Environmental productivity predicts migration, demographic, and linguistic patterns in prehistoric California

Global patterns of ethnolinguistic diversity vary tremendously. Some regions show very little variation even across vast expanses, whereas others exhibit dense mosaics of different languages spoken alongside one another. Compared with the rest of Native North America, prehistoric California exemplified the latter. Decades of linguistic, genetic, and archaeological research have produced detailed accounts of the migrations that aggregated to build California's diverse ethnolinguistic mosaic, but there have been few have attempts to explain the process underpinning these migrations and why such a mosaic did not develop elsewhere. Here we show that environmental productivity predicts both the order of migration events and the population density recorded at contact. The earliest colonizers occupied the most suitable habitats along the coast, whereas subsequent Mid-Late Holocene migrants settled in more marginal habitats. Other Late Holocene patterns diverge from this trend, reflecting altered dynamics linked to food storage and increased sedentism. Through repeated migration events, incoming populations replaced resident populations occurring at lower densities in lower-productivity habitats, thereby resulting in the fragmentation of earlier groups and the development of one of the most diverse ethnolinguistic patterns in the Americas. Such a process may account for the distribution of ethnolinguistic diversity worldwide. Link to article: http://www.pnas.org/content/110/36/14569.full

Environmental productivity predicts migration, demographic, and linguistic patterns in prehistoric California Brian F. Coddinga,1 and Terry L. Jonesb aDepartment of Anthropology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112 and bDepartment of Social Sciences, California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 Edited by David H. Thomas, American Museum of Natural History, New York, NY, and approved July 18, 2013 (received for review January 30, 2013) Global patterns of ethnolinguistic diversity vary tremendously. Some regions show very little variation even across vast expanses, whereas others exhibit dense mosaics of different languages spoken alongside one another. Compared with the rest of Native North America, prehistoric California exemplified the latter. Decades of linguistic, genetic, and archaeological research have produced detailed accounts of the migrations that aggregated to build California's diverse ethnolinguistic mosaic, but there have been few have attempts to explain the process underpinning these migra-tions and why such a mosaic did not develop elsewhere. Here we show that environmental productivity predicts both the order of migration events and the population density recorded at contact. The earliest colonizers occupied the most suitable habitats along the coast, whereas subsequent Mid-Late Holocene migrants settled in more marginal habitats. Other Late Holocene patterns diverge from this trend, reflecting altered dynamics linked to food storage and increased sedentism. Through repeated migration events, in-coming populations replaced resident populations occurring at lower densities in lower-productivity habitats, thereby resulting in the fragmentation of earlier groups and the development of one of the most diverse ethnolinguistic patterns in the Americas. Such a process may account for the distribution of ethnolinguistic diversity worldwide. colonization of North America | prehistoric migrations | human behavioral ecology | ideal free distribution | ideal despotic distribution Native California has long stood out as as a region of ex-ceptionally high ethnolinguistic diversity, a pattern generally recognized as the end product of repeated in-migrations by suc-cessive groups (1-6) (Fig. 1 and Fig. S1). Explaining why migra-tions led to the aggregation of so many ethnic groups in California, but not in neighboring regions, has been a longstanding challenge for North American prehistorians. Previous research worldwide has found correlations between environmental productivity, pop-ulation density, and linguistic diversity (7-9), but these studies fail to explain the processes that fostered such patterning. Proposed explanations tend to focus on population replacement events, where incoming groups equipped with more intensive subsistence strategies out-compete in situ groups (10, 11). Although of great use in understanding cultural patterns in prehistory, these explan-ations provide less-than-adequate explanations for circumstances where in-migrations resulted not in full-scale replacement, but in the buildup of ethnic diversity. Here we propose a simple explanation for this patterning based on predictions from an ideal free distribution model (IFD) from behavioral ecology (12, 13) (Fig. S2). Recent anthropo-logical applications