developed immediately. The accelerating rate of urbanism assures that the amount of cultural resources not impacted will diminish. A collection of the results of the inventory (of all previously discovered sites or surveyed areas and any associated research) and preliminary record search that is mandatory for a thesis of this nature is being maintained at the Northridge

Archaeological Research Center-Anthropology Museum,

California State University, Northridge.

Future programs will have to concern themselves with the cultural resources already destroyed, e.g., the major- ity of the village sites. These programs should be aware 7.1

'of the fact that, as the development and expansion contin-

ues, the prime land in terms of economic development and

cultural resource potential will be totally impacted, and

the areas not as prime in terms of economic development and I cultural resource potential will be threatened. The nature

of the cultural resources in the areas of less prime are of

two kinds: (1) the prehistoric remains consist of loci for

maintenance or support activities for villages that perhaps

have long since been destroyed; and (2) the historic

rem~ins hitherto ignored in research analysis consists of i speaific or solitary structures or activities indicative of

a general exploitive program for the area such as mining.

There is a vast array of historic resources present ranging

from resources reflecting the Mission activities to the

Rancho activities to the Mining activities to even an

attempt to make paper pulp from Joshua trees (Gist 1952:9-

11). It is even possible that prehistoric resources might

reveal anomalies in our present settlement pattern models

(adapted to this area from the coast and the desert}, so

that a need for a new settlement system model as well as a

new cultural tradition might be presented. It is up to the

results of the future research, however programmed, to

accomplish these goals.

PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS

The Upper Santa Clara River Valley has long been the scene of various investigations., ranging from the private 72

collector to the qualified archaeologist from a museum or

university. Most of the earliest reported instances of

artifact collecting are attributed to the residents of the

area who, a~ owners/lessees of the ranches in the area, had I discovered the area's rich, undisturbed prehistoric

resources; however, these people did provide valuable

information about the location of these vandalized sites

(the laws regarding destruction of cultural resources were virtually non-existent and "pot-hunting" Indian sites for

relics was an acceptable weekend hobby as it still is today

in some places) to researchers from the Los Angeles County

Museum during the thirties. It was during this period that most of the fieldwork in the area was performed, due to the

increased development and unearthing of sites, with many

sites dug just to obtain items for museum collections. Few publications came out of this period and most of the field-

notes of these investigators have been lost or misplaced

over the span of years. However, in the last few years,

there has been a revival of interest in Upper Santa Clara

River archaeology. Several archaeologists have conducted

research and presented their results in publications and

M.A. theses. A brief summary of the researchers and their

programs follows.

Rev. Stephen Bowers

Rev. Bowers is associated with the most famous site in

the Upper Santa Clara River Valley--Bowers Cave. It was 73 originally discovered by Everett and McCoy Pyle who sold the material found inside the cave to Bowers. This mate- rial included feather caps and capes, bone whistles and other ritual paraphernalia. It is assumed that the mate- rial was deposited by shamans in an attempt to prevent the ritual items from falling into the hands of the Spanish· missionaries who would have certainly destroyed them in their attempt to eradicate the old way of aboriginal life.

Bowers later sold the material to several museums, includ- ing the Peabody Museum at Harvard and the Natural Museum

(Mason 1904: VanValkenburgh 1952:5-8; Elsasser and Heizer

19 6 3) •

A. Kroeber, C. Hart Merriam, a:ncr-John P. Harrington

All three men have conducted linguistic research in the Upper Santa Clara River Valley. Kroeber (1915) pub-

::!-ished the first mention of the Alliklik based on the data furnished by the Chumash informant, Juan Jose Fustero. He lat~r expanded on this information in his book, Handbook of

California Indians (1925:621-622}. On the basis of his research, Kroeber listed the Alliklik language as being of

Shoshonean stock; however, based on the fieldwork and notes gathered by C. Hart Merriam, Beeler and Klar (1974), the

Alliklik are· classified as members of the Hokan family, like the Chumash to the west. Harrington, also utilizing informants (including Juan Jose Fustero} , states that the 74

ALliklik show both Hokan and Shoshonean affinities. It is the opinion of some researc.hers that two types of speech were present--Alliklik with Hokan affinities and Tatavium with Shoshonean affinities due to a possible alternating village arrangement (Bright 1975:228-230).

Richard Van Valkenburgh - Los Angeles Museum of History, Science, and Art

Van Valkenburgh was the first researcher with an active interest in the Upper Santa Clara River Valley. As a Research Associate for the Los Angeles ~1useum in the thirties, he made many excursions into the Upper Santa

Clara River Valley, as well as other parts of Ventura, Los

Angeles, and Orange Counties, recording sites based on data furnished by local informants, and obtaining museum collec- tions from these sites (Van Valkenburgh and Farmer 1934;

VanValkenburgh 1935). He was also instrumental in organ- izing informants, both Indian and Anglo, for other researchers. He worked with John Harrington, Malcolm

Farmer, Art Woodward, Iral Alcock, Eugene Robinson,

Josephene Meyer, Adolph Backer, William and Abbie Riley on many projects in the Upper Santa Clara. The scope of their projects centered mainly on excavating many of the sites found in the Upper Santa Clara River Valley at this time. Most of these were not systematically recorded (on site records) and have long since been destroyed. The

Museum has in its possession the majority of these 75 l

co'llections from the sites excavated during this time period.

Arthur Perkins, Jr.

A~thur:Perkins has been called the "Historian of the

Santa Clarita Valley." Over the last 40 years he has excavated, documented, and researched the area's history.

He has published several articles dealing with both the

Upper Santa Clara's prehistory and history (Perkins 1954,

1957). The County Library at Valencia has a room dedicated to Arthur Perkins containing hLs vast collection of notes and books.

Herrick E. Hanks

Rick Hanks has been the most active researcher, along with others, including Robert Gibson and Clay Singer of

UCLA, in the past 10 years. He has recorded many of the

sites found in the Upper Santa Clara, and coordinated much of the fieldwork that has occurred during this period:

(1) Castaic (Singer, Chartkoff, Hanks, Ericson, and Bernor

1972), (2) Pyramid (Singer, Hanks, and Gibson 1972), (3)

Piru (Hanks 1972), and (4) Hungry Valley (Hanks 1973). He has also published the results of other fieldwork as well as further research programs {Allen and Hanks 1970; Hanks

1971; Hanks and King 1971; Sing~r, Hanks, and Gibson 1972).

He accomplished most of his work while a student at San San Fernando Valley State College, where he wrote his Master's thesis dealing with the Vasquez Rocks area in 76 l.

1971 and as an instructor at Ventura Junior College.

UCLA - Archaeological Survey

The Survey and its researchers have been involved with many surveys and test excavations (True 1961; Apostolides and Nordstrum 1963; Romoli 1967; Leonard 1968; Singer, et aZ. 1972; Singer, et aZ. 1972; Gibson, et aZ. 1973). Their involvement has declined lately with the increased interest in the area by California State University, Northridge.

The Anthropology Museum has in its collections some mate­ rial from the Upper Santa Clara River Valley.

California State University, Northridge (San Fernando Valley State College)

The archaeolog~cal group on campus, the Northridge

.Archaeological Research Center (NARC) has had a long interest in the Upper Santa Clara River Valley. Several students have written M.A. theses (Hanks 1971; Lopez 1974), several archaeological field classes have excavated there, and NARC has been associated \'lith several research projects in the Upper Santa Clara River Valley. NARC is presently involved in the Upper Santa Clara with environmental work and several comparative research projects and theses. Much of the material collected within the past 10 years is stored at the Research Facility.

Robert Lopez

Robert Lopez wrote a Master's thesis on the history 77 and-prehistory of the Piru Creek Drainage System based on the analysis of Mission records and archaeological field data in an attempt to correlate the two methods in terms of ethnographic reconstruction. He has been involved in field- work in the Santa Clara River Valley as a student at

California State University, Northridge and as an instructor at Moorpark Junior College.

Gerald Reynolds - Santa Clarita Historical Society

Gerald Reynolds and the Santa Clarita Historical

Society are chiefly concerned with documenting the history, both aboriginal and· European, of the Santa Clarita Valley

(essentially everything in the Upper Santa Clara River

Valley below the frost line). This organization has printed a series of newspaper articles dealing with the history of this area (Reynolds 1977).

R. W. Robinson - Antelope Valley Junior College Antelope Valley ~xchaeological Society

Roger Robinson, as an instructor at Antelope Valley

Junior College (AVJC), and advisor to the Antelope Valley

Archaeological Society (AVAS), has been chiefly responsible for most of the fieldwork and research investigations in the West Antelope Valley and East Upper Santa Clara River

Valley. Material and notes from these investigations are on file at AVJC. 78

Chester King

Chester King, under contract with the Los Angeles

County Parks and Recreation, performed an intensive survey

of the Vasquez Rocks area in 1973. He recorded over 100

sites and published reports that provided management recom­ mendations for the cultural resources present (King 1973;

King and Melander 1973; King, et al. 1974). In collabora­

tion with Thomas Blackburn, King has prepared a short

summary article on the Alliklik (King and Blackburn n.d.).

Other Researchers

Many other researchers have performed work in the

Upper Santa Clara River Valley on a far more limited scale

than the above individuals and institutions. These include

Chace (1966), Eberhart (1966), Greenwood (1976), and Ralphs

(n.d.).

PRIVATE COLLECTIONS

Most of the material that has been collected from the

Upper Santa Clara River Valley is probably in private col­

lections. Chester King and his researchers discovered that

many people in the Vasquez Rocks area possessed artifacts

from the surrounding sites (King, et al. 1974). These are

the "pot-hunters" who perhaps know more about the material

archaeology of the area than many professional archaeolo­

gists. The focus of these "pot-hunters" is for the collec­

tion of only the most easily recognizable artifacts-- 79

projectile points, manos, pestles, metates, bowls, and

ritual items. These artifacts are usually the materials

that enable the archaeologist to extract diagnostic infor­ mation about the cultures that used the material. Left

behind by the post hunters are the "lesser-valued" arti­

facts--flakes, broken artifacts, and detritus, which leave

little information for the archaeologist to analyze in

terms of site use and regional settlement patterns. Most

of these collections belong to long-time residents of the

area and with the rapid spread of urbanization, these col­

lections may move out of the area due to movement or death.

It is imperative that a program be initiated to inventory

these material resources so as to salvage what little

information they could represent.

An example of the degree of pot-hunting that has occurred is a documented case where a man with a bulldozer who said he was Dr.- Charles Rozaire (who had been excavat-

ing sites in the area with the California State University,

Northridge Archaeological Field Class) bulldozed LAn-361, a

Middle Period cemetery, almost virtually destroying it for

the artifacts (Wessel 1977).

NATURE OF FUTURE WORK

The nature of the inventory in the past, as reflected with the previous sections, was an unsystematic, often

helter-skelter undocumented inventory which left researchers 80 very little in terms of comparative data. This is true of most any archaeological work conducted in any area during this time, and reflects the stage that archaeology was in at this time. Archaeology has since progressed in terms of scientific ~esigns, but the nature of the work at present is in direct relation to the nature of the proposed devel­ opments. For example, an EIR for a reservoir, with federal monies involved, can support a research project while an

EIR for a housing project, with private money involved, can not. Yet the result is still the same--the destruction of the resource and the loss of the valuable information through the lack of scientific research designs or adequate management recommendations. So it is imperative in the future that a program be established to furnish the necessary management recommendations to these impacts to cultural resources and to be able to provide the research designs necessary if the site cannot be preserved and will be destroyed. Chapter 5

RESEARCH POTENTIAL

As mentioned before, until recently very little sys­ tematic archaeological research has been undertaken in the

Upper Santa Clara River Valley. Because of this, what we know about the Valley is extrapolated from general, regional overviews, exhibited by neighboring and similar cultures. This offers the potential for many varied research approaches as the need for knowledge about the specific processual cultural systems present within the

Valley is great. This need must be met by systematic problem-oriented programs carried out deliberately. Up to now, most research programs in the Upper Santa Clara River

Valley have been funded under specific contracts so that such· systematic investigations have not been carried out.

