Smithsonian Institution

Scholarly Press

Smithsonian Institution

Scholarly Press

smithsonian contributions to anthropology • number 52

Deception Island

Archaeology of ′Anyapax, 

Anacapa Island, California

Torben C. Rick and Leslie A. Reeder-Myers

Contributions by

Kenneth W. Gobalet, John M. Hash, Nicholas P. Jew, 

Thomas A. Wake, and Christopher B. Wolff
SERIES PUBLICATIONS OF THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

Emphasis upon publication as a means of “diffusing knowledge” was expressed by the first Secretary of 

the Smithsonian. In his formal plan for the Institution, Joseph Henry outlined a program that included the 

following statement: “It is proposed to publish a series of reports, giving an account of the new discoveries 

in science, and of the changes made from year to year in all branches of knowledge.” This theme of basic 

research has been adhered to through the years in thousands of titles issued in series publications under the 

Smithsonian imprint, commencing with Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge in 1848 and continuing 

with the following active series:

Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology

Smithsonian Contributions to Botany

Smithsonian Contributions to History and Technology

Smithsonian Contributions to the Marine Sciences

Smithsonian Contributions to Museum Conservation

Smithsonian Contributions to Paleobiology

Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology

In these series, the Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press (SISP) publishes small papers and full-scale 

monographs that report on research and collections of the Institution’s museums and research centers. The 

Smithsonian Contributions Series are distributed via exchange mailing lists to libraries, universities, and 

similar institutions throughout the world.

Manuscripts intended for publication in the Contributions Series undergo substantive peer review and 

evaluation by SISP’s Editorial Board, as well as evaluation by SISP for compliance with manuscript preparation 

guidelines (available at https://scholarlypress.si.edu). For fully searchable PDFs of all open access series and 

publications of the Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press, visit Open SI at https://opensi.si.edu.
smithsonian contributions to anthrop0logy • number 52

Deception Island

Archaeology of ′Anyapax, 

Anacapa Island, California

Torben C. Rick and Leslie A. Reeder-Myers

Contributions by

Kenneth W. Gobalet, John M. Hash, Nicholas P. Jew, 

Thomas A. Wake, and Christopher B. Wolff

WASHINGTON, D.C.

2018
ABSTRACT

Rick, Torben C. and Leslie A. Reeder-Myers, with contributions from Kenneth W. Gobalet, John M. Hash, Nicholas P. 

Jew, Thomas A. Wake, and Christopher B. Wolff. Deception Island: Archaeology of ′Anyapax, Anacapa Island, California. Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology, number 52, viii + 87 pages, 38 figures, 24 tables, 1 appendix, 

2018.— Archaeologists have long been interested in understanding the antiquity and evolution of human occupation of 

the world’s islands, but relatively limited attention has been given to small islands. With evidence for human occupation 

at least 13,000 years ago, California’s eight Channel Islands have a long record of coastal settlement and land use, but key 

questions remain about the smallest islands of Anacapa and Santa Barbara, each less than 3 km2

. This volume focuses on 

the archaeology of Anacapa Island by synthesizing data from excavation, survey, and radiocarbon dating on the island, 

particularly its eastern segment, during the past 15 years. Anacapa was occupied for at least 5,500 years through the 

Historic period and likely since the terminal Pleistocene or Early Holocene. People resided on the island during all seasons 

of the year, with several sites indicating occupation during the early part of the Late Holocene (~3,700 and 2,500 years 

ago). During this period on Anacapa, people were making bone fishhooks and expedient tools from locally obtained chert. 

Mammal, fish, and bird bones suggest intensive maritime harvest of a variety of animals, especially harbor seals, albatross, 

and California sheephead. Island fox bones document the only occurrence of this endemic species outside of the six largest 

islands. Numerous deer bones indicate trade/interaction with the mainland. Surprisingly, only a handful of gull bones were 

recovered despite the fact that scores of gulls breed on Anacapa today, suggesting shifts in the island’s ecosystems during 

historical and modern times. People were also harvesting a variety of nearshore shellfish, especially California mussel, black 

abalone, and owl limpet. Although small in size and lacking abundant fresh water, the smallest Channel Islands have much 

to tell us about human prehistory and environmental change on the California coast and on other islands around the world.

Cover image: Anacapa Island, as viewed looking west from Inspiration Point. Santa Cruz Island is visible in the 

distance on the far right. Photo by Torben C. Rick.

Published by SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION SCHOLARLY PRESS

P.O. Box 37012, MRC 957, Washington, D.C. 20013-7012

https://scholarlypress.si.edu

Compilation copyright © 2018 Smithsonian Institution

The Introduction is in the public domain. The rights to all other text and images in this publication, including cover and 

interior designs, are owned either by the Smithsonian Institution, by contributing authors, or by third parties. Fair use 

of materials is permitted for personal, educational, or noncommercial purposes. Users must cite author and source of 

content, must not alter or modify copyrighted content, and must comply with all other terms or restrictions that may be 

applicable. Users are responsible for securing permission from a rights holder for any other use.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Rick, Torben C., author. | Reeder-Myers, Leslie A., author. | Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press, issuing body.

Title: Deception island : archaeology of ′Anyapax, Anacapa Island, California / by Torben C. Rick and Leslie ReederMyers ; contributions by Kenneth Gobalet, John Hash, Nicholas P. Jew, Thomas A. Wake, and Christopher B. Wolff.

Other titles: Archaeology of ′Anyapax, Anacapa Island, California | Smithsonian contributions to anthropology ; no. 52. 

0081-0223

Description: Washington, D.C. : Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press, 2018. | Series: Smithsonian contributions to 

anthropology, ISSN 0081-0223 ; number 52 | Includes bibliographical references and index. | Smithsonian Institution 

Compilation copyright 2018

Identifiers: LCCN 2018034139

Subjects: LCSH: Anacapa Island (Calif.)—Antiquities. | Antiquities, Prehistoric—California—Anacapa Island. | Indians 

of North America—California—Anacapa Island—Antiquities. | Excavations (Archaeology)—California—Anacapa 

Island.

Classification: LCC F868.V5 R48 2018 | DDC 979.4/92—dc23 | SUDOC SI 1.33:52

LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018034139

ISSN: 1943-6661 (online); 0081-0223 (print)

Publication date (online): 4 December 2018 

Ó The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials Z39.48–1992.
Contents

LIST OF FIGURES v

LIST OF TABLES vii

1 INTRODUCTION 1

Torben C. Rick

Why Study Small Islands? 4

Environmental and Cultural Background 5

Previous Archaeological Research on Anacapa 8

Organization of the Book 9

Acknowledgments 9

2 FIELD AND LABORATORY RESEARCH 11

Torben C. Rick, Christopher B. Wolff, and Leslie A. Reeder-Myers

Field Research 11

Site Descriptions 13

Laboratory Research 18

Conservation, Preservation, and Accessibility 19

Summary 19

3 CHRONOLOGY AND SEASONALITY 21

Torben C. Rick and Nicholas P. Jew 

14C Dating, Sample Selection, Calibration, and Bayesian 

Analysis 22

A 14C Chronology for Anacapa Island 23

Stable Oxygen Isotope Analysis and Site Seasonality 

 at CA-ANI-2 23

Summary 27

4 TECHNOLOGY AND TOOL PRODUCTION 31

Torben C. Rick, Nicholas P. Jew, and Thomas A. Wake 

Bone Artifacts 31

Lithic Raw Material Sources and Chipped-Stone Artifacts 37

Shell Artifacts 39

Other Artifacts 41

Anacapa Island Artifacts Noted by Other Researchers 41

Discussion 44
i v • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

5 SUBSISTENCE, DIET, AND ENVIRONMENTAL INTERACTIONS 45

Leslie A. Reeder-Myers, Kenneth W. Gobalet, John M. Hash, 

Torben C. Rick, and Thomas A. Wake

 Methods 46

 Results of Faunal Analysis 46

 Discussion 51

 Conclusions 58

6 CONCLUSION 61

Torben C. Rick and Leslie A. Reeder-Myers

 Antiquity and Evolution of Human Settlement 62

 An Intermittent Stopover or Something More Permanent? 62

 Historical Ecology of Anacapa Island 63

 Anacapa in the Broader Chumash World 65

 Anacapa: More than Just a Small Island? 67

 Future Directions and Conclusion 67

APPENDIX: BAYESIAN OUTPUTS AND SPECIFICATIONS 69

REFERENCES 77

ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTORS 83

INDEX 85
List of Figures

1. Santa Barbara Channel region and Anacapa Island, showing 

the general location of the archaeological sites discussed 2

2. Anacapa Island, as seen looking west from Inspiration Point 

on East Anacapa 3

3. East Anacapa Island, as seen looking west, with West Anacapa 

visible in the distance 5

4. Northern Channel Islands and portions of the adjacent mainland, 

showing Pleistocene Santarosae Island and the timing of the breakup 

into the current configuration 6

5. Anacapa lighthouse, built in 1932 7

6. Frenchy’s Cove, Anacapa Island, ca. 1940, showing the former 

fish shacks 7

7. Hiking trail bisecting site CA-ANI-2 with a highly fragmented shell 

midden 12

8. Site CA-ANI-1, as seen looking west 13

9. Site CA-ANI-2, as seen looking east 14

10. Excavation of Unit 2 at site CA-ANI-2 on East Anacapa Island 

showing the outline of a rabbit burrow 15

11. Site CA-ANI-3 during excavation of the bulk samples 16

12. Site CA-ANI-4, as seen looking south 17

13. Bayesian phase model for radiocarbon dates from Anacapa Island 24

14. Bayesian phase model for radiocarbon dates from East Anacapa 25

15. Bayesian phase model for radiocarbon dates from Middle Anacapa 25

16. Bayesian phase model for radiocarbon dates from West Anacapa 25

17. Modern seasonal sea-surface temperature (SST) for Anacapa Island 

and estimated SST ranges from shell ANI-2-1 26

18. Maximum, minimum, and mean SST for all sampled shells from 

site CA-ANI-2, Unit 1 27

19. Bone gorges from sites CA-ANI-2 and CA-ANI-4 33

20. Artifacts made from bird radii 34

21. Cutoff proximal albatross (Phoebastria sp.) radii 35

22. Deer (Odocoileus hemionus) antler tine artifacts 36

23. Smashed deer (Odocoileus hemionus) metapodial, tibia, and bone 

splinters 36
v i • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

24. Unworked bone splinter dimensions 38

25. Worked bone splinter dimensions 38

26. Completed bone gorge dimensions (actual and extrapolated) 38

27. Close-up of polychromatic chert source outcrop located on 

East Anacapa near site CA-ANI-2 39

28. Expedient chipped-stone tools from East Anacapa 40

29. Expedient chipped-stone, winged flake artifacts and fragments 

from East Anacapa Island 40

30. Proportion of lithic assemblages from different sources 42

31. Obsidian projectile points from Anacapa Island 43

32. Olivella cap and barrel beads from Units 1 and 2 at site CA-ANI-2 44

33. Average sea-surface temperature in the Southern California Bight 46

34. Relative contribution of major shellfish by weight for 

excavation units on East Anacapa Island 47

35. Relative contribution of major shellfish by weight for each 

stratum at site CA-ANI-2 49

36. Relative contribution of major shellfish for sites on the 

northern Channel Islands for the time period from 4500 to 

2500 cal BP and site location map 57

37. Relative contribution of vertebrate classes to archaeological sites 

occupied between 4500 and 2500 cal BP on the northern 

Channel Islands 58

38. Hadley English’s fourth-grade class from California’s Ojai Valley 

School restoring native plants on Anacapa Island 66
List of Tables

1. Excavation unit summary data for East Anacapa Island 

archaeological sites 12

2. Brief description of sites that were included in the radiocarbon 

survey project 18

3. Radiocarbon dates from Anacapa Island sites 22

4. Expected seasonal sea-surface temperature changes for Anacapa 

Island and assigned seasonal distributions and percentages for 

20 mussel shells sampled from site CA-ANI-2, Unit 1 27

5. Stable isotope results and temperature averages for California 

mussel shells from site CA-ANI-2 28

6. Bone gorge measurements 32

7. Stone-tool materials categorized by material, artifact type, and site 

on East Anacapa Island 41

8. X-ray fluorescence analysis of Anacapa Island obsidian samples 42

9. Olivella biplicata shell beads from site CA-ANI-2, East Anacapa Island 44

10. Weight and minimum number of individuals of shellfish 

from site CA-ANI-2 48

11. Weight and minimum number of individuals of shellfish 

from site CA-ANI-3 50

12. Weight and minimum number of individuals of shellfish from 

site CA-ANI-4, Level 4 51

13. Number of identified specimens for fish remains from Anacapa 

Island sites 52

14. Number of identified specimens for bird and reptile remains 

from Anacapa Island sites 53

15. Number of identified specimens for terrestrial and marine mammal 

remains from Anacapa Island sites 54

16. Shellfish data from contemporary sites on the northern Channel 

Islands and Santa Barbara Island 56

Appendix

A1. Bayesian outputs for all Anacapa Island dates 70

A2. Bayesian model specifications for all Anacapa Island dates 71
viii • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

A3. Bayesian outputs for East Anacapa Island dates 72

A4. Bayesian model specifications for East Anacapa Island dates 73

A5. Bayesian outputs for Middle Anacapa Island dates 73

A6. Bayesian model specifications for Middle Anacapa Island dates 74

A7. Bayesian outputs for West Anacapa Island dates 74

A8. Bayesian model specifications for West Anacapa Island dates 75
Considered by many who sail by her rugged shores to be little more than a string of three, 

dry, lifeless rocks, Anacapa Island is a surprisingly beautiful place on closer inspection. 

(Schoenherr et al., 1999:303–304).

Each year more than 200,000 people visit Channel Islands National Park, taking 

an exciting boat or plane ride from the mainland to another world right across the 

Pacific Ocean. Sometimes called California’s Galápagos, the Channel Islands are 

home to a variety of unique plants and animals found nowhere else and others that are 

closely related to mainland counterparts but have distinct island adaptations. One of the 

characteristics that makes the islands so special today is that most of them, except Catalina Island, are largely devoid of people. On the five islands that make up Channel Islands 

National Park (San Miguel, Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz, Anacapa, and Santa Barbara), except for visitors and a few researchers and staff, there is very little human occupation or 

development and the islands feel very wild. 

Despite the dearth of people today, the markings of human activities are everywhere 

on the islands. The legacy of ranching, which persisted from about the mid-1800s through 

the 2000s, is particularly evident. The National Park Service, Nature Conservancy, U.S. 

Navy, and others focus conservation efforts on reversing the cumulative effects of ranching, 

especially the introduction of domestic animals (cows, sheep, and horses), rats, nonnative 

grasses, and the widespread erosion and alteration they caused (McEachern et al., 2016; 

Braje et al., in press). The ranching period is an important piece of Channel Islands history, 

and the effects of this period are highly visible to the visitor. However, evidence of another 

human occupation lies right under most people’s feet when they visit the islands: the legacy 

of the Native Americans who lived and thrived on the islands for some 13,000 years. 

The Chumash and their predecessors occupied all of the four northern Channel 

Islands for at least 13,000 years, whereas the Gabrielino-Tongva lived on the southern 

Channel Islands (Johnson et al., 2002; Erlandson et al., 2011b). The Chumash, when first 

encountered by Europeans, lived in large villages with stratified social organization and 

complex exchange systems, all while maintaining a largely hunting and gathering lifestyle (Arnold, 1992; Kennett, 2005; Rick et al., 2005). They also left behind some of the 

best evidence for Late Pleistocene New World maritime adaptations and the Paleocoastal 

peopling of the Americas (see Erlandson et al., 2011b). Several large-scale projects during 

the past 10 to 20 years have explored the archaeological record of the northern Channel 

Islands from colonization to contact, including projects on Santa Cruz (Johnson, 1982; 

Arnold, 2001; Perry, 2003; Noah, 2005; Glassow et al., 2008; Thakar, 2014a; Gill, 2015; 

Gusick, 2012, 2013), Santa Rosa (Kennett, 1998; Rick, 2004, 2009; Jazwa, 2015), and 

Department of Anthropology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, P.O. Box 37012, MRC 112, Washington, 

D.C. 20013-7012, USA.

Correspondence: rickt@si.edu

Manuscript received 19 October 2017; accepted 

2 May 2018.

1 Introduction

Torben C. Rick
2 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

San Miguel (Rick, 2007; Braje, 2010; Erlandson et al., 2011b). 

Other important projects have explored the archaeology of the 

southern Channel Islands (e.g., Vellanoweth et al., 2002a; Raab 

et al., 2009; Teeter et al., 2013) and Isla Cedros on Baja California’s Pacific Coast (Des Lauriers, 2010), and have looked at 

relationships between the islands and the mainland (Altschul and 

Grenda, 2002). All of this work has resulted in an incredible 

database of Channel Islands archaeology and the deep history 

of the Chumash, Gabrielino-Tongva, and their predecessors, including archaeological sites that span the Holocene. A glaring 

omission is the archaeology of Anacapa Island. 

At just 2.9 km2

 in area, Anacapa is the second smallest of the 

Channel Islands, but at roughly 20 km offshore, it is the closest to 

the mainland (Figure 1). It is divided into three smaller sections, 

FIGURE 1. Top: Location of Anacapa Island and the Santa Barbara Channel region. Bottom: Anacapa 

Island, showing the general location of the 28 archaeological sites discussed in the text. Note that site J reported by Charles Rozaire was not relocated by Greenwood (1978:44-45), and so the number CA-ANI-20 

was left unassigned.
NUMBER 52 • 3

East, Middle, and West Anacapa, which are separated by narrow 

channels except at the lowest tides (Schoenherr et al., 1999:304). 

Like on the slightly smaller Santa Barbara Island (2.6 km2

) in the 

southern group of islands, people have long argued that Anacapa 

was occupied primarily as a stopover or seasonal outpost (see 

McKusick, 1959; Rozaire, 1978; Rick, 2006, 2011). These perspectives were speculative, largely based on the apparent dearth 

of fresh water and, they assumed, a more limited set of resources 

compared with the larger islands. It is difficult to evaluate this 

assertion because there has been limited archaeological work on 

Anacapa Island during the past 30 years, and many earlier surveys and test excavations were not published (see Glassow, 1977, 

2010; Greenwood, 1978; Rozaire, 1978, 1993). 

This lack of research about Anacapa is typical of many 

small islands around the world. As Fitzpatrick et al. (2016:2) 

noted in the introduction to a special section of the Journal of 

Island and Coastal Archaeology focused on the archaeology of 

small islands, “Archaeologists who work on islands often assume that larger islands were preferential habitats for human 

occupation . . . or that smaller islands were more susceptible 

to human impacts and abandonment.” Despite some perceived 

biases about small islands in the human past, we are in the 

middle of a renaissance for the archaeology of small islands. As 

described in the following, new research is enhancing our understanding of the role small islands played in the human past and 

broader human environmental interactions around the world.

This volume seeks to fill important gaps in California prehistory through an exploration of the archaeology of Anacapa 

Island (Figure 2). At its core are discussions of field and laboratory analyses at archaeological sites on East Anacapa, especially CA-ANI-2, CA-ANI-3, and CA-ANI-4. These sites offer 

a vehicle for exploring a series of important research questions 

about the nature of Anacapa Island’s human occupation in the 

past as well as the ecology of Anacapa Island today. We also 

present the results of radiocarbon dating at 16 sites scattered 

around the three islets, which represents 57% of all recorded 

sites on Anacapa Island. We summarize past work by McKusick 

(1959), Greenwood (1978), and Rozaire (1978) to put the work 

FIGURE 2. Anacapa Island, as seen looking west from Inspiration Point on East Anacapa. Note the steep terrain and small size of each islet, as 

well as Santa Cruz Island in the distance on the far right. Photo by Torben Rick, 2006.
4 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

at our three sites in broader context. The result is this volume: 

the first published synthesis of Anacapa Island’s archaeology.

This book and our study of Anacapa more generally are 

guided by five primary research questions that echo throughout 

the volume: 

1. When was Anacapa first settled by Native Americans, and how 

did human occupation vary through time and across space? 

2. Was human occupation of Anacapa permanent, intermittent, or a combination? 

3. How did Anacapa Island marine and terrestrial ecosystems 

change through time? 

4. What role did Anacapa play in larger cultural developments, 

lifeways, and interaction spheres on the Channel Islands 

and Southern California? 

5. Finally, what can data from Anacapa Island tell us about 

small islands around the world more generally? 

Although these questions and the answers to them provided 

by our research will be of most interest to California archaeologists, we aim to place our work in the broader context of island 

and coastal archaeology, specifically emerging global research on 

small islands (e.g., Keegan et al., 2008; Fitzpatrick et al., 2016). 

To that end and to set the stage for our work, this chapter provides a brief review of recent developments in the archaeology of 

small islands. This is followed by a short overview of the environmental and cultural context, a brief history of archaeological 

research on Anacapa Island, and an overview of this book.

WHY STUDY SMALL ISLANDS?

For hundreds or thousands of years or more, people have 

occupied islands around the world, ranging from small continental islands (1 km2

 or less) to massive islands like Madagascar (>581,000 km2

). Although small islands have often been 

viewed as less diverse and more marginal than larger islands, 

their landscapes and seascapes presented a variety of opportunities and challenges for ancient peoples. MacArthur and Wilson’s 

(1967) landmark study of island biogeography highlighted the 

importance of island size; distance from the mainland or other 

islands; and currents, nutrients, and many other factors in island 

biogeography. Keegan and Diamond (1987) expanded on this 

thinking by applying a biogeographic approach to human colonization of islands, with a key point being that human activities 

often do not mirror biogeographical expectations.

Drawing on a comparative analysis of Tikopia and Mangaia, two islands in the tropical Pacific, Kirch (1997) produced 

an innovative study of island archaeology. He demonstrated that 

although Tikopia (4.8 km2

) was considerably smaller and less 

biologically diverse than Mangaia (52 km2

), other factors such 

as greater reef area, soil nutrients, and even the island’s small size 

may have encouraged a variety of cultural practices and customs 

(infanticide, arboriculture, and sea voyaging as a ritual suicide) 

that helped facilitate sustainability on Tikopia (Kirch, 1997). In 

this case, the small size was not a hindrance but instead resulted 

in unique adaptations that led to lower incidence of violence and 

greater sustainability on the much smaller Tikopia. In his conclusions, Kirch (1997:38) stated, “On an island the size of Tikopia 

(which one can walk around in half-a-day or less), everyone is 

known to each other, face-to-face. The intimate scale surely encourages collective decision making. ‘Matou Nga Tikopia’ (we, 

the Tikopia) is a phrase that binds them all as a social unity.” 

In contrast, Mangaia’s larger size and more tenuous social connections may have been much more prohibitive to this kind of 

collective decision-making.

In recent years, analyses of small islands around the world 

have greatly increased, providing an important window into 

broader human cultural and environmental issues and challenging previous assumptions about the assumed marginality of 

small islands (Keegan et al., 2008; Thompson and Turck, 2010; 

Jew and Rick, 2014). Fitzpatrick et al. (2016) challenge the notion that small islands are somehow marginal or problematic 

compared with their larger counterparts, providing several key 

examples of why this is not the case. Drawing on examples from 

the Caribbean and Pacific to the U.S. states of Georgia and California, they turn this notion on its head, noting the important 

role that small islands have played in the human past and continue to play today (Fitzpatrick et al., 2016). For instance, some 

Caribbean islands may have been relatively small but contained 

abundant coral reefs and rich marine resources similar to those 

on Tikopia (Keegan et al., 2008). Similarly, some small Pacific 

islands may have been important to people because of their 

strategic location in otherwise vast seascapes (Bell et al., 2015; 

Fitzpatrick et al., 2016). Also in the special section of the Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology mentioned previously 

are papers that focused on African, Torres Strait and Caribbean 

islands and highlighted the varied reasons that small islands were 

important in the human past, including for ritual, subsistence, 

and other uses (Crowther et al., 2016; Giovas, 2016; McNiven, 

2016; Wickler, 2016). Moreover, in North America, research on 

small islands between larger barrier islands and the mainland 

demonstrates that these islands have antiquity and human occupational histories similar to those of the larger islands (Thompson and Turck, 2010; Napolitano, 2013). 

What about the Channel Islands? As Fitzpatrick et al. (2016) 

indicate, the small Channel Islands (Anacapa and Santa Barbara) 

have likely been unduly marginalized. Many archaeologists have 

speculated about the importance of these islands in California 

coastal prehistory, occasionally concluding that Anacapa and 

Santa Barbara were stopovers for people who lived primarily on 

larger islands or the mainland or perhaps these small islands had 

more sustained occupation (McKusick, 1959; Glassow, 1977; 

Greenwood, 1978; Erlandson et al., 1992; Rick, 2001, 2006, 

2011; Perry et al., 2017). However, it has been difficult to evaluate 

these assertions because of a general dearth of information from 

these two smallest islands. The goal of this volume is to evaluate 

the nature of Anacapa Island’s human past and provide a detailed 
NUMBER 52 • 5

synthesis of its prehistory that can help us understand the Channel 

Islands’ archaeology and historical ecology (long-term ecological 

change, which has potential implications for conservation management) and the archaeology of small islands more generally.

ENVIRONMENTAL AND 

CULTURAL BACKGROUND

Anacapa is one of California’s eight Channel Islands, which 

range in size from 2.6 to 250 km2

 and are located about 30 to 

91 km offshore. Anacapa Island (2.9 km2

), which is the second 

smallest of California’s Channel Islands and part of the northern group, has extremely limited fresh water and terrestrial biodiversity. In 1938, Franklin Roosevelt named the Anacapa and 

Santa Barbara Islands the original landmasses of Channel Islands 

National Monument. They were incorporated, along with San 

Miguel, Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz, into Channel Islands National Park in 1980. East Anacapa Island, where much of our 

research took place, is the smallest of the three landmasses that 

make up Anacapa Island, with an area less than 1 km2

 and a 

coastline of steep, precipitous cliffs. East Anacapa reaches a peak 

elevation of approximately 80 m, slightly lower than the Middle 

and West island segments at 99 and 283 m, respectively. Most of 

the steep, rocky cliffs along its modern coastline are not easily 

scaled, making for limited access to the main plateau of the island. This plateau slopes downward gently from south to north, 

providing places to camp and monitor the ocean for kilometers 

around on clear days (Figure 3).

The four northern islands were connected into one large 

landmass known as Santarosae during glacial periods of the 

Pleistocene, but they were never connected to the mainland 

(Reeder-Myers et al., 2015). Anacapa is important geographically today as the closest island to the mainland at just 20 km 

away. It also was the eastern end of Santarosae, which was only 

7 to 8 km from the mainland when sea level was at its lowest 

during the Last Glacial Maximum. Anacapa Island was the first 

to be separated from Santarosae by sea-level rise about 11,000 

years ago, with the full separation into four islands occurring by 

9,000 years ago (Figure 4; Reeder-Myers et al. 2015).

Today, visitors to Anacapa Island find one of the largest 

breeding colonies of western gulls on the Channel Islands. The 

FIGURE 3. East Anacapa Island, as seen looking west with U.S. Coast Guard buildings (now managed by the National Park Service) and the 

crane at Landing Cove visible in the center right. West Anacapa is visible in the distance. Photo by Torben Rick, 2004.
6 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

island also boasts breeding habitat for brown pelicans, other 

seabirds, and a number of land birds (Schoenherr et al., 1999). 

Although mice (Peromyscus maniculatus) and a few bats are present, no other terrestrial mammals occupy Anacapa. The limited 

number of terrestrial mammals is similar to that of the other 

Channel Islands, where even the largest islands have a maximum 

of about 10 land mammal species, the largest of which are the 

island fox (Urocyon littoralis) and island spotted skunk (Spilogale gracilis amphiala), each of which is about the size of house 

cat. Similarly, terrestrial plant species are limited on Anacapa, 

but it is home to a number of native and endemic species. Two 

gullies or canyons on West Anacapa support island chaparral 

or woodland communities, but coastal scrub vegetation covers 

most of the island (Schoenherr et al., 1999). Removal of invasive 

ice plants and other species are the focus of major restoration 

by the National Park Service, but exactly what Anacapa’s past 

vegetation communities looked like remains unclear.

The marine life around Anacapa is rich and productive, with 

kelp forests and rocky coasts that flank much of the shore, portions of which have been protected as part of the national monument since 1938. This coastal ecosystem provides habitat for sea 

life such as California mussels (Mytilus californianus), California spiny lobsters (Panulirus interruptus), California sheephead 

(Semicossyphus pulcher), seals (Phocidae), sea lions (Otariidae), and sharks (Elasmobranchs). These productive marine 

ecosystems and diverse organisms make it an extraordinary place 

for snorkeling, kayaking, and other activities that give people a 

sense of why the Channel Islands are called California’s Galápagos. All of the Anacapa shell middens contain abundant shellfish 

and other marine food remains, demonstrating the importance 

of marine resources and ecosystems in the human past. 

The larger northern islands, including Santa Rosa, Santa 

Cruz, and San Miguel, were home to large, dense Native American (Island Chumash) populations, including extensive villages 

that maintained sophisticated exchange networks and interaction 

spheres. A number of researchers have synthesized the archaeology of the Channel Islands and Chumash cultural developments 

on the islands and mainland (e.g., Arnold, 2001; Kennett, 2005; 

Rick et al., 2005; Gamble, 2008). This research tradition has 

resulted in a comprehensive understanding of human use of the 

islands and interaction with the mainland that spans 13,000 

years and culminates in the rich combination of traits that comprise Chumash culture at European contact. The archaeological 

record includes named Chumash villages on the Channel Islands 

and mainland coast and interior; hereditary social organization; 

interaction and exchange between the coast, islands, and interior; maritime voyaging using plank canoes (tomols) and other 

watercraft; and foraging for a wide variety of marine and terrestrial plants and animals (Arnold, 2001; Gamble, 2008). Despite this work and knowledge of how various social, cultural, 

FIGURE 4. The northern Channel Islands and portions of the adjacent mainland, showing Pleistocene Santarosae 

Island and the timing of the breakup into the current configuration (see Reeder-Myers et al., 2015, for data and 

methods used to estimate shoreline positions).
NUMBER 52 • 7

and environmental patterns vary across space and through time, 

there have long been questions about the extent and duration of 

human occupation of Anacapa (see Rick, 2006, 2011)

Although there is currently no permanent human occupation 

on Anacapa, signs of different human uses are present throughout the three islets. During the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the island was visited and occupied by sealers, fishermen, 

sheep ranchers, liquor runners, bird egg collectors, and members 

of the U.S. Coast Guard (Livingston, 2006). Some buildings that 

are now used by the National Park Service on East Anacapa are 

remnants of the Coast Guard occupation, including the current 

lighthouse that was built in 1932 and automated in 1966 (Figure 5). On Middle Anacapa, remnants of an old sheep ranching 

facility are present at Shepherd’s Landing (also known as Sheep 

Camp; Daly, 2018), and on West Anacapa there are still a few 

signs of Frenchy’s fishing shack, left behind by squatter Raymond “Frenchy” LeDreau in the 1940s (Figure 6). Numerous 

shipwrecks are also known to be around the island (Morris and 

Lima, 1996). Three nonnative vertebrate species—sheep brought 

by ranchers, European rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) brought 

for the Coast Guard or by fisherman, and rats left behind by 

shipwrecks—established populations on the island but have now 

been eradicated. Various reports have suggested that European 

hares (Lepus europaeus), rather than rabbits, were introduced 

to Anacapa Island, but recent work by Paul Collins confirmed 

through our work at CA-ANI-2 (see Chapter 5) that European 

rabbits, not hares, were present on the island (Braje et al., in press; 

P. Collins, Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, n.d.). 

These historical occupations, however, are just the tip of the 

iceberg for human occupation of Anacapa Island. The Chumash 

and their predecessors lived on Anacapa for at least 5,200 years 

and likely since the Early Holocene or terminal Pleistocene (Rick, 

2006). Many shell middens dot the Anacapa landscape, with a 

total of 28 recorded archaeological sites on its three sections. 

FIGURE 6. Frenchy’s Cove, Anacapa Island, ca. 1940, showing the 

former fish shacks. Photo courtesy of Santa Cruz Island Foundation.

FIGURE 5. Anacapa lighthouse, built in 1932. Photo by Torben 

Rick, 2004.
8 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

These sites range in size from small lithic scatters to dense shell 

middens and cave sites that span the prehistoric and Historic 

periods (Greenwood, 1978; Rozaire, 1978; Rick, 2011). Although we have come to learn a great deal about the archaeology of Anacapa during the past 30 years or so, in many ways the 

ancient human occupation of Anacapa is still a mystery. Interestingly, Anacapa is the only Channel Island that still retains a name 

derived from the Chumash: ′Anyapax (Anyapah, ′Anayapax, 

Aniapah, Eneepah), meaning deception or mirage (McKusick, 

1959:77; Heizer, 1975:33; Johnson, 1982:80).

The three larger northern Channel Islands have a record of 

human occupation that predates the breakup of Santarosae. This 

record includes a nearly continuous Native American occupation 

from 13,000 years ago up to about AD 1822, when the Spanish 

removed the last Island Chumash to mainland missions (Johnson, 

1982; Arnold, 1990; Kennett, 2005; Rick et al., 2005; Erlandson 

et al., 2011b). After about 3,000 years ago and certainly during 

the last 1,500 years, Island Chumash peoples had formed large 

multifamily villages on all three of these larger northern islands 

(Arnold, 2001; Kennett, 2005; Rick et al., 2005; Rick, 2007). 

Along with these large villages, thousands or more shell middens, lithic scatters, and cave sites document the complex and 

important human occupational history on the northern Channel 

Islands. Anacapa undoubtedly played a significant role in that 

history, but the extent of that role remains unclear.

PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL 

RESEARCH ON ANACAPA

Although a number of archaeological projects have been 

conducted on Anacapa Island, the attempt to synthesize the data 

has been limited, with most studies resulting from fairly brief 

visits to the island. Glassow (1977, 2010) provided the most 

detailed overviews and assessment of the past archaeological 

research on Anacapa, including entries about all of the known 

archaeological expeditions to the island. Here, I briefly summarize the major past projects with an eye toward studies that help 

contextualize our research throughout this volume.

Leon de Cessac, an artifact collector for the Ministry of 

Public Instruction and Fine Arts in Paris, conducted the first 

research on Anacapa from 1877 to 1879 as part of a broader 

French expedition to the Channel Islands. He may have collected 

artifacts and possibly human remains, but we do not know at 

which site or sites he may have worked (Glassow, 1977). Similarly, Lorenzo G. Yates visited the island in the 1880s and conducted a limited excavation that resulted in a small collection 

at the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, but little is 

known about this work. He appears to have visited or excavated 

at Freshwater Cave, which Rick (2011) determined contained 

historical (early nineteenth century) Chumash occupation. 

Sometime during the 1920s, David B. Rogers (1929) briefly visited the island, but no field notes or collections can be attributed 

to this work (Glassow, 2010). 

The next known expedition to include an archaeological 

component occurred in March 1941, when the Los Angeles 

County Museum (LACM) sent a team of scientists to explore 

Anacapa’s islets as part of the Channel Islands Biological Survey. 

Originally speculated to have been led by Richard Van Valkenburgh (see McKusick, 1959; Glassow, 1977), this project recorded several sites and made some collections later discussed by 

Marshall McKusick (1959). A review of records and notes pertaining to the Channel Islands Biological Survey indicates that 

it was actually John Schrader who did this work on Anacapa 

Island archaeology for the LACM in 1941. Moreover, notes published in McKusick (1959) appear to match Schrader’s, not Van 

Valkenburgh’s, correspondence with the LACM (Corinne Heyning Laverty, Personal Communication, March 2018).

Phil Orr of the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History 

also visited East Anacapa Island in 1956 and West Anacapa at 

a later, unknown date, recording CA-ANI-1 through CA-ANI-4 

and conducting test excavations at CA-ANI-3. Glassow (1977) 

notes that no collection from this work is known to exist. 

Two years after Orr, McKusick (1959) visited the island in 

1958 and began one of the more extensive projects. McKusick 

visited all three segments of the island, made surface collections, 

excavated at CA-ANI-8 (excavations directed by Charles Rozaire), and did small surface tests of faunal remains and other 

materials at several other sites. He also published a report on 

these results that we return to in later chapters. 

