BIBLIOGRAPHY

Suggested Chronology of Early Milling and Hunting Cultures of Southern California

Table 8

Since Carbon-14 dates are lacking, Topanga can receive only a relative position in a not too well understood southern California cultural sequence. Cultural placement therefore rests upon the recovered types of artifacts, the physical and chemical alterations of both mound mass and artifacts, and the physiographic location of the Topanga sites in terms of a paleogeographic environment. That two phases of the Topanga Culture exist is shown by stratigraphic evidence in the Tank Site with supporting evidence in the adjacent LAn-2 characterizing a Phase II period.

Recently a cultural chronology has been suggested for southern California coastal archaeology (Wallace, 1955, p. 227, table 3). Earlier a similar chronology was constructed (Treganza, 1950, table 8) which lacked recent data but was more comprehensive and included possible cross-cultural ties with the desert cultures of the southwestern part of the Great Basin.

Presented here is a modification and more limited view of the earlier chronological chart (table 8), differing from the chronology presented by Wallace mainly in the duration of time, and the inclusion of more recent data. Without knowledge of two phases of the Topanga Culture and without the aid of complete data, Wallace dates Topanga at about 2000 B.C. but not over 3000 B.C. Sites (or cultures) such as Oak Grove, Little Sycamore, Malaga Cove II, and La Jolla I are given a date between 0 B.C. and 3000 B.C. (average, 1500 B.C.). With more specific dating for the peripheral areas, especially the central California Middle and Early Horizons, a date of 2000 B.C. for Topanga seems far too conservative to fit comfortably into any over-all generalized chronology for California. Likewise, if Phase I of Topanga is related, as is suggested, to the San Dieguito of San Diego County, and the latter is related to the ancient Lake Mohave (Playa) Culture of the eastern desert, then the acceptance of a date of a little over 3000 B.C. for these cultures would suggest the geologic dating for ancient Lake Mohave as too early or that coastal southern California has suffered a considerable cultural lag. It is doubted that either is the case.

Though claims have been made for Third Interglacial occupation of the southern California coast, convincing evidence is still lacking. The organized cultural activities of man first appear as a combination of shore-line and milling activities directed toward the collection and preparation of food. This simple ecological adaptation could have occupied considerable periods of time involving little or no cultural modification in the direction of technological change. It does not seem to conservative to date Phase I of Topanga between 4000 B.C. and 8000 B.C. and Phase II with some overlap from 2500 B.C. to 5000 B.C.

Campbell, E. W., W. H. Campbell, E. Antevs, C. A. Amsden, J. A. Barbieri, and F. D. Bode

1937. The Archaeology of Pleistocene Lake Mohave, SM-P No. 12.

Heizer, R. F., and E. M. Lemert

1947. Observations on Archaeological Sites in Topanga Canyon, California. UC-PAAE 44:237-258.

Peck, S. L.

1955. An Archaeological Report on the Excavation Of a Prehistoric Site of Zuma Creek, Los Angeles County, California. Archaeological Survey Assoc. of Southern Calif.

Rogers, D. B.

1929. Prehistoric Man of the Santa Barbara Coast. Santa Barbara Museum of Nat. Hist.

Rogers, M. J.

1929. The Stone Art of the San Dieguito Plateau. AA 31(3):454-467. Menasha.1939. Early Lithic Industries of the Lower Basin of the Colorado River and Adjacent Desert Areas. SDM-P No. 3. San Diego.1945. An outline of Yuman Prehistory. SWJA 1(2):167-198.

1929. The Stone Art of the San Dieguito Plateau. AA 31(3):454-467. Menasha.

1939. Early Lithic Industries of the Lower Basin of the Colorado River and Adjacent Desert Areas. SDM-P No. 3. San Diego.

1945. An outline of Yuman Prehistory. SWJA 1(2):167-198.

Treganza, A. E.

1950. The Topanga Culture and Southern California Prehistory. Unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation. University of California.1954. Salvage Archaeology in Nimbus and Redbank Reservoir Areas, Central California. UCAS No. 26.

