ABSTRACT

Name: Jennifer M. Howard Department: Anthropology

Title: The Possible Use of Sea Urchin Spines as Drills on San Nicolas Island: An Experimental Archaeology Project

Major: Anthropology Degree: Master of Arts

Approved by: Date:

________________________ _________________________

NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY

ABSTRACT

Recent excavations on San Nicolas Island have yielded shell bead detritus in

association with what were thought to be worked sea urchin spines. Since San

Nicolas Island possesses no quality chert sources, the preferred source of stone used

for producing drills at other prehistoric bead manufacturing sites around the world,

these sea urchin spines were identified as drills used to drill Olivella shell beads.

This assumption could have great implications in regards to social hierarchy and

economic trade in California’s Channel Islands. In order to establish whether or not

the sea urchin spine was being used as a drill I designed a replicative experiment to

test this assumption. The results indicated that the sea urchin spine was not used to

drill Olivella shell beads but was perhaps used to smooth out the drill perforations

after manufacture.

NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY

NO DRILLS, NO PROBLEM?

THE POSSIBLE USE OF SEA URCHIN SPINES AS DRILLS ON SAN NICOLAS

ISLAND: AN EXPERIMENTAL ARCHAEOLOGY PROJECT

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL IN PARTIAL

FULLFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE

MASTER OF ARTS

DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY

BY

JENNIFER M. HOWARD

© JENNIFER M. HOWARD

DEKALB, ILLINOIS

MAY 2008

Certification: In accordance with departmental and Graduate

School policies this dissertation is accepted in

partial fulfillment of degree requirements.

___________________________________Thesis Director

___________________________________Date

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost I would like to thank my mother and sister, who did not

always understand what I was doing but supported me anyway. I would like to thank

Lisa Thomas-Barnett of the Naval Air Station Facility, Point Mugu for hosting my

visit and allowing me access to the archaeological collections of San Nicolas Island.

A big thank you goes out to Amanda Cannon, for all her help, knowledge, and

guidance. I would also like to thank Angie Keller and Benny Vargas, of Statistical

Research, Inc, for introducing me to the project. I would like to extend a special

thank you to Melanie Knypstra and Willa Trask for encouraging me to stick with it

and Charles Shaw and Jim Koch who helped me get through the late nights of

research and writing. Last, but not least, I would like to thank Dennis Abplanalp.

Without his boundless encouragement and love I would not have finished.

DEDICATION

For my father

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………………….. vii

LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………………… viii

Chapter

1. INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………. 1

Thesis Overview…… …………………………………………… 8

2. THE CHANNEL ISLANDS AT A GLANCE………………………………. 9

Terminal Pleistocene/Early Holocene (13,000 – 7,000 B.C.) ….. 11

Middle Holocene (6650-3500 B.C.)……..……………………… 13

Middle to Late Transition (A.D. 1150 to A.D. 1300)….……….. 15

Late Holocene (A.D. 1350 to A.D. 1850)………..…………….. 17

San Nicolas Island……….……………………………………… 22

SNI-39…………………………………………………... 27

SNI-162…………………………………………………. 30

SNI-160…………………………………………………. 33

Chapter Page

3. EXPERIMENTAL ARCHAEOLOGY AND CRAFT PRODUCTION…… 36

Middle Range Theory……….…………………………………. 37

Experimental Archaeology…………………………………….. 37

Review of Experimental Archaeology Projects ………………. 39

4. METHODS AND RESULTS……………………………………………… 47

Experiment Results……………………………………………. 47

Drilling with sea urchin spines………………………... 51

Drilling with chert microdrill………………………….. 53

Drilling with metal needle…………………………….. 55

Comparison of Experimental and Archaeological Specimens……………………………………………… 57

Additional Testing with sea urchin spines…………….. 58

5. DISCUSSION……………………………………………………………… 60

Experiment Discussion………..………………………………. 60

Previous Analysis……...……………………………………… 62

Future Studies…….…………………………………………… 67

Conclusion…...………………………………………………… 69

REFERENCES………………………………………………………………… 71

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Shell Bead Production Artifacts from SNI-39……………………………… 30

2. Shell Bead Production Artifacts from SNI-162…………………………….. 31

3. Shell Bead Production Artifacts from SNI-160’s Index Unit………………. 34

4. Drill Types and Drilling Times……………………………………………… 57

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. Map of San Nicolas Island showing Vizcaino Point and SNI-39, SNI-160 and SNI-162………………………………………………………………….. 2

2. Drawing of Proposed Sea Urchin Spine Drills from SNI-39………………… 5

3. Microscopic View of Potential Use Wear of Sea Urchin Spines from SNI-39………………………………………………………………………... 6

4. Map of the Southern California Bight and Channel Islands.………………. 9

5. Plan View of OS 2 in Unit 1, SNI-39………………………………………. 29

6. Plan View of OS 1 at SNI-162 showing Features 1 and 3, Deposits of Olivella Shell Detritus……………………………………………………….. 32

7. Olivella Biplicata Shell…………………………………………………….. 49

8. Strongylocentrotus franciscanus spines………………………………….... 49

9. Breaking of the Olivella biplicata shell…………………………………… 50

10. Olivella biplicata usable detritus………………………………………….. 50

11. Olivella shell specimen #1 after attempted drilling with sea urchin spine ... 52

12. Sea urchin spines broken during attempted drilling………………………... 52

13. Microdrill used for drilling specimen #4…………………………………... 53

14. Ventral view of Olivella shell specimen #4………………………………… 54

15. Dorsal view of Olivella shell specimen #4…………………………………. 54

16. Needle used to drill specimen #7…………………………………………… 55

Figure Page

17. Ventral view of Olivella specimen #7 after drilling with needle…………….. 56

18. Dorsal side of Olivella specimen #7 after drilling with needle……………… 56

19. Sea urchin spines used to smooth out perforations………………………….. 59

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

During excavations at SNI-160, located at Vizcaino Point, on San Nicolas

Island, Jane Rosenthal and Patricia Jertberg (1998) first excavated shell bead detritus

in association with what were thought to be worked sea urchin spines. Since San

Nicolas Island possesses no quality native chert source and until very recently no

stone drills have been found in association with bead making detritus, the pair

reached the conclusion that these sea urchin spines were used as drills. Similarly,

excavations at the site of SNI-39 by Statistical Research Inc. (SRI), yielded possibly

modified sea urchin spines in association with Olivella shell bead making detritus and

complete beads. Intense manufacture of shell beads is known to have taken place on

the Northern Channel Islands, however, very little evidence of shell bead

manufacturing is noted from the Southern Islands. Bead production technology on

San Nicholas Island, in the absence of a lithic source, could have great implications

for economic exchange, social-status, and political control. Shell beads are

representative of personal ornamentation, burial goods, status symbols, and currency

(Arnold and Graesch 2001; King 1976, 1990). Exchange of shell beads has been

suggested as a way to combat environmental or social problems by providing stable

interactions between the islanders and mainlanders (Arnold 1992, 1993, 1996, 2001;

King 1990; Kennet and Kennet 2000). Although there is evidence for bead

manufacture, the implication that sea urchin spines were used as drills is highly

dubious. The following study will examine the possible use of sea urchin spines as

drills and will show the impracticality of this assumption. The context in which these

items were found will also be examined and discussed in detail.

Evidence of intense bead manufacture has been recovered in the form of bead

blanks, bead detritus, beads in production, finished beads, and microdrills from sites

on the Northern Channel Islands of Santa Cruz, Santa Rosa, and San Miguel Islands

off the coast of Southern California (Arnold and Graesch 2001; Arnold and Munns

1994; Kennett 1998; Presozi 2001). These discoveries provide evidence that the once

widespread yet unspecialized craft of bead making became a highly specialized

process localized on the Northern Channel Islands after the Middle Late Transitional

Period (AD 1150-1200). In support of this evidence, village sites and cemeteries on

the mainland from this time period exhibit large amounts of finished beads, but hardly

any evidence of bead manufacture (Arnold and Graesch 2001).

Figure 1. Map of San Nicolas Island showing Vizcaino Point and SNI-39, SNI-160, and SNI-162. Statistical Research, Inc. 2007

In the past few years, however, it has become increasingly apparent that shell

bead manufacture took place on San Nicholas Island, despite the lack of reported

evidence of any type of drill used for perforation (Rosenthal and Jertberg 1998;

Maxwell, Grenda, and Keller 2006). As previously stated excavations at SNI-160

yielded evidence of shell bead manufacture including bead detritus, beads in

production, complete beads and possible sea urchin spine drills. SNI-39 yielded bead

detritus, complete beads, and possibly worked sea urchin spines, while SNI-162

exhibited evidence of bead detritus, beads in production and complete beads. Using

the bead chronologies of Bennyhoff and Hughes (1987); Gibson, (1992); and King

(1990) beads from SNI-39 and SNI-162 were identified by analysts at SRI and dated

to the Middle and Late periods (900 AD and 1782 AD), with most beads dating to the

late period (Maxwell et al. 2006). Six possibly worked sea urchin spines were

recovered from SNI-160 (Rosenthal and Jertberg 1998) and 53 from SNI-39

(Maxwell et al. 2006). Three separate possible wear patterns were observed

microscopically: flathead, tapered, and stepped (Maxwell et al. 2006). These are

shown in figures 2 and 3.

Figure 2. Drawing of Proposed Urchin Spine Drills From SNI-39.Statistical Research, Inc.

Perforation diameters of rough disk Olivella shell beads from SNI-39 were

found by researchers at SRI to closely match the “bit” diameters of the supposed

urchin spine drills (Maxwell et al. 2006). The rough disk bead collections from

SNI-39 and SNI-162 were the only shell beads that had abnormal perforation

diameters. No rough disk beads were found at SNI-160, however Rosenthal and

Jertberg (1998) did not make the distinction as to what types of beads were possibly

drilled with sea urchins spines. Assuming the ubiquitous sea urchin spine, was the

method of shell perforation researchers have proposed that the inhabitants of San

Nicolas Island could have manufactured beads autonomously without the reliance on

an outside drill source (Rosenthal and Jertberg, 1998; Maxwell et al. 2006) This

Figure 3. Microscopic View of Potential Use Wear on Sea Urchin Spines from SNI-39.

