A critical evaluation of radiocarbon dates and Indigenous settlement patterns on Santa Catalina Island, California

Abstract

On the California Channel Islands, scholars have suggested that mega droughts and climatic perturbations are causally linked to the emergence of hereditary leadership as groups of people consolidated their communities around the most productive habitats. Santa Catalina Island, one of eight islands in the Channel Islands archipelago, has been excavated for over a century, yet the majority of cultural materials from these expeditions have never been analyzed. Here we report the first comprehensive radiocarbon (¹⁴C) database from Santa Catalina Island, and critically evaluate the dates so that meaningful interpretations of Indigenous history can be formulated. The results span ∼6000 cal BP years of Island Tongva history and highlight the novel ways that Indigenous communities adapted to persistent droughts. People established more settlements throughout the Late Holocene and appear to have increased the number of habitation sites throughout mega droughts of the Medieval Climatic Anomaly (MCA; 1150–600 cal BP) and subsequent centuries. Our study underscores the tremendous value in utilizing legacy collections as a community-based participatory research method in order to address topics important to Indigenous stakeholders and the public, such as constructing regional chronologies and investigating human adaptation to climatic perturbations in circumscribed island landscapes.

Keywords:

• Legacy collections
• ¹⁴C chronology
• Tongva (Gabrielino)
• population
• Channel Islands

Introduction

For decades the California Channel Islands have played a fundamental role in our understanding of Indigenous hunter-gatherer-fishers of North America. Often heralded as a laboratory for archaeological research, these islands have contributed to a wide breadth of knowledge spanning from the peopling of the Americas (Erlandson 2001; Erlandson et al. 2015) to the development of sociopolitical complexity (Arnold 1992, 2001, 2004; Kennett 2005; King 1990). Additionally, scholars working on the Channel Islands have marshaled large datasets pertaining to Indigenous settlement patterns and radiocarbon (¹⁴C) chronologies, and these data have been crucial to elucidating island lifeways. The majority of research on settlement trends are focused on specific regions (e.g., eastern Santa Cruz Island) or particular cultural periods (e.g., Late Period); however, other studies have addressed inter-island diachronic analyses (e.g., Byrd and Whitaker 2015; Jazwa and Perry 2013; Kennett 2005; Rick et al. 2005; Winterhalder et al. 2010) and intra-island patterns (e.g., Braje, Erlandson, and Rick 2005; Martz 2005; Perry and Glassow 2015; Perry et al. 2019; Rick 2007; Rick and Reeder-Myers 2018; Vellanoweth, Martz, and Schwartz 2002). A common theme in many island settlement studies is human adaptation to environmental variability, especially extended periods of droughts associated with the Medieval Climatic Anomaly (MCA; 1150–600 cal BP).

Arnold’s seminal work (1992, 1995, 2001) on Santa Cruz Island revealed significant changes in settlement, subsistence, and labor during the Transitional Period (800–650 cal BP). She argued that warm-water events in the local marine conditions adversely affected traditional subsistence economies, thereby creating opportunities for aspiring elites to exert control over food and exchanged goods. This research sparked constructive debates on paleoenvironmental data and the origins of Chumash complexity.

Kennett and Kennett (2000) reconstructed ancient sea surface temperatures using a marine sediment core from the Santa Barbara Channel. They asserted that marine conditions were highly productive in the centuries leading up to the Transitional Period (1500–600 BP). Additionally, they proposed that regional droughts, along with cold water and highly variable marine conditions during that time, set the stage for the emergence of sociopolitical complexity among the Chumash on the northern Channel Islands (Kennett 2005). Raab (1996) and colleagues (Raab and Larson, 1997; Raab et al. 1995) challenged Arnold’s model of sociopolitical evolution in the Santa Barbara Channel. They drew from faunal data from multiple Channel Islands, particularly Santa Catalina Island, and suggested that warm-water conditions created a “marine thermal optimum” that benefited fishing societies rather than causing harm. Similar to Kennett (2005; Kennett and Kennett 2000), they believed that deteriorating terrestrial conditions had the most significant impacts on island settlements and subsistence. Although the precise timing and response to local environmental variations remain unclear, it is evident that some island communities experienced profound changes in their ways of life over the past 1500 years.

More recent evidence from the northern Channel Islands suggests that settlements became more territorial beginning with drought conditions during the MCA (Jazwa et al. 2019; Jazwa and Rosencrance 2019; Kennett 2005; Kennett et al. 2009). By the end of this period Island Chumash populations aggregated at large coastal villages where people heavily relied on fishing in lieu of shellfish collecting. Perry and Glassow (2015) analyzed trans-Holocene interior settlement patterns on Santa Cruz Island and interpreted Late Holocene sites, including the MCA, as logistical sites associated with fresh water access, harvesting fog water, and accessing high-quality toolstone materials.

The southern Channel Islands are generally more arid and geographically more isolated from the mainland coast. Therefore, previous research has suggested that inhabitants of the southern Channel Islands may have experienced similar harsh circumstances and perhaps adapted to environmental conditions in comparable ways. Byrd and Whitaker (2015) analyzed settlement and land use trends on San Clemente Island and San Nicolas Island using basic frequency counts of median ¹⁴C ages and concluded that settlement patterns on these two islands were substantially different. Based on an increase in small-sized, upland, interior settlements on San Clemente Island during the most recent 1500 years, they propose that the divergent trends between the islands might be partially related to modest differences in local ecology and the arrival of Uto-Aztecan speaking people. In contrast, San Nicolas populations increase their use of sites along the coast during this same time interval.

Despite the enduring legacy of archaeological investigations on the Channel Islands, research on Santa Catalina Island’s Indigenous history has not grown in step. Recently, however, there has been a wave of new scholarship primarily based on museum collections (Kennedy Richardson et al. 2018; Lerman 2022; Radde 2015, 2021; Ringelstein 2016), as well as cultural resource management projects (e.g., Dietler and Dietler 2017) and archaeological field schools (Martinez, Teeter, and Kennedy-Richardson 2014). Collectively, these datasets provide the means to begin holistically evaluating settlement history and intensity on Santa Catalina Island throughout the Holocene.