of the IFD have proven useful for explaining patterning in prehistoric colonization and settlement (14-18). The basic model assumes that environments vary in their suit-ability and that habitats decline in suitability as a function of population density. Assuming that individuals should attempt to maximize habitat suitability, incoming colonizers and migrants should occupy the highest-ranking habitats until a point where suitability declines to a level equal to the next highest ranking habitat. As populations increase through either migration or in situ growth, lower-ranking habitats should fill in rank order, with higher-ranking habitats always occupied by more individuals per area. From these dynamics, the IFD provides two main quali-tative predictions: (i) the most suitable habitats should always be occupied first, and (ii) they should always have the highest population densities. Observations that do not conform to these expectations may result from a number of factors, one of which is caused by a vi-olation of the "free" assumption of the IFD. If for some reason individuals are no longer free to select the most suitable habitat, then IFD dynamics would give way to those of the ideal despotic (or dominance) distribution model (IDD) (12). Archaeological studies have used the IDD to better understand the emergence of hierarchies and intergroup resource competition (19, 20). IDD dynamics can emerge from any exclusionary tactics, including territoriality or even strongly sedentary adaptations that provide some advantage against potential competitors. This is more likely to occur where resources are concentrated and predictable, making resource-bearing habitats defensible (21). Based on these model dynamics, we hypothesize that that the first people to colonize California would have occupied the most suitable habitats. Individuals in these sweet spots were more likely to stay in place due to the greater demographic potential of these highly suitable environments. Subsequent migrants would have been best off settling in adjacent, although less productive, regions, resulting in the sequential occupation of increasingly marginal habitats. Because populations in more marginal hab-itats were likely to have lower population densities, they may have been susceptible to replacement by incoming migrants whose population densities were more likely to be at parity. In contrast, those occupying more suitable habitats would have been susceptible to replacement only in circumstances where incoming populations adopted exclusionary tactics ranging from greater sedentism to territorial aggression (10). In this way, the prehistory of regions with greater heterogeneity in habitat suit-ability should be characterized by a mix of migration outcomes that gradually produce the aggregation of ethnolinguistic diversity. Regions characterized by more homogeneous distributions of habitat suitability should experience zero-sum outcomes resulting either in stasis or full-scale replacement, leading to very limited ethnolinguistic diversity (11). Author contributions: B.F.C. and T.L.J. designed research; B.F.C. and T.L.J. performed re-search; B.F.C. analyzed data; and B.F.C. and T.L.J. wrote the paper. The authors declare no conflict of interest. This article is a PNAS Direct Submission. 1To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: [e-mail]. This article contains supporting information online at www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10. 1073/pnas.1302008110/-/DCSupplemental. www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1302008110 PNAS | September 3, 2013 | vol. 110 | no. 36 | 14569-14573 ANTHROPOLOGY Here we test these predictions with estimates of habitat suit-ability, settlement chronologies, and population densities for pop-ulations in California. We use terrestrial net primary productivity (NPP), an approximation of plant productivity, as a proxy for habitat suitability. To test the first prediction of the IFD that the most suitable habitats are occupied first, we use genetic (22-26) and linguistic (4-6, 27, 28) data to estimate the timing of coloni-zation and migration events for each language group in California (Table 1). We then use estimates of contact population density for each ethnolinguistic group (2, 9, 29-31) (Table S1) to test the second prediction that the most suitable habitats always have the highest population densities. Results Fig. 1 shows the distribution of environmental productivity (measured by NPP) summarized for each ethnolinguistic territory (Table S1). As has been shown globally for hunter-gatherer pop-ulations (7), NPP negatively covaries with the size of ethnographic territories throughout California ([linear: r2 =0:19; p =0:0002, log linear: r2 = 0:287; p< 0:0001 (Fig. S3)]. Mean environmental productivity (NPP) varies significantly across linguistic groups (ANOVA, df =8, F =10:52, p<0:0001). These differences