8/2/2019 27825662

1/10

Earliest Island Fox Remains on the Southern Channel Islands: Evidence from San Nicolas

Island, CaliforniaAuthor(s): REN L. VELLANOWETHReviewed work(s):Source: Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology, Vol. 20, No. 1 (1998), pp. 100-108Published by: Malki Museum, Inc.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27825662 .Accessed: 26/02/2012 20:58

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Malki Museum, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toJournal of

California and Great Basin Anthropology.

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=malkimuseumhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/27825662?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/27825662?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=malkimuseum

8/2/2019 27825662

2/10

100 JOURNAL F CALIFORNIA ND GREATBASINANTHROPOLOGYSheppard, JohnC, PeterWigand, andMeyer Rubin1984 The Mannes Site Revisited: Dating andStratigraphy. In: Geoarchaeology in theNorthwest: Recent Applications and Contributions, JudithA. Willig, ed., pp. 4549. Tebiwa: The Journal of the Idaho Museum ofNatural History No. 21.

Earliest Island Fox Remains onthe Southern Channel Islands:Evidence from San NicolasIsland, CaliforniaRENE L. VELLANOWETH

Dept. ofAnthropology,Univ. ofOregon, Eugene, OR97403.The islandfox Urocyon littoralis, diminutive cousin of themainland grayfox U. cinereoargenteus, occurs on six of the eight California Channeilslands. For years, researchershave reportedfinding theremains of theseanimals in archaeological sites. Biogeographicstudies have tried to determine the evolution

ary relationships of islandfoxes and the nature and timing of theirdispersal to each ofthe islands. These data, along with thefossiland archaeological records, place them n thenorthernChannel Islands about 16,000 B.P.and on the southern Channel Islands at about3,800B.P. Recent archaeological excavationson San Nicolas Island recovered the remainsof an islandfox thatdates toabout 5,200 B.P.Thisfind contributes to our current understanding of island fox colonization of thesouthern Channel Islands.

ANIMALS livingon remote slandshave beena subject of human curiosity for generations.

The plethoraof scientific tudies,documentaryfilms,andpopulararticlesattest o their mportance and fascination. In fact, it could be argued thatthe study f islandbiogeographyhasbeen as importantnthedevelopment fbiological thought as any other subject matter. Darwin's finches are just one example of manywhere island lifehas helped to shape anddevelop ideas aboutbiology. One relationshipthatemergesprominentlyrom island studies is therole that umanshave played inthe distributionof animals across space and through time.Throughprocessesof domestication dogs, pigs,sheep)and as transportersf stowaways insects,spiders, rodents),people have influenced themovement of animals the world over. The islandfox of theCaliforniaChannel Islands isoneexamplewhere people have contributed o thespread of a species.The Channel Islands are subdividedintotwogroupsbased on their ifferenteologic origins.The islands ofAnacapa, Santa Cruz, Santa Rosa,and SanMiguel comprisethenorthern hannelIslands, while Santa Catalina, San Clemente,Santa Barbara, and San Nicolas Islands make upthesouthern roup (Fig. 1).The northern hannel Islands were once connected, representingone islandmass (Santa Rosae), and separatedfrom themainland by as little s six kilometers(Johnson 1983). The more widely dispersedsouthern islands have remained separate throughout theirdevelopmentand are located muchfurtherrom themainland. All butAnacapa Island and Santa Barbara Island are home to theisland fox.

NORTHERN ISLAND FOXESThe islandfoxhas been thesubject fnumerous scientific investigations, but recent geneticdata (Gilbertet ah 1990; George andWayne1991;Wayne et al. 1991a, 1991b) and skeletalstudies (Collins 1982, 1991a, 1991b) suggestapossible scenario concerningtheirorigins anddistribution.Collins (1991a) used cranialmor

8/2/2019 27825662

3/10

REPORTS 101

Fig. 1. The California Channel Islands.phometrics of modern and archaeological specimens to examine evolutionary relationships between foxes on each of the islands. He maintained thattheoccurrenceof fox bone infossildeposits on Santa Rosa Island, datingbetween16,000 and 10,400 B.P., is evidence for theircolonization of the northernChannel Islandspriortothe rrivalof humans (Collins 1991a:62,1993; also seeErlandson 1994). However, theassociationof thisdepositwithin the leistocenedatedUpper Tecolote Member of the antaRosaIsland Formation is speculative. The depositional historyof the boneswas not addressed adequately, and since they ere found nan alluvialcontext, their association remains questionable.Likewise, efforts o locate and furtherstudy hefox bones have been unsuccessful. Yet, as itnow stands, this find represents the only evidence for foxeson theChannel Islandsprior tothe arrivalof humans. Collins (1991a:53, 73