Our objective for this study is to compile and review all known ¹⁴C dates from Santa Catalina Island to better understand the overall cultural chronology and evaluate how Indigenous communities responded and adapted to persistent droughts in the Late Holocene. The study was designed with Indigenous descendants to ensure their knowledge and interests are accomplished (Birch et al. 2022). We employ a chronometric hygiene procedure to evaluate Santa Catalina Island’s ¹⁴C database and remove problematic ages that are not scientifically rigorous by contemporary standards and can lead to distorted explanations of human history (Spriggs 1989). A critical evaluation of how dates were collected, analyzed, and reported is essential to the interpretations and conclusions we draw from them. Fitzpatrick (2006) and others (e.g., Douglass et al. 2019; Kennett et al. 2014; Napolitano et al. 2019; Petchey et al. 2015; Schmid et al. 2019; Spriggs 1989; Wilmshurst et al. 2011) have used similar protocols and demonstrated that well-dated sites and vetted chronologies are imperative to developing hypotheses about fundamental anthropological topics such as the initial settlement of islands, adaptation to climatic changes, and the evolution of cultural practices. The results of our analysis highlight earliest known occupations on the island, a scarcity of ¹⁴C dates between ∼5000 and 2500 cal BP, and settlement shifts related to community adaptation to persistent droughts during the MCA.

Archaeological and environmental background

Cultural setting

Santa Catalina Island (Pimungna in the Tongva language), one of eight islands in an archipelago off the coast of southern California, is the unceded territory of the Tongva (Gabrielino) peoples (Figure 1). Today, the Tongva are a vibrant Indigenous community that live throughout the world, and continue to call the Los Angeles Basin and southern Channel Islands their homelands. When Spanish conquistadors arrived in present-day California in AD 1542, they anchored offshore from Santa Catalina Island and commented on the remarkable maritime culture of the Island Tongva. They observed that local hunter-gatherer-fishers resided in villages with as many as 150–300 people, they fished and harpooned from ti’ats (sewn-plank canoes), lived in dome-shaped houses covered in woven rushes, and participated in elaborate economic and religious systems (Bolton 1916; McCawley 1996; Wagner 1929).

Figure 1. California Channel Islands, USA.

Pimu Catalina Island archaeology project

In 2007, a collaborative Indigenous archaeological project was created on Santa Catalina Island among California archaeologists and members of the Tongva maritime organization known as the Ti’at Society and the Traditional Council of Pimu (Martinez, Teeter, and Kennedy-Richardson 2014). Since its inception, the Pimu Catalina Island Archaeology Project (PCIAP) has worked closely with the Santa Catalina Island Conservancy (land owner of 88% of the island) to access archaeological sites, record new sites, and recommend protection protocols for those that are subject to erosion, theft, or imminent destruction. As a community-based research program, one primary aim is to continuously engage with Indigenous leaders by not only inviting them “to discuss how archaeological projects impact their lives but also—and most importantly—having them as equal research partners who shape the research questions, participate in data collections, interpretation, and publishing” (Martinez 2020, 5645). In doing so, we also wish to combat stories of extinction and educate the public and scholars who study them about who the Tongva were and are (Martinez, Teeter, and Kennedy-Richardson 2014, 202; see also Kroeber 1925; Meighan 2000, 5).

Based on input from Tongva community members, we prioritize research that can be accomplished with existing museum collections. One of PCIAP’s first and largest tasks was to identify all Santa Catalina Island collections that had been bought, borrowed, or taken without permission to various museums and repositories throughout the world (Martinez, Teeter, and Kennedy-Richardson 2014). The work is ongoing, but throughout the process of inventorying physical locations, archival documents, and type of artifacts collected, many ancestors have been repatriated through consultation initiated through the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), as well as through good-will with international institutions (Teeter, Martinez, and Lippert 2021). Additionally, during the repatriation process, a wealth of cultural materials, previously languishing on repository shelves, were re-identified among “legacy” collections.

Luby and colleagues define legacy collections as invaluable museum assemblages that contain important information for descendent communities, researchers, and educators (Luby, Lightfoot, and Bradshaw 2013). In fact, many legacy collections, assembled decades ago, are the only remaining representation of sites that may have been looted, damaged, or lost to erosion and/or development (Martinez, Teeter, and Kennedy-Richardson 2014; St. Amand et al. 2020). Legacy collections are occasionally unique in that modern methods would not result in the same collection (i.e., early twentieth-century collections were extraordinarily large-scale in comparison). Although, methods were much coarser these early collections are nevertheless rich sources of information nearly unobtainable today (Sanchez et al. 2018, 833). Some collections contain the only primary source of information for a given site or time. In recognition that many sites are actively being impacted by climate change, coastal erosion, and development, legacy collections are increasingly seen as invaluable sources of information regarding Indigenous heritage, as baseline data for reconstructing ancient human lifeways, and as critical proxy data for climate and environmental research (St. Amand et al. 2020).

Previous ¹⁴C studies on Santa Catalina Island

Previous ¹⁴C studies on Santa Catalina Island identified a Middle Holocene settlement at Little Harbor Mesa (Kaufman 1976; Meighan 1959; Raab et al. 1995) and several scattered Late Holocene occupations throughout the island (Cottrell, Clevenger, and Cooley 1980; Dietler and Dietler 2017; Radde 2015, 2021; Reinman and Eberhart 1980). However, the majority of the ¹⁴C ages from previous studies are problematic in one way or another due to the excavation and/or laboratory methods utilized at that time. There have reportedly been artifacts representing an earlier period (∼11,000 BP), such as chipped-stone crescents, but their provenience is unsubstantiated as of yet (Davis et al. 2010).

Little Harbor Mesa (CA-SCAI-17; Figure 2) is a large village site with extensive shell middens located ∼80 masl on the windward-side of the island that has attracted archaeological attention for more than a century (Snead 2017). Meighan (1959) was the first to conduct systematic excavations at Little Harbor. His pioneering work was among the first to highlight maritime culture and he documented prolific dolphin hunting by residents at this site in the Middle Holocene. Meighan (1959, 384) reported one ¹⁴C age based on a composite of charcoal collected from discrete sections of an arbitrary level. Leonard and Botkin returned to this site in 1973 as part of the University of California, Los Angeles archaeological summer field program, and Kaufman (1976, 22) reported three new ¹⁴C dates derived from marine shell associated with this 1973 expedition. In 1991, Raab et al. (1995) also excavated at Little Harbor Mesa. Their goal was to re-sample portions of the site with modern recovery techniques (e.g., fine-mesh screens, column samples, etc.). Raab et al. (1995, 293) published six ¹⁴C dates from charcoal samples of unidentified plants and unidentified shellfish remains.

Ripper’s Cove (CA-SCAI-26) is a coastal village site associated with the production and distribution of soapstone products in the Late Holocene. Reinman and Eberhart (1980, 68–72) excavated a series of 28 units throughout the coastal terrace and reported four ¹⁴C ages derived from unidentified charcoal samples. It is uncertain whether the samples were composites of many charcoal fragments or an individual piece of charred plant.

