Building Cultural Chronology in Eastern Washington: the Influence

GEA(Wiley) RIGHT BATCH

Building Cultural Chronology in Eastern Washington: The Inﬂuence of Geochronology, Index Fossils, and Radiocarbon Dating

R. Lee Lyman Department of Anthropology, 107 Swallow Hall, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri 65211

Until the early 1950s, it was believed that the archaeological record of eastern Washington state did not exceed 4000 years. That belief changed in the middle 1950s after discovery of the Lind Coulee site (45GR97), originally dated to the Holocene on the basis of geochronological data and subsequently dated via radiocarbon to 8700 B.P. Geochronology and geoarchaeology provided temporal control and resulted in archaeological time being measured discontinuously as stratigraphically associated sets of artifacts were stacked one upon the other. Percentage stratigraphy and frequency seriation played no role in the measurement of time or the construction of cultural chronologies. Local cultural chronologies originally constructed on the basis of chronostratigraphic marker horizons were not signiﬁcantly altered in the 1960s and 1970s because few radiocarbon ages were run and the chronological validity of the ages was questioned. The increased intensity of cultural resource management in the 1980s witnessed a marked increased in the production of radiocarbon ages, but extant cultural chronologies have not been signiﬁcantly altered in structure or appearance. ᭧ 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

INTRODUCTION Although the point had been made before (e.g., Willey, 1953), several decades ago Albert Spaulding (1960) made explicit the fact that the archaeological record comprised what he called three dimensions of variation. First, it varied in formal properties, or simple form—artifacts came in various sizes, shapes, colors, and compositions. Second, those forms had particular and sometimes peculiar geographic distributions. Third, artifact forms had distinct distributions in time; some seemed to occur brieﬂy whereas others appeared to have been made over rather long time spans or during multiple time spans. Part of Spaulding’s discussion was devoted to the fact that the ﬁrst two dimensions—form and space—were directly visible whereas the third dimension—time—had to be made visible analytically. It is the last fact that was squarely faced and directly addressed during the so-called culture-history period of Americanist archaeology (e.g., Lyman et al., 1997; Willey and Sabloff, 1993). During this period, relative-dating techniques such as the direct short historical approach (Lyman and O’Brien, 2000), seriation, stratigraphy, and typo- standard

Geoarchaeology: An International Journal, Vol. 15, No. 7, 609–648 (2000) ᭧ 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. GEA(Wiley) LEFT BATCH

LYMAN logical cross dating (O’Brien and Lyman, 1999) were variously developed and put to extensive use by archaeologists trained and working in North America. The history of how archaeologists grappled with making time visible is an in- triguing one (O’Brien and Lyman [1999] and references therein), and it took an interesting turn after 1950, when radiocarbon dating became available. That turn, later referred to as the “radiocarbon revolution” (Renfrew, 1973; see also Taylor, 1996), prompted a major rethinking of at least some portions of humankind’s past. But the impact of this dating technique was not everywhere the same; it was not always a “revolutionary” development. In this article, I present a history of efforts to build cultural chronology in eastern Washington state, comprising part of the Columbia–Fraser Plateau culture area. Archaeological efforts to construct cultural chronologies for the region illustrate the lack of “revolutionary” impact of radiocarbon dating when other dating techniques—in this case, particularly geochronology and index fossils—have served their purposes well. To avoid a “presentist history,” I begin with a brief summary of the general historical context and structure of Americanist archaeology during the first half of the twentieth century. I then indicate how I generated a data base of known radiocarbon ages from sites in eastern Washington. This is followed by a summary of the conception of eastern Washington prehistory prior to the middle 1950s when the first “early” site was found. That particular site was thought to be ”early“ because of its geological context and the styles of projectile points it contained; the seminal radiocarbon age for eastern Washington came from this site and showed that it was in fact early. I document at some length how this site set the precedent for building local cultural chronologies: use geochronological evidence and particular styles of projectile points. I show that early misunderstanding of the radiocarbon dating method and problems with some ages did not hinder the perfection of the local cultural chronology because that chronology was founded in geochronology, and that only in the 1980s was radiocarbon dating used extensively to refine local cultural chronologies. Finally, I argue that the chronological methods that have been used in eastern Washington have resulted in sequences of cultures that measure time discontinuously and minimal effort has been made to measure time and culture change continuously.