76) suggested hat oxesmay have arrived n theislandsby swimming r floating n debris fromthe mainland during the last glacial ad-vance,when sea levels were considerably lower.Genetic data (Gilbertet al. 1990;Wayne etal. 1991a, 1991b) tendto support ollins' conclusions. These studies compare island fox geneticvariability.From thesedata, evolutionarytrajectories are mapped out. In general, morphologic and geneticdata for the evolutionoffoxes on the northern Channel Islands are consistent ith thegeologic and sea levelhistoriesof thearea. As the large islandmass of SantaRosae was inundatedy risingpostglacial seas,fox populations livingon each of the newlyformed islandsbecame geographically isolated.Through inbreeding, hese isolatedpopulationsdeveloped thegenetic andmorphologic differences detectable today. For example, foxesliving n SanMiguel and SantaRosa islands re

8/2/2019 27825662

4/10

102 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGYgenetically ndmorphologicallymore similar oeach otherthaneither is tofoxeson Santa CruzIsland (Gilbert et al. 1990; Collins 1991a,1993). This correlateswith theformation ndseparation of Santa Cruz Island from Santa Rosaand SanMiguel Islands some2,000 yearsbeforethe latter wo islandswere separatedfrom achother Collins 1991a, 1993).

SOUTHERN ISLAND FOXESUnlike thenorthern hannel Islands,no fossil record exists for foxes on the southern Chan

nel Islands. Migration of foxes from the mainlandor from the northern slandsby their wnaccord seemshighlyunlikely,especiallyconsideringthewidely dispersednature f the outhernislands. Moreover, foxes on the southern Channel Islands have been foundonly inMiddle toLate Holocene contexts, most of these datingwithin thepast 3,000 B.P. (see Collins 1991a:Table 4).Evidence seems to indicate a prehistoric dispersal of foxes byNative Americans from thenorthern to the southern islands sometime after4,000 years ago (Collins 1982; 1991a, 1991b;Gilbertetal. 1990;Wayne etal. 1991a, 1991b).Proteinelectrophoresis ndmitochondrial NAstudiesof present-dayfoxes suggestthat opulations on San Clemente and San Nicolas islandsare most similar to those on San Miguel Island(Collins 1991a:75; George andWayne 1991:21;Wayne et al 1991a, 1992b). Biological data forthe arrival of foxes on Santa Catalina Island arenot as clear. Skeletal studies (Collins 1991a)and mitochondrial DNA data (George andWayne 1991;Wayne et al. 1991a, 1991b) suggest that antaCatalina Island foxesare alignedmost closely with the northern sland foxes,while protein and genetic data (Gilbertet al.1990) suggestthatthey remost similar ofoxeson the southern islands.

Overall, biological and archaeological evidence forwhen each southern island was first inhabitedby foxes remainsproblematic.Genetic

data tendto favorSan Clemente Island as thefirst outhern slandto receivefoxes (Wayne etal. 1991a, 1991b), whereas skeletal morphometric data point to San Nicolas Island (Collins1991a). Althoughnumerousfox remains havebeen found inarchaeologicalsiteson thesouthern Channel Islands (Collins 1982, 1991a,1991b), reliable dates are available for only afew. San Clemente Island currently has the earliest island fox evidence,with a date of about3,800 B.P. In addition,foxbone deposits onSanta Catalina Island date to about 3,400 B.P.and to about 2,200 B.P. on San Nicolas Island(Collins 1991a, 1991b). These three ates seemto support the genetic evidence.SANNICOLAS ISLAND