Bulrush Canyon site (CA-SCAI-137) is an interior, habitation settlement situated on a terrace approximately 225 masl and located about 3.2 km inland from the present-day shoreline. Cottrell, Clevenger, and Cooley (1980) excavated two units at the site prior to ground disturbing activities by Southern California Edison. In their report, they describe two ¹⁴C dates from charcoal; however, there are no further details regarding charcoal sample material or laboratory methods (Cottrell, Clevenger, and Cooley 1980, 21).

There are several other scant references to 14C ages, but these publications do not include critical information associated with the samples, such as site name, lab identification, cultural context, types of material dated, or conventional age (Howard 2002, 602; Porcasi and Andrews 2001, 59; Scheib et al. 2018). These references are sufficient for very general indicators of cultural events, but they are insufficient for re-analyzing with modern calibration software or for linking human action to specific locations on Santa Catalina Island.

In the new millennium, there has been a revival in research pertaining to Santa Catalina Island legacy collections. Hofman et al. (2015) analyzed Island fox (Urocyon littoralis) skeletal elements from Little Harbor Mesa collections to evaluate the genetic relationship between fox populations of the Channel Islands and the antiquity of their arrival to the islands. Radde investigated subsistence patterns at two Late Holocene village sites and published an Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) ¹⁴C chronology for each settlement (Radde 2015, 37; 2021, 28). Finally, Dietler and Dietler (2017, 12–34) report 14 shell and bone AMS dates from salvage excavations in Avalon Bay (CA-SCAI-29).

In sum, the ¹⁴C record representing Indigenous lifeways on Santa Catalina Island can be placed into two broad methodological phases. The first phase (1959–1995) included the advent of ¹⁴C dating (e.g., Meighan 1959) and subsequent improvements in laboratory methods and accessibility (e.g., Raab et al. 1995). This early phase established the first ¹⁴C references, but not without some problems (e.g., use of composite charcoal samples, unidentified species material, large measurement errors). In the second phase, AMS ¹⁴C dating methods vastly improved along with advanced calibration software and sophisticated statistical analyses. The number of ¹⁴C dated sites from Santa Catalina Island was once far too small for meaningful interpretations (Rick et al. 2005, 199; Teeter, Martinez, and Kennedy-Richardson 2013, 158). However, the most recent phase in research has greatly improved our ability to situate Santa Catalina Island’s Indigenous history in regional context and evaluate settlement dynamics throughout the Holocene.

Methods

To build a ¹⁴C database for Santa Catalina Island, we reviewed published literature, technical reports from cultural resource management projects, and the Canadian Archaeological Radiocarbon Database (CARD) which archives a compilation of ¹⁴C measurements throughout Canada and the lower 48 US states (Kelly et al. 2022; Martindale et al. 2016). To supplement the dearth of ¹⁴C dates from Santa Catalina Island we revisited legacy collections curated by the Santa Catalina Island Conservancy and the Fowler Museum at University of California, Los Angeles. These collections represent 24 Indigenous settlements distributed across the island. The majority are from coastal habitation sites, supplemented by several interior occupations. Most collections were created in the 1960s–1990s under the auspices of undergraduate field school training. Unfortunately, the majority of these were bagged, boxed, and nearly forgotten until recent revival projects led by Pimu Catalina Island Archaeology Project. We selected ¹⁴C samples from targeted strata with minimal disturbances and defined stratigraphic boundaries. Charcoal samples of short-lived plants were preferred; however, most samples were unmodified marine shells and marine mammal bones.

To critically evaluate the ¹⁴C chronology of Santa Catalina Island and interpret cultural patterns appropriately we created a set of standards for rejecting dates. Our chronometric hygiene criteria are modeled after Spriggs (1989) and others (e.g., Douglass et al. 2019; Fitzpatrick 2006; Kennett et al. 2014; Napolitano et al. 2019; Sanchez et al. 2018). The standards we used are as follows:

1. association with cultural remains cannot be ambiguous;

2. ¹⁴C dates cannot have large measurement errors (e.g., ≥100 years);

3. ¹⁴C dates must be corrected for isotopic fractionation (i.e., conventional age); and

4. charcoal should be from identified species and/or short-lived plant remains; never a composite sample of mixed charcoal fragments.

Laboratory methods for previously published ¹⁴C ages can be found in the original publications (Cottrell, Clevenger, and Cooley 1980; Dietler and Dietler 2017; Hofman et al. 2015; Martindale et al. 2016; Raab et al. 1995; Radde 2015, 2021; Reinman and Eberhart 1980). Unpublished AMS ¹⁴C ages reported in this study were analyzed at the W.M. Keck Carbon Cycle Accelerator Mass Spectrometer (KCCAMS) Facility at University of California, Irvine and Direct AMS Radiocarbon Dating Services. All AMS ¹⁴C dates were corrected for isotopic fractionation, with δ¹³C values measured on prepared graphite using the AMS spectrometer for UCIAMS measurements and on prepared carbonized plant material for D-AMS measurements.

The ¹⁴C dates in this study were modeled in OxCal 4.4.4 (Bronk Ramsey 2009) using Intcal20 atmospheric calibration curve (Reimer et al. 2020) for terrestrial samples (e.g., charcoal) and Marine20 marine calibration curve (Heaton et al. 2020) for marine mammal and marine shell. A local marine reservoir effect (ΔR) of 111 ± 55 ¹⁴C years was also assigned to marine samples (Calib 8.20; Ingram and Southon 1996; Stuiver and Reimer 1993). Canid bones (Island fox and domestic dog) were calibrated using an atmospheric calibration curve or a mixed 50/50 atmospheric and marine calibration curve depending on the carbon isotopic signature (¹³C/¹²C) values (e.g., Dietler and Dietler 2017, 12–32; Hofman et al. 2015; supplemental table 3). If the carbon isotopic signatures were not reported in the original lab results then foxes were assigned an atmospheric calibration curve and dogs were assigned a mixed 50/50 atmospheric and marine calibration curve (Rick et al. 2011).