BACKGROUND Received wisdom within Americanist archaeology is that the 1910–1950 period began with the so-called stratigraphic revolution, or the use of stratigraphic excavation for purposes of measuring time (e.g., Browman and Givens, 1996). In my view, this is a mischaracterization. Before the end of the 19th century, archaeologists in general knew that the depth of an artifact beneath the ground surface was not a good indicator of that artifact’s age, and they also knew that an artifact’s stratigraphic context often did provide a good indication of its age (Lyman et al., 1997). The real revolution resided in a change in how artifacts were classiﬁed; short before 1910, artifacts had often been categorized as cultural traits such as “pottery” standard

610 VOL. 15, NO. 7 GEA(Wiley) RIGHT BATCH

BUILDING CULTURAL CHRONOLOGY IN EASTERN WASHINGTON or “projectile points.” Shifting the scale of their classification units to variants of traits, such as red-on-white pottery and side-noticed projectile points, archaeologists confirmed that they could measure the passage of time by plotting the changes in artifact variants against their stratigraphic provenience (Lyman and O’Brien, 1999). Two alternatives then presented themselves. The fluctuating frequencies of what quickly became known as “styles”—artifact variants that permitted time’s passage to be measured—could be used to mark time’s passage in a continuous manner when seriated (Kroeber, 1916; Spier, 1917) or when plotted against the stratigraphic column that produced them (Kidder and Kidder, 1917; Nelson, 1916)—the technique later referred to as percentage stratigraphy. (Percentage stratigraphy involves plotting the relative—proportional—frequency of each artifact type in each of several stratigraphically delimited assemblages against the stratum from which they were recovered.) Alternatively, styles could be defined in such a manner as to comprise index fossils that encompassed small chunks of time and allowed correlation of spatially remote collections; these kinds of styles became known as horizon styles (Willey, 1945) and measured time discontinuously. As methods for measuring time with artifacts became better understood and refined, it was shown that if one were to measure time with observed variation in artifact form, then how time was measured depended on how that form was par- titioned into artifact styles or types (e.g., Phillips et al., 1951). Time is a continuum, but we divide it up into chunks of various sizes—millennia, centuries, decades, years, months, days, hours, minutes, seconds. The size of those chunks depends on the units used in the measurement system. In the case of archaeology, the units are artifact types that encompass amounts of time that vary more or less directly with the amount of formal variation included in each type. Index fossils and horizon styles tend to comprise brief temporal periods and tend to measure time discontinuously because each style signifies a more or less unique portion of the temporal continuum; ideally, there is little chance of one horizon style temporally overlap- ping with another. Artifact types that measure longer temporal periods are more likely to overlap temporally but not be perfectly coincident with one another; such types measure time continuously precisely because of their overlap (Lyman and O’Brien, 2000; O’Brien and Lyman, 1999). The choice of how artifacts were to be classified, then, influenced how time was ultimately measured—continuously or discontinuously. Americanist archaeologists do not seem to realize that they chose the latter for two epistemological reasons. First, they sought prehistoric “cultures” to stack up in a sequence or chronological order (Lyman et al., 1997). Second, the apparent reality of resulting discontinuous chronologies was reinforced by a focus on the stratigraphic context of artifacts. As visibly distinct units of deposition with chronological significance, strata became units of artifact collection and association (Lyman and O’Brien, 1999). Because (1) the depositional record was viewed as a set of nonoverlapping chunks called strata and (2) artifacts were treated as index fossils for purposes of temporal correlation of collections distributed across space, time was more often short than not measured discontinuously despite the availability of methods for mea- standard

GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL 611 GEA(Wiley) LEFT BATCH

LYMAN suring it continuously (Lyman, et al., 1998). Both of these factors played a significant role in building cultural chronologies in eastern Washington. In this area, their influence was so pervasive that the advent of radiocarbon dating had little impact on perceptions of local prehistory save for refining a few temporal boundaries between prehistoric cultures within sequences established on geochronological bases. My colleague Jerry Galm (personal communication) suggests that “benign neglect” of the radiocarbon dating method also influenced perceptions of local prehistory; in my view, he is correct.