Recent archaeological work performed in the Upper

Santa Clara River Valley consists of environmental and/or contract archaeology. This type of archaeology usually lacks any explicit, problem-oriented research design.

This can be attributed to the fact that at present archae­ ologists deal with data that has been selected not for the resolution of specific problems, but for such non-specific reasons as its impending destruction or impact mitigation

81 82

(Bull 1978:18). However, the consideration of scientific research potential is crucial even to contract archaeology because it is through research potential that the signifi­ cance of any resource is measured and its preservation or excavation is justified.

The present-day approach to research potential has been the analysis of past work to form a regional program from which future programs could be developed or set up.

The interest in areal research potential has greatly increased with the advent of the "new or processual" archaeology. The processual archaeologists have created a deluge of literature (cf. Flannery 1973) with various approaches rang.ing from the "law· and order" archaeologists whose goal is to develop a broad body of general laws, denoting relation statements with a high statistical correlation, to explain or predict human behavior to the

"system theory" archaeologists whose goal is to demonstrate the natural, systematic regulation of human behavior.

Flannery (1973) states that, despite the shortcomings of each approach, if a combined approach is taken, more fruit­ ful results will be obtained.

Whichever approach is utilized, the analysis of the research potential of any given area can be the vehicle by which the relationship between human behavior and material culture can be examined (Schiffer 1976:4). Struever

(1971:10) states that "culture and its environments 83 represent a number of articulated systems in which change occurs through a series of minor, linked variations in one or more of these systems" and these changes should be reflected in the material culture. This concept of change is usually reflected by different physical or material remains (including sites) which are actually a manifesta­ tion of some sort of adaptation to the change, whether it is to a different ecozone (reflected by different site typologies) or a different group (reflected by trade) . It is through an intensive study of this adaptation or varia­ bility of prehistoric data, with the documentation of the areal research potential and the analysis of the nature of the processes within any given cultural system, that the processes of cultural change or adaptation can be deter­ mined (Binford 1962, 1964; Plog 1969).

In terms of a CRM program, the research potential of any particular cultural resource should be determined by the need to document the type of cultural relationships represented by the cultural resource present. The resource potential of any cultural resource is directly proportional to the interest of research questions and the potential of the data to answer said questions.

However, research potential-should be examined on various levels. Research potential should be examined on two basic levels: (1) the information that can be inter­ preted from already extant, accurately documented 84 collections without further field research. This could document what potential research is being missed due to present research techniques and therefore, where there is the need for more work, and {2) the items that are docu- mented in the ethnographic overview but are not adequately documented in the archaeological record. In any event-, the analysis of just material remains of archaeological sites, which represent spatially and temporally distinct activity loci of a cultural system, will not reflect all the activities of a particular cultural system. Sites are merely components of larger, more inclusive settlement systems. Bull (1978) provides a convenient framework (four planes) for classifying potential research problems or questions. Following are examples of possible research programs that other researchers have formulated for the

Upper Santa Clara:

1. Evaluation of the resources in conjunction with the southern California area, and the development of local prehistory.

This would entail using the resource potential of the Upper

Santa Clara to formulate testable hypotheses and explana- tions to aid in the understanding of southern California prehistory. Because the Upper Santa Clara is reflective of a transitional zone both environmentally and culturally, it could provide vital insight into the development of hunting and gathering societies in southern California with regards to the coastal and desert adaptations (Hanna 1978) . 85

The Upper Santa Clara River Valley has the potential to yield information on the Shoshonean "invasion« of south-

ern California through the ana~ysis of settlement patterns

and linguistic data (Bright 1975:228-230; Beeler and Klar

1977:287-305; King and Blackburn n.d.). Potential analysis

of linguistic data brings the knowledge of the exact

affinity of the language stock of the area. Differential

distribution of the languages could be beneficial in under-

standing the evolution of prehistoric societies (Hall and

Barker 1975:51).

Further analysis of the distribution of specific cul-

tural items such as projectile points during the protohis-

toric period could indicate a high correlation between

point forms and ethnic boundaries (King n.d.; Foster 1977).

2. Evaluation of the resource potential on a regional level such as the Upper Santa Clara River Valley.

Hanks (1970) states that the region should be the basis for any analysis because it supports a considerable diversity of ecological zones and geographical variations.

Struever (1971:10) states that temporarily related cul- tural variations can be compared and possibly be expected

to reflect different adaptive requirements of specific environments and correspondingly, various ecological potentialities linked to different exploitative economies,

and to different social structures. These variations can be seen in the materials sought after in trade, and the 86 settlement system present. Singer (1970, 1972) advances the idea that the settle­ ment system of the Upper Santa Clara was a reflection of an attempt of the Shoshonean speakers to adjust their settle­ ment systems to gain access to items which were marketable within the exchange system which Chester King (1971, 1976) documents as the Chumash Interaction Sphere. Essentially, it would be an effect of monetary exchange as a cultural over-ride.

This may be further amplified by the extraction of

Sierra Pelona schist, a source material for utilitarian and social interaction (ceremonial) items. It served an important exchange function in the prehistory of the area based on the distribution, through trade, of Sierra Pelona schist outside its source (Romani 1978).

The region level could also provide the basis of dynamic equilibrium models that would help determine carry­ ing capacity of the region (Zubrow 1971) as reflected in land use patterns {site catchment) , site compensation, distribution and density (Hall and Barker 1975:61-65).

In terms of historic archaeology, the Upper Santa

Clara River Valley as a unit would be perfect to "examine optimum economic use of the land, ethnic pattern and inter­ action, by examining habitations and homesteads" (Greenwood

1977:154).

Singer (1971, et aZ. 1972} has documented the 87 potential that through lithic analysis the lithic function would be based on particular activities which would be reflective of the function, types and variety of activities carried on throughout the Upper Santa Clara River Valley.

A functional determined set of tool types would serve as an areal standard and permit comparison with other areas ..

Differences may be laid to environmental or cultural changes.

3. Examination of the relationship which exists between sites of a locality. A locality is a small area by which cultural homogeneity can be assumed at any given time (Willey and Phillips 1958:18). King,. et aZ. (1973, 1974) proposed the following questions that could help determine the research potential of the Vasquez Rocks Park locality. These questions can be applied to any site complex and help to illustrate the basic potential of information that exists.

a. Why are the archaeological sites located where they are both in relation to the immediate park and surrounding landscape?

b. When did the Indians live at the different sites and why did they choose different locations for their settlements at different times?

c. What were the different types of artifacts found at the Vasquez Rocks used for?

d. What political, economic, and religious organization did the people who lived at the Vasquez Rocks sites have? And what were the changes in social organization over time?

e. How were the different plants found in the Upper Santa Clara. area, and in particular 88

Vasquez Rocks area, used and what were their relative nutritional values and importance?

f. Were the Vasquez Rocks sites lived in during all times of the year? Where else did they spend their time and what else did they do in other places?

In examination of a specific locality, the resource potential is determinant on the types of cultural resources that can be expected in the locality; the environmental, social, and historical factors which may have influenced their distribution (cultural ecology); the physical mani- festations of these cultural resources; the cultural pro- cesses and patterns, and potential significance that these cultural resources reflect.

4. Sites must be dealt with independently. What was the nature, how was it used, and for how long?

Many of these research questions listed for the previous plane can be applied more specifically to this phase.

Binning (1971) ·in her study of the distribution of the

Upper Santa Clara River Valley sites examined what the relationship is of site location and the site function

(uni-functional versus multi-£unctional) to drainage pat- terms (ordering of streams); in other words, does inter- site technological variability correspond to the proximity to differing stream sizes?

The reverse of this would be why a site is not located where one would expect it to be. An example of this is why there are not more soapstone workshops associated with the 89 l

schist outcrops (there is only one recorded now) when

schist is such an important item in terms of trade. Could

it be due to sampling deficiency, the nature of the deposits (small nodules permit easy transportation else­ where for processing) or the fact that it may have been traded as a raw material rather than a finished produc~.

The answer to this problem would deal with an intense analysis of the soapstone found in archaeological sites in the Upper Santa Clara and neighboring areas (Romani 1978) .

The four planes are interrelated so that the questions asked specifically about one site type can serve as the basis of answering questions about the relationship of the site to other sites, to the region and to southern Califor­ nia in general. Yucca roasting pits (earth ovens) can

.serve as an example of being able to pose and answer ques­ tions on each plane.

Are the locations of each earth oven (many occur as isolated occurrences) due to the fact that the resource

(yucca) iS so disperse that it is only conducive to exploi­ tation by small, distinct groups or are the locations actually examples of intensive, short-term exploitation practices? Does the fact that beads of economic importance are found at earth ovens, a functionally specific site, imply that everyone participated in an economic exchange system that most archaeologists had thought to be reserved for the village elite? Does this mean that the egalitarian 90

Shoshonean economic pattern had supplanted the Chumash system, or did they both work together, with one economic exchange pattern (Chumash) being used on a broad, regional level and the other (Shoshonean) being used on an area specific level? (Wessel 1978) . Does the change in economic patterns over time reflect changes in social organization, from one where food stores were controlled independently by kin groups, to societies where food stores were centralized and under the control of chiefs who inherited their posi­ tions, and how does this compare to other neighboring societies' economic patterns at the same time? (King, C. et al. 1974).

It is imperative that the research potential for the

Upper Santa Clara be recognized, and systematically docu­

·mented and interpreted presently to ensure against the loss of the information due to the present focus of programs now operating in this region. Some researchers feel, due to the advances in research design and associated theory building required for a well-organized CRM program, that the formulation of that CRM program will enable the research potential, on any particular level, to be realized

(Goodyear, et al. 1978:162). The responsibility of forming of these programs necessary to answer even the most basic question about the cultural processes that were ongoing in the Valley lies with the local research through theses, dissertations, or grants. 91

The next chapter will attempt to provide a framework by which the systematic studies can be used to gather the necessary information that would aid in testing the various questions that could be posed through the analysis of the research potential of the Upper Santa Clara River Valley. Chapter 6

EVALUATIVE SURVEY

Archaeologists, in their roles as cultural resource managers, know that an on-the-ground field inventory of the study area is needed before any valid statements concerning the nature of the resource, in terms of planning or research, can be presented. Without field verification, background research should never be used as the sole basis for planning predictions, regardless of the sources used

(King, T. 1978:79). Therefore, it would be ideal to have a program consisting of a 100% total field inventory of all surface cultural remains. Due to time and fiscal con­ straints, it is usually impossible to achieve even half that percentage of area surveyed; consequently, it is then necessary to rely on a probabilisti~ field survey designed to sample a percentage of the total study area which would inventory (identify and evaluate) cultural resources, from surface remains, in such a manner that will permit accurate predictions on the nature and distribution of cultural resources within the entire study area. A predictive sur­ vey of this nature can serve both the planning needs

(building up a research base for management designs) and research needs (by specifying the general types of

92 93

properties that will be sought and the criteria by which

they will be evaluated) of the cultural resource manager without having to perform a total survey (King, T. 1978:

7 4) •

For a predictive survey to he useful, it is extremely

important that the sample selected be representative and valid for making inferences; therefore, the survey must be

a statistically valid representative sample of the study

area whose accumulated data and observations can be used to generate a predictive model of prehistoric and historic

land use for management and research interests. This model

should be able to generate the comparative density of archaeological and/or historic sites, the relationship of

identifiable types of sites to certain environmental and locational variables, and the changes in these variables throughout time (Wait 1978). ~he primary objectives of a survey of this nature should center on the following (Weide

1973:5):

1. The discovery and recognition of patterns of ethnographic and prehistoric use of the study area;

2. Identification and investigation of natural and/or cultural variables, or a combination of variables that form the most accurate predictors of archaeological locations;

3. Development of projections of expected den­ sity and the distribution of archaeological resources in the study area;

4. Delineation of areas of high archaeological sensitivity requiring maximum protection; 94

5. Provide a systematic basis for making plan­ ning decisions concerning cultural resources.

The identification, evaluation and assessment of the inven- toried cultural resources, and related environmental vari- ables, will help to provide the necessary information for: any program concerning research or management planning.