We use Bayesian models in OxCal to statistically calculate dates prior to a terminus ante quem event and to summarize the compilation of ¹⁴C calibrated probability distributions. Bayesian analysis in OxCal allows the researcher to construct models based on prior information. The Before command was used to establish a terminus ante quem of AD 1820, an approximate date representing Santa Catalina Island’s Indigenous depopulation (Ringelstein 2016; Strudwick 2013). Summed probability distributions (Sum command) combine all individual calibrated distributions and can be used as a proxy for population trends and settlement history (Bronk Ramsey, 2017). The efficacy of summed probabilities is debated among archaeologists; however, Kennett et al. (2014, 628) note that they are best used among datasets that have undergone chronometric hygiene and large-scale redating of cultural sequences. In this study, we present summed probabilities as a heuristic approach to assessing Indigenous settlement trends on Santa Catalina Island. As a second measure of Indigenous settlement patterns we use the median age to count the number of sites that were occupied prior to the mega droughts of the MCA, during the extended drought periods, and after the climatic event.

These records of settlement history and intensity are compared against the regional drought record for southern California. This study uses a calculated Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI) as an approximate measure of wet and dry intervals based on regional temperature and precipitation data. Our PDSI includes a 50-year running average for the southern California region between 2000 and 200 BP. There is a remarkably dry period from 1200 to 700 BP and verifies that southern California Indigenous populations were living with persistent droughts during the MCA (Figure 3). This study uses the local drought period, approximately 1200–700 BP, to define three periods of interest: pre-MCA (1700–1200 cal BP), MCA (1200–700 cal BP), and post-MCA (700–130 cal BP).

Figure 2. Santa Catalina Island Indigenous settlements evaluated in this study.

Results

In total, 105 samples from 24 Indigenous settlements were identified and reviewed for this study. Based on chronometric hygiene criteria, we rejected 21 ¹⁴C ages and further evaluated the remaining 84 dates representing 21 Indigenous settlements (Tables 1 and 2). The agreement index for all summed probabilities in this study is above 60 and suggests the modeled chronology is statistically valid (A_model = 155.4 and A_overall = 92.6). The results document Indigenous settlements on Santa Catalina from ∼6000 cal BP up to the California Mission Period in the early nineteenth century (∼130 cal BP).

Table 1. Radiocarbon chronology for Santa Catalina Island organized by site.