Another two years later, Rozaire conducted a comprehensive 

survey of Anacapa Island from 1961 to 1962, recording a number of new and previously recorded sites and excavating at CAANI-6. In 1963 and 1965, Rozaire (1978) conducted additional 

excavation at CA-ANI-8, building on his initial work with McKusick (1959) at the site in 1958. Excavations were conducted at 

CA-ANI-6 by Rozaire (1978:34) in 1962 and 1965. Like McKusick’s work, Rozaire’s is one of the few studies to produce excavated artifact and faunal data. These materials were synthesized 

in an unpublished report in 1978 and a paper on microblades in 

1993 (Rozaire, 1978, 1993). Sandefur (1978) provided an analysis of faunal remains from the CA-ANI-6 and CA-ANI-8 samples 

excavated by Rozaire (1978). Walker et al. (1978) provided an 

analysis of fish bones from these same samples. In 1970, Clement 

Meighan of the University of California, Los Angeles, excavated 

a test unit at CA-ANI-2 to a depth of 45 cm, producing a small 

collection of stone tools and seal bones, but these data were 

never published (Glassow, 1977).

After a hiatus, Roberta Greenwood (1978) of Greenwood 

and Associates performed a systematic survey of Anacapa Island 

in 1977 and 1978, building on the earlier work by Rozaire and 

McKusick. This project resulted in identification of new sites and 

confirmation of or adjustments to previously recorded sites, including CA-ANI-1 to CA-ANI-27, that still form the majority of 

known sites. During the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s, the National 

Park Service conducted some limited work on Anacapa, mostly 

as cultural resource compliance projects, but it did not include 

excavation or new survey.
NUMBER 52 • 9

In 2003, Rick and colleagues began the work on Anacapa 

Island that forms the basis for this project. Details on field and 

excavation work, which was conducted primarily between 2004 

and 2007, are provided in later chapters. Prior to this book we 

produced a few short publications on Anacapa Island chronology (Rick, 2006, 2011), subsistence (Reeder and Rick, 2009), 

lithics (Jew et al., 2015b), and seasonality based on stable isotope analysis of shellfish (Jew and Rick 2014). 

Former Channel Islands Park archaeologist Kelly Minas 

and California State University, San Bernardino, archaeologist 

Nicholas Jew have been conducting site condition assessments 

of the recorded sites on Anacapa since at least 2003, with Jew 

conducting most of his work from 2014 to 2016. The most 

recent project was Jew’s resurvey of East Anacapa Island in 

2015. Jew did not locate any new sites, but reduced vegetation 

helped him locate a new chert source adjacent to CA-ANI-2. He 

also visited West Anacapa in 2016 and recorded one new site 

(CA-ANI-28). Beyond the terrestrial archaeology, Morris and 

Lima (1996) recorded a number of historical shipwrecks around 

Anacapa and other Channel Islands, with a few researchers continuing to work on some of these sites.

To summarize, Anacapa Island has been surveyed by McKusick, Rozaire, and Greenwood, with more recent work by 

Rick and Jew. However, only limited test excavations have been 

conducted, and very little of this information has been published. 

The primary goal of this book is to provide a comprehensive 

overview of the archaeology and historical ecology of Anacapa 

Island based on a synthesis of past projects and the results of our 

excavations and radiocarbon dating.

ORGANIZATION OF THE BOOK

The remainder of this book is divided into five chapters 

that explore the archaeology and historical ecology of Anacapa 

Island, placing it in the context of the other Channel Islands, 

southern California coast, and broader research on small islands 

around the world. Chapter 2 describes the field and laboratory 

work that we conducted, providing descriptions of the sites 

where we worked, the methods and procedures we employed, 

and a discussion of site preservation and taphonomy. Chapter 3 

provides a detailed discussion of the radiocarbon chronology 

and stable isotope data on seasonality for Anacapa Island. Here, 

we present new and previously reported radiocarbon dates and 

present a Bayesian analysis of all of these dates. This analysis 

is followed by a summary of work reported by Jew and Rick 

(2014) on the seasonality of site occupation. 

Chapters 4 and 5 are the core of the book. We explore all 

of the artifacts recovered during our analysis as well as all of the 

vertebrate and invertebrate faunal remains. These results represent a comprehensive investigation of the technology and subsistence of Native Americans on Anacapa Island. Our discussion 

centers on the late Middle Holocene and beginning of the Late 

Holocene between about 4,000 and 2,500 years ago. Finally, in 

Chapter 6 we come full circle and revisit the research questions 

and framework outlined in this chapter. 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank Laura Kirn, Ann Huston, and Kelly Minas for 

making our work on Anacapa Island possible. Funding for this 

project was from Southern Methodist University and the Smithsonian Institution. Kevin Pemberton, John Robbins, and Lauren 

Willis helped in the field, and numerous students provided invaluable assistance in the lab. Jeanne Arnold, Todd Braje, Paul 

Collins, Jon Erlandson, Mike Glassow, John Johnson, René 

Vellanoweth, and other colleagues gave helpful comments to 

us about Anacapa and broader Channel Island prehistory or 

biology. Corinne Laverty, Wendy Teeter, Chris Coleman, Amy 

Gusick, and Stevy Hernandez helped resolve various questions 

about previous expeditions to or collections from Anacapa Island. Finally, we thank Ginger Minkiewicz and Anne Bolen at 

Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press, copy editor Tshawna 

Byerly, Todd Braje, and an anonymous reviewer for help with 

the review, editing, and production of this volume.

I

n consultation with the National Park Service (NPS), we designed a research program 

for Anacapa Island that integrated question-driven archaeological research and cultural 

resource management. As one of the most heavily visited islands within Channel Islands 

National Park and one that had been significantly affected by past human land use such as 

U.S. Coast Guard activities, it was important to assess the condition of archaeological sites 

on the island and sample sites that might be threatened by cultural or natural processes. 

As such, we focused the bulk of our fieldwork on the four sites on East Anacapa, the most 

frequently visited part of Anacapa. This island contains a trail network that circumnavigates the island; many stations with signposts, including one for CA-ANI-2; and a historic 

lighthouse. The main East Anacapa trail bisects CA-ANI-2 (Figure 7), and during our work 

at the site, school groups and other visitors passed by. We spoke with numerous visitors 

about our work, Anacapa Island, and the importance of preserving archaeological sites.

We visited most of the extant sites on Middle and West Anacapa to place our excavations on East Anacapa into broader context and to assess site conditions for Channel 

Islands National Park in collaboration with former NPS archaeologist Kelly Minas. We collected samples for radiocarbon dating from small probes at several of the shell middens to 

gather basic chronological information. We also visited collections from Rozaire’s excavations and radiocarbon dated materials from CA-ANI-6 and CA-ANI-8 held at the Natural 

History Museum of Los Angeles County (Rozaire, 1978; Rick, 2006). Most Anacapa sites 

have been disturbed by bird activity (nesting gulls and pelicans) that includes the deposition 

of modern chicken and other animal bones that the birds transport to the islands from the 

mainland. There is also some evidence of disturbances by burrowing animals (e.g., the invasive European rabbit) on East Anacapa. Because of the island’s small size, historical human 

land use has had an outsized impact on Anacapa Island archaeology. A major component 

of our work was investigating the taphonomic history of each site.

In this chapter, we discuss our field research and provide descriptions of the archaeological sites on East Anacapa. To help broaden the context, we briefly describe two of the 

sites where Rozaire (1978) conducted his excavations. We also summarize our radiocarbon 

dating program and laboratory research methods. More in-depth discussion of the methods 

used for radiocarbon dating and stable isotope analysis are provided in Chapter 3; detailed 

discussions of artifact and faunal identification are given in Chapters 4 and 5, respectively.

FIELD RESEARCH

From 2006 to 2007, we mapped all four recorded archaeological sites on East 

Anacapa, made extensive observations of the condition and preservation of the sites, 

2 Field and Laboratory Research

 Torben C. Rick, Christopher B. Wolff, 

and Leslie A. Reeder-Myers
1 2 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

and performed test excavation and sampling at CA-ANI-2, 

CA-ANI-3, and CA-ANI-4. This work built on previous site visits made during 2003 to 2004. Table 1 summarizes the units, 

screen size, and volume excavated at each site.

During our work, we determined site boundaries and 

mapped the surrounding topography with a laser transit. The 

focus of our research was at CA-ANI-2, which was the most 

heavily affected by a popular hiking trail. At CA-ANI-2, we used 

auger holes to determine the extent of subsurface deposits and 

excavated two 1 × 1 m units and two 25 × 25 cm column samples. At CA-ANI-4, which was also adjacent to a hiking trail, 

we excavated a 1 × 0.5 m unit. At CA-ANI-3, which is not close 

to any hiking trails but is eroding from a sea cliff, we excavated 

two 5 L bulk samples from the cliff edge. We did not excavate 

at CA-ANI-1, which has been heavily disturbed by nesting birds 

and twentieth-century human activities. We screened the matrix 

TABLE 1. Excavation unit summary data for East Anacapa 

Island archaeological sites. A dash (—) indicates not applicable.

Unit Dimensions Mesh size Volume

Site designation (m) (inches) (L)

CA-ANI-2 Unit 1 1 × 1 1⁄8 520

Unit 1 column 0.25 × 0.25 1⁄16 31

Unit 2 1 × 1 1⁄8 468

Unit 2 column 0.25 × 0.25 1⁄16 21

CA-ANI-3 Bulk sample 1 — 1⁄16 5

Bulk sample 2 — 1⁄16 5

CA-ANI-4 Unit 1 1 × 0.5 1⁄8 50

Total — — — 1,100

FIGURE 7. Hiking trail bisecting site CA-ANI-2 with a highly fragmented shell midden, which gives the dirt path a white hue. Photo by Torben 

Rick, 2006.
NUMBER 52 • 1 3

from the units through 1⁄8-inch (~3.2 mm) screens and the column 

samples through 1⁄16-inch (~1.6 mm) mesh, and we collected bulk 

soil samples. 

We visited East, Middle, and West Anacapa in 2003 to 

2007, with an additional visit by Rick to West Anacapa in 2014 

and another by Jew in 2016. We evaluated site conditions, took 

photographs, and collected in situ materials for radiocarbon dating (Rick, 2006, 2011). Through this chronological work, we 

built a baseline for future research and put the excavations we 

conducted on East Anacapa and those conducted by Rozaire on 

West Anacapa in chronological context. In the following, we describe the four East Anacapa sites that are the focus of our research as well as other sites that are pertinent to Anacapa Island 

archaeology or our larger radiocarbon dating survey.

SITE DESCRIPTIONS

East Anacapa

CA-ANI-1

CA-ANI-1 is a shell midden located near Landing Cove on 

the northeastern shore of East Anacapa (Figure 8). Our work 

suggests that the site covers an area of approximately 315 m2

; 

others estimate that it may have been even larger (see Table 2). 

The midden deposits are estimated to be about 20 cm deep (Rick, 

2006), although Rozaire (1978) and McKusick (1959) estimated 

a depth of 30 to 56 cm. The primary constituents are shellfish, 

including abalones (Haliotis sp.), owl limpets (Lottia gigantea), 

barnacles, and California mussels (Mytilus californianus); however, fish and historic animal bones were also recovered. Few artifacts, none of them diagnostic, were recovered or noted during 

previous survey or site-surface observations (Greenwood, 1978). 

Human burials were also reported at the site during past visits 

(McKusick, 1959), but we did not observe any human remains. 

The position of CA-ANI-1 on a slope adjacent to the sea 

cliff has made it vulnerable to substantial erosion. Moreover, 

the clay content of the soil matrix has caused significant argilliturbation similar to that noted on some of the other Channel 

Islands (see Rick et al., 2006). In 1963, Rozaire reported the 

presence of four pits, and unauthorized excavations appear to 

have been a problem at the site (Greenwood, 1978). Historic 

activities, particularly twentieth-century U.S. Coast Guard construction, have affected the preservation of the site as abundant 

bricks and other construction materials sit on top of and are 

mixed into the deposits. Scores of ground-nesting seagulls occupy the site and have caused significant disturbance during the 

FIGURE 8. Site CA-ANI-1, as seen looking west. Photo by Torben Rick, 2004.
1 4 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

creation of their nests. They have also introduced a variety of 

noncultural bones (mostly chicken), shellfish, and other materials. These cultural and natural processes have compromised 

the integrity of CA-ANI-1, causing mixing and fragmentation of 

deposits and introduction of materials not associated with the 

Native American occupation.

CA-ANI-2

CA-ANI-2 is a shell midden located on the southern coast 

of the island (Figure 9). We estimate its main activity area covers 

roughly 1,000 m2

, although the deposits have been scattered to 

an area of roughly 2,400 m2 by the construction and use of a 

public hiking trail that bisects the site. The midden is composed 

primarily of California mussel shells but includes abalone, barnacle, and limpet shells and fish and marine mammal bones. 

The artifact assemblage from CA-ANI-2 contains choppers, a 

pestle fragment, bifaces, Olivella biplicata (Olivella hereafter) 

barrel beads, numerous bone barbs, and various other artifacts 

(Glassow, 1977). The site also contains expedient chipped-stone 

tools made from unique local cherts (Jew et al., 2015b).

Like CA-ANI-1, several postdepositional processes have altered the site, some of which continue to disturb the deposits. 

The hiking trail that leads through the middle of the site—a remnant of an old dirt road—has caused significant erosion, fragmentation, and displacement of its constituents. Although some 

shell deposits can be seen on the trail, it seems to have cut its way 

through most of the midden. Moreover, a conspicuous depression on the northern site area may be a pit dug by University of 

California, Los Angeles archaeologist Clement Meighan, who is 

known to have worked at the site, but this remains uncertain (see 

Glassow, 1977). Greenwood (1978) noted that Rozaire observed 

about 10 pits at the site in 1963. 

There is danger of alteration to the site from the eroding 

cliff face on its southern margin. Although the current position 

of the site is a few meters from the edge, erosion should be regularly monitored to assess its preservation and stability. Bioturbation has also affected the site. During excavation of Unit 2, 

we recovered the remains of a large rabbit that had burrowed 

its way over 40 cm into the midden during the Historic period 

(Figure 10). Fortunately, the burrow was easily distinguishable 

from the surrounding matrix because of the looser sediments 

FIGURE 9. Site CA-ANI-2, as seen looking east. Photo by Torben Rick, 2006.
NUMBER 52 • 1 5

and the relative lack of cultural materials, which suggests that 

careful excavation of sites on the island can help reduce interpretational errors created by burrowing rabbits. However, the nesting activity of thousands of seagulls continues to disturb surface 

materials at CA-ANI-2 and has introduced scores of noncultural 

constituents. Despite these disturbances, there is still relatively 

good preservation of faunal remains and artifacts from the site 

that have been used to evaluate human subsistence, seasonality of site occupation, and lithic procurement (Reeder and Rick, 

2009; Jew and Rick, 2014; Jew et al., 2015b).

CA-ANI-3

CA-ANI-3 is a shell midden eroding from the top of a steep 

cliff on the southern coast of East Anacapa Island (Figure 11). 

It is a roughly 20 cm lens of shell and bone composed primarily 

of California mussel but also contains some black abalone and 

other rocky intertidal and nearshore species. Its position along 

a ridge that terminates at the cliff suggests that the ridge may 

have once been accessible to the coast below. The extent of the 

site is unknown because it runs below the surface and erosion is 

evident on its southern margin.

Observations of the sea cliff exposure suggested this midden might be relatively intact compared with other East Anacapa 

sites; however, when obtaining samples for radiocarbon dating 

from the sea cliff, we found a bullet shell casing embedded in 

the midden. Greenwood (1978) also noted that Rozaire and McKusick observed evidence of possible digging at the site, potentially attributable to Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History 

(SBMNH) archaeologist Phil Orr. Gull nests are scattered across 

the site, suggesting that some of the disturbances affecting the 

other sites are also operating here.

CA-ANI-4

CA-ANI-4 is a shell midden located farther inland than the 

other sites on East Anacapa (Figure 12). It sits on the northeast 

side of a knoll that slopes toward the northern coastline. The site 

covers an area of approximately 14 × 17 m, with variable thickness. Rozaire estimated that it extended about 46 cm below the 

FIGURE 10. Excavation of Unit 2 at CA-ANI-2 on East Anacapa Island showing the outline of a rabbit burrow found at the site. Excavation 

measured 1 × 1 m. Note the dense abalone and mussel shells visible in the side walls. Photo by Christopher Wolff, 2007.
1 6 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

surface (Greenwood, 1978); we excavated a probe through 25 to 

30 cm of midden in the northern portion of the site (Rick, 2006), 

and our excavation unit revealed that deposits were about 65 to 

70 cm thick. The midden, like the other sites, was dominated by 

California mussels but also contained owl limpets, black abalones, as well as fish, bird, and mammal bones (Rick, 2006). A 

few lithic tools were recovered from the site surface, including a 

quartzite knife and a sandstone pebble tool (Greenwood, 1978). 

The heaviest impact on the site appears to be erosion caused 

by water runoff downslope into a small ditch along the eastern 

margin of the deposit. The public hiking trail runs through the 

southern edge of the site, although it has been elevated to cross 

the drainage ditch. Construction of the trail and parts of the 

drainage ditch have probably had an impact on the site to some 

degree; however, there is no obvious indication of the site from 

the trail that would attract tourists or potential looters, so future 

impacts in that regard might be minimal. The main site activity 

area appears to be close to its western margin near the highest 

elevation of the site, and the greater extent of the site may be due 

to erosion downslope. 

In 2006, we excavated a single 1 × 0.5 m unit at CA-ANI-4. 

We found historical construction debris, including bricks and 

other materials, throughout the deposits, suggesting this site 

has been badly disturbed. Greenwood (1978) noted that an old 

storage house used to sit on the site, and the historical debris 

noted during our work likely came from the construction of 

that building. Greenwood (1978) also indicated that Rozaire 

had reported one excavated pit. Gulls nest on the site, and it 

appears to be the most compromised of the four sites on East 

Anacapa Island.

Rozaire’s West Anacapa Excavations

at CA-­ANI-6 and CA-­ANI-8

CA-ANI-6

This site is located on a north-facing slope, east of CA-ANI-5 

and southwest of Frenchy’s Cove. Greenwood described the site 

as a shell midden with numerous lithic tools, covering an area 

about 10 × 10 m. Shellfish recovered from the site are dominated 

FIGURE 11. Site CA-ANI-3 during excavation of the bulk samples. Photo by Lauren Willis, 2007.
NUMBER 52 • 1 7

by California mussels, but red and black abalones, owl limpets, 

and barnacles were also identified as well as fish, mammal, and 

bird bones (Greenwood, 1978; Sandefur, 1978; Walker et al., 

1978). Rozaire’s (1978, 1993) work at the site uncovered hundreds of microblades and microdrills, shell fishhooks, Olivella

and steatite beads, and other artifacts. A large oval glass trade 

bead was also found on the site surface, but this bead has been 

lost (Rozaire, 1978:35). Two graded areas, paths, and sheetwash 

have affected the site, and in 2004 vegetation cover obscured the 

site surface.

Rozaire (1978, 1993) excavated three test pits at the site, 

noting the deposits were roughly 30 cm (12 in) deep. The unit 

was not excavated in separate levels, but since this deposit is 

shallow, it may be a single component occupation (Rick, 2006; 

Chapter 3). 

CA-ANI-8

CA-ANI-8 is located on a south-facing ridge crest to the 

southeast of Frenchy’s Cove. The site is a small rock-shelter with 

a shell midden, measuring about 5 × 5 m in area (Greenwood, 

1978). Black abalone, California mussel, and trace amounts of 

owl limpet and cowry shells were observed on the site surface 

(Greenwood, 1978), and several bird, fish, and mammal taxa 

were identified by Sandefur (1978). Greenwood noted that back 

dirt from previous excavations is widely distributed around the 

site. Rozaire (1978) excavated three human burials as well as 

microblades, shell beads, shell fishhooks, bone tools, and a variety of vertebrate and invertebrate faunal remains. Roughly 46 m3

(60 cubic yards) of midden were excavated and poured over 1⁄2-

or 1⁄4-inch (~6.4 mm) mesh. Rozaire (1978) noted that there were 

between four and five distinct strata, although he excavated the 

site in arbitrary 15 cm (6 in) levels. Scattered bits of shell occur 

to a depth of about 1 m, but the artifacts and shells tend to be 

densest between 30 and 60 cm (12 and 24 in) deep. The presence 

of rabbit and artiodactyl bones to a depth of at least 91 to 107 

cm (36 to 42 inches) suggests these deposits are disturbed. The 

site appears to have at least two occupations, one during the 

Middle Holocene and another during the Late period (AD 1300–

1769; Rick, 2006; Chapter 3).

FIGURE 12. Site CA-ANI-4, as looking south. Photo by Torben Rick, 2007.
1 8 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

Other Key Sites

In addition to the four sites on East Anacapa and the two 

sites excavated by Rozaire, we obtained radiocarbon dates 

from nine additional sites (total number of sites = 16). Table 2 

provides a summary description of each of these sites. The 

chronology of each of these sites is discussed in detail in Chapter 3, but they range in age from greater than 5,000 years old to 

the early nineteenth century (Rick, 2006, 2011). All of the sites 

we dated are shell middens, including three located in rockshelters. Collectively, the 16 sites that have been radiocarbon 

dated during our study represent 57% of all recorded sites on 

Anacapa Island.

LABORATORY RESEARCH

All excavated materials were brought to the laboratory 

for detailed analysis. Materials were dry screened in the field 

over 1⁄8-inch mesh for the units and 1⁄16-inch mesh for the column samples and CA-ANI-3 bulk sample. In the laboratory, we 

wet screened these materials over the same mesh sizes; however, 

following laboratory procedures for other Channel Islands research, we separated out the 1⁄4-, 1⁄8-, and 1⁄16-inch size classes (e.g., 

Kennett, 1998; Rick, 2007). We completely sorted all materials 

1⁄4 inch and greater. For the material greater than 1⁄8 inch and 

smaller than 1⁄4 inch, we separated a random 25% sample by 

weight. We sorted all materials from that 25% sample and removed all vertebrate remains and artifacts from the remaining 

75% sample. We did not sort material smaller than 1⁄8 inch.

For the samples that were fully sorted, faunal remains 

were first sorted into general categories, including shellfish, fish, 

marine or terrestrial mammal, bird, and other similar categories. 

Shellfish were then identified to the most specific taxon possible, 

using standard comparative collections of modern species and 

Pacific Coast guidebooks. Vertebrate remains were sorted into 

the general categories, with mammal, reptile/amphibian, and 

bird remains sent to Thomas Wake at the University of California, Los Angeles, and fish remains sent to Kenneth Gobalet of 

California State University, Bakersfield, for more detailed identification. Additional details of the identification processes are 

provided in Chapter 5. Care was taken during faunal analysis 

to ensure the accuracy of our identifications and to keep with 

standard zooarchaeological procedures and critiques of faunal 

identification (Driver, 1991; Gobalet, 2001; Lyman, 2002).

Bone, shell, asphalt, and stone tools were identified during initial sorting and put aside for more detailed analysis. We 

also separated charcoal, potential macrobotanicals, and Historic 

TABLE 2. Brief description of sites that were included in the radiocarbon survey project. Descriptions and dimensions are based on site 

records from Greenwood (1978), except CA-ANI-28 is from N. Jew 2018, an unpublished site record. A dash (—) indicates not applicable.

Dimensions No. of 14C

Site number Description (m) samples

East Anacapa

CA-ANI-1 Shell midden with lithics and human burials 20 × 28 1

CA-ANI-2 Dense shell midden with lithics 24 × 30 5

CA-ANI-3 Dense shell midden with lithics 15 × 12 2

CA-ANI-4 Shell midden and lithic scatter 14 × 17 3

Middle Anacapa

CA-ANI-9 Shell scatter 5 × 18 2

CA-ANI-15 Large shell midden, possible village with human remains 100 × 65 1

CA-ANI-21 Dense shell midden with lithics in gully 65 × 65 1

CA-ANI-22 Rockshelter and shell midden 60 × 20 1

CA-ANI-23 Shell midden 43 × 25 1

CA-ANI-24 Shell midden with lithics 20 × 35 1

CA-ANI-25 Low-density shell scatter 6 × 5 1

West Anacapa

CA-ANI-5 Shell midden, possible temporary habitation site or camp with human remains 12 × 12 1

CA-ANI-6a Small shell midden with dense lithic component 10 × 10 1

CA-ANI-8a Small rock-shelter and shell midden 5 × 5 2

CA-ANI-18 Cave with freshwater source and shell midden 22 × 6 1

CA-ANI-28 Shell midden on far west end of island 70 × 80 2

Total — — 26

a

Sites excavated by Rozaire (1978).
NUMBER 52 • 1 9

period artifacts such as intrusive metal and glass, but these were 

not analyzed further. Rick analyzed the shell and asphalt tools 

following methods consistent with past Channel Islands studies about shell and other tools (e.g., Arnold and Graesch, 2001; 

Rick, 2007). All lithic artifacts were studied by Nicholas Jew and 

bone tools were analyzed by Thomas Wake. Additional details 

of the procedures for these materials are available in Chapter 4. 

Radiocarbon dating was the primary means of determining 

the age of deposits at the Anacapa Island sites. Chapter 3 presents a discussion of the radiocarbon dating methods, including 

calibration procedures. We also constructed a Bayesian model to 

analyze the chronology of human occupation of each site, each 

island segment, and of Anacapa as a whole (see Appendix).

We dated primarily marine shells (California mussel and 

black abalone) to avoid potential complications from dating old 

wood (Schiffer, 1986). Although some scholars have suggested 

that marine shells are less favorable for radiocarbon dating than 

small twigs or charcoal (see Erlandson, 1988), radiocarbon dates 

obtained from marine shells on the Channel Islands have been 

shown to be highly reliable (Erlandson et al., 1996; Kennett et 

al., 1997; Braje et al., 2005; Rick, 2007). 

In addition to the radiocarbon dates, subsets of shells were 

analyzed for stable carbon and oxygen analysis. These materials 

provide insights into the seasons when people were collecting 

marine shell (Kennett, 1998, 2005). Our stable isotope analysis 

focused on CA-ANI-2 and is discussed in detail in Chapter 3 and 

by Jew and Rick (2014). 

CONSERVATION, PRESERVATION, 

AND ACCESSIBILITY

A key element of our research is ensuring that all materials are properly curated, conserved, and cared for in perpetuity. 

We also advocate for the accessibility of the materials for additional study by researchers. To that end, all materials have been 

housed and stored at the National Museum of Natural History 

in archival bags and secure museum cabinetry. All materials have 

also been cataloged in the NPS and SBMNH catalog systems. As 

of this writing, we plan to transfer all material to the SBMNH 

for permanent curation following an agreement between the 

SBMNH and Channel Islands National Park.

SUMMARY

Our research on Anacapa Island focused on excavation of 

three sites on East Anacapa and radiocarbon dating at a series 

of sites throughout the island. We employed standard field and 

laboratory procedures consistent with past research to make our 

results as comparable to other studies as much as possible. We 

were also cognizant of issues of site formation and taphonomy 

at each of the sites. 

Although the impacts of nonnative fauna and historical 

human disturbances have altered the sites of Anacapa, our research offers insight into the duration of occupation and subsistence strategies of inhabitants of this island as well as the 

broader Channel Islands (Reeder and Rick, 2009; Jew and Rick, 

2014; Jew et al., 2015b). The taphonomic processes (human 

construction, introduced rabbit burrowing, bird roosting and 

nesting, etc.) affecting Anacapa’s sites underscore the need for 

caution when reconstructing the nature of ancient human use 

of the island. Greenwood’s (1978) survey and our own work on 

Anacapa Island suggest that many of the disturbances we noted 

on East Anacapa (e.g., historical construction, introduced animals, and erosion) have also affected the sites on Middle and 

West Anacapa. These processes will be kept in mind in later 

chapters. Knowing and understanding the processes that have 

affected the formation and preservation of Anacapa and other 

Channel Island sites improves our models of ancient human 

cultural and environmental developments. In the next chapter, we build on these site descriptions and methods by focusing on the chronology and seasonality of site occupation for 

Anacapa Island.

Major goals of our research were to understand the antiquity of human settlement on Anacapa and to build a detailed radiocarbon (14C) chronology for 

the island. We also were interested in determining the seasonality of shellfish 

harvesting in relation to site occupation. Prior to our research, there were only three 

radiocarbon dates for Anacapa Island that Rozaire obtained from site CA-ANI-8: one 

of these was modern, one was beyond the limits of radiocarbon dating, and the other 

was Late period in age (Rick, 2006). Our initial radiocarbon dating work was carried out on West and East Anacapa sites, provided a chronology spanning some 5,000 

years, and determined that most of the sites on East Anacapa dated to a relatively narrow window of time, between about 3,600 and 2,600 years ago (Rick, 2006). We also 

identified two cave sites that were occupied during the Historic period (eighteenth to 

nineteenth centuries; Rick, 2011). Despite this work, significant questions remained 

about the antiquity of human occupation and the duration of occupation on each of 

the three islets. Consequently, we obtained a series of 14C dates from shell middens on 

Middle and West Anacapa that were intended to complement our previous radiocarbon 

dating work.

To build on our chronological framework, we performed stable oxygen isotope analysis of California mussel (Mytilus californianus) shells from CA-ANI-2 on East Anacapa 

(Jew and Rick, 2014). This analysis determined that people were collecting mussels—and 

therefore were present on the island—during all seasons of the year. This finding proved 

to be important for helping to evaluate questions about the permanent versus more transitory nature of Anacapa Island settlement (Jew and Rick, 2014).

In this chapter, we present and discuss all radiocarbon dates from Anacapa Island. 

As noted in Chapter 2, this information includes 26 dates from 16 archaeological sites, 

which were chosen because they had shell middens with readily identifiable datable material and they were located across the three islets (Table 3). Here, we describe the methods 

used to obtain the radiocarbon samples as well as pretreatment practices, methods, and 

protocols used by the radiocarbon laboratories. We also outline the correction and calibration procedures used during our preparation and analysis. We then perform chronological hygiene assessments to determine the reliability of the radiocarbon dates. Finally, 

we construct a Bayesian model using the OxCal program (Bronk Ramsey, 1995, 2001, 

2009) to help evaluate the chronology of Anacapa Island and its three segments. After 

establishing the chronology for the Anacapa sites, we discuss our stable isotope analysis 

from CA-ANI-2 to set the context for the remaining chapters. 

3 Chronology and Seasonality

Torben C. Rick and Nicholas P. Jew
2 2 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

14C DATING, SAMPLE SELECTION, 

CALIBRATION, AND BAYESIAN ANALYSIS

In the field, radiocarbon samples were selected in situ from 

unit sidewalls after excavation. For sites where we did not excavate test units, we used small probes to extract samples in situ 

from the sidewall of the probe or collected samples from eroding exposures. The depth of the sample and GPS coordinates 

for the locations were also recorded. For the sites previously 

excavated by Rozaire, we selected well-preserved samples from 

Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County collections 

with known provenience. 

TABLE 3. Radiocarbon dates from Anacapa Island sites. A dash (—) indicates not applicable.

 Calibrated

 13C/12C age

Site Provenience Lab No.a Materials δ13C Adjusted BP (2σ)

b

East Anacapa

CA-ANI-1 Probe, ~18 cm below surface OS-48488 Mytilus californianus 1.52 3820 ± 30 3550–3360

CA-ANI-2 Unit 2, ~34 cm below surface, OS-63565 M. californianus −0.23 3280 ± 35 2890–2710

bottom of unit

CA-ANI-2 Probe, 38–40 cm below surface OS-48508 M. californianus 0.84 3310 ± 35 2920–2730

CA-ANI-2 Unit 1, 2–5 cm below surface, OS-60407 Haliotis cracherodii 2.10 3330 ± 25 2930–2750

top of unit

CA-ANI-2 Unit 1 OxA-30069 Urocyon littoralis bone −16.76 2956 ± 27 3210–3010

CA-ANI-2 Unit 1, 52–53 cm below surface, OS-60632 M. californianus 0.5 3560 ± 30 3250–3000

bottom of unit

CA-ANI-3 Bulk sample, bottom DAMS-3996 Marine shell −8.9 3575 ± 34 3300–3030

CA-ANI-3 BS-1, 15–20 cm below surface OS-63566 M. californianus 0.91 3580 ± 30 3300–3050

CA-ANI-4 Unit 1, top DAMS-3994 Marine shell −11.2 3103 ± 37 2720–2460

CA-ANI-4 Unit 1, bottom DAMS-3995 Marine shell −4.6 3948 ± 27 3700–3490

CA-ANI-4 Probe, 25–28 cm below surface OS-48509 M. californianus 1.25 3530 ± 30 3210–2970

West Anacapa

CA-ANI-5 Midden exposure, ~50 cm OS-46940 H. cracherodii 1.91 5110 ± 35 5280–5010

CA-ANI-6 Test Pit 2 OS-50446 H. cracherodii 0.90 1230 ± 30 630–500

CA-ANI-8 Square 12, 91–117 cm OS-50447 H. cracherodii 1.71 4950 ± 35 5030–4820

CA-ANI-8c Pit 3, 31–46 cm B-031360 Charcoal — 570 ± 40 650–520

CA-ANI-18 14C probe, 65 cm B-232738 H. cracherodii −1.0 830 ± 60 320–0

CA-ANI-28 14C probe, 0–10 cm UGA-27951 H. cracherodii 1.01 3240 ± 25 2830–2700

CA-ANI-28 14C probe, 10–20 cm UGA-27952 H. cracherodii 1.14 3760 ± 25 3480–3290

Middle Anacapa

CA-ANI-9 14C probe, 10 cm OS-74596 H. cracherodii 1.4 3660 ± 35 3370–3150

CA-ANI-9 Duplicate of 74596 OS-74597 H. cracherodii 1.3 3590 ± 30 3310–3060

CA-ANI-15 14C probe, 15–18 cm OS-74598 H. cracherodii 2.1 5340 ± 35 5550–5320

CA-ANI-21 Gully exposure, 50 cm, OS-74600 H. cracherodii 1.0 1290 ± 35 670–530

base of midden

CA-ANI-22 14C probe, 25 cm OS-63567 M. californianus 0.61 810 ± 30 280–60

CA-ANI-23 14C probe, 30 cm OS-74602 M. californianus 0.82 3040 ± 25 2670–2380

CA-ANI-24 Sea cliff exposure, 15 cm OS-74604 H. cracherodii 1.23 1310 ± 30 680–540

CA-ANI-25 14C probe, 5–10 cm OS-74646 M. californianus 1.07 3580 ± 30 3300–3050

a

B = Beta Analytic; DAMS = DirectAMS; OS = National Ocean Sciences Accelerator Mass Spectrometry facility; OxA = Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit; UGA = 

University of Georgia Center for Applied Isotope Studies.

b

All shell dates were calibrated with a ΔR of 261 ± 21 years for all shell samples. The 13C/12C ratios were determined by the radiocarbon laboratories.

c

Date obtained from Breschini et al. (2004).
NUMBER 52 • 2 3

The vast majority of the samples that we dated were marine 

shells (i.e., California mussel or black abalone); other materials 

included one charcoal sample from CA-ANI-8 and one island 

fox bone from CA-ANI-2 dated by Hofman et al. (2016). Sample 

provenience, laboratory identification numbers, and materials 

are summarized in Table 3. For marine samples, we selected wellpreserved shells for accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) radiocarbon dating. All shells were sampled across multiple growth 

bands to ensure that we minimized the possibility of intrashell 

radiocarbon variability (Culleton et al., 2006). Marine shell 

samples were dated by the National Ocean Sciences Accelerator 

Mass Spectrometry facility (NOSAMS) at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (http://www.whoi.edu/nosams/home), Beta 

Analytic (https://www.radiocarbon.com/), DirectAMS (https://

www.directams.com/), and the University of Georgia Center for 

Applied Isotope Studies (http://cais.uga.edu/). The island fox 

bone from CA-ANI-2 was dated by the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit at Oxford University (https://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk/). 

Additional details on the dating procedures are available at the 

websites for the respective laboratories listed previously. 

Marine shell samples were calibrated following procedures 

outlined in numerous studies for California’s Channel Islands 

(Kennett, 2005; Rick, 2006, 2007; Braje, 2010; Jew et al., 

2015a). All of our marine radiocarbon samples were corrected 

using a ΔR (reservoir correction) value of 261 ± 21 (see Jazwa 

et al., 2012; Thakar, 2014b). All marine samples were calibrated 

using the Marine13 calibration curve, and the charcoal and island fox bone sample were calibrated with the Intcal13 calibration curve (Reimer et al., 2013).