Statistical Research, Inc.

is in contrast to models on the Northern Islands, in which bead production on Santa

Cruz and Santa Rosa Island depended on the exchange of chert microdrills from

Santa Cruz Island (Arnold and Graesch, 2001; Arnold 1995; Presozi 2001).

It is somewhat unusual to suggest that sea urchin spines were used as drills in

shell bead production. The sea urchin spine, while rather sharp, is extremely fragile

and breaks easily when pressure is applied. In addition, chert microdrills are generally

found at sites that are thought to have been bead manufacturing locales. For example,

Feinman (1993) found 93 small solid microdrills in association with shell ornaments

at Ejutla, Mexico, while Yerkes (1988) noted chert microdrills were used to perforate

shell objects at a number of sites surrounding Cahokia and the Southeast. Although

SNI-39 yielded one chert core, three chert projectile points, and 3 chert manuports, no

drills were found despite the 1/8 inch screening process. However, during this study

it came to my attention that excavations at SNI-25 on San Nicolas Island have yielded

a number of small microdrills in association with bead detritus (Cannon 2007). This

will be discussed in greater detail in chapter 5.

In order to address this issue, I designed an experiment to test whether or not

Olivella shells could be drilled using sea urchin spines. Experimental archaeology is

an important aspect of archaeological studies because it allows us to examine theories

and test our assumptions. If drilling could be conducted with sea urchin spines, the

goal was to compare the wear patterns of the experimental spines with archaeological

specimens to look for similarities. Similar wear patterns could indicate that beads

were perforated in similar ways and perhaps in similar areas (in this case by sea

urchin spine). If a pattern was visible I had hoped to be able to analyze beads found at

other sites on San Nicolas and on the mainland to use the pattern to distinguish

between beads made with sea urchin spine drills vs. chert microdrills. Drilling by

sea urchin spines turned out to be almost impossible, as the spines tend to break from

the pressure exerted while drilling. However, they may have been used to smooth out

perforations after drilling.

Thesis Overview

In order to establish whether or not the sea urchin spine was used as a drill a

number of factors must be assessed and discussed. In chapter two I present an

overview of the archaeological history of San Nicolas Island and the role it plays in

the prehistoric cultural sphere of Southern California. I also provide an in depth look

at the bead production assemblage, including detritus, beads, and sea urchin spines,

left in the archaeological record at SNI-160, SNI-39, and SNI-162. Chapter three will

discuss the role of experimental archaeology in helping to understand craft production

and how this pertains to this project. Chapter four reviews the methods used to

conduct the experiment and presents the results. The fifth and final chapter discusses

all the presented information in context, reviews past analysis and presents ideas for

future studies.

CHAPTER 2

THE CHANNEL ISLANDS AT A GLANCE

California’s Channel Islands, located off the coast of Southern California,

were once home to a flourishing maritime society. Situated within the California

bight, the islands are divided into two distinct groups based on their geological

origins. The Northern Islands, Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz, San Miguel and Anacapa are

the submerged western extent of the Transverse Ranges of the California coast. The

Southern Islands, San Nicolas, Santa Barbara, Santa Catalina, and San Clemente, are

the submerged western edge of the Peninsular Ranges (California Coastal

Commission 1987).

Figure 4. Map of the Southern California Bight and Channel IslandsNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

The Channel Islands have not been subject to the population growth,

development, and urban sprawl of the Southern California mainland. This lack of

development on the islands has enabled researchers to piece together a distinct

archaeological record. Native Americans who once resided here left behind one of

the longest coastal archaeological sequences in the Americas. Native residents

endured, adapted, and survived on the Islands for 13,000 years before contact with

Europeans in the early eighteenth century.

While the islands share similar maritime economies, the Northern and

Southern Islands are distinct in cultural affiliation. Historically, the Chumash

occupied the Northern Islands and the Tongva occupied the Southern Islands.

Archaeological research has shown that these two island groups operated in different

cultural spheres on the Islands and the mainland well before European contact

(Arnold 1987, 1992a, 1992b; Bennyhoff and Heizer 1958; Bennyhoff and Hughes

1987; Erlandson et al. 2005; Gibson 1976; Howard and Raab 1993; Vellanoweth

2001; Vellanoweth, et al. 2003).

Early island excavations were conducted by institutions and collectors looking

to discover one of a kind museum quality pieces, like exceptional basketry, clothing,

shell ornaments, and plank canoes (Vellanoweth and Altschul 2002). Although these

excavations were more like treasure hunting expeditions than research endeavors,

early observations of the island paved the way for present day archaeological thought.

As archaeological research progressed, chronological sequences were developed in

order to further understand the cultural evolution of the people of the Channel Islands.

The following is an introduction to Channel Islands archaeology highlighting some of

the more important sites and cultural trends throughout the Holocene. There are no

fewer than five cultural sequences to define time periods for all of California,

however for purposes of this paper the geological time sequence will be used since it

underlies all cultural sequences. I will also describe a cultural time period known as

the Middle Late Transition, a time period known for rapid change among prehistoric

Californians. Additionally, I provide a brief history of San Nicolas Island and a

review of the three sites that are the subject of this paper.

Terminal Pleistocene/Early Holocene (13000-7000 B.P.)

Evidence for early Holocene occupation is found within forty-four sites on

five of the Channel Islands - Santa Rosa, San Miguel, San Clemente, San Nicolas,

and Santa Cruz (Torben et al. 2005). Sites with Early Holocene components are found

mostly on island shores indicating a dependence on the marine environment. Early

Holocene technology was composed of simple expedient chipped stone tools such as

bifaces, utilized and retouched flakes, and cores. Eccentric crescents, spire-removed

Olivella beads, cordage and basketry made from sea grass, and bone fish gorges are

also common artifacts of this time period (Connolly et al. 1995; Torben et al. 2005;

Vellanoweth et al. 2002; Vellanoweth et al. 2003). Shellfish harvesting and fishing

were the main food procurement strategies, (Erlandson 1994; Erlandson et al. 2006),

however the types of sea creatures harvested often depended on the marine

environment immediately surrounding each island (Torben et al. 2005).

The Arlington Springs site, on Santa Rosa Island, provides us with the earliest

evidence for human occupation on the islands (Johnson et al. 2002; Orr 1962). A date

of approximately 13,000 -11,500 CAL BP. has been assigned to the two femora once

found eroding out of a hillside, making this skeleton possibly the oldest person known

on the west coast (Johnson et al. 2002; Orr 1962). Daisy Cave, on San Miguel Island,

is a multi-component site spanning Early through Late Holocene. Shell middens

from this site date to approximately 11,600-8500 CAL BP. (Erlandson et al. 1996).

Shell middens at Seal Cave, another multi-component cave site on San Miguel have

produced a date of 9950 CAL BP.-9130 CAL BP. representing an Early Holocene

occupation (Rick et al. 2003).

Early Holocene occupations are evident on the Southern Islands as well. Two

multi-component sites Eel Point and Punta Arena on San Clemente Island provide us

with evidence of occupation as early as 9000-8000 CAL BP. for Eel Point (Cassidy et

al. 2004) and 8920-7650 CAL BP. for Punta Arena (Glassow 1980; Erlandson 1994).

These sites exhibit evidence of hearths, houses, and shell middens spanning the entire

Holocene. A large habitation site (SNI-339) on the eastern end of San Nicolas on the

eastern end of the island dates to 8510-8350 CAL BP. and currently serves as the

islands oldest site (Martz 2005).

Middle Holocene (6650-3500 BP)

The Middle Holocene was a time of great cultural and environmental change

for the people of the Channel Islands. The islands were used more intensely as sea

level stabilized allowing marine species to burgeon and prosper (Kennett 2005;

Torben et. al. 2005). Habitation sites expanded to all areas of the islands and

inhabitants of the islands began to rely on productive marine habitats for subsistence

and began an intense trading system with other islanders and the mainland due to an

increase in population and a more sedentary lifestyle (Scalise 1994; Arnold 1992b;

Vellanoweth et al. 2002).

The earliest evidence for permanent housing on the islands is found on San

Clemente Island at the Nursery Site. Whale rib bones found in conjunction with

house floors, post molds, storage pits and hearths provide evidence of whalebone

houses dating to 3670-4570 CAL BP. (Salls et al. 1993; Raab 1997).

Asphaltum basketry impressions and tarring pebbles found on San Nicolas and San

Miguel reveal evidence of a more sedentary lifestyle as well as the earliest evidence

for coiled and twined basketry on the islands (Braje et al. 2006; Vellanoweth 1996).

Large cemeteries on San Clemente and San Miguel date to the middle Holocene (Orr

1968) and offer additional evidence for increased sedentism.

Despite the evidence for intensification of fishing, little technological change

took place during the Middle Holocene. Sites like Little Harbor on Santa Catalina

(Raab et al. 1995), Bird Blind on San Nicolas (Vellanoweth and Erlandson 1999) and

Eel point on San Clemente (Vellanoweth 1996) provide archaeological evidence of

near shore and coastal species of fish and sea mammals but leave no evidence of new

technologies for procurement until almost the very end of the Holocene. Again,

shellfish species made up the majority of food and varied across the channel, with the

northern islands yielding more cold water species of abalone, mussels, and other

shellfish, and the southern islands yielding more warm water species (Raab 1997;

Raab and Yatsko 1994). Diets were supplemented with birds, near shore and kelp

bed fish species, and wild plants traded from the mainland (Raab 1997). Sea mammal

was also an important part of the diet and hunting seemed to reach its zenith during

this time with the sites of Little Harbor (San Clemente), Eel Point (San Clemente),

and Thousand Springs (San Nicolas) containing an abundance of bone from whale,

dolphin, sea elephant, and sea otter (Porcasi and Fujita 2000).

Evidence for exchange between the islands and the mainland increases in

middle Holocene deposits. Steatite, from Catalina Island, was manufactured into

beads, bowls, effigies, and an array of other items, and has been found at sites on the

northern and southern islands as well as the mainland (Vellanoweth 1996). Franciscan

chert, fused shale, temblor range chert and Vandenberg chert from the mainland are

found on the northern islands (Munns and Arnold, 2002) while chert cores and

microdrills from Santa Cruz appear on the mainland (Arnold, Colten and Pletka

1997). The variety of Olivella shell beads created increased and became progressively

more desired on the islands and mainland (Gibson 1992; Torben et al. 2005). Olivella

shell beads have been extremely useful in identifying exchange relationships and

chronological change. However, the Olivella Grooved Rectangular Bead has been

particularly crucial in identifying routes of exchange. A number of researchers have

used this bead along with some other artifacts to identify a trading sphere known as

the Southern Channel Island Interaction Sphere (Bennyhoff and Heizer 1958;

Bennyhoff and Hughes1987; Gibson 1976; Howard and Raab 1993; Vellanoweth

2001; Vellanoweth et al. 2003).