METHODS AND MATERIALS I restrict my analysis to eastern Washington—that area of the state lying east of the crest of the Cascade Range (Figure 1). The low-lying area drained by the Co- lumbia (and Snake and Yakima) River(s) physiographically comprises what is referred to variously as the Columbia Basin, Columbia Plateau, Southern Plateau, or simply Plateau. Histories of archaeological research in the area (Lohse and Sprague, 1998; Sprague, 1973) do not consider the influence of underpinning epis- temologies, chronological methods, or radiocarbon dating on our understanding of cultural chronology. To do that requires examination of various news announce- ments, papers, and monographs, as well as reviews. It also requires a database comprising all radiocarbon ages and various details about each age. A description of how the database was compiled is therefore important. I consulted the list of radiocarbon ages for the state of Washington compiled and published by the Washington state Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP, 1990). I first made corrections based on the original publications of many of the ages in that list. In a few cases, an incorrect laboratory number was found; in other cases, “charcoal” was given as the dated material when, in fact, the sample was “mollusc shell” or “bone.” I also compiled information on all other radiocarbon ages I was aware of, many but not all of which were obtained in 1990 or later. The OAHP (1990) publication lists 513 ages from 138 sites in the 20 counties of eastern Washington. I compiled information on an additional 243 ages from 88 sites; 22 of the sites are listed in OAHP (1990), but the additional ages are not. Some of these additional ages were not included in the OAHP list apparently because they were “modern” in age or were deemed erroneous (for any of several reasons) by the excavator; others were not included because OAHP lacked the pertinent literature. I tallied all ages irrespective of age or archaeological context and association because, although I was interested in the chronological information the ages provide, for purposes of this article I was more interested in what the ages indicate about historical efforts of local archaeologists to measure time, particularly as it pertained to building a cultural chronology. For this reason, I examined all literature that included mention of a radiocarbon age. For many ages this meant only the site report; for others, this might include the site report, a published paper, a mention in the journal Radiocarbon, or some combination thereof. short I did not examine radiocarbon laboratory files; rather, I examined all reports— standard

612 VOL. 15, NO. 7 GEA(Wiley) RIGHT BATCH

BUILDING CULTURAL CHRONOLOGY IN EASTERN WASHINGTON

Figure 1. Map of eastern Washington showing county lines, archaeological sites (numbers), and res- ervoirs (named and shaded) mentioned in the text. Sites: 1, Wakemap Mound; 2, Alderdale; 3, Lind Coulee; 4, Ryegrass Coulee, 5, Schaake Village; 6, Windust Caves; 7, Three Springs Bar; 8, Marmes Rockshelter; 9, 45GA17; 10, Granite Point; 11, Richey-Roberts. news releases, articles, conference papers and published abstracts thereof, monographs, books, contract reports—that I could locate. The published—or at least written and circulated—record is, after all, what most archaeologists have ready access to and is what would have had the greatest inﬂuence on ideas about eastern Washington prehistory. The written laboratory ﬁles are generally only available to short the archaeologist who submitted the sample. For each age I recorded the material standard

GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL 613 GEA(Wiley) LEFT BATCH

LYMAN dated, the laboratory number (not reported for several ages), the site that produced the material, and the first written mention of the age. Several ages were listed as “dendrocorrected” ages, but in all but one case I found the corresponding age in raw radiocarbon years in the literature. Although many ages were calculated using the half-life of 5568 years (or 5570, per the instructions in Radiocarbon) originally proposed by Libby (1952), some ages were calculated (or recalculated by the archaeologist) using the half-life of 5730 years. It is not always clear in the literature I examined which half-life an age is based on, but when possible I used the age based on the 5568 (5570) year half- life in analyses discussed below. Finally, some ages are reported as “adjusted” for isotopic fractionation (e.g., Taylor, 1987:120–123), but the raw or nonadjusted age is not always mentioned in the same literature as the adjusted age. When possible, I tallied both the adjusted and nonadjusted ages, but I use only the latter in my analyses. My sample comprises 756 ages from 204 sites. The facts discussed in the three preceding paragraphs mean that not all the ages used in the analyses below are strictly comparable in terms of what they measure. This may influence some of the results I describe, but I presume those influences are minimal and that were they eliminated from the data, my conclusions would not be significantly different. All ages mentioned are given in radiocarbon years B.P. unless otherwise noted.