are not a function of spatial autocorrelation (Moran's I = 0:30, z=0:94, p= 0:35). Prediction 1: Most Suitable Habitats Are Occupied First. To test this prediction, we examine mean NPP for each ethnographic territory by linguistic grouping rank-ordered by the estimated colonization or migration date. As shown in Fig. 2, the variability is largely distributed through time following our chronological predictions. The earliest groups to enter California occupied some of the most productive habitats. It appears that these habitats remained oc-cupied until the contact era. Mean productivity declines sig-nificantly with subsequent migrations through the Middle to Late Holocene (Table 2). The Late Holocene spread of Numic speaking peoples into the lowest-ranking habitats continues the declining trend. However, subsequent migrations of Algic and Athabaskan groups diverge from this patterning, suggesting that a different process was driving these last migration events. Prediction 2: Most Suitable Habitats Have the Highest Population Densities. To test this prediction, we examine population den-sity as a function of mean NPP for each ethnographic group. As shown in Fig. 3, there is a highly significant relationship between the two variables: as environmental productivity increases, population density increases at an exponential rate (linear: r2 = 0:62; p <0:0001; exponential: r2 = 0:63; p <0:0001). In agree-ment with the IFD predictions, habitats with higher suitability support larger populations per unit area. Coupled with the chro-nological results, this suggests that the earliest migrants into a re-gion are likely to grow to higher densities, thereby reducing the probability of replacement from subsequent migrations. However, again, Algic and Athabaskan groups are an anomaly: although they are the latest arrivals in the region, they still exhibit some of the highest population densities. Discussion Implications for California Prehistory. The first people to settle Cal-ifornia, the ancestors of Chumash and Yukian speakers, occupied some of the most productive habitats, likely traveling to the region along the coast via boats (32). These findings provide ancillary support for a coastal colonization model for the Americas showing that the earliest migrants into the region settled along highly 0 75 150 300 Kilometers 0 60 120 240 Miles Mean NPP 0.96-1.33 0.66-0.96 0.48-0.66 0.23-0.48 0.09-0.23 Fig. 1. NPP values averaged for each ethnolinguistic group in California overlaying the processed MODIS satellite imagery showing NPP values. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 Language Groups Rank Ordered by Migration Date Environmental Productivity (Mean NPP x10 ) Chumash Yukian Yok-Utian Hokan Takic Wintuan/ Maiduan Numic Algic Athab-askan Early Holocene Middle Holocene Late Holocene Fig. 2. Environmental productivity (NPP) for each ethnolinguistic group rank ordered by migration date. 14570 | www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1302008110 Codding and Jones productive shorelines with adjacent productive terrestrial resource patches. Geographic hot spots like estuaries and river mouths probably acted as draws for people where marine and terrestrial resources were concentrated (33). Although archaeological sup-port for such patterning is greater in the southern portion of the state (32), the limited support for Early Holocene dates along the northwestern coast may be due to biased erasure of the record resulting from sea level rise at a steeper gradient along the interface between land and sea (34). In the second wave of migrations, predecessors of the speakers of Hokan languages came to occupy less productive habitats, but in contiguous territory covering much of the region (2, 6). After their initial movement into these moderately productive areas, populations likely outgrew their resource base, causing individ-uals to spread into adjacent lands. Such in-filling of un- or under-occupied lands helps to explain the putative expansion of this second wave of migrants into moderately productive contiguous territory across the region. This contiguous territory occupied by Hokan-speaking ances-tors was later fragmented by migrations of Penutian (Yok-Utian, Wintuan, and Maiduan) and perhaps Takic-speaking ancestors. These groups occupied habitats that did not differ significantly from one another or from the lands inhabited by Hokan speakers until the time of contact. These replacement and fragmentation events were a potential consequence of environmental degra-dation in the Great Basin, which lowered landscape productivity and pushed populations westward (6, 35). In the Late Holocene, Numic-speaking peoples spread through-out southeastern California and across the rest of the Great Basin. This expansion did not spill into adjacent highly productive areas, suggesting that these locations were already occupied at high densities by earlier