Therefore, it is necessary to set up a systematic approach that will insure the maximum amount of data extraction through the maximum amount of coverage (with the minimum amount of time and man power commitments), utiliz- ing comparative units of analysis, and the efficient use of existing data. The sampling design for this survey will follow methodologies set up_by surveys in the Califor- nia desert, under the auspices of the BLM, where similar problems and needs were encountered. Margaret L. Weide, in her book ArchaeoZogicaZ Inventory of the CaZifornia Desert:

A Proposed Methodo~ogy, provides the framework for these

·programs.

SAMPLING DESIGN

For the purpose of the survey, the information that will be gathered should result in an accurate prediction of the archaeological potential of the field of study.

This information will be culled from a sample, drawn from the field of study or sample universe, which is the Upper

Santa Clara River Valley, according to some sort of sampling design. The sampling design consists of a 95

sampling scheme, sampling intensity, and sampling unit

size. Weide (1973:4) states the following assumptions

should be considered in any formulation of a sampling

design:

1. Exploitation and extraction of economic resources was a significant determinant of the land use pattern by past inhabitants;

2. Economic-subsistence systems were dynamic and closely related to current and past plant communities, landforms, and hydrol­ ogy;

3. Relations between these variables and archaeological locales are of sufficient strength that general predictions of site type distribution, densities and general locations can be generated for management and research purposes;

4. Social-cultural constraints (e.g., warfare, European intrusion) effected activities on the land surface independent of or less dependent on environmental resources.

The sample survey should give quantitative estimates of

these loci of cultural activity assuming that the function

·of the loci can be generally discerned from surface mani-

festations.

SAMPLING SCHEME

In terms of a sample universe·, the Upper Santa Clara

River Valley is not a homogeneous unit (as seen in Chapter

2 in terms of vegetation and geology). Therefore, any

sampling design would have to take into account the varia-

tion that is present. As seen in the aforementioned

assumptions, resource distribution has led to an uneven 96 (

distribution of cultural activity, whose relationship may

be identified through the examination of the present

environmental variables.

There are many sampling schemes available for any

design: random versus systematic, stratified versus

unstratified, and combinations thereof. To insure that the

full variability that exists within the universe is

expressed in the sample, stratification is the most effi­

cient scheme (Mueller 1974:32}. In any sort of stratified

sample, one first recognizes and delineates those sub-areas

that are thought likely to contain different kinds or­

densities of sites or those attributes of the environment

that are thought likely to have influenced settlement pat­

terns (King, T. 1978:43). Plog (1976:143) states that the

analysis of the results of various sampling strategies show

that systematic and stratified systematic unaligned samples

are more efficient.than stratified and simple random

samples while stratified samples are more efficient than

simple random samples at a given sampling intensity.

Recent studies in the desert under the direction of

the BLM have utilized the stratified systematic unaligned

sampling schemes. Weide (1973:8-10) proposes the follow­

ing variables as the basis for stratification: vegetation, hydrology, and physiography. Some of these studies have shown that some of these variables may not be a valid indicator for a survey of this type or the variable 97 may have shifted over time (Ritter 1976:2), and some variables may be more sensitive than others or these vari­ ables may provide too many ecological combinations to be adequately 17ested (~7ells 1977). However, these studies were for the California desert and may not be transferable to a different ecological zone such as the Upper Santa.

Clara River Valley; therefore, all three variables will be viewed at least through the preliminary stages of the sample survey. Table 6 represents a possible stratifying system based on Weide (1973:9-10). The information neces­ sary for stratification can be drawn from vegetation maps, soil maps, geological maps, and hydrology studies that were briefly summarized in Chapter 2. Each sample unit within the sample frame will be assigned to a strata based on at least 50% representation of that stratum within the sample unit. Table 6 has the potential to form many combinations

(A B ) but most would not be valid combinations (pinyon­ 1 2c 3 juniper communities do not exist on valley floors).

SAMPLING INTENSITY

Archaeologists have yet· to agree on what size sample is adequate for any sort of probabilistic sample (Watson, et a~. 1971:122, Mueller 1974; Asch 1975:190; Cowgill 1975:

263; Read 1976:26; Poirier 1977:102). Ideally, it is not the sample fraction that counts but the absolute size of the sample and its ability to test your hypothesis (Thomas

1978:237). Most survey percentages usually end up 98

Table 6

STRATIFYING VARIABLES WITHIN THE UPPER SANTA CLARA RIVER VALLEY

Archaeological Inventory Stratum

Coastal Sage Scrub Chaparral Valley Grassland Southern Oak Woodland Montane Coniferous Forest Pinyon-Juniper Woodland

Springs and Tanks, with .5 km radius Stream Order less than three, with 1 km strip Stream Order three or larger, with 1 km strip Areas within .5 km of relict features of past hydrology Areas at distances greater than .5 km from any of the above

Valley floodplains and basin floors Alluvial fans and bajada slopes Mountain/bajada intersection (1 km strip) Slopes with exposed bedrock and/or greater than 10% slope Upland surfaces with less than 10% slope 99

dependent on time and fiscal constraints. To compensate

for operating under time and fiscal constraints, a multi­ stage sample will be used to insure continuous feedback and permit changes, if necessary, in the design. The sam-

ple size for the first stage must be consistent (in terms of the proportion of the sample frame that the stratum represents) for all strata. Following samples can vary by stratum, dependent on the results of the past inventory work and the integration within the sample design. The initial percentage chosen, in this case, is one similar to the initial percentages that have proved effective in studies of a similar nature in the desert. Basically, one should draw an_adequate number of sites to contrast your strata. Stage I - A 5%· systematic unaligned stratified probability sampling scheme designed to avoid sample unit clustering and possible associated patterning of the results will be utilized. The first unit will be selected from the random number table and subsequent units will be spaced 10 sample. units apart. This stage will enable: 1. The comparison of sample units in terms of ·size and rate of coverage; 2. The rate of site discovery per sample unit; 3. The estimation of quality of data extracted.

From the synthesis and analysis of the above information,

it should be possible to:

1. Estimate the areal site density per each ·stratum; 2. Estimate the cultural resource potential of each stratum; 3. Rank each stratum in terms of the previous two items; 100

4. Identify additional variables collected by the. survey team which are also relative to site location; 5. Analyze site location in terms of catchment zones; 6. Relate management goals to site location; 7. Provide a systematic basis to assess the existing archaeological record.

Stage II -A 10% additional systematic, uniform coverage of areas either restratified for addi­ tional coverage (based on the results of Stage I), and for purposeful selection of survey units which will provide further data on: 1. The specific cultural phenomena and/or cul­ tural variability; 2. The relationships between cultural and environ­ mental variables; 3. The development of more solidly-backed manage­ ment recommendations. From the synthesis and analysis of the above information, it should be possible to identify the pattern of cultural resource locations relative to the main stratification variables in terms of time periods and site types. Site types as a whole will be examined relative to each variable as a whole; sites themselves will be examined relative to the various divisions of each stratifying variable. This analysis will serve as the basis for quantification of a site catchment program. Stage III - A judgemental reconnaissance consist­ ing of the field assessment of: 1. Selected cultural sites and localities; 2. General areas not covered by Stages I and II; 3. Areas reported to contain cultural resources.

This stage is basically an intuitive. spot check which could 101 be undertaken before, during or after Stages I and II (which are intensive surveys).

SAMPLE UNIT SIZE

Sample units should be chosen to provide valid statis­ tical results in terms of area and variability covered by the survey. Most surveys have utilized either the transect or quadrat sample units. There seems to be a question on which is more successful (Mueller 197~:55; Plog 1978) but quadrats seem the best for association studies and tran­ sects seem the best for populat.ion estimates (Matson and Lipe 1973). Also, since the quadrats are best for associa­ tion studies, they will prove the most useful for the cul­ tural resource manager. The cultural resource manager will deal with development tracts and the associative informa­ tion necessary for the cultural resource manager to deter­ mine the cultural resource potential of the development tract is best furnished by quadrats rather than transects. Since the survey universe is covered by USGS 7.5' topo­ graphic maps, the Cadastral Grid will serve as the basis for drawing up the sample units (as well as the different strata). In terms of time and energy constraints, using the survey lines, and section corners of the Cadastral Grid would be the most efficient method of locating sample units in the field. Using-quadrats would more easily adapt to the Cadastral Grid than transects. Map·3 and Tables 7 and 8 indicate how one-sixteenth quadrats more than double, when compared with one-quarter quadrats, the percentage of homogeneous survey quadrats which are necessary for valid 102

Table 7

ASSOCIATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL VARIABLES WITH SURVEY QUADRATS

Possible Environmental Number of Quadrats in Which It Is Present Combinations* 'liG ){.

AlB2Cl 32 12 AlB2C4 102 45 Al B2C5 .. 10 6 AlB3Cl 10 20 AlB3C4 58 27 AlB3C5 7 6 AlB5Cl 1 2 AlB5C4 17 10 AlB5C5 3 3 A2B2Cl 19 12 A2B2C4 77 35 A2B3Cl 20 15 A2B3C4 29 17 A2B3C5 1 1 A2B5Cl 2 1 A2B5C4 23 12 A3B2Cl 11 5 A3B2C4 10 5 A3B3Cl 14 6 A3B3C4 10 6 A3B5Cl 1 1 A3B5C4 1 1

*See Table 6. 103

Table 8

NUt·iBER OF ENVIRONHENTAL COMBINATIONS PER QUADRAT

1 Number /1 6 114

1 62 6 2 69 14 3 2 1 4 50 14 5 6 1 4 7 8 19 11 9 10 11 12 1 3 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 204 57 104 associative studies. Therefore, the sample unit size will be one-sixteenth square mile and the sample frame will con- sist of all one-sixteenth sections with at least 50% of their area located within the Upper Santa Clara River

Valley.

FIELD METHODOLOGY

Each survey team will consist of five individuals with the following responsibilities:

Crew Chief - To coordinate recording of a site, lay out sampling tracts to record site variabil­ ity;

Surveyor #1 - To prepare a field map of a site area and internal organization;

Surveyor #2 - To record· chronological signifi­ cant artifacts by drawings and photographs;

Surveyor #3 -To reconnoiter a site, determine its surface extent, flag features or diagnostic artifacts;

Surveyor #4 - To reconnoiter an area ( ~ km radius) around site for vegetation, water sources, lithology, etc.

Each unit shall be intensively surveyed; that is, surveyed with 17 individual transects spaced 20 meters apart. The first transect will always start 10 meters from the sample unit boundary. The survey team will position itself, with the aid of a Brunton compass, in either a north-south or east-west direction. They will proceed to walk in the cardinal direction, inventorying any evidence of cultural activity located within the survey unit. During the course 105 of the survey, there will be extra surveyors (there is the potential for 20 individual transects in four sweeps) so some surveyors may have to be dropped out of the team at the end of the various sweeps. Having extra surveyors safeguards against losing surveyors to injury or fatigue and having to do extra sweeps ~s a result of the missing surveyors.

For purposes of continuity, the BLM criteria for cul- tural activity or behavior (as documented in such regional overviews as Sun Desert and East Mojave) shall be used.

Any cultural occurrence shall be determined whether it is a site versus an i~olated occurrence, and whether it is an example of long-term use versus short-term use; intensive use versus occasional use.