EARLY THOUGHTS ON CULTURAL CHRONOLOGY To understand the impact—or lack thereof—of radiocarbon dating on our knowledge of eastern Washington prehistory, we must ﬁrst have a feel for archaeological conceptions of that prehistory prior to the use of radiocarbon dating. In general, perceptions of the human prehistory of eastern Washington mirrored those perceptions across the North American continent—there was no signiﬁcant time depth. Archaeological materials could be assigned to the historical period if they included associated Euroamerican artifacts such as trade goods, or to the prehistoric period if no such artifacts were associated. For example, as archaeologist Harlan Smith (1906b:2) remarked, “the absence of European objects in many of the places explored establishes the fact that the remains there found antedate the coming of white traders.” When evidence for “Early Man” was found at Folsom, New Mexico, in 1927, the bottom dropped out of this tidy picture (Meltzer, 1983). The convincing evidence for great antiquity in the American Southwest was the association of artifacts with remains of an extinct form of bison, but no such evidence was available in eastern Washington. Had such evidence been found—and Charles Sternberg (1903) speculated 24 years before the Folsom discovery that it surely would be found—it is likely that the history of eastern Washington archaeology would have been quite different. A discovery of artifacts associated with the remains of extinct animals would have done the trick. But this kind of record was unnecessary to convince people of a deep human antiquity in eastern Washington. This is so for the simple reason short that by the early part of the 20th century it was generally agreed that mammoths, standard

614 VOL. 15, NO. 7 GEA(Wiley) RIGHT BATCH

BUILDING CULTURAL CHRONOLOGY IN EASTERN WASHINGTON large forms of bison, and other taxa comprising the “Pleistocene megafauna” had become extinct by the end of the Pleistocene. The remains of these beasts were known from particular distinctive strata in eastern Washington (e.g., Bryan, 1927), and the discovery of artifacts in those same strata was sufficient to ultimately convince archaeologists that people had been in eastern Washington since the terminal Pleistocene. Initially, however, given that most known artifacts were not too different from those used by extant indigenous peoples, “it was taken as established that the prehistoric cultures were relatively recent” (Campbell, 1989:54). No one worried about chronological issues because there had been no temporally lengthy occupation of eastern Washington. In eastern Washington, researchers perceived some of the same problems with the archaeological record encountered elsewhere in North America (Lyman et al., 1997). Depth beneath the modern ground surface was not a reliable indicator of age, as Herbert Spinden (1908:178) recognized when he wrote that artifacts “found several feet below the surface...offer no trustworthy evidence of extreme age because of this impermanent and unstratified character of the soil in which they are found.” By “impermanent” Spinden had in mind the fluvial reworking of floodplain sediments; such sediment “overlies river beaches of rounded boulders. It is light, and easily crumbles under the action of water. A large mass of such [sediment] could be shifted or built up in a short time with the river in flood” (Spinden, 1908:178). Two years earlier, Harlan Smith (1906a:552) had made similar observations based on his work in the Yakima River valley: “Definite age can not be assigned to the archaeological finds, since...theremains are found at no great depth or in [sediment] the surface of which is frequently shifted.” But such was of no great moment because the “prehistoric culture of the region was apparently similar to that of the present natives” (Smith, 1906a:553).

THE BOTTOM DROPS OUT: THE 1950S AND 1960S In their landmark volume Indians Before Columbus, published just before the midpoint of the 20th century, archaeologists Paul Martin, George Quimby, and Don- ald Collier (Martin et al., 1947:444) made the following observation:

Archaeological research in the Plateau has not yet developed a prehistoric chronology. It is possible on the basis of presence or absence of White trade objects to distinguish historic from prehistoric sites, but at present the prehistoric sites cannot be chronologically differ- entiated. On the basis of available evidence archaeological remains in the Plateau do not appear to be very old, nor is there evidence of much cultural change in the prehistoric period.