Olivella grooved rectangular (OGR) beads have been found at sites on three

southern islands, San Clemente, San Nicolas, and Santa Catalina, in coastal Southern

California, and into the Great Basin (Howard et al. 1993). Based on radiocarbon

dates from associated strata, the interaction sphere may have been in progress as early

as 5250 B.P. (1993). Additionally, AMS testing by Vellanoweth (2001), of OGR

beads from seven different sites along the southern coast mainland and the southern

islands produced dates of 4960 to 5380 BP. Interestingly, these beads are not found at

any northern island sites and are found only in areas once occupied historically by

Uto-Aztecan speakers suggesting cultural, linguistic, and socioeconomic affiliation

(Howard et al. 1993; Vellanoweth 2001).

Middle to Late Transition (AD 1150 to AD 1300)

There is no doubt among archaeologists that during the Middle to Late

Transition (AD 1150 to AD 1300) or Medieval Climactic Anomaly (AD 800 to AD

1350) something triggered changes in social hierarchy and caused the intensification

of localized craft specialization, as well as the highest levels of malnutrition, disease,

and violence in Southern California and the Channel Islands (Arnold 1992; Arnold

2002; Lambert 1993; Raab and Larson 1997; Walker and DeNiro 1986). Based on

varved sea cores from the Santa Barbara Channel (Psias 1978) Arnold (1992; Arnold

and Munns 1994) posits the occurrence of severe regional droughts and a warm water

event which was detrimental to kelp beds surrounding the Channel Islands. Marine

species that islanders were dependent upon for sustenance declined drastically as the

nutrient rich environments of the kelp beds disappeared. According to Arnold (1992;

Arnold and Munns 1994) this lack of marine resources was the catalyst for

manipulation of labor by a group of individuals who eventually became elite

members of a ranked society and controlled island resources through use of the

Tomol (plank canoe). Raab and his colleagues (1995) argued that while a warm

water event did occur, there was no decrease in the quantity of marine resources.

Based on research at Little Harbor on San Clemente Island they suggest there was a

change in diet to more warm water species. In 2000 D. Kennett and J. Kennett

analyzed a new core from the Santa Barbara Channel using present day technologies.

Analysis of this core has led them to argue for a cool water event with high marine

activity and terrestrial drought. Drought conditions forced people to settle near water

sources, causing a greater aggregation of people in one area which led to competition

for territory that possessed more water and food (Kennett and Kennett 2000; Kennett

and Conlee 2002). This theory is supported in the archaeological record with

evidence of an increase in fishing, an increase in the number of larger village sites

found around water, an increase in the production of trade goods and occasionally site

abandonment (Arnold 1991; Arnold 2000; Kennett 1998; Kennett and Conlee 2002;

Raab et al. 1994; Raab and Larson, 1997).

Late Holocene (A.D. 1350– A.D. 1820)

The most extreme change for the inhabitants of the Channel Islands took place

during the Late Holocene. Many archaeologists note the increased cultural

complexity at this time. People were now living in large settlements with social and

political hierarchies. New bead types, new fishing technologies, the plank canoe, and

the bow and arrow are among a few new technological developments that indicate

technological advancement. Contact with the first Europeans also happened at this

time.

One of the major developments in the Late Holocene is the introduction of

hereditary leadership and large-scale interregional exchange. Sites along the coast of

Santa Cruz indicate that late Holocene occupations may have been settled around

coastal villages with specialized camps located further inland (Munns and Arnold

2002). The Northern Islands of San Miguel and Santa Rosa also exhibit evidence for

the growth of coastal village habitations although according to Kennett and Conlee

(2002) the people of this island were not sedentary until after AD 650. On the

contrary, Kennett and Conlee (2002) also note almost no sites on the interior of San

Miguel Island in the later half of the Late Holocene.

Although minimal research has been done on the Southern Channel Islands,

there is evidence for some large sedentary village sites. The Nursery Site, for example

exhibits evidence of houses and a late Holocene cemetery (Raab et al. 1994). The

Lemon Tank site on San Clemente demonstrates evidence of ritual activity in the

form of human and animal burials (1994). On San Nicolas people used all parts of

the island for habitation sites, with many residential area located in the dunes

(Vellanoweth et al. 2005). SNI-25 in particular seems to be a large village with

hearths, dog and fox burials, and variety of faunal and artifact assemblages associated

with the Late Holocene (2005). Although Santa Catalina possesses some of the most

well documented sites in the Southern Channel Islands, knowledge of the Late

Holocene is extremely poor. Most research has centered around steatite procurement.

Some Late Holocene sites that are associated with this have been identified, but not

much else is known (Howard 2002; Vellanoweth et al. 2005).

Subsistence strategies in the Late Holocene changed with the increase in

population and a more sedentary life style. As in the Middle Holocene, food choice

varied from island to island. On the Islands of Santa Rosa and San Miguel, shellfish

were the most important source of food until after 650 AD, when fishing became an

integral subsistence strategy (Kennett and Kennett 2000; Kennett and Conlee 2002;

Rick 2004). This may have been due to the advent of the J shaped fishhook (Kennett

and Kennett 2000; Kennett and Conlee 2002) and the plank canoe (Arnold 1995,

2001) making it easier to obtain near shore and open water fish. On San Miguel an

increase in pinniped bones throughout archaeological sites dating to around 1500

CAL BP., suggests that sea mammals may have been an equally important source of

food (Kennett 2005). This may have been short lived however as pinniped bones

seem to decrease after 1500 CAL BP. (Kennett 2005). On Santa Cruz Island, fishing

seemed to be the most important food procurement strategy with very little sea

mammal hunting taking place (Colton 2001, Colten and Arnold 1998; Munns and

Arnold, 2002). A similar pattern can also be seen at Eel Point on San Clemente,

where sea mammal hunting and shellfish harvesting declined and fishing and sea otter

hunting increased (Porcasi et al. 2000; Raab et al. 2002). Birds seem to be a less

important part of the diet than in the Early and Middle Holocene (Porcasi 1999b),

however Marine bird remains have been found in faunal assemblages at sites on San

Miguel and Santa Cruz (Colten 2001; Rick 2004).

Preliminary diet reconstruction analysis for San Nicolas has shown a variety

of results. While a number of sites indicate that shellfish were the most important

part of the diet, others indicate fish may have been more important. This variability

may be attributed to site location and erosion patterns of the island. According to

Vellanoweth and his colleagues (2002) it is quite conceivable that fish bones, because

of their fragile nature, were destroyed at a higher rate at some sites due to their higher

exposure to erosion (Vellanoweth et al. 2002). Shell is known to be a more resilient

material and often lasts longer in the record, especially at sites that are consistently

battered by wind, sand, and water. Conversely, this could be evidence of specific

processing sites, however more comprehensive studies need to be done (2002).

Very few archaeobotanical studies have been conducted on the Channel

Islands, however a recent comprehensive study of botanical remains from Santa Cruz

Island has provided us with an insight into plant subsistence. According to Martin

and Popper (2001), an analysis of float samples taken from all over the island have

revealed that local and imported plants were being used on Santa Cruz in the Late

Holocene. The pair identified a number of seeds and shells not native to the island

including California black walnut (Juglans californica) and seeds from the Fig-

Marigold family (Aizoaceaea ). Species native to the island include Goosefoot

(Chenopodium sp.), gourd (Cucurbitaceae), cashew or sumac (Anacardiaceae),

milkweed (Asclepidaceae) and coast prickly pear (O. littoralis). Acorn (Fagaceae)

remains analyzed could have been imported or from islands. These plants most likely

were used as a supplemental food source as well as for fuel, medicine, textiles, and

ritual roles. Analyzed soil samples from SNI-351 on San Nicolas have yielded a few

items most likely imported from the mainland and include wild cucumber (Marah

sp.), red maids (Calandrinia sp.), legume (Fabaceae), manzanita (arcostaphylos sp.),

blue or huckleberry (Vaccinium sp.) and a bulbet (Brodiaea) (Thomas, 1995). Most of

these items seem to be imported from the mainland. Additionally, analysis of a

pollen wash from a piece of groundstone has suggested it was used to process cheno-

am and Poaceae seeds (Cummings 1993). These plants were most likely used to

supplement the diet.

Technological advances reached their zenith in the Late Holocene culminating

in prized items like the plank canoe and single piece fishhooks, which improved

fishing practices (Arnold 1995, 2001; Munns and Arnold, 2001; Vellanoweth et. al

2005). Distinct lithic assemblages have been noted on various Islands such as San

Nicolas, Santa Cruz, San Miguel and Anacapa (Arnold 1983, 1985; Arnold et al.

2001; Presozi, 2001; Rosenthal 1996; Rozaire 1993; Thomas-Barnett 2004). Craft

specialization and large-scale trade also prevailed at this time (Arnold 2001, Arnold

et al. 2001; Arnold and Graesch 2001; Presozi 2001) with most of the items made on

the islands being traded to the mainland for food.

The plank canoe called the tomol by the Chumash and the tee’at by the

Gabrielino was in high use by 800-1000 AD (Arnold 1995,2001; Munns and Arnold

2002). There is no doubt that the invention of this watercraft forever changed the

lives of the people of the Channel Islands. According to ethnographic resources

(Hudson et al. 1978, Johnson 2002), the plank canoe was controlled by a group of

elite individuals known as the “Brotherhood of the Tomol.” A similar organization

was known for the Gabrielino/Tongva and the tee’at. It is believed this group

restricted knowledge of the construction methods of the plank canoe in order to

regulate trade relationships between the islands and the mainland (Arnold 1987,

1994, 2001; Arnold and Munns 1994; McCawley 2002).