SanNicolas, the utermost f all theCalifornia Channel Islands, is locatedabout 120 kilometers southwest of Los Angeles and 88 kilometers from the nearest point on the mainland(Fig. 1). Geologically, it scomposedprimarilyof Eocene sandstone nd shaleuplifted y faultingand anticlinedevelopment, ndmodified bymarine erosion that formed several Pleistoceneterraces(Meighan and Eberhart 1953; Vedderand Norris 1963). Topographically,the islandis characterized by a low-lying, wind-swept plateau (276m. at ithighest levation),escarpmentslopes, sandy and rocky beaches, and minor intermittent drainage canyons. Eolian activitycontinues to shape and reshape the many sanddunes that characterize much of the surface ofthe island.The vegetation on San Nicolas Island issparse, and several endemic species have become extinct n the last50 years. Recent plant(Klug andPopper 1993) andpollen (Cummings1993a, 1993b, 1993c;Williams 1993) studiesofsoil samples taken from CA-SNI-351, located atthe center of the island, were inconclusive. Although some endemic species were identified,preservation problems related towind and watererosion hindered a clear reconstruction of the lo

8/2/2019 27825662

5/10

REPORTS 103cal vegetation. Indigenous plants that characterize the surface of the island today, however, include silver eachweed (Ambrosia hamissonis),rattlesnakeeed (Duacuspusillus), coyotebrush(Baccharispilularis) andgiant coreopsis (Coreopsis gigantea) (Junak nd Vanderwier 1988).Six species of pinnipedsare found long thecoast, including alifornia sea lions (Zalophuscalifornianus)andnorthernelephant eals (Callorhinusursinus),which also breed on the island. Western gulls (Larus occidentalis) andBrandt's cormorants (Phalacrocoraxpenisillatus)also breed here, and many other seabirds feedon therichmarine lifearoundthe island. Offshore kelp beds are extremely abundant, providinghabitatfora richarrayofmarine shellfish,fish, and sea mammals. Only six land animalsare native to San Nicolas Island: the deer mouse(Peromyscusmaniculatus), the sland ight izard(Xantusiariversiana), the southernalligator izard (Elgaria multicarinata), the side-blotchedlizard (Uta stansburiana), the land snail (Helasp.), and the islandfox (Urocyon ittoraiis).

Archaeological explorations on San NicolasIsland began over 100 years ago, but systematicinvestigations egan only during thepast fewdecades (SchwartzandMartz 1992). Meighanand Eberhart's (1953) briefsurvey f the islandset the stage formore sophisticated and specialized investigationshatwere carried ut laterbyarchaeologists associated with California StateUniversity,Los Angeles (CSULA). Reinmanand Townsend (1960) conductedwork onnativeburials,Lauter (1982) on cultural hronologies,Clevenger (1982) on lithics, ndBleitz (1987)and Sails (1988) on faunal remains. Current rchaeological investigationsrefillingmanydatagaps concerning the prehistoric nd historicalhumanuse of the island (SchwartzandMartz1992; Swanson 1993; Martz 1994a, 1994b;Schwartz 1994, 1995; Thomas 1995;Vellanoweth 1995, 1996).Over 500 archaeological sites have been recorded on San Nicolas Island (Schwartz and

Martz 1992). The largestsites occur on thenorthwestern portion, but sites can be found onvirtuallyeverypartof the island. Foxes havebeen excavated from four different sites, including A-SNI-7, which contained 0 individuals thatapparently adbeen ritually uried (Collins 1991b:Table 1). Unfortunately, nly onecomponent containing fox remains has beendated, producing a date of about 2,200 B.P.(Bleitz 1987).Fox Evidence fromCA-SNI-161

Although island ox remains reknownforatleast 33 different rchaeological sites on theChannel Islands, only a handful have been radiocarbondated (seeCollins 1991a:Table 4). Consequently,a solid chronologicalfoundation islacking, leaving researchers to speculate on theantiquity f foxeson each of the islands. Thisproblemiscompounded nsomecas?s byunprovenienced remains, stratigraphie ambiguities,and an overrepresentation of skulls due to thecollection priorities of earlier researchers. Thedata on fox remains from San Nicolas Island suffer rom all theseproblems. Thus, little ouldbe said about thenatureand timing f their hearrival.