Site	Lab ID	Material	^14C age (BP)	Calibrated BP (2σ)	Median cal BP	Reference
CA-SCAI-15	UCIAMS-262342	Haliotis cracherodii	5355 ± 20	5595–5240	5415	This study
CA-SCAI-15	UCIAMS-89839	Haliotis cracherodii	2025 ± 15	1495–1140	1310	This study
CA-SCAI-15	UCIAMS-89840*	Haliotis corrugata	755 ± 15	285–125	190	This study
CA-SCAI-17	OxA-27378	Urocyon littoralis	5463 ± 28	5990–5775	5895	Hofman et al. 2015: sup table 3
CA-SCAI-17	OxA-27377	Urocyon littoralis	4636 ± 28	5465–5305	5410	Hofman et al. 2015: sup table 3
CA-SCAI-17	Beta-47273	Marine shell	5340 ± 80	5650–5115	5395	Raab et al. 1995; CARD
CA-SCAI-17	Beta-47275	Marine shell	5200 ± 90	5520–4905	5230	Raab et al. 1995; CARD
CA-SCAI-17	Beta-47277	Marine shell	5070 ± 80	5335–4790	5075	Raab et al. 1995; CARD
CA-SCAI-17	UCIAMS-89842	Haliotis corrugata	2070 ± 15	1530–1185	1355	This study
CA-SCAI-18	UCIAMS-89838	Marine shell	1650 ± 15	1105–740	925	This study
CA-SCAI-24	UCIAMS-262344	Haliotis cracherodii	1595 ± 20	1050–695	865	This study
CA-SCAI-24	UCIAMS-224873	Haliotis cracherodii	1570 ± 15	1005–670	840	This study
CA-SCAI-26	UCIAMS-224874*	Haliotis cracherodii	920 ± 20	430–130	280	This study
CA-SCAI-26	UCIAMS-262350*	Haliotis cracherodii	910 ± 20	420–130	270	This study
CA-SCAI-26	UCIAMS-262351*	Haliotis cracherodii	880 ± 20	405–130	245	This study
CA-SCAI-27	UCIAMS-224881	Pinnipedia	1490 ± 20	930–610	765	This study
CA-SCAI-27	UCIAMS-271234	Otariidae	1450 ± 15	905–570	730	This study
CA-SCAI-27	UCIAMS-271217	Otariidae	1450 ± 15	900–570	730	This study
CA-SCAI-27	UCIAMS-271216	Otariidae	1345 ± 15	785–495	635	This study
CA-SCAI-27	UCIAMS-271235	Otariidae	1300 ± 15	735–465	595	This study
CA-SCAI-27	UCIAMS-271218	Zalophus californianus	1180 ± 15	645–335	505	This study
CA-SCAI-27	UCIAMS-271211	Otariidae (cf. Zalophus calif.)	1140 ± 15	615–305	470	This study
CA-SCAI-29	Beta-389237	Mammalia (cf. Canidae)	2260 ± 30	2345–2155	2230	Dietler and Dietler 2017, 12–34
CA-SCAI-29	Beta-389251	Canis familiaris	2060 ± 30	2115–1930	2015	Dietler and Dietler 2017, 12–34
CA-SCAI-29	Beta-389232	Haliotis corrugata	2590 ± 30	2160–1725	1955	Dietler and Dietler 2017, 12–34
CA-SCAI-29	Beta-389234	Haliotis corrugata	2370 ± 30	1890–1485	1685	Dietler and Dietler 2017, 12–34
CA-SCAI-29	Beta-389250	Haliotis corrugata	2190 ± 30	1680–1305	1480	Dietler and Dietler 2017, 12–34
CA-SCAI-29	Beta-389246	Haliotis corrugata	2170 ± 30	1680–1285	1455	Dietler and Dietler 2017, 12–34
CA-SCAI-29	Beta-389248	Haliotis corrugata	2130 ± 30	1610–1250	1420	Dietler and Dietler 2017, 12–34
CA-SCAI-29	Beta-389242	Haliotis corrugata	2100 ± 30	1580–1220	1385	Dietler and Dietler 2017, 12–34
CA-SCAI-29	Beta-389244	Haliotis corrugata	2100 ± 30	1570–1215	1385	Dietler and Dietler 2017, 12–34
CA-SCAI-29	Beta-389252	Haliotis corrugata	2090 ± 30	1555–1195	1375	Dietler and Dietler 2017, 12–34
CA-SCAI-29	Beta-389241	Canis familiaris	1290 ± 30	1295–1170	1225	Dietler and Dietler 2017, 12–34
CA-SCAI-29	Beta-389240	Haliotis corrugata	1490 ± 30	935–610	765	Dietler and Dietler 2017, 12–34
CA-SCAI-29	Beta-389235	Haliotis corrugata	1430 ± 30	890–550	710	Dietler and Dietler 2017, 12–34
CA-SCAI-29	Beta-389233	Canidae	700 ± 30	685–560	660	Dietler and Dietler 2017, 12–34
CA-SCAI-32	UCIAMS-151747	Delphinidae	5855 ± 25	6165–5745	5955	This study
CA-SCAI-32	UCIAMS-151748	Delphinidae	5645 ± 25	5910–5545	5720	This study
CA-SCAI-32	UCIAMS-271214	Delphinidae	5645 ± 20	5910–5545	5720	This study
CA-SCAI-32	UCIAMS-271212	Otariidae (cf. Zalophus calif.)	5585 ± 20	5860–5470	5660	This study
CA-SCAI-32	UCIAMS-271213	Otariidae (cf. Zalophus calif.)	2175 ± 15	1650–1290	1460	This study
CA-SCAI-32	UCIAMS-271232	Phoca vitulina	1325 ± 15	760–480	615	This study
CA-SCAI-39	UCIAMS-224875	Haliotis cracherodii	1650 ± 15	1110–745	925	This study
CA-SCAI-39	UCIAMS-262347	Haliotis cracherodii	970 ± 20	485–140	325	This study
CA-SCAI-39	UCIAMS-262346*	Haliotis cracherodii	900 ± 20	415–130	260	This study
CA-SCAI-41	UCIAMS-105266	Marine shell	1765 ± 15	1240–885	1045	This study
CA-SCAI-46	UCIAMS-224876	Haliotis cracherodii	1810 ± 20	1265–925	1095	This study
CA-SCAI-50	UCIAMS-89836*	Haliotis cracherodii	875 ± 15	400–125	240	Posadas et al. 2011
CA-SCAI-50	UCIAMS-89833*	Haliotis cracherodii	765 ± 20	290–125	195	Posadas et al. 2011
CA-SCAI-106	D-AMS-21145	Haliotis cracherodii	2878 ± 28	2560–2095	2320	This study
CA-SCAI-106	UCIAMS-262348	Haliotis cracherodii	2770 ± 20	2370–1970	2185	This study
CA-SCAI-106	D-AMS-21147	Haliotis cracherodii	1914 ± 30	1365–1005	1195	Radde 2021, 28
CA-SCAI-106	D-AMS-21146	Haliotis cracherodii	1863 ± 25	1305–960	1150	Radde 2021, 28
CA-SCAI-106	UCIAMS-262349	Haliotis cracherodii	1815 ± 20	1265–925	1100	This study
CA-SCAI-106	UCIAMS-224877	Haliotis cracherodii	1790 ± 15	1255–910	1075	Radde 2021, 28
CA-SCAI-106	D-AMS-21144	Haliotis cracherodii	1723 ± 29	1190–800	1005	Radde 2021, 28
CA-SCAI-106	UCIAMS-224878	Haliotis cracherodii	1415 ± 15	865–540	695	Radde 2021, 28
CA-SCAI-110	UCIAMS-262343	Haliotis cracherodii	1390 ± 20	845–520	670	This study
CA-SCAI-110	UCIAMS-224871	Haliotis cracherodii	1040 ± 15	530–225	385	This study
CA-SCAI-137	UCIAMS-224872	Haliotis cracherodii	1215 ± 15	670–380	535	This study
CA-SCAI-429	UCIAMS-224870	Haliotis cracherodii	1015 ± 15	515–185	365	Posadas et al. 2011
CA-SCAI-429	UCIAMS-89835*	Haliotis cracherodii	840 ± 15	365–125	220	Posadas et al. 2011
CA-SCAI-429	UCIAMS-89834*	Haliotis corrugata	815 ± 15	330–125	210	Posadas et al. 2011
CA-SCAI-449	UCIAMS-89837*	Haliotis cracherodii	895 ± 15	415–130	255	Posadas et al. 2011
CA-SCAI-564	UCIAMS-144262	Haliotis cracherodii	2055 ± 15	1515–1175	1340	Radde 2015, 37
CA-SCAI-564	UCIAMS-144254	Charcoal (short-lived plant)	1280 ± 15	1280–1175	1225	Radde 2015, 37
CA-SCAI-564	UCIAMS-144253	Charcoal (short-lived plant)	1040 ± 15	960–920	940	Radde 2015, 37
CA-SCAI-564	UCIAMS-144261	Haliotis cracherodii	1460 ± 15	910–595	740	Radde 2015, 37
CA-SCAI-564	D-AMS-26454	Canis familiaris	932 ± 32	660–520	590	This study
CA-SCAI-564	UCIAMS-144252	Charcoal (short-lived plant)	380 ± 15	500–325	465	Radde 2015, 37
CA-SCAI-564	UCIAMS-144260*	Haliotis cracherodii	780 ± 15	300–125	195	Radde 2015, 37
CA-SCAI-CWC	UCIAMS-224880	Arctocephalus townsendi	3820 ± 20	3680–3270	3465	This study
CA-SCAI-CCR	UCIAMS-271215	Enhydra lutris	1205 ± 15	665–365	525	This study
CA-LAN-3593	UCIAMS-144251	Charcoal (Salicaceae)	1470 ± 15	1380–1305	1350	This study
CA-LAN-3593	UCIAMS-144249	Charcoal (Salicaceae)	1230 ± 15	1245–1070	1145	This study
CA-LAN-3593	UCIAMS-105264	Haliotis cracherodii	1705 ± 20	1170–800	985	This study
CA-LAN-3593	UCIAMS-144257	Haliotis cracherodii	1645 ± 15	1095–735	920	This study
CA-LAN-3593	UCIAMS-144258	Haliotis cracherodii	1635 ± 15	1085–725	910	This study
CA-LAN-3593	UCIAMS-144250	Charcoal (Salicaceae)	985 ± 15	930–795	910	This study
CA-LAN-3593	UCIAMS-105263	Haliotis cracherodii	1595 ± 15	1045–700	865	This study
CA-LAN-3593	UCIAMS-144259	Haliotis cracherodii	1580 ± 15	1035–680	850	This study
CA-LAN-3593	UCIAMS-105262	Haliotis cracherodii	1530 ± 15	960–650	805	This study
CA-LAN-3593	UCIAMS-105271	Mammalia (marine)	1520 ± 15	950–645	795	This study
CA-LAN-3593	UCIAMS-105265	Haliotis cracherodii	1475 ± 20	920–600	755	This study

Notes. All dates calibrated in OxCal 4.4.4 (Bronk Ramsey 2009). Marine shell and marine mammal bone calibrated using Marine20 marine calibration curve (Heaton et al. 2020) and a local marine reservoir correction (ΔR) of 111 ± 55 (Ingram and Southon 1996); charcoal and terrestrial mammal (Urocyon littoralis and Canis familiaris) calibrated using IntCal20 atmospheric calibration curve (Reimer et al. 2020); OxA-27378 and DAMS 026454 calibrated using 50/50 mixed marine and atmospheric calibration curves based on their δ13C isotopic values indicating a marine diet. *Calibrated dates with 2σ ranges extending past the terminal date of indigenous depopulation (130 cal BP) were modeled using the OxCal Before command.