In 1968, Frank Leonhardy (1968:28) indicated that in the late 1940s “the prehistory of [Plateau] was considered to have been about 2,000 years long.” Several years earlier, Earl Swanson (1962a:152) suggested that “few people [in the 1950s] believed that man had been in the Columbia Plateau more than 2000 to 4000 years (for example, Shiner, 1961).” This is something of an overstatement because Shiner short (1961:259) had indicated that “Paleo-Indian sites are present in the Plateau, but standard

GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL 615 GEA(Wiley) LEFT BATCH

LYMAN have not been found in the McNary region” at the southern edge of eastern Wash- ington. What then were believed to be the hallmark artifacts of the “Paleo-Indian” period were fluted points, either of the Folsom or Clovis categories (e.g., Osborne, 1956). Given the belief that only fluted points signified the Paleoindian period, and an apparent absence of such points, one of the “axioms” of local archaeology in the early 1950s was that “man has been in the Columbia Plateau no more than two thousand years” (Swanson, 1962b:1). As Swanson (1962b:1) implied, this axiom was underpinned by the “use of typology as an index of antiquity,” an underpinning that Swanson indicates Richard Daugherty (e.g., 1956a) “was in the process of demonstrating...wasoflittle significance in the identification of Early Man in the Plateau.” That is, the index fossil of fluted points was not required to establish the presence of people in eastern Washington during the terminal Pleistocene and earliest Holocene, just as an association of artifacts with an extinct mammal was not required. Geochronological evidence sufficed.

Geochronology The archaeological record is a special kind of geological record. Swanson (1962b) emphasized a geochronological approach to learning about an area’s culture history through archaeological research. In a review of one of Swanson’s later monographs, Douglas Osborne (1966:578) noted that “Swanson’s suggestions as to geochronology and cultural change are basic.” Most people working in eastern Washington in the 1950s knew about J. Harlan Bretz’s (e.g., 1923a, 1923b, 1925) hypothesized “Spokane Flood,” sometimes referred to as the Missoula Flood(s) after the Pleistocene lake in western Montana that was the source of the water, or the Scabland Flood after the erosional features it created in eastern Washington. The last of this set of floods was thought to have occurred about 11,000–15,000 years ago, even before the floods were radiometrically dated (Daugherty, 1956a; Fryxell, 1962; Mullineaux et al., 1978; Richmond et al., 1965a, 1965b). The floods had scoured much of the central part of eastern Washington but had also deposited so-called “flood gravels” that provided a chronostratigraphic marker then thought to be below the basement of the cultural sequence. Near the middle of the Holo- cene-stratigraphic sequence another chronostratigraphic marker existed in the form of a sometimes thick layer of volcanic ash that geologists in the 1950s thought had been deposited about 6000 years ago. The basis for that age assessment resided in pollen cores containing volcanic ash and rested on palynologist Henry Hansen’s (1947) suggestion that a period of marked volcanic activity dated to the postglacial time of maximum warmth and aridity, which he estimated to have occurred during the middle Holocene, or about 8000–4000 years ago (Daugherty, 1956a). By the early 1960s, the age of the volcanic ash was thought to fall between 6000 and 7000 years ago (Butler, 1961; Daugherty, 1956a; Fryxell, 1965; Fryxell and Daugherty, 1962; Swanson, 1962b; Warren, 1968). Libby (1952:86) had reported ages on four samples from a tree in Oregon thought to have been “burned by the glowing short pumice thrown out by the explosion of Mount Mazama”; these samples gave an standard