However, recent excavations at CA-SNI-161,located n thenorthwesternhore fSan NicolasIsland have uneartheda single fox bone in adeeplyburiedcultural eposit (Fig. 2) (Vellanoweth 1996). The site,firstdescribedbyMalcolmRogers (1930) and laterrecordedby FredReinman in 1984, is a ridge-like une situatedon a Pleistocene terrace. The terrace is frontedby a sea cliff hat lummets oa rocky intertidalzone lying adjacent to a freshwater seep. Presently, itappears as an east-west trending longitudinal dune that ollowstheterraceledgealong a200 m. expanse of coastline. The crestof thedune site is stabilizedby vegetation and theslopes are covered with an abundance of shellfish, lithic, and bone debris. Internally, the siteconsists ofmultiple relatively well-preserved ar

8/2/2019 27825662

6/10

104 JOURNAL F CALIFORNIA ND GREATBASINANTHROPOLOGY

Fig. 2. Composite plan of CA-SNM61.chaeological deposits separatedby dune sediments.The bone, anunmodified slandfox left uditorybulla element,was found in thedeepestcomponentof Unit 6, located on the easternedge of thesite (Fig. 2). A volumeof0.60 m.3of sediments was excavated from this culturalcomponent. The deposit in this component consists of a silty sand matrix laced with shell,bone, charcoal, asphaltum, stone tools, beads,and chipped stone tool and beadmanufacturingdebris. A contemporaneous omponent nUnit4, situatedon thewestern partof the site,wasalso excavated, but no fox remains were found.A combined volume of 1.65 m.3 of excavatedsediments was retrieved from the two components inUnits 4 and 6.

Eight radiocarbon dates suggest thedepositcontainingthe fox skullfragmentwas formed

about5,200 B.P. (Table 1). Paired samplesofmarine shell andwood charcoal collectedfromthesame levelswere submitted ohelp compensate forproblems associated with thedatingofthese materials. In addition, an Olivella GroovedRectangle bead (per Bennyhoff and Hughes1987) was submittedfor radiocarbon analysis(Vellanoweth 1995, 1996). Radiocarbon dateson thesesamples securelyplace thiscomponentatwell over 5,000 RCYBP. This date pushesback thecurrentlyccepted arrival of foxesonthe outhern hannel Islandsbymore than1,000yearsandby asmuch as 3,000 yearsforSanNicolas Island.DISCUSSION ANDCONCLUSION

The fox bone recoveredfrom CA-SNI-161provides theearliest evidence for foxes on thesouthern Channel Islands. Further discussions

8/2/2019 27825662

7/10

REPORTSTable 1RADIOCARBON DATES* OF THE EARLIEST DEPOSITS AT CA-SNI-161

Lab. No.

Beta-78676Beta-78679Beta-78681Beta-78675

Beta-78678

Beta-78667

Beta-78680

Beta-78677

Unit and Level(in cm.)Unit 6, 120-130

Unit 6, 130-140Unit 6, 140-150Unit 6, 120-130

Unit 6, 130-140

Unit 4, 90-100Unit 6, 140-150Unit 6, 120-130

Materialblack abaloneblack abaloneblack abalone

charcoalb

charcoalb

charcoal

charcoalb

OGR bead c

nC/nC Adj.Age (RCYBP)4,940 ? 70

4,940 ? 805,050 ? 704,580 ? 40

4,560 ? 40

4,550 + 604,570 ? 605,210 ? 60

Calibrated Age(1 sigma)5,085 to4,885

5,095 to4,8805,300 to5,0255,365 to5,3205,220 to5,1805,165 to5,1305,355 to5,3205,220 to5,1805,165 to5,1305,360 to5,2855,245 to5,1055,365 to5,3105,230 to5,1205,465 to5,305

a Marine shell samples were adjusted for 13C/12C ratios to compensate for the differential uptake of carbon isotopes (isotopiefractionation)ymarine organisms Stuiver nd Braziunas 1993). Radiocarbonageswere then alibratedagainst treeringdata using thePretoriaCalibration Procedureprogram toprovide calendar dates (Vogel et al. 1993).b Samples dated using accelerator mass spectrometry.0 Olivella Grooved Rectangle bead (per Bennyhoff ndHughes 1987).of island fox biogeographymust include thisfind, as it is not congruent with current colonization schemes. The antiquityf this indposesseveral interesting questions. For example, genetic data indicatethat oxeson San Nicolas Island exhibitno significant ariability,a traitunique amongmammals studied odate (Wayneet al. 1991b:1862). Thus, by effectivelyoubling the timedepthof foxeson the island,thefind from CA-SNI-161 presents a potentially intriguing evolutionary question. How can a population of carnivores exist on the island for atleast 5,000 years, be so monomorphic, and stillbe viable? In part, I believe theanswerto thisquestion can be found in the human/fox relationship.Humans played a vital role in the distributionof foxes on theChannel Islands. In fact,