migrants. Instead, these migrations filled in regions of low productivity, replacing previous populations that occupied the region at low densities. The previous occupants were likely out-competed by the intensive foraging practices of these migrants (11), a trend perhaps common to many of the Late Holocene migrations. The subsequent Late Holocene migrations of Algic- and Athabaskan-speaking peoples into northwestern California departs from our predictions: these groups took over highly productive habitats that were initially settled by some of the earliest colonizers. This departure from IFD predictions likely signals a shift to IDD dynamics, which could have been driven by the intensive fishing practices previously adopted by these incoming populations who were focused on acquiring and storing anadromous fish (salmon) (36, 37). Such a subsistence focus coupled with more sedentary adaptations and notions of own-ership over productive resource patches would have provided a competitive advantage for the incoming populations, who would have been able to remain in place throughout the year, thereby excluding the previous populations who were more seasonally mobile (2, 5, 37, 38). Furthermore, these migrations also likely brought the bow and arrow to the region (38), a technology that potentially provided greater foraging returns and possibly di-rectly aided in population displacement (39, 40). A General Framework. The dynamics embedded within IFD and IDD models provide a framework to explain why global patterns reveal a correlation between ecological and linguistic diversity. In ecologically homogenous regions where habitat suitability does not vary extensively across space, populations are likely to be more evenly distributed across the landscape. With roughly equitable population densities, colonization attempts by incoming migrants are likely either to fail outright and be completely repelled or to succeed and result in the complete replacement of the resident population (11). In ecologically diverse regions with alternating habitats of varying suitability, migration events by mobile hunter-gatherers should be repelled by large populations that occupy highly suit-able habitats, but should be more likely to succeed in replacing low-density populations that reside in low-suitability habitats. This will result in the fragmentation of a population whose occupations span habitats of varying suitability. As a result, regions charac-terized by greater environmental diversity will come to exhibit greater linguistic diversity through repeated migration events that end in partial replacements. We expect these dynamics to hold until populations adopt exclusionary tactics that restrict individuals from occupying more suitable habitats. At that point, all of these rules would be swept aside. Whether these tactics are adopted by resident or migrant populations will result in very different outcomes. As such, this would represent a potential bifurcation point in historical trajec-tories. If resident populations are the first to adopt such practices, then they would be more likely to stay in place. However, if 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 Environmental Productivity (NPP) Population Density (per km ) Chumash/Yukian Hokan Yok-Utian Takic Wintuan/Maiduan Numic Algic Athabaskan 2 Fig. 3. Population density as a function of environmental productivity (NPP × 10−4) for each ethnolinguistic group color-coded in order of mi-gration date. Exponential fit with 95% confidence intervals. Table 1. Estimated time since (years BP) and rank order of migration (arrival) events for California language groups based on genetic (modern and ancient mtDNA) and linguistic data Language group Genetic estimate Linguistic estimate Rank order Chumash 13,233-3,333 Early Holocene 1 Yukian - Early Holocene 1 Hokan Early Holocene 8,000-6,000 2 Yok-Utian 5,000-3,000 4,500 3 Takic Mid-Holocene 3,500 4 Wintuan-Maiduan - 1,500 5 Numic ≤1,000 2,000-1,000 6 Algic - 1,450-1,050 7 Athabaskan - 1,250-750 8 Greater detail on genetic (22, 24-26) and linguistic (6, 27, 28) estimates is available in Materials and Methods. Codding and Jones PNAS | September 3, 2013 | vol. 110 | no. 36 | 14571 ANTHROPOLOGY incoming populations bring such practices with them, then they would have a competitive advantage and could replace in situ populations. This may result from factors as simple as increased sedentism around predicable, dense resources, thereby excluding more mobile foragers during their seasonal rounds or as complex as the in-migration of intensive agricultural groups (10). Conclusion This approach provides simple predictions about human population movements without relying on complex models or assumptions. Following the IFD and IDD, we suggest that foraging individuals will tend to distribute themselves across landscapes in ways that provide the greatest benefit at minimal cost. These simple