Contemporaneous Archaic Complexes

Archaic-period assemblages have been given various labels in San Diego County and surrounding regions, and variations in their characteristics have been noted. On a small geographical scale, some of the observed variability is probably attributable to the specific functional poses represented by the sites (their seasons of occupation, the resources that were being exploited, etc.). Other contrasts may represent cultural differences attributable to variation in general adaptive strategies or in inherited traditions.

The most extensively studied Archaic manifestation in San Diego County is the coastal La Jolla complex, initially defined by Malcolm J. Rogers (1929, 1945). Other Archaic complexes farther north in coastal Southern California include the Topanga complex in the Santa Monica Mountains area (Heizer and Lemert 1947; Johnson 1966; Treganza 1950; Treganza and Bierman 1958; Treganza and Malamud 1950) and the Oak Grove complex and Hunting culture in the Santa Barbara area (Harrison and Harrison 1965; D. Rogers 1929). The La Jolla pattern has generally been assumed to have extended south into northern and perhaps central Baja California, but because of the relatively small amount of archaeological investigation in that region, the southern geographical limits are not even approximately known.

Similarities between the La Jolla complex and the other complexes to the north were noted by William J. Wallace (1955), who grouped them together as the Millingstone horizon. Claude N. Warren (1968) similarly lumped the La Jolla complex together with early Archaic assemblages farther north as the Encinitas tradition. The similarities or dissimilarities among coastal Archaic assemblages in southern California have not generally been closely examined, tested, or interpreted. Geographical discontinuities between different complexes, if any were present, have not been precisely located.

In northern San Diego County, a contrast between coastal and inland Archaic assemblages was studied in some detail by D. L. True and his collaborators (True 1958, 1980; True and Beemer 1982; True and Pankey 1985; Warren et al. 1961). The inland Archaic pattern, which was termed the Pauma complex, had its geographical focus on the upper San Luis Rey River, with extensions to the Valley Center area, middle San Luis Rey River, upper Santa Margarita River, and Escondido-San Marcos area. Pauma complex characteristics suggested by True included (1) a high frequency of shaped manos, (2) the presence of finely worked small domed scrapers, (3) the presence of knives and points, (4) the presence of discoidals and cogged stones, (5) a predominance of grinding tools over flaked tools, (6) a predominance of deep basin metates over slab metates, (7) a predominance of cobble hammers over core hammers, (8) a low frequency of cobble tools, (9) a scarcity of cobble choppers and cobble scrapers, (10) a predominance of volcanic rock over metaquartzite as a source material for flaked lithics, and (11) an extreme scarcity of obsidian. Mark Q. Sutton and Jill K. Gardner (2010) distinguished La Jolla and Pauma patterns as geographical variants within the Encinitas tradition.

Another Archaic pattern was characterized by Warren (1968) as the Campbell tradition. This tradition was recognized primarily in the Hunting culture of the Santa Barbara area. In that region, it prevailed during the later portion of the Archaic period, but it appeared also to overlap in time with the preceding Encinitas tradition. In San Diego County, Warren interpreted Locus II at the C. W. Harris Site near Rancho Santa Fe as evidence of a short-lived intrusion into the region by bearers of the Campbell tradition, probably coming from the deserts to the east. The assemblage from Locus II had originally been interpreted by M. J. Rogers as belonging to the Harris Site’s San Dieguito component (Rogers 1966:145; Warren 1966:16), but a radiocarbon date placed the deposit anomalously late in time, at about 2770 B.C. (Hubbs et al. 1960:220-221; Warren et al. 1961:260-261). Large side- or corner-notched projectile points (Elko series points) and broad, thin knives have been taken to be the diagnostic characteristics of Campbell assemblages, at least in San Diego County.

Opinions concerning the hypothesized Campbell tradition have varied. True (1958, 1980; True and Beemer 1982) reported Elko series points from at least two sites in northern San Diego County that were initially assigned to the Pauma complex and were subsequently reassigned to the Campbell Tradition. True thought that Warren’s interpretation of Locus II at the C. W. Harris Site as a Campbell site unit intrusion “makes sense in terms of other northern San Diego County situations, including the Pauma Valley area” (True 1980:36). Dennis H. O’Neil (1982) identified a lower component at SDM-W-1556 in San Marcos as pertaining to the Campbell tradition, primarily on the basis of several Elko series points. O’Neil questioned Warren’s conclusion that the Campbell intrusion was short-lived, suggesting instead that it may have marked “a major change in economic strategy…culminating with the late prehistoric diversified hunting and gathering way of life” (O’Neil 1982:157). D. Sean Cardenas and Stephen R. Van Wormer (1984) compiled data from the San Diego Museum of Man that demonstrated the presence of apparent Campbell tradition artifacts at many sites throughout the county. Warren himself revised his views on the character of local manifestations of the Campbell tradition (Warren et al. 1993). He came to consider Campbell-type artifacts to be an integral part of later La Jolla assemblages, reflecting either diffusion or the movement of small, rapidly assimilated groups into San Diego County from the deserts to the east.

Another inland pattern, the Sayles complex, dating to the terminal Archaic period, was defined by Makoto Kowta (1969) on the basis of investigations at a site in the Cajon Pass area of San Bernardino County. The Sayles assemblage was notable for its high proportion of projectile points, fairly abundant unifacial tools (scrapers) of various sorts, fairly abundant manos and metates but a lack of mortars and pestles, and the presence of cogged stones.

For the California deserts, an assortment of inconsistently used terms have been proposed for Archaic complexes and periods, including Pinto, Gypsum, Amargosa, Little Lake, and Newberry (Bettinger and Taylor 1974; Campbell and Campbell 1935; Rogers 1939; Wallace 1962). The desert complexes seem to be marked by an abundance of projectile points, in particular side- or corner-notched varieties, and a scarcity of milling implements. Archaic components appear to be notably rare in the Colorado Desert of eastern San Diego County; a conspicuous exception is Indian Hill Rockshelter (McDonald 1992; Wilke et al. 1986).

PROSPECTS

Future investigations may be able to determine whether there are significant differences between Archaic assemblages in San Diego County, other parts of southern California, and Baja California; between assemblages within various segments of the San Diego coast; and between coastal and inland areas in San Diego County. Studies may shed light on whether such differences are explicable in terms of differences in the locally available resources, or whether they reflect the coexistence of different cultural traditions.