According to Arnold and Graesch (2001), shell bead production became

increasingly localized and more intense after AD 1150 in the Northern Channel

Islands. Evidence for large-scale bead manufacture has been documented on Santa

Cruz and Santa Rosa Island, making them the premier manufacturers of Olivella shell

beads in the late Holocene (Arnold 1995, 2001; Arnold and Munns 1994; Kennett

1998). In addition, a large microdrill industry appeared on Santa Cruz around the

same time period (Arnold et al. 2001; Preziosi 2001). Arnold and Graesch (2001)

have noted no island chert flakes or cores in shell working sites after the Middle Late

Transitional period. Most flakes, cores, and other microdrill manufacturing debris

has been found in areas immediately outside of the quarries, indicating the Chumash

probably had controlled access to the quarries after AD 1150 (2001). After AD 1300

micro blades are common at coastal sites on Santa Rosa and San Miguel (Kennett

1998). Clearly, the exponential increase in bead detritus and microdrills in late period

sites on these islands indicates a massive increase in and concentration on bead

production. Beads, mortar and pestle quantities also increased around AD 650 to 950

on islands like San Miguel. The condition of these artifacts indicates they were

possibly manufactured for export or that they were being used to process imported

acorns (Conlee 2000; Kennett and Conlee 2002). Steatite trade continued on Santa

Catalina (Howard 2002) and seeds and acorns continued to be traded from the

mainland as well (Martin and Popper, 2001).

San Nicolas Island

Located 120km west of Los Angeles and 98km from the nearest point on the

coast, San Nicolas Island is the most remote of all the Channel Islands. 5.6 km wide

and 13km long, the tiny island boasts 35.4 km of coastline (Vellanoweth et al. 2002).

San Nicolas is dominated by a wind swept plateau, surrounded by sandy and rocky

beaches, and narrow coastal plains (Maxwell et al. 2006). There are only 12

perennial fresh water springs, located mostly within the NW coast of the island and

generally fed from underground reservoirs (Rick et al. 2005). Rainfall measures

approximately16.5 cm/yr., though frequent foggy conditions add to the general

precipitation of the island (2005).

Terrestrial species of flora and fauna are sparse. Only fifty percent of the

vegetation currently on the island are considered native species of the island, with the

most common including, rattlesnake weed (Daucus pusillus), silver beach wood

(Abrosia chamissonis), coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), and giant coreopsis

(Coreopsis gigantean) (Thomas, 1995; Vellanoweth et al. 2002). Ranchers

introduced non-native plant species for sheep ranching and the Navy introduced a

number of grasses and plants for erosion control (Thomas 1995). Most of the plants

on San Nicolas have adapted to island life and are subsequently larger, lack spines,

and have an extended flowering season when compared to their counterparts on the

mainland (Thomas 1995). Only six mammals are native to the island: the land snail

(Micrarionta sp.), the southern alligator lizard (Elgaria multicarinata), the island fox

(Urocyon littoralis), the white-footed deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus), the

island night lizard (Xantusia stanburiana), and the side blotched lizard (Uta

stansburiana) (Vellanoweth et al. 2002).

While very few terrestrial species of plants and animals reside on San Nicolas

Island, large kelp beds that surround the island support a wide variety of marine

mammals, aquatic vertebrates and invertebrates, and seabirds. Pinnipeds such as the

California sea lion (Zalophus californianus), Northern elephant seal (Mirounga

angustirostris), Pacific harbor seal (Phoca vitulina), sea otter (Enhydra Lutris), as

well as a variety of cetaceans including the common dolphin (Delphinus delphis),

white-sided dolphin (Phocoenoides dalli), bottlenosed dolphin (Tursiops truncates),

grey whale (Eschrichtius robustus), and fin whale (Balaenboptera physalus), are

evident in the faunal assemblages of San Nicolas Island. Rockfish (Sebastes sp.),

sheephead (Semicossyphus pulchrum), cabezon (Scorpaenichthys marmoratus), and

yellowtail (Seriola lalandi) are representative of the common vertebrate species while

red abalone (Haliotis rufescens), black abalone (Haliotis cracherodii), California

mussel (Mytilus californinus), sea urchin (Strongylocentrotus sp.), turbans (Tegula

Sp.), limpets (Lottia gigantean, Megathura crenulata, Fissurella volcano) and chitons

(Mopalia ciliata, Cryptochiton stelleri) are representative of the common invertebrate

species found in the archaeological record. Brandt’s commorants (Phalacrocorax

penicillatus) and the western gull (Larus occidentalis), and Pelican (Pelicanidae sp)

are a few avian species commonly represented in the archaeological record.

(Maxwell et al. 2006; Schwartz and Martz 1992; Vellanoweth et al. 2002).

Presently a military installation, the island’s occupants have ranged from early

Native Americans culturally associated with the Niceleno and Tongva, to early

European explorers, to sheep ranchers, to the current population of Navy personnel

and government contracted scientists. Reportedly sighted in 1543 by Bartolome

Ferrer, pilot for the Spanish explorer Juan Cabrillo, San Nicolas was not officially

named until Sebastian Vizcaino did so sixty years later (Bryan 1970). First real

contact with European settlers came during the early 1800’s during the rapid

expansion of the sea otter pelt trade when Russian and Aleut hunters traveled to the

island in search of much wanted sea otter pelts. Land disputes and disagreements in

hunting practices led to extreme violence exhibited by the European hunters who all

but wiped out the native inhabitants of San Nicolas Island. Mission padres on the

mainland suggested that the native people of the island should be brought to Mission

Santa Barbara for their own safety and a schooner was sent to pick them up (Bryan,

1970). However, one woman was left behind.

As the story goes, a woman noticed her child had been left behind while the

people of San Nicholas were boarding the ship, and went searching for it. During her

search, weather conditions became dangerous and the ship was forced to sail back to

the mainland without her. Left alone on the island, her child attacked and killed by

wild dogs, she wasn’t rescued until 18 years later when sea otter hunter George

Nidever made the trek to the island in 1853. She was brought back to the mainland

and seven weeks later contracted dysentery and died (Bryan, 1970). A fictionalized

version of her story has since been immortalized in the book, Island of the Blue

Dolphins by Scott O’Dell.

The woman, Juana Maria, spoke a language unfamiliar to Native Americans at

Mission Santa Barbara who were mostly Chumash. Four words spoken by her were

recorded by researchers at the time and it was determined that she spoke one of the

Cupan languages in the Takic family of the Uto-Aztecan stock, a similar language to

that of the Gabrielino (Tongva) (Bryan, 1970).

In the late 1800’s and early 1900’s numerous expeditions visited San Nicolas

Island in order to locate cultural deposits and collect museum quality artifacts. Most

sites were poorly documented, if at all. The first scientific expedition to the island

was conducted by the Southwest Museum in order to establish more “purposeful”

visits to the island (Bryan 1970). Fred Reinman and his colleagues conducted the

earliest documented excavations on the island. These excavations included a series of

test surveys, test units, and burial excavations to identify archaeological resources and

locations (Reinman and Townsend 1960; Reinman 1962; Schwartz and Martz 1992).

As early as fifteen years ago only ten of the 540 known sites had been excavated

(1992). Current research interests and the institution of an island wide index unit

testing program (see Martz 1994 for research design) has bumped this number up to

around 82 excavated and tested sites (Lisa Thomas, Personal Communication

2007).

The Northwestern tip of San Nicolas Island, known as Vizcaino Point,

contains the islands highest concentration of prehistoric archaeological sites. These

sites span the Early, Middle, and Late Holocene and have provided researchers with a

wealth of archaeological information in the form of chipped and ground stone tools,

Olivella shell beads, fishhooks, shell and faunal remains, and basketry (Martz, 2005;

Martz and Schwartz 1992; Maxwell et al. 2006; Rosenthal and Jertberg 1997,1998;

Thomas-Barnett, 2004; Vellanoweth 1995,1996; Vellanoweth et al. 2002 and more).

It is here where the three sites that are the focus of the paper (SNI-39, SNI-160, and

SNI-162) are located. All three of these sites were chosen to be the focus of this paper

because they have yielded possibly modified sea urchin spines that may have been

used as perforation devices during shell bead manufacture.

SNI-39

SNI-39 is situated on sterile sand dunes on the Southern point of Vizcaino

point. Wind and water as well as a relatively rare form of destruction by sea lions

(termed zaphloturbation by researchers at SRI) have heavily eroded the site (Maxwell

et al. 2006). Three occupation surfaces (OS) were found during excavations

conducted by Statistical Research, Inc as well as a large ritual mourning feature found

outside of the main excavation block. OS 1 has been interpreted as being the site of

two distinct activities: ritual activity and fish processing. A sweat lodge has been

identified in the eastern portion of the site (Maxwell et al. 2006) based on associated

artifacts and ethnohistoric descriptions provided by Hudson and Blackburn (1981).

Fish processing has been determined by the quantity of fish remains and a central

posthole indicative of a fish drying rack (Maxwell et al. 2006). In addition OS 1

possesses three pieces of shell bead detritus and one bead was found in the matrix of

OS 1. Calibrated radiocarbon dates for OS1 are A.D. 455 to A.D. 615.

Occupation Surface 2 lies directly on top of OS 1 and has been interpreted as

a short-term encampment used for harvesting sea urchins and manufacturing shell

beads (2006). The calibrated radiocarbon date for this occupation surface is A.D.

470– A.D. 650. Two hundred and forty pieces of bead detritus along with 48 of the

supposed sea urchin spine drills were recovered from an invertebrate lens composed

mostly of sea urchin remains. No completed beads or beads in production were found

on this surface. No structures were noted on this surface. A number of fish remains

and fishhooks have also been identified and fish processing may have continued to

take place as well (2006). It has been suggested that the intensity of sea urchin

remains and bead detritus together may indicate that these two episodes were

somehow associated.

Figure 5. Plan View of OS 2 in Unit 1, SNI-39Statistical Research, Inc. 2006

The third occupation surface once hosted a variety of activities including

manufacture of abalone shell fishhooks, plant processing, basket making, shell bead

production, lithic tool manufacture, and general food processing (2006). A fishing

camp and a smokehouse have also been identified based on a number of artifacts

associated with fishing, hearth features, and deposits of greasy fish bones (2006).

Ten shell beads and 47 pieces of shell bead detritus were found on OS 3. Calibrated

radiocarbon dates for OS 3 are A.D. 905- A.D. 920 and A.D. 950- A.D. 1010.