A site consists of cultural material consisting of basically artifacts (objects manufactured or modified by hand) and/or cultural features (specific clusters of arti- facts and/or other material used or assembled by man that exhibit structural association, and that consist of non- recoverable or composite matrices). A site is therefore defined by:

1. One or more artifacts per five square meters over 10 contiguous 5 square meter blocks;

2. Ten or more artifacts within 10 square meters;

3. Two or more features within 5 meters of each other.

The length and type of use shall be determined by 106 assigning the loci to one of .the possible site types in the Upper Santa Clara River Valley listed in Table 9.

The survey team, with its aforementioned assigned tasks, is responsible for providing the location of the site in ' I terms of the Universal Transverse Mercator System, and longitude and latitude: the type of site, its condition, areal size, depth, internal complexity, diagnostic items, and the micro-environment. Preferably these items can be accomplished in the field without any artifact collection.

Any site found outside any sample unit (e.g., during travel to and from the sample unit) shall not be considered in any analysis or prediction models resulting from the sample.

With the analysis of the ordered data, the following should become self-evident (Weide 1973:5):

1. Patterns of ethnographic, prehistoric and historic use of the Upper Santa Clara River Valley;

2. Identification of the general range of the biotic, topographic or hydrologic variables, or combinations thereof that form the most accurate predictors of cultural resource locations. 3. Determination of how well the variables employed in the study area will predict the location of cultural resources;

4. Development of projections of expected den­ sity and distribution of cultural resources within the Upper Sant~ Clara River Valley;

5. Delineation of areas of high cultural resource sensitivity requiring the maximum protection. 107

6. Delineation of areas with high probability of lower cultural resource sensitivity where development for economic or recreational activities should endanger relatively few cultural resources, resulting in minimal costs for protection and/or salvage of what resources present. 108

Table 9 POSSIBLE SITE TYPES FOR THE UPPER SANTA CLARA RIVER VALLEY

(After BLM East Mojave Report)

1. Village -Long-term or seasonal activity identified archaeologically by primary or secondary tools (used in the manufacture of other tools) , a variety of other artifacts, and floral and faunal remains representing subsistence activities. Multi-functional components and a well-developed midden are also present.

2. Temporary Camp - Short-length utilization by a few people. Differs from village site type by size and frequency of cultural remains.

3. Utilized Shelter or Cave - Rockshelters, rock overhangs or caves.

a. Occupational Rockshelter - Temporary or seasonal occupation areas containing similar cultural remains as 1 or 2. A developed midden is also present.

b. Transient Rockshelter - Extremelv limited use (overnight) usually along a traii or route of travel. Limited occurrences of cultural remains and no developed midden present.

c. Storage Rockshelter - Small shelter containing caches of basketry, pottery, tools and foods.

4. Milling Station- Manifestation of procurement and/or processing of hard and/or soft seed plants. Manos, metates, mortars, pestles, or bedrock mortars or metates may be present.

5. Lithic Scatter - Characterized by the exclusive presence of flake stone tools, chipping waste, cores, utilized flakes and source material. Measured in terms of area (large scatter is more than 50 square meters, small scatter is less than 50 square meters) and dens.i ty (heavy scatter is more than 30 flakes in 100 square meters, light scatter is less than 30 flakes in 100 square meters) .

a. Heavy-Large Scatter High density over large area. 109

Table 9 (Continued)

b. Heavy-Small Scatter High density over small area.

c. Light-Large Scatter Light density over large area.

d. Light-Small Scatter -Light density over small · --~------area.

e. Chipping Circle -Core with flakes immediately around it.

6. Quarry -Area where lithic material has been extracted and characterized by abundance of flakes, cores, ham­ merstones, preforms and blanks or rejects.

7. Cemetery- Internment locations characterized by cairns, bone mounds and grave goods.

a. Cremation Loci -Burnt bone.

8. Rock Art

a. Petroglyph - Pecked or incised figures or designs on rocks or caves.

b. Pictograph - Painted figures or designs on rocks or caves. 9. Rock Alignment- Alignments of cobbles and boulders that vary in size and complexity ranging from simple lines to complex abstract or geometric designs.

10. Trail -Marked (by either cairns or shrines or arti­ facts) routes of travel between the site types and procurement areas.

11. Cairn -Mounding of cobbles and/or boulders that pre­ historically mark trails, shrines or burials; and historically, boundary lines or homesteads.

12 •. Fire Affected Rock - Rock features of thermally frac­ tured rock.

a. Roasting Pit.

b. Fire Pit. 110

Table 9

(Continued)

13. Historic - Material remains associated with Spanish, Mex1can or Anglo communities.

a. Structures.

b. Mines.

c. Transportation.

d. Communication.

e. Misc.

14. Isolated Occurrence -Single occurrence of a cultural resource. Chapter 7

MANAGH1ENT RECOMMENDATIONS

Cultural resource management should be approached·on two levels: (1) the options that are dictated by the cul­ tural resource, and (2) the options that are available to the planner. The cultural resource, in terms of areal analysis and importance, should be documented in the begin­ ning stages of the planning process. It is at this time that the potential use of the cultural resource should be identified in terms of the planning allocations. The plan­ ner usually must decide between several different resources, only one of which is the cultural resource. The planner's decisions are usually derived from a trade-off system based on a cost-benefit analysis of the potential short-term or long-term benefits of any particular resource in relation­ ship to other resources. All the resources that a planner must consider are not compatible in use with one another; therefore, in many instances, the planner must find a happy medium between all these resources.

In actuality the planner's cost-benefit analysis weighs many factors, not the least of which are political.

Special interest groups like developers have tremendous influence with the political branches of the county who

111 112 could exert pressure on the planner, a county employee, to elect to utilize a more viable economic option of a housing development rather than the option of what may be a non­ profitable cultural resource preserve.

It is up to the cultural resource manager to document adequately based on the results of a program as outlined in the previous chapter, the cultural resource in.terms of these benefits in order to provide a case for the planner to make his decisions concerning these resources. The cul­ tural resource should be managed in relationship to its significance, integrity, and ability to be used for "public consumption;" that is, integrated into programs which would enable the public to benefit, whether through increased knowledge or cultural heritage identification, from the planning or preservation uses of that resource.

THE ROLE OF THE CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGER

On the surface, the role of the cultural resource manager is to formulate a plan that will insure that the current and future use of any geographic area will not lead to the loss of the cultural resource for humanistic or scientific uses. But his role would only be partially suc­ cessful until he is aware of and copes with such external influences such as politics or economics. Cultural resources are basically a non-economic or producing resource. They do not fare well at all in Los Angeles 113

County, where jobs and profits generally are considered more important than history and archaeology. It is up to the cultural resource manager to supplement his submissions to the planner with a program o.f public education to facilitate public involvement and support of the cultural resources and help with their preservation. This can be accomplished with a program of lectures for schools, his­ torical societies, and service groups, as well as political lobbying which could result in the formation of a state or county sanctioned group similar to the Arkansas Archaeo­ logical Survey. This could entail formulating programs for public consumption, allowing the public to participate in the recording of the cultural resources, co-authoring reports, etc., and mobilizing the.m to supply public opinion and lobbying £or various political and environ­ mental groups like the Sierra Club (Wildeson and Wither­ spoon 1978) • A public opinion lobby could have a pro,... nounced effect on the elected politicians who may hav:e an effect on the county employees, including the planner.

Utilization of a public relations program and a program designed to evaluate the significance of the cultural resource for allocation planner should permit the success of the cultural resource manager's tasks.

The manager's plan should also be flexible enough to change as concepts and knowledge pertaining to the sig­ nificance of the cultural resource change over time 114

(Dunnell and· Dancy 1978) • This can be accomplished by insuring that the cultural resource manager is given enough lead time in the land management and use decisions. After an intensive survey, as proposed in the last chapter, it will be possible for the cultural resource manager to evaluate the cultural resource in terms of its significance and possible uses. These issues of significance may be summarized as follows (Greenwood and Mcintyre 1979:61-63).

EVALUATION AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CULTURAL RESOURCE

The evaluation and significance of prehistoric and historical sites are usually measured by several variables which deal with their applicability to present and future research questions posed by anthropologists and historians in describing and explaining culture change. Archaeologi- cal materials are an extremely fragile and non-renewable resource; thus, any activity which alters the surface of the land can be impactive to these cultural resources.

For instance, either the installation/conversion of a transmission line by the utility company or the excavation/ collection of archaeological $ites by archaeologists may destroy archaeological remains and information that these resources represent. Consequently, all cultural resources can be considered significa~t because they are finite in number, irreplaceable and non-renewable.

However, that cultural resources should be considered. 115

significant because they are finite is an inadequate justification for management or mitigation proposals

involving these resources. The evaluation of significance

requires ·that the resource or the information it represents

be related to some sort of framework held in common by all

archaeologists to provide a scale of reference for the·

potential significance of similar cultural resources.

Criteria for the Determination of Significance

The National Register of Historic Places is the chief

vehicle utilized by archaeologists as its stated purpose is

to provide for the listing of "significant" cultural

resource properties that show:

The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects of State and loc.al importance that possess integrity of lo¢ation, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and:

a. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pat­ terns of our history; or

b. That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or

c. That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that repre­ sent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinc­ tion; or

d. That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information of importance in prehistory or history (36 CFR Part 60.6). 116

These criteria are general in nature, especially (a)

and (d) , and cultural resource managers have recently

utilized a more developed system for evaluating the sig­

nificance. ·The researchers (Scovill, et aZ. 1972; Moratto

and Kelly 1976; Schiffer and Gumerman 1977; Grady 1977;

Glassow 1977) have suggested the following criteria:

1. Scientific Significance - how the resource fits into research programs and research designs formulated to derive cultural infor­ mation indicating past economic system, sub­ sistence and procurement activities or other activities reflecting man's utilization of any area. 2. Historical Significance -how the resource can be identified with particular persons, cultures, or events.

3. Ethnic Significance -how the resource is held by ethnic populations in terms of religious or social importance.

4. Public Significance- how the resource could be used for interpretative purposes for the general public. 5. Legal Significance -how the resource fits the legal criteria (e.g., National Register of Historic Places) .

6. Monetary Significance- how much would it cost to extract all the significant informa­ tion that the resource represents utilizing today's standards and techniques. The common approach presently is to focus on Item l,

Scientific Research; in other words, the significance of

the resource is usually judged by whether study of that

resource can be expected to answer current research ques-

tions {Schiffer and Gumerman 1977: 241) • With this approach, all sites and even isolates have some measure of 117 l significance or research potential because they can furnish some sort of information. However, this significance is not a static property inherent within each cultural resource because it is only realized in terms of the varied interests and research problems of the researcher (Grady

1977:261). This approach to evaluation could lead to prob­ lems if significance is assessed against personal research problems, since there are almost as many lines of inquiry as there are archaeologists. Any personal bias could possibly ignore other present or future research interests.

Applying specific research problems and designs may result in a decrease in the number of cultural resources to be conserved, protected or preserved (Dixon 1977:279).

MANAGEMENT USES FOR CULTURAL RESOURCES

As stated before, any cultural resource should be managed in terms of public use, either protection from the public or maintenance and restoration providing enhancement of the use of the resource for the public. Uses of the cultural resources are based on the criteria for evaluation of cultural resource significance. The Bureau of Land ·

Management (Manual 6400) has provided a suitable criteria for documenting the potential uses of cultural resources:

Socio-Cultural Use. The identification of the use of the cultural resource as perceived by vari6us social or cultural groups by the identification of the socio-cultural 118

group (Native American, Chinese, etc.) whose heritage the

cultural resource is associated with; the nature of the

held value of the cultural resource; the intensity of the

emotional attachment, and relationship of the cultural

resource to the survival of the group; the nature of the

use of the cultural resource; the length of time of this

use and the percentage of the group involved with the cul­

tural resource. An example is Mt. Pinos where recent

studies have shown the site to be associated with the

center of Chumash cosmology (Applegate 1974:201; Blackburn

1975; Hudson and Underhay 1978}.