pre-dictions provide a framework to explain the emergence of a com-plex mosaic of ethnolinguistic groups not found elsewhere in North America. Intergroup dynamics that include practices of exogamy, networks of exchange, and episodes of violence complicate this picture. Stochastic environmental shocks, which may have helped initiate many of these movements, also restructure habitat suit-ability in significant ways (35, 41). However, overall, broad pat-terning in migration aggregations appears to meet the predictions from this simple model. As an initial test of this hypothesis, this work outlines broad patterning in the prehistory of western North America, including an explanation of spatial patterning in the colonization of the continent. Given patterns in continental NPP, our findings highlight the potential of coastal habitats (42), which itself lends support for a coastal corridor as one of the first entry routes into the Americas (32, 43). Applied elsewhere, this approach may aid in the explanation of prehistoric hunter-gatherer migrations across the globe, including the initial spread of people out of Africa into Europe, Asia, and across to Sahul (Australia/New Guinea) (17, 44, 45). Although many of these linguistic records have been erased by the migrations of agricultural peoples (10), archaeological patterning coupled with estimates of environmen-tal productivity could eventually provide a global test of our hy-pothesis and help elucidate why and how humans spread across the planet, creating a patchwork of linguistic and ethnic diversity. Materials and Methods Environmental Productivity. As a proxy for habitat suitability, we relied on terrestrial NPP. NPP is a measure of the initial step in the carbon cycle where energy is turned into mass; it is frequently used to approximate plant growth. Remote sensing data used to calculate NPP came fromtheModerate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) collected from NASA's Terra satellite. MODIS data processed following the MOD17 Photosynthesis and Net Primary Productivity algorithm were made available by the Numerical Terradynamics Simulation Group at the University of Montana (46). The raster image consists of average NPP calculated from 2000 to 2011 in 1-km resolution. Inland waters and urban areas were excluded and appear white on the map (Fig. 1). A map that estimates the distribution of California's ethnographic groups at contact (2, 6) (Fig. S1) was used to estimate mean NPP values for each linguistic group with the Zonal Statistics tool in ArcGIS 10 (47). The magnitude of NPP values was then reduced by four orders to aid interpretation. Chronology. A rank-ordered chronology for the timing of group migrations into the region was developed using combined linguistic (5, 6, 28) and ge-netic (22, 23) estimates. Chumashan and Yukian appear to represent the oldest linguistic stratum in the region (4-6). This broadly corresponds with genetic findings, with an estimated age of the clade around 7,353 (13,233- 3,333) years ago (22). Hokan languages are estimated to be the second oldest group in California with linguistic diversity, suggesting an arrival date between 8,000 and 6,000 y ago. Hokan languages were likely fragmented by the first Penutian intrusion which brought Yok-Utian languages into Cal-ifornia from the Great Basin between 5,000 and 3,000 y ago (6, 24). Lin-guistic evidence suggests that the Takic branch of Uto-Aztecean languages expanded sometime about 3,500 y ago (28); genetic evidence comparing ancient and modern mtDNA confirms this patterning (25). Linguistic analysis on the other Uto-Aztecan branch represented in the region places the di-vergence of Numic languages at about 2,000 (27) or 1,000 y ago (6). Based on a comparison of ancient mtDNA from burials recovered at Pyramid Lakes and Stillwater Marsh to modern mtDNA, this population replacement in the eastern Great Basin is thought to have occurred just short of 1,000 y ago (24). Tubatulabal were left out of this analysis due to their complicated and debated origin and migration estimates. Wintuan and Maiduan groups were probably pushed south based on the expansion of Algic and Atha-baskan migrations in the Late Holocene; it is estimated that they settled into their historic territories by about 1,500 y ago (6). Their entrance into northern California was followed by the continued expansion of Algic and Athabaskan groups between 1,450 and 1,050 and between 1,250 and 750 y ago, respectively (6). A summary of these data along with rank order esti-mates is provided in Table 1. Population Estimates. To approximate population densities at the time of contact, we drew on established estimates in the published literature (2, 3, 9, 29-31, 48). Where estimates of density were not available, we used two methods to generate approximations. For those groups with available total population estimates, values were divided by the area