Table 2. Radiocarbon dates rejected based on chronometric hygiene protocol.

Site	Lab ID	Material	^14C Age (BP)	Reference	Reason rejected
CA-SCAI-17	M-434	Charcoal	3880 ± 250	Meighan 1959, 384	mixed charcoal fragments large measurement error lab methods not reported
CA-SCAI-17	UCLA-1880A	Shell	1220 ± 60	Kaufman 1976, 22	not corrected for isotopic fractionation
CA-SCAI-17	UCLA-1880B	Shell	4780 ± 60	Kaufman 1976, 22	not corrected for isotopic fractionation
CA-SCAI-17	UCLA-1928A	Shell	4980 ± 60	Kaufman 1976, 22	not corrected for isotopic fractionation
CA-SCAI-17	Beta-47276	Shell	1380 ± 70	Raab et al. 1995, 293	undefined charcoal sample
CA-SCAI-17	Beta-47274	Charcoal	5105 ± 60	Raab et al. 1995, 293	undefined charcoal sample
CA-SCAI-17	Beta-47278	Charcoal	6850 ± 190	Raab et al. 1995, 293	ambiguous association large measurement error undefined charcoal sample
CA-SCAI-17	Beta-155793	Marine mammal	?	Porcasi and Andrews 2001, 59	conventional age not published lab methods not reported
CA-SCAI-26	GAK-7481	Charcoal	220 ± 80	Reinman and Eberhart 1980, 72	undefined charcoal sample lab methods not reported large measurement error
CA-SCAI-26	GAK-7479	Charcoal	510 ± 90	Reinman and Eberhart 1980, 72	undefined charcoal sample lab methods not reported large measurement error
CA-SCAI-26	GAK-7478	Charcoal	470 ± 90	Reinman and Eberhart 1980, 72	undefined charcoal sample lab methods not reported large measurement error
CA-SCAI-26	GAK-7480	Charcoal	610 ± 90	Reinman and Eberhart 1980, 72	undefined charcoal sample lab methods not reported large measurement error
CA-SCAI-50	UCR-701	Haliotis spp.	2980 ± 150	Breschini, Haversat, and Erlandson 1996, 61; Martindale et al. 2016	ambiguous association large measurement error not corrected for isotopic fractionation
CA-SCAI-92	UCR-702	Haliotis spp.	100 ± 0	Breschini, Haversat, and Erlandson 1996, 61	modern sample ambiguous association
CA-SCAI-137	LJ-4755	Charcoal	270 ± 100	Cottrell, Clevenger, and Cooley 1980, 21	undefined charcoal sample lab methods not reported large measurement error
CA-SCAI-137	LJ-4756	Charcoal	230 ± 90	Cottrell, Clevenger, and Cooley 1980, 21	undefined charcoal sample lab methods not reported large measurement error
CA-SCAI-162	Beta-no #	Shell	?	Howard 2002, 602	conventional age not published lab methods not reported
SCAI_unk	UCR-323	Shell	4070 ± 200	Martindale et al. 2016	ambiguous provenience large measurement error not corrected for isotopic fractionation
SCAI_unk	UCR-700	Haliotis spp.	210 ± 100	Martindale et al. 2016	ambiguous provenience large measurement error not corrected for isotopic fractionation
SCAI_unk	UBA-31907	Human	387 ± 38	Scheib et al. 2018	ambiguous provenience
Lover’s Cove	Beta-77560	Cetecea	830 ± 40	This study	ambiguous provenience

The earliest known Indigenous settlement on Santa Catalina Island is at Torqua Cave (CA-SCAI-32), dating to 6165–5745 cal BP. In total, there are 10 ¹⁴C ages and three sites represented in the Middle Holocene (∼8200–4200 BP; Walker et al. 2018; Table 3), and 74 ¹⁴C ages and 21 sites represented in the Late Holocene (after 4200 cal BP; Table 3). These results highlight a pattern whereby the oldest sites that are currently known are all confined to the windward-side (southwest-facing) of Santa Catalina where the largest watersheds are located (Figure 2). There is a paucity of settlements and dates between ∼5000 and 2500 cal BP anywhere on the island. In contrast, Late Holocene sites emerge across much of the island landscape, particularly at canyon bottoms and beaches on the leeward-side (northeast-facing). In general, there is a fairly steady increase in settlements beginning ∼2500 cal years ago, a peak in the summed probability distribution of dates ∼900 cal BP, followed by a decrease ∼500 cal BP, and ultimately an increase in dates during the final centuries before the island’s rapid depopulation in the early AD 1800s.

Figure 3. Summed probability distribution and Palmer drought severity index (PDSI).

Table 3. Settlement trends through time.

	Middle Holocene 8200–4200 BP	Late Holocene after 4200 BP	Pre-MCA 1700–1200 cal BP	MCA 1200–700 cal BP	Post-MCA 700–130 cal BP
# Dates	10	74	14	28	26
# Sites	3	21	6	10	14

Based on the median age of calibrated dates there are 14 dates representing six sites occupied from 1700 to 1200 cal BP during the 500-year interval immediately preceding the MCA (Table 3). During extensive droughts characteristic of the MCA period (1200–700 cal BP), there is an increase in the number of radiocarbon ages (n = 28) and sites (n = 10) throughout the island, suggesting an expansion of populations across the landscape. Finally, there are 26 dated components from 14 sites representing Indigenous settlements in the ∼500 years after the MCA (700–130 cal BP).

Discussion

The radiocarbon dates here inform four important issues: the antiquity of settlement; updates and refinement of previously reported chronologies; variable responses to drought by island populations; and the value of legacy collections for constructing Island Tongva history.