Bayesian statistics are an important tool for modeling chronometric data from archaeological sites because they have the 

ability to incorporate prior information, such as stratigraphy, 

historic records, and diagnostic artifacts of known ages, as part 

of the modeling process (Aldenderfer, 2005; Bronk Ramsey, 

2009; Bayliss, 2015; Hamilton and Krus, 2018). They have also 

been used to establish a statistical framework for archaeological site chronologies on the Channel Islands (Jazwa et al., 2013; 

Jew et al., 2015a). We used OxCal 4.3’s Bayesian framework 

to calibrate 14C determinations and generate modeled chronologies for Anacapa Island (Bronk Ramsey, 1995, 2001, 2009). OxCal’s Bayesian platform can be used to create models of dates 

in a defined sequence and phase or phases and then statistically 

refine the start and end dates for the span and each individual 

date (Bronk Ramsey, 2009; Bayliss, 2015). This analysis results 

in indices of agreement and convergence that help determine the 

reliability of the model. In Bayesian analysis, outliers are identified by poor agreement indices (A) below the index threshold of 

60 (see Bronk Ramsey, 2000). 

We produced four phase models for Anacapa Island, including all dates from Anacapa Island and then one each for East, 

Middle, and West Anacapa. For each model, we ordered the dates 

from oldest to youngest by their calibrated ages, which also incorporated stratigraphic information that we had for individual 

sites with multiple dates (e.g., CA-ANI-2 and CA-ANI-4). These 

dates were then grouped into a sequence and a single phase for 

each model. We then ran the model in OxCal 4.3, producing the 

models and data in Figures 13 to 16 (see also Appendix). 

A 14C CHRONOLOGY 

FOR ANACAPA ISLAND

Analysis of all 26 14C dates from Anacapa produced a 95% 

probability model chronology ranging between 5530 and 80 cal 

BP (Figure 13). Agreement indices for all models and each individual date were above 60, suggesting the modeled chronologies 

are statistically valid (Figures 13–16). Agreement indices for all 

Anacapa Island dates are Amodel = 117 and Aoverall = 104. Bayesian 

analysis of all dates suggest Anacapa was occupied from as early 

as the Middle Holocene (~5500 cal BP) up to historic contact. 

There is general overlap for each island segment, but the earliest 

dates come from archaeological sites on West and Middle Anacapa, whereas the latest dates come from West Anacapa. 

For East Anacapa, 11 14C dates from archaeological contexts present a 95% probability chronology modeled between 

3670 and 2530 cal BP (Figure 14). Agreement indices are Amodel = 

104 and Aoverall = 93, with each corresponding agreement presented in Figure 14. 

For Middle Anacapa, eight 14C dates from archaeological 

contexts present a 95% probability modeled chronology between 5540 and 60 cal BP (Figure 15). Agreement indices are 

Amodel = 106 and Aoverall = 98, with each corresponding agreement 

presented in Figure 15. Middle Anacapa produced the earliest 

radiocarbon date (OS-74598) from CA-ANI-15 with a modeled 

range between 5540 and 5310 cal BP.

Seven 14C dates from archaeological contexts recovered 

from West Anacapa present a 95% probability modeled chronology between 5290 and 0 cal BP (Figure 16). Agreement indices 

are Amodel = 106 and Aoverall = 101, with each corresponding agreement presented in Figure 16.

STABLE OXYGEN ISOTOPE ANALYSIS 

AND SITE SEASONALITY AT CA-ANI-2

To better understand the seasonality of site occupation on 

Anacapa Island, we conducted stable isotope analysis of California mussels from CA-ANI-2 (Jew and Rick, 2014). Twenty 

California mussels from Unit 1 were sampled for δ18O analysis 

to produce paleo-sea-surface temperature (PSST) data that were 

used to infer site seasonality. Each shell was inspected for an 

intact terminal growth band (TGB), rinsed in deionized water, 

and etched with hydrochloric acid (0.5 M). Calcium carbonate 

(CaCO3

) from exterior layers of each shell was removed using 

a Sherline 5410 micromill with a carbide drill bit (0.05 mm). 

Following Jew et al. (2013, 2014), five powder samples were 

taken in 3 mm intervals along the growth axis, producing PSST 

estimates for 12 mm of growth. As a profile baseline, nine 
2 4 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 13. Bayesian phase model for radiocarbon dates from Anacapa Island.

Sequence [Amodel:117]

Boundary start

Phase

R_Date CA-ANI-15: OS-74598 [A:96]

R_Date CA-ANI-5: OS-46940 [A:99]

R_Date CA-ANI-8: OS-50447 [A:101]

R_Date CA-ANI-4: DAMS-3995 [A:100]

R_Date CA-ANI-1: OS-48488 [A:100]

R_Date CA-ANI-28: UGA-27952 [A:100]

R_Date CA-ANI-9: OS-74596 [A:100]

R_Date CA-ANI-9: OS-74597 [A:100]

R_Date CA-ANI-3: OS-63566 [A:100]

R_Date CA-ANI-25: OS-74646 [A:100]

R_Date CA-ANI-3: DAMS-3996 [A:100]

R_Date CA-ANI-2: OS-60632 [A:100]

R_Date CA-ANI-2: OxA-30069 [A:100]

R_Date CA-ANI-4: OS-48509 [A:101]

R_Date CA-ANI-2: OS-60407 [A:101]

R_Date CA-ANI-2: OS-48508 [A:101]

R_Date CA-ANI-2: OS-63565 [A:101]

R_Date CA-ANI-28: UGA-27951 [A:102]

R_Date CA-ANI-4: DAMS-3994 [A:101]

R_Date CA-ANI-23: OS-74602 [A:101]

R_Date CA-ANI-24: OS-74604 [A:101]

R_Date CA-ANI-21: OS-74600 [A:100]

R_Date CA-ANI-6: OS-50446 [A:100]

R_Date CA-ANI-8: B-031360 [A:100]

R_Date CA-ANI-18: B-232738 [A:105]

R_Date CA-ANI-22: OS-63567 [A:104]

Boundary end

12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0

Modeled date (BP)
NUMBER 52 • 2 5

FIGURE 14. Bayesian phase model for radiocarbon dates from East Anacapa.

FIGURE 15. Bayesian phase model for radiocarbon dates from Middle Anacapa.

FIGURE 16. Bayesian phase model for radiocarbon dates from West Anacapa.

Sequence [Amodel:104]

Boundary start

Phase

R_Date CA-ANI-4: DAMS-3995 [A:86]

R_Date CA-ANI-1: OS-48488 [A:100]

R_Date CA-ANI-3: OS-63566 [A:99]

R_Date CA-ANI-3: DAMS-3996 [A:99]

R_Date CA-ANI-2: OS-60632 [A:99]

R_Date CA-ANI-2: OxA-30069 [A:100]

R_Date CA-ANI-4: OS-48509 [A:100]

R_Date CA-ANI-2: OS-60407 [A:99]

R_Date CA-ANI-2: OS-48508 [A:99]

R_Date CA-ANI-2: OS-63565 [A:100]

R_Date CA-ANI-4: DAMS-3994 [A:102]

Boundary end

6000 5000 4000 3000 2000

Modeled date (BP)

Sequence [Amodel:106]

Boundary start

Phase

R_Date CA-ANI-15: OS-74598 [A:99]

R_Date CA-ANI-9: OS-74596 [A:99]

R_Date CA-ANI-9: OS-74597 [A:100]

R_Date CA-ANI-25: OS-74646 [A:100]

R_Date CA-ANI-23: OS-74602 [A:98]

R_Date CA-ANI-24: OS-74604 [A:100]

R_Date CA-ANI-21: OS-74600 [A:100]

R_Date CA-ANI-22: OS-63567 [A:101]

Boundary end

15000 10000 5000 0

Modeled date (BP)

Sequence [Amodel:106]

Boundary start

Phase

R_Date CA-ANI-5: OS-46940 [A:100]

R_Date CA-ANI-8: OS-50447 [A:100]

R_Date CA-ANI-28: UGA-27952 [A:101]

R_Date CA-ANI-28: UGA-27951 [A:100]

R_Date CA-ANI-6: OS-50446 [A:100]

R_Date CA-ANI-8: B-031360 [A:100]

R_Date CA-ANI-18: B-232738 [A:100]

Boundary end

15000 10000 5000 0

Modeled date (BP)
2 6 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

carbonate samples for ~24 mm of growth were taken from shell 

CA-ANI-2-1, and estimated temperature values were compared 

with modern values.

Calcite samples were analyzed at the Stable Isotope Laboratory in the University of Oregon’s Department of Geological Sciences. Samples were loaded into Exetainers, placed in an 

autosampler, and flushed with helium. Samples were reacted 

with several drops of 100% orthophosphoric acid to produce 

carbon dioxide. The stable isotope ratios δ18O and δ13C were 

measured using a Finnigan MAT 253 isotope ratio mass spectrometer with continuous helium flow. All values are reported 

in δ notation in per mil (‰) units relative to the Vienna Pee Dee 

Belemnite (VPDB) standard using the formula

δ18O = [(Rsample − Rstandard)/Rstandard] × 1,000,

where R represents the heavy/light ratio for the abundance of 

any two isotopes. A positive δ value represents a more enriched 

heavy isotope in comparison to the standard, and negative 

δ values are associated with the depletion of heavy isotopes. 

Following other studies in the region (Glassow et al., 1994; 

Kennett, 2005), we used Epstein et al.’s (1951) formula for 

converting δ18O values to temperature estimates as adapted for 

California mussels by Killingley (1981; Killingley and Berger, 

1979), where

T (°C) = 16.4 − 4.2(δ18Occ(PDB) − δ18Owater(SMOW)) 

+ 0.13(δ18Occ(PDB) − δ18Owater(SMOW))

2

.

Around 3000 cal BP there is a change in mean ocean water 

temperature (Δ0mδ18Osw) in the Pacific Ocean of ~0.07‰ (see 

LeGrande and Schmidt, 2009). Adjustments to the ice volume 

correction (δ18Owater(SMOW)) are based on an ocean water sample 

(δ18O = –0.32‰) from Santa Rosa Island, providing a correction 

of –.25‰ (Robbins and Rick, 2007).

Modern δ18O values reported for California mussels from 

the Santa Barbara Channel region range between ~0.8‰ and 

–0.6‰ (see Kennett, 1998:451–453). Modern SST for Anacapa 

ranges from ~14°C to 19°C (Figure 17) with increasing water 

temperatures (16°C to 19°C) between late June and early September and decreasing (19°C to 15°C) from late September to 

early December with further declines from late December to 

early March and an increase from late March to early June 

(Kennett, 2005:56). The δ18O values for the CA-ANI-2-1 shell 

profile range from ~0.8‰ to -0.7‰ (VPDB), which yields a 

PSST estimate ranging from ~13°C to 19.5°C. The average 

PSST estimate from shell CA-ANI-2-1 is 16.7°C (Figure 17), 

within the range of the modern SST average of 16.2°C (±1°C). 

Consequently, estimated seasonal ranges were modeled after 

typical modern SST seasonal change. Seasonality for each shell 

was assigned, where x equals the TGB and estimated PSST at 

the time of collection and y equals the estimated PSST for the 

prior season at 12 mm of growth (as described in Table 4). The 

directional changes between PSST values above or below the 

seasonal mean provide parameters to assign a season of harvest 

(Table 4).

Isotopic analysis suggests that California mussels were 

harvested in a wide range of water temperatures at CA-ANI-2. 

The minimum recorded PSST is 12.3°C, and the maximum is 

24.8°C, with a mean of 16.6°C and standard deviation of 2.36. 

Ranges and means for individual shells (Figure 18, Table 5) varied considerably, with the warmest estimated PSST from shell 

CA-ANI-2-13 and a range of ~16°C to 24°C. Two mussel shells 

(CA-ANI-2-15 and CA-ANI-2-20) yielded cooler water temperatures between ~12°C and 16.5°C. Mean PSST for most shells 

FIGURE 17. Top: Modern seasonal sea-surface temperature (SST) 

for Anacapa Island, including 95% confidence intervals (see Kennett, 

2005:56). Bottom: Estimated SST ranges from shell ANI-2-1. (Letters i–a on the x-axis refer to sample numbers in Table 5). Adapted 

from Jew and Rick (2014).

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

Temperature °C

Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

i h g f e d c b a

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

Temperature °C

Shell ANI-2-1 Estimated SST

Anacapa Average SST (modern)

Direction of growth
NUMBER 52 • 2 7

fall within 15°C to 18°C. The difference between PSST from the 

TGB and 12 mm of growth showed a minimum of 0.3°C and a 

maximum of ~9°C. The seasonal distribution of the CA-ANI-2 

mussels includes summer (n = 7), winter (n = 7), fall (n = 4), and 

spring (n = 2), demonstrating that CA-ANI-2 was likely occupied 

during each season (Table 4).

Isotopic evidence of a potentially year-round occupation of 

CA-ANI-2 does not preclude the island from being used as a stopover by people from the mainland or Santa Cruz Island. These 

results suggest, however, that if being a stopover was Anacapa’s 

primary function during the early portions of the Late Holocene, 

these stopovers occurred during all seasons of the year. 

SUMMARY

Our radiocarbon dating project, including 26 dates from 

16 archaeological sites, documents Native American occupation 

spanning from roughly 5500 cal BP to the early nineteenth century. The use of OxCal’s Bayesian platform provided a statistical framework that helped refine and model this chronology. East 

Anacapa, where we focused our research, has so far produced occupation between 3700 and 2500 cal BP, a narrower range than 

for Middle and West Anacapa. Given the presence of occupations 

>13,000 years on the other northern Channel Islands (see Johnson 

et al., 2002; Erlandson et al., 2011b), it is likely that Anacapa was 

occupied prior to 5500 cal BP. A chipped-stone crescent, originally 

identified as a scraper or crescentic knife, was recovered from 

CA-ANI-11 on a high ridge of West Anacapa during the 1950s, 

suggesting terminal Pleistocene or Early Holocene occupation of 

Anacapa, as was the case on the other northern Channel Islands 

(McKusick, 1959:85, fig. 2). Stable isotope data from California 

mussel shells at CA-ANI-2 suggest that people were harvesting 

shellfish from this site year-round. This result challenges long-held 

assumptions that Anacapa may have been occupied only during 

certain seasons of the year (Jew and Rick, 2014). Further isotope 

and shellfish harvesting data will be important for determining 

whether other sites may also have been occupied during all seasons of the year or if some sites were occupied on a seasonal basis.

TABLE 4. Expected seasonal sea-surface temperature (SST) 

changes for Anacapa Island, including directional changes between x and y values (for additional descriptions of methods, 

see Jew et al., 2013, 2014), and the assigned seasonal distributions and percentages for 20 mussel shells sampled from site 

CA-ANI-2, Unit 1.

SST model

Season x value y value Results for CA-ANI-2

Summer x ≥ 16°C x > y n = 7 (35%)

Fall x ≥ 15°C x < y n = 4 (20%)

Winter x ≤ 15°C x < y n = 7 (35%)

Spring x ≤ 16°C x > y n = 2 (10%)

FIGURE 18. Maximum, minimum, and mean sea-surface temperature (SST) for all sampled shells from site CA-ANI-2, Unit 1. Adapted from Jew and Rick (2014).

10

15

20

25

1234 5 1 6 789 0 1 11 12 13 14 5 2 16 17 18 19 0

SST average and range Terminal growth band SST

Temperature °C

Shell Number
2 8 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

TABLE 5. Stable isotope results and temperature averages for California mussel shells from site CA-ANI-2 (see Jew and Rick, 2014). 

SMOW = standard mean ocean water; VPDB = Vienna Pee Dee Belemnite.

δ18O

Sample IDa δ13C SMOW VPDB Temperature (°C)

ANI-1a 1.0 31.0 0.2 15.9

ANI-1a 1.1 31.0 0.2 15.9

ANI-1b 1.1 31.0 0.1 16.1

ANI-1b 1.1 30.9 0 16.6

ANI-1c 1.4 30.4 −0.4 18.4

ANI-1c 1.3 30.2 −0.6 19.2

ANI-1d 0.9 30.7 −0.2 17.3

ANI-1d 0.7 30.5 −0.3 17.9

ANI-1e 0.6 31.0 0.1 16.1

ANI-1e 0.4 30.8 −0.1 16.8

ANI-1f 0.1 30.5 −0.4 18.2

ANI-1f −0.4 29.8 −1.1 21.0

ANI-1g 0 31.0 0.1 16.0

ANI-1g −0.2 30.7 −0.1 17.2

ANI-1h 0.7 31.3 0.4 14.9

ANI-1h 0.6 31.1 0.2 15.7

ANI-1i 0.8 31.8 1.0 12.7

ANI-1i 0.6 31.6 0.7 13.7

ANI-2a 0.1 31.7 0.8 13.2

ANI-2a −0.2 31.3 0.4 14.7

ANI-2b 0.2 31.4 0.6 14.3

ANI-2b −0.2 30.9 0 16.4

ANI-2c 0.2 31.2 0.3 15.1

ANI-2c −0.1 30.7 −0.2 17.2

ANI-2d 0.2 31.4 0.5 14.4

ANI-2d 0.1 31.3 0.4 14.9

ANI-2e 0.3 30.0 −0.8 20.0

ANI-2e 0.1 29.6 −1.2 21.5

ANI-3a 1.0 31.3 0.4 14.8

ANI-3a 0.8 31.0 0.1 16.1

ANI-3b 0.7 30.3 −0.6 18.8

ANI-3b 0.5 29.9 −0.9 20.3

ANI-3c 0.8 29.9 −0.9 20.2

ANI-3c 0.7 29.6 −1.2 21.5

ANI-3d 0.8 31.1 0.2 15.8

ANI-3d 0.6 30.8 −0.1 16.8

ANI-3e 0.2 31.0 0.1 16.1

ANI-3e 0.1 30.8 0 16.7

ANI-4a 1.5 30.9 0.1 15.9

ANI-4a 1.5 31.2 0.4 14.7

ANI-4b 1.3 30.9 0 16.0

ANI-4b 1.2 30.7 −0.2 16.9

ANI-4c 1.1 29.9 −1.0 20.1

ANI-4c 0.9 29.5 −1.3 21.6

ANI-4d 0.8 30.3 −0.6 18.5

ANI-4d 0.5 29.8 −1.0 20.4

ANI-4e 0.7 30.4 −0.5 18.0

ANI-4e 0.7 30.2 −0.6 18.7

ANI-5a 1.2 30.7 −0.2 16.8

ANI-5a 1.1 30.5 −0.3 17.6

ANI-5b 1.0 29.6 −1.2 21.0

ANI-5b 0.8 29.3 −1.5 22.2

ANI-5c 0.7 30.4 −0.5 18.0

ANI-5c 0.6 30.1 −0.7 19.1

ANI-5d 0.4 31.1 0.3 15.1

δ18O

Sample IDa δ13C SMOW VPDB Temperature (°C)

ANI-5d 0.2 30.8 −0.1 16.6

ANI-5e 1.4 30.8 −0.1 16.6

ANI-5e 1.3 30.6 −0.3 17.2

ANI-6a 0.6 31.4 0.6 13.9

ANI-6a 0.6 31.3 0.5 14.3

ANI-6b 0.8 31.3 0.5 14.3

ANI-6b 0.8 31.2 0.4 14.7

ANI-6c 1.3 30.3 −0.5 18.4

ANI-6c 1.2 30.1 −0.7 19.2

ANI-6d 1.7 30.2 −0.7 18.9

ANI-6d 1.6 30 −0.8 19.5

ANI-6e 0.8 31.4 0.5 14.1

ANI-6e 0.7 31.2 0.4 14.7

ANI-7a 1.2 30.5 −0.3 17.4

ANI-7a 1.1 30.4 −0.5 18.1

ANI-7b 0.7 30.7 −0.1 16.7

ANI-7b 0.6 30.5 −0.3 17.6

ANI-7c 1.0 31.5 0.6 13.7

ANI-7c 1.0 31.4 0.5 14.2

ANI-7d 1.2 31.4 0.5 14.1

ANI-7d 1.2 31.4 0.5 14.2

ANI-7e 1.2 30.5 −0.4 17.8

ANI-7e 1.1 30.3 −0.5 18.4

ANI-8a 0.3 31.7 0.8 12.9

ANI-8a 0.2 31.5 0.6 13.7

ANI-8b 0.7 31.4 0.6 13.9

ANI-8b 0.6 31.3 0.4 14.4

ANI-8c 0.8 30.5 −0.3 17.6

ANI-8c 0.6 30.4 −0.5 18.1

ANI-8d 0.1 29.8 −1.0 20.3

ANI-8d −0.1 29.5 −1.3 21.6

ANI-8e −0.1 31.1 0.2 15.3

ANI-8e −0.2 31.0 0.1 15.8

ANI-9a 0.5 30.4 −0.4 17.8

ANI-9a 0.5 30.3 −0.6 18.5

ANI-9b 0.3 31.3 0.5 14.3

ANI-9b 0.2 31.1 0.2 15.3

ANI-9c 0.5 31.9 1.0 12.2

ANI-9c 0.5 31.8 0.9 12.5

ANI-9d 0.9 30.7 −0.2 17.0

ANI-9d 0.8 30.5 −0.3 17.4

ANI-9e 0.4 30.9 0 16.1

ANI-9e 0.2 30.6 −0.2 17.1

ANI-10a 1.5 30 −0.9 19.7

ANI-10a 1.3 29.7 −1.1 20.7

ANI-10b 1.0 30 −0.8 19.5

ANI-10b 0.7 29.5 −1.3 21.6

ANI-10c 1.3 29.9 −0.9 19.9

ANI-10c 1.1 29.7 −1.1 20.8

ANI-10d 1.0 30.7 −0.2 16.9

ANI-10d 0.9 30.5 −0.4 17.7

ANI-10e 0.6 31 0.1 15.8

ANI-10e 0.5 30.8 −0.1 16.6

ANI-11a 1.3 31.3 0.5 14.3

ANI-11a 1.3 31.2 0.3 15.0
NUMBER 52 • 2 9

TABLE 5. Continued

δ18O

Sample IDa δ13C SMOW VPDB Temperature (°C)

ANI-11b 0.2 30.4 −0.5 18.1

ANI-11b 0.2 30.2 −0.6 18.7

ANI-11c 0.8 30.2 −0.7 18.9

ANI-11c 0.7 30 −0.9 19.7

ANI-11d 0.5 31.1 0.2 15.3

ANI-11e 0.7 31.5 0.6 13.6

ANI-11e 0.6 31.3 0.5 14.3

ANI-12a 1.3 31.2 0.3 14.8

ANI-12a 1.2 31.2 0.3 15.0

ANI-12b 1.1 31.5 0.6 13.7

ANI-12b 1 31.4 0.6 13.9

ANI-12c 0.8 30.8 0 16.3

ANI-12c 0.8 30.8 −0.1 16.6

ANI-12d 0.8 30.1 −0.8 19.3

ANI-12d 0.8 29.9 −0.9 19.8

ANI-12e 0.6 30.8 0 16.3

ANI-12e 0.6 30.8 −0.1 16.6

ANI-13a −0.4 28.8 −2.0 24.4

ANI-13a −0.5 28.6 −2.2 25.1

ANI-13b 0.9 30.3 −0.5 18.3

ANI-13b 0.9 30.2 −0.6 18.8

ANI-13c 0.6 30 −0.8 19.6

ANI-13c 0.5 29.9 −0.9 19.9

ANI-13d 0.2 31.1 0.3 15.1

ANI-13d 0.1 31 0.1 15.7

ANI-13e −0.2 31.1 0.2 15.2

ANI-13e −0.2 31 0.2 15.6

ANI-14a 0.3 31.2 0.3 14.9

ANI-14a 0.2 31 0.1 15.8

ANI-14b 0.4 30.1 −0.8 19.4

ANI-14b 0.3 29.9 −1.0 20.1

ANI-14c 0.8 31.1 0.3 15.1

ANI-14c 0.7 31 0.1 15.6

ANI-14d 0.2 31.3 0.4 14.6

ANI-14d 0.2 31.2 0.4 14.7

ANI-14e −0.4 31.8 0.9 12.4

ANI-14e −0.5 31.7 0.8 12.8

ANI-15a 1.1 31.9 1.0 12.0

ANI-15a 1.0 31.7 0.8 12.8

ANI-15b 1.0 31.5 0.6 13.8

ANI-15b 0.9 31.2 0.3 14.9

δ18O

Sample IDa δ13C SMOW VPDB Temperature (°C)

ANI-15c 0.9 31 0.1 15.8

ANI-15c 0.8 30.7 −0.1 16.7

ANI-15d 0.6 30.8 0 16.3

ANI-15d 0.5 30.7 −0.2 17.0

ANI-15e −0.1 31.4 0.5 14.1

ANI-15e −0.2 31.2 0.4 14.7

ANI-16a 0.3 31.5 0.6 13.6

ANI-16a 0.3 31.4 0.5 14.0

ANI-16b 0.7 31.4 0.5 14.1

ANI-16b 0.6 31.2 0.4 14.7

ANI-16c 0.9 30.7 −0.1 16.7

ANI-16c 0.8 30.5 −0.3 17.6

ANI-16d 0.4 30.6 −0.2 17.2

ANI-16d 0.2 30.3 −0.5 18.3

ANI-16e 0.4 30.4 −0.4 17.9

ANI-16e 0.3 30.2 −0.6 18.6

ANI-17a 1.0 31.7 0.8 13.0

ANI-17a 0.9 31.4 0.6 13.9

ANI-17b 0.9 31.6 0.7 13.4

ANI-17b 0.7 31.3 0.5 14.3

ANI-17c 0.9 30.7 −0.2 16.8

ANI-17c 0.6 30.3 −0.6 18.5

ANI-17d 0.6 30.8 0 16.3

ANI-17d 0.4 30.6 −0.3 17.4

ANI-17e 0.4 30.6 −0.3 17.3

ANI-17e 0.1 30.1 −0.8 19.3

ANI-18a 1.9 29.9 −1.0 20.1

ANI-18b 1.5 30.8 0 16.4

ANI-18c 1.4 30.3 −0.5 18.3

ANI-18d 1.3 30.9 0 16.1

ANI-18e 1.1 31.5 0.7 13.5

ANI-19a 1.4 30.6 −0.2 17.0

ANI-19b 1.3 30.9 0.1 15.8

ANI-19c 1.1 30.6 −0.3 17.3

ANI-19d 1.3 30.3 −0.6 18.5

ANI-19e 0.9 30.2 −0.6 18.8

ANI-20a 1.5 31.3 0.5 14.3

ANI-20b 0.6 30.9 0.1 15.9

ANI-20c 0.7 31.5 0.6 13.8

ANI-20d 0.5 31.3 0.4 14.4

ANI-20e 0.7 31.1 0.2 15.2 

a

Note that “CA-” and -2” in sample numbers have been dropped for brevity.

We recovered a wide variety of artifacts during our research on Anacapa Island. 

These objects include expedient and formal tools as well as beads from our 

excavations at sites CA-ANI-2, CA-ANI-3, and CA-ANI-4. In this chapter, 

we present the results of our analysis of these artifacts and provide a detailed discussion 

of the types of technologies that people were using on the island, focusing on four major 

categories: bone, chipped-stone, shell, and miscellaneous artifacts such as tarring pebbles.

The bone tools we recovered provide evidence for production of mammal-bone 

gorges that were used for making fishhooks and other tools. The bone-tool assemblage 

includes everything for the production of gorges and transport of raw materials from the 

mainland. Our analysis follows previous bone-tool research by Wake (2001) for Santa 

Cruz Island. Shell artifacts were limited to just three objects, and our analysis follows 

Bennyhoff and Hughes (1987), Arnold and Graesch (2001), and Rick (2007). 

For chipped-stone tools, we build on the work of Jew et al. (2015b) that described an 

initial analysis of tools from CA-ANI-2, CA-ANI-3, and CA-ANI-4 and the use of a possible local Anacapa Island chert source. We describe this newly confirmed chert source in 

the following on the basis of Jew’s 2015 fieldwork and present the chipped-stone tools from 

CA-ANI-3 and CA-ANI-4. 

After summarizing the artifacts from our excavations, we discuss previous Anacapa 

Island artifact studies, including research on microblades and other tools from excavations at sites CA-ANI-6 and CA-ANI-8 (Rozaire, 1978, 1993). We also discuss other descriptions of artifacts observed during surveys and small collections from earlier research 

(Glassow, 1977; Greenwood, 1978). 

BONE ARTIFACTS

Bone artifacts recovered from East Anacapa Island include utilitarian tools (n = 45) such 

as bipointed fish gorges, bird-bone awls, worked antler, and miscellaneous bits of scraped 

and ground bone from CA-ANI-2 and CA-ANI-4 (Table 6). One additional mammal bone, 

a pointed tip of a barb or awl, was the only bone artifact recovered from CA-ANI-3. Similar 

types of diagnostic artifacts from Santa Cruz Island are discussed by Wake (2001) and have 

been classified throughout California by Gifford (1940) and Bennyhoff (1950).

The most common bone artifacts recovered from CA-ANI-2 and CA-ANI-4 are 

ground and smoothed bipointed splinters of dense mammalian cortical bone, often 

4 Technology and Tool 

Production

Torben C. Rick, Nicholas P. Jew, 

and Thomas A. Wake
3 2 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

referred to as fish gorges (Figure 19). These artifacts are relatively 

short and slender, with the thickest portion located at the midsection and tapering to a sharp point at either end. Several worked 

splinters from both CA-ANI-2 and CA-ANI-4 appear to be either 

rejected or unfinished, representing gorges in production. 

A bone gorge is a simple yet effective piece of toggling fishing gear that was tied to the end of relatively fine, strong cordage 

at the midpoint. Some archaeological examples have a band of 

asphalt or a dark mastic at the lashing point (midsection) of the 

artifact, ostensibly to help secure the line to the gorge. Similar 

TABLE 6. Bone gorge measurements. A dash (—) indicates not determinable.

 1⁄2 Estimated 

Catalog Length lengtha lengthb Width

Site No. Unit Level (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) Condition

CA-ANI-2 57 1c 2 — 18.88 37.76 3.69 Half complete

CA-ANI-2 18 1 4 26.83 18.34 36.68 2.33 One tip missing

CA-ANI-2 14 1 4 40.83 24.59 49.18 3.18 One tip missing

CA-ANI-2 15 1 4 — 17.77 35.54 3.35 Half complete

CA-ANI-2 16 1 4 — 18.21 36.42 3.35 Half complete

CA-ANI-2 17 1 4 28.06 16.37 32.74 2.53 One tip missing

CA-ANI-2 27 1 5 19.38 — — 2.06 Complete

CA-ANI-2 22 1 5 23.77 — — 2.09 Complete

CA-ANI-2 25 1 5 35.71 — — 3.13 Complete

CA-ANI-2 26 1 5 38.82 21.48 42.96 3.92 One tip missing

CA-ANI-2 28 1 5 — 18.64 37.28 3.41 Half complete

CA-ANI-2 29 1 5 — 17.86 35.72 3.82 Half complete

CA-ANI-2 30 1 5 — 24.45 48.90 3.49 Half complete

CA-ANI-2 513 2c 4 37.88 — — 3.52 Complete

CA-ANI-2 512 2c 4 35.74 — — 3.96 Complete

CA-ANI-2 508 2c 3 — 23.50 47.00 4.21 Half complete

CA-ANI-2 518 2 2 40.53 — — 3.46 Complete

CA-ANI-2 515 2 2 44.58 — — 3.63 Complete

CA-ANI-2 539 2 4 — 24.68 49.36 4.09 Half complete

CA-ANI-2 537 2 4 — 16.79 33.58 3.84 Half complete

CA-ANI-2 538 2 4 — 26.07 52.14 4.49 Half complete

CA-ANI-2 514 2 2 — 18.33 36.66 3.23 Half complete

CA-ANI-2 37 1 6 — 20.26 40.52 3.17 Half complete

CA-ANI-2 32 1 6 — 19.92 39.84 2.80 One tip missing

CA-ANI-2 521 2 3 36.12 — — 2.76 Complete

CA-ANI-2 535 2 3 24.94 — — 2.13 Complete

CA-ANI-2 523 2 3 35.97 27.21 54.42 4.04 One tip missing

CA-ANI-2 522 2 3 — 32.16 64.32 5.33 Half complete

CA-ANI-2 527 2 3 — 32.98 65.96 4.36 Half complete

CA-ANI-2 533 2 3 24.10 13.88 27.76 2.48 One tip missing

CA-ANI-2 528 2 3 — 24.75 49.50 4.79 Half complete

CA-ANI-2 525 2 3 — 21.24 42.48 4.10 Half complete

CA-ANI-2 519 2 3 29.32 21.20 42.40 3.97 One tip missing

CA-ANI-2 524 2 3 — 18.52 36.50 3.37 Half complete

CA-ANI-2 532 2 3 — 13.62 27.24 2.12 Half complete

CA-ANI-4 — 1 4 30.84 — — 3.10 Complete

CA-ANI-4 — 1 4 — 27.23 54.46 4.55 One tip missing

a

Specimens that were at least half complete were measured from the thickest part of the barb to the tip. That measurement was then doubled to estimate the length of the 

whole specimen. 1⁄2 length = measurement from midpoint to tip, approximating half of the total gorge.

b

Estimated length = 1⁄2 measurement times 2, yielding estimated total length.
NUMBER 52 • 3 3

gorges are prepared for use in fishing today by folding one end of 

the bipoint against the line and inserting it into a chunk of bait. 

When swallowed by a fish, tension on the line causes the gorge 

to toggle in the throat or mouth and the fish then can be hauled 

to the surface (Salls, 1988). Recent use of replicated gorges observed that successful captures involved gorges piercing the lips 

and mouthparts of fish, not deeper in the throat as might be presumed (Kevin Smith, University of California, Davis, personal 

communication 2016).

The 10 complete gorges from CA-ANI-2 and CA-ANI-4 

were measured to better understand their morphological 

characteristics and range of sizes. The average length of these 

FIGURE 19. Bone gorges from sites CA-ANI-2 (left) and CA-ANI-4 (right). Photo by Thomas Wake, 2017.
3 4 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

gorges is 32.95 mm, with a range of 19.38 to 44.58 mm. The ends 

of these gorges are ground to a fine, sharp point. The most robust 

part of each gorge is located at its center, which is probably the 

lashing point. The maximum thickness of the lashing point averages 2.98 mm, with a range of 2.06 to 3.96 mm (Table 6).

Broken gorges are more common in the collection than complete ones. Most of these specimens appear to be broken at or 

near the thickest part of the gorge, at the lashing point, suggesting they were broken inside of a fish and represent an equipment 

failure. Wake (e.g. 2001) also measured all of the broken specimens from their thickest part to the pointed end and then multiplied by 2 to approximate a complete gorge. The resulting larger 

sample size suggests a slightly greater average size for deer-bone 

fish gorges from these sites: 40.18 mm in length (ranging from 

65.96 to 19.38 mm) and 3.46 mm in thickness (ranging from 

2.06 to 5.33 mm; Table 6).

Worked Bird Bone

Two worked large-bird (albatross-sized) radii (Figure 20) 

were recovered from CA-ANI-2, Unit 1, Levels 5 and 6. One 

(Figure 20, top) is ground to a point and smoothed at one end 

with numerous longitudinal scraping and smoothing marks on 

its surface. The other (Figure 20, middle) is a shaft fragment 

missing both ends but covered in longitudinal scrape marks, 

indicating removal of the periosteum. Another large-bird wing 

bone (Figure 20, bottom), possibly an albatross ulna, was recovered from CA-ANI-2, Unit 1, Level 3. This midshaft fragment 

shows numerous longitudinal scraping and smoothing marks 

and appears polished. Two worked albatross (Phoebastria sp.) 

proximal radii (Figure 21) were recovered from CA-ANI-2, 

Unit 1, Level 3. Both specimens were circumferentially cut or 

scored close to the proximal articular end and snapped off, 

FIGURE 20. Artifacts made from bird radii. Photo by Thomas Wake, 2017.
NUMBER 52 • 3 5

perhaps part of the process for producing bird-bone tubes for 

unknown use.

Worked Deer-­Antler Fragments

Three deer, probably black-tailed deer (BTD; Odocoileus 

hemionus), antler tine tips (Figure 22) were recovered from CAANI-2, Unit 2, Levels 2 and 3. All of these tips appear to be 

lightly burned or fire hardened. They all also have ground and/

or worn facets, similar to those found on antlers used as pressure flakers by Wake (1997) at Fort Ross in northern California. 