but for the somewhatdubious dates between16,000 and 10,400B.P. forSantaRosa Island,all other foxdates for the islandsfallwithin theperiod of known human occupation. It is arguedherein that umanswere notonlyresponsibleforthedispersalof foxeson thesouthern hannelIslands (apositionwidely agreedupon), andperhaps even the northern hannel Islands, butwere also vital inmaintaining, hrough obilityand trade, thegeneticvariability f islandfoxpopulations. As pets or semidomesticates, foxeswere an important commodity and served as partof largetradenetworks n the form f live animals, pelts,and/or inished roducts seeCollins1991b). Foxes also served a ritual role, as numerous ceremonial fox burials attest (Collins1991b:213). As such,foxeswere an importantpart of commerce and ceremony alike, and fune

8/2/2019 27825662

8/10

106 JOURNALF CALIFORNIA ND GREATBASINANTHROPOLOGYtionedina varietyofwayswithinCalifornia Indian groups.

After European contact, however, themovement of foxes between islands was interrupted.Traditional lifeways of Native Americans inCalifornia were disrupted and the effects of introduced diseases took their toll on coastal populations (e.g., Erlandson and Bartoy 1995).Without theusual flow ofpeople andgoods (includingfoxes) between the islands,foxpopulations became increasingly isolated. For the firsttime, foxes on the southern Channel Islandslivedwithoutthe interactionrovidedby nativepeople. The species continuedto develop butnew genes were no longer being introduced intothepopulation. Additionally,decreases infoodresources thatwere once provided by native islanders probably exacerbated conditions forfoxes, perhaps leading to sudden population declines andpossiblyevenpunctuatedvolutionaryevents. In sum, I believe the native people ofCalifornia played an important role in the formation and maintenance of island fox populations.Once this interaction ceased, foxes began newdevelopmentaltrajectories hat redetectableinmodern genetic studies.Finally, archaeological data, like the fossilrecord, contribute to biogeographic reconstructionsbyprovidingboth timedepth nd distributional information. The genetic studies described above used the archaeological record offoxes on the Channel Islands in this manner(Wayne et al. 1991b). Unfortunately, hisrecord isnot complete,andfinds suchas theonepresentedhere highlightthe limitations hesedata have in structuring evolutionary models ofanimals. Althoughnewfindswill undoubtedlyrefine our understanding of island fox distribution, themanner inwhich biological studies haveincorporated various data sets (including thearchaeological record)to reconcilethis roblemmust be commended.Evidence from A-SNI-161 pushesback thedate for fox occupation on the southern islands

by about 1,400 years. Much of our current understanding f theprehistoric tilizationof thesouthernhannel Islandscomes from the largerandmore intensivelytudied anta Catalina andSan Clemente islands,with little contributionfrom San Nicolas Island; this lamentable fact,however, is changing. With sophisticated andrelatively well-funded archaeological investigations being conducted on San Nicolas Island under thedirection f Steven Schwartz (NavyArchaeologist) ndPatriciaMartz (CSULA), a fundamentally more sound and broader regionaloutlook on California prehistoryis emerging.Future research may well push back the appearance of foxes on the island even further.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSI thank Pat Martz, Steve Schwartz, and LeslieHeald for their support and encouragement throughout this entire project. I also thank Jon Erlandson,Mark Raab, Paul Collins, Bill Howard, and an anonymous reviewer for providing many helpful comments on an earlier draft. Judith Porcasi identifiedthemammal and bird remains. JedUnrot and TriciaWorman helped produce the sitemap. Mark Tves

kov of theOregon State Museum of AnthropologyGraphic's Division produced the final illustrations.The radiocarbon dates were funded by a LegacyGrant provided through theEnvironmental Divisionof theNaval AirWeapons Station, PointMugu, California. Finally, Michael Glassow, Mark Q. Sutton,and theJournal staffdeserve my thanks.REFERENCES

Bennyhoff, JamesA., and Richard E. Hughes1987 Shell Bead and Ornament Exchange Networks Between California and theWesternGreat Basin. American Museum ofNaturalHistory Anthropological Papers 64(2).