Initial settlement of Santa Catalina Island

The northern Channel Islands and islands of Baja California include an archaeological record that documents human occupation of the islands by at least 12,000 years ago and are thus critical to debates regarding the initial arrival of humans in North America (Des Lauriers 2010; Gusick and Erlandson 2019). In contrast, researchers have not yet identified similar paleocoastal evidence on the southern Channel Islands. The earliest known sites on the southern islands are from Eel Point (CA-SCLI-43), San Clemente Island, ∼8500 cal BP (Gusick et al. 2021, 40; Raab et al. 2009, 78–81) and CA-SNI-339 on San Nicolas Island, ∼8400 cal BP (Rick et al. 2005, 178). These settlements testify to an Early Holocene pattern among Island Tongva that is not well documented or understood yet.

Given that there is ∼13,000 years of human history on the California Channel Islands it is therefore astonishing that Santa Catalina Island’s earliest settlement dates begin in the Middle Holocene only ∼6000 years ago. Despite the ∼3000–7000-year gap in occupation between Santa Catalina and neighboring islands there is reason to believe that the earliest sites have not yet been identified. Davis et al. (2010) reported that chipped-stone crescents, a tool technology typically associated with late Pleistocene and earliest Holocene occupations (∼11,000 cal BP) were reportedly collected on Santa Catalina Island, but to date, these tools have not been identified or confirmed. Future work on Santa Catalina would benefit from targeted survey methods and research designs similar to those employed on the northern islands to search for the island’s earliest indigenous traces (Erlandson and Braje 2022, 164).

Updating previously dated sites

Six Indigenous settlements with previously published ¹⁴C ages were rejected during the chronometric hygiene process (Table 2), and four of these sites were revisited and radiocarbon dated for this study. Big Springs site (CA-SCAI-50) is an interior habitation site located in Little Springs Canyon. A measured ¹⁴C age of 2980 ± 150 was the only published date for this occupation, although the exact provenience remains unknown (Breschini, Haversat, and Erlandson 1996). We re-tested two discrete midden loci at this site and determined that the site was also occupied in the Late Period and after historic contact from approximately 400-125 cal BP (Table 1; Posadas et al. 2011). This settlement is associated with fresh water springs and a soapstone quarry that likely served as an important hub of production for soapstone objects (e.g., bowls, beads, plaques, effigies). These results are consistent with Perry and Glassow’s (2015) overview of Santa Cruz Island interior settlements, where they observed that Late Holocene interior sites were associated with access to fresh water and vital stone resources.

Ripper’s Cove (CA-SCAI-26) has been recognized as an important archaeological site for over a century due to the abundance of soapstone outcrops distributed throughout the area. Paul Schumacher, an early collector, commented on the soapstone quarries in the watershed above Rippers Cove when he visited the island in 1875 (Schumacher 1877). Reinman and Eberhart (1980, 71) reported that the site was occupied in approximately 610–220 BP, and our study confirms a chronology that is fairly similar. Three marine shell samples from Ripper’s Cove span a range from approximately 430-130 cal BP (Table 1). Clearly Ripper’s Cove was a key site in the manufacture, production, and distribution of soapstone bowls and objects into the Historic Period after colonial contact.

Bulrush Canyon site (CA-SCAI-137) did not produce any historic artifacts; however, two charcoal ¹⁴C dates from excavations in the 1970s suggest that Indigenous people lived in that area after historic contact (Cottrell, Clevenger, and Cooley 1980, 21). Our reassessment of the site’s chronology suggests a slightly earlier time frame, approximately 670–380 cal BP (Table 1). Lastly, Little Harbor Mesa (CA-SCAI-17) is the most well-known archaeological site on Santa Catalina Island due to decades of research. Raab et al. (1995) summarize the ¹⁴C chronology at CA-SCAI-17 and offer 10 dates spanning from approximately 7500 to 1500 years ago. We reject the oldest date from this sequence due to its provenience in a “culturally sterile stratum” and large measurement errors (Raab et al. 1995, 295). Based on AMS dating of Island fox elements from CA-SCAI-17 (Hofman et al. 2015), recalibration of Raab’s shell samples, and one new AMS ¹⁴C date from this study, we find support for previous conclusions that Little Harbor Mesa was a substantial Middle Holocene occupation that extended into the Late Holocene (5990–1185 cal BP).

Coping with drought

According to observations from the northern Channel Islands, we anticipated a reduction in settlements on Santa Catalina Island during and after the MCA due to persistent drought intervals. This response would involve restructuring settlements and clustering in defensible areas with dependable water sources. However, this study identifies an increase in settlements, suggesting that humans coped with drought on Santa Catalina in novel ways deviating from observed patterns in other parts of the channel. Instead of concentrating in large watersheds to access essential resources, individuals likely dispersed across the landscape, resulting in an increased number of settlements. This dispersal strategy may have been employed to redistribute and share vital resources.

Byrd and Whitaker (2015) found that the communities on San Nicolas Island and San Clemente Island exhibited distinct responses to drought based on site locations and ¹⁴C ages. The Island Tongva on San Nicolas Island fared relatively well during droughts, potentially due to their settlement strategy that had already adapted to the island’s limited annual rainfall or the availability of abundant fog water (Byrd and Whitaker 2015, 18). Gill et al. (2019) proposed that fog drip served as a significant freshwater source, particularly on the western islands like San Nicolas Island. In contrast, settlement trends on San Clemente Island declined during the MCA due to reduced freshwater availability (Yatsko 2000). Rick and Erlandson (2001) analyzed ¹⁴C dates from Santa Barbara Island, the smallest southern Channel Island, and suggested that inhabitants of the southern islands responded differently to terrestrial droughts compared to those on the northern islands. Similarly, Raab et al. (2002, 25) argued that settlement trends on San Clemente Island did not align with the patterns observed on neighboring islands within Chumash territory.

When we introduce the data from Santa Catalina Island, there are distinct contrasts with the other southern islands. Our results indicate that Santa Catalina Island populations also increased drastically beginning around 1500 cal BP, similar to settlement patterns on San Clemente Island. Based on current data, Santa Catalina habitation sites are large in surface area and concentrated along the coast in ways similar to San Nicolas Island. However, there are several large (m²) interior settlements, such as CA-SCAI-50, CA-SCAI-137, and CA-SCAI-32, and there are many areas in the island’s interior that have not been surveyed. The emerging patterns for Santa Catalina Island population and settlement trends do not match either San Clemente Island or San Nicolas Island. Based on these patterns, we find no support for a population intrusion on Santa Catalina Island as suggested for other southern Channel Islands (Byrd and Whitaker 2015, 23–4). Collectively, among all eight islands, there appears to be considerable variation in how island communities adapted to climatic perturbations such as drought. These data are in line with recent research that contends Indigenous people of the Channel Islands were living in an environment of abundance, not stress (Fitzpatrick and Erlandson 2019; Gill, Fauvelle, and Erlandson 2019).