One of these tine tips has been circumferentially chopped and 

snapped off the antler shaft.

A Deer-Bone Fish Gorge Industry

on East Anacapa Island

A demand for the appropriate raw material for the production of bone fishing equipment could explain the unusually large 

BTD bone assemblage recovered from CA-ANI-2 and CA-ANI-4. 

Although the importance of BTD in relation to subsistence strategies and other vertebrate and invertebrate remains is discussed 

in Chapter 5, we summarize important aspects of the BTD bone 

assemblage and other vertebrate remains here to help document 

the BTD tool industry on East Anacapa Island.

Bone fragments identified as BTD or probably BTD constitute 11.1% of the identified mammal bone assemblage (as quantified by count, including fragments identified only to size class) 

at CA-ANI-2, 19.9% of all mammal specimens identified to at 

least order, and 76.6% of the terrestrial mammal assemblage recovered from CA-ANI-2 (Chapter 5). When intrusive Historic 

period invasive European rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus) specimens are removed from the sample, BTD represent 95.5% of the 

terrestrial mammal bone specimens recovered from CA-ANI-2. 

BTD represent 67% of the identified terrestrial mammal specimens (not including undifferentiated terrestrial mammals) from 

CA-ANI-4 and 80% when invasive mammals from the Historic 

period are removed.

The majority of the identified BTD bones represent portions (Figure 23) that have very low meat utility values, such 

as carpals, tarsals, metacarpals, and metatarsals (Binford, 1978; 

Jacobson, 2000; Madrigal, 2004). Ten BTD specimens are identified as tibia fragments. Tibiae have higher meat utility values 

than metapodials because of the presence of the calf muscle covering the proximal third of the element, but only one BTD specimen is identified as a proximal tibia. The remaining nine BTD 

tibia specimens are either distal articulation or shaft fragments. 

The distal shaft of the tibia is straight and similar in thickness to 

the metapodials. The terrestrial mammal bone splinters identified as limb bone most likely represent fragments of the lower 

FIGURE 21. Cutoff proximal albatross (Phoebastria sp.) radii. Photo by Thomas Wake, 2017.
3 6 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 23. Smashed deer (Odocoileus 

hemionus) metapodial, tibia, and bone 

splinters. Photo by Thomas Wake, 2017.

FIGURE 22. Deer (Odocoileus hemionus) antler tine artifacts. Photo by Thomas Wake, 2017.
NUMBER 52 • 3 7

limb elements that dominate the identified BTD assemblage. It 

is not likely, therefore, that the BTD bone specimens represent 

meat from the mainland transported to and consumed on East 

Anacapa Island. Instead, the BTD metapodials and distal tibiae 

from CA-ANI-2 and CA-ANI-4 most likely represent raw material transported to East Anacapa Island for the manufacture of 

fish gorges. Deer metapodials are sources of raw material widely 

used by California Indians to make a variety of bone tools, especially those that pierce, such as awls, pins, and bipoints (Gifford, 

1940; Bennyhoff, 1950; Fauvelle and Perry, in press). 

Although marine mammal bones and bone fragments constitute the bulk of the identified mammal specimens from both 

CA-ANI-2 and CA-ANI-4, they generally are not as good of a 

raw material for bone tools as large terrestrial mammal bones. 

The bones of dolphins, pinnipeds, and sea otters are adapted to 

locomotion in an aquatic environment, where they do not need 

to support an individual’s mass against the forces of gravity. 

Instead, marine mammals contend primarily with buoyancy and 

crushing pressures when diving to pressures of 10 atmospheres 

or more (e.g., LeBoeuf et al., 1986). Bones of marine mammals 

tend to be relatively porous and have thinner cortical bone and 

marrow cavities filled with cancellous tissue, which better accommodate life in the sea. Although whale bone is often used 

to make bone artifacts by circumpolar coastal peoples, those 

implements tend to be robust and designed to take advantage of 

the less-dense properties of marine mammal bone (Heizer, 1956; 

Wake, 1997).

The bones of terrestrial mammals such as BTD have evolved 

to withstand rapid movement over rough terrain. Their weightbearing bones have relatively thick, dense cortical bone surrounding open marrow cavities with cancellous tissue concentrated at 

the ends of each bone. The greater density of BTD cortical bone 

as opposed to that of seal or sea lion bone most likely translates 

to greater resistance to breakage, especially of long, thin splinters 

of bone. The better strength of BTD long-bone splinters makes 

them the preferred material for the manufacture of bone gorges.

On the basis of the BTD specimens and terrestrial mammal bone fragments recovered from CA-ANI-2 and CA-ANI-4, 

we propose the following gorge production sequence for East 

Anacapa Island. BTD metapodials and a few tibiae were brought 

from the mainland to East Anacapa Island whole and most likely 

fresh. These skeletal elements were then smashed open with a 

stone hammer at the proximal and distal ends as well as along 

the shafts with the goal of producing many long, slender splinters of dense cortical bone. Preferred bone splinters were then 

selected and ground on all surfaces into a slender bipoint with 

a thicker midsection. Sometimes these splinters were rejected or 

left unfinished, producing worked splinters or gorges in production. The finished gorge was then lashed to a line, sometimes 

using an adhesive, and used to catch fish. Figures 24, 25, and 26 

illustrate a refinement of the dimensions of deer bone splinters 

progressing from raw bone splinters (Figure 24), to worked bone 

splinters (Figure 25), to finished products (Figure 26). When 

broken, the gorges were cast aside, and a new one was used, 

resulting in a collection dominated by short, slender, and sharp 

broken gorges. 

LITHIC RAW MATERIAL SOURCES 

AND CHIPPED-STONE ARTIFACTS

Lithic artifacts from East Anacapa Island include a variety 

of expedient chipped-stone tools (see Jew et al., 2015b). Most 

of what we know regarding lithic technologies from Anacapa 

Island relates to early Late Holocene assemblages recovered from 

CA-ANI-2 (Jew et al., 2015b), basic descriptions of artifacts 

noted during surface survey or small-scale testing (e.g., Greenwood, 1978), and the analysis of microblades and other artifacts 

from CA-ANI-6 and CA-ANI-8 (Rozaire, 1978, 1993). We focus 

on chipped-stone lithic analysis of CA-ANI-2, CA-ANI-3, and 

CA-ANI-4, building on our previous research (Jew et al., 2015b) 

and providing new insights into lithic raw material sources on 

Anacapa Island. 

In 2015, during an archaeological survey of East Anacapa, 

Jew returned to CA-ANI-2 and other East Anacapa Island sites. 

With excellent ground visibility from a prolonged drought and 

ongoing removal of invasive vegetation by the National Park 

Service, Jew identified a local Anacapa Island chert source on 

East Anacapa Island. Previous studies had identified a source 

of low-quality chalcedonic chert on West Anacapa (known 

as Anacapa Cico; Greenwood, 1978; Rick, 2006, 2011), but 

many artifacts did not appear to be from this West Anacapa 

material source or to be like stone from the other Channel Islands (Jew et al., 2015b). This new source on East Anacapa, 

referred to as ′Anyapax polychromatic chert, includes several 

large outcrops and nodules (Figure 27). The polychromatic 

chert source is situated approximately 300 m northeast of 

CA-ANI-2 on a ridge above the sloping northern face of the island. The location would have been easily accessible to the occupants of CA-ANI-2, CA-ANI-3, and CA-ANI-4, and it might 

have influenced the decision for the location of some of these 

archaeological sites. In 2016, Jew surveyed a portion of West 

Anacapa and found several isolated artifacts on the surface, 

including several cores and chipped-stone artifacts made from 

similar polychromatic chert and also chalcedonic chert from 

known sources at Frenchy’s Cove.

All chipped-stone artifacts recovered from CA-ANI-2, 

CA-ANI-3, and CA-ANI-4 were analyzed by Jew in a manner 

consistent with his previous work on Anacapa and other Channel Island stone-tool assemblages (Jew and Erlandson, 2013; Jew 

et al., 2015b). A total of 859 chipped-stone artifacts were recovered from the three sites, including 667 from CA-ANI-2, 43 

from CA-ANI-3, and 149 from CA-ANI-4. Anacapa stone-tool 

technologies include end and side scrapers, macrodrills/punches, 

winged-side notched tools, hammerstones, and core tools (Figures 28, 29). Ninety-five percent (n = 814) of chipped-stone artifacts, including flakes, shatter, cores, and crude bifaces, were 

manufactured from local Anacapa Cico (chalcedonic chert found 
FIGURE 24. Unworked bone splinter dimensions (mm).

FIGURE 26. Completed bone gorge dimensions (actual and extrapolated, mm). Note 

the progression of gorge production, as the 

overall width-to-length ratio narrows from 

unworked bone to worked bone to completed 

bone gorges.

FIGURE 25. Worked bone splinter dimensions (mm).

0 6 10 20 30 40 50 0 70

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

20

0

Length (mm)

Width (mm)

Length (mm)

Width (mm)

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0 6 10 20 30 40 50 0 70

6

4

2

0

1

3

5

Length (mm)

Width (mm)
NUMBER 52 • 3 9

at Frenchy’s Cove on West Anacapa) and polychromatic material 

found East Anacapa (Table 7, Figure 30).

Although the majority of artifacts appear to have been made 

of local chert obtained on East Anacapa or the chalcedonic source 

on West Anacapa, at least one tool was made from what appears 

to be higher-quality chert likely obtained from Santa Cruz Island 

(Jew et al., 2015b; see Perry and Jazwa, 2010 for a discussion 

of Santa Cruz Island cherts). There is also evidence that people 

on Anacapa participated in broader regional exchange networks. 

This participation in regional exchange networks is supported by 

an obsidian chipped-stone flake recovered in Unit 1 at CA-ANI-4. 

Energy dispersive X-ray fluorescence chemical analysis of this 

flake by Northwest Research Obsidian Studies Laboratory in 

Corvallis, Oregon (see http://www.obsidianlab.com for methods 

and discussion of procedures), suggested that it came from the 

Coso volcanic field West Sugarloaf source located in eastern California (Table 8). These data join 69 previous X-ray fluorescence 

analyses of California island obsidian, most of which also derives 

from the Coso source in eastern California (Rick et al., 2001). Included in these analyses were three obsidian projectile points that 

are from an unknown site on Anacapa Island and are housed in 

the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History collections (Figure 

31). Of these three previously analyzed points, two derive from 

the Coso source, and one derives from the Casa Diablo source, 

also in eastern California (Rick et al., 2001). In addition to the 

obsidian artifacts, Rick also recovered a fused shale, chippedstone stemmed biface from the surface of CA-ANI-5, which likely 

came from the Grimes Canyon source on the mainland in Ventura 

County. These data demonstrate that people on Anacapa Island 

were engaged in far-reaching exchange networks that extended 

well into eastern California.

SHELL ARTIFACTS

Compared with bone and stone tools, shell artifacts are 

rare in the excavated East Anacapa sites. None were recovered in the relatively small assemblages from CA-ANI-3 and 

CA-ANI-4, and there were only three Olivella biplicata shell 

beads at CA-ANI-2 (Table 9, Figure 32; Reeder and Rick, 

2009). These include two Olivella barrel beads, with one each 

from Units 1 and 2, and an Olivella cap bead recovered from 

FIGURE 27. Close-up of polychromatic chert source outcrop located on East Anacapa near site CA-ANI-2. Photo by Nicholas Jew, 2015.
FIGURE 29. Expedient chipped-stone, winged flake artifacts and fragments from East Anacapa Island from sites CA-ANI-2 (top row), 

CA-ANI-4 (first five artifacts, bottom row), and CA-ANI-3 (bottom row, far right artifact). Scale is in centimeters. Photo by Torben Rick.

FIGURE 28. Examples of expedient chipped-stone tools from East Anacapa, illustrating the diversity in form and material types from 

sites CA-ANI-2 (top row) and CA-ANI-4 (bottom row). Scale is in centimeters. Photo by Torben Rick.
NUMBER 52 • 4 1

Unit 1. These bead types have wide temporal distribution but 

are consistent with the early Late Holocene ages of these sites 

(Bennyhoff and Hughes, 1987). The age of these bead types is 

also supported by the absence of Olivella wall, callus, or other 

beads that are cultural hallmarks of the latter half of the Late 

Holocene (Arnold and Graesch, 2001).

Consistent with the dearth of Olivella or other shell beads is 

the limited amount of Olivella shell recovered at each of the sites 

(Chapter 5). At CA-ANI-4, we recovered just 1.5 g of Olivella

(minimum number of individuals = 2, <1% of weight or minimum number of individuals). At CA-ANI-2 only 0.6 g from a 

single individual was recovered in the Unit 1 column sample. No 

Olivella shell was recovered from CA-ANI-3 or in the other contexts at CA-ANI-2. We also did not uncover any shell fishhooks 

or other clearly worked shell artifacts.

OTHER ARTIFACTS

Beyond the chipped-stone, bone, and shell artifacts recovered from the East Anacapa sites, the only other artifacts were 

tarring pebbles and fragments of asphalt. We recovered three 

tarring pebbles from CA-ANI-2, including one (27.0 g) from 

Unit 1 and two (72.6 g) from Unit 2. In Unit 2, we found 2.7 g 

of asphalt in Unit 1 and 2.5 g in Unit 2. We recovered no tarring 

pebbles or asphalt in the samples from CA-ANI-3 or CA-ANI-4.

Intrusive historical artifacts were recovered at all three excavated sites. At CA-ANI-2 we found a bullet shell casing in 

the uppermost level of Unit 1. Another bullet shell casing was 

recovered from a bulk sample at CA-ANI-3. As described in 

Chapter 2, we found broken glass and a few pieces of brick 

throughout the CA-ANI-4 excavation unit.

ANACAPA ISLAND ARTIFACTS NOTED 

BY OTHER RESEARCHERS

Although only limited research has been conducted on Anacapa Island, a few of the previous projects described artifacts 

from East Anacapa Island sites, including descriptions of materials from CA-ANI-1, -2, -3, and -4. In 1970, Meighan excavated 

at CA-ANI-2, and although no report was produced, Glassow 

TABLE 7. Stone-tool materials categorized by material, artifact type, and site on East Anacapa Island. A dash (—) 

indicates not applicable.

Material type Debitage Cores Flake tools Hammerstones Total counts

CA-ANI-2

Basalt — — — 4 4

Quartzite 1 4 2 — 7

Miscellaneous 8 — 2 — 10

Anacapa Cico 65 6 20 — 91

Polychrome 444 67 44 — 555

CA-ANI-2 subtotal 518 77 68 4 667

CA-ANI-3

Cico — — 1 — 1

Basalt 1 — — — 1

Quartzite 2 — — — 2

Miscellaneous 2 — — — 2

Anacapa Cico 14 — 3 — 17

Polychrome 17 1 2 — 20

CA-ANI-3 subtotal 36 1 6 — 43

CA-ANI-4

Shale — — 2 — 2

Obsidian — — 1 — 1

Basalt 2 — — — 2

Franciscan 2 — — — 2

Miscellaneous 11 — — — 11

Anacapa Cico 22 3 7 — 32

Polychrome 80 6 13 — 99

CA-ANI-4 subtotal 117 9 23 — 149

Total 671 87 97 4 859
4 2 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

(1977:76–77; see also Greenwood, 1978:53) describes a catalog 

that lists 26 faunal fragments and 16 artifacts. These artifacts 

include chert and quartzite utilized flakes, a chert reamer, a sandstone pestle fragment, a quartzite chopper, a chert core, and a 

quartzite biface (Glassow, 1977). Greenwood (1978) also mentions a worked seal tooth recovered from CA-ANI-2 by Rozaire 

and McKusick. Aside from the presence of a pestle, these artifacts are consistent with our results, including no shell artifacts. 

However, the absence of any bone artifacts is surprising given the 

large number we recovered. 

Greenwood (1978) suggested that CA-ANI-3 had a high 

concentration of lithics relative to the modest amount of shell and 

noted the presence of one formal tool, a tan chert side scraper, as 

well as chert, quartzite, and basalt debitage. She also mentioned 

that Rozaire collected a pestle, mano, polyhedral platform core, 

and side scraper at the site and noted the presence of a human 

tibia (Greenwood, 1978:54).

At CA-ANI-4, Greenwood (1978:55) described chert, 

chalcedony, and quartzite flakes, a quartzite knife with unifacial modification, and a sandstone pebble tool that she argued 

may have been a knife or scraper. Although we did not work at 

CA-ANI-1 other than to radiocarbon date the site and produce a 

map, Greenwood (1978:51) reported chipped-stone debitage, a 

scraper, a core, and other materials that are generally consistent 

with the other sites. 

The other large assemblage of artifacts comes from West 

Anacapa and Rozaire’s work at CA-ANI-6 and CA-ANI-8 (Rozaire, 1978, 1993). The CA-ANI-6 artifact assemblage supports 

the late Middle or Late period age of the site (Rozaire, 1993; 

Rick, 2006). Rozaire’s (1978, 1993) work at CA-ANI-6 uncovered microblades (bladelets), microblade cores, and microdrills; leaf-shaped bifaces; shell fishhooks; Olivella and steatite 

beads; and other artifacts. A large oval glass trade bead was 

also found on the site surface (Rozaire, 1978:35). At CA-ANI-8, 

Rozaire (1978) excavated three human burials and recovered 

FIGURE 30. The proportion of lithic assemblages from different 

sources.

TABLE 8. X-ray fluorescence analysis of Anacapa Island obsidian samples. Rb = rubidium, Sr = strontium, Y = yttrium, Zr = zirconium, 

Nb = niobium, Ba = barium, Fe = iron, Mn = manganese, Ti = titanium, NM = not measured.

Trace element concentration Ratios

Site Artifact Rb Sr Y Zr Nb Ba Fe:Mn Fe:Ti Artifact source

CA-ANIa Projectile point 273 ± 4 14 ± 9 51 ± 3 163 ± 7 44 ± 1 4 ± 27 49.4 92.3 Coso (West Sugarloaf)

CA-ANIa Projectile point 171 ± 4 100 ± 9 17 ± 3 192 ± 7 16 ± 1 975 ± 28 44.7 49.7 Casa Diablo (Lookout 

Mountain)

CA-ANIa Projectile point 272 ± 4 10 ± 9 52 ± 3 141 ± 7 51 ± 1 0 ± 27 31.4 105.2 Coso (West Sugarloaf)

CA-ANI-4 Debitage 348 ± 4 14 ± 2 61 ± 2 153 ± 3 51 ± 3 0 ± 35 NM NM Coso (West Sugarloaf)

a

Samples from Rick et al. (2001). Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History catalog numbers from top to bottom for first three artifacts: NA-CA-129-3A-14, NA-CA-129-

3A-15, NA-CA-129-3A-16. Specific site(s) or location(s) are unknown.

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Basalt

Quartzite

Misc.

Anacapa Cico

Polychrome

ANI-2 lithic material (count)

0 5 10 15 20 25

Cico

Basalt

Quartzite

Misc.

Anacapa Cico

Polychrome

ANI-3 lithic material (count)

Debitage Cores Flake tools Hammerstones

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Shale

Obsidian

Basalt

Franciscan

Misc.

 Anacapa Cico

Polychrome

ANI-4 lithic material (count)
NUMBER 52 • 4 3

microblades, shell beads, shell fishhooks, bone gorges and other 

bone tools, and a variety of vertebrate and invertebrate faunal 

remains, with radiocarbon dates suggesting Late and Middle 

Holocene occupations. 

McKusick (1959) described artifacts from his work at Anacapa, as well as material from the 1941 Los Angeles County 

Museum (LACM) expedition. One of the artifacts listed as a 

scraper from CA-ANI-11 on West Anacapa and attributed to 

the LACM collection housed at the University of California, 

Los Angeles, is morphologically similar to the midsection of 

Paleocoastal crescents dated to the Early Holocene and terminal 

Pleistocene on other Channel Islands (Erlandson et al., 2011b). 

Pictures of this artifact suggest that it is a Paleocoastal crescent and, as noted previously, demonstrates that Anacapa was 

likely occupied earlier than the 5,500-year-old dates suggested 

by radiocarbon dating.

FIGURE 31. Obsidian projectile points from Anacapa Island (from left to right, Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History catalog number 

NA-CA-129-3A-14, NA-CA-129-3A-15, and NA-CA-129-3A-16). Rick et al. (2001), Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly.
4 4 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

Rick (2011) reported eight Olivella wall disk beads (four 

with evidence of needle drilling), two utilized/retouched flakes, 

a chert core, a chert flake, and a trapezoidal microblade core at 

Freshwater Cave (CA-ANI-18). Along with radiocarbon dates 

these artifacts suggest a Historic period occupation of Freshwater 

Cave. Finally, Greenwood (1978) and others have reported additional artifacts observed during surface work or from previous 

small-scale testing, but these artifacts don’t differ significantly 

from the materials described here.

DISCUSSION

Collectively, the artifacts from East Anacapa Island demonstrate the production of bone, stone, and shell tools. The 

production of bone gorges demonstrates a tool industry that relied heavily on transport of BTD limb elements from the mainland. These gorges also emphasize the importance of Anacapa 

as a site for intensive fishing, a topic we turn to in Chapter 5, 

which discusses subsistence. The presence of abundant BTD remains raises another question about whether people were based 

permanently on Anacapa Island or used it as a stopover while 

traveling to and from the adjacent mainland. The deer bones 

suggest there was interaction between Anacapa and the mainland, and perhaps people on the mainland even used the island 

as a fishing ground. We return to this topic in Chapter 6.

The stone tools suggest the opposite pattern, with people 

appearing to focus largely on the procurement of raw materials 

from local sources close to both CA-ANI-2 and CA-ANI-4. We 

suspect the chert source adjacent to the site was a possible reason 

for settlement at CA-ANI-2 and other East Anacapa sites. Although the vast majority of the tools at the early Late Holocene 

sites are from local materials, some likely Santa Cruz Island chert 

and an obsidian flake from CA-ANI-4 suggest trade with other 

islands and the mainland interior, respectively. Shell and other 

tools were relatively rare, but the beads generally support an 

early Late Holocene site chronology. Work by other researchers, 

including surface collections and excavated materials, suggest a 

wide range of artifacts from Anacapa, including Late Holocene 

microblade materials and Paleocoastal crescents. In the next 

chapter, we place these data within the context of faunal remains 

and subsistence data from the sites.

FIGURE 32. Olivella cap and barrel beads from site CA-ANI-2 (left bead from Unit 1, Stratum 5; middle bead 

from Unit 2, Stratum 2; and right bead from Unit 1, Stratum 4). Photo by Torben Rick, 2017.

TABLE 9. Olivella biplicata shell beads from site CA-ANI-2, 

East Anacapa Island.

Diameter Height

Provenience Description (mm) (mm)

Unit 1, Stratum 4 Olivella barrel bead 4.9 4.8

Unit 1, Stratum 5 Olivella cap bead 6.1 2.3

Unit 2, Stratum 3 Olivella barrel bead 4.9 5.7
Given its rugged coastline and dearth of safe boat landings, ancient foraging on 

Anacapa Island must have been relatively challenging. Today, fresh water is 

found only in an isolated spring, with no perennial running water on any of the 

island segments. As a result, vegetation is currently dominated by coastal bluff scrub and 

coastal sage scrub, with trees and shrubs limited primarily to two protected gullies on the 

northern slope of West Anacapa and at Shepherd’s Landing on Middle Anacapa (Schoenherr et al., 1999:307). California sea lions and harbor seals are commonly seen in the 

waters and rocks around the island, but the absence of extensive beaches, except at Frenchy’s Cove on West Anacapa, limits the area for pinnipeds to haul out. The rocky coasts 

of Anacapa support rich rocky intertidal and kelp-forest ecosystems, and the island is 

more exposed to the warm, southerly waters of the California Countercurrent than some 

of the other northern Channel Islands (Figure 33). The steep slopes of the island (see 

Chapter 1, Figure 2, and Chapter 2, Figure 11) likely made it difficult for people to bring 

marine resources to sites on the top of the island, although access may have been easier 

in the past. Anacapa Island hosts enormous colonies of nesting birds, especially western 

gulls (Larus occidentalis) and brown pelicans (Pelecanus occidentalis), the latter of which 

use Anacapa and Santa Barbara Islands as a primary nesting area along the West Coast of 

the United States (Schoenherr et al., 1999). Given these issues, how did people forage on 

Anacapa Island, and what animal resources were the focus of their subsistence strategies?

Vertebrate and invertebrate faunal remains recovered from archaeological sites on 

Anacapa Island tell us which animal resources people exploited and provide insight into 

why they spent time on this small island. In this chapter, we describe material recovered 

from sites CA-ANI-2 (3250–2710 cal BP), CA-ANI-3 (3300–3030 cal BP), and CA-ANI-4 

(3700–2460 cal BP) on East Anacapa, as well as material reported from earlier excavations by McKusick (1959) on Middle Anacapa and at sites CA-ANI-6 (630–500 cal BP) 

and CA-ANI-8 (5030–4820 cal BP and later) on West Anacapa (Rozaire, 1978; Sandefur, 

1978; Walker et al., 1978). These collections reveal a diverse assemblage of shellfish, fish, 

birds, and mammals, demonstrating similarities to both the mainland and other northern 

Channel Islands. Ultimately, these data challenge previous perspectives on the role of 

Anacapa Island in past human settlement and subsistence systems.

5 Subsistence, Diet, and 

Environmental Interactions

Leslie A. Reeder-Myers, Kenneth W. Gobalet, 

John M. Hash, Torben C. Rick, and 

Thomas A. Wake
4 6 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

METHODS

The assemblage from CA-ANI-2 includes vertebrate remains 

from two 1 × 1 m units, excavated in arbitrary 10 cm levels and 

screened over 1

⁄8-inch mesh (see Chapter 2). Also included are the 

vertebrate and invertebrate remains from two 0.25 × 0.25 m column samples, excavated in stratigraphic levels and screened over 1

⁄16-

inch mesh. At CA-ANI-3, vertebrate and invertebrate remains were 

recovered from two small bulk samples (5 L each) screened over 

1

⁄16-inch mesh. At CA-ANI-4, vertebrate and invertebrate remains 

come from a 1 × 0.5 m unit excavated in arbitrary 10 cm levels and 

screened over 1

⁄8-inch mesh. This site was badly disturbed, and only 

one of the lower levels (Level 4, 54 to 64 cm below the surface) was 

sufficiently intact for detailed analysis of faunal remains.

The two 1 × 1 m units at CA-ANI-2 were sorted in the field. 

Vertebrate remains greater than 1⁄8 inch were retained for analysis (see Chapter 2). Shellfish with hinges or spires appropriate 

for determining the minimum number of individuals (MNI) were 

counted in the field, and whole California mussel, black abalone, 

and owl limpet valves were measured. Invertebrate remains from 

the 1 × 1 m units were then discarded. For all other samples, 

including the column samples from CA-ANI-2, we followed 

sampling procedures similar to those of other projects on the 

northern Channel Islands (Kennett, 1998; Rick, 2007). All material greater than 1⁄16 inch was returned to the lab. It was then 

screened through 1⁄4-, 1⁄8-, and 1⁄16-inch mesh. 

The entire invertebrate sample greater than 1⁄4 inch was 

sorted and analyzed, and a 25% by weight sample of invertebrates greater than 1⁄8 inch and less than 1⁄4 inch was sorted and 

analyzed by Rick, Reeder-Myers, and students trained in sorting shell midden. All student-identified samples were reviewed 

by either Rick or Reeder-Myers. Material less than 1⁄8 inch was 

saved for future analysis. Shellfish were sorted and identified 

using comparative material at the National Museum of Natural History. Nomenclature for invertebrates follows Integrated 

Taxonomic Information System (ITIS) standards for shellfish and 

other invertebrates.

All nonpiscene vertebrates greater than 1⁄8 inch from 

CA-ANI-2, CA-ANI-3, and CA-ANI-4 were sorted and analyzed by Wake (mammals, birds, and reptiles) one class at a 

time. Gobalet identified the fish remains from CA-ANI-3 and 

CA-ANI-4, and Hash completed the bulk of the identifications 

from CA-ANI-2. The CA-ANI-2 data were published as part 

of a summary of the Native American fishery of the islands of 

Southern California (Turnbull et al., 2015). We also summarize 

fish remains from CA-ANI-6 and CA-ANI-8 that were identified by Steve Craig and reported by Walker et al (1978).

The comparative specimens used in this study include fish 

in Gobalet’s personal collection, which were recently donated to 

the Department of Ichthyology at the California Academy of Sciences. The nomenclature and order of listing for fish in the tables 

follows the standard of the American Fisheries Society (Page et 

al., 2013). The biology of these fish is described in Allen et al. 

(2006), Love (2011), and Kells et al. (2016).

At the University of California, Los Angeles, Wake consulted 

skeletal specimens housed in the Zooarchaeology Laboratory’s 

Comparative Osteological Collection at the Cotsen Institute of 

Archaeology and used the Dickey Bird and Mammal Collection 

to identify the reptile, bird, and mammal remains from CA-ANI-2 

and CA-ANI-4. Nomenclature for the higher vertebrates follows 

ITIS standards for the birds, mammals, and reptiles.

RESULTS OF FAUNAL ANALYSIS

Shellfish

Invertebrate remains are similar to those found elsewhere on 

the northern Channel Islands, dominated by California mussel 

with contributions from black abalone, sea urchin, and a number 

of other species (Figure 34). The assemblage at CA-ANI-2 (Table 

10) is dominated by California mussel (81.7% by weight, 83.1% 

by MNI), followed by black abalone (3.0% by weight, 2.6% 

by MNI). Various species of limpets are also common (0.6% by 

weight, 10.6% by MNI). In all samples from Anacapa, limpet 

MNI is somewhat inflated by the frequency of extremely small 

(<10 mm) limpets. Both column samples at CA-ANI-2 were excavated stratigraphically, and results suggest minimal differences 

in shellfish composition across the strata (Figure 35).

California mussel (79.3% by weight, 72.7% by MNI) is also 

the most abundant shellfish at CA-ANI-3 (Table 11), followed by 

black abalone (6.2% by weight, 5.1% by MNI), undifferentiated 

abalone (1.5% by weight, 3.0% by MNI), and owl limpets (1.5% 

FIGURE 33. Average sea-surface temperature in the Southern California Bight, including the general directions of the cool, northerly 

California Current and warm, southerly California Countercurrent. 

Note the warmer waters surrounding Anacapa Island.
NUMBER 52 • 4 7

by weight, 6.1% by MNI). The two samples from CA-ANI-3 

were chronologically distinct (see Chapter 2), but differences in 

the composition of these two samples are minimal (Table 11, 

Figure 34). Because of severe disturbance in the upper portion 

of CA-ANI-4, we analyzed only the lowest stratum, which appeared to be less fragmented and more intact. The results are 

very similar to those for the other sites (Table 12), including 

(in rank order) California mussel (82.6% by weight, 86.7% by 

MNI), black abalone (6.4% by weight, 0.4% by MNI), and owl 

limpets (0.5% by weight, 3.2% by MNI; Table 12, Figure 34).

We also measured whole California mussel, black abalone, 

and owl limpet shells from Unit 1 at CA-ANI-2 to document possible human predation pressure on these shellfish species (Erlandson et al., 2008, 2011a). Unfortunately, the other sites and units 

did not yield enough whole shellfish for meaningful analysis. Because of potential issues with stratigraphic mixing at CA-ANI-2 

and uneven sample sizes throughout the different levels in Unit 1, 

we lumped all measurements together for an average shell length 

for each species. Fifty-four black abalone shells produced an average of 65.6 mm, 85 whole owl limpet shells produced an average 

of 35.8 mm, and 674 California mussel shells produced an average of 45.7 mm. The California mussel measurements are roughly 

comparable to similarly aged samples from San Miguel Island, 

but about 4 to 7 mm larger than both the Middle (n = 15 assemblages) and Late (n = 12 assemblages) Holocene averages for 

all assemblages from San Miguel Island (Erlandson et al., 2008). 

The black abalone average from CA-ANI-2 is smaller than both 

the Middle (n = 9 assemblages) and Late (n = 7 assemblages) 

Holocene averages for San Miguel Island, including all but two 

Late Holocene assemblages. The owl limpet measurements from 

CA-ANI-2 are also smaller than all but one of 19 trans-Holocene 

assemblages from San Miguel Island and are about 6 mm smaller 

than the one similarly aged sample (Erlandson et al., 2011a). This 

variability could be the result of differing environmental conditions since Anacapa and San Miguel are in parts of the Santa 

Barbara Channel with different temperatures and currents (Figure 33). Future research on Anacapa shellfish size could aid in the 

understanding of the effects of environmental and anthropogenic 

factors on shellfish size.

Vertebrates

Although shellfish remains on East Anacapa are similar in 

diversity to other northern Channel Island shell middens of a 

similar age (see the following Discussion), vertebrate remains 

are remarkably diverse and suggest that people who spent time 

on Anacapa Island maintained a complex subsistence system. 

CA-ANI-2 is particularly interesting, with at least 13 species 

of fish, 15 species of birds, one reptile, seven species of marine 

mammals, and three species of terrestrial mammals (excluding 

exotics and undifferentiated fish; number of identified specimens 

[NISP] = 2,931). At CA-ANI-3, we identified at least 10 species 

of fish, three species of birds, and two species of marine mammal (NISP = 369). CA-ANI-4 produced 11 species of fish, six 

species of birds, three species of marine mammal, and two species of terrestrial mammals (excluding exotics, NISP = 1,458). 

Although we have less information about analyses from previous 

excavations on West Anacapa, it appears that species richness 

was similar. 

California sheephead (Semicossyphus pulcher) is the most 

common fish by NISP at all three excavated sites (42.2% at 

CA-ANI-2, 54.1% at CA-ANI-3, and 48.6% at CA-ANI-4). 

Various surfperches (15.0% at CA-ANI-2, 25.9% at CA-ANI-3, 

and 26.3% at CA-ANI-4) were also abundant (Table 13). Blacksmith (Chromis punctipinnis) was common at CA-ANI-2 (8.4% 

of NISP) and CA-ANI-4 (8.4% of NISP) but was not identified 

at CA-ANI-3. Rockfish (Sebastes spp.) remains were extremely 

common at CA-ANI-2 (25.3% of NISP) but rare at CA-ANI-4 

(1.1% of NISP) and not identified at CA-ANI-3. Fish diversity 

was similar at CA-ANI-6 and CA-ANI-8 reported by Walker et 

al. (1978) for West Anacapa, including California sheephead, 

various surfperches, rockfishes, and cabezon (Scorpaenichthys 

marmoratus). Species identified from the West Anacapa sites 

but not on East Anacapa include lingcod (Ophiodon elongatus), 

yellowtail jack (Seriola lalandi), jack mackerel (Trachurus symmetricus), and yellowfin croaker (Umbrina roncador; Rozaire, 

1978; Walker et al., 1978).

There is greater variability between sites in the recovered 

bird remains (Table 14). At CA-ANI-2, albatross species make 

up half of the identified specimens, especially short-tailed albatross (Phoebastria albatrus, NISP = 46, 28.4% of all birds excluding undifferentiated birds), followed by cormorants (genus 

Phalacrocorax, NISP = 45, 27.8%). Among the cormorants, the 

pelagic cormorant (Phalacrocorax pelagicus, NISP = 16, 9.9%) 

and Brandt’s cormorant (Phalacrocorax penicillatus, NISP = 6, 

FIGURE 34. Relative contribution of major shellfish by weight for 

excavation units on East Anacapa Island. Cal. = California; Undiff = 

undifferentiated.

Sample 

CA-ANI-4

2

Sample 

CA-ANI-3

1

Sample 

CA-ANI-3

2

Sample 

CA-ANI-2

1

CA-ANI-2

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Undiff

Other

Barnacle

Sea urchin

Black abalone

Cal. mussel

Percent Shell Weight
TABLE 10. Weight (Wt) and minimum number of individuals (MNI) of shellfish from site CA-ANI-2. A dash (—) indicates not applicable; undiff. = undifferentiated.