Table 1

Olivella Shell Bead Production Artifacts from SNI-39

OS 1 OS 2 OS 3

Beads 1 0 10

Bead Detritus 3 240 47

Sea Urchin Spine Drills

5 48 0

SNI-162

SNI-162 is located one mile North of SNI-39. Like SNI-39, SNI-162 exhibits

evidence for multiple occupations. SNI-162 radiocarbon assay dates for both

occupation surfaces were dated at roughly AD 1100 for both occupation surfaces

(2006). Occupation surface 1 has been interpreted as a short-term occupational layer

with evidence for a sweat lodge in association with two discrete deposits of Olivella

shell bead making detritus, a hearth, and sea urchin remains. 813 pieces of detritus

were found in features 1 and 3. Two beads were found in the matrix of OS 1.

According to Maxwell et al. (2006) both features look like basket loads of debris in

both plan and cross section. This may serve as evidence of a one-time episode of

bead making. Additional activities include lithic and shell fishhook production

(2006). Occupation surface 2 has been interpreted as a fish smokehouse complex

based on the amount of fish, greasy matrix, fishhooks and fishhook blanks (2006).

Eleven pieces of shell detritus and three beads were found on this surface. Zero sea

urchin spine drills were found at this site. This occupation may have been occupied

longer than SNI-39, however it has been horribly eroded by wind and sand and is also

a victim of zaphloturbation, and the artifact assemblage may not be accurately

represented.

Table 2

Olivella Shell Bead Production Artifacts from SNI-162

OS 1 OS 2

Beads 4 4

Beads Detritus 813 11

Sea Urchin Spine Drills

0 0

Figure 6. Plan View of OS 1 at SNI-162 showing Features 1 and 3, Deposits of Olivella Shell Detritus.

Statistical Research, Inc. 2006

SNI-160

SNI-160 was excavated as part of the index unit and damage area

investigations for the US Navy. It is located on the north coast of Vizcaino point on a

sandy dune. Charcoal samples have been dated to AD 240 to AD 1120 a span of

600-900 years (Rosenthal and Jertberg 1998). Rosenthal and Jertberg (1998)

excavated an incredibly dense layer of artifacts from a 1.5m2 unit including beads,

flaked stone artifacts, fishhook blanks, fish hooks, Olivella beads, bead detritus,

Olivella shells, a chert drill, an awl, a bird bone whistle, and broken steatite tablet just

to name a few (1998). Six possibly modified sea urchin spines have been noted here

as well. An extraordinary amount of sea urchin remains were found in the index unit.

An estimated MNI of sea urchins totals 15,056. An analysis of a sample the

remaining sea urchin spines revealed no other sea urchin spine drills.

An initial look at the bead detritus has shown the occupants of SNI-160 were

most likely creating wall disc beads (Rosenthal and Jertberg 1998). Additionally, the

area damaged by the test missile yielded an additional 70 pieces of bead detritus, nine

beads, and one preform.

Table 3

Olivella Shell Bead Production Artifacts from SNI-160.

Index Unit Damage Area

Beads 50 9

Bead Detritus 1064 70

Beads in Production 9 1

Possible Sea Urchin Spine

Drills

6 0

The Channel Islands represent a distinct and lengthy archaeological record.

Archaeological investigations throughout the islands tell a tale of survival and adapta-

tion. The sites on Viscaino point on San Nicolas Island continue this tale.

Understanding the available resources and the archeological record of the islands

helps us put other sites in the area into perspective. The Channel Islands were occu-

pied for thousands of years before European contact however, it is obvious through

the archaeological record that they could not function as an units. While marine re-

sources were plentiful they clearly depended on trade with other islands and the main-

land. Perhaps San Nicolas Island, being the most remote of the islands and having

extremely sparse edible terrestrial resources and poor lithic sources, depended on this

trade more than any of the other islands.

The three sites on Vizcaino Point are significant because researchers have

suggested this area may represent a bead making complex that “rivals that of the

Northern Channel Islands (Maxwell et al. 2006).” Bead production on the Northern

Islands, according to Arnold (2001) was directly responsible for socioeconomic dif-

ferences among islanders. Those that had access to chert quarries were able to pro-

duce microdrills and therefore shell beads. At the very least produced microdrills to

trade to those who were manufacturing beads. If sea urchin spines were used as

drills, as previous research on this site suggests, it proposes that bead production

could have occurred without obtaining restricted production materials and therefore

challenges Arnold’s argument.

A basic background of the archaeology of the Channel Islands, supplies a

foundation to comparatively analyze archaeological materials from new sites. We

must apply the data generated in the laboratory to what we currently know about the

area. Furthermore, the assumptions we based on the data needs to be tested, espe-

cially when extreme judgments are made. In this case, it would be the claim that sea

urchin spines were used as drills for Olivella shell beads.

The following chapter discusses the application of middle range theory to the

role of experimental archaeology in craft production in order to test theoretical as-

sumptions.

CHAPTER 3

EXPERIMENTAL ARCHAEOLOGY AND CRAFT PRODUCTION

Experimental Archaeology has long been an integral part of the archaeological

research process. It offers us a personal perspective on specific tasks performed by

past cultures that is difficult to observe simply by excavating. Most importantly it

provides a way of testing our ideas about the past while contributing to a more

holistic view of past cultures. According to Ingersoll and MacDonald (1977:xii),

experimental archaeology “seeks to test, evaluate, and explicate method, technique,

assumptions, hypotheses, and theories at any and all levels of archaeological

research.” James Skibo (1992:18) expands the definition remarking that experimental

archaeology is the “fabrication of materials, behaviors or both in order to observe one

or more of the processes involved in production, use, discard, deterioration, or

recovery of material culture.” Binford (1981) viewed the research processes of

experimental archaeology and ethnoarchaeology as a means of creating accurate

assumptions about past cultures from observations of material culture. Linking

experimental data to patterns found in the material record “provides the basis for

assigning the archaeological record directly or indirectly to a behavior, an inferential

process critical to middle range theory building (Shimada 19995).”

Middle Range Theory

Middle range theory, originally developed by Robert Merton (1949, 1968) for

the field of Sociology, was developed to link empirical data with conceptual theories.

When adapted for archaeological contexts, it was quite similar. Essentially middle

range theory was seen as a system for bridging arguments between the static

properties of the archaeological record and the interpretation of past dynamics

(Thomas, 1979). Acting as a mediator between the “old” and “new” archaeology

middle range theory is a necessity in providing relevance and meaning to

archaeological contexts without being too abstract. It provides a complete system of

theory building, incorporating empirical data from material remains and conceptual

data from general theories. Experimental archaeology enhances middle range theory

by contributing a comprehensive view of the material record. It helps to account for

the organizational variability that Binford (1977) recognizes in different cultures by

working with the different resources available to each culture in that specific area and

at that time period.

Experimental Archaeology

According to Ingersoll and MacDonald (1977), there are four types of

experiments within the field of experimental archaeology. These are controlled

replication experiments, validity of assumption testing, contextual experiments, and

ethnographic experiments. Controlled replication experiments are designed to learn

about the physical process of the production and use of artifacts. Experiments

designed to test the validity of assumptions are conducted by applying practical

hypotheses to previously known data or results in order to assess a specific theory.

Contextual experiments are designed to “define and quantify” the process of site

formation and deterioration. Ethnographic data experiments are conducted with the

use of present ethnoresearch, historic sources, or both. The actual process of

performing the experiment is much like the processes involved in experiments in the

life and social sciences.

The experiment discussed in Chapter four is a replicative experiment as it is

looking at the physical production strategy of shell beads. Ascher (1961), divided the

stages involved in performing a replicative experiment into five steps: converting the

limited working hypothesis into verifiable form, selecting experimental materials,

utilizing the materials to perform the experiment, observing the results, and

interpreting the results. Ascher (1961) also laid out three basic guidelines to direct

experimental archaeology projects. First, the object being explored in the experiment

must have been available or accessible in the aboriginal setting. Second, all

materials used in the experiment must be from aboriginal settings or must accurately

simulate a means available to indigenous people. Third, the experiment must be

conducted within the limitations of the physical characteristics of all objects involved.

A multitude of replicative experiments have been conducted with these guidelines in

mind in order to shed light on a number of questions that archaeologists are interested

in. The following review of experimental and replicative archaeological projects is

far from an exhaustive list of projects, but shows the breadth of research that has been

and is currently being conducted.

Review of Experimental Archaeology Projects

One of the largest and longest experimental projects has been the large

Earthwork constructed at Overton Down in Southern England. Constructed in the

1960’s of a chalk and turf bank, the goal of the project is to examine the

environmental erosion of the structure and the degeneration of the material buried

within. Preliminary excavations have revealed interesting results regarding site

formation, destruction, and preservation. Four years after burial there was little

change to ceramic materials however, textiles were already deteriorating. An

excavation in 1993 revealed that bioturbation had considerably torn up the turf

portions. Materials that had been buried in the chalk were found to be better

preserved than materials in the turf, due to less biological activity. Systematic

excavations will continue to take place in various increments until AD 2088 and will

provide, in amazing detail, a clearer understanding of material preservation and

structure change. (Renfrew and Bahn 2004)

People are often amazed at the large structures encountered at some

archaeological sites and are always curious of the possible ways of construction. For

example, the construction of monuments like those at Stonehenge have continuously

puzzled current researchers, if not the rest of the world. Czech engineer Pavel Pavel

thought they may have used a simple lever and pulley system and so designed an

experiment using timber and rope, two things that would have been available at the

time. He created a full size replica of two upright stones and a lintel. He then

devised a lever system of a series of local timber beams and ropes to raise the lintel.