occupied by the ethnographic group. These included Kroeber's estimate of 3,500 for Serrano, Vanyume (subgroup of Serrano), Kitanemuk, and Alliklik (or Tataviam); 1,000 for Halchidhoma; 3,000 for Mohave; and 2,500 for Quechan (Yuma; estimates for the final two were reduced by half given that their territories are split between California and Arizona) (2). For those groups lacking estimates, we followed Cook in using average estimates based on neigh-boring populations of the same linguistic group (31). This included Cook's average estimate of 1.92/km2 for two Athabaskan groups (Nongatl and Rogue River Athabaskan) (31) and Binford's estimate of 0.65/km2 for Togva (Gabrielino) applied to Fernandeño (48). All estimates are reported in number of peoples per square kilometer. Analytical Methods. To determine if patterning in mean NPP across ethno-linguistic territories was biased by nonrandom neighboring relationships, we used the Spatial Autocorrelation (Morans I) function in ArcMap 10 (47). To examine the relationship between rank-order migration and NPP values, we used the linear model function in R to run a series of paired ANOVAs to test for significant departures in mean NPP values between each ethnographic group; linear models were also used to examine the effect of productivity on population density (49). ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. We thank the Running Laboratory at the University of Montana for generating and making available the NPP database, and V. Golla, the California Department of Water Resources, R. W. Goode, and J. D. Aldern for estimates of ethnolinguistic distributions in California. This paper benefited from conversations with R. L. Bettinger, J. Coltrain, B. Hildebrandt, D. J. Kennett, F. K. Lake, D. O'Rourke, S. Simms, N. E. Stevens, and S. Tushingham. J. F. O'Connell and two anonymous reviewers provided extensive comments on earlier versions of this manuscript, which greatly improved the final result. The complete dataset is available in Table S1. 1. Powell JW (1891) Indian Linguistic Families of America, North of Mexico. Bureau of Ethnology, 7th Annual Report (Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC). 2. Kroeber AL (1925) Handbook of the Indians of California (Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology, Washington, DC). Table 2. Summary of paired models comparing mean NPP between each ethnolinguistic group Chumash and Yukian Hokan Yok- Utian Takic Wintuan/ Maiduan Numic Algic Hokan 3.06* - - - - - - Yok-Utian 3.67* 0.37 - - - - - Takic 6.86† 0.03 0.81 - - - - Wintuan/ Maiduan 12.09‡ 0.01 0.40 0.13 - - - Numic 97.05§ 6.67† 20.53§ 12.31‡ 33.88§ - - Algic 2.43 4.78† 7.25† 10.89† 24.45‡ 185.69§ - Athabaskan 3.05 23.01§ 27.4§ 41.29§ 52.37§ 194.74§ 0.02 F-statistic values resulting from paired ANOVAs are listed. Significance at <0.1=*, at <0.05=†, at <0.01=‡ and at <0.0001=§. More complete data are available in Table S2. 14572 | www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1302008110 Codding and Jones 3. Heizer RF, ed (1978) Handbook of North American Indians: California (Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC), Vol 8. 4. Moratto M (1984) California Archaeology (Academic, New York). 5. Golla V (2007) California Prehistory, eds Jones TL, Klar K (Alta Mira Press, Lanham, MD). 6. Golla V (2011) California Indian Languages (Univ of California Press, Berkeley). 7. Currie TE, Mace R (2012) The evolution of ethnolinguistic diversity. Adv Complex Syst 15(1):1150006. 8. Birdsell JB (1953) Some environmental and cultural factors influencing the structuring of Australian Aboriginal populations. Am Nat 87(834):171-207. 9. Baumhoff MA (1963) Ecological determinants of aboriginal California populations. Uni-versity of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol 49:155-236. 10. Diamond J, Bellwood P (2003) Farmers and their languages: The first expansions. Science 300(5619):597-603. 11. Bettinger RL, Baumhoff MA (1982) The Numic spread: Great Basin cultures in com-petition. Am Antiq 47(3):485-503. 12. Fretwell SD, Lucas HL (1969) On territorial behavior and other factors influencing habitat distribution in birds. I. Theoretical development. Acta Biotheor 19(1):16-36. 13. Fretwell S (1972) Populations in a Seasonal Environment (Princeton Univ Press, Princeton, NJ). 14. Allen J, O'Connell JF (2008) Islands of Inquiry: Colonization, Seafaring and the Ar-chaeology of Maritime Landscapes, eds Clark G, Leach F, O'Connor S (ANU E Press, Canberra, Australia), Terra Australis No. 29, pp 31-46. 15. Kennett DJ (2005) The Island Chumash: Behavioral Ecology of a Maritime Society (Univ of California Press, Berkeley). 16. Kennett D, Anderson AJ, Winterhalder B (2006) Human Behavioral Ecology and the Origins of Agriculture, eds Kennett DJ, Winterhalder B (Univ of California Press, Berkeley), pp 265-288. 17. O'Connell JF, Allen J (2012) The restaurant at the end of the universe: Modelling the colonisation of Sahul. Austr Archaeol 74:5-17. 