Bleitz, Dana E.1987 The Changing Exploitation ofMammalianand Avian Food Resources at SNI-11, SanNicolas Island, California. Master's thesis,California State University, Los Angeles.Clevenger, JoyceM.1982 The Split Cobble Reduction Technologyon San Nicolas Island, California. Master's thesis, California State University,Los Angeles.

8/2/2019 27825662

9/10

REPORTS 107Collins, Paul W.1982 Origin and Differentiation of the IslandFox: A Study of Evolution in InsularPopulations. Master's thesis,Universityof California, Santa Barbara.

1991a Interaction Between Island Foxes (Urocyon littoralis) and Indians on Islands OfftheCoast of Southern California: I,Morphologic and Archaeological Evidence ofHuman Assisted Dispersal. Journal of Ethnobiology 11(1):51-81.1991b Interaction Between Island Foxes (Urocyon littoralis) andNative Americans on Islands Off the Coast of Southern California: II, Ethnographic, Archaeological,and Historic Evidence. Journal of Ethnobiology ll(2):205-229.1993 Taxonomic and Biogeographical Relationships of the Island Fox (Urocyon littoralis)andGray Fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus)fromWestern North America. In: ThirdCalifornia Islands Symposium: Recent Advances inResearch on theCalifornia Islands, F. G. Hochberg, ed., pp. 351-390.Santa Barbara: Santa Barbara Museum ofNatural History.

Cummings, Linda S.1993a Exploratory Pollen and PhytolithAnalysisat CA-SNI-351, a Shell Midden on SanNicolas Island, California. Report on fileat theDepartment ofAnthropology, California StateUniversity, Los Angeles.1993b Pollen Analysis of a Piece of Groundstonefrom CA-SNI-351, San Nicolas Island,California. Report on file at theDepartment of Anthropology, California StateUniversity, Los Angeles.1993c Pollen Analysis of Tarring Pebbles andBeneath Shells in aMidden at CA-SNI351, San Nicolas Island, California. Report on file at theDepartment of Anthropology, California State University, LosAngeles.

Erlandson, JonM.1994 Early Hunter-Gatherers of the CaliforniaCoast. New York: Plenum Press.Erlandson, JonM., and Kevin Bartoy1995 Cabrillo, the Chumash, and Old WorldDiseases. Journal of California and GreatBasin Anthropology 17(2): 153-173.George, Sarah B., and Robert K. Wayne1991 Island Foxes: A Model forConservationGenetics. Terra 30(1): 18-23.

Gilbert, Dennis A., Niles Lehman, Stephen J.O'Brien, and Robert K. Wayne1990 Genetic FingerprintingReflects PopulationDifferentiation in the California ChannelIsland Fox. Nature 344(6268):764-767.Johnson,Donald L.1983 The California Continental Borderland:

Landbridges, Watergaps and Biotic Dispersals. In: Quaternary Coastlines andMarine Archaeology: Towards the Prehistory of Land Bridges and ContinentalShelves, P. M. Masters and N. C. Flemming, eds., pp. 481-527. New York: Academic Press.Junak, Steven A., and J.M. Vanderwier1988 An Annotated Checklist of the VascularPlants of San Nicolas Island, California.Fifth Biennial Mugu Lagoon/San NicolasIsland Ecological Research Symposium.Report on file at the Environmental Division, Naval Air Weapons Station, Point

Mugu.Klug, Lisa, and Virginia S. Popper1993 Archaeological Analysis of Soil Samplesfrom CA-SNI-351, San Nicolas Island,California. Report on file at thePaleoethnobotany Laboratory, University of California,Los Angeles.Lauter, Gloria1982 Defining an Intermediate Period Chronology on San Nicolas Island, California:Test Excavations at SNI-16. Master's the

sis, California State University, Northridge.Martz, Patricia1994a A Research Design for Prehistoric Archaeological Sites, San Nicolas Island,California. Report on file at theDepartment of Anthropology, California StateUniversity, Los Angeles.1994b Test Excavations, Celery Creek Site, SNI351, San Nicolas Island: PreliminaryReport. Report on file at theEnvironmentalDivision, Naval Air Weapons Station,PointMugu.Meighan, Clement W., and Hal Eberhart1953 Archaeological Resources of San NicolasIsland, California. American Antiquity9(2): 109-125.Reinman, Fred M., and Sam-Joe Townsend1960 Six Burial Sites on San Nicolas Island.Los Angeles: Reports of theUniversity ofCalifornia Archaeological Survey No. 2.