Unit 1 column Unit 2 column CA-ANI-2 total

Taxon Common name Wt (g) % Wt MNI % MNI Wt (g) % Wt MNI % MNI Wt (g) % Wt MNI % MNI

Bivalvia Clam, undiff. 0.7 <0.1 0 0.0 — — — — 0.7 <0.1 0 0.0

Brachyura Crab, undiff. 1.1 <0.1 0 0.0 0.4 <0.1 0 0.0 1.5 <0.1 0 0.0

Cirripedia Barnacle, undiff. 1,096.3 7.8 0 0.0 311.5 6.2 0 0.0 1,407.8 7.4 0 0.0

Fissurella volcano Volcano limpet — — — — 0.2 <0.1 2 0.3 0.2 <0.1 2 0.1

Gastropoda Gastropod, undiff. — — — — 0.4 <0.1 5 0.6 0.4 <0.1 5 0.2

Gastropoda Land snail, undiff. 1.4 <0.1 8 0.5 4.6 0.1 18 2.3 6.0 <0.1 26 1.1

Gastropoda Limpet, undiff. 19.6 0.1 122 8.0 7.7 0.2 84 10.7 27.3 0.1 206 8.9

Haliotis cracherodii Black abalone 354.8 2.5 31 2.0 217.1 4.3 28 3.6 571.9 3.0 59 2.6

Haliotis sp. Abalone, undiff. 1.3 <0.1 0 0.0 — — — — 1.3 <0.1 — —Lottia gigantea Owl limpet 7.0 <0.1 0 0.0 75.5 1.5 25 3.2 82.4 0.4 25 1.1

Megathura crenulata Giant keyhole limpet 4.2 <0.1 2 0.1 6.4 0.1 10 1.3 10.6 0.1 12 0.5

Mollusca Nacre, undiff. 469.8 3.4 0 0.0 138.3 2.8 0 0.0 608.0 3.2 0 0.0

Mollusca Shell, undiff. 226.5 1.6 0 0.0 14.5 0.3 0 0.0 240.9 1.3 0 0.0

Mytilidae Mussel, undiff. 4.6 <0.1 0 0.0 — — — — 4.6 <0.1 0 0.0

Mytilus californianus California mussel 11,509.3 82.2 1,325 86.9 4,008.2 80.2 592 75.6 1,5517.5 81.7 1,917 83.1

Neobernaya spadicea Chestnut cowry 2.2 <0.1 1 0.1 — — — — 2.2 <0.1 1 <0.1

Norrisia norrisi Norris’s top snail — — — — 14.4 0.3 1 0.1 14.4 0.1 1 <0.1

Olivella biplicata Purple olive shell 0.6 <0.1 1 0.1 — — — — 0.6Pollicipes polymerus Gooseneck barnacle 78.9 0.6 0 0.0 77.1 1.5 0 0.0 156.0 0.8 0 0.0

Polyplacophora Chiton, undiff. 8.2 0.1 0 0.0 34.4 0.7 0 0.0 42.6 0.2 0 0.0

Septifer bifurcatus Platform mussel 16.1 0.1 32 2.1 5.8 0.1 10 1.3 21.9 0.1 42 1.8

Strongylocentrotus sp. Sea urchin 179.0 1.3 0 0.0 60.5 1.2 0 0.0 239.5 1.3 0 0.0

Tegula funebralis Black turban 1.0 <0.1 1 0.1 9.0 0.2 8 1.0 10.0 0.1 9 0.4

Tegula sp. Turban, undiff. 0.6 <0.1 1 <0.1 — — — — 0.6 <0.1 1 <0.1

Vermetidae Tube worm, undiff. 21.2 0.2 0 0.0 10.0 0.2 0 0.0 31.2 0.2 0 0.0

Total shellfish 14,004.4 100.0 1,524 100.0 4,996 100.0 783 100.0 1,9000.1 100.0 2,306 100.0
NUMBER 52 • 4 9

3.7%) are most common. Members of the Laridae (gulls and 

terns) make up 9.3% (NISP = 15) of the CA-ANI-2 assemblage, 

whereas only seven specimens (4.3%) were identified to the Alcidae family (auks, auklets, and murrelets). At CA-ANI-3, the 

relatively small sample is dominated by cormorants (NISP = 7), 

with both Brandt’s and pelagic cormorants identified. One Cassin’s auklet (Ptychoramphus aleuticus) specimen was identified 

at CA-ANI-3 as well. At CA-ANI-4, on the other hand, the alcids are most common (NISP = 48, 60.8%), especially Cassin’s 

auklet (NISP = 44, 55.7%), whereas no albatross were found 

in the assemblage. Cormorants were well represented (NISP = 

25, 31.6%) but dominated by Brandt’s cormorant (NISP = 13, 

16.5%). Only three bones were identified as Laridae (3.8% of 

NISP). At both CA-ANI-2 and CA-ANI-4, a single specimen 

was identified as pelican. Relatively few birds were identified 

at CA-ANI-6 and CA-ANI-8 on West Anacapa, including a 

member of the duck family, the pelagic cormorant and Brandt’s 

cormorant, an albatross, and Cassin’s auklet (Rozaire, 1978; 

Walker et al., 1978). 

Assemblages of marine mammals at all three sites are dominated by pinnipeds, with smaller contributions from sea otters 

and cetaceans, especially dolphins (Table 15). Harbor seals 

(Phoca vitulina) are the most common pinniped at CA-ANI-2 

(NISP = 197, 27.9% of identified marine mammals) and also 

include one specimen at CA-ANI-3. California sea lions (Zalophus californianus, NISP = 11, 1.6%), Guadalupe fur seals (Arctocephalus townsendi, NISP = 1, 0.1%), and northern elephant 

seals (Mirounga angustirostris, NISP = 1, 0.1%) were also present at CA-ANI-2. At CA-ANI-4, harbor seals were again the most 

common marine mammal (NISP = 37, 35.6%), followed by California sea lions (NISP = 7, 6.7%). California sea otters (Enhydra 

lutris) were more common at CA-ANI-2 (NISP = 54, 7.6%) than 

at CA-ANI-4 (NISP = 3, 2.9%), and a single specimen was also 

present in the bulk sample at CA-ANI-3. Dolphins and porpoises 

were relatively rare at CA-ANI-2 (NISP = 17, 2.4%) but included 

several individuals and possibly a baleen whale. Cetaceans were 

more common at CA-ANI-4 (NISP = 14, 13.5%), but none could 

be identified to a more exclusive taxon. On West Anacapa, Rozaire (1978) reported the remains of Guadalupe fur seals, harbor 

seals, northern elephant seals, California sea lions, and dolphins 

from CA-ANI-6 and CA-ANI-8.

The large terrestrial mammal assemblage at CA-ANI-2 is 

composed almost exclusively of black-tailed deer (NISP = 190, 

95.5%), with most specimens being metapodials or other long 

bones used for tool making (see Chapter 4). A few specimens 

identified as island fox (Urocyon littoralis, NISP = 6, 3.0%) were 

also recovered from CA-ANI-2. The island fox, endemic to the 

Channel Islands, is not currently found on any of the three sections of Anacapa Island (Hofman et al., 2016). Black-tailed deer 

dominate the terrestrial mammal specimens from CA-ANI-2 

(NISP = 16, 69.6%). Deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus) 

bones were present at CA-ANI-4 (NISP = 4, 17.4%), and a single 

deer mouse bone was found at CA-ANI-2. No foxes were identified at CA-ANI-3 or CA-ANI-4. On West Anacapa, a single artiodactyl metapodial at CA-ANI-8 is the only terrestrial mammal 

bone in the sample (Sandefur, 1978). 

Invasive species include a largely complete skeleton of a 

European rabbit at CA-ANI-2, where the animal’s burrow was 

evident in the unit sidewall during excavation and excavated 

separately from the rest of the unit (see Chapter 2). Two intrusive bones from a cow, one from a sheep or goat, and one 

from a rabbit were recovered in the sample from CA-ANI-4. 

At CA-ANI-8, Rozaire (1978) reported the bones of a juvenile 

goat (NISP = 73, MNI = 1) from near the top of Square 3, a European rabbit (NISP = 10, MNI = 1) near the top of Square 8, 

and another European rabbit near the bottom of Square 13, 

suggesting that, like CA-ANI-4, this site suffered stratigraphic 

mixing and historical disturbances. 

FIGURE 35. Relative contribution of major shellfish by weight for 

each stratum (Strat.) at site CA-ANI-2, as determined from column 

sample 1 (top) and column sample 2 (bottom). Cal. = California; 

Undiff = undifferentiated.

Strat. 1 Strat. 2 Lens 2A Strat. 3 Strat. 4

Undiff

Other

Barnacle

Sea urchin

Black abalone

Cal. mussel

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Percent Shell Weight

CA-ANI-2 Column Sample 1

Strat. 1 Strat. 2 Strat. 3 Strat. 4

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Percent Shell Weight

CA-ANI-2 Column Sample 2

Undiff

Other

Barnacle

Sea urchin

Black abalone

Cal. mussel
TABLE 11. Weight (Wt) and minimum number of individuals (MNI) of shellfish from site CA-ANI-3. A dash (—) indicates not applicable; undiff. = undifferentiated.

Bulk sample 1 Bulk sample 2 CA-ANI-3 total

Taxon Common name Wt (g) % Wt MNI % MNI Wt (g) % Wt MNI % MNI Wt (g) % Wt MNI % MNI

Brachyura Crab, undiff. — — — — <0.1 <0.1 0 0.0 <0.1 <0.1 0 0.0Cirripedia Barnacle, undiff. 8.5 1.0 0 0.0 20.3 4.4 0 0.0 28.8 2.2 0 0.0Gastropoda Land snail, undiff. 0.6 <0.1 2 4.0 1.0 0.2 2 4.1 1.6 0.1 4 4.0Gastropoda Limpet, undiff. — — — — 0.6 0.1 6 12.2 0.6 0.0 6 6.1Haliotis cracherodii Black abalone 55.4 6.4 4 8.0 26.7 5.7 1 2.0 82.1 6.2 5 5.1Haliotis sp. Abalone, undiff. 17.9 2.1 1 2.0 1.7 0.4 2 4.1 19.6 1.5 3 3.0Lottia gigantea Owl limpet 10.3 1.2 3 6.0 9.9 2.1 3 6.1 20.3 1.5 6 6.1Mollusca Nacre, undiff. 39.6 4.6 0 0.0 43.6 9.4 0 0.0 83.2 6.2 0 0.0Mollusca Shell, undiff. 14.2 1.6 0 0.0 1.0 0.2 0 0.0 15.2 1.1 0 0.0Mytilus californianus California mussel 710.6 81.8 38 76.0 347.0 74.6 34 69.4 1,057.5 79.3 72 72.7

Neobernaya spadicea Chestnut cowry 3.5 0.4 1 2.0 — — — — 3.5 0.3 1 1.0Pollicipes polymerus Gooseneck barnacle 4.0 0.5 0 0.0 3.1 0.7 0 0.0 7.1 0.5 0 0.0Polyplacophora Chiton, undiff. 1.1 0.1 0 0.0 — — — — 1.1 0.1 0 0.0Septifer bifurcatus Platform mussel — — — — 0.1 0.0 1 2.0 0.1 0.0 1 1.0Strongylocentrotus sp. Sea urchin, undiff. 1.2 0.1 0 0.0 3.4 0.7 0 0.0 4.6 0.3 0 0.0Tegula funebralis Black turban 1.4 0.2 1 2.0 — — — — 1.4 0.1 1 1.0Vermetidae Tube worm, undiff. 0.5 <0.1 0 0.0 6.6 1.4 0 0.0 7.1 0.5 0 0.0Total shellfish 868.8 — 50 — 465 — 49 — 1,333.8 — 99 —
NUMBER 52 • 5 1

DISCUSSION

All of the most commonly identified shellfish species from 

Anacapa Island middens (California mussel, black abalone, and 

owl limpets) and even most of the less common species (sea urchin, turban, and platform mussel) live in the rocky intertidal 

zone. Shellfish from sandy shore or bay environments, which are 

rare around Anacapa Island’s rocky shore, are virtually absent 

from the sample, suggesting shellfish were largely collected locally, near where they were consumed. Most of the common finfish at the three East Anacapa sites (i.e., California sheephead, 

surfperch, rockfish, blacksmith, California scorpionfish, and 

señorita) are all found in rocky intertidal, subtidal, and kelpforest ecosystems. Small numbers of open-water fish such as 

Pacific chub mackerel and Pacific bonito are present in the assemblage, as are bottom-dwelling fish such as midshipmen. The 

presence of cetaceans may also indicate a broader foraging strategy, but they are similarly infrequent.

The middens on East Anacapa discussed here were deposited between 3700 and 2500 cal BP, during a period of widespread subsistence change on the northern Channel Islands 

near the beginning of a relatively cold and unstable period 

in marine climate (see Kennett and Kennett, 2000; Kennett, 

2005). Neither the bow and arrow nor the plank canoe are 

thought to have been used during this period (Erlandson, 1997; 

Bernard, 2004; Glassow et al., 2007). The circular fishhook 

was introduced at the very end of this period around ~2,500 

years ago (Rick et al., 2002), and the CA-ANI-2 and CA-ANI-4 

artifact assemblages indicate only the use of bone gorges for 

fishing (see Chapter 4). Red abalone middens are common at 

some sites on San Miguel and Santa Rosa Islands during the 

earliest occupation of CA-ANI-4 (Braje, 2007; Glassow et al., 

2007; Braje et al., 2009), but no such sites have been identified on Anacapa during any time period, and red abalones are 

absent in the three assemblages reported in this chapter (Tables 

10–12). The warmer surface waters around Anacapa may not 

have supported large red abalone populations close enough to 

the shore for human harvest.

McKusick (1959) presented the only other shellfish data 

from Anacapa Island sites, including data from surface scrapes 

or small units at sites on Middle and West Anacapa. Because of 

differences in excavation and sampling strategies our data are 

not directly comparable to McKusick’s, but both studies document abundant California mussels, black abalones, and limpets. 

These data suggest that during the end of the Middle Holocene 

and the beginning of the Late Holocene people on Anacapa were 

primarily gathering rocky intertidal shellfish from nearshore 

habitats that were readily available on the island. 

TABLE 12. Weight (Wt) and minimum number of individuals (MNI) of shellfish from site CA-ANI-4, 

Level 4. Undiff. = undifferentiated.

Taxon Common name Wt (g) % Wt MNI % MNI

Calliostoma sp. Calliostoma top shell 0.5 0.0 0 0.0

Cirripedia Barnacle, undiff. 869.8 4.4 0 0.0

Crassadoma gigantea Giant rock scallop 15.2 0.1 0 0.0

Gastropoda Land snail, undiff. 3.3 0.0 4 0.4

Gastropoda Limpet, undiff. 21.0 0.1 64 7.0

Fissurella volcano Volcano limpet 0.7 0.0 5 0.5

Haliotis cracherodii Black abalone 1,262.0 6.4 4 0.4

Lottia gigantea Owl limpet 102.3 0.5 29 3.2

Megathura crenulata Giant keyhole limpet 0.9 0.0 5 0.5

Mollusca Nacre, undiff. 680.2 3.5 0 0.0

Mollusca Shell, undiff. 7.5 0.0 0 0.0

Mytilus californianus California mussel 16,280.5 82.6 794 86.7

Norrisia norrisii Norris’s top snail 61.4 0.3 5 0.5

Nucella sp. Dog whelk 0.3 0.0 1 0.1

Olivella biplicata Purple olive shell 1.5 0.0 2 0.2

Pollicipes polymerus Gooseneck barnacle 150.4 0.8 0 0.0

Polyplacophora Chiton, undiff. 22.5 0.1 0 0.0

Strongylocentrotus sp. Sea urchin 166.2 0.8 0 0.0

Tegula sp. Turban, undiff. 22.7 0.1 3 0.3

Vermetidae Tube worm, undiff. 45.1 0.2 0 0.0

Total shellfish 19,714 100.0 916 100.0
5 2 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

TABLE 13. Number of identified specimens (NISP) for fish remains from Anacapa Island sites. Order and nomenclature follow Page et 

al. (2013). An X identifies taxa that were present but for which the precise NISP is not known. Parenthetical numbers for site CA-ANI-8 

come from a partial analysis of Test Pit 13 (Walker et al., 1978: tab. 36) but might not include all remains identified. A dash (—) indicates not identified in this deposit.

CA-ANI-2 CA-ANI-3 CA-ANI-4

Taxon Common name NISP NISP NISP CA-ANI-6 CA-ANI-8

Elasmobranchiomorphi Sharks, skates, rays — — — — X (1)

Triakidae Houndsharks — — 2 — —

Actinopterygii Ray-finned fishes, undiff. >1,000 174 120 n/a n/a

Muraenidae Morays — — — — —

Gymnothorax sp. Moray 2 — — — —

Gymnothorax mordax California moray — — — X —

Batrachoididae Toadfishes — — — — —

Porichthys sp. Plainfin or specklefin midshipman — 1 — — —

Atherinopsidae New World silversides 9 — — — —

Atherinops affinis Topsmelt 1 — — — —

Scorpaenidae Scorpionfishes — 9 12 — —

Scorpaena guttata California scorpionfish 3 — — — —

Sebastes sp. Rockfishes 205 — 2 X X (25)

Hexagrammidae Greenlings 1 — — — —

Ophiodon elongatus Lingcod — — — X X

Cottidae Sculpins — — — — —

Scorpaenichthys marmoratus Cabezon 19 1 2 — X

Epinephelidae Groupers — 1 — — —

Serranidae Sea basses — — — — —

Paralabrax sp. Sea basses 1 — 8 — —

Carangidae Jacks — — — X —

Seriola lalandi Yellowtail jack — — — X —

Trachurus symmetricus Jack mackerel — — — X —

Sciaenidae Drums and croakers — — — — X (1)

Umbrina roncador Yellowfin croaker — — — X —

Embiotocidae Surfperches 120 20 37 X X (6)

Damalichthys vacca Pile perch 2 2 5 X —

Embiotoca sp. Striped seaperch or black perch — — 5 — —

Pomacentridae Damselfishes — 1 — — —

Chromis punctipinnis Blacksmith 68 — 15 — —

Hypsypops rubicundus Garibaldi (possibly) — — 2 — —

Labridae Wrasses 1 — — — —

Oxyjulis californica Señorita 31 1 1 — —

Semicossyphus pulcher Sheephead 342 46 87 — X (16)

Stichaeidae Pricklebacks — — — — —

Cebidichthys violaceus Monkeyface prickleback — 1 — — —

Clinidae Blennies 1 — — — —

Heterostichus rostratus Giant kelpfish 4 2 — — —

Sphyraenidae Barracudas — — — — —

Sphyraena argentea Pacific barracuda — — 1 — —

Scombridae Mackerels — — — — —

Sarda sp. Bonito — — — X —

Scomber japonicus Chub mackerel 1 — — X —

Totala 811 85 179 — — 

a

Total does not include undifferentiated fish bones (Actinopterygii).
NUMBER 52 • 5 3

TABLE 14. Number of identified specimens (NISP) for bird and reptile remains from Anacapa Island sites. An X identifies taxa that were 

present but for which precise NISP is not known. A dash (—) indicates not applicable; undiff. = undifferentiated.

Group and taxon Common name CA-ANI-2 CA-ANI-3 CA-ANI-4 CA-ANI-6 CA-ANI-8

Birds

Alcidae Auklets and murrelets

Ptychoramphus aleuticus Cassin’s auklet 5 1 44 X X

Synthliboramphus sp. Murrelet, undiff. 1 — — — —

Undifferentiated Undiff. — — 3 — —

Undifferentiated Auklet, undiff. — — 1 — —

Undifferentiated Auklet/murrelet, undiff. 1 — — — —

Subtotal 7 1 48 X X

Anatidae Ducks, geese, and swans

Branta bernicla Black brant — — 1 — —

Melanitta sp. Scoter, undiff. — — 1 — —

Undifferentiated Duck undiff. — — — — X

Subtotal 0 — 2 — X

Ardeidae Wading birds

Ardea sp. Heron, undiff. 1 — — — —

Diomedeidae Albatrosses

Phoebastria albatrus Short-tailed albatross 46 — — — —

Phoebastria cf. albatrus Albatross, possibly short-tailed 12 — — — —

Phoebastria nigripes Black-footed albatross 1 — — — —

Phoebastria sp. Albatross, undiff. 22 — — X X

Subtotal 81 — 0 X X

Laridae (subtotal) Gulls and terns

Larus cf. heermanni Gull, possibly Heerman’s 7 — — — —

Larus sp. Gull, undiff. 7 — 3 — —

Sterna sp. Tern, undiff. 1 — — — —

Subtotal 15 — 3 — —

Pandionidae Osprey

Pandion haliaetus Osprey 1 — — — —

Pelecanidae Pelicans

Pelecanus occidentalis Brown pelican 1 — — — —

Pelecanus sp. Pelican, undiff. — — 1 — —

Subtotal 1 — 1 — —

Phalacrocoracidae Cormorants

Phalacrocorax auritus Double-crested cormorant 1 — — — —

Phalacrocorax pelagicus Pelagic cormorant 16 2 — X X

Phalacrocorax penicillatus Brandt’s cormorant 6 4 13 X X

Phalacrocorax sp. Cormorant, undiff. 22 1 12 — —

Subtotal 45 7 25 X X

Phasianidae Pheasants, quails, etc.

Gallus gallus Chicken 2 — — — —

Procellariidae Shearwaters, petrels, and fulmars

Ardenna sp. Shearwater, undiff. 4 — — — —

Fulmarus glacialis Northern fulmar 4 — — — —

Scolopacidae Medium shorebird, undiff. 1 — — — —

Subtotal 9 — 0 — —

Undifferentiated birds (subtotal)

Aves, undiff. Bird, undiff. 201 4 151 — —

Aves, medium Medium bird, undiff. 1 — 2 — —

Aves, large Large bird, undiff. 97 — — — —

Aves, very large Very large bird, undiff. 1 — — — —

Subtotal 300 4 153 — —

Total birds 462 12 232 — —

Reptiles

Squamata 

Elgaria multicarinata Southern alligator lizard 1 — — — —

Total reptiles 1 — — — —
5 4 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

TABLE 15. Number of identified specimens (NISP) for terrestrial and marine mammal remains from Anacapa Island sites. An X identifies taxa that were present but for which precise NISP is not known. A dash (—) indicates not applicable; undiff. = undifferentiated.

Group and taxon Common name CA-ANI-2 CA-ANI-3 CA-ANI-4 CA-ANI-6 CA-ANI-8

Undifferentiated mammals 

Mammalia Mammal, undiff. 392 89 219 — 370

Mammalia Large mammal, undiff 32 — — — —

Subtotal 424 89 219 — 370

Marine mammals

Cetacea

 Cetacea cf. Mysticeti Whale, possibly baleen 1 — — — —

 Delphinidae Dolphin, undiff. 4 — — — 1

 Delphinus sp. Dolphin, undiff. 5 — — — —

 Lagenorhynchus obliquidens Pacific white-sided dolphin — — — X —

 Phocoena phocoena Pacific harbor porpoise — — — — 1

 Tursiops truncatus Bottlenose dolphin 2 — — — —

 Undifferentiated Whale, undiff. 5 — 14 — —

 Subtotal 17 — 14 X 2

Mustelidae

 Enhydra lutris Sea otter 54 1 3 — —

Pinnipedia

 Arctocephalinae Fur seals, undiff. 1 — — — —

 Arctocephalus townsendi Guadalupe fur seal 1 — — X 1

 Mirounga angustirostris Northern elephant seal 1 — — X 1

 Otariidae Eared seals, undiff. 36 — 19 — —

 Phoca vitulina Harbor seal 197 1 37 X 1

 Phocidae Earless seal, undiff. 26 — 1 — 1

 Zalophus californianus California sea lion 11 — 7 — 4

 Undifferentiated Seals/sea lions, undiff. 362 1 23 — —

 Subtotal 635 2 87 X 8

Undifferentiated Marine mammal, undiff. 328 4 539 — —

Total marine mammals 1,034 7 643 X 10

Terrestrial mammals 

Artiodactyla

 Cervidae Deer, undiff. — — 12 — —

 Odocoileus hemionus Black-tailed deer 190 — 4 — —

 Undifferentiated Even-toed ungulate, undiff. — — 2 — 1

 Subtotal 190 — 18 — 1

Canidae 

 Urocyon littoralis Island fox 6 — — — —

 Undifferentiated Fox/dog, undiff. 1 — — — —

 Subtotal 7 — — — —

Cricetidae

 Peromyscus maniculatus Deer mouse 2 — 4 — —

Undifferentiated Terrestrial mammal, undiff. — 2 39 — —

Total terrestrial mammals 199 2 61 — 1

Introduced mammals

Bos taurus Cow — — 2 — —

Caprinae Sheep/goat, undiff. — — 1 — 73

Oryctolagus cuniculus European rabbit 51 — 1 — 11

Subtotal 51 — 4 — 84

Total mammals 1,708 98 927 — 465
NUMBER 52 • 5 5

Other than a few red abalone middens in the western 

reaches of the northern Channel Islands, most other sites occupied between 4500 and 2500 cal BP (Table 16, Figure 36) have 

shellfish assemblages dominated by California mussel, similar to 

those at the three Anacapa Island sites discussed here (see Braje 

et al., 2012). However, some sites on San Miguel Island—which 

is more exposed to the cool California Current than any of the 

other islands—contain greater shellfish diversity and relatively 

high proportions of red abalone (Braje, 2007, 2010; Glassow 

et al., 2007; Rick, 2007; Braje et al., 2012). The exceptions to 

this are CA-SMI-87, with two components dating to 3200 to 

2860 and 2860 to 2340 cal BP, and deposits at CA-SMI-603 and 

CA-SMI-261, with similar ages, which have limited red abalone 

components and are more similar to the Anacapa Island sites 

(Vellanoweth et al., 2002b; Rick, 2007; Ainis et al., 2011). Some 

Santa Cruz Island middens at Christy Beach during the early part 

of the Late Holocene contain small, but significant, proportions 

of Pismo clam (Thakar, 2012), but these clams were likely not 

available or rare along the rocky shores of Anacapa Island. Perry 

and Hoppa (2012) discuss the importance of Lithopoma undosa (wavy top turban snail) in some sites on eastern Santa Cruz 

Island. This snail’s absence in Anacapa’s archaeological record, 

despite the island’s warm waters, suggests that people were not 

taking this species from kelp forests or other habitats that were 

exploited and available on Santa Cruz Island. 

The vertebrate assemblages at the Anacapa Island sites are 

generally more surprising than the invertebrates. Most northern 

Channel Island sites that date to the end of the Middle Holocene 

or early Late Holocene are dominated by fish remains, with few 

birds or mammals. When compared with data reported from 

other contemporaneous northern Channel Island sites, Anacapa 

sites have a relatively high frequency and diversity of vertebrate 

remains (Figure 37). Vertebrate frequency at CA-SMI-603, Stratum 4 on San Miguel Island is much higher than the Anacapa 

sites, but this site is a cave with extremely rich deposits and 

excellent preservation. CA-SCRI-236 on Santa Cruz Island is 

similar to CA-ANI-2 in overall NISP but is not entirely comparable because its vertebrate remains were recovered from floated 

samples screened over 1⁄16-inch mesh, rather than the dry 1⁄8-inch 

mesh used on Anacapa. Even the numerically larger samples 

from CA-SCRI-236 have lower richness in terms of both vertebrate classes and identified species. 

Fish remains from Anacapa Island are comparable to those 

from other sites of similar antiquity, with a focus on surfperch, 

rockfish, and California sheephead (Rick, 2007; Braje, 2010; 

Turnbull et al., 2015). Fish remains are relatively similar among 

Late Holocene sites across the northern Channel Islands, although we caution that the available sample from Anacapa Island is relatively small (i.e., this volume and Walker et al., 1978). 

In a comparison of Native American fisheries on the Channel 

Islands and Isla Cedros, including one of the sites reported here, 

Turnbull et al. (2015) concluded that the Native American fisheries were primarily inshore and at predictable localities, a proposition that agrees with all the evidence from the Anacapa sites. 

CA-ANI-2, -3, and -4 are notable for the abundance of labrid 

remains, especially California sheephead, which are abundant in 

the warmer waters of Santa Cruz, Anacapa, and some of the 

southern Channel Islands (see Braje et al., 2017) and are one of 

the most commonly identified species found in Channel Island 

middens in general (Turnbull et al., 2015).

The Anacapa Island sites are distinguished by the diversity 

of bird, terrestrial mammal, and marine mammal remains recovered. The presence of large numbers of birds in the Anacapa 

middens suggests that the island was an important habitat for 

nesting birds in the past, as it is today. Some of the species that 

compose the archaeological bird assemblages, however, are quite 

different from those present today on Anacapa. The historical 

introduction of black rats to Anacapa Island devastated small 

ground-nesting bird populations, especially alcids and petrels. 

Introduced rabbits competed for nesting sites and, along with 

sheep, may have resulted in erosion and habitat alteration that 

could have reduced habitat for seabirds (McChesney and Tershy, 1998). Pushed to the verge of extinction by DDT exposure, 

brown pelican populations have steadily rebounded since the 

1980s and were taken off the endangered species list in 2009 

(Anderson et al., 2013). The National Park Service reports that 

between 1969 and 1984 there was an average of 900 brown pelican nest attempts per year, but between 1985 and 2006, the mean 

was 4,600 nests per year (National Park Service, 2016a). Western gull populations on Anacapa are currently strong, with some 

10,000 gulls occurring during nesting season annually between 

May and July (National Park Service, 2016b). The eradication of 

rats and other invaders in 2001 has also allowed smaller species 

such as the ashy storm petrel to begin nesting on Anacapa again 

(Harvey et al., 2016; Newton et al., 2016). 

Despite large modern populations of gulls and pelicans, these 

species are rare in the known archaeological faunal assemblages 

of Anacapa Island, including sites on East and West Anacapa 

(Table 14). Alcids (murrelets, auks, and auklets), cormorants, 

and albatross dominate instead. Since isotopic seasonality data 

from CA-ANI-2 indicate that people were on the island during 

all seasons of the year (Chapter 3), seasonality of site occupation 

is not likely a factor in the dearth of gull and/or pelican bone. On 

the basis of the archaeological data it appears that the bird populations of Anacapa Island have significantly restructured since 

the early part of the Late Holocene. Larger species that were less 

threatened by rats may have had a competitive advantage on 

Anacapa Island during the twentieth century, whereas gulls that 

can forage widely may have been able to expand their populations concomitant with growing urban refuse on the mainland 

(Pierotti and Annett, 2001). Although the bird assemblages from 

Anacapa suggest that this island has been an important nesting 

site for seabirds throughout the Late Holocene, the massive nesting populations of gulls, and possibly pelicans, may be relatively 

recent historical anomalies, a hypothesis that requires additional 

analysis and investigation.

The number and presence of marine mammals at Anacapa 

Island sites are also exceptional for the early part of the Late 
TABLE 16. Shellfish data from contemporary sites on the northern Channel Islands and Santa Barbara Island. Values in parentheses indicate percentage by weight.

Shellfish weight (g)

Age California Red Black Sea Owl Platform All other Total

Site (cal BP) mussel abalone abalone urchin limpet Turban mussel shell shell (g) Reference

CA-SMI-87 West 3200–2860 13,480.1 195.0 424.5 580.2 2.3 1,205.8 1,165.4 2,279.5 19,332.8 Braje et al. (2011)

(69.7%) (1.0%) (2.2%) (3.0%) (0.0%) (6.2%) (6.0%) (11.8%)

CA-SMI-87 East 2860–2340 11,423.9 194.8 482.8 885.5 7.2 924.2 1,347.2 2,223.7 17,489.3 Braje et al. (2011)

(65.3%) (1.1%) (2.8%) (5.1%) (<0.1%) (5.3%) (7.7%) (12.7%)

CA-SMI-261 SA 3700–2860 2,536.2 387.6 285.0 479.5 16.0 669.0 4.1 384.4 4,761.8 Braje et al. (2011)

(53.3%) (8.1%) (6.0%) (10.1%) (0.3%) (14.0%) (0.1%) (8.1%)

CA-SMI-503 3830–3680 434.6 33.4 165.5 91.8 24.8 116.1 11.3 131.3 1,008.8 Braje et al. (2011)

(43.1%) (3.3%) (16.4%) (9.1%) (2.5%) (11.5%) (1.1%) (13.0%)

CA-SMI-603 S3 4280–3840 1,256.6 1,634.3 1,187.7 1,658.7 0.0 236.3 69.6 701.0 6,744.2 Braje et al. (2011)

(18.6%) (24.2%) (17.6%) (24.6%) (0.0%) (3.5%) (1.0%) (10.5%)

CA-SMI-603 S4 4520–4070 1,427.1 1,765.8 587.9 3,573.7 48.7 574.4 246.0 829.6 9,053.2 Braje et al. (2011)

(15.8%) (19.5%) (6.5%) (39.5%) (0.5%) (6.3%) (2.7%) (9.2%)

CA-SMI-628 4520–3830 1,296.0 420.9 240.4 409.6 12.2 444.4 94.5 618.6 3,536.6 Braje et al. (2011)

(36.6%) (11.9%) (6.8%) (11.6%) (0.3%) (12.6%) (2.7%) (17.5%)

CA-SRI-50 4830–4140 21,432.5 83.8 58.4 97.0 16.7 993.4 290.7 2,725.1 25,697.6 Jazwa (2015)

(83.4%) (0.3%) (0.2%) (0.4%) (0.1%) (3.9%) (1.1%) (10.6%)

CA-SRI-191 4400–4240 1,882.7 47.8 0.0 583.3 0.0 74.3 48.4 120.4 2,756.9 Braje et al. (2011)

(68.3%) (1.7%) (0.0%) (21.2%) (0.0%) (2.7%) (1.8%) (4.4%)

CA-SRI-667, Stratum 1 4490–4200 2,938.3 13.7 4.7 39.6 0.0 27.4 338.2 609.9 3,971.8 Braje et al. (2011)

(74.0%) (0.3%) (0.1%) (1.0%) (0.0%) (0.7%) (8.5%) (15.4%)

CA-SCRI-236 2945–2775 1,2651.6 449.6 2,140.6 1,443.8 27.1 131.8 654.7 1,581.3 19,080.5 Thakar (2014a)

(66.3%) (2.4%) (11.2%) (7.6%) (0.1%) (0.7%) (3.4%) (8.3%)

CA-SCRI-568 3357–3156 14,199.1 0.0 262.3 22.3 12.7 19.1 43.6 589.2 15,148.3 Thakar (2014a)

(93.7%) (0.0%) (1.7%) (0.1%) (0.1%) (0.1%) (0.3%) (3.9%)

CA-SCRI-823 3208–2964 3,303.6 43.4 27.2 7.2 4.4 73.9 7.4 234.7 3,701.8 Thakar (2014a)

(89.2%) (1.2%) (0.7%) (0.2%) (0.1%) (2.0%) (0.2%) (6.3%)

CA-ANI-2 3270–2750 15,517.5 0.0 571.9 82.4 10.1 239.5 21.9 2,556.7 19,000 This study

(81.7%) (0.0%) (3.0%) (0.4%) (0.1%) (1.3%) (0.1%) (13.5%)

CA-ANI-3 3640–3160 1,057.5 0.0 82.1 20.3 1.4 4.6 0.1 167.7 1,333.7 This study

(79.3%) (0.0%) (6.2%) (1.5%) (0.1%) (0.3%) (0.0%) (12.6%)

CA-ANI-4 4145–2850 16,280.5 0.0 1,262.0 102.3 22.7 166.2 0.0 1,880.3 19,714 This study

(82.6%) (0.0%) (6.4%) (0.5%) (0.1%) (0.8%) (0.0%) (9.5%)

CA-SBI-2 3910–2960 3,197.9 0.0 835.6 1.5 27 379 5.8 3,353.2 7,800 Rick et al. (2009)

(14.0%) (0.0%) (10.7%) (0.0%) (0.3%) (4.9%) (0.1%) (43.0%)
FIGURE 36. Relative contribution of major shellfish for sites on the northern Channel Islands from 4500 to 2500 cal 

BP, ordered from earliest to latest (top) and from west to east (middle), along with a map showing the location of each 

site (bottom; islands from left to right: San Miguel, Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz, and Anacapa). See text for references for 

data for each site.