18. Winterhalder B, Kennett DJ, Grote MN, Bartruff J (2010) Ideal free settlement of California's Northern Channel Islands. J Anthropol Archaeol 29:469-490. 19. Kennett DJ, Winterhalder B (2008) Islands of Inquiry: Colonization, Seafaring and the Archaeology of Meritime Landscapes, eds Clark G, Leach F, O'Connor S (ANU E Press, Canberra, Australia), Terra Australis No. 29. 20. Kennett DJ, Winterhalder B, Bartruff J, Erlandson JM (2009) Pattern and Process in Cultural Evolution, ed Shennan S (Univ of California Press, Berkeley). 21. Dyson-Hudson R, Smith EA (1978) Human territoriality: An ecological reassesment. Am Anthropol 80(1):21-41. 22. Johnson JR, Kemp BM, Monroe C, Lorenz JG (2012) Contemporary Issues in California Archaeology, eds Jones TL, Perry JE (Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, CA), pp 49-72. 23. Johnson JR, Lorenz JG (2006) Genetics, linguistics, and prehistoric migrations: An analysis of California Indian mitochondrial DNA lineages. J Calif Gt Basin Anthropol 26(1):33-64. 24. Kaestle FA, Smith DG (2001) Ancient mitochondrial DNA evidence for prehistoric population movement: The Numic expansion. Am J Phys Anthropol 115(1):1-12. 25. Potter AB, White PS (2009) The mitochondrial DNA affinities of the prehistoric people of San Clemente Island: An analysis of ancient DNA. J Calif Gt Basin Anthropol 29(2): 163-181. 26. Schroeder KB, Villa G, Malhi RS, Rode AR, Smith DG (2011) Biological continuity in the Central Valley: Evidence from ancient and modern mitochondrial DNA. J Calif Gt Basin Anthropol 31(1):39-58. 27. Lamb SM (1958) Linguistic prehistory in the Great Basin. Intl J Am Linguistics 24(2): 95-100. 28. Sutton MQ (2009) People and language: The Takic expansion into southern California. Pacific Coast Archaeol Soc Quar 41(2-3):31-94. 29. Cook SF (1955) The Aboriginal Population of the San Joaquin Valley (Univ of California Publications, Berkeley, CA). 30. Cook SF (1956) The Aboriginal Population of the North Coast of California: Anthro-pological Records (Univ of California Publications, Berkeley, CA), Vol 16. 31. Cook SF (1976) The Population of the California Indians 1769-1970 (Univ of California Press, Berkeley, CA). 32. Erlandson JM, et al. (2011) Paleoindian seafaring, maritime technologies, and coastal foraging on California's Channel Islands. Science 331(6021):1181-1185. 33. Codding BF, Bird DW, Jones TL (2012) Contemporary Issues in California Archaeology, eds Jones TL, Perry JE (Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, CA), pp 115-131. 34. Bickel PM (1978) Changing sea levels along the California coast: Anthropological implications. J Calif Anthropol 5(1):6-20. 35. Kennett DJ, Kennett JP, Erlandson JM, Cannariato KG (2007) Human responses to Middle Holocene climate change on California's Channel Islands. Quaternary Sci Rev 26(3-4):351-367. 36. Schalk RF (1977) For Theory Building in Archaeology: Essays on Faunal Remains, Aquatic Resources, Spatial Analysis, and Systemic Modeling, ed Binford LR (Academic, New York), pp 207-249. 37. Tushingham S (2009) The development of intensive foraging systems in Northwestern California. PhD thesis (Univ of California, Davis). 38. Hildebrandt WR (2007) California Prehistory, eds Jones TL, Klar K (Altamira Press, Lanham, MD), pp 83-98. 39. Bettinger RL (2013) Effects of the bow on social organization in Western north America. Evol Anthropol 22(3):118-123. 40. Kennett DJ, Lambert PM, Johnson JR, Culleton BJ (2013) Sociopolitical effects of bow and arrow technology in prehistoric coastal California. Evol Anthropol 22(3): 124-132. 41. Jones TL, et al. (1999) Environmental imperatives reconsidered: Demographic crises in western North America during the medieval climatic anomaly. Curr Anthropol 40(2): 137-170. 42. Jones TL (1991) Marine-resource value and the priority of coastal settlement: A Cal-ifornia perspective. Am Antiq 56(3):419-443. 43. Goebel T, Waters MR, O'Rourke DH (2008) The late Pleistocene dispersal of modern humans in the Americas. Science 319(5869):1497-1502. 44. Klein RG (2009) The Human Career: Human Biological and Cultural Origins (Univ of Chicago Press, Chicago), 3rd Ed. 45. Appenzeller T (2012) Human migrations: Eastern odyssey. Nature 485(7396):24-26. 46. Running SW (2012) Mod17a3. Available at www.ntsg.umt.edu/project/MOD17/. Accessed December 4, 2012. 47. ESRI (2012) Arcmap 10.0, ArcGIS Desktop 10. service pack 2 (Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands, CA). 48. Binford LR (2001) Constructing Frames of Reference (Univ of California Press, Berkeley, CA). 