Current Scientific Use. The identification of studies

in progress. This would involve the identification of

researchers and the·ir research programs and objectives, as

·well as the identification of the specific information that

can be extracted and the techniques utilized. Examples of

this are previously discussed in Chapter 5 under Research

Potential.

Management Use. The identification of the use of the

cultural resource so as to ol;:>tain information for any

future resource allocation through the identification of

the resource information that can provide for management

objectives and the data extraction techniques needed to

accomplish management objectives. An example of this would

be the use of cultural resources in interpretive programs

designed to enhance the cultural resource for public use, 119 arid the formulation and testing of various methods, either protection or maintenance, to insure that use in the future.

The proposed thematic Vasquez Rocks County Park is an excellent example of this use.

Conservation for Future Use. The identification of research techniques in progress; the possible information represented by the cultural resource essential to future research programs and goals; the precise conditions.neces­ sary for the future use of this cultural resource as well as the documentation of the exhaustion of all similar cul­ tural resources.. An example of this would be a refinement in lithic sourcing (such as atomic absorption tests on soapstone) in the future which may help to determine trade patterns and routes from cultural resources (such as lithic scatters and quarries) that may not provide that informa­ tion at the present. There is an important soapstone quarry located within the Upper Santa Clara River Valley in the Sierra Pelona Range.

Potential Scientific Use. The identification of the information which can be extracted and its potential use in the understanding of human behavior; and the data extraction techniques that will be utilized. An example of this would be the analysis of the research objectives in other regions and possibly applicable to this region, requiring a re-evaluation of the cultural resources presently known. Lithic scatters until now have been 120

thought of a~ basically representing a limited activity for the inhabitants of the Upper Santa Clara River Valley but they could actually represent a more complex activity, the result of diffusion of technology from neighboring cultural groups or the effect of a trade system on a settlement sys- tern (cf. King 1971).

CULTURAL RESOURCES IN THE PLANNING PROCESS

The planner, utilizing a cultural resource management plan, should be able to see what.significant areas should be set aside, and how these significant areas should be preserved and enhanced. Basically, the use of any cultural resource will fall under two headings: (1) non-consumptive, where the use does not deplete the resource; and (2) con- sumptive, where the use does deplete the resource; in other words, preservation or destruction. The General Plan for this area of Los Angeles County should provide the guide- lines by which these uses will be authorized. However, the Draft for the General Plan, without the adequate base- line cultural resource data acquisition, provides little for the management of the cultural resource (Los Angeles

County Department of Regional Planning 1975 (4)II-139):

Archaeological Sites - Archaeological sites that have been discovered in the Planning Area have provided valuable insight into the culture of early populations. Local archeologists have stated this information is insufficient and that a rigorous f~eld investigation should be estab­ lished to·realize the full potential of the area's archeological resource. Based upon a field study 121

of this nature, it is possible to determine areas that are rich in archeological sites, and there- fore, desirable as an open space resource. Because of the limited surveys conducted, arc?eo­ logical sites do not constitute a major contribu­ tion to open space, although it is desirable to provide protection for existing sites.

Historical Sites -Most historical sites in the Planning Area are protected from removal or des­ truction. One, however, represents an opportunity to expand the cultural heritage of the region. It is: Beale's Cut. ·

These sites, although often recognized by public and private groups, could be inadvertently damaged or they could be removed for other. types of real estate development. These sites should be protected for future restoration, and full support and endorsement should be given to private groups that seek to do so. It has been suggested that the County purchase all such property, although limited resou~ces tend to preclude this.

At the present, the Los Angeles Department of Regional

Planning sees only ·the general options of open space, and

·in the case of historic resources, possible purchase if

the funds are available. According to the current General

Plan, the current goals for open space are directed toward

including the following (Los Angeles County Department of

Regional Planning 1975 (4} :II-155) :

1. Provide ample outdoor recreational oppor­ tunities.

4. Preventing incompatible development of areas that should be preserved or regulated for scenic, historic, conservation or public health and safety purposes. However, there is no operationalizing on how open

space can be used in relation to cultural resources. Open

space, as basic vacant areas or green belts, can at times 122 be harmful because of being unprotected and not feasible

for use in every case where cultural resources are to be

utilized or preserved in light of other resources consid-

ered in the planning process. Before any cultural resource

is designed as open space or whatever, the planned use of

the cultural resource, according to the categories previ-

ously mentioned, should be determined.

MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE UPPER SANTA CLARA RIVER VALLEY

At present, without the results of the inventory pro- gram, very little can be presented in terms of the evalua-

tion of the significance and the potential use of the cul- tural resource data base for the Upper Santa Clara River

Valley. The examination of the present known cultural resources in the Upper Santa Clara River Valley, though not reflective of the total cultural resource potential, may help to indicate what measures should be considered in management decisions when the proper data base is evaluated.

Presently there are approximately 300 archaeological sites or cultural resources known to be located in the

Upper Santa Clara River Valley. Most have been inventoried during two large-scale projects: Chester King's assessment of the archaeological resources of the Vasquez Rocks County

Park for the Los Angeles Department of Parks and Recreation in 1973, and the California State Department of Parks and

Recreation survey of the Hungry Valley Motorcycle Park in 123

1978. Based on information gathered from these surveys, as well as from other cultural resources, a baseline

"sensitivity11 map can be developed to help indicate where there is a potential for significant cultural resources.

A preliminary map was developed by UCLA in 1973 for the Los

Angeles Planning Department concerning all of Los Angeles

County. However, that map was general in nature and was out of date as soon as it was published as new sites were being found. Seven hundred sites have been found in the

County the six years since then. Also, any map that is developed will need an archaeologist to interpret it as well as to update it based on the new continual flow of data (i.e., from the regional systematic inventory). This would mean that an archaeologist would have to be hired in

.some capacity to supervise the use of the map as well as evaluate projects in the Upper Santa Clara River Valley in order to insure the protection of cultural resources, all of which are functions already documented as essential in the General Plan by the Los Angeles County Department of

Regional Planning (1975 (4) :II-175):

1. A "benchmark 11 study should be made, possibly including some fieldwork that would provide a systematic framework for information and develop guidelines for identifying, protect­ ing and investigating possible archeological resources.

2. Review of development proposals as early as possible in the permit process by an advisory board that would include a proposal archeologist. 124 l

3. Known and potential sites on private lands should be protected through a registration system. With the application of the cultural resource data, both present and future, to maps, the cultural resource manager can provide that high sensitive areas will receive an early warning system in the General Plan. These sensi- tive areas are red-flagged in such a way to enable the appropriate agency to work within a general framework towards acquiring these significant cultural resources for their preservation or use. Torn King (1976) has provided a framework by which the appropriate agency can utilize for either total preservation (1-7) or partial preservation.

Fee Simple Acquisition. The fee simple acquisition for open space and parks is the best option whether it is carried out through outright government purchases or by matching funds between governmental and private groups.

Open space is the most feasible option as it is mentioned in the General Plan as having objectives which include parks, preserves and management areas (Los Angeles County

Department of Regional Planning 1975 (4) :II-58). The

Bureau of Land Management, in its study of the California desert, will be proposing cultural resource management areas consisting of regions with significant resources whose only use is cultural resource oriented. This approach could be applied to this region with great sue- cess and should be examined when the report for the 125

California desert is published. The General Draft desig- nates the Department of Parks and Recreation to develop a program to est.ablish priori ties for the acquisition of those areas deemed to be of significant environmental con- sequence (Los Angeles County Department of Regional P~an- ning 1975 {4) :68). Open space is also the most restrictive because it limits the amount of use for the parcel as well as the resource present when the parcel is in open space by eliminating other potential uses for the parcel. Issue

Six--Protection of Cultural Resources in the General Plan-- as mentioned before in this chapter states " ••• it is possible to determine areas that are rich in archeological sites, and therefore, desirable as an open space resource"

(Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning 1975

(4) :II-139). However, the fact that a cultural resource is in open space does not guarantee the resource preservation from either natural or human agents. A program utilizing various physical protection measures should be implemented in regards to the loss of the resource to natural or man- made causes, modification of the physical environment or introduction of new elements. The Bureau of Land Manage- ment, in their Manual provides a base guideline of appro- priate protection measures for cultural resources:

Indirect

a. Posting signs of the cultural resource with stated penalties; 126

b. Off-site fencing/gating of the cultural resource;

c. Patrolling/surveillance of the cultural resource;

d. Off-site erosion control;

e. Off-site fire control.

Direct

a. Structural stabilization;

b. On-site fencing/gating of the cultural resource;

c. On-site erosion control;

d. On-site fire control.

The mode or type of protection measure applied must be responsive to the need for the protection as well as flexible to the trends of disturbance to accommodated future needs for protection.

However, the best use of an open space for cultural resources would be.an interpretative park. The cultural resource survey of the Vasquez Rocks County Park and the programs proposed by Herrick Hanks and Chester King (King

1973; King, et aZ. 1974) provide an excellent example of interpretative uses of the cultural resource base in ~he

Upper Santa Clara River Valley. However, due to the lack of funds or interest~ the interpretive facilities have not materialized in the last five years. Public pressure should be brought to bear on the County to renew interest in it.

This choice of using interpretive parks should be the 127 favored alternative because it makes the cultural resource available for public cons~~ption and it will provide a service for the public, the ultimate economic backers for any management proposal, and provides for the protection of the cultural resource through the preservation of the information that the cultural resource represents. There is a need for these interpretive parks as Green (n.d.:7}

11 states ••• the public interest in prehistoric sites is growing, and at a faster rate than the demand for recrea­ tional services of the Parks generally."

Acquisition of Development Uses. Acquisition of possible developme~t uses could center around, if fee simple acquisition is not feasible, the appropriate level government agency using the principle of eminent domain in

·acquiring any cultural resource whether for utilization in open space or preventing the destruction of the cultural resource. This option could be used on the area surround­ ing Vasquez Rocks County Park as some of the best resources

(village sites) are located on private land.

Zoning. Zoning could entail the use of open space or special cultural resource zone categories to restrict usage of the property and to insure compatible uses for the property and the surrounding areas. Possibilities include the use of green belts as interfaces, or specific cultural resource zones. CRH-1, attached to a zoning ordinance, would signal the presence of significant cultural ·resources 128 with the number indicating the level of significance from a pre-agreed upon listing. Known village sites within the

Upper Santa Clara River Valley, such as LAn-351 or LAn-823 would cause the parcel in which they are located to carry a special CRM-1 zone.

Adaptive Uses. Based on the zoning, only certain adaptive non-destructive uses, such as grazing or livestock raising could be allowed to function in relation to the cultural resource. Also, utilizing the cultural resource in a public education program as outlined by the proposed thematic Vasquez Rocks County Park would be an example of adaptation.

Restrictive Covenants. The use of restrictive cove­ nants, attached to deeds, to restrict the use of the · property could provide the necessary protective measures needed. Certain cultural resources, such as a Native

American shrine (toshololo), could not hold its signifi­ cance with a multi-story cement building next to it where it may if grazing was allowed next to it. These covenants or zoning ordinances could require the developers to con­ tribute land and money or to undertake part of the develop­ ment of non-consumptive uses of the cultural resource, as with interpretive parks (Heyman 1970:23).

Relocation. Relocation as a use is only valid with certain resources or artifacts such as rock art. It develops a need for a curation program necessary to provide 129 the interpretation of the cultural resource and justifying its preservation. Some of the rock art near Vasquez Rocks that are currently being destroyed through vandalism can be moved to a more protected area.

Incorporation. Incorporation of the cultural resource in other resource allocations is not recommended as an . alternative because of the fragile nature of the cultural resource. The most discussed method of incorporation is burying the cultural resource although studies are incon­ clusive in regards to the damage to the cultural resource caused by compaction. This method will require in-depth study to prevent the destruction of the cultural resource.