8/2/2019 27825662

10/10

108 JOURNAL F CALIFORNIA NDGREATBASINANTHROPOLOGYRogers, Malcolm J.1930 Field Notes: 1930 Expedition to San Nicolas Island. Notes on file at theEnvironmental Division, Naval Air Weapons Station,Point Mugu.Sails, Roy A.1988 Prehistoric Fisheries of the California

Bight. Ph.D. dissertation, University ofCalifornia, Los Angeles.Schwartz, Steven J.1994 Ecological Ramifications ofHistoric Occupation of San Nicolas Island. In: TheFourth California Islands Symposium:Update on theStatus ofResources, W. L.Halvorson and G. J.Maender, eds., pp.171-180. Santa Barbara: Santa BarbaraMuseum ofNatural History.

1995 A Preliminary Survey of Chinese AbaloneProcessing Sites on San Nicolas Island.Pacific Coast Archaeological SocietyQuarterly 31(4):49-58.Schwartz, Steven J., and Patricia Martz1992 An Overview of theArchaeology of SanNicolas Island, Southern California.Pacific Coast Archaeological SocietyQuarterly 28(4):46-75.Stuiver,M., and T. F. Braziunas1993 Modeling Atmospheric 14C Influences and

14C Ages of Marine Samples to 10,000B.C. Radiocarbon 35(1): 137-189.Swanson, Mark T.1993 Historic Sheep Ranching on San NicolasIsland. Redlands: Statistical ResearchTechnical Series No. 41.Thomas, Lisa D.1995 Archaeobotanical Research on San NicolasIsland: CurrentDirections. Pacific Coast

Archaeological Society Quarterly 31(4):23-32.Vedder, J.G., and Robert M. Norris

1963 Geology of San Nicolas Island, California.Geological Survey Professional Paper No.369.Vellanoweth, Ren? L.1995 New Evidence fromSan Nicolas Island ontheDistribution of Olivella Grooved Rec

tangleBeads. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 31(4): 13-22.1996 Subsistence, Settlement and Marine Resource Utilization at CA-SNI-161. Master's thesis, California State University,Los Angeles.

Vogel, J.C, and A. Fuis, E. Visser, and .Becker1993 Pretoria Calibration Curve for Short LivedSamples. Radiocarbon 35(1):73-86.

Wayne, Robert K., Sarah B. George, Dennis Gilbert,and Paul W. Collins1991a The Channel Island Fox (Urocyon littoralis) as aModel of Genetic Change inSmallPopulations. In: The Unity of Evolutionary Biology: Proceedings of the FourthInternational Congress of Systematic andEvolutionary Biology, Vol. 2, E. C. Dudley, ed., pp. 639-649. Portland: Dioscorides Press.Wayne, Robert K., Sarah B. George, Dennis Gilbert,Paul W. Collins, Steven D. Kovach, Derek Girman,andNiles Lehman1991b A Morphologic and Genetic Study of theIsland Fox, Urocycon littoralis. Evolution45(8): 1849-1868.Williams, Stephen L.1994 Charcoal Analysis. In: Test Excavations,Celery Creek Site, SNI-351, San NicolasIsland: Preliminary Report, by PatriciaMartz, pp. 10-1-10-4. Report on file atthe Environmental Division, Naval AirWeapons Station, PointMugu.

Nevada Indians inCaliforniaWILLIAM SAXE WIHR5102 SW Sch?lls Fy. Rd., F2, Portland, OR97225-1670.KAREN M. NISSEN

California Department of Transportation, 4545 N.West Ave., Fresno, CA 93705.

This report details visits by NorthernPaiutes tocentral and western California asearly as 1846 and continuing through thebeginning of the twentieth century. Thatthese visits were not necessarily economically motivated makes this behavior seemsomewhat unique inwestern native history.