Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 138-170(1998). Culture Contact in Protohistoric California: Social Contexts of Native and European Encounters KENT G. LIGHTFOOT, Dept. of Anthropology, Archaeological Research Facility, Univ. of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-3710. WILLIAM S. SIMMONS, Executive Vice-President and Provost, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, 02912. There is great potential to address critical issues in contemporary culture contact studies through the study of the initial encounters (1542 to 1603} between natives and Europeans in California. Early exploration scholarship tends to focus on either the European ships and crews or the native communi­ ties they described, but rarely on the interactions between them. By reanalyzing the voyager accounts and relevant archaeological remains, one may evaluate how and why peoples from very different back­ grounds responded to each other, and begin to examine the implications of early encounters with re­ spect to cultural ideologies, ceremonial practices, gift giving, the meanings of foreign material cul­ ture, and disease. The purpose of this article is to consider four main issues underlying the social contexts of early encounters in California—the nature of initial contacts, the diverse responses ob­ served, the role of material culture in early contacts, and the probability that lethal pathogens spread from these initial interactions. We find that religious practices played a critical role in structuring native and nonnative relations, and that the timing of encounters was very important, especially in relation to native and Christian ceremonial cycles. Furthermore, in considering the voyager chroni­ cles and relevant archaeological remains, we question the conventional view, at least in California, that foreign goods were regarded as "merely trifles" by native peoples. Finally, we argue that early contacts with voyagers may have introduced lethal pathogens to coastal native populations, but that epidemics were probably geographically limited, sporadic, and short-lived. M: OR more than a century, scholars have stud­ vations of native Californians, but tend to di­ ied, interpreted, and debated the chronicles of vorce their analysis and interpretation of indige­ European explorers who first visited California nous lifeways from the European chroniclers and documented its native peoples. Early ex­ themselves so that "pristine" cultural practices ploration scholarship in California tends to focus of particular tribal groups can be identified. on either the European sojourners or the native These accounts can be very insightful because peoples they described, but rarely on the interac­ they provide glimpses of Indian societies at the tions that took place between them. A profusion time of first contact (see Johnson 1982:43-49). of studies has been concerned primarily with the They are also used to corroborate the geographic ships and their crews, describing in great detail distribution of native groups and villages, as the routes of individual voyages, notable land­ well as to provide additional insights as to where marks, and specific landfalls (e.g., Davidson Europeans landed (e.g., Schumacher 1877; 1887; Bolton 1916; Wagner 1924, 1929, 1941; Kroeber 1925:273-278; Heizer 1947, 1973). Mathes 1968; Kelsey 1986) (see Fig. 1). Other Archaeology is often incorporated into early studies have emphasized the first written obser­ exploration scholarship, but usually as a secon- CULTURE CONTACT IN PROTOHISTORIC CALIFORNIA 139 Cabrillo-Ferrelo Voyage (1542-1543) Drake Voyage (1579) Unamuno Voyage (1587) Cermeno Voyage (1595) Vizcaino Voyage (1602-1603) Fig. 1. Approximate routes of early European voyages along the California coastline (1542-1603). 140 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY dary source for evaluating specific events men­ counters took place, emphasizing the small tioned in the chronicles. The search for Europe­ groups that interacted, the multiethnic composi­ an and/or Asian artifacts has been undertaken to tion of ships' crews, and the short duration of evaluate potential locations of anchorages, es­ most visits. We then consider the diverse re­ pecially in controversial cases such as Drake's sponses of indigenous peoples to voyagers that landing (e.g., Treganza 1957, 1958, 1959; Von ranged from fear to friendship to ambivalence to der Porten 1963, 1973; Shangraw and Von der armed conflict. In considering their varied reac­ Porten 1981). Archaeological investigations of tions, we examine information exchange among contact period sites are also used to evaluate vil­ disparate native peoples, the critical role that lage locations mentioned in many of the chroni­ religious practices played