Resources that would qualify under management use signifi­ cance may serve as the source for studies of this nature.

However, in cases where the trade-off analysis does not designate the cultural resource as worthy of priority planning or it is not economical to preserve or protect it, partial preservation may be the answer. In the case of a development which will destroy a cultural resource, the cultural resource can be partially preserved through alter­ natives such as the modification of the development to reduce the impact (less structures) or incorporate the cul­ tural resource into the project design (open space in the form of a patio garden) . The end result is still some excavation involving the detailed reconstruction of the contextual information represented by the cultural resource 130

through an adequate curation program. It is imperative

that any destruction of a cultural resource through excava­

tion be carried out by a qualified archaeologist under the

direction of a feasible research program to guarantee the

usability of the information extracted. All excavations

in the Upper Santa Clara River Valley should be reviewed by

a panel of archaeologists to insure the adequencies of the

research design and methodologies~ A permit system,

similar to the Federal Antiquities Act permits, would help

guarantee the quality of the archaeological work in the

area. Also, utilizing only archaeologists acceptable to

professional archa~ological societies (Society of Profes­

sional Archaeologists, or the Society for California

Archaeology) would help guarantee the quality of the work.

·This preservation of significant cultural resources through

adequate data recovery techniques is probably the most

utilized option that will be chosen because of the present

lack of regard for the cultural resource and the economic

expense the cultural resource poses for any developer.

In conclusion, the Upper Santa Clara River Valley has

the potential for a long range of utilization by man, and

as a consequence, possesses some of the most significant

examples of man's history in the area (refer to Chapter 3).

Based on the results of a systematic sample survey of the

Upper Santa Clara River Valley, which has not yet occurred,

it would be possible to delineate the areas of high

'· 131 l

se~sitivity,· based on the reflective research potential, and propose a cultural resource management plan, imple­ mented and interpreted by a cultural resource manager, that analyzes all the potential uses and protection/preservation measures th~t the cultural resource can adapt itself to. These uses and measures include interpretive parks and. centers, open space, special zoning ordinances, covenants or excavation. Until the baseline data inventory is accomplished, no specific management recommendations can be made, only suggestions of various management options whose use may be possible. A comprehensive cultural resource management plan can permit preservation while at the same time allocating fair~y the costs and burdens of preserva­ tion (City of San Diego 1977:4). LIST OF REFERENCES

Allen, Shelby and Herrick E. Hanks 1970 The Test Excavation of Asher #13 {LAn-373): An Earth-Oven Site at Vasquez Rocks County Park, Los Angeles County, California. Ms. on file, Northridge Archaeological Research Center, California State University, Northridge.

Antevs, Ernst 1955 Geological-Climate Dating in the West. Ameri­ can Antiquity 20:317-335.

Apostolides, Alex and Hans Nordstrom 1963 Field Notes - UCAS 001. Ms. on file, North­ ridge; and Archaeological Survey, University of California, Los Angeles.

Applegate, Richard 1974 Chumash Placenames. The Journal of California Anthropology 1{2) :187~205.

Asch, David L. 1975 On Sample Size Problems and the Uses of Non­ Probabilistic Sampling. In Sampling in Archaeology, edited by James W. Mueller, pp. 170-191. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Bada, Jeffrey and Reiner Protsch 1973 Racemization Reaction of Aspartic Acid and Its Use in Dating Fossil Bones. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 71(3) :914-917. Bada, Jeffrey, Roy A. Schroeder and George F. Carter 1974 New Evidence for the Antiquity of Man in Deduced from Aspartic Acid Racemization. Science 184:791-793.

Bailey, Thomas L. and Richard H. Jahns $ 1954 Geology of the Transverse Range Province, Southern California. California Division of Mines Bulletin 170:83-106.

Bean, Lowell John 1972 Mukat's People: The Cahuilla Indians of South­ ern California. University of California

132 133

Press, Ltd., Los Angeles and Berkeley.

Bean, Lowell John and Thomas F. King (editors) 1974 Antap - California Indian Political and Economic Organization. Ballena Press Anthro­ ;pological Papers Number 2. Ballena Press, Ramona, California. ' i Beeler, M. S. and Kathryn Klar 1974 Interior Chumash. Ms. on file, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles.

1977 Interior Chumash. Journal of California Anthropology 4(2) :287-305.

Binford, Lewis R. 1962 Archaeology as Anthropology. American Antiquity 28(2) :217-225.

1964 A Consideration of Archaeological Research Design. American Antiquity 29(4) :425-441.

Binning, Jeanne 1971 Prehistoric Settlement Patterns iri the Upper Santa Clara River Drainage Basin: A Research Design. Paper presented in Anthropology 176-A, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles.

Birdsell, Joseph B. 1951 The Problem of Early Peopling of the Americas Viewed from Asia. In Physical Anthropology of of American Indians, edited by WilliamS. Laughlin and S. L. Washburn, pp. 1-68. Viking Fund, New York.

Blackburn, Thomas 1963 Ethnohistoric Descriptions of Gabrielino Material Culture. Archaeological Survey Annual .Reports 5:1-50. Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles.

1975 December's Child: A 'Book of Chumash Narratives. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Boll, Louis A. 1976 Personal Communication. District Manager, Bureau of Land Management, Bakersfield.

Bolton, Herbert E. (editor) 19 26· Historical Memoirs of New California by Fra 134

Francisco Palou O.F.M., Vol. 2. Russell and Russell, New York.

1933 Font's Complete Diary: A Chronicle of the Founding of San Francisco. University of ·California Press, Berkeley. Bright, William 1975 The Alliklik Mystery. The Journal of Califor­ nia Anthropology 2(2) :228-230.

Brown, Vinson, David Allan and James Stark 1955 Rocks and Minerals of California (third ed.). Naturegraph Publishers, Healdsburg, California.

Bryan, Alan 1969 Early Man in America and the Late Pleistocene Chronology of West Canada and Alaska. Current Anthropology 10(4) :337-365. Bull, Charles s. 1978 Prehistoric Lifeways at La Costa North: An Invest1gation of Archaeological Sites. Pre­ pared for La Costa Land Company. RECON Engineering, San Diego, California.

California Water Resources Board 1953 Ventura County Investigation. Water Resources Board Bulletin 12(1). Sacramento, California.

Canouts, Veletta 1975 Management Strategies for Effective Research. Paper presented to the 40th Annual Meeting .of the Society for American Archaeology, Dallas. Chace, Paul 11 1966 An Old Note on Alliklik Territory Archaeology. Archaeological Research Associates Bulletin XI (1) : 5.

Chard, Chester 1959 New World Origins: A Reappraisal. Antiquity 33(129) :44-45. City of San Diego 1977 Cultural Resource Management -A Concept. The Urban Design Element of the Progress Guide and General Plan. City of San Diego Planning Department, Environmental Quality Division. Cook, s. F. 1957 The Aboriginal Population of Alameda and Contra 135

Costa Counties, California. Anthropological Records 16(4) :131-156. University of Califor­ nia Press, Berkeley.

Coues, E. 1900. On the Trail of a Spanish Pioneer. The Diary and Itinerary of Francisco Garces, 1775-1776. Volumes I and II. New York.

Cowgill, George L. 1975 A Selection of Samplers: Comments on Archaeo­ Statistics. In Sampling in Archaeology, edited by James W. Mueller, pp. 258-274. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Davis, Emma L. 1970 Archaeology of the North Basin of Panamint Valley, Inyo County, California. Anthropologi­ cal Papers 15:83-141. Nevada State Museum.

Davis, James T. 1974 Trade Routes and Economic Exchange Among the Indians of California. Ballena Press Publica­ tions in Archaeology, Ethnology and History No. 3. Ramona, California. (Reprinted from University of California Archaeological Survey Report No. 54. Berkeley, California 1961).

Dixon, Keith A. 1977 Applications of Archaeological Resources: Broadening the Basis of Significance. In Con­ servation Archaeology -A Guide for Culturar-­ Resource Management Studies, edited by Hichael B. Schiffer and George J. Gumerman, pp. 277- 290. Academic Press, New York. Dunnell, Robert C. and William s. Dancey 1978 Assessments of Significance and Cultural Resource Management Plans. American Society for Conservation Archaeology NEWSLETTER 5(5): 2-7.

Eberhart, Hal 1966 Report on a Skeleton Found in Bouquet Canyon, Los Angeles County, California. Archaeological Research Associates Bulletin XI(l) :3-4.

Elsasser, Albert B., and Robert F. Heizer 1963 The Archaeology of Bower's Cave, Los Angeles County, California. Archaeological Surv~y Reports 59:1-59. Univers1ty of Californ1a, Berkeley. 136

Flannery, Kent V. 1967 Culture History vs. Cultural Process: A Debate in American Archaeology. Scientific American 217 (2) :119-122. 1973. Archaeology with a Capital s. In Research and Theory in Current Archeology, edited by Charles L. Redman, pp. 47-53. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York-London.

Forbes, Jack D. 1966 The Tongva of Tujunga to 1801. Archaeological Survey Annual Reports 8:137-150. Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles.

Foster, John M. 1977 Personal Communication. Staff Archaeologist, Northridge Archaeological Research Center, California State University, Northridge. Galvin, John (editor and translator) 1965 A Record of Travels in Arizona and California 1775, 1776, Fr. Francisco Garces. John Howell Books, San Francisco.

Garfinkel, Alan P. 1976a The Concept of Cultural Resource Management. Paper presented for Seminar in Archaeological Method and Theory. Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis.

1976b A Cultural Resource Management Plan for the Fossil Falls/Little Lake Locality. United States Department of Interior - Bureau of Land Management, Bakersfield District Office.

Gay, Thomas E., Jr. and Samuel R. Hoffman 1954 Mines and Mineral Deposits of Los Angeles County, California. California Journal of Mines and Geology 50(3-4):467-710.

Gibson, Robert 0., Clay A. Singer and Herrick E. Hanks 1973 Lithic Analysis and Settlement Patterns in the Upper Santa Clara· River Valley. Paper pre­ sented at the 38th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, San Francisco.

Gifford, E. W. and W. E. Schenck 1926 Archaeology of the Southern San Joaquin Valley, California. Univ~rsity of California Publica­ tions in American Archaeology and Ethnology 137 l

23:1-122. Gist, Evalyn Slack 1952 Forgotten Mill of the Joshuas. Desert 15:9-12.

Glassow, Michael A. 1977 Issues in Evaluating the Significance of Archaeological Resources. American Antiquity

42 (3): 413-420 0

Goodyear, Albert C., L. Mark Raab, and Timothy Klinger 1978 The Status of Archaeological Research Design in Cultural Resource Management. American Antiquity 43(2) :159-173.

Grady, Mark A. 1975 Archaeological Survey and the Future of Cul-. tural Resource Management. Paper presented to the 40th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology. Dallas.

1977 Significance Evaluation and the Orme Reservoir Project. In Conservation Archaeology - A Guide for Cultural Resource Management Studies, edited by Michael B. Schiffer and George J. Gumerman, pp. 259-268. Academic Press, New York.

Green, Ernestine n.d. Is This Site Worth Saving? Nmv Arguments for the Preservation of Cultural Resources. Ms. on file, U.S. Forest Service, Southern Region, Atlanta, Georgia. Greenwood, Roberta s. 1976 Tower Location and Access Road Inspection - Victorville to Rinaldi 500 Kv T/L Part I. Ms. on file, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power.

1977 New Melones Lake Project - Evaluation of Historic Resources. Ms. on file, Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District. Greenwood, Roberta s. and Michael J. Mcintyre 1979 Class III Cultural Resource Inventory: Victor­ ville-McCullough Transmission Lines 1 and 2 Right-of-Way Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. Ms. on file, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. · 138

Hall, Matthew C. and James P. Barker 1975 Background to Prehistory of the El Paso/Red Mountain Desert Region. United States Depart­ ment of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (California Desert Planning Program) , Riverside, California.