49. R Development Core Team (2012) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna). Codding and Jones PNAS | September 3, 2013 | vol. 110 | no. 36 | 14573 ANTHROPOLOGY Supporting Information Codding and Jones 10.1073/pnas.1302008110 Fig. S1. Map of ethnographic territories in California displayed by language grouping rank-ordered by colonization/migration event. Note that approximate boundaries between groups were likely fluid and should not be considered precise demarcations between ethnographic units. Codding and Jones www.pnas.org/cgi/content/short/1302008110 1 of 4 - Habitat Suitability + H1 H2 H3 b a Fig. S2. Simplified graphical representation of predictions derived from an ideal free distribution model. As populations increase either through migration or growth, the highest-ranking habitat (H1) declines in suitability to a point (a) where new individuals would experience equal suitability to stay in H1 or move to the next most suitable habitat (H2). Higher-ranking habitats should always be occupied first and should always have higher population densities. 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 0.0e+00 1.0e+10 2.0e+10 3.0e+10 Mean NPP Ethnolinguistic Area (m ) Fig. S3. Ethnographic area (m2) as a function of mean net primary productivity (NPP) (×10−4) for each ethnolinguistic territory with linear (solid line) and log-linear (dashed line) fit. Codding and Jones www.pnas.org/cgi/content/short/1302008110 2 of 4 Table S1. Complete dataset Ethnographic population Language group Area (km2) People/km2 Mean NPP × 10−4 Achumawi Hokan 12,864 0.17 0.41 Atsugewi Hokan 4,886 0.18 0.43 Bay Miwok Penutian 18,938 0.25 0.54 Cahto Athabaskan 591 1.57 1.33 Cahuilla Takic 13,665 0.44 0.31 Chilula Athabaskan 383 1.49 1.10 Chimariko Hokan 1,131 0.50 0.80 Chumash Chumash 17,935 1.43 0.74 Coast Miwok Penutian 3,540 0.54 1.14 Cupeno Takic 535 0.49 0.37 Esselen Hokan 1,931 0.81 1.09 Fernandeño Takic 2,095 0.65 0.78 Foothill Yokuts Penutian 5,826 0.38 0.46 Halchidhoma Hokan 4,060 0.25 0.11 Hupa Athabaskan 1,547 1.29 0.92 Ipai Hokan 2,995 0.18 0.57 Juaneño Takic 851 1.18 0.83 Kamia Hokan 5,710 0.26 0.30 Karuk Hokan 2,425 0.47 0.85 Kawaiisu Numic 10,486 0.12 0.19 Kitanemuk Takic 3,454 0.10 0.34 Konkow Penutian* 5,746 0.82 0.61 Lake Miwok Penutian 433 0.65 0.82 Lassik Athabaskan 624 0.97 1.06 Lili'ek Yukian 164 0.61 0.98 Luiseño Takic 2,830 1.41 0.66 Mattole Athabaskan 1,463 1.16 1.26 Modoc Penutian* 5,765 0.23 0.33 Mohave Hokan 3,498 0.43 0.09 Mono (Nim) Numic 9,713 0.29 0.35 Mono Lake Paiute Numic 7,133 0.06 0.23 Mountain Maidu Penutian* 8,564 0.24 0.44 Nisenan (Southern Maidu) Penutian* 11,009 0.40 0.53 Nomlaki Penutian* 5,422 0.35 0.66 Nongatl Athabaskan 1,579 1.92 1.06 Northern Paiute Numic 3,778 0.14 0.23 Northern Valley Yokuts Penutian 17,374 0.22 0.47 Ohlone (Costanoan) Penutian 15,373 0.93 0.80 Owens Valley Paiute Numic 8,381 0.38 0.15 Panamint Shoshone Numic 10,173 0.02 0.11 Patwin Penutian* 11,103 0.82 0.62 Plains Miwok Penutian 18,938 0.76 0.55 Pomo Hokan 8,998 1.64 1.33 Quechan Hokan 3,832 0.33 0.09 Rogue River Athabaskan Athabaskan 233 1.92 0.86 Salinan Hokan 10,670 0.37 0.73 Serrano Takic 30,159 0.10 0.19 Shasta Hokan 7,097 0.25 0.66 Sierra Miwok Penutian 18,938 0.26 0.48 Sinkyone Athabaskan 2,212 1.36 1.32 Southern Paiute Numic 28,176 0.03 0.11 Southern Valley Yokuts Penutian 19,717 0.90 0.42 Tataviam Takic 2,205 0.10 0.51 Tipai Hokan 5,971 0.26 0.38 Tolowa Athabaskan 2,293 1.22 0.96 Tongva Takic 6,749 0.65 0.77 Tubatulabal UtoAztecan 4,940 0.17 0.34 Wailaki Athabaskan 1,520 2.25 1.12 Wappo Yukian 1,265 1.21 1.03 Washoe Hokan 3,691 0.15 0.35 Whilkut Athabaskan 901 1.44 1.05 Wintu Penutian* 9,480 0.59 0.77 Wiyot Algic 1,657 1.99 1.17 Codding and Jones www.pnas.org/cgi/content/short/1302008110 3 of 4 Table S1. Cont. Ethnographic population Language group Area (km2) People/km2 Mean NPP × 10−4 Yana Hokan 5,865 0.31 0.59 Yuki Yukian 4,398 1.32 1.17 Yurok Algic 2,728 1.31 1.05 *Denotes language of the Penutian phylum, but of the Witnuan/Maiduan Migration. Table S2. Results of ANOVAs comparing mean NPP between each ethnolinguistic group Language group A Language group B F P Chumash and Yukian Hokan 3.06 0.0984* Chumash and Yukian Yok-Utian 3.68 0.0842* Chumash and Yukian Takic 6.86 0.0256† Chumash and Yukian Wintuan/Maiduan 12.09 0.0084‡ Chumash and Yukian Numic 97.05 <0.0001§ Chumash and Yukian Algic 2.43 0.2168 Chumash and Yukian Athabaskan 3.05 0.1065 Hokan Yok-Utian 0.37 0.5492 Hokan Takic 0.03 0.8759 Hokan Wintuan/Maiduan 0.01 0.9123 Hokan Numic 6.67 0.0174† Hokan Algic 4.78 0.0441† Hokan Athabaskan 23.01 <0.0001§ Yok-Utian Takic 0.81 0.3809 Yok-Utian Wintuan/Maiduan 0.40 0.5390 Yok-Utian Numic 20.54 0.0005§ Yok-Utian Algic 7.25 0.0247† Yok-Utian Athabaskan 27.40 0.0001§ Takic Wintuan/Maiduan 0.13 0.7270 Takic Numic 12.31 0.0035‡ Takic Algic 10.89 0.0092‡ Takic Athabaskan 41.29 <0.0001§ Wintuan/Maiduan Numic 33.88 0.0001§ Wintuan/Maiduan Algic 24.45 0.0017‡ Wintuan/Maiduan Athabaskan 52.37 <0.0001§ Numic Algic 185.69 <0.0001§ Numic Athabaskan 194.74 <0.0001§ Algic Athabaskan 0.02 0.8972 Degrees of freedom for each test = 1. Significance at <0.1=*, at <0.05=†, at <0:01=‡ and at <0.0001=§. Codding and Jones www.pnas.org/cgi/content/short/1302008110 4 of 4