CA-SRI-50

CA-SMI-603 S4

CA-SMI-628

CA-SRI-667 Str 1

CA-SRI-191

CA-SMI-603 S3

CA-ANI-4

CA-SBI-2

CA-SMI-503

CA-SMI-261 SA

CA-ANI-3

CA-SCRI-568

CA-ANI-2

CA-SCRI-823

CA-SMI-87 West

CA-SCRI-236

CA-SMI-87 East

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

All other shell

Platform mussel

Turban

Owl limpet

Sea urchin

Black abalone

Red abalone

California mussel

Percent Shell by Weight

Sites arranged from earliest to latest

CA-SMI-503

CA-SMI-628

CA-SMI-87 West

CA-SMI-87 East

CA-SMI-261 SA

CA-SMI-603 S4

CA-SMI-603 S3

CA-SRI-50

CA-SRI-667 Str 1

CA-SRI-191

CA-SCRI-236

CA-SCRI-823

CA-SCRI-568

CA-ANI-3

CA-ANI-2

CA-ANI-4

CA-SBI-2

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

All other shell

Platform mussel

Turban

Owl limpet

Sea urchin

Black abalone

Red abalone

California mussel

Sites arranged from west to east

Percent Shell by Weight

CA-ANI-3

CA-ANI-2

CA-SRI-50 CA-ANI-4

CA-SMI-87

CA-SMI-603

CA-SRI-667

CA-SRI-191

CA-SMI-628

CA-SCRI-823

CA-SCRI-568

CA-SCRI-236 CA-SMI-261 CA-SMI-503

km

0 5 10 15 20
5 8 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

Holocene. Although a few other contemporaneous sites contain marine mammal remains, they are often poorly preserved 

and constitute a small proportion of excavated material. On 

Anacapa, they are both unusually abundant and diverse. Thakar (2014a) identified harbor seal and California sea lion at 

CA-SCRI-236 (2945–2775 BP) and CA-SCRI-823 (3208–2964 

BP), but in very small numbers. Sea otters were identified at 

CA-SCRI-568 (3357–3156 BP) and CA-SCRI-823 by Thakar 

(2014a) and CA-SMI-87 (3200–2340 BP) by Rick (2004, 2007) 

but again were infrequent. Cetaceans are also rare at other northern Channel Islands sites during the early part of the Late Holocene, including a few Risso’s dolphins (Grampus griseus) from 

CA-SMI-87 (Rick, 2007) and Prisoners Harbor (CA-SCRI-240) 

on Santa Cruz Island (T. Wake, University of California, Los Angeles, unpublished data).

Perhaps the most remarkable component of the Anacapa 

Island faunal assemblage is the number of deer bones present, 

which appears to represent elements transported from the mainland and largely used for tool making (Table 15; see Chapter 

4). Deer bones were also found at two sites on Santa Cruz Island from this period, one bone each at CA-SCRI-236 and 

CA-SCRI-823 (Thakar, 2014a). During the Late period, deer 

bones, especially metatarsals, were common trade items brought 

to the islands from the mainland for use as tools (Wake, 2001). 

Because deer were available only on the mainland, the number 

of bones and the variety of elements suggest that the people who 

were living on Anacapa during this earlier period also maintained close ties to the mainland or were living primarily on the 

mainland and making long visits out to Anacapa and possibly 

other Channel Islands. Rozaire (1978) tentatively identified two 

deer metapodials from West Anacapa sites, including one from 

the earlier site at CA-ANI-6. Although these bones might represent goat or sheep, the frequency of BTD metapodials at East 

Anacapa sites supports that tentative identification.

CONCLUSIONS

The faunal assemblages reported here defy the expectation 

that middens on Anacapa Island were relatively depleted in vertebrates or represented exclusively intermittent and short-term 

occupations. These vertebrate assemblages are particularly 

rich, with a variety of fish, birds, and mammals, raising additional questions. For instance, were there prehistoric populations of island foxes on Anacapa Island, or did people transport 

live foxes or fox parts to the island from adjacent Santa Cruz 

FIGURE 37. Relative contribution of vertebrate classes to archaeological sites occupied between 4500 and 2500 cal 

BP on the northern Channel Islands (SMI=San Miguel Island, SCRI=Santa Cruz Island, and ANI=Anacapa Island). 

Vertebrate data are from Rick (2004) for CA-SMI-87, Ainis et al. (2011) for CA-SMI-603, Wolff et al. (2007) for 

CA-SRI-667, and Thakar (2014a) for SCRI sites.

CA-SMI-87 West

CA-SMI-87 East

CA-SMI-603 S4

CA-SMI-603 S3

CA-SRI-667 Str 1

CA-SCRI-236

CA-SCRI-823

CA-SCRI-568

CA-ANI-3

CA-ANI-2

CA-ANI-4

Reptile

Fish

Marine mammal

Terrestrial mammal

Bird 0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Number of Identified Specimens / 

Liter of Excavated Material
NUMBER 52 • 5 9

or other islands? Were people living on Anacapa Island and 

trading with the other Channel Islands and the adjacent mainland for deer bone and other materials, or were these itinerant 

people from the mainland or Santa Cruz Island? Did fishing 

strategies change during the second half of the Late Holocene 

when people had access to circular fishhooks, or did they remain similar through time as the current Anacapa data suggest? 

We return to these and other issues in the next chapter as we 

draw broad conclusions about the nature of human occupation 

of Anacapa Island.

This volume has focused on the archaeology and historical ecology of Anacapa Island, largely through field and laboratory work conducted at three early Late Holocene sites on East Anacapa Island. To put our work on East Anacapa in broader 

context, we obtained radiocarbon dates from archaeological sites across the island and 

discussed previous work at other Anacapa Island archaeological sites. Collectively, our 

data provide a framework for understanding the place of Anacapa in larger Southern 

California settlement and subsistence systems and interaction spheres. Although much of 

our study concerns a fairly brief window of time—between about 3,700 and 2,500 years 

ago—it provides a framework for documenting broader human use of Anacapa Island 

and a window into the historical ecology of the Channel Islands.

At 2.9 km2

 in area, Anacapa is slightly larger than Santa Barbara Island (2.6 km2), 

the smallest of the eight Channel Islands. Both Anacapa and Santa Barbara contain little 

or no fresh water and, to an extent, terrestrial plant communities and biodiversity when 

compared with the larger and more topographically diverse islands. This perceived marginal setting has led some researchers to speculate that Anacapa was occupied as an intermittent stopover and may have played a somewhat minor role in broader Santa Barbara 

Channel prehistory (see Chapter 1). In some ways, this speculation echoes archaeological 

thinking about the nature of small islands around the world, which are often marginalized or overlooked by researchers in favor of larger and more topographically diverse 

islands (Fitzpatrick et al., 2016). 

In this chapter, we revisit this theme by exploring the significance of Anacapa Island 

in ancient human lifeways on the Channel Islands. To frame our discussion, we return to 

the five questions that we asked in Chapter 1: 

1. When was Anacapa first settled by Native Americans, and how did human occupation vary through time and across space?

2. Was human occupation of Anacapa permanent, intermittent, or a combination?

3. How did Anacapa Island marine and terrestrial ecosystems change through time?

4. What role did Anacapa play in larger cultural developments, lifeways, and interaction spheres on the Channel Islands and Southern California? 

5. Finally, what can the data from Anacapa Island tell us about small islands around 

the world more generally? 

We address each of these questions in the five sections that follow.

6 Conclusion

Torben C. Rick and Leslie A. Reeder-Myers
6 2 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

ANTIQUITY AND EVOLUTION 

OF HUMAN SETTLEMENT

During the past 20 years, archaeologists have made significant strides in understanding the antiquity and evolution of 

human occupation of the Channel Islands. With the redating of 

the Arlington Springs human remains and work at early habitation sites, we can now say with confidence that people occupied 

the Channel Islands by at least 13,000 years ago, with significant coastal adaptations evident at a series of sites by 12,000 to 

11,000 years ago (Johnson et al., 2002; Erlandson et al., 2011a). 

Sites dating to the terminal Pleistocene and Early Holocene have 

now been identified on San Miguel, Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz 

islands (Erlandson et al., 2011a, 2016; Gusick, 2013). There is 

evidence for continuous occupation of the northern Channel Islands from 10,000 years ago through the early nineteenth century (Kennett, 2005; Rick et al., 2005). 

When was Anacapa first settled by Native Americans, and 

how did human occupation vary through time and across space? 

Rick (2006) provided the first sequence of radiocarbon dates 

from Anacapa Island, including dates from several of the sites 

reported in this volume. These dates documented human occupation of Anacapa from ~5200 cal BP through the Late period, 

with several sites dating to the early part of the Late Holocene. 

Rick (2011) later provided evidence of human occupation of 

Freshwater Cave (CA-ANI-18) on Anacapa during the Historic 

period. Despite evidence for Middle and Late Holocene occupation, any evidence of Early Holocene or earlier occupation of 

Anacapa was still lacking.

For this study, we expanded previous radiocarbon dating 

efforts and built a record for Anacapa consisting of 26 radiocarbon dates from 16 archaeological sites. When calibrated, 

corrected, and placed in a Bayesian statistical framework, these 

dates suggest a more or less continuous occupation spanning 

5540 cal BP through the early nineteenth century. Occupation 

on West and Middle Anacapa appears to extend back to 5280 

and 5540 cal BP, respectively, whereas the occupation of East 

Anacapa is more constrained between about 3700 and 2500 cal 

BP. These dates extend the initial human occupation of Anacapa 

by about 300 years, but they still lag behind the other northern 

Channel Islands, which have sites dated more than five millennia 

earlier than Anacapa. The chipped-stone crescent recovered from 

CA-ANI-11 in the 1950s extends this occupation to the terminal 

Pleistocene or Early Holocene (see Chapters 3 and 4), but so 

far no radiocarbon dates from any middens document any sites 

older than 5540 cal BP. 

Why are sites on Anacapa older than 5,500 years ago so rare? 

The answer to this question is not entirely clear but could reflect 

scattered human occupation during the Early Holocene, site discovery and visibility issues, and a lack of research. The absence 

of early human occupation seems unlikely given the recovery of 

a crescent and the fact that the island’s proximity to the mainland would have made it attractive to early human land use and 

subsistence. During the terminal Pleistocene and Early Holocene, 

Anacapa Island was the most likely entry point for excursions 

from the mainland to Santarosae. More likely, early sites have 

yet to be discovered and dated or have been destroyed by rising 

seas and marine erosion or perhaps U.S. Coast Guard activities 

(see Chapter 2). Two cave sites on West Anacapa (CA-ANI-12 

and CA-ANI-13) have never been radiocarbon dated, and similarly, only the upper levels of CA-ANI-18 have been probed and 

dated. These cave sites may represent the likeliest candidates for 

yielding earlier occupations on Anacapa. A more thorough surface survey of some of the island’s lithic scatters might also turn 

up additional chipped-stone crescents or Channel Island barbed 

points associated with terminal Pleistocene and Early Holocene 

occupation (Erlandson et al., 2011a).

Anacapa was occupied more or less continuously from 5,500 

years ago through the Late Holocene. There is extensive evidence 

that people on the island spent their time harvesting its rich and 

productive marine ecosystems. Like on other northern Channel 

Islands, people also made shell and bone artifacts on Anacapa, 

buried their dead, and made microblades and other stone tools 

(Rozaire, 1978, 1993; Rick, 2006; Jew et al., 2015b).

AN INTERMITTENT STOPOVER OR 

SOMETHING MORE PERMANENT?

Was occupation of Anacapa permanent, intermittent, or a 

combination? Virtually everyone who has worked on Anacapa 

Island or thought about the place of Anacapa Island in broader 

Southern California prehistory has grappled with the degree to 

which Anacapa was an intermittent stopover or had more permanent occupation (McKusick, 1959; Glassow, 1977; Rozaire, 

1978; Rick, 2006; Jew and Rick, 2014:201). In some ways, these 

arguments parallel similar debates about the nature of human 

settlement of Santa Barbara Island (which is about the same size 

of Anacapa) in the southern Channel Islands (see Erlandson et 

al., 1992; Rick, 2001; Perry et al., 2017). The dearth of research 

on Anacapa has long hindered our ability to address this question, but with new faunal and artifact assemblages we have a 

much better perspective than in years past. 

Nearly 60 years ago, McKusick (1959:85) speculated that 

“the settlement pattern appears to have been seasonal or infrequent for the island was not occupied at the time of the Spanish 

exploration.” He went on to add, “No great time depth appears 

to be represented by the archaeology, and it seems probable that 

the cultural occupation was limited to the Late Horizon, that 

is, within the last 2000 years” (McKusick, 1959:86). Glassow 

(1977:81) challenged this position, arguing that “there is good 

justification for proposing that the island was occupied by a permanent population at least during certain portions of its prehistory. The fact that it was not permanently occupied by the 

Chumash at the time of European contact may be more a result 

of the logistical constraints imposed on island settlement patterns by the nature of Chumash socio-economic organization 

than the lack of adequate resources on the island for human 
NUMBER 52 • 6 3

survival.” Although Rozaire (1978:52) touched on the issue only 

briefly, he noted that “the natural resources of Anacapa Island 

would provide support to at least a small number of aboriginal occupants on a year-round basis, particularly if the adjacent 

ocean area were exploited effectively.” Rick (2006, 2011) supported Glassow’s position by speculating that the island had a 

mix of both short-term stopover occupations and perhaps some 

longer, more sustained occupations on the basis of the larger and 

denser middens, the presence of human burials, and diversity of 

artifacts and faunal remains at some sites. Because of the dearth 

of research, however, questions persisted about the nature of ancient settlement patterns on Anacapa Island.

Our work at Anacapa Island demonstrates that the truth 

lies somewhere in the middle. Anacapa, like the other northern 

Channel Islands, has a clear mix of short-term sites that appear 

to have had limited occupation as well as sites with longer-term 

and more sustained occupations. Data from CA-ANI-2, in particular, demonstrate the relatively intensive settlement and diverse activities at some sites. Here, people were exploiting local 

tool-stone sources and making expedient stone tools (Chapter 4); producing bone gorges with fresh deer bones acquired 

from the mainland; obtaining a wide range of fish, marine 

mammals, birds, and shellfish; and perhaps even transporting island foxes and other canids (or their bones) to Anacapa. 

Stable isotope data also demonstrate that people were collecting shellfish at this site during all seasons of the year, perhaps 

suggesting a year-round occupation (Chapter 3; Jew and Rick, 

2014). The presence of abundant mainland deer bone raises the 

possibility that this island did indeed serve as a stopover for 

people traveling between the islands and the mainland. Like the 

other Channel Islands, Anacapa’s sites suggest both short-term 

and longer-term occupations.

Despite evidence for more sustained occupation, it should 

be noted that some of Anacapa’s archaeological sites are qualitatively different from those on the other three northern Channel Islands. For instance, there are no massive Late or Historic 

period village sites, complete with dense middens, house depressions, and cemeteries. As Glassow (1977) suggested, Anacapa 

may have been limited in some ways by the marginal nature of 

its resources when compared with the other islands. Although 

present environmental conditions are not direct correlates for 

the Anacapa of the past, the island does lack abundant surface 

fresh water, has a rugged coastline, and has fewer plant and 

animal foods in general than the larger islands. Collectively, 

these environmental conditions suggest that Anacapa—barring 

a unique prehistoric management strategy—likely had a lower 

threshold for human population size and extensive settlement 

than the other islands. We return to this important topic later in 

the chapter.

An interesting and perhaps related issue is why East Anacapa seems to have been occupied exclusively between 3700 and 

2500 cal BP. It is possible that during this earlier period before 

the introduction of the plank canoe, Anacapa Island was especially important as a stopover point for people traveling between 

the islands and the mainland, with people perhaps spending 

more time on the island when doing so. While there, they took 

advantage of abundant shellfish, fish, and bird resources on the 

island and spent more time than previously presumed. Characterizing the complex nature of Anacapa’s human occupations 

clearly requires more research, but for now we can demonstrate 

that people conducted a wide range of activities on the island 

and that it had a mix of more sustained and perhaps year-round 

occupation as well as shorter-term occupations.

HISTORICAL ECOLOGY 

OF ANACAPA ISLAND

Although small, Anacapa is home to unique terrestrial and 

marine ecosystems. It has long been known for its role in providing breeding habitat for seabirds, especially gulls and pelicans, as 

well as its rich kelp-forest ecosystems (Schoenherr et al., 1999). 

The National Park Service, in tandem with a variety of other 

groups, has been working to actively remove invasive plants 

and restore native plant communities on the island (National 

Park Service, 2016c; see also Hale, 2013) The groups have engaged local students and other community members in Anacapa 

Island’s conservation and restoration. 

Anacapa has extensive colonies of breeding gulls during the 

summer months, and much of Middle and West Anacapa is often 

closed for the majority of the year to protect breeding pelicans. 

However, Anacapa is also a breeding habitat for smaller birds 

such as murrelets and alcids. Introduced black rats, which likely 

colonized the islands from historical shipwrecks, were preying 

on these seabird eggs and chicks for decades, greatly reducing 

their populations. As a consequence, the National Park Service 

initiated a program to eradicate black rats from Anacapa and 

promote breeding success of seabirds (National Park Service, 

2013; see also Howald et al., 2010). The program was complicated by the presence of native deer mice, which could be inadvertently affected by rat removal (Pergams et al., 2000). With 

populations of deer mice taken into captivity, the National Park 

Service eradicated rats from the island in an effort to promote the 

restoration of seabirds. Although seabirds and native plants are 

the focus of much of the restoration on Anacapa, the National 

Park Service also manages kelp-forest ecosystems and intertidal 

habitats and helps monitor marine mammals. 

How did Anacapa Island terrestrial and marine ecosystems 

change through time? Data from our Anacapa Island archaeological research document the types of resources that people 

were harvesting on Anacapa but also inform the historical ecology and conservation of the island more generally. Human influences on past island ecosystems are particularly apparent in the 

bird, fish, and marine mammal artifact assemblages from these 

islands; this can have implications for understanding contemporary ecosystems.

Interestingly, the CA-ANI-2 assemblage we analyzed is dominated by albatross remains, suggesting either that once there 
6 4 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

was a breeding population on Anacapa or that people obtained 

these birds offshore. Albatross are occasionally documented at 

other Channel Island archaeological sites (e.g., Porcasi, 1999), 

but they no longer breed on Anacapa or the other Channel Islands. At CA-ANI-2, cormorants are the next most abundant, 

which is not surprising given their presence around the island 

today. Alcids, including murrelets and Cassin’s auklet, are present at CA-ANI-2 and CA-ANI-3 and are the most abundant 

birds at CA-ANI-4, suggesting the presence of these birds deeper 

into the past. Perhaps most surprising about the seabirds from 

the Anacapa sites is the relative dearth of both gull and pelican 

bones. A single brown pelican bone was identified at CA-ANI-2, 

and an undifferentiated pelican bone was found at CA-ANI-4. 

Pelicans are not generally abundant at Channel Islands sites, but 

given their presence on Anacapa Island today, we might expect 

more in the past.

Still more surprising is the dearth of gull bones, of which 

there were only 15 from CA-ANI-2 and three from CA-ANI-4. In 

contrast, we identified three times as many cormorant bones and 

more than five times as many albatross bones at CA-ANI-2 (see 

Chapter 5). This finding is interesting given the hyperabundance 

of gulls on the island today. It is possible that this small number 

of gull bones is due to a seasonal occupation of the island by 

humans because gulls are most abundant during early summer 

for breeding. We know from stable isotope data that people were 

occupying CA-ANI-2 at all seasons of the year, however, and it 

would have been uncomfortable to live among gull populations 

as dense as those on Anacapa Island today. Although seasonal 

trends might contribute to the lack of gulls, it seems more likely 

that gull populations on the island were much smaller in the past 

or restricted to areas where people were not living. Future research of ancient and modern gull DNA and isotopes could help 

us better understand any shifting dynamics and changes in gull 

behavior and biogeography during the last several millennia.

The fish identified from the Anacapa sites are generally 

from kelp forest or other nearshore habitats similar to fish identified at other Channel Islands sites (see Chapter 5). One of the 

more interesting aspects of the fish assemblage is the fact that 

gorges appear to have been the primary harvest method and 

there is no evidence of the single-piece shell fishhook. Given 

that single-piece shell fishhooks may have first appeared on 

the northern Channel Islands around 2500 cal BP (Rick et al., 

2002), these assemblages seem to represent fishing just before 

these important artifacts appeared. Still, the general taxa present at these sites is consistent with those from other Channel 

Islands sites with no clear differences related to the differing 

technologies (Rick, 2007; Braje, 2010; Turnbull et al., 2015). 

California sheephead are the most abundant fish at these sites, 

and they are common around Anacapa today. Braje et al. (2017) 

placed the data from some of our Anacapa sites in the context 

of long-term changes in the sheephead fishery throughout the 

Channel Islands. Interestingly, California sheephead from Anacapa Island archaeological sites occur in some of the highest 

concentrations on the northern Channel Islands. Measurement 

of sheephead pharyngeals from these sites provided total length 

estimates of ~423 mm, a value comparable to that from other 

prehistoric sites but significantly larger (~31 mm) than modern 

estimates. These data suggest that overfishing is likely reducing 

local sheephead sizes today (Braje et al., 2017). 

The mammalian assemblages from Anacapa Island sites 

are also interesting and provide evidence of human subsistence 

and the historical ecology of Anacapa. The presence of cetacean 

and delphinid remains as well as sea otter, California sea lion, 

Guadalupe fur seal, northern elephant seal, and harbor seal is 

consistent with other Channel Island sites but adds to the diversity of activities that people were conducting on Anacapa and 

at CA-ANI-2 in particular. The CA-ANI-2 marine mammal assemblage is dominated by harbor seals, with 197 bones compared with just 11 California sea lion bones. This large number 

of harbor seal bones stands in contrast to San Miguel Island sites 

during the Late Holocene, which are dominated by otariids and 

have comparatively few harbor seals (see Braje, 2010; Braje et 

al., 2011; Rick, 2007). Similarly, bones of harbor seals are found 

in Late Holocene sites on Santa Cruz Island, but they are often 

in numbers equal to or fewer than that of California sea lions 

(Colten, 2001; Noah, 2005). Harbor seals commonly haul out 

on the rocks around Anacapa today and may have in the past, 

where people could have taken them. As a variety of researchers 

have noted, harbor seals are among the more skittish and flightprone pinnipeds, making them more difficult to obtain and often 

less desirable than some higher-ranking otariids (see Hildebrandt 

and Jones, 1992; Braje et al., 2011). The presence of a single elephant seal bone each at CA-ANI-2 and CA-ANI-8 and their occurrence at CA-ANI-6 are interesting given how rare the remains 

of elephant seals are at Channel Island sites (Rick et al., 2011). 

Elephant seals require sandy beaches for hauling out, so on the 

basis of current shorelines, the island’s only suitable habitat for 

them would be the fairly small beach at Frenchy’s Cove on West 

Anacapa, which is near both CA-ANI-6 and CA-ANI-8. 

The terrestrial mammal remains recovered at the Anacapa 

sites are mostly deer bones, which appear to have come in as 

parts used for producing tools. However, there are also six bones 

from an island fox at CA-ANI-2 and a few deer mouse bones. 

The island fox remains are very interesting as foxes do not occur 

on the island today. Hofman et al. (2016) directly dated this fox 

to 3200 to 3000 cal BP, or the same age as the CA-ANI-2 occupation, suggesting that it is not intrusive. It remains unclear if 

live foxes or their parts were transported from another island or, 

even more exciting, if there was an Anacapa population in the 

past. The latter would be surprising, but future genetic research 

will help better address these questions. 

Six island deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus) bones were 

recovered from CA-ANI-2 and CA-ANI-4, a small number given 

how abundant deer mice are on the islands today. However, except in caves or at other sites with owl roosts, deer mice are 

generally rare at Channel Island archaeological sites, so this finding is generally consistent with other open-air Channel Island 

archaeological sites. 
NUMBER 52 • 6 5

Much remains to be learned about the historical ecology 

of Anacapa Island, but data from the sites we excavated provide important glimpses into human environmental interactions 

on Anacapa Island and how its ecosystems may have changed 

through time. Future research can continue to fill this gap, especially work on the island’s paleobotanical remains and future 

isotope and genetic studies that could help better document its 

historical ecology.

ANACAPA IN THE BROADER 

CHUMASH WORLD

What role did Anacapa play in larger cultural developments, lifeways, and interaction spheres on the Channel Islands 

and in Southern California? We have already addressed some 

aspects of this question previously, especially in terms of Anacapa’s use as a stopover or for more permanent habitation. With 

Anacapa’s occupation containing a mix of intermittent and 

more sustained occupation, Anacapa was important both geographically and culturally as a gateway connecting the Channel Islands and mainland. Given its proximity to the mainland 

and the much larger Santa Cruz Island, researchers have long 

speculated about the role it may have played in broader island 

interaction spheres. The important role Anacapa played is now 

confirmed by the abundance of deer bones at CA-ANI-2 and, 

to an extent, CA-ANI-4. Deer-bone tools have been identified 

in a number of island archaeological sites, and deer parts were 

an important trade item for the Chumash on the mainland and 

the Channel Islands (see Perry and Glassow, 2015; Fauvelle and 

Perry, in press). Our work suggests fresh deer parts also were 

transported to Anacapa for making gorges (see Chapter 4). 

Whether an islander acquired these directly or someone from the 

mainland was spending time on Anacapa remains unclear. Either 

way, these data show that people on Anacapa were connected to 

the adjacent mainland, a proposition also supported by the presence of small amounts of mainland obsidian. 

Despite these connections, people also used the available 

resources on Anacapa, including its lithic sources and subsistence resources, suggesting a clear connection to the local environment. This use of materials mirrors occupation of the other 

Channel Islands, which show a mix of local use and engagement 

in broader Chumash exchange systems. Given that most of our 

data are from the early Late Holocene before the late Middle 

(AD 500–1300) and Late (AD 1300–1760) period explosion 

in Chumash exchange and interaction (Arnold, 2001; Kennett, 

2005; Rick et al., 2005), we do not have evidence of widespread 

bead and other exchange like what occurred later in time. However, Rozaire (1993) documented abundant late Middle and Late 

period microblade tools at CA-ANI-6 and CA-ANI-8, and Rick 

(2011) noted beads and other microlithic materials in a small 

probe and surface reconnaissance at CA-ANI-18. Anacapa was 

clearly a component of the broader Chumash world and, if anything, was a central player rather than a peripheral oddity.

Were the people who occupied Anacapa perhaps from 

nearby Santa Cruz Island or the adjacent mainland? Rick (2006) 

noted that a number of sites on eastern Santa Cruz Island date to 

the same early Late Holocene time period as the sites occupied on 

Anacapa. Perry (2004, 2005) has suggested that people of eastern 

Santa Cruz Island had mobile subsistence and settlement strategies at this time, which led Rick (2006) to speculate that Anacapa 

could have been part of this broader system and could have been 

used during the Late and Historic periods by people occupying eastern Santa Cruz’s two historic named Chumash villages. 

Glassow (1977) similarly speculated that Santa Cruz’s populations could have periodically expanded to Anacapa when needed. 

With the large suite of faunal and artifact data now available from 

the early Late Holocene sites on East Anacapa, it seems equally 

probable that people on Anacapa could have been from the mainland rather than Santa Cruz Island. The abundance of deer bones, 

presence of an obsidian flake, and use of local Anacapa cherts at 

these sites suggests that there was potentially greater affinity to 

the mainland than the closer Santa Cruz Island during the early 

Late Holocene. However, questions still remain about precisely 

who was occupying these sites and how well connected they were 

to the other islands (and mainland), especially during the most recent 1,500 years or so of occupation when microblades (Rozaire, 

1993) and other artifacts point to the presence of more materials 

perhaps obtained on Santa Cruz Island.

Archaeologists have long argued that the Channel Islands 

contain a more marginal suite of resources compared with the 

adjacent mainland, especially less freshwater availability and 

terrestrial plant resources (Arnold, 2001; Kennett, 2005; Rick 

et al., 2005; Rick, 2007). Discussions around marginality have 

helped frame debates about broader Channel Island interaction 

spheres and sociopolitical systems. More recently, researchers 

have begun to turn arguments about the islands’ apparent marginality on their head, noting that much of our perception of 

resource availability on the Channel Islands has been obscured 

by the major transformations of island landscapes and seascapes 

during the historical ranching period (Braje et al., in press; Erlandson et al., in press). As Channel Island ecosystems continue 

to be restored under National Park Service, U.S. Navy, Nature 

Conservancy, and other management, it is becoming clear that 

ancient Channel Islanders had a wide variety of resources available to them, including a range of plants (especially geophytes), 

a great number of freshwater sources, numerous lithic sources, 

asphalt seeps for use as a sealant or adhesive, and, of course, 

rich marine ecosystems (Gill, 2015; Gill and Hoppa, 2016; Erlandson et al., in press). Although the Channel Islands were certainly not without resource limitations, they were places with 

great opportunities for people who lived on and visited the islands for millennia. 

What about Anacapa Island’s marginal resources? As noted 

previously, conversations about the marginality of Anacapa Island are also important with regard to how intensively people 

may have settled on the island, as well as the place of Anacapa in 

the broader Chumash world. Glassow (1977:81) suggested that 
6 6 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

“Anacapa, as on Santa Barbara Island, may be relevant to testing 

hypotheses concerning resource marginality and its relationship 

to population growth and environmental change.” We have discussed the relatively marginal nature of this island throughout 

this volume. Although efforts to restore the island have made 

significant progress (Figure 38), it remains unclear what a “restored” Anacapa might look like compared with the Anacapa 

of the distant past. Would there be more springs and sources of 

fresh water? Would there be more terrestrial plants and other 

resources? The answer to these questions seems likely to be yes, 

but we argue that compared with the other islands, Anacapa was 

still relatively marginal. Although one can overgeneralize that 

island size is a limiting factor (e.g., Kirch, 1997), Anacapa’s size 

of just 2.9 km2

 in area and rugged shoreline likely were prohibitive, and its lack of surface fresh water also would have been 

limiting. Similar to arguments about the degree of permanence 

of Anacapa’s ancient human occupations, the reality probably 

lies in the middle. Our work at CA-ANI-2 and previous work 

at West Anacapa sites clearly show that Anacapa had diverse 

human occupations and was an important part of broader Santa 

Barbara Channel networks. Still, the island appears to lack the 

large Late period and Historic Chumash villages found on the 

mainland and larger northern islands. It does have numerous 

sites and dense shell middens that indicate a more sustained occupation, but its geography and limited resources appear to have 

constrained this occupation to a degree. Future research should 

seek to tackle this issue of perceived marginality and the nature 

of Anacapa’s occupation through the full duration of prehistory, 

which we now know spans more than 5,500 years, into the Historic period. 

FIGURE 38. Hadley English’s fourth-grade class from California’s Ojai Valley School restoring native plants on Anacapa Island. Photo by Linda 

Rick, 2017.
NUMBER 52 • 6 7

ANACAPA: MORE THAN 

JUST A SMALL ISLAND?

Archaeologists have become increasingly interested in the 

archaeology of small islands, often tackling many of the same 

issues that we have explored in our research on Anacapa Island 

(see Fitzpatrick et al., 2016). With work on small islands in Oceania, North America, Africa, and beyond increasing, we can no 

longer argue that all small islands were marginal or insignificant 

in the broader lives of people in the past, and there is no universal correlation between human occupation and island size. As 

noted in Chapter 1, people occupied small islands around the 

world, often with surprisingly diverse and successful strategies 

(e.g., sustainability of Tikopia; Kirch, 1997). Small islands have 

played important roles in the human past that range from basic 

settlement and subsistence to ritual centers, thereby challenging 

the idea of marginality (Thompson and Turck, 2010; Napolitano, 2013; Crowther et al., 2016; Fitzpatrick et al., 2016; Giovas, 2016; McNiven, 2016; Wickler, 2016).

What can data from Anacapa Island tell us about small islands around the world more generally? Anacapa is definitely 

small in size and somewhat resource limited, but like other islands noted previously, Anacapa has yielded surprisingly diverse 

past human occupations. No longer can Anacapa be viewed as 

solely a marginal place for a quick stopover as people headed to 

larger, more desirable islands or the mainland. At various times 

in the past (especially during the early Late Holocene), Anacapa 

sustained occupations during which people took the time to 

make bone and chipped-stone tools, harvested everything from 

cetaceans to albatross to shellfish, and transported deer parts 

and potentially island foxes or their remains to the island. Anacapa, like other small islands, appears to have played an integral 

role in ancient human lifeways, and continued research will help 

us better evaluate the nature of these relationships.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS AND CONCLUSION

We have worked to fill a significant gap in our understanding of Channel Islands and broader California archaeology 

through our excavation, survey, and radiocarbon dating of sites 

across Anacapa Island. Our synthesis of archaeological research 

on Anacapa Island spanning the past several decades as well as 

our own research during the past 10 to 15 years provides much 

food for thought about the archaeology of Anacapa and small 

islands around the world. It has also produced many new questions. Although the island has been surveyed several times in the 

past, a systematic survey of both Middle and West Anacapa Islands would be useful for identifying any new cultural resources 

and assessing the condition of previously recorded sites. With 

prominent underwater archaeological surveys for potentially 

submerged Pleistocene or Holocene archaeological sites underway on the Channel Islands (T. Braje, California Academy of 

Sciences, personal communication, 2017), underwater archaeological survey around Anacapa should be a high priority. The 

island has relatively steep bathymetry, suggesting the shoreline 

has moved less than parts of the other Channel Islands following Holocene sea-level rise (see Chapter 1, Figure 4). Along with 

its proximity to the adjacent mainland, submerged portions of 

Anacapa’s coastline could yield early sites. 

Our research has focused on the period from about 3700 

to 2500 cal BP, with more limited discussion of earlier and later 

occupations. Future research should target the latter half of the 

Late Holocene, Middle Holocene, and potential Early Holocene 

occupations of Anacapa. Studies like this could help put Anacapa 

in a broader diachronic framework and could better explore the 

issues of marginality, permanence of occupation, relationship to 

other islands and the mainland, and historical ecology that we 

explored in this volume. 

Finally, our work did not address issues of past exploitation 

of terrestrial plant communities on Anacapa. Given the concerted 

efforts at restoring Anacapa’s plant communities and expansion 

in Channel Island archaeobotanical research more generally 

(Hoppa, 2014; Gill, 2015; Gill and Hoppa, 2016), work on Anacapa archaeobotany should be of the highest priority.

We opened this volume with a quote by Schoenherr et al. 

(1999:303–304): “Considered by many who sail by her rugged 

shores to be little more than a string of three, dry, lifeless rocks, 

Anacapa Island is a surprisingly beautiful place on closer inspection.” We agree that although many people perceive Anacapa as 

a small island that is not as exciting as the larger islands, with 

deeper exploration, Anacapa is indeed an exciting and unique 

place. Our analysis has revealed important results on the nature 

of its ancient human occupation and historical ecology, often 

challenging previous notions about Anacapa Island, such as the 

lack of foxes and the prominence of gulls. With concerted effort 

and renewed attention by other archaeologists, we anticipate 

that Anacapa has many more surprising things to reveal that can 

help improve perspectives on California and Channel Island prehistory and the archaeology of other islands around the world.

Appendix: Bayesian Outputs 

and Specifications
7 0 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

TABLE A1. Bayesian outputs for all Anacapa Island dates, showing unmodeled and modeled ages, date names, and agreement indices 

(summarized in Figure 13). A dash (—) indicates output does not apply to this model; a percent symbol (%) indicates the confidence 

interval of the modeled chronology.