A shortcoming of our study is the paucity of ¹⁴C dated sites in the interior of Santa Catalina Island despite the fact that hundreds of interior sites exist (Teeter, Martinez, and Kennedy-Richardson 2013, figure 9.1). This limitation hinders our ability to fully comprehend the variety of sites and activities that are not located near the coastline. Perry and Glassow (2015) have identified changes in the nature of interior settlements on Santa Cruz Island based on similarities in artifact, faunal, and locational data. They observed a shift from seasonal residential bases in the Middle Holocene to logistical camps in the Late Holocene. Additionally, recent archaeobotanical studies from Santa Cruz Island recognize interior sites as important loci for plant harvesting and processing (Gill 2015; Hoppa 2014; Thakar 2016). On Santa Rosa Island, Late Holocene interior settlements have been associated with bead production, plant processing, and territorial behavior (Jazwa and Rosencrance 2019). The presence of freshwater seeps and springs likely attracted people to the interior, particularly during the MCA (Jazwa and Rosencrance 2019; Perry and Glassow 2015). To gain a better understanding of broad patterns of Indigenous settlement and culture, future research should systematically assess interior settlements on Santa Catalina Island.

It is also possible that differences in overall population are impacting the patterns reviewed in this study. If the southern islands had lower population densities than the northern islands, then diverging settlement trends might partially be explained by island-specific demographics (Glassow and Johnson 2019). The MCA likely increased competition for resources due to extended periods of drought; however, bioarchaeologists have not identified conflict or violence among Tongva populations on the southern Channel Islands (Kennedy Richardson et al. 2018; Raab et al. 2002, 2009, 192–3; Salls 1984; Suchey 1970). This supports a working hypothesis that lower population sizes on the southern islands might have lessened the impact of persistent droughts to island communities during the MCA. Contrary to assertions that southern islands were periodically abandoned or that they did not have stable residential bases (Glassow and Johnson 2019, 242), we believe these data represent a substantial island population size and several stable village settings during the final centuries on Santa Catalina Island.

Evidence of a decline in ¹⁴C dates becomes apparent around 500 cal BP, which is a pattern observed among Chumash communities across the Channel Islands and mainland region (Erlandson et al. 2001; Glassow and Johnson 2019). It is plausible that the introduction of Old World diseases affected the populations of Santa Catalina Island subsequent to Cabrillo’s voyage to the island in AD 1542 (Erlandson and Bartoy 1995; Erlandson et al. 2001), which might explain the decrease in ¹⁴C ages ∼500 cal BP. If so, the resurgence of dates and sites after 500 BP holds equal importance in documenting populations and overall health on the island during the dynamic period following the arrival of Europeans and Old World diseases in the sixteenth century.

Legacy collections

This study showcases the successful outcome of community-driven research that utilizes legacy collections in lieu of further damaging ancient sites. The results from this study have not only helped to construct a ¹⁴C chronology for Indigenous Santa Catalina Island, but they have also provided data that allow us to return to specific collections to address additional questions. With the identification of a settlement pattern indicating an increase in site presence during and after the MCA, these collections can be revisited to explore other cultural practices. How did drought impact foodways? Did the function of interior settlements change from the Middle Holocene to the Late Holocene?

Recent studies using legacy collections from Santa Catalina Island have examined diachronic subsistence patterns (Porcasi and Radde 2017), documented cultural persistence into the historic era (Ringelstein 2016), and developed new methods for interpreting legacy collections with problematic provenience (Lerman 2022). Future research should prioritize exploring other aspects of the collections (e.g., stone tools, soapstone object production, archaeobotany, etc.) to gain a more comprehensive understanding of Island Tongva cultures.

Conclusion

In this study we compiled all known ¹⁴C ages from publications and gray literature and added to this database using targeted ¹⁴C samples from legacy collections representing Indigenous settlements across Santa Catalina Island. The outcome is preliminary, but nevertheless represents the first systematic review of Santa Catalina Island’s ¹⁴C chronology. Whereas 10 years ago there were only five sites and 20 ¹⁴C ages to evaluate, there are now 24 sites and 105 ¹⁴C ages. Tongva ancestors were living on Santa Catalina Island by as early as 6000 cal BP, and they continued to live in villages on the island through the beginning of the nineteenth century (Ringelstein 2016). As documented elsewhere in Southern California, including the Channel Islands, there is an increase in sites throughout the Late Holocene. The majority of currently documented Late Holocene settlements are located at coastal beaches on the northeast-facing side of Santa Catalina Island. At the onset of the Medieval Climatic Anomaly there is a steady increase in Indigenous settlements throughout the island, followed by a brief decline ∼500 cal BP, and ultimately a resurgence of dates and sites in the final centuries of Indigenous occupation. These data illustrate the diverse approaches for surmounting drought that Indigenous people developed over centuries and millennia, and provide broader lessons for those interested in arid island landscapes and drought around the world.

This study provides a significant contribution to a region that was integral to southern California Indigenous history, yet largely understudied and misunderstood. Our methods, utilizing and improving legacy collections, were chosen in collaboration with descendent community members, and exemplify the wealth of information stored in museums around the world. Advances and future directions in Santa Catalina Island archaeology will include increased community-based work with Indigenous descendants and further evaluation of legacy collections to: (1) address tribal questions and goals; (2) improve curation of invaluable heritage resources to ensure their long-term care and access by stakeholders; (3) utilize select materials as a proxy for environmental data; and (4) highlight the unforetold history of Tongva people.

Acknowledgements

This research would not be possible without the wisdom and support from Gabrielino Tongva descendent community members. We acknowledge the Ti’at Society/Traditional Council of Pimu, the Chia Café Collective, and especially Cindi Alvitre and Gabriel Robles for enriching our knowledge of Tongva history and culture and for showing us the genuine merit of collaborative Indigenous archaeology. We would like to thank the Santa Catalina Island Conservancy for logistical help and support on the island. We thank Brian Damiata for his assistance selecting radiocarbon samples and analyzing them at the KCCAMS Facility at UC Irvine. This project benefited from discussions with Sarah McClure, Douglas Kennett, and Richard George. We thank the editors of The Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology for their help with the production of this paper, as well as Jon Erlandson and Torben Rick for reviewing this paper and giving valuable feedback for improvement.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the National Science Foundation [BCS-2113254, HDR].