616 VOL. 15, NO. 7 GEA(Wiley) RIGHT BATCH

BUILDING CULTURAL CHRONOLOGY IN EASTERN WASHINGTON

“average” age of 6453 Ϯ 250 B.P. (C-247). Another age of 6640 Ϯ 250 (W-858) on “charcoal found buried in pumice...believed to be from the Mount Mazama eruption” was reported several years later by Rubin and Alexander (1960:161). The problem was, and is, that there are multiple volcanic ashes in various stratigraphic exposures in eastern Washington (e.g., Davis, 1985; Sarna-Wojcicki et al., 1983). Rigg and Gould (1957) muddied the waters when they suggested that what are now known to be Mazama ash deposits (Powers and Wilcox, 1964) originated from an eruption of Glacier Peak; they published two “composite” ages on peat from multiple cores in two lakes in western Washington—6950 Ϯ 200 and 6500 Ϯ 200 (no laboratory accession numbers were indicated by Rigg and Gould [1957], but see Broeker et al. [1956]). These ages produced what they called an average age of “about 6700 years” (Rigg and Gould, 1957:354) for the ash. This age, or “6600 B.P.” (Fryxell, 1965:1288; Wilcox, 1965:810), or “6500 [B.P.]” (Fryxell, 1963:16; 1965:1288), were the ones typically mentioned by archaeologists from the 1960s through the 1980s when using what was believed to be a deposit of Mazama ash as a chronostratigraphic marker (see below). Not all archaeologists were aware of what their colleagues in geology knew or suspected. The same year that Martin et al.’s (1947) book was published, the Smith- sonian Institution’s River Basin Survey began work in the Columbia Basin (Sprague, 1973). One of those projects involved excavations in the soon to be created McNary Reservoir area along the lower Columbia River. Joel Shiner (1961), under the su- pervision of Douglas Osborne, was responsible for much of the work involving prehistoric materials in the McNary Reservoir area. His report was submitted in 1955 but was not published until 1961 (Shiner, 1961:155, footnote 1). In that report, Shiner documented that artifacts had been found beneath a volcanic ash at two sites and that three other sites had artifacts stratigraphically above what appeared to be the same ash. Shiner (1961:173) estimated the age of the deposition of the ash, based in part on the amount of “changes in material culture” he perceived, as “closer to 2,000 [years ago] than 5,000.” The volcanic ash provided a useful chronostratigraphic marker, but at about the same time that Shiner was estimating its age, geologists were learning how to identify that particular ash and how old it really was. Part of the difﬁculty with using Mazama ash as a chronostratigraphic horizon today resides in the fact that the eruptive activity of Mount Mazama resulted in the deposition of several ash layers between about 7000 and 6700 B.P. (e.g., Davis, 1985; Sarna-Wojcicki et al., 1983). The so-called “climatic eruption” is generally thought to date to about 6845 Ϯ 50 B.P. (Bacon, 1983), though numerous ages suggest that many Mazama ash deposits date to ca. 6700 B.P. (e.g., Hallet et al., 1997). Once Mazama ash could be reliably identiﬁed chemically and distinguished from other volcanic ashes (e.g., Powers and Wilcox, 1964; Steen and Fryxell, 1965), it provided a good temporal marker, or chronostratigraphic horizon, whenever it was found with artifacts above or below it. It served as well to denote the mid-Holocene climatic optimum period referred to as the Altithermal (Antevs, 1948). As research- short ers worked out these geological and paleoclimatological details, they were, as the standard

GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL 617 GEA(Wiley) LEFT BATCH

LYMAN preceding indicates, helped by the advent of radiocarbon dating. Simultaneously, that dating technique began to be exploited by archaeologists who had until that time largely relied on typological cross dating (e.g., Osborne, 1957; Shiner, 1961) or on geochronological data (e.g., Caldwell, 1956; Daugherty, 1956a; Swanson, 1962b) to determine how old their artifacts were. After the radiocarbon method had been available for about a decade, efforts at chronological synthesis made little or no mention of the radiocarbon ages then available, probably because there were so few of them (e.g., Daugherty, 1962a, 1962b), and local archaeologists still relied heavily on geochronology to help construct site-speciﬁc cultural chronologies (e.g., Daugherty et al., 1967; Rice, 1965). By the time radiocarbon dating had been available for nearly two decades, some chronological syntheses listed ages explicitly, whereas others merely mentioned that some radiocarbon ages were available. Browman and Munsell (1969:250) listed 32 ages to help establish the temporal boundaries of the cultural periods they proposed for the Columbia Plateau; 18 of these came from sites in eastern Washington. In what is probably the single most-often cited cultural chronology for the area, Leonhardy and Rice (1970) noted that radiocarbon ages were available for the sequence of cultural phases they proposed, but they mentioned only one explicitly (see below). These observations prompt the questions of when ages were assayed, and how often they were assayed.