1950. The Topanga Culture and Southern California Prehistory. Unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation. University of California.

1954. Salvage Archaeology in Nimbus and Redbank Reservoir Areas, Central California. UCAS No. 26.

Treganza, A. E., and E. G. Malamud

1950. The Topanga Culture: First Season’s Excavation of the Tank Site. 1947. UCAR 12(4).

Treganza, A. E., and L. L. Valdivia

1955. The Manufacture of Pecked and Ground Stone Artifacts; A Controlled Study. UCAS (32):19-29.

Walker, E. F.

1936. A Ceremonial Site at Porter Ranch, San Fernando. SM-M 10:98-104.1945. The Dig at Big Tujunga Wash. SM-M 19:188-193.1951. Five Prehistoric Archaeological Sites in Los Angeles County, California. SM Vol. VI.

1936. A Ceremonial Site at Porter Ranch, San Fernando. SM-M 10:98-104.

1945. The Dig at Big Tujunga Wash. SM-M 19:188-193.

1951. Five Prehistoric Archaeological Sites in Los Angeles County, California. SM Vol. VI.

Wallace, W. J.

1945. The Little Sycamore Site and the Early Milling Stone Cultures of Southern California; A Ant XX(2):112-123.1955. A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology. SWJA 11(3).

1945. The Little Sycamore Site and the Early Milling Stone Cultures of Southern California; A Ant XX(2):112-123.

1955. A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology. SWJA 11(3).

EXPLANATION OF PLATES

Plate 17

Phase II burials from LAn-2.a.Burial 4 flexed on back with associated rock cairn.b.Burial 4 with cairn removed.c.Burial 1, flexed with associated rock.d.Burial flexed on left side.e.Burial 10, LAn-1, showing sets of leg bones from two individuals.

Plate 18

Burials, features, and artifacts from LAn-1.a.Burial 11, showing only long bones and mandible fragment.b.Feature 21, showing metate fragments and human long bone.c.Slab and shallow-basin metates.d.Feature 24, weathered metate fragments.

Plate 19

Features, LAn-1.a.Feature 25, a cache of six manos.b.Feature 14, a cache of four manos.c.Exposed features in central portion of site.d.Feature 15 and showing burial 10 in upper left.

Plate 20

Features, LAn-1.a.Feature 26, showing inverted metates, manos, and core tools.b.Feature 22, showing deep-basin metate that has been turned over, and manos,c.Feature 28, showing inverted “killed” metate, metate fragments, and manos.d.Feature 23, showing large concentration of metate fragments, core tools, manos, and fire-fractured stone.

Plate 21

Topanga Culture Phase I projectile points and blades from LAn-1.a-i.Patinated basalt specimens.j.Laminated chert.k-l.Chert.m.Crescent stone or “amulet.”

Plate 22

Topanga Culture Phase II knives and projectile points.a, b.Chert and obsidian knives.c-e.Side-notched points.f, g.Contracting-stem points.h, i.Lozenge points.j, k.Contracting-stem points.l-u.Lozenge points.

Plate 23

Cog stones, drills, and projectile points.a-c.Cog Stones.d-e.Quartzite hand reamers or drills. (Specimensa-eare from Tank Site, LAn-1.)f-m.Topanga Culture Phase II projectile points from LAn-2.

Plate 24

Pestles and charmstone (?) fragment.a-c.Pestles from LAn-1.d.Flanged pestle from LAn-2.e.Belmnite fossil fragment or charmstone from LAn-1.

Plate 17. Phase II Burials from Site LAn-2

Plate 18. Burials, Features, and Artifacts from Site LAn-1

Plate 19. Features, LAn-1

Plate 20. Features, LAn-1

Plate 21. Topanga Culture Phase I Projectile Pointsand Blades from Site LAn-1

Plate 22. Topanga Culture Phase II Knives and Projectile Points

Plate 23. Cog Stones, Drills, and Projectile Points

Plate 24. Pestles and Charmstone (?) Fragment

Back to Index Next