With the help of three people, the lintel was raised to the top of the two upright stones

in ten days. While there is no empirical evidence found in the archaeological record

to support this type of construction method, it does demonstrate that the lifting and

raising of large objects can be done relatively simply, with a basic understanding of

physical properties of materials. (Renfrew and Bahn, 2004)

In order to assess the inner workings of an Iron Age Farm Stead, Peter

Reynolds constructed Butser Experimental Farm on Butser Hill Hampshire in

England. This completely operational farm, built as an imitation of a farm from 300

B.C., uses only prehistoric tools, grains, and livestock. Still in its preliminary stages

this farm has provided researchers with insights into Iron Age farming and livestock

use. The planting of primitive wheats without the use of modern chemical fertilizers,

herbicides, and pesticides, has given remarkable yields even in drought years and

fields overflowing with weeds. This farm is also open to the public offering a

historical and archaeological educational experience. (Reynolds 1999)

Artifact replication has become widespread among archaeologists who are

interested in studying various ways of artifact manufacture and use. Lithic

experiments alone number in the hundreds and have examined such topics as,

distinguishing between culturally and mechanically chipped stone (Bradbury 2001),

the use wear of scrapers during hide dressing (Boszhardt and McCarthy 1999), the

possible use of ochre as a hafting material (Wadley 2005), and the morphological

changes in heated chert (Cooper 2002). Experiments in the production of metal and

ceramics artifacts are fewer in number but are of equal importance in understanding

the lives of past cultures. In Peru, researchers utilized a 600-year-old furnace and

replicative blow tubes to conduct copper smelting experiments (Shimada and Merkel

1991). Their results revealed that the ancient furnaces could in fact reach

temperatures hot enough to melt copper and that different parts of the copper smelting

process were being conducted at different parts of the site (1991). Similarly, Shimada

and Wegner (2001) conducted an experiment to assess the decision-making process

and behaviors associated with the firing of black pottery and metal working at the

Huaca Sialupe site in Middle Sican Peru. With the help of a professional ceramicist,

they constructed a replica of a 3000- year- old kiln and monitored the temperatures

and timing of different stages of the firing process. Their experiments yielded black

pottery vessels similar to those found at the site. Additionally, the experiments also

produced some mottled and incomplete ceramic that was often found as waste

material. A metal working furnace was also replicated out of local adobe, clays, and

large ceramic storage urn, to closely represent those excavated at Huaca Sialupe.

Shimada and Wegner (2001) found that these furnaces were easily manipulated to

control the temperature to suit a variety of metalworking tasks.

As stated previously, experimental archaeology offers a holistic interpretation

of archaeological data. In recent years, craft production studies have become

increasingly important in creating a comprehensive understanding of prehistoric craft

production strategies. In examining production strategies and/or exchange systems for

any type of artifact we must look at all the interrelated components (Costin 2001).

Addressing this issue, Costin (2001) has broken the production system into six main

components with an emphasis on craft production and exchange as an interrelated

system. These six components are: The artisans, means of production, organization

and social relationships of production, objects, relationships of distribution, and

consumers (2001). Much advancement has been made in identifying and interpreting

production systems using these components, and experimental archaeological projects

have contributed to many of these advancements.

In prehistoric Southern California, shell craft production was an integral part

of daily life. Consequently, bead replication experiments have been conducted to

look at a number of issues. Macko (1984) used his replication studies to determine

the economic status of specific bead types. Hartzell’s (1991) experiment looked at

bead detritus in its relation to bead manufacture and dating procedures. Arnold and

Rachal (2001) used their experiment to address the inherent value of Tivella tube

beads. These experiments are reviewed in detail below.

Arnold and Rachal’s (2001) replicative bead experiment investigated the

manufacture of Tivella tube beads and their value in relation to production time.

Based on their long perforations and extensive grinding procedures, the production

process of Tivella tube beads has always thought to have been more labor intensive

than most beads (2001). They are also thought to be more valuable because they are

found in low proportions in common residential households and in greater numbers in

higher status households (2001). The small perforations in Tivella beads have led

researchers to infer that something other than chert microdrills were used for drilling

purposes. A review of historic sources led Arnold and Rachal (2001) to experiment

with sea lion whiskers, which had been mentioned as a drill source. After nicking the

surface with chert flakes Rachal (2001) hafted the sea lion whiskers to an exacto knife

handle to simulate a wooden haft and to better facilitate a drilling motion. She also

used crushed sand as an abrader in order to expedite perforation. Rachal drilled the

bead dorsal-ventrally in one-hour increments for eight hours. The result was a

<1.0mm hole, 1.9mm deep. They extrapolated that drilling through the entire 7.0mm

bead would have taken approx. 29 hours. While this seems an extraordinary amount

of time to spend creating a single bead, it is possible that this technique was used in

Tivella tube bead manufacture.

Macko’s (1984) bead replication experiment assessed the cost of production

associated with the manufacture of shell beads. He first broke a few hundred Olivella

shells using methods described in early ethnographic sources. The debris created was

grouped into categories based on the area of the shell from which it came (wall, cup,

spire). The detritus was then compared to detritus from archaeological sites. He

found that the detritus he created in his experiment closely resembled detritus found

in the archaeological record. Additionally, he concluded that bead detritus reflects

the waste material of beads that were manufactured and is therefore temporally

diagnostic. Specifically, middle period sites would have more callus material as

debris since wall beads were frequently made.

Using a model based on Keene’s (1979) model of food resource exploitation,

Macko then looked at a variety of factors that influenced bead production in order to

infer the relative costs of producing particular forms of shell and stone beads. His

final equation for deducing the cost of production for shell beads is as follows:

COSTPROD = D+Q+A+T+H+S

Where D= population density, Q=distance, A=aggregation, T=thickness of shell,

H=hardness of shell, and S=shaping of shell bead. He assigned an arbitrary number

(1, 2.5, 5) to each of the categories based on their qualities for each bead type and

summed the values to arrive at a cost figure. His cost figures were looked at looked

in terms of rank order. Rank order indicates the cost that goes into each bead from its

creation to traveling to its final destination. Summing up his research, Macko (1984,

pg. 26) states:

Relative values of beads and obsidian can be stated in their relative costs: each would increase in cost or value as they approach their destination in the exchange system because of the accumulating transportation and transaction costs.

In a validity of assumption test, Leslie Hartzell used information derived from

Macko’s (1984) experimental project to examine beads and bead detritus at the Davis

site located just north of the San Francisco Bay. This site yielded a number of

Olivella shell bead types, however the number of normal sequined beads (M1a), far

outnumbered any other type. In a quest to determine whether or not the M1a bead

was being manufactured at the site, Hartzell (1991) examined the Olivella detritus

and beads in production recovered throughout the midden. A detailed analysis of the

debris found that the discarded shell represented the part of the shell that was not used

in the manufacture of M1a bead types. In addition the site only yielded M1a bead

blanks and beads in production, indicating that only the M1a bead type was being

manufactured at this location. She concluded that bead debris could be used as a

temporal marker and my be better at defining time periods than traditional burial

seriation. better than Similarly, Cannon, Villalba and Vellanoweth (2006) used

Macko’s detritus chart to analyze bead detritus found at SNI-25. They noticed a

change in types of beads produced through time from wall beads to wall and callus

beads on San Nicolas Island. These results show some indication that that different

style beads may have had been more important or had different functions through

time.

Each of these experiments relies heavily on detailed observation and analysis.

The comparison of experimental data with archaeological remains has helped us find

answers to theories and assumptions and provided a clearer perception of a number of

production strategies of prehistoric crafts including shell bead production. It has

enabled researchers to discover the layout of specific activity areas and

decomposition rates for various artifactual remains. Since the archaeological remains

may not fulfill our assumptions or in fact be an actual representation of exactly what

took place, experimental archaeology is a good way to compliment a data set. It

offers a holistic view of the craft production process, whatever that may be, and how

the process may have developed throughout time. Experimental archaeology is also

essential in helping archaeologists identify debris types and their corresponding

activity areas in a temporal and spatial sense.

When performing an archaeological experiment, it is essential to understand

the materials available to site inhabitants, how those materials could have been used,

and why. In the case of the possible use of sea urchin spines as drills on San Nicolas

Island, the assumption that sea urchin spines were used as drills not only came from

microscopic analysis, but also because there is no quality lithic source available on

the island and no microdrills found in association with archaeological deposits on the

island until recently. In the following experiment presented in this paper, Middle

Range Theory is applied when comparing data recovered in the archaeological record

to data from the experiment. Understanding if sea urchin spines could be used as

drills and how they could be used can only be done physically in the present.

However, by linking this data to the past (what we have found in the archaeological

record) we can understand the process as a whole.

CHAPTER 4

METHODS AND RESULTS

In order to test the theory that sea urchin spines could be used as drills, I

conducted an experiment using a combination of techniques set forth by Macko

(1984), Arnold and Rachal (2002), and ethnographic sources regarding shell bead

manufacture (Harrington, 1912-1922: cf. Gibson 1976). No known previous attempts

have been made to drill Olivella biplicata shells with sea urchin spines. However, as

previously stated, Macko (1984) has conducted an experiment on shell bead

production using Olivella biplicata shells and stone drills made of siliceous materials

local to Southern California. Likewise, Arnold and Rachal (2002) have performed

experiments in drilling with Tivella stultorum (Pismo clam shell) and sea lion

whiskers to address similar questions related to clam tube beads.

Experiment Results

For this experiment, Olivella biplicata and Strongylocentrotus franciscanus

(red sea urchin) specimens were collected by myself and under the guidance of Lisa

Thomas, from the shores of San Nicolas Island to ensure the integrity of the

experiment by utilizing fresh urchin spines and shells.

Ethnographic data acquired by J.P Harrington (Harrington, 1912-1922: cf.

Gibson 1976) divides the manufacture of shell beads into five distinct installments.

These are:

1. Breaking the shells into fragments using bipolar percussion2. Trimming them into the desired figure of the beads.3. Bleaching the beads in sand over heat.4. Drilling the beads with a “needle-like flint splinter” attached to a slender

stick.5. Finish beads by grinding them on an abrasive surface.

The steps laid out in the ethnographic data were followed as closely as possible and

the experiment incorporated ideas from Arnold and Rachal (2002) and Macko (1984).

Olivella shells were formed into wall and callus portions by placing the shell straight

up on a hard surface and striking the tip with a hammerstone. This experiment was

not as concerned with creating exact bead replicas, as it was with the effort and wear

patterns associated with drilling with sea urchin spines, so no effort was made to

recreate specific types of beads. Attempts were made to drill both wall and callus

portions. Similar to Arnold and Rachal’s (2002) work with Tivella shells, Olivella

shell detritus was baked in wet sand in a conventional oven for four hours in hopes of

achieving a softer shell and the traditional white color.1 The original thickness of the

shell and sea urchin spine were recorded in the table below as well the time taken to

drill, the depth drilled, and the diameter of the hole drilled. Measurements were done

with calipers and recorded in mm.