Hanks, Herrick E. 1970 The Archaeological Research Potential of the Upper Santa Clara River Valley. An Exa~ple of the Need for Regional Research Projects in Southern California. Ms. on file, Northridge Archaeological Research Center, California State University, Northridge.

~ 1971 The Archaeological Survey of Vasquez Rocks - A S1te Locality in the Upper Santa Clara River Valley Region, Los Angeles County, California. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Department of Anthro­ pology, California State University, Northridge.

1972 The Archaeological Resources of the Piru Creek Project: A Preliminary Report. Ms. on file, State of California Department of Water Resources and State of California Department of Parks and Recreation.

1973 Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Hungry Valley Pipeline and Terminal Power Plant. Ms. on file, State of California Department of Water Resources and State of California Depart­ ment of Parks and Recreation.

1974 Archaeological Values. Paper presented for Session on Resource Protection - BLM Ranger Orientation Program. Riverside, California.

Hanks, Herrick E. and Thomas F. King 1971 A Proposal for a Two-Phase Program of Archaeo­ logical Preservation and Education Development at Vasquez Rocks County Park, Los Angeles County, California. Ms. on file, Northridge Archaeological Rese~rch Center, California State University, Northridge. Hanna, David c., Jr. 1978 A Model for Hunting-Ga·thering Society. In Prehistoric Lifeways at La Costa North: An Investigation of Archaeological Sites, edited by Charles S. Bull, pp. 213-299. RECON Engi­ neering, San Diego, California. 139

Harrington, J. p. ~ 1934 Fieldwork Among the Indians of California, Explorations and Fieldwork of the Smithsonian Instltutlon ln 1934. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.

1942 Culture Element Distributions: XIX Central jCalifornia Coast. Anthropological Records 1 7(1). University of California, Berkeley.

Harrison, William and E. S. Harrison 1966 An Archaeological Sequence for the Hunting People of Santa Barbara, California. Archaeo­ logical Survey Annual Report 8:1-83. Depart­ ment of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles.

Heizer, Robert F. and M. A. Whipple 1971 The California Indians: A Source Book. Univer­ sity of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles and London.

Hershey, Oscar H. 1902 The Quaternary of Southern California. Univer­ sity of California Department of Geological Bulletin 3:1-29.

Heyman, I. Michael 1970 Innovation Land Regulation and Comprehensive Planning. In The New Zoning: Legal, Adminis­ trative and Economic Concepts and Techniques, edited by Norman Marcus and Marilyn W. Groves. Praeger Publishers, New York.

Hrdlicka, A. 1936 Early Man in America: What Have the Bones· to Say? In Early Man, edited by G. G. MacCurdy, pp. 93-104. J. B. L-ippincott Company, Phila­ delphia and New York.

Hudson, Travis and Ernest Underhay 1978 Crystals in the Sky: An Intellectual Odyssey Involving Chumash Astronomy, Cosmology, and Rock Art. Ballena Press Anthropological Papers No. 10, edited by Lowell J. Bean and Thomas C. Blackburn. Ballena Press, Socorro, New Mexico.

Human Systems Research 1973 Technical Manual - 1973 Survey of the Tularosa Basin. Tularosa, New Mexico. 140

Jahns, Richard H. and William R. Muehlberger · 1954 Geology of the Soledad Basin, Los Angeles County. Map Sheet No. 6. California Division of Mines, Bulletin No. 170.

Jennings, Charles W. and Bennie W. Troxel 1954 Geologic Guide Through the Ventura Basin and Adjacent Areas, Southern California. Califor­ nia Division of Mines Bulletin 170 (Geologic Guide No. 2).

Jepson, Willis Linn 1925 A Manual of the Flowering Plants of California. Associated Student Store, University of California, Berkeley.

Johnston, Bernice E. 1962 California's Gabrielino Indians. Publications of the Frede:rick Webb Hodge Anniversary Publi­ cation Fund (Volume 8) . Southwest Museum, Los Angeles, California. Kaldenberg, Russell 1978 Personal Communication. Riverside District Archaeologist, Bureau of Land Management.

King, Chester D. n.d. Protohistoric and Historic Archaeology. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8: California, in press. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

1967 The Sweetwater Mesa Site (LAn-267) and Its Place in Southern California Prehistory. Archaeological survey Annual Report 9:25-76. Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles.

1971 Chumash Inter-Village Economic Exchange. The Indian Historian 4(1) :20-43.

1973 Proposal to Organize Information Relevant to the Interpretation of the Archaeological Resources at Vasquez Rocks County Park. Ms. on file, Department of Parks and Recreation, County of Los Angeles.

1976 Chumash Inter-Village Economic Exchange. In Native Californians, edited by Lowell Bean and Thomas Blackburn, pp. 289-318. Ballena Press, Romona. 141

King, Chester and Thomas Blackburn .. n.d. The Tatavium. In Handbook of North American Indians: Volume 8, California, in press. Sm1thsonian Institution, Washington D.C.

King, Chester, Thomas Blackburn; and Earnest Chandonet 1968 The Archaeological Investigation of Three Sites ion the Century Ranch, Western Los Angeles 'county, California. Archaeological Survey Annual Report 10:12-107. Departme~t of Anthro­ pology, University of California, Los Angeles.

King, Chester and Ron Melander 1973 Preliminary Report - Archaeological Investiga­ tions in and Around Vasquez Rocks Regional County Park. Ms. on file, Department of Parks and Recreation, Los Angeles County.

King, Chester, Charles Smith and Tom King 4 1974 Archaeological Report Related to the Interpre­ tation of Archaeological Resources Present at Vasquez Rocks County Park. Ms. on file, Department of Parks and Recreation, Los Angeles County.

King, Thomas F. 1976 Comprehensive Archaeological Resource Manage­ ment Planning. Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, U.S. Department of the Interior.

1978 The Archaeological Survey: Methods and Uses. Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service, U.S. Department of the Interior.

Kmr1ta, Makoto 1969 The Sayles Complex--A Late Millingstone Assemblage from Cajon Pass and the Ecological Implications of its Scraper Planes. University of California Publications in Anthro olo Volume 6). University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles.

Kroeber, A. L. 1915 A New Shoshonean Tribe in California. American Anthropologist 17:773-775.

li' 1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bulletin 78, Bureau of American Ethnology of the Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C. 142

Lamb, Sydney M. 1964 The Classification of the Uto-Aztecan Language: A Historical Survey. University of California Publications in Linguistics 34:106-125.

Latta, F. F. 1936 A Los Angeles. Kern County Historical Society, Bakersfield, California.

Leakey, Louis S. B., Ruth D. Simpson and Thomas Clements 1968 Archaeological Excavations in the Calico Moun­ tains, California: Preliminary Report. Science 160:1022-1023.

Leonard, N. Nelson, III 1968 A Survey of the Archaeological Resources of the Santa Clara River Valley in the Newhall, Saugus Vicinity. Ms. on file, Northridge Archaeologi­ cal Research Center, California State Univer­ sity, Northridge.

1971 Natural and Social Environments of the (6000 B.C. to 1800 A.D.). Archaeological Survey Annual Report 13:93-135. Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles.

Lopez, Robert • 1974 The Prehistory of the Lower Portion of the Piru Creek Drainage Basin, Ventura County, Califor­ nia: An Ethnohistorical and Archaeological Reconstruction. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, D~partment of Anthropology, California State University, Northridge.

Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning 1975 North Los Angeles County General Plan - Summary of the Areawide General Plan, Cycle III, 30 November 1975 -Draft for Citizen Review. Environmental Resources Management, Los Angeles.

MacNeish, Richard 1976 Early Man in the New World. American Scientist 4077:969-974.

Mason, Otis T. 1904 Aboriginal American Basketry: Studies in a Textile Art Without Machinery. From the Report of the United States National Museum for 1902, pp. 171-548. Smithsonian Institution, Washing­ ton D.C. 143

Matson, Richard G. and William D. Lipe 1973 Regional Sampling: A Case Study of Cedar Mesa, Utah. Paper presented at the 38th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, San Francisco.

McGimsey, Charles R., III 1972 Public Archaeology. Seminar Press, New York.

Moratto, Michael J. 1970 Death of the Past - A Report to the People of California. Society for California Archaeology.

Moratto, Michael J. and Roger E. Kelly 1976 Significance in Archaeology. The 42(2): 193-202.

Moriarty, James R. 1969 Chinigchinix: An Indigenous California Indian Religion. Publications of the Frederick Webb Hodge Anniversary Publication Fund (Volume 10} Southwest Museum, Los Angeles.

Mueller, James W. 1974 The Use of Sampling in Archaeological Survey. Society for American Archaeology, Memoir 28.

Mullerbeck, Hunsjurgen 1967 On Migrations of Hunters Across the Bering Land Bridge in the Upper Pleistocene. In The Bering Land Bridge, edited by David Hopkins. Stanford University Press, Stanford. Munz, Philip A. 1974 A Flora of Southern California. University of California Press, Berkeley. Newhall, Ruth Waldo 1958 The Newhall Ranch - The Story of the Newhall Land and Farming Company. The Huntington Library, San Marino, California.

Nixon, Richard 1971 Executive Order No. 11593, Executive Branch, United States Government.

Oakeshott, Gordon B. 1958 Geology and Mineral Deposits of San Fernando Quadrangle, Los Angeles County, California. California Divis~on of Mines Bulletin 172. 144

Perkins, A. B. 1954 The Story of Our Valley. Serial that ran weekly from April to December in the Newhall Signal.

1957 Rancho San Francisco: A Study of a California Land Grant. The Historical Society of Southern ;california Quarterly 39(2) :97-126.

1958 Mining Camps of the Soledad -Parts I, II and III. The Historical Society of Southern California Quarterly 40(2) :149-173, (3) :285- 303, (4) :373-392. Los Angeles, California.

Plog, Fred T. 1969 An Approach to the Study of Prehistoric Change. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Chicago.

Plog, Stephen 1976 The Relative Efficiencies of Sampling Tech­ niques for Archaeological Surveys. In The Early Hesoamerican Village, edited by K:-v. Flannery, pp. 136-158. Academic Press, New York.

1978 Sampling in Archaeological Surveys: A Critique. American Antiquity 43(2):280-285.

Poirier, Bernard W. (editor) 1977 Archaeological and Historical Investigations for Energy Facilities: A State of Art Report. Iroquois Research Institute, Fairfax, Virginia.

Priestly, Herbert L. 1937 A Historical, Political and Natural Description of California by Pedro Pages. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Ralphs, R. W. n.d. Abstract Notes on the Site on Elderberry Creek near Castaic Creek. Ms. on file, Northridge Archaeological Research Center, California State University, Northridge.

Read, Dwight W. 1976 The Use and Efficacy of Random Samples in Regional Surveys. In Chevelon Archaeological Research Project, edited by Fred T. Plog, James N. Hill and D\IITight W. Read, pp. 18-27. Mono­ graph #2, Institute of Archaeology, Department of Anthropology, University of California, 145

Los Angeles.

Reed, Ralph D. 1951 Geology of California. The American Associa­ t1on of Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa, Oklahoma.

Reynolds, Gerald 1977 Personal Communication. Historian, Santa Clarita Valley Historical Society.

Ripley, Vernette Snyder 1947 The San Fernando Pass and the Pioneer Traffic That Went Over It, Parts r~IV. The Historical Society of Southern California Quarterly 29(1): 9-48, (3-4):137-143, 30(1):42-64, (2):111-160. Los Angeles, California.

Ritter, Eric R. 1976 Second Stage Archaeological Sampling in the Red Mountain Geothermal Area. Paper presented at the 1976 Great Basin Anthropological Conference.

Rogers, David B. 1929 Prehistoric Han of the Santa Barbara Coast. Santa Barbara~ California.