 Indices:

 Amodel = 117.3,

Unmodeled (BP) Modeled (BP) Aoverall = 103.9

Name From To % From To % Agreement Convergence

Sequence

Boundary start — — — 5960 5310 95.4 — 97.1

Phase

Curve Marine13

Delta_R LocalMarine 219 303 95.4 224 306.5 95.4 99.4 99.4

R_Date ANI-15: OS-74598 5552 5316 95.4 5532 5303 95.4 96.4 99.6

R_Date ANI-5: OS-46940 5284 5012 95.4 5282 5008 95.4 99.4 99.6

R_Date ANI-8: OS-50447 5030 4821 95.4 5024 4818 95.4 100.9 99.5

R_Date ANI-4: DAMS-3995 3700 3485 95.4 3694 3481 95.4 99.7 99.7

R_Date ANI-1: OS-48488 3551 3357 95.4 3546 3354 95.4 100.4 99.7

R_Date ANI-28: UGA-27952 3476 3294 95.4 3467 3273 95.4 99.8 99.7

R_Date ANI-9: OS-74596 3371 3152 95.4 3369 3148 95.4 99.5 99.6

R_Date ANI-9: OS-74597 3312 3060 95.4 3308 3055 95.4 100 99.7

R_Date ANI-3: OS-63566 3304 3045 95.4 3298 3038 95.4 100 99.7

R_Date ANI-25: OS-74646 3304 3045 95.4 3297 3038 95.4 100.1 99.5

R_Date ANI-3: DAMS-3996 3303 3028 95.4 3295 3020 95.4 100.1 99.4

R_Date ANI-2: OS-60632 3254 2999 95.4 3248 2997 95.4 100 99.7

Curve IntCal13

R_Date ANI-2: OxA-30069 3209 3005 95.4 3209 3007 95.4 100 99.8

Curve Marine13

Delta_R LocalMarine 219 303 95.4 221 297 95.4 105.3 99.5

R_Date ANI-4: OS-48509 3210 2967 95.4 3211 2974 95.4 101 99.7

R_Date ANI-2: OS-60407 2927 2749 95.4 2928 2750 95.4 100.6 99.7

R_Date ANI-2: OS-48508 2922 2733 95.4 2920 2734 95.4 100.6 99.7

R_Date ANI-2: OS-63565 2887 2712 95.4 2883 2714 95.4 100.7 99.7

R_Date ANI-28: UGA-27951 2833 2697 95.4 2829 2699 95.4 102.1 99.6

R_Date ANI-4: DAMS-3994 2721 2458 95.4 2724 2465 95.4 101.3 99.6

R_Date ANI-23: OS-74602 2666 2378 95.4 2666 2381 95.4 100.8 99.6

R_Date ANI-24: OS-74604 675 540 95.4 676 545 95.4 101.3 99.6

R_Date ANI-21: OS-74600 665 530 95.4 667 532 95.4 100.2 99.7

R_Date ANI-6: OS-50446 631 504 95.4 630 504 95.4 100.4 99.8

Curve IntCal13

R_Date ANI-8: B-031360 652 522 95.4 651 523 95.4 99.6 99.8

Curve Marine13

Delta_R LocalMarine 219 303 95.4 223 303.5 95.4 102.5 99.7

R_Date ANI-18: B-232738 315 — 95.4 360 −2 95.4 104.8 99.7

R_Date ANI-22: OS-63567 278 60 95.4 280 79 95.4 104 99.7

Boundary end — — — 255 −387 95.4 — 96.8

Span duration — — — 5129 6172 95.4 — 97
NUMBER 52 • 7 1

TABLE A2. Bayesian model specifications for all Anacapa Island dates underpinning Figure 13. A dash (—) indicates the measure is not 

applicable to a particular parameter.

Parameter Name Type mu sigma llim ulim

0 intcal13 NoOp — — −48054.5 1965.5

1 NoOp — — NaN NaN

2 start Boundary −3619.82 194.287 −9464.5 −3154.5

3 NoOp — — NaN NaN

4 Marine13 Curve — — −48054.5 1965.5

5 LocalMarine Delta_R 265.26 20.6963 130 395

6 ANI-15: OS-74598 R_Date −3455.63 63.5051 −3749.5 −3154.5

7 ANI-5: OS-46940 R_Date −3195.49 75.1834 −3524.5 −2854.5

8 ANI-8: OS-50447 R_Date −2960.43 56.2488 −3349.5 −2629.5

9 ANI-4: DAMS-3995 R_Date −1643.98 52.4424 −1944.5 −1384.5

10 ANI-1: OS-48488 R_Date −1493.05 50.4306 −1784.5 −1209.5

11 ANI-28: UGA-27952 R_Date −1427.53 43.4511 −1689.5 −1154.5

12 ANI-9: OS-74596 R_Date −1311.11 57.2751 −1619.5 −964.5

13 ANI-9: OS-74597 R_Date −1222.1 62.4051 −1504.5 −889.5

14 ANI-3: OS-63566 R_Date −1207.63 62.4285 −1499.5 −879.5

15 ANI-25: OS-74646 R_Date −1207.86 62.4973 −1499.5 −879.5

16 ANI-3: DAMS-3996 R_Date −1200.2 66.2754 −1504.5 −864.5

17 ANI-2: OS-60632 R_Date −1178.94 61.9216 −1479.5 −859.5

18 IntCal13 Curve — — −48054.5 1965.5

19 ANI-2: OxA-30069 R_Date −1164.45 46.1794 −1419.5 −914.5

20 Marine13 Curve — — −48054.5 1965.5

21 LocalMarine Delta_R 259.133 18.7527 130 395

22 ANI-4: OS-48509 R_Date −1146.21 60.1453 −1439.5 −814.5

23 ANI-2: OS-60407 R_Date −884.734 46.4693 −1199.5 −704.5

24 ANI-2: OS-48508 R_Date −868.29 48.8651 −1214.5 −569.5

25 ANI-2: OS-63565 R_Date −841.79 43.6114 −1169.5 −519.5

26 ANI-28: UGA-27951 R_Date −804.467 32.508 −1054.5 −514.5

27 ANI-4: DAMS-3994 R_Date −652.871 71.528 −929.5 −329.5

28 ANI-23: OS-74602 R_Date −573.108 75.5981 −809.5 −314.5

29 ANI-24: OS-74604 R_Date 1333.12 35.4291 1115.5 1500.5

30 ANI-21: OS-74600 R_Date 1348.33 36.5155 1115.5 1525.5

31 ANI-6: OS-50446 R_Date 1385.01 34.547 1210.5 1555.5

32 IntCal13 Curve — — −48054.5 1965.5

33 ANI-8: B-031360 R_Date 1362.39 37.4358 1245.5 1625.5

34 Marine13 Curve — — −48054.5 1965.5

35 LocalMarine Delta_R 263.33 19.8681 130 395

36 ANI-18: B-232738 R_Date 1745.24 74.088 1415.5 1965.5

37 ANI-22: OS-63567 R_Date 1760.02 53.2942 1505.5 1965.5

38 end Boundary 1949.13 192.074 1505.5 7680.5

39 duration Span 5568.95 287.706 0 17145
7 2 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

TABLE A3. Bayesian outputs for East Anacapa Island dates, showing unmodeled and modeled ages, date names, and agreement indices 

(summarized in Figure 14). A dash (—) indicates output does not apply to this model; a percent symbol (%) indicates the confidence 

interval of the modeled chronology.

 Indices:

 Amodel = 104.3,

Unmodeled (BP) Modeled (BP) Aoverall = 93.2

Name From To % From To % Agreement Convergence

Sequence

Boundary start — — — 3896 3458 95.4 — 95.4

Phase

Curve Marine13

Delta_R LocalMarine 219 303 95.4 224 314 95.4 93.3 99.4

R_Date ANI-4: DAMS-3995 3700 3485 95.4 3670 3455 95.4 86.2 98.9

R_Date ANI-1: OS-48488 3551 3357 95.4 3544 3349 95.4 99.9 99.5

R_Date ANI-3: OS-63566 3304 3045 95.4 3294 3028 95.4 98.5 99.4

R_Date ANI-3: DAMS-3996 3303 3028 95.4 3291 3006 95.4 98.5 99.2

R_Date ANI-2: OS-60632 3254 2999 95.4 3245 2990 95.4 98.6 99.3

Curve IntCal13

R_Date ANI-2: OxA-30069 3209 3005 95.4 3208 3007 95.4 99.9 99.5

Curve Marine13

Delta_R LocalMarine 219 303 95.4 215 295 95.4 101.3 99.6

R_Date ANI-4: OS-48509 3210 2967 95.4 3220 2978 95.4 100.1 99.4

R_Date ANI-2: OS-60407 2927 2749 95.4 2933 2753 95.4 99 99.5

R_Date ANI-2: OS-48508 2922 2733 95.4 2928 2736 95.4 99.2 99.2

R_Date ANI-2: OS-63565 2887 2712 95.4 2890 2715 95.4 99.8 99.6

R_Date ANI-4: DAMS-3994 2721 2458 95.4 2740 2530 95.4 101.7 99.4

Boundary end — — — 2730 2331 95.4 — 96.3

Span duration — — — 791 1457 95.4 — 96.2
NUMBER 52 • 7 3

TABLE A5. Bayesian outputs for Middle Anacapa Island dates, showing unmodeled and modeled ages, date names, and agreement indices (summarized in Figure 15). A dash (—) indicates output does not apply to this model; a percent symbol (%) indicates the confidence 

interval of the modeled chronology.

 Indices:

 Amodel = 106.4,

Unmodeled (BP) Modeled (BP) Aoverall = 98.4

Name From To % From To % Agreement Convergence

Sequence

Boundary start — — — 7441 5310 95.4 — 96.8

Phase

Curve Marine13

Delta_R LocalMarine 219 303 95.4 230.5 309 95.4 99.1 99.9

R_Date ANI-15: OS-74598 5552 5316 95.4 5539 5306 95.4 98.9 99.9

R_Date ANI-9: OS-74596 3371 3152 95.4 3363 3143 95.4 99.0 99.8

R_Date ANI-9: OS-74597 3312 3060 95.4 3302 3049 95.4 99.7 99.9

R_Date ANI-25: OS-74646 3304 3045 95.4 3292 3025 95.4 99.9 99.9

R_Date ANI-23: OS-74602 2666 2378 95.4 2651 2361 95.4 98.1 99.8

R_Date ANI-24: OS-74604 675 540 95.4 670 540 95.4 99.5 99.9

R_Date ANI-21: OS-74600 665 530 95.4 661 527 95.4 100.2 99.9

R_Date ANI-22: OS-63567 278 60 95.4 275 62 95.4 100.8 99.9

Boundary end — — — 270 −1833 95.4 — 96.9

Span duration — — — 5124 8601 95.4 — 97.3

TABLE A4. Bayesian model specifications for East Anacapa Island dates underpinning Figure 14. A dash (—) indicates the measure is 

not applicable to a particular parameter.

Parameter Name Type mu sigma llim ulim

0 intcal13 NoOp — — −48054.5 1965.5

1 NoOp — — NaN NaN

2 start Boundary −1702.14 119.149 −3559.5 −1384.5

3 NoOp — — NaN NaN

4 Marine13 Curve — — −48054.5 1965.5

5 LocalMarine Delta_R 268.902 22.2554 130 395

6 ANI-4: DAMS-3995 R_Date −1613.08 55.4083 −1944.5 −1384.5

7 ANI-1: OS-48488 R_Date −1488.25 50.3283 −1784.5 −1209.5

8 ANI-3: OS-63566 R_Date −1202.31 63.4744 −1499.5 −879.5

9 ANI-3: DAMS-3996 R_Date −1194.83 67.4949 −1504.5 −864.5

10 ANI-2: OS-60632 R_Date −1174.25 63.1046 −1479.5 −859.5

11 IntCal13 Curve — — −48054.5 1965.5

12 ANI-2: OxA-30069 R_Date −1164.4 46.1787 −1419.5 −914.5

13 Marine13 Curve — — −48054.5 1965.5

14 LocalMarine Delta_R 255.105 19.7079 130 395

15 ANI-4: OS-48509 R_Date −1151.73 60.8936 −1439.5 −814.5

16 ANI-2: OS-60407 R_Date −889.166 47.4429 −1199.5 −704.5

17 ANI-2: OS-48508 R_Date −872.203 50.0382 −1214.5 −569.5

18 ANI-2: OS-63565 R_Date −845.227 44.3286 −1169.5 −519.5

19 ANI-4: DAMS-3994 R_Date −701.188 55.4256 −929.5 −329.5

20 end Boundary −612.767 119.027 −929.5 1285.5

21 duration Span 1089.38 181.069 0 4845
7 4 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

TABLE A6. Bayesian model specifications for Middle Anacapa Island dates underpinning Figure 15. A dash (—) indicates the measure 

is not applicable to a particular parameter.

Parameter Name Type mu sigma llim ulim

0 intcal13 NoOp — — −48054.5 1965.5

1 NoOp — — NaN NaN

2 start Boundary −4028.83 715.478 −9464.5 −3154.5

3 NoOp — — NaN NaN

4 Marine13 Curve — — −48054.5 1965.5

5 LocalMarine Delta_R 270.183 18.9663 130 395

6 ANI-15: OS-74598 R_Date −3463.18 62.8223 −3749.5 −3154.5

7 ANI-9: OS-74596 R_Date −1305.96 57.1734 −1619.5 −964.5

8 ANI-9: OS-74597 R_Date −1214.97 61.5479 −1504.5 −889.5

9 ANI-25: OS-74646 R_Date −1200.47 61.3567 −1499.5 −879.5

10 ANI-23: OS-74602 R_Date −553.557 77.0651 −809.5 −314.5

11 ANI-24: OS-74604 R_Date 1341.48 35.16 1115.5 1500.5

12 ANI-21: OS-74600 R_Date 1355.43 35.8858 1115.5 1525.5

13 ANI-22: OS-63567 R_Date 1771.94 57.7561 1505.5 1965.5

14 end Boundary 2338.88 711.438 1505.5 7680.5

15 duration Span 6367.72 1127.78 0 17145

TABLE A7. Bayesian outputs for West Anacapa Island dates, showing unmodeled and modeled ages, date names, and agreement indices 

(summarized in Figure 16). A dash (—) indicates output does not apply to this model; a percent symbol (%) indicates the confidence 

interval of the modeled chronology.

 Indices:

 Amodel = 105.6,

Unmodeled (BP) Modeled (BP) Aoverall = 100.7

Name From To % From To % Agreement Convergence

Sequence

Boundary start — — — 7589 4993 95.4 — 97

Phase

Curve Marine13

Delta_R LocalMarine 219 303 95.4 216 296 95.4 101.5 99.8

R_Date ANI-5: OS-46940 5284 5012 95.4 5285 5015 95.4 99.5 99.8

R_Date ANI-8: OS-50447 5030 4821 95.4 5031 4823 95.4 99.5 99.8

R_Date ANI-28: UGA-27952 3476 3294 95.4 3478 3305 95.4 101.1 99.9

R_Date ANI-28: UGA-27951 2833 2697 95.4 2834 2700 95.4 100.4 99.8

R_Date ANI-6: OS-50446 631 504 95.4 633 505 95.4 100.2 99.9

Curve IntCal13

R_Date ANI-8: B-031360 652 522 95.4 651 522 95.4 99.5 99.9

Curve Marine13

Delta_R LocalMarine 219 303 95.4 219.5 304.5 95.4 100.1 99.9

R_Date ANI-18: B-232738 315 — 95.4 353 −2 95.4 100.4 99.8

Boundary end — — — 374 −2243 95.4 — 97.3

Span duration — — — 4800 9022 95.4 — 97.6
NUMBER 52 • 7 5

TABLE A8. Bayesian model specifications for West Anacapa Island dates underpinning Figure 16. A dash (—) indicates the measure is 

not applicable to a particular parameter.

Parameter Name Type mu sigma llim ulim

0 intcal13 NoOp — — −48054.5 1965.5

1 NoOp — — NaN NaN

2 start Boundary −3880.47 838.855 −9014.5 −2854.5

3 NoOp — — NaN NaN

4 Marine13 Curve — — −48054.5 1965.5

5 LocalMarine Delta_R 255.673 19.5965 130 395

6 ANI-5: OS-46940 R_Date −3197.02 74.8218 −3524.5 −2854.5

7 ANI-8: OS-50447 R_Date −2970.12 58.0812 −3349.5 −2629.5

8 ANI-28: UGA-27952 R_Date −1437.74 42.1042 −1689.5 −1154.5

9 ANI-28: UGA-27951 R_Date −807.275 33.3318 −1054.5 −514.5

10 ANI-6: OS-50446 R_Date 1382.83 34.5128 1210.5 1555.5

11 IntCal13 Curve — — −48054.5 1965.5

12 ANI-8: B-031360 R_Date 1362.64 37.4718 1245.5 1625.5

13 Marine13 Curve — — −48054.5 1965.5

14 LocalMarine Delta_R 262.013 20.9468 130 395

15 ANI-18: B-232738 R_Date 1750.62 81.37 1415.5 1965.5

16 end Boundary 2431.21 830.88 1415.5 7455.5

17 duration Span 6311.67 1331.68 0 16470

References

Ainis, A. F., R. L. Vellanoweth, T. W. Davis, J. M. Erlandson, and T. C. Rick. 2011. Changes in Marine Subsistence 

on San Miguel Island from 8,500 to 2,400 Years Ago: Analysis of Bulk Samples from Cave of the Chimneys 

(CA-SMI-603). Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology, 31:59–79.

Aldenderfer, M., 2005. “Statistics for Archaeology.” In Handbook of Archaeological Methods, ed. H. Maschner 

and C. Chippendale, pp. 501–553. Lanham, Md.: Alta Mira.

Allen, L. G., D. J. Pondella, and M. H. Horn. 2006. Ecology of Marine Fishes: California and Adjacent Waters. 

Berkeley: University of California Press.

Altschul, J. H., and D. R. Grenda, eds. 2002. Islanders and Mainlanders: Prehistoric Context for the Southern 

California Bight. Tucson, Ariz.: SRI Press.

Anderson, D. W., C. J. Henny, C. Godinez-Reyes, F. Gress, E. L. Palacios, K. Santos Del Prado, J. P. Gallo-Reynoso, 

and J. Bredy. 2013. Size and Distribution of the California Brown Pelican Metapopulation in a Non-ENSO 

Year. Marine Ornithology, 41:95–106.

Arnold, J. E. 1990. An Archaeological Perspective on the Historic Settlement Pattern on Santa Cruz Island. Journal 

of California and Great Basin Anthropology, 12:112–127.

Arnold, J. E. 1992. Complex Hunter-Gatherer-Fishers of Prehistoric California: Chiefs, Specialists and Maritime 

Adaptations of the Channel Islands. American Antiquity, 57:60–84. https://doi.org/10.2307/2694835.

Arnold, J. E., ed. 2001. The Origins of a Pacific Coast Chiefdom: The Chumash of the Channel Islands. Salt Lake 

City: University of Utah Press.

Arnold, J. E., and A. Graesch. 2001. “The Evolution of Specialized Shellworking among the Island Chumash.” In 

The Origins of a Pacific Coast Chiefdom: The Chumash of the Channel Islands, ed. J. E. Arnold, pp. 71–

112. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

Bayliss, A. 2015. Quality in Bayesian Chronological Models in Archaeology. World Archaeology, 47:677–700. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2015.1067640.

Bell, A. V., T. E. Currie, G. Irwin, and C. Bradbury. 2015. Driving Factors in the Colonization of Oceania: Developing Island-Level Statistical Models to Test Competing Hypotheses. American Antiquity, 80:397–407. 

https://doi.org/10.7183/0002-7316.80.2.397.

Bennyhoff, J. A. 1950. Californian Fish Spears and Harpoons. University of California Anthropological Records, 

9(4):295–337.

Bennyhoff, J. A., and R. Hughes. 1987. Shell Bead and Ornament Exchange Networks between California and the 

Western Great Basin. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History, 64, pt. 2:79–175.

Bernard, J. 2004. “Status and the Swordfish: The Origins of Large Species Fishing among the Chumash.” In Foundations of Chumash Complexity, ed. J. E. Arnold, pp. 25–51. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, 

University of California, Los Angeles.

Binford, L. R. 1978. Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology. New York: Academic Press.

Braje, T. J. 2007. Geographic and Temporal Variability of Middle Holocene Red Abalone Middens on San Miguel 

Island, California. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology, 27:153–164.

Braje, T. J. 2010. Modern Oceans, Ancient Sites: Archaeology and Marine Conservation on San Miguel Island, 

California. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

Braje, T. J., J. M. Erlandson, K. Gill, T. Rick, P. Collins, L. Bentz. In press. “Historical Degradation and Ecological 

Recovery: Evaluating the Marginality of California Island Ecosystems.” In An Archaeology of Abundance: 

Reevaluating the Marginality of California’s Islands, ed. K. Gill, M. Fauvelle, and J. Erlandson. Gainesville: 

University Press of Florida.

Braje, T. J., J. M. Erlandson, and T. C. Rick. 2005. Reassessing Human Settlement on the South Coast of San 

Miguel Island, California: The Use of 14C Dating as a Reconnaissance Tool. Radiocarbon, 47:11–19. https://

doi.org/10.1017/S0033822200052140.
7 8 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

Braje, T. J., J. M. Erlandson, T. C. Rick, P. K. Dayton, and M. B. Hatch. 2009. Fishing from Past to Present: Continuity and Resilience of Red Abalone Fisheries on the Channel Islands, California. Ecological Applications, 19:906–919. 

https://doi.org/10.1890/08-0135.1.

Braje, T. J., T. C. Rick, and J. M. Erlandson. 2012. A Trans-Holocene Historical

Ecological Record of Shellfish Harvesting on the Northern Channel Islands. 

Quaternary International, 264:109–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint

.2011.09.011.

Braje, T. J., T. C. Rick, J. M. Erlandson, and R. L. DeLong. 2011. “Resilience and 

Reorganization: Archaeology and Historical Ecology of California Channel 

Island Marine Mammals.” In Human Impacts on Seals, Sea Lions, and Sea 

Otters: Integrating Archaeology and Ecology in the Northeast Pacific, ed. 

T. Braje and T. Rick, pp. 273–296. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Braje, T. J., T. C. Rick, P. Szpak, S. D. Newsome, J. M. McCain, E. A. E. Smith, 

M. Glassow, and S. L. Hamilton. 2017. Historical Ecology and the Conservation of Large, Hermaphroditic Fishes in Pacific Coast Kelp Forest Ecosystems. 

Science Advances, 3:e1601759. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1601759.

Breschini, G. S., T. Haversat, and J. M. Erlandson, eds. 2004. California Radiocarbon Dates: An Online Data Base. Salinas, Calif.: Coyote Press.

Bronk Ramsey, C. 1995. Radiocarbon Calibration and Analysis of Stratigraphy: 

The OxCal Program. Radiocarbon, 37:425–430. https://doi.org/10.1017

/S0033822200030903.

Bronk Ramsey, C. 2000. Comment on “The Use of Bayesian Statistics for 14C Dates 

of Chronologically Ordered Samples: A Critical Analysis.” Radiocarbon,

42:199–202. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033822200059002.

Bronk Ramsey, C. 2001. Development of the Radiocarbon Calibration Program. 

Radiocarbon, 43:355–363. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033822200038212.

Bronk Ramsey, C. 2009. Bayesian Analysis of Radiocarbon Dates. Radiocarbon,

51:337–360. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033822200033865.

Burkett, E. E., N. A. Rojek, A. E. Henry, M. J. Fluharty, L. Comrack, P. R. Kelly, 

A. C. Mahaney, and K. M. Fien. 2003. Report to the California Fish and

Game Commission: Status Review of Xantus’s Murrelet (Synthliboramphus 

hypoleucus) in California. Habitat Conservation Planning Branch Status Report 2003-03. Sacramento: California Department of Fish and Game.

Colten, R. H. 2001. “Ecological and Economic Analysis of Faunal Remains from 

Santa Cruz Island.” In The Origins of a Pacific Coast Chiefdom: The Chumash of the Channel Islands, ed. J. Arnold, pp. 199–219. Salt Lake City: 

University of Utah Press.

Crowther, A., P. Faulkner, M. E. Prendergast, E. M. Quintana Morales, M. Horton, E. Wilmsen, A. M. Kotarba-Morley, A. Christie, N. Petek, R. Tibesasa, 

K. Douka, L. Picornell-Gelabert, X. Carah, and N. Boivin. 2016. Coastal

Subsistence, Maritime Trade, and the Colonization of Small Offshore Islands 

in Eastern African Prehistory. Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology,

11:211–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564894.2016.1188334.

Culleton, B. J., D. J. Kennett, B. L. Ingram, J. M. Erlandson, and J. R. Southon. 

2006. Intrashell Radiocarbon Variability in Marine Mollusks. Radiocarbon,

48:387–400. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033822200038820.

Daly, M. 2018. Anacapa Island. Charleston, SC: Arcadia Publishing.

Des Lauriers, M. R. 2010. Island of Fogs: Archaeological and Ethnohistorical Investigations of Isla Cedros, Baja California. Salt Lake City: University of 

Utah Press. 

Driver, J. C. 1991. Identification, Classification, and Zooarchaeology. Circaea,

9:35–47.

Epstein, S., R. Buchsbaum, H. Lowenstam, and H. C. Urey. 1951. Carbonate-Water 

Isotopic Temperature Scale. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 62:417–

426. https://doi.org/10.1130/0016-7606(1951)62[417:CITS]2.0.CO;2.

Erlandson, J. M. 1988. Cultural Evolution and Paleogeography on the Santa Barbara Coast: A 9600-Year 14C Record from Southern California. Radiocarbon, 30:25–39. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033822200044167.

Erlandson, J. M. 1997. “The Middle Holocene on the Western Santa Barbara 

Coast.” In Archaeology of the California Coast during the Middle Holocene, 

ed. J. M. Erlandson and M. A. Glassow, pp. 91–109. Los Angeles: Institute of 

Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.

Erlandson, J. M., T. J. Braje, T. C. Rick, N. P. Jew, D. J. Kennett, N. Dwyer, 

A. Ainis, R. Vellanoweth, and J. Watts. 2011a. 10,000 Years of Human Predation and Size Changes in the Owl Limpet (Lottia gigantea) on San Miguel

Island, California. Journal of Archaeological Science, 38:1127–1134. https://

doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2010.12.009.

Erlandson, J. M., K. M. Gill, and M. Fauvelle. In press. “Responding to Stress or 

Coping with Abundance? Re-examining the Marginality of the California 

Islands for Maritime Hunter-Gatherers.” In An Archaeology of Abundance: 

Reevaluating the Marginality of California’s Islands, ed. K. M. Gill, M. Fauvelle, and J. M. Erlandson. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.

Erlandson, J. M., K. M. Gill, M. A. Glassow, and A. E. Gusick. 2016. Three Paleocoastal Lithic Sites on Santa Cruz Island, California. PaleoAmerica, 2:52–55. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/20555563.2016.1141741.

Erlandson, J. M., M. A. Glassow, C. Rozaire, and D. Morris. 1992. 4,000 Years of 

Human Occupation of Santa Barbara Island, California. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology, 14:85–93.

Erlandson, J. M., D. J. Kennett, B. L. Ingram, D. A. Guthrie, D. P. Morris, 

M. A. Tveskov, G. J. West, and P. L. Walker. 1996. An Archaeological and

Paleontological Chronology for Daisy Cave (CA-SMI-261), San Miguel

Island, California. Radiocarbon, 38:355–373. https://doi.org/10.1017

/S0033822200017689.

Erlandson, J. M., T. C. Rick, T. J. Braje, M. Casperson, B. Culleton, B. Fulfrost, 

T. Garcia, D. A. Guthrie, N. Jew, D. J. Kennett, M. L. Moss, L. A. Reeder,

C. E. Skinner, J. Watts, and L. Willis. 2011b. Paleoindian Seafaring, Maritime 

Technologies, and Coastal Foraging on California’s Channel Islands. Science,

331:1181–1185. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1201477.

Erlandson, J. M., T. C. Rick, T. J. Braje, A. Steinberg, and R. L. Vellanoweth. 2008. 

Human Impacts on Ancient Shellfish: A 10,000 Year Record from San Miguel 

Island, California. Journal of Archaeological Science, 35:2144–2152. https://

doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2008.01.014.

Fauvelle, M., and J. E. Perry. In press. “Marginality, Material Conveyance, and 

Trade on California’s Islands.” In An Archaeology of Abundance: Reevaluating the Marginality of California’s Islands, ed. K. M. Gill, M. Fauvelle, and 

J. M. Erlandson. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.

Fitzpatrick, S. M., V. D. Thompson, A. S. Poteate, M. F. Napolitano, and J. M. 

Erlandson. 2016. Marginalization of the Margins: The Importance of Smaller 

Islands in Human Prehistory. Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology,

11:155–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564894.2016.1192568.

Gamble, L. H. 2008. The Chumash World at European Contact: Power, Trade, and 

Feasting among Complex Hunter-Gatherers. Berkeley: University of California Press. https://doi.org/10.1525/california/9780520254411.001.0001.

Gifford, E. W. 1940. California Bone Artifacts. University of California Anthropological Records, 3:153–237.

Gill, K. M. 2015. Ancient Plant Use and the Importance of Geophytes among the 

Island Chumash of Santa Cruz Island, California. Ph.D. diss., University of 

California, Santa Barbara.

Gill, K. M., and K. M. Hoppa. 2016. Evidence for an Island Chumash GeophyteBased Subsistence Economy on the Northern Channel Islands. Journal of 

California and Great Basin Anthropology, 36:51–71.

Giovas, C. M. 2016. Though She Be but Little: Resource Resilience, Amerindian 

Foraging, and Long-Term Adaptive Strategies in the Grenadines, West Indies. 

Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology, 11:238–263. https://doi.org/10

.1080/15564894.2016.1193572.

Glassow, M. A. 1977. An Archaeological Overview of the Northern Channel Islands, California. Tucson, AZ: Western Archaeological Center, National Park 

Service.

Glassow, M. A., compiler and ed. 2010. Channel Islands National Park Archaeological Overview and Assessment. Ventura, Calif.: Channel Islands National 

Park, Department of the Interior.

Glassow, M. A., L. H. Gamble, J. E. Perry, and G. S. Russell. 2007. “Prehistory 

of the Northern California Bight and the Adjacent Transverse Ranges.” In 

California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, ed. T. L. Jones 

and K. A. Klarr, pp. 191–214. New York: Altamira Press.

Glassow, M. A., D. J. Kennett, J. P. Kennett, and L. R. Wilcoxon. 1994. 

“Confirmation of Middle Holocene Ocean Cooling Inferred from Stable 

Isotopic Analysis of Prehistoric Shells from Santa Cruz Island, California.” 

In The Fourth California Islands Symposium: Update on the Status of Resources, ed. W. Halvorson and G. Maender, pp. 223–232. Santa Barbara, 

Calif.: Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History.

Glassow, M. A., J. E. Perry, and P. F. Paige. 2008. The Punta Arena Site and Early 

and Middle Holocene Cultural Development on Santa Cruz Island, California. Santa Barbara, Calif.: Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History.

Gobalet, K. W. 2001. A Critique of Faunal Analysis: Inconsistency among Experts 

in Blind Tests. Journal of Archaeological Science, 28:377–386. https://doi.org

/10.1006/jasc.2000.0564.

Greenwood, R. 1978. Archaeological Survey and Investigation, Channel Islands 

National Monument, California. Report on file at the Central Coast Archaeological Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara. Pacific 

Palisades, Calif.: Greenwood and Associates.
NUMBER 52 • 7 9

Gusick, A. 2012. Behavioral Adaptations and Mobility of Early Holocene HunterGatherers, Santa Cruz Island, California. Ph.D. diss., University of California, Santa Barbara.

Gusick, A. E. 2013. “The Early Holocene Occupation of Santa Cruz Island.” In 

California’s Channel Islands: The Archaeology of Human Environmental 

Interaction, ed. C. Jazwa and J. Perry, pp. 40–59. Salt Lake City: University 

of Utah Press.

Hale, N. W. 2013. Restoring Native Plants Following Invasive Malephora crocea

(Coppery Iceplant, Aizoaceae) Eradication on Anacapa Island. Master’s thesis, San Jose State University, San Jose, Calif.

Hamilton, W. D., and A. M. Krus. 2018. The Myths and Realities of Bayesian 

Chronological Modeling Revealed. American Antiquity, 83:107–203. https://

doi.org/10.1017/aaq.2017.57.

Harvey, A. L., D. M. Mazurkiewicz, M. McKown, K. W. Barnes, and M. W. Parker. 

2016. Changing Breeding Status of the Ashy Storm-Petrel Oceanodroma 

homochroa on Anacapa Island, California. Marine Ornithology, 44:93–97.

Heizer, R. F. 1956. Archaeology of the Uyak Site, Kodiak Island, Alaska. Berkeley: 

University of California Press.

Heizer, R. F., ed. 1975. Chumash Place Name Lists. Compilations by A. L. Kroeber, 

C. Hart Merriam, and H. W. Henshaw. Berkeley: Archaeological Research 

Facility, University of California, Berkeley.

Hildebrandt, W. R., and T. L. Jones. 1992. Evolution of Marine Mammal Hunting: A View from the California and Oregon Coasts. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 11:360–401. https://doi.org/10.1016/0278-4165(92)

90013-2.

Hofman, C. A., T. C. Rick, J. E. Maldonado, P. W. Collins, J. M. Erlandson, R. C. 

Fleischer, C. Smith, T. S. Sillett, K. Ralls, W. Teeter, R. L. Vellanoweth, and 

S. D. Newsome. 2016. Tracking the Origins and Diet of an Endemic Island 

Canid (Urocyon littoralis) across 7300 Years of Human Cultural and Environmental Change. Quaternary Science Reviews, 146:147–160. https://doi

.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2016.06.010.

Hoppa, K. M. 2014. Terrestrial Resource Exploitation on Santa Cruz Island, California: Macrobotanical Data from Four Middle Holocene Sites. Monographs 

of the Western North American Naturalist 7:109-117.

Howald, G., C. J. Donlan, K. R. Faulkner, S. Ortega, H. Gellerman, D. A. Croll, 

and B. R. Tershy. 2010. Eradication of Black Rats Rattus rattus from Anacapa Island. Oryx, 44:30–40. https://doi.org/10.1017/S003060530999024X.

Jacobson, J. A. 2000. White-Tailed Deer Utility Indices: Development and Application of an Analytical Method. Master’s thesis, University of Tennessee, 

Knoxville.

Jazwa, C. S. 2015. A Dynamic Ecological Model for Human Settlement on California’s Northern Channel Islands. Ph.D. diss., Pennsylvania State University, 

University Park.

Jazwa, C. S., L. H. Gamble, and D. J. Kennett. 2013. A High-Precision Chronology for Two House Features at an Early Village Site on Western Santa Cruz 

Island, California, USA. Radiocarbon, 55:185–199. https://doi.org/10.1017

/S0033822200047901.

Jazwa, C., D. Kennett, and D. Hanson. 2012. Late Holocene Subsistence Change 

and Marine Productivity on Western Santa Rosa Island, Alta California. California Archaeology, 4:69–98. https://doi.org/10.1179/cal.2012.4.1.69.

Jew, N. P., and J. M. Erlandson. 2013. Paleocoastal Flaked Stone Heat Treatment 

Practices on Alta California’s Northern Channel Islands. California Archaeology, 5:79–104. https://doi.org/10.1179/1947461X13Z.0000000007.

Jew, N. P., J. M. Erlandson, T. C. Rick, and L. Reeder-Myers. 2014. Oxygen Isotope 

Analysis of California Mussel Shells: Seasonality and Human Sedentism at 

an 8,200-Year-Old Shell Midden on Santa Rosa Island, California. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences, 6:293–303. https://doi.org/10.1007

/s12520-013-0156-1.

Jew, N. P., J. M. Erlandson, T. C. Rick, and J. Watts. 2013. Shellfish, Seasonality, 

and Sedentism: δ18O Analysis of California Mussels from Early Holocene 

Shell Middens on San Miguel Island, California. Journal of Pacific Archaeology, 4:58–68.

Jew, N. P., and T. C. Rick. 2014. Understanding the Occupation of Small Continental Islands: Seasonality and δ18O Evidence from Anacapa Island, California. 

Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology, 9:430–435. https://doi.org/10

.1080/15564894.2013.861547.

Jew, N. P., T. C. Rick, M. A. Glassow, and J. E. Arnold. 2015a. Bayesian 14C Analysis, Formation Processes, and Accumulation Rates of the Prisoners Harbor 

Shell Midden and Village Complex, Santa Cruz Island, California. Journal of 

Archaeological Science: Reports, 3:257–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep

.2015.06.022.

Jew, N. P., T. C. Rick, K. J. Sullivan, and J. M. Erlandson. 2015b. Lithic Technologies 

from Late Holocene Anacapa Island, California: Local Reliance on ′Anayapax

Chert. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology, 35:313–323.

Johnson, J. R. 1982. An Ethnohistoric Study of the Island Chumash. Master’s thesis, University of California, Santa Barbara.

Johnson, J. R., T. W. Stafford, H. O. Ajie, and D. Morris. 2002. “Arlington Springs 

Revisited.” In Proceedings of the Fifth California Islands Symposium, ed. 

D. R. Brown, K. C. Mitchell, H. W. Chaney, D. Browne, K. Mitchell, and 

H. Chaney, pp. 541–544. Santa Barbara, Calif.: Santa Barbara Museum of 

Natural History.

Keegan, W. F., and J. M. Diamond. 1987. Colonization of Islands by Humans: A 

Biogeographical Perspective. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, 10:49–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-003110-8.50005-0.

Keegan, W. F., S. M. Fitzpatrick, K. S. Sealey, M. J. LeFebvre, and P. T. Sinelli. 