1According to Arnold and Rachal (2002), an experiment in the mid-nineties by Arnold and Munns (1994), concluded that very little time was needed to alter the texture of Olivella shells when heating them in damp sand over an open fire. However, they found easier to control the experiment when heating specimens in damp sand in a conventional oven, even though the length of time to conduct the experiment increased. Upon heating Tivella shells in the oven for four, five, and six hours, it was noted that shells heated for longer than four hours were more susceptible to cracking. Because Tivella and Olivella have similar mean scores of 5.5 on the Moh’s hardness scale, it can be assumed that heating will affect the hardness of Olivella shells in a similar fashion. For this reason, I used the oven to heat the Olivella specimens in wet sand in four-hour increments.

Figure 7. Olivella biplicata shell

Figure 8. Strongylocentrotus franciscanus spines

Figure 9. Breaking of the Olivella biplicata shell

Figure 10. Olivella biplicata usable detritus

Drilling with Sea Urchin Spines

The experiment began with the attempt to drill a hole through an Olivella

specimen 1.19 mm in thickness with a sea urchin spine. The specimen was drilled for

two hours. A few second break was taken every few minutes due to the aggravation

of the wrists and forefinger by the motion of twirling and twisting. An attempt was

made to haft sea urchin spines to wooden dowels. Those that were hafted mostly

broke during the hafting process. There was no evidence of hafting in the

archaeological specimens. Sea urchin spines were then held between the thumb and

pointer finger and twisted back and forth. At the end of the two hours, the result was a

number of broken sea urchin spines and an undrilled shell. The experiment was

repeated two more times, for two hours for each specimen. The result was the same.

Figure 11. Olivella shell specimen #1 after attempted drilling with sea urchin spines.

Figure 12. Sea urchin spines broken during attempted drilling.

Drilling with Chert Microdrill

The second portion of the experiment involved drilling an Olivella specimen

with a microdrill. The microdrill was prepared by flint knapper James Winn and

measured approx. 21mm in length, 7mm in width at the base and 2 mm at the tip.

These measurements were based on microdrills recently found on San Nicolas Island

at the site of SNI-25 (Bill Kendig, Personal Communication 2007) and will be

discussed in the next chapter. Hafting was attempted, but due to my lack of ability to

haft the microdrill, I chose to hold the drill between my thumb and pointer finger and

twist the drill back and forth on the specimen. I was able to drill through the first the

specimen in 18 minutes, the second specimen in 22 minutes, and the third specimen

in 17 minutes. I expect that with a greater skill level and a hafted drill, this time

would be much lower.

Figure 13. Microdrill used for drilling specimen #4.

Figure 14. Ventral view of Olivella shell specimen #4.

Figure 15. Dorsal view of Olivella shell specimen #4.

Drilling with Metal Needle

The third portion of this experiment involved drilling an Olivella specimen

with a needle. As stated previously, the main characteristic of rough disk beads is the

1.1-1.2 mm perforations. These beads were drilled with iron needles obtained from

trade with the Spanish. Since a majority of beads found at SNI-39 and SNI-162 were

identified as rough disk beads, I decided to test this drilling method as well.

According to Bennyhoff and Hughes (1987) and Gibson (1992), rough disk beads

were “punched” with hafted iron needles rather than “drilled.” To facilitate the

“punching” method, I took a metal needle with the sharp side on the shell and hit the

tip of the needle seven times with a hammerstone. A perforation in the first specimen

was made in approx. 10 seconds, the second specimen 8 seconds, and the third

specimen 11 seconds.

Figure 16. Needle used to drill specimen #7.

Figure 17. Ventral view of Olivella specimen #7 after drilling with needle.

Figure 18. Dorsal side of Olivella specimen #7 after drilling with needle.

Table 4

Drill Types and Drilling Times

Specimen #

Original thickness of shell in

mm

Type of Drill

Time drilled

Depth drilled in

mm

Diameter of drilled hole in

mm1 1.19 mm Spine 2.0 hrs. 0 mm 0 mm2 1.30 mm Spine 2.0 hrs. 0 mm 0mm3 1.13 mm Spine 2.0 hrs. 0 mm 0 mm4 1.11 mm Chert 18 min 1.11mm 1.4 mm5 1.27 mm Chert 22 min. 1.27 mm 1.4 mm6 1.18 mm Chert 17 min. 1.18 mm 1.39 mm7 1.01 mm Metal 10 sec 1.01mm 1.1 mm8 1.21mm Metal 8 sec 1.21 mm 1.1 mm9 1.18 mm Metal 11 sec 1.18 mm 1.2 mm

Comparison of Experimental and Archaeological Specimens

After drilling was complete, I compared the perforations of the experimental

specimens with those of the archaeological specimens. The perforations using the

metal drill did not show any resemblance to those found at SNI-39, SNI-162, or SNI-

160. All bead types from these two sites were found to be conically and biconically

drilled, while the bore holes from the metal drill are straight. When comparing the

perforations from the experimental specimens with the archaeological specimens

similar patterns were noted in the experimental bead drilled with the chert drill and a

majority of the beads from all three sites. This included measuring the boreholes of

each specimen and observing their wear patterns under a microscope. These results

are similar to those found by Graesch who found that the values of perforation holes

drilled with metal needles are less than or equal to 1.1 mm and they are straight bore

holes. Other Unfortunately a microscopic camera was not available for use and no

pictures could be provided that would accurately show the wear patterns.

Additional Testing with Sea Urchin Spines

After comparison of the perforations of the experimental and archaeological

specimens was complete, I was still intrigued by the unusual wear patterns on the sea

urchin spines that were found on San Nicolas Island. I decided to see if sea urchin

spines could be used to smooth out or polish the perforations. In the pictures above,

this is pictured as a darker powdery substance around some of the perforations.

While this did work, the spines continuously broke when inserted into the perforation

and were twisted around. Those that did not break did not reveal a similar pattern to

those worked spines that were found archaeologically. Although one took on a

stepped appearance it seemed to have a circular wear pattern at the point of the spine

that was twisted in the perforation. The tip and the base of the spines were slightly

wider and did not show signs of wear as they were portions that did not touch the

perforation. Figure 19 shows the wear on the experimental sea urchin spines.

The following chapter will discuss the results in detail.

Figure 19. Sea urchin spines used to smooth out perforations.

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION

Experiment Discussion

The site report for SNI-39 and SNI-162 clearly state the assumption that sea

urchin spines were used to drill shell beads on San Nicolas Island (Maxwell et al.

2006). The purpose of this study was to test this theory. If drilling with sea urchin

spines was possible, the perforation wear patterns on the experimental specimens

were going to be compared to perforation wear patterns from archaeological

specimens from SNI-39, SNI-160 and SNI-162 to see if they were similar. If the

association could be proven, the specimens would then have been compared to beads

from other sites on the island and at various locations on the coastal mainland sites to

determine if any other beads showed evidence of being drilled with sea urchin spines.

If patterns could be recognized, this may have been an indication some sort of

exchange or trade relationship. It turns out it is impossible to use a sea urchin spine as

a drill so no comparison could be done. However, I did compare the perforations of

the archaeological specimens made by the metal and chert drills to those specimens

from SNI-39, SNI-160 and SNI-162 and found that the patterns in the specimens with

chert drills closely resembled those of the archaeological specimen.

As mentioned in chapter 4, after attempting to drill with sea urchin spines for

two hours, three times, not even a dent was made in the Olivella shell fragments. In

fact, the Olivella shell seemed to abrade the sea urchin spine. In addition, spines

continuously broke when too much pressure was applied. The Olivella shell is a very

strong material and according to Arnold and Rachal (2002) is a 5.5 on the Moh’s

hardness scale. Sea urchin spines, according to my own tests, are easily scratched

with a fingernail indicating they are approximately a 2.5 on the Moh’s hardness scale.

It would be quite unusual for a material that is considerably softer than another

material to be able to scratch the surface of the harder material let alone be able to cut

through it.

While my experiment has shown that it is not possible to drill with sea urchin

spines, the stepped pattern could be an indication that sea urchin spines were used to

smooth out the perforations after drilling was complete. I incorporated this step into

the experiment. However, I found that the wear patterns on the sea urchin spines

seemed to be more circumferential than vertical striations as found in the supposed

drills at SNI-39. This is not to say that spines were not used in the bead production

process. A great deal of sand abrasion could easily disguise the real wear pattern or

spines could have been moved back and forth, in and out of the perforation rather

than twisted back and forth. The use of sea urchin spines only made the bead

perforations slightly smoother.

A comparison of experimental beads using the metal drill and chert drill was

also performed. The perforations using the metal drill did not show any resemblance

to those found at SNI-39, SNI-162 and SNI-160. All bead types from these three

sites were found to be conically and biconically drilled. I also compared the borehole

diameters of both experimental and archaeological specimens and found that almost

all the beads except for one were larger than 1.1 mm (the defining characteristic of

rough disk beads). When comparing the perforations from the experimental

specimens with the archaeological specimens similar patterns were noted in the

experimental bead drilled with the chert drill and a majority of the beads from all

three sites.

A further review of the site report for SNI-39 and SNI-162 and other evidence

reveals that some of the artifacts may have been misinterpreted.

Previous Analysis

I would like to take a moment to review the previous analysis of SNI-39, SNI-

160, and SNI-162 and point out some possible misinterpretations with SNI-39 and

SNI-162. Arnold and Graesch (2001) remind us that a few hundred pieces of Olivella

shells, especially at near shore sites, may or may not always be bead detritus.

Olivella shells are ubiquitous to the island shores and one can quite literally go out to

the littoral zone and grab handfuls and handfuls of shells. Because Olivella shells are

so abundant, a great deal of broken Olivella shells on the beach due could quite

possibly be due to foot trampling or other human related activity. Arnold and

Graesch (2001) suggest that for every finished Olivella bead one must find at least

100 pieces of detritus and one to several bead blanks, beads in production and drills in

order to consider the site a bead manufacturing locale.