Rogers, Malcolm J. 1~66 The Ancient Hunters . . . Who Were They? In Ancient Hunters of the Far West, R. F. Pourede, ed. San Diego: Union-Tribune, pp. 21-108.

Romani, John 1978 Personal Communication. Staff Archaeologist, Northridge Archaeological Research Center, California State University, Northridge.

Romoli, Douglas A. 1965 UCAS-053 File. File on file, Northridge Archaeological Research Center, California State University, Northridge; and Archaeologi­ cal Survey, University of California, Los Angeles.

Ruby, Jay 1966 Archaeological Investigations of the Big Tujunga Site (LAn-167) . Archaeological Survey Annual Report 8:95-112. Department of Anthro­ pology, University of California, Los Angeles.

1970 Culture Contact Between Aboriginal Southern California and the Southwest. Unpubl1shed Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, 146

University of California, Los Angeles.

Sabloff, Jeremy A. and Gordon R. Willey 1967 The Collapse of Main Civilization in the South­ ern Lowlands: A Consideration of History and Progress. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 23(4):311-336. Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Sample, Laetitia L. 1950 Trade and Trails in Aboriginal California. Archaeological Survey Reports 8:1-30. Univer­ sity of California, Berkeley.

Schiffer, Michael B. 1976 Behavioral Archaeology. Academic Press·, New York.

Schiffer, Michael B. and George J. Gumerman (editors) 1977 Conservation Archaeology - A Guide for Cultural Resource Management Studies. Academic Press, New York.

Scovill, D. H., G. J. Gordon, ·and K. M. Anderson 1972 Guidelines for the Preparation of Statements of Environmental Impact on Archeological Resources. Arizona Archeological Center, U.S. National Park Service, Tucson. o.Singer, Clay A. 1970 Resource Change and Differential Adaptation in Northwest Los Angeles County - A Preliminary Research Design. Paper presented for Anthro­ pology 153, Department of Anthropology, Univer­ sity of California, Los Angeles.

Singer. C. A., J. H. Chartkoff, H. E. Hanks, J. E. Erickson, ano R. L. Berner 1972 Archaeological Investigations at Castaic Reservoir. Ms. on file at the Northridge Archaeological Research Center, California State University, Northridge.

Singer, Clay A., Herrick E. Hanks and Robert·o. Gibson 1972 Archaeology of the Pyramid Reservoir. Ms. on file, the Northridge Archaeological Research Center, California State University, North­ ridge.

Smith, Donald E. and Frederick J. Teggart 1909 Diary of Gaspar de Portola During the Califor­ nia Expedition of 1768-1770. Academy of Pacific Coast History Publications 1(3} :31-89. 147

University of California Press, Berkeley.

State of California -The Resources Agency, Department of Parks and Recreation 1974 Resource Management Directives for the Califor­ nia Department of Parks and Recreation. Sacramento, California.

State of California -The Resources Agency, Department of Water Resources 1965 Ventura County and Upper Santa Clara River Drainage Area Land and Water Use Survey, 1961. Bulletin No. 122. Sacramento, California.

Steward, J. H. 1938 Basin-Plateau Aboriginal Sociopolitical Groups. Smithsonian Institution - Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 120. Washington D.C.

Storey, H. E. 1948 Geology of the San Gabriel Mountains, Califor­ nia, and Its Relation to Water Distribution. California Division of Forestry Bulletin 19.

Strong, William D. 1972 Aboriginal Society in Southern California. Malki Museum Press, Banning, California.

Struever, Stuart 1971 Comments on Archaeological Data Requirements and Research Strategy. American Antiquity 36 (1) :9-19.

Tartaglia, Louis J., John M. Foster and Michael J. Mcintyre 1977 A Cultural Historic Overview of Baldwin Hills. Ms. on file, Northridge Archaeological Research Center, California State University, Northridge.

Thomas, David Hurst 1978 The Awful Truth About Statistics in Archaeology. American Antiquity 43{2) :231-244.

Thompson, Raymond H. 1972 Interpretive Trends and Linear Models in American Archaeology. Contemporary Archaeology, edited by M. P. Leone, pp. 34-38. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale.

Thrall, Will H. 1948 The Haunts and Hideouts of Tiburcio Vasquez. The Historical Society of Southern California Quarterly 30(2) :81-97. Los Angeles, California. 148

Treganza, Adam E. 1950 The Topanga Culture and Southern California Prehistory. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley.

Troxell, Harold C. and Walter Hofman 19 54 ;Hydrology of the Los Angeles Region. California bivision of Mines Bulletin 170(6) :5-17.

True, D. L. 1961 An Archaeological Report on Placerita Canyon State Park. Ms. on file, Archaeological Survey, University of California, Los Angeles.

United States Department of Agriculture-Forest Service n.d. Forest Service Manual. Washington D.C.

1975 Cultural Resource Management Draft Copy Region 6. Portland, Oregon.

United States Department of the Interior - Bureau of Land Management 1977 Cultural Resource- Draft Manual 6400. Washing- ton D.C.

United States Government 1976 36 CFR Part 60; National Register of Historic Places. Federal Register 41(6) :1590-1597. January 9.

VanDusen Eggers, A., Roger W. Robinson, and Charles F. Forbes ~ 1973 Preliminary Impact Report on Portions of the Proposed Palmdale Intercontinental Airport, Los Angeles County, California. Ms. on file, Northridge Archaeological Research Center, California State University, Northridge.

VanValkenburgh, Richard I. 1935 Notes on the Ethnogr~phy and Archaeology of the Ventureno Chumash Indians. Ms. on file, National Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.

1952 We Found the Lost Indian Cave of the San Martins. Desert 15:5-8.

Van Valkenburgh, Richard and Malcolm Farmer ~ 1934 Notes on the Hamenot Indians. Ms. on file, Northridge Archaeological Research Center, California State University, Northridge. 149

Voegelin, C. F. 1935 Tubatulabal Ethnography. University of Cali­ fornia Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 34:191-246. Voegelin, ·E. W. 1938 Tubatulabal Ethnography. University of Cali­ fornia Anthropological Records 2:1-84.

Wait, Walter K. 1978 Limited Area Sutveys and E~pected Density Rank the San Juan Data Base Project. Paper pre­ sented at the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology. Tucson, Arizona.

Walker, Edwin F. 1951 Five Prehistoric Archaeological Sites in Los Angeles County, California. Publications of the Frederick vlebb Hodge Anniversary Publica­ tion Fund (Volume 6) . Southwest Museum, Los Angeles.

Wallace, William J. 1955 A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 11(3):214-230.

Warren, Claude N. 1967 The San Dieguito Complex: A Review and Hypo­ thesis. American Antiquity 32!168-185. 1968 Cultural Tradition and Ecological Adaptation on the Southern California Coast. Eastern New Mexico University Contributions in Anthropology 1(3):1-14.

Warren, Claude N., D. L. True and Ardith A. Eudey 1961 Early Gathering Complexes of Western San Diego County: Results and Interpretations of an Archaeological Survey. Archaeological Survey Annual Report 2:1-108. Department of Anthro­ pology and Sociology~ University of California, Los Angeles.

Watson, Patty Jo, Steven A. LeBlanc, and Charles L. Redman 1971 Explanation in Archaeology: An Explicitly Scientific Approach. Columbia University Press, New York and London. 150

Werde, Margaret L. 1973 Archaeological Inventory of the California Desert: A Proposed Methodology. Ms. on file, The Bureau of Land Management, United States Department of the Interior, Riverside, Califor­ nia. Wells, Helen 1977 Limited Testing of Archaeological Research Sampling Designs in Davies Valley, California. Ms. on file, National Science Foundation - RANN under Grant No. SOC 75-16154.

Wendorf, Fred 1966 Early Man in the New World: Problem of Migra­ tion. The American Naturalist 912:253-270.

Wessel, Richard 1977 Personal Communication. Staff Archaeologist, Northridge Archaeological Research Center, California State University, Northridge.

1978 Personal Communication. Staff Archaeologist, Northridge Archaeological Research Center, California State University, Northridge.

Wildeson, L$ E. andY. T. Witherspoon 1978 Archaeology for the People: The Ethics of Ptmlic Archaeology. American Society for Conservation Archaeology NE\ivSLETTER 5 ( 2) :2-5.

Willey, Gordon R. 1971 An Introduction to American Archaeology, Volume II:·South America. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

Willey, Gordon R. and Philip Phillips 1958 Method and Theory in American Archaeology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Wylie, Henry G. 1975 Federal Environmental Legislation and the Effects o£ Cultural Resource Management on American Archaeology. Paper presented at the 1975 Annual Meeting of the Society for Califor­ nia Archaeology, Santa Cruz, California.

Zubrow, Ezra B. W. 1971 Carrying Capacity and Dynamic Equilibrium in the Prehistoric Southwest. American Antiquity 36:127-138. APPENDIX

CULTURAL RESOURCE LEGISLATION 152

APPENDIX A CULTURAL RESOURCE LEGISLATION

Antiquities Act of 1906 (P.L. 59-209, 34 Stat. 225)

Basis for all following legislation. The government, acting for the people, should protect archaeological and historical sites and "any object of antiquity," and pre­ serve them for public availability. Forbids disturbance of said objects of antiquity on federal lands without a permit issued by the responsible agency. Establishes criminal sanctions for unauthorized use or destruction of antiqui­ ties.

Historic Sites Act of 1935 (P.L. 74-292; 49 Stat. 666)

Declares that "it to be national policy to preserve for public use historic sites, buildings, and objects of national significance." Gives the National Park Service (through the Secretary of the Interior) broad powers to execute this policy, including criminal sanctions, on both Federal and non-Federal lands. It also sets up an advisory board to aid the Secretary of the Interior in implementing this Act.

Reservoir Salvage Act of 1960 {P.L. 86-523; 74 Stat. 220)

Requires Secretary of the Interior to institute an archaeological salvage program in connection with federally funded reservoir programs requiring the responsible agen­ cies to comply with this program.

Historic Preservation Act of 1966 {P.L. 89-665; 80 Stat. 915)

Expansion of the National Register of Historic Places to include sites of not only national but local signifi­ cance; authorizes program of matching funds for their acquisition and preservation; and establishes. the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation to help implement and monitor this Act.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 {P.L. 91-190; 83 Stat. 852)

Requires that cultural resources be considered in assessing the environmental impact of proposed Federal pro­ jects. 153

Executive Order 11593 of r1ay 13, 1971: "Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment," Richard M. Nixon (36 F.R. 8921)

States that the Federal Government shall provide leadership in preserving, restoring and maintaining the historic and cultural environment; specifies that all Federal agencies shall institute inventories for historic and archaeological sites, and shall provide for their pro­ tection as specified by P.L. 89-665.

Archaeological and Historical Preservation Act of 1974 ( P • L. 9 3-2 91 ; 8 8 Stat • 17 4 )

Amends the Reservoir Salvage Act of 1960 to include all Federal programs which may impact cultural resources; authorizes expenditure of program funds for salvage pro­ jects; and requires Secretary of the Interior to report annuplly to Congress on the effectiveness of the program. i California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (P.R.C. Sec­ tion 21001)

Requires that cultural resources be considered in assessing the environmental impact of proposed projects within the State; and that examples of the major periods of .California history will be preserved.

California Public Resources Code- Chapter 1.7, Section 5097.5

Prohibits-the knowing destruction of objects of antiquity without a permit (~xpressed permission) on public lands, and provides for criminal sanctions.

California Penal Code, Title 14, Part 1, Section 622~

Provides that any person, not the owner thereof, who willingly destroys or injures objects of archaeological or historical value, whether on public or private land, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

California Administrative Code, Title 14, Section 4307

States "no person shall remove, injure, disfigure, deface or destroy any object of paleontological, archaeo­ logical or historical interest or value." Section 4309 provides that, if thought to be in the best interest of the· State Park system, the director may grant permission to remove, disturb, etc. objects of·antiquity.