2008. The Role of Small Islands in Marine Subsistence Strategies: Case Studies from the Caribbean. Human Ecology, 36:635–654. https://doi.org/10

.1007/s10745-008-9188-z.

Kells, V. A., L. A. Rocha, and L. G. Allen. 2016. A Field Guide to Coastal Fishes: 

From Alaska to California. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Kennett, D. J. 1998. Behavioral Ecology and Hunter-Gatherer Societies of the 

Northern Channel Islands, California. Ph.D. diss., University of California, 

Santa Barbara.

Kennett, D. J. 2005. The Island Chumash: Behavioral Ecology of a Maritime Society. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Kennett, D. J., B. L. Ingram, J. M. Erlandson, and P. Walker. 1997. Evidence for 

Temporal Fluctuations in Marine Radiocarbon Reservoir Ages in the Santa 

Barbara Channel, Southern California. Journal of Archaeological Science,

24:1051–1059. https://doi.org/10.1006/jasc.1996.0184.

Kennett, D. J., and J. P. Kennett. 2000. Competitive and Cooperative Responses 

to Climatic Instability in Coastal Southern California. American Antiquity,

2:379–395. https://doi.org/10.2307/2694065.

Killingley, J. S. 1981. Seasonality of Mollusk Collecting Determined from O-18 

Profiles of Midden Shells. American Antiquity, 46:152–158. https://doi.org

/10.2307/279994.

Killingley, J. S., and W. H. Berger. 1979. Stable Isotopes in a Mollusk Shell: Detection of Upwelling Events. Science, 205:186–188. https://doi.org/10.1126

/science.205.4402.186.

Kirch, P. V. 1997. Microcosmic Histories: Island Perspectives on “Global” Change. 

American Anthropologist, 99:30–42. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1997.99.1.30.

LeBoeuf, B. J., D. P. Costa, A. C. Huntley, G. L. Kooyman, and R. W. Davis. 

1986. Pattern and Depth of Dives in Northern Elephant Seals, Mirounga 

angustirostris. Journal of Zoology, 208:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469

-7998.1986.tb04705.x.

LeGrande, A. N., and G. A. Schmidt. 2009. Sources of Holocene Variability of 

Oxygen Isotopes in Paleoclimate Archives. Climate of the Past, 5:441–455. 

https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-5-441-2009.

Livingston, D. S. 2006. Ranches in the Sea: A History of the Islands within Channel Islands National Park. Ventura, Calif.: Channel Islands National Park, 

National Park Service, Department of the Interior.

Love, M. S. 2011. Certainly More Than You Want to Know about the Fishes of 

the Pacific Coast: A Postmodern Experience. Santa Barbara, Calif.: Really 

Big Press.

Lyman, R. L. 2002. Taxonomic Identifications of Zooarchaeological Remains. Review of Archaeology, 23:13–20.

MacArthur, R. H., and E. O. Wilson. 1967. The Theory of Island Biogeography. 

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Madrigal, T. C. 2004. The Derivation and Application of White-Tailed Deer Utility 

Indices and Return Rates. Journal of Taphonomy, 2:185–199.

McChesney, G. J., and B. R. Tershy. 1998. History and Status of Introduced Mammals and Impacts to Breeding Seabirds on the California Channel and Northwestern Baja California Islands. Colonial Waterbirds, 21:335–347. https://

doi.org/10.2307/1521646.

McEachern, K., T. Atwater, P.W. Collins, K. Faulkner, and D.V. Richards. 2016. 

“Managed Island Ecosystems.” In Ecosystems of California, ed. H. Mooney 

and E. Zavaleta, pp. 755-778. Berkeley: University of California Press.

McKusick, M. B. 1959. Introduction to Anacapa Island Archaeology. UCLA Archaeological Survey Annual Report 1958–1959. Los Angeles: University of 

California.

McNiven, I. J. 2016. Increase Rituals and Environmental Variability on Small Residential Islands of Torres Strait. Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology,

11:195–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564894.2015.1115789.
8 0 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

Morris, D. P., and J. Lima. 1996. Channel Islands National Park and Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary: Submerged Cultural Resources Assessment. 

Santa Fe, N.M.: Submerged Cultural Resources Unit, National Park Service.

Napolitano, M. F. 2013. “The Role of Small Islands in Foraging Economies of 

St. Catherines Island.” In Life among the Tides: Recent Archaeology on the 

Georgia Bight, ed. V. Thompson and D. H. Thomas, pp. 191–210. New 

York: American Museum of Natural History.

National Park Service. 2013. Island Recovery Evident Ten Years after the Removal 

of Rats. https://www.nps.gov/chis/learn/news/anacapa-island-recovery.htm 

(accessed October, 2017).

National Park Service. 2016a. California Brown Pelican. Channel Islands National 

Park. https://www.nps.gov/chis/learn/nature/brown-pelican.htm (October, 

2017).

National Park Service. 2016b. Western Gull. Channel Islands National Park. 

https://www.nps.gov/chis/learn/nature/western-gull.htm (October, 2017).

National Park Service. 2016c. Restoring Anacapa Island. https://www.nps.gov/chis

/learn/nature/restoring-anacapa-island.htm (accessed October, 2017).

Newton, K. M., M. McKown, C. Wolf, H. Gellerman, T. Coonan, D. Richards, 

A. L. Harvey, N. Holmes, G. Howald, K. Faulkner, B. R. Tershy, and D. A. 

Croll. 2016. Response of Native Species 10 Years after Rat Eradication on 

Anacapa Island, California. Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management, 7:72–

85. https://doi.org/10.3996/082015-JFWM-073.

Noah, A. C. 2005. Household Economies: The Role of Animals in a Historic Period 

Chiefdom on the California Coast. Ph.D. diss., University of California, Los 

Angeles.

Page, L. M., H. Espinosa-Pérez, L. T. Findley, C. R. Gilbert, R. N. Lea, N. E. 

Mandrak, R. L. Mayden, and J. S. Nelson. 2013. Common and Scientific 

Names of Fishes from the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Bethesda, 

Md.: American Fisheries Society.

Pergams, O. R., R. C. Lacy, and M. V. Ashley. 2000. Conservation and Management of Anacapa Island Deer Mice. Conservation Biology, 14:819–832. 

https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.98524.x.

Perry, J. E. 2003. Changes in Prehistoric Land and Resource Use among Complex 

Hunter-Gatherer-Fishers on Eastern Santa Cruz Island. Ph.D. diss., University of California, Santa Barbara.

Perry, J. E. 2004. Resource Intensification and Environmental Variability: Subsistence Patterns in Middle and Late Period Deposits at CA-SBA-2225, Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. Journal of California and Great Basin 

Anthropology, 24:81–102.

Perry, J. E. 2005. “Early Period Resource Use on Eastern Santa Cruz Island.” In 

Proceedings of the Sixth California Islands Symposium, ed. D. Garcelon and 

C. Schwemm, pp. 43–53. Arcata, Calif.: Institute for Wildlife Studies.

Perry, J. E., and M. A. Glassow. 2015. Prehistoric Settlement in Island Interiors: 

Evidence from California’s Santa Cruz Island. Journal of Island and Coastal 

Archaeology, 10:184–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564894.2014.934493.

Perry, J. E., M. A. Glassow, M. L. Neal, and K. R. Minas. 2017. Archaeological 

Survey and Site Assessment on Santa Barbara Island. Report on file. Channel 

Islands National Park, Ventura, Calif. 

Perry, J. E., and K. M. Hoppa. 2012. “Subtidal Shellfish Exploitation on the California Channel Islands: Wavy Top (Lithopoma undosum) in the Middle Holocene.” In Exploring Methods of Faunal Analysis, ed. M. A. Glassow and 

T. L. Joslin, pp. 65–86. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.

Perry, J. E., and C. S. Jazwa. 2010. Spatial and Temporal Variability in Chert Exploitation on Santa Cruz Island, California. American Antiquity, 75:177-198

Pierotti, R., and C. Annett. 2001. “The Ecology of Western Gulls in Habitats Varying in Degree of Urban Influence.” In Avian Ecology and Conservation in an 

Urbanizing World, ed. J. M. Marzluff, R. Bowman, and R. Donnelly, pp. 307–

329. New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-1531-9_15.

Porcasi, J. F. 1999. Prehistoric Bird Remains from the Southern Channel Islands. 

Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly, 35:38–59.

Raab, L. M., J. Cassidy, A. Yatsko, and W. J. Howard. 2009. California Maritime 

Archaeology: A San Clemente Island Perspective. New York: AltaMira Press.

Reeder, L. A., and T. C. Rick. 2009. New Perspectives on the Archaeology of Anacapa Island, California: Preliminary Research at ANI-2. Proceedings of the 

Society for California Archaeology, 21:119–123.

Reeder-Myers, L., J. M. Erlandson, D. R. Muhs, and T. C. Rick. 2015. Sea Level, Paleogeography, and Archeology on California’s Northern Channel Islands. Quaternary Research, 83:263–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yqres.2015.01.002.

Reimer, P. J., E. Bard, A. Bayliss, J. W. Beck, P. G. Blackwell, C. Bronk Ramsey, 

C. E. Buck, H. Cheng, R. L. Edwards, M. Friedrich, P. M. Grootes, T. P. Guilderson, H. Haflidason, I. Hajdas, C. Hatte, T. H. Heaton, D. L. Hoffman, 

A. Hogg, K. A. Hughen, K. F. Kaiser, B. Kromer, S. W. Manning, M. Niu, 

R. W. Reimer, D. A. Richards, E. M. Scott, J. R. Southon, R. A. Staff, C. S. 

M. Turney, and J. van der Plicht. 2013. IntCal13 and Marine13 Radiocarbon 

Age Calibration Curves 0-50,000 years cal BP. Radiocarbon, 55:1869–1887. 

https://doi.org/10.2458/azu_js_rc.55.16947.

Rick, T. C. 2001. The Archaeology of Santa Barbara Island: Past Projects and Future Directions. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly, 37:57–72.

Rick, T. C. 2004. Daily Activities, Community Dynamics, and Historical Ecology 

on California’s Northern Channel Islands. Ph.D. diss., University of Oregon, 

Eugene.

Rick, T. C. 2006. A 5,000-Year Record of Coastal Settlement on Anacapa Island, 

California. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology, 26:65–72.

Rick, T. C. 2007. The Archaeology and Historical Ecology of Late Holocene San 

Miguel Island. Los Angeles, Calif.: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology.

Rick, T. C. 2009. “8000 Years of Human Settlement and Land Use in Old Ranch 

Canyon, Santa Rosa Island, California.” In Proceedings of the Seventh California Islands Symposium, ed. C. C. Damiani and D. Garcelon, pp. 21–31. 

Arcata, Calif.: Institute for Wildlife Studies.

Rick, T. C. 2011. Historic Period Chumash Occupation of ′Anayapax, Anacapa 

Island, Alta California. California Archaeology, 3:273–284. https://doi.org

/10.1179/cal.2011.3.2.27.

Rick, T. C., R. L. DeLong, J. M. Erlandson, T. J. Braje, T. L. Jones, J. E. Arnold, 

M. R. Des Lauriers, W. R. Hildebrandt, D. J. Kennett, R. L. Vellanoweth, 

and T. A. Wake. 2011. Where Were the Northern Elephant Seals? Holocene Archaeology and Biogeography of Mirounga angustirostris. Holocene,

21:1159–1166. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959683611400463.

Rick, T. C., J. M. Erlandson, and K. Horton. 2009. Marine Shellfish Harvest on 

Middle and Late Holocene Santa Barbara Island, California. California Archaeology, 1:109–123. https://doi.org/10.1179/cal.2009.1.1.109.

Rick, T. C., J. M. Erlandson, and R. L. Vellanoweth. 2006. Taphonomy and Site 

Formation on California’s Channel Islands. Geoarchaeology, 21:567–589. 

https://doi.org/10.1002/gea.20124.

Rick, T. C., J. M. Erlandson, R. L. Vellanoweth, and T. J. Braje. 2005. From Pleistocene Mariners to Complex Hunter-Gatherers: The Archaeology of the California Channel Islands. Journal of World Prehistory, 19:169–228. https://doi

.org/10.1007/s10963-006-9004-x.

Rick, T. C., C. E. Skinner, J. M. Erlandson, and R. L. Vellanoweth. 2001. Obsidian Source Characterization and Human Exchange Systems on California’s 

Channel Islands. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly, 37:27–44.

Rick, T. C., R. L. Vellanoweth, J. M. Erlandson, and D. J. Kennett. 2002. On 

the Antiquity of the Single-Piece Shell Fishhook: AMS Radiocarbon Evidence 

from the Southern California Coast. Journal of Archaeological Science,

29:933–942. https://doi.org/10.1006/jasc.2001.0788.

Robbins, J. A., and T. C. Rick. 2007. Stable Isotopes: Methods and Applications. 

Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology, 20:29–33. 

Rogers, D. B. 1929. Prehistoric Man on the Santa Barbara Coast. Santa Barbara, 

Calif.: Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History.

Rozaire, C. 1978. A Report of the Archaeological Investigations of Three California Channel Islands: Santa Barbara, Anacapa, and San Miguel. Report on 

file. Los Angeles: Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History.

Rozaire, C. 1993. “The Bladelet Industry on Anacapa and San Miguel Islands.” In 

Archaeology on the Northern Channel Islands, California: Studies in Subsistence, Economics, and Social Organization, ed. M. A. Glassow, pp. 63–73. 

Salinas, Calif.: Coyote Press.

Salls, R. A. 1988. Prehistoric Fisheries of the California Bight. Ph.D. diss., University of California, Los Angeles. 

Sandefur, E. C. 1978. “Anacapa Island Faunal Analysis.” In Archaeological Investigations on Anacapa Island, California, ed. C. Rozaire, pp. 187–201. Report 

on file. Los Angeles: Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History.

Schiffer, M. B. 1986. Radiocarbon Dating and the “Old Wood” Problem: The Case 

of the Hohokam Chronology. Journal of Archaeological Science, 13:13–30. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-4403(86)90024-5.

Schoenherr, A. A., C. R. Feldmeth, and M. J. Emerson. 1999. Natural History of 

the Islands of California. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Teeter, W. G., D. R. Martinez, and K. O. Kennedy Richardson. 2013. “Cultural 

Landscapes of Santa Catalina Island.” In California’s Channel Islands: The 

Archaeology of Human Environment Interactions, ed. C. Jazwa and J. Perry, 

pp. 156–171. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. 

Thakar, H. B. 2012. “Ancient Actions Predict Modern Consequences: Lessons from 

Prehistoric Shellfish Intensification.” In Time, Space, and Form in Biological 
NUMBER 52 • 8 1

Conservation, ed. S. Wolverton and L. Lyman, pp. 92–109. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

Thakar, H. B. 2014a. Food & Fertility in Prehistoric California: A Case-Study of 

Risk-Reducing Foraging Behavior and Population Growth from Santa Cruz 

Island, California. Ph.D. diss., University of California, Santa Barbara.

Thakar, H. B. 2014b. Sites Forlorn: Dating Intervals of Abandonment at Three 

Shell Middens on Santa Cruz Island, California Using Bayesian Chronological Models. Journal of Archaeological Science, 52:633–644. https://doi.org

/10.1016/j.jas.2014.03.029.

Thompson, V. D., and J. A. Turck. 2010. Island Archaeology and the Native American 

Economies (2500 BC–AD 1700) of the Georgia Coast. Journal of Field Archaeology, 35:283–297. https://doi.org/10.1179/009346910X12707321358991.

Turnbull, J., K. W. Gobalet, J. W. Gaeta, and M. R. Des Lauriers. 2015. The Native American Fishery of Cedros Island, Baja California, and a Comparison 

with the Fisheries of the Islands of the Southern California Bight. Journal of 

California and Great Basin Anthropology, 39:69–86.

Vellanoweth, R. L., P. Martz, and S. J. Schwartz. 2002a. “Complexity and the 

Late Holocene Archaeology of San Nicolas Island.” In Catalysts to Complexity: Late Holocene Societies of the California Coast, ed. J. Erlandson and 

T. Jones, pp. 81–100. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.

Vellanoweth, R. L., T. C. Rick, and J. M. Erlandson. 2002b. “Middle and Late 

Holocene Maritime Adaptations on Northeastern San Miguel Island, California.” In Proceedings of the Fifth California Islands Symposium, ed. 

D. R. Brown, K. C. Mitchell, H. W. Chaney, D. Browne, K. Mitchell, and

H. Chaney, pp. 607–614. Santa Barbara, Calif.: Santa Barbara Museum of

Natural History.

Wake, T. A. 1997. “Bone Artifacts and Tool Production in the Native Alaskan 

Neighborhood.” In The Native Alaskan Neighborhood: A Multiethnic Community at Colony Ross, ed. K. G. Lightfoot, A. M. Schiff, and T. A. Wake, 

pp. 248–278. Berkeley, Calif.: Archaeological Research Facility, University 

of California.

Wake, T. A. 2001. “Bone Tool Technology on Santa Cruz Island and Implications 

for Exchange.” In The Origins of a Pacific Coast Chiefdom: The Chumash of 

the Channel Islands, ed. J. Arnold, pp. 183–197. Salt Lake City: University 

of Utah Press.

Walker, P. L., S. Craig, D. Guthrie, and R. Moore. 1978. Ethnozoological Analysis 

of Faunal Remains from Four Santa Barbara Channel Island Archaeological 

Sites. Report on file. Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.

Wickler, S. 2016. The Centrality of Small Islands in Arctic Norway from the Viking 

Age to Recent Historic Period. Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology,

11:171–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564894.2015.1134728.

Wolff, C. B., T. C. Rick, and A. Aland. 2007. Middle Holocene Subsistence and 

Land Use on Southeast Anchorage, Santa Rosa Island, California. Journal of 

California and Great Basin Anthropology, 27 (2):172–184.

About the Contributors

Kenneth W. Gobalet (kgobalet@csub.edu) is an emeritus professor of biology at California State University, Bakersfield. He currently lives in San Francisco, CA. His undergraduate and graduate coursework was completed at the University of California, 

Davis, where he earned his Ph.D. in 1980. For 40 years, his primary research has been 

the identification and interpretation of archaeological fish remains from California. He 

has written about 50 peer-reviewed publications, including book chapters and articles in 

journals that focus not only on archaeology but ichthyology, natural history, and geology. 

He is most proud of having published with seven of his students, three of whom now 

have earned doctorates and four have earned master’s degrees. 

John M. Hash (hashjm@si.edu) received his B.S. in biology in 2007 from California 

State University, Bakersfield (CSUB), where his research focused on taphonomy and zooarchaeology of California fishes before he completed his M.S. in biology in 2010 at 

CSUB and Ph.D. in entomology at the University of California, Riverside, in 2015. John 

is currently a postdoctoral fellow in the Department of Entomology at the Smithsonian 

Institution’s National Museum of Natural History.

Nicholas P. Jew (Nicholas.Jew@csusb.edu) is an assistant professor and director of graduate studies in applied archaeology at California State University, San Bernardino. He 

received his Ph.D. from the University of Oregon in 2013, M.A. from the University of 

Alaska Fairbanks in 2007, and B.A. from the University of California, Santa Barbara, in 

2003. Jew’s research interest relates to archaeometric studies and lithic analysis of prehistoric peoples in island and coastal environments.

Leslie A. Reeder-Myers (leslie.reeder-myers@temple.edu) is an assistant professor in the Department of Anthropology at Temple University and the director of Temple’s Anthropology 

Laboratory and Museum. She received her Ph.D. in 2012 and M.A. in 2007 from Southern 

Methodist University and her B.A. in 2005 from Tufts University. She studies how human 

societies interact with their environments over decades, centuries, and millennia, especially 

in coastal environments. She works to make archaeology applicable to modern problems, 

including the exploration of long-term patterns in sustainability and resilience.

Torben C. Rick (rickt@si.edu) is curator of human environmental interactions at the Department of Anthropology at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of Natural 

History. He received a Ph.D. in 2004 and M.S. in 1999 from the University of Oregon 
8 4 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

and a B.A. from the University of California, Santa Barbara, in 

1997. Rick’s research focuses on the archaeology and historical 

ecology of coastal and island peoples, especially on the North 

American Pacific and Atlantic Coasts. 

Thomas A. Wake (twake@ucla.edu) is the director of the Zooarchaeology Laboratory at the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology at 

the University of California, Los Angeles. He received his Ph.D. 

in 1995, M.A. in 1989, and B.A. in 1987 from the University of 

California, Berkeley. His research focuses on archaeology, zooarchaeology, and paleoecology, with ongoing research in the Pacific 

Rim, Caribbean, and other regions.

Christopher B. Wolff (cwolff@albany.edu) is an assistant professor in the Department of Anthropology at the University at 

Albany. Prior to that appointment he worked as a repatriation archaeologist at the Smithsonian and taught at the State 

University of New York at Plattsburgh in upstate New York. 

He earned a B.A. from Portland State University in 2001, a 

M.A. from Memorial University of Newfoundland in 2004, 

and a Ph.D. from Southern Methodist University in 2008. 

His primary research focuses on the migration and social organization of prehistoric subarctic and Arctic coastal huntergatherers and their relationship to environmental change and 

cultural interaction.
Index

Page numbers for tables are indicated by a t and figures by an f. 

abalones, black, 51

dating of, 19, 23

from East Anacapa Island, 13–16, 46–47

from West Anacapa Island, 17

abalones, red, 51, 55

accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS), 23

albatross, 34, 47, 55, 63–64, 67

alcids, 49, 55, 63, 64

American Fisheries Society, 46

Anacapa Island, 1–5, 27t, 41–42

birds from, 49, 53t, 55, 63, 64

birds nesting on, 5–6, 11, 13–15, 45, 55

dating of, 22t, 23, 24f, 70t, 71t

disruptions to sites at, 11–15, 17, 19

and exchange networks, 39

fish from, 52t

gorges from, 32t

human burial from, 62, 63

human occupation of, 62–63, 65–67

lighthouse at, 7f

mammals from, 54t, 55, 58

reptiles from, 53t

shellfish from, 47, 57f

vertebrates from, 55, 58f. 

See also East, Middle, West Anacapa Island

′Anyapax, 8

Arlington Springs, 62

Arnold, Jeanne E., 31

artiodactyls, 17

asphalt, 41, 65

auklets, 49, 55, 64

auks, 49, 55

barnacles, 13, 14, 17

Bayesian model, 21, 23

and Anacapa Island, 24f, 62, 70t, 71t

and East Anacapa Island, 25f, 72t, 73t

and Middle Anacapa Island, 25f, 73t, 74t

and West Anacapa Island, 74t, 75t

beads

from East Anacapa Island, 14, 31, 39, 44f, 

44t

from West Anacapa Island, 17, 42–43, 65

Bennyhoff, James A., 31

Beta Analytic, 23

bifaces, 14, 39, 42

blacksmiths (fish), 47, 51

bonitos, Pacific, 51

Braje, Todd J., 64

cabezons, 47

calcite samples, 26

California Academy of Sciences, 46

California Countercurrent, 45

California Current, 55

Casa Diablo (California), 39

Catalina Island, 1

cetaceans, 49, 51, 58

Channel Islands, 5–6

dating of, 23

human occupation of, 27, 62

resources on, 65

shellfish from, 55, 56t, 57f

surveys of, 67

vertebrates from, 58f

Channel Islands Biological Survey, 8

Channel Islands National Park, 1, 5

charcoal, 18, 19, 23

chert, 44

local source of, 31, 37, 39, 65

choppers, 14

Chumash, 65

occupation of Channel Islands by, 1, 2, 

6–8, 62–63

Collins, Paul, 7

coral reefs, 4

cormorants, 47, 49, 55, 64

Coso volcanic field (California), 39
8 6 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

cowries, 17

cows, 49

Craig, Steve, 46

croakers, yellowfin, 47

de Cessac, Leon, 8

deer, black-tailed, 36f

from Anacapa Island, 58, 63, 67

from East Anacapa Island, 31, 49, 65

used in bone gorge production, 35–37, 44

Diamond, Jared M., 4

DirectAMS, 23

dolphins, 49

East Anacapa Island, 5, 7, 11–16

asphalt from, 41

beads from, 14, 31, 39, 41, 44f, 44t

birds from, 31, 49

chert from, 37, 44

dating of, 21, 23, 25f, 62, 65, 72t, 73t

disturbances to, 11

fish from, 51

fishing at, 44

gorge production at, 44

human occupation of, 27, 44, 63, 65, 66

mammals from, 49, 64, 65

shellfish from, 13–16, 46–47, 47f

tools from, 31, 37, 40f, 41, 41t. 

See also site CA-ANI-1-4

erosion, 1, 13, 14, 16, 55

fishhooks, 17, 42–43

fishing, 7, 44

Fitzpatrick, Scott M., 3, 4

foxes, island, 6, 23, 49, 58, 63, 64, 67

Frenchy’s Cove, 7f, 37, 39, 45, 64

Freshwater Cave, 8, 44, 62

Gabrielino-Tongva, 1, 2

Gifford, Edward W., 31

Glassow, Michael A., 8, 41–42, 62, 63, 

65–66

goats, 49

Gobalet, Kenneth W., 18, 46

gorges, 31–34, 51

measurement of, 32t, 34, 38f

production of, 35–37, 44

Graesch, Anthony, 31

Greenwood, Roberta, 3, 9, 19

new sites identified by, 8

on site disturbances, 14, 15

on tools, 16, 17, 42, 44

Grimes Canyon (California), 39

gulls, 49, 64

disturbing sites, 11, 13–16

nesting of, 5–6, 45, 55, 63

hammerstones, 37

Hofman, Courtney A., 23, 64

Holocene, 7, 17, 55

Holocene, Early, 27, 62

Holocene, Late

and Anacapa Island, 51, 55, 58, 65, 67

and Channel Islands, 64

and East Anacapa Island, 37, 41, 43

and San Miguel Island, 47

Holocene, Middle, 23, 47, 51

Hoppa, Kristin M., 55

Hughes, Richard, 31

human burials, 13, 17, 42, 62, 63

Intcal13 calibration curve, 23

Isla Cedros, 2, 55

isotope ratio mass spectrometer, 26

Jew, Nicholas P., 9, 19, 23, 31, 37

Keegan, William F., 4

kelp, 6, 45, 51, 55, 63, 64

Kirch, Patrick V., 4

knives, 16, 42

Landing Cove, 5f

Last Glacial Maximum, 5

LeDreau, Raymond “Frenchy,” 7

Lima, James, 9

limpets, owl, 14, 16, 17, 46–47, 51

lingcods, 47

lobsters, 6

Los Angeles County Museum, 8, 43

MacArthur, Robert H., 4

Mackerels

jack, 47

Pacific chub, 51

macrobotanicals, 18

macrodrills/punches, 37

Mangaia Island, 4

manos, 42

Marine13 calibration curve, 23

McKusick, Marshall B.

at Anacapa Island, 3, 8, 9, 45, 51

at East Anacapa Island, 13, 15, 42

on settlement patterns, 62

at West Anacapa Island, 43

Meighan, Clement, 8, 14, 41

mice, deer, 49, 63, 64

microblades

from Anacapa Island, 31, 37, 62

from West Anacapa Island, 17, 42–44, 58, 

65

microdrills, 17, 42

Middle Anacapa Island, 7, 13, 27, 45

dating of, 21, 23, 25f, 62, 73t, 74t

midshipmen (fish), 51

Minas, Kelly, 9, 11

Morris, Don P., 9

murrelets, 49, 55, 63, 64

mussels, California, 6, 51

dating of, 19, 21, 23, 26–27

from East Anacapa Island, 13–16, 46–47

from West Anacapa Island, 17

National Museum of Natural History, 19

National Ocean Sciences Accelerator Mass 

Spectrometry facility (NOSAMS), 23

National Park Service, 7, 8, 11, 19, 55

conservation efforts of, 1, 6, 37, 63, 65

Natural History Museum of Los Angeles 

County, 11, 22

Nature Conservancy, 1, 65

Northwest Research Obsidian Studies 

Laboratory, 39

obsidian, 39, 42t, 43f, 65

Olivella beads, 14, 17, 39, 41, 42, 44f, 44t

Orr, Phil, 8, 15

Ox-Cal 4.3, 23

Oxford University, 23

paleo-sea-surface temperature (PSST) data, 

23

pelicans, 11, 49, 64

nesting of, 6, 45, 55, 63

Perry, Jennifer E., 55, 65

pestles, 14, 42

petrels, 55

Pleistocene, 5, 6f

terminal, 7, 27, 62

porpoises, 49

rabbits, 7, 55

at East Anacapa Island, 14–15

European, 49

site disturbances by, 11, 17

radiocarbon dating, 11, 18–19, 21–24, 43, 62

ranching, 1, 7, 65

rats, 1, 7, 55, 63

reptiles, 53t

Rick, Torben C., 9

and artifacts from site CA-ANI-5, 39

and artifacts from site CA-ANI-18, 44, 65

on occupation at Anacapa Island, 8, 62, 

63, 65

shell artifact analysis by, 31

tool analysis by, 19

rockfish, 47, 51, 55

rock-shelters, 17, 18

Rogers, David B., 8

Roosevelt, Franklin, 5

Rozaire, Charles, 3, 9, 11, 22, 63

and East Anacapa Island, 13–16, 42

and West Anacapa Island, 8, 13, 17, 21, 

42–43, 49, 58, 65

Sandefur, Elsie C., 8, 17

San Miguel Island, 1, 2, 5

fish from, 51

human occupation of, 6, 8, 62

mammals from, 58, 64

shellfish from, 47, 55, 57f

vertebrates from, 55, 58f

Santa Barbara Island, 1, 3–5, 56t, 61, 62

Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History 

(SBMNH), 8, 15, 19, 39

Santa Cruz Island, 1, 2f, 5, 31

chert from, 39, 44

human occupation of, 6, 8, 62, 65

mammals from, 58, 64
NUMBER 52 • 8 7

shellfish from, 55, 57f

vertebrates from, 55, 58f

Santarosae Island, 6f, 8, 62

Santa Rosa Island, 1, 2f, 5, 26

fish from, 51

human occupation of, 6, 8, 62

shellfish from, 57f

SBMNH. See Santa Barbara Museum of 

Natural History (SBMNH)

Schoenherr, Allan A., 67

Schrader, John, 8

scorpionfish, California, 51

scrapers, 37, 42

screening, 12–13, 18, 46

sea lions, 6, 45

California, 49, 58, 64

seals, 6, 8, 42

Guadalupe fur, 49, 64

harbor, 45, 49, 58, 64

northern elephant, 49, 64

sea otters, 58, 64

California, 49

sea-surface temperature (SST), 23, 26, 27t, 

46f

sea urchins, 51

señoritas (fish), 51

sharks, 6

sheep, 55

Sheep Camp, 7

sheepheads, 6, 47

California, 51, 55, 64

shellfish harvesting seasonality, 21, 23, 

26–27, 63

Shepherd’s Landing, 7

shipwrecks, 7, 9, 63

site CA-ANI-1, 12, 13–14, 42

site CA-ANI-2, 3, 11, 14–15

beads from, 14, 39, 41, 44f, 44t

birds from, 34–35, 63–64

chert source from, 37, 44

dating of, 21, 23, 26–29t, 37, 39, 41

disturbances to, 14, 15, 15f

erosion at, 14

and gorge production, 35–37

gorges from, 32–34

human occupation of, 63, 66

intrusive artifacts from, 41

mammals from, 7, 8, 64, 65

screenings from, 12–13, 46

shellfish from, 14, 46, 47, 48t, 49f

tools from, 8, 14, 31–32, 40f, 41, 42

vertebrates from, 47, 49

site CA-ANI-3, 3, 8, 15, 16f

birds from, 64

fish from, 46

human remains from, 42

intrusive artifacts from, 41

screenings from, 12–13, 46

shellfish from, 15, 46, 50t

tools from, 31, 37, 40f, 42

vertebrates from, 47, 49

site CA-ANI-4, 3, 8, 15–16, 17f

birds from, 64

chert source from, 44

disturbances to, 16

erosion at, 16

fish from, 46

gorges from, 33–35, 37

intrusive artifacts from, 41

mammals from, 64, 65

screenings from, 12–13, 46

shellfish from, 16, 51t

tools from, 16, 31–32, 37, 40f, 42

vertebrates from, 47, 49

site CA-ANI-6, 8, 16–17

beads from, 17

birds form, 49

dating of, 11

fish from, 46, 47

mammals from, 58, 64

shellfish from, 17

tools from, 17, 31, 37, 65

vertebrates from, 49

site CA-ANI-8, 8, 17

beads from, 17

birds form, 49

dating of, 11, 17, 21, 23, 43

disturbances to, 17

fish from, 46, 47

human burials from, 17, 42

mammals from, 64

shellfish from, 17

tools from, 17, 31, 37, 65

vertebrates from, 49

site CA-ANI-11, 27, 43, 62

site CA-ANI-15, 23

site CA-ANI-18, 44, 62, 65

site CA-ANI-28, 9

site CA-SMI-87, 55

site CA-SMI-603, 55

skunks, 6

small island research, 3, 61, 67

Southern California Bight, 46f

SST. See sea-surface temperature (SST)

stable isotope analysis, 23

of site CA-ANI-2, 19, 21, 26–29t, 63, 64

steatite beads, 17, 42

surfperches, 47, 51, 55

tarring pebbles, 41

temperature averages, 28–29t

terminal growth band (TGB), 23

terns, 49

Thakar, Heather B., 58

Tikopia Island, 4

tools

from Anacapa Island, 18–19, 31, 41t, 62

from site CA-ANI-2, 8, 14, 31, 40f, 41

from site CA-ANI-3, 31, 37, 40f, 42

from site CA-ANI-4, 16, 31–32, 37, 40f, 42

from West Anacapa Island, 17, 31, 37, 65

Torres Strait, 4

turbans (shellfish), 51

Turnbull, John, 55

University of California, Los Angeles, 46

University of Georgia Center for Applied 

Isotope Studies, 23

University of Oregon Stable Isotope 

Laboratory of, 26

U.S. Coast Guard

on Anacapa Island, 7, 11, 13, 62

buildings of, 5f, 7

U.S. Navy, 1, 65

Van Valkenburgh, Richard, 8

vertebrates, 46, 47, 49, 55, 58f

Vienna Pee Dee Belemnite (VPDB) standard, 

26

Wake, Thomas

tool analysis by, 19, 31, 34

vertebrate analysis by, 18, 35, 46

Walker, Phillip L., 8, 46, 47

West Anacapa Island, 7, 9, 13, 16–17

beads from, 17, 42, 65

chert from, 37

dating of, 21, 23, 62, 74t, 75t

fish from, 47

human occupation of, 27, 66

mammals from, 58

shellfish from, 17

tools from, 42–43, 65

vegetation on, 45

vertebrates from, 49. 

See also site CA-ANI-6, site CA-ANI-8, 

site CA-ANI-18

whale, baleen, 49

Wilson, Edward O., 4

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, 23

Yates, Lorenzo G., 8

yellowtail jacks, 47
SUMMARY OF REQUIREMENTS FOR SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS SERIES

For comprehensive guidelines and specifications, visit https://scholarlypress.si.edu. 

ABSTRACTS must not exceed 300 words. 

TEXT must be prepared in a recent version of Microsoft Word; use a Times font in 12 point for regular text; be doublespaced; and have 1′′ margins.

REQUIRED ELEMENTS are title page, abstract, table of contents, main text, and references.

FIGURES must be numbered sequentially (1, 2, 3, etc.) in the order called out; have components lettered consistently (in 

size, font, and style) and described in captions; include a scale bar or scale description, if appropriate; include any legends 

in or on figures rather than in captions. Figures must be original and must be submitted as individual TIF or EPS files.

FIGURE FILES must meet all required specifications in the Digital Art Preparation Guide. Color images should be 

requested only if required. 

TAXONOMIC KEYS in natural history manuscripts should use the aligned-couplet form for zoology. If cross-referencing 

is required between key and text, do not include page references within the key, but number the keyed-out taxa, using the 

same numbers with their corresponding heads in the text.

SYNONYMY IN ZOOLOGY must use the short form (taxon, author, year:page), with full reference at the end of the 

manuscript under “References.”

REFERENCES should be in alphabetical order, and in chronological order for same-author entries. Each reference should 

be cited at least once in main text. Complete bibliographic information must be included in all citations. Examples of the 

most common types of citations can be found at SISP’s website under Resources/Guidelines & Forms.