in structuring local and cles, to elaborate upon the architecture and life- foreigner relations, and the timing of the en­ ways of native peoples described by Europeans, counters, especially in relation to native and and to construct and/or refine local archaeologi­ Christian ceremonial cycles. cal chronologies and sequences by considering In the third section, we undertake an analysis the stratigraphic provenience of European goods of the materials exchanged between residents and in midden deposits (e.g., Heizer 1941; Meighan foreigners and consider alternative sources for 1952; Beardsley 1954). native acquisition of European/Asian materials in With a few notable exceptions (Meighan protohistoric California, including long-distance 1981; Johnson 1982), conspicuously absent are exchange and salvaged shipwrecks. In consider­ studies that have explicitly addressed the nature ing the latter source, we question the conven­ and consequences of early encounters in proto­ tional view that in California, foreign goods historic California. By protohistoric, we mean were regarded as "merely trifles" by native the interval that began with the first documented peoples (e.g., Heizer 1941; Treganza 1959). Fi­ interactions between native peoples and foreign­ nally, we consider the possibility that lethal epi­ ers (1542) and ended with the establishment of demics were transmitted during early encounters Spanish colonial settlements in California (1769). in California. While Euroasiatic pathogens were By accentuating the experiences that took place probably inflicted on local native populations, between indigenous peoples and foreign visitors epidemics were most likely sporadic and rela­ in protohistoric times, the early chronicles and tively localized. We conclude by identifying associated archaeological remains can be reana­ those native peoples who probably experienced lyzed to address a number of critical theoretical the greatest risk of infections during protohis­ issues in contemporary culture contact studies. toric times. The integration of both archival information and THE ANALYSIS OF EARLY archaeology can provide a powerful perspective ENCOUNTERS IN CALIFORNIA for considering the use and meaning of material culture during early encounters. To address the issues discussed above, this The purpose of this article is to consider article considers the four early Spanish sailing four main issues underlying initial culture en­ expeditions of Juan Rodrfquez Cabrillo and Bar- counters in California: (1) the nature of the tolom6 Ferrelo (1542-1543), Pedro de Unamuno contacts; (2) the diverse responses observed; (3) (1587), Sebastian Rodriguez Cermeno (1595), the role of material culture in early contacts; and and Sebastian Vizcafno (1602-1603), as well as (4) the probability that lethal pathogens spread the lone English voyage of Francis Drake from these initial interactions. We begin by ex­ (1579). In undertaking this analysis, we first amining the social contexts in which early en­ identified primary sources of the encounters be- CULTURE CONTACT IN PROTOHISTORIC CALIFORNIA 141 tween the voyagers and native peoples. We then lower Baja California. In a journey that lasted recorded the geographic places where the en­ for more than nine months, the crew may have counters took place, tabulating the duration of sailed as far north as the Oregon border, con­ the anchorage for each place (or when possible, tacting native peoples along the west coast of the length of time of actual encounters), the Baja California, the San Diego region, several kinds of encounters that took place, and the Channel Islands, and the Santa Barbara Channel. types of materials that may have been ex­ Our analysis is based on the two primary changed. Also considered in this analysis were sources of the Cabrillo-Ferrelo expedition, any archaeological remains attributed to these which are both condensed accounts written in the voyages, with a primary focus on materials re­ third person that probably summarize a much covered in midden deposits from the shipwreck longer, more detailed journal of the voyage. of the San Agustin.' The primary narrative, commonly attributed to It is recognized from the outset that there are Juan Paez, is translated by Bolton (1916:13-39) many problems in undertaking such an analysis. and Wagner (1929:79-93), while the other is These problems include the brevity of original Antonio de Herrera's account (Wagner 1941:65- documents, mistakes in copying and translating 70). Quinn's (1979a:451-461) version of the journals and logs, controversies in identifying Paez account, which we rely on here, is taken modern places where anchorages took place, and from Bolton (1916) and corrected from Wagner inaccuracies in recording dates, the timing of (1929).