With this in mind, the evidence for a shell bead making complex on

Occupation surface 2 at SNI-39 is questionable. An extensive lens of sea urchin

remains were found at SNI-39 in feature 6/8, with what appear to be 248 pieces of

shell bead making detritus and 48 sea urchin spine dills. The supposed shell bead

detritus was found scattered throughout this lens and while 19 finished beads were

found throughout this site, no beads or beads in production were found in the feature

or this occupation surface. Considering this site is literally on the beach, these pieces

of Olivella shell could easily have been broken by foot trampling or other human

activity during the sea urchin harvest. Although the entire lens was not recovered, the

portion that was excavated measured 2.2m x 3.0m x .35m thick. If bead manufacture

was taking place over this entire surface, one would expect to find the other elements

of bead manufacture such as beads, bead blanks and beads in production, or discretely

disposed shell detritus if different parts of the manufacturing process were taking

place throughout this surface. Further excavation of this site would be beneficial in

determining if weather or not this site possesses further evidence of shell bead

manufacture.

At SNI-162, occupation surface one featured 813 total pieces of shell bead

manufacturing debris including shell bead detritus and whole beads and bead blanks

in two features. These features were discretely deposited as what is shaped like

basket loads of debris in plan and profile view and were found in the floor of what

appears to be a sweat lodge. Since these deposits are small it could indicate a single

episode of bead manufacture. Feature five was a concentration of sea urchin remains,

believed to have been harvested for food and use as drills. No analysis was done on

these sea urchin remains and they were left on the island. However, a personal

analysis of sea urchin remains that were left from this site did not reveal any worked

sea urchin spines. If sea urchin spines were in fact used as drills as the authors have

suggested, one would expect to find at least one or two with the shell debris that was

deposited.

SNI-160 offers the best evidence for a shell bead manufacturing locale out of

the three sites. Only a small 1.5 m x 1.5 m x 120cm index unit was excavated at SNI-

160, but it yielded 1065 pieces of shell detritus. This unit also yielded 43 finished

Olivella beads of various types, 4 Olivella beads in production, six supposed sea

urchin spine drills, and one chert drill. This chert drill was found in a small twined

bag with 1068 whole Olivella shells, four stone tools, some flakes, bone awls, and a

few other artifacts. This woven bag was interpreted as storage bag for tools and

specimens used in various shell working activities such as fishhook and shell bead

production. A large sea urchin lens was found in the index unit as well, with an MNI

estimate of 15,056. SNI-160 did not yield any rough disk beads. Rosenthal and

Jertberg (1998) suggested the sea urchin drills were used for all types of bead

perforation.

One of the major indicators used to suggest that sea urchin spines were used

as drills at SNI-39 and SNI-162 was that the larger than normal measurements of the

bead perforation. However, it was only suggested for one type of bead- the rough

disk bead. The beads that were identified as rough disk beads were the only beads

that had slightly larger perforations than normal. These beads also made up the

majority of beads found at both sites (Maxwell et al. 2006). Besides its unfinished

periphery the defining characteristic of a rough disk bead is the 1.0-1.1 mm

perforation diameter (Gibson 1992). Additionally the perforations are straight bore

holes rather than conical or bi-conical. Rough disk beads were not manufactured

until after 1785 when metal needles became available through trade with the

European settlers (Gibson 1992). Metal needles made it easier to “punch” through

the surface of the Olivella shell creating a straight bore hole, rather than drilling

which created a conical hole or biconical hole. Six of the nineteen beads found

within all occupation surfaces at SNI-39 were identified as rough disk beads and eight

of the nine found at SNI-162 were identified as rough disk beads. However,

calibrated age ranges from SNI-39 for OS 3 are between A.D. 905-1010 and for OS 1

are A.D. 445-615. No dates were given for OS 2, however, it must fall between or be

contemporaneous with these dates. SNI-160 has a calibrated radiocarbon date of A.D.

370 – A.D. 995. A piece of detritus from feature one at SNI-162 was dated to A.D.

1045-1190. As stated above, the beads found at SNI-39, SNI-160 and SNI-162 all

have conical or bi-conical boreholes, including the rough disk beads. The beads that

were identified as rough disk beads did have unground edges, however, this could

indicate that it was a wall bead in production. All this in combination with the fact

that no metal needles were found and the calibrated radiocarbon dates do not indicate

a historic occupation, suggests that these “rough disk beads” may have been falsely

identified.

Despite the possible misclassification of beads, it is clear that the inhabitants

of San Nicolas Island were at the very least participating in the first steps of Olivella

shell bead manufacture at SNI-162 and SNI-160 and possibly SNI-39: procurement of

shells and breaking of shells. Evidence for this is seen in concentrated piles of bead

detritus with a few completed beads at SNI-162, possible bead detritus at SNI-39 and

a complete assemblage of bead manufacturing tools at SNI-160.

Although worn sea urchin spines interpreted as drills, have been found in

association with shell bead detritus, it is more probable that some sort of lithic

material was used to drill through the Olivella shell. The majority of sites that

feature bead manufacture usually contain drills comprised of some sort of stone

(Yerkes 1988; Feinman 1993). During preparation of this thesis, it came to my

attention that chert microdrills were in fact found on San Nicolas Island, in

conjunction with shell bead detritus, finished beads, and beads in production

(Personal communication, Renee Vellanoweth 2007; Cannon 2006). Interestingly

enough their drill tips range from 1.52mm-2.6mm (Bill Kendig, Personal

Communication 2007) which, if these are common drill tip sizes, may account for

what SRI researchers deemed abnormally large perforation holes. It is unclear

weather or not drills were being manufactured on San Nicolas Island from traded raw

material, or if they were traded as already manufactured goods. Either way, the shell

bead manufacturing assemblage found at SNI-25 is of great importance (see Cannon

2007 for full analysis of SNI-25). Not only does SNI-25 provide evidence of all the

tools and manufacturing debris associated with a shell bead manufacturing site, it

proves that chert drills were in fact available to the islanders. In fact, spatial

patterning of archaeological sites does not always reflect the spatial patterning of past

activities (Schiffer 1972) and if chert drills were used for bead production at SNI-39,

SNI-160 and SNI-162, it is quite probable that drills were taken with individuals as

they were probably highly prized items considering no chert sources could be found

on the island.

Future Studies

Olivella grooved rectangular beads have been the most popular bead used to

trace exchange patterns from the islands to the mainland. This is not only due to its

distinct shape and temporal significance, but to the rarity of the bead itself. It is well

documented that intense bead manufacture took place mostly on the Northern Islands

after A.D. 1100 although it is becoming increasingly apparent that the southern

islands also produced Olivella shell beads. If sea urchin spines were found to be used

as drills and created distinct wear patterns in comparison to beads drilled with stone

drills, it would have been a way to discern the difference between those sites that

traded with the north islands and those that traded with the southern islands.

Unfortunately this was not the case so we must turn to a different method of sourcing

Olivella shell beads.

Presently, the most viable method of sourcing Olivella shell beads seems to be

oxygen and carbon isotope fingerprinting. Archaeologists in southeastern North

America (Classen 1988) and Europe (Shackleton and Renfrew 1970) have been

successful in tracing the exchange of shell from site to site using this method.

Recently, Jelmer Eerkens and colleagues (2005) have begun to use oxygen and

carbon isotope analysis as a way to source Olivella shell beads in California. Their

initial research has shown that Olivella biplicata shells that grew in different regions

have distinct carbon and oxygen isotope values that distinguish them from each other.

Therefore, one can trace the bead back to the approximate location where it was

believed to have been made or at least where the shell came from. Although their

research is still in its infancy and they note a need for a more comprehensive

sampling of Olivella biplicata from the southern coast of California and southern

Channel Islands, they have been able to trace ten beads. Of the ten analyzed, three

were from South of Point Conception, three were from Santa Cruz Island, and four

from Santa Rosa Island or the Mainland.

Undoubtedly, a comprehensive excavation and analysis of SNI-160 would

provide a great deal more information than its single index unit has produced.

Already it acts as a great source of information regarding shell bead manufacture

since all the all properties of shell bead manufacture are present. Location sourcing

for shell and lithics from this site should be done as well. Further analysis of the

lithic materials at SNI-25 is currently taking place as a thesis project (Bill Kendig,

Personal Communication 2007), and will no doubt provide us with a great deal of

material regarding lithic trade and consumption between the Southern California

Channel Islands and the mainland.

Conclusion

This thesis presented the results of an experimental archaeology project

testing the theory that sea urchin spines were used as drills. It began with an interest

in trade between San Nicolas Island, other islands and the mainland. This original

purpose of this paper was to see if sea urchin spines could be used as drills and if they

could, to compare wear patterns made in the bead perforations of the experimental

beads with archaeological specimens from San Nicolas Island, other islands, and the

Southern Californian mainland coast. The theory behind this comparison was that sea

urchin spines would leave behind different wear patterns than stone drills due to the

difference in material types. However, it was shown that sea urchin spines could not

be used as drills and a comparative analysis could not be done. However, a

comparative analysis of experimental specimens drilled with chert microdrills and

archaeological specimens found similar wear patterns and bore hole diameters in

beads at all three sites. Since the wear patterns on the proposed spine drills still

intrigued me, I decided to see if they could be used to smooth out perforations after

drilling with stone drills. They can, although wear patterns are not similar to those

found on the archaeological specimens and they only make a slight difference. On

some experimental spines there is a stepped appearance, while on others there is a

wear in the middle, but the base and tip remain unchanged. Some spines did break in

the process and tips would sometimes get stuck in the holes. All experimental spines

exhibited a circumferential pattern rather than a vertical striational pattern observed

on the archaeological specimens. This could be due to sand abrasion and/or general

weathering, however further experiments would need to be conducted regarding this

claim.

During this research it became apparent that chert microdrills were found in

association with shell bead detritus at SNI-25. This site provides evidence that chert

microdrills were available on the island. No microdrills were found at SNI-39, SNI-

160 or SNI-162, despite the 1/8 inch screening methods used to recover as much of

the archaeological record as possible. As discussed above SNI-39 and SNI-162 may

have been single episodes and individuals may have taken their drills with them when

the site was abandoned.

The experiment presented in this paper was a replicative experiment and has

provided us with new insight into possible ways of drilling Olivella shell beads.

Experimental archaeology is an important research tool when examining plausible

and dubious theories of the past because it allows us to review, check, and analyze

our research of the material record. Future experimental archaeology projects

involving replicative and validity of assumption testing in regards to various artifact

types found on San Nicolas Island and the surrounding islands would be very

beneficial in assessing production efforts and patterns of various crafts as well as

laying the groundwork for discussions on trade, exchange, and economic

relationships and social hierarchy.