WHEN WERE AGES ASSAYED? The first radiocarbon age to be produced for an archaeological collection from eastern Washington of which I am aware was based on material recovered from the Lind Coulee site (45GR97) (Figure 1). The age was reported in Richard Daugh- erty’s (1953) dissertation and the following year by both Libby (1954) and Daugh- erty (1954). Daugherty chose to excavate Lind Coulee because it seemed to represent an ancient site. When first discovered in 1947, the “nature of the deposits, the depth of the flakes and bone fragments from the surface (ca. 14 ft), and the heavily mineralized state of the bones, suggested...thepossible existence of an archaeological site containing evidence of Early Man” (Daugherty, 1956a:223). While working at a nearby site in 1950, Daugherty (1956a:224) again visited Lind Coulee in an attempt “to establish with certainty whether or not an early archaeological site existed [there].” The discovery of a projectile point fragment and a scraper in the exposed coulee wall served to establish this fact, and the site was tested in 1950 and excavated in 1951 and 1952. Given the general feeling at the time that eastern Washington’s archaeological record had no significant time depth, it is perhaps not surprising the belief that Lind Coulee was ancient and the bases for that belief were announced several times in the pages of Americanist archaeology’s leading journal, American Antiquity. There, the depth and stratigraphic context of the artifacts and bones were noted; a geologist who believed the deposits were of terminal Pleistocene age was cited short as well (Burroughs, 1951; Krieger, 1952b). Projectile point styles were also said to standard

618 VOL. 15, NO. 7 GEA(Wiley) RIGHT BATCH

BUILDING CULTURAL CHRONOLOGY IN EASTERN WASHINGTON

“suggest early forms” (Krieger, 1952a:281), and it was noted that radiocarbon ages were pending (Krieger, 1952b). Lind Coulee couldn’t have been a better choice for the first radiocarbon age. Daugherty (1956a:236) noted that “on the basis of the non-stratified occurrence of the artifacts, we must consider the cultural horizon as a single unit. This interpretation is supported by an analysis of the various artifact forms.” Lind Coulee was what can be termed a single-component site and thus was relatively easy to interpret. The single component had a rather unique kind of projectile point for the area, but it was also somewhat similar to suspected ancient point styles in other areas, and geochronological data suggested significant antiquity. Daugherty (1956a:255) stated that “geological evidence indicates that the occupation of the site occurred at some time within the period from 11,000 to 6,000 years ago,” and elsewhere (Daugherty, 1956b:93) indicated that the age of the site “had been determined at between 8,000 and 10,000 years on the basis of geological, paleontological, paleoclimatological, and comparative cultural data.” Radiocarbon analysis confirmed these measures of antiquity, and thus Lind Coulee caused the bottom to drop out of the perceived shallow time depth of local prehistory. The seminal radiocarbon assay from Lind Coulee exemplifies some of the problems that continue to plague the published radiocarbon dating record for archaeological materials in eastern Washington. It also indicates how a new, poorly understood technique for measuring time could not in any revolutionary fashion replace the tried-and-true geochronological technique for measuring time. Libby (1954:739) reported that the first Lind Coulee date was run on charcoal; Daugherty (1954:422) stated that the date was run “on burned bison bone found in direct association with artifacts.” Over the next few years, Daugherty (1956a:234; 1959: 50) continued to report that this date came from “fragments of burned bison bones,” and this statement was repeated by his collaborators (Fryxell, 1963:7–8). Inspec- tion of Libby’s files would probably be the only way to clarify this discrepancy. There is another interesting aspect to how the Lind Coulee age was reported. Libby (1954:739) indicated that sample C-827 comprised two ages—9400 Ϯ 940, and 8518 Ϯ 460—for an “average” of 8700 Ϯ 400. Daugherty (1954:422) indicated the “tests...give the following dates: 9400 Ϯ 940, 8516 Ϯ 460, for a weighted average of 8700 Ϯ 400 years.” Later, Daugherty (1956a:234) simply reported that Libby’s analysis produced a “weighted age of 8700 plus or minus 400 years” (see also Daugherty, 1956a:256). He used virtually identical wording in both another monograph published that same year (Daugherty, 1956b:93) and in a short monograph written for a nonprofessional audience (Daugherty, 1959:50). The age of the archaeological materials at Lind Coulee played an important role in developing notions of local prehistory during the 1960s, but the seminal age(s) were reported in various ways (Table I). That there were no agreed-on rules for reporting radiocarbon years or for converting them to calendar years is apparent. The seminal age(s) from Lind Coulee was run using the solid-carbon counting technique rather than the modern gas-counting technique (see Taylor [1987:82] for discussion of the two techniques). Sprague (1973:264) suggests that because of this, short in the late 1960s and early 1970s “the general consensus today is that [the date(s)] standard

GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL 619 GEA(Wiley) LEFT BATCH

LYMAN

Table I. Summary of published reports of the seminal radiocarbon age(s) from Lind Coulee (45GR97). Reference Reported Ages Libby, 1954:739 9400 Ϯ 940 B.P.; 8518 Ϯ 460 B.P.; average ϭ 8700 Ϯ 400 B.P. Daugherty, 1954:422 9400 Ϯ 940 B.P.; 8516 Ϯ 460 B.P.; weighted average ϭ 8700 Ϯ 400 B.P. Daugherty, 1956a:234 Weighted average ϭ 8700 Ϯ 400 B.P. Daugherty, 1956b:93 9400 Ϯ 940 B.P.; 8518 Ϯ 460 B.P.; weighted average ϭ 8700 Ϯ 400 B.P. Stallard, 1958:22 A date of approximately 8700 B.P. Butler, 1961:39 Average ϭ 8700 B.P. Gruhn, 1962:109 7445 Ϯ 940 B.C.; 6553 Ϯ 400 B.C. Warren, 1968:29 7450 Ϯ 940 B.C.; 6308 Ϯ 460 B.C.; weighted average ϭ 6750 Ϯ 400 B.C. Browman and Munsell, 1969:250 6750 Ϯ 400 B.C. Leonhardy and Rice, 197:25 6750 Ϯ 400 B.C.

are too late.” I have found several published statements to this effect in the literature, but the details of those statements indicate Sprague’s suggestion is incorrect. Claude Warren (1968:29) indicates that in a 1965 personal communication to him, “Daugherty now feels that the average date is too young,” but Warren doesn’t indicate why Daugherty believes this. Browman and Munsell (1969:253) state that in a personal communication to them, Daugherty indicated the 8700 B.P. age is “too recent,” but they don’t tell us why. Leonhardy and Rice (1970:25) provide the first indication of why the seminal age might be too young when they cite a personal communication from Daugherty and state that the “original solid carbon bone dates of 6750 Ϯ 400 B.C. (C-827) on the Lind Coulee assemblage are now considered inaccurate. Geologic research since the Lind Coulee site was excavated suggests that it dates approximately to 9,000 or 10,000 B.C.” David Rice (1972:170) basically repeats this statement and indicates that Daugherty told him that “more recent studies of the site stratigraphy suggest [the] radiocarbon dates are as much as 2500 years too late.” The geochronological and stratigraphic work prompting Daugherty to reject the seminal 8700 B.P. age as too young has, so far as I can determine, never been published. This is perhaps a good thing because researchers who excavated more of the Lind Coulee site in the early 1970s (Irwin and Moody, 1976, 1978; see also Sheppard and Chatters, 1976) produced two more ages that confirm the assessment of the first “weighted average” age. One of these new ages was on “humus” (8600 Ϯ 65; WSU-1422), and the second was on bone (8720 Ϯ 200; WSU- 1709).

Index Fossils The seminal (solid) carbon age from Lind Coulee withstood further evaluation probably because, as Taylor (1987:83) notes, the “principal advantage of gas counting was the signiﬁcant increase in practical operational efﬁciency over that of solid short carbon counting. There was also an increase in maximum dating range and statis- standard

620 VOL. 15, NO. 7 GEA(Wiley) RIGHT BATCH

BUILDING CULTURAL CHRONOLOGY IN EASTERN WASHINGTON tical precision, as well as a reduction in the amount of sample material required for analysis.” The suspicion that the Lind Coulee age was “too recent” seems to have resided in the concept that, according to Swanson (1962a, 1962b), Daugherty was combating—that is, archaeological types can be used as index fossils for purposes of relative dating and correlation. Daugherty (1962b:145) stated that the “earliest projectile points are lanceolate forms which in the Northwest have been called Cascade points (Butler, 1961).” A few years later it was obvious that this assessment was wrong. Excavations at Windust Caves (45FR46; Rice, 1965) and Marmes Rockshelter (45FR50; Fryxell and Daugherty, 1962; Fryxell and Cook, 1964) revealed stratiﬁed sequences of artifacts (Figure 1). Near the bottom of those sequences were Cascade points, but stratigraphically beneath them were stemmed points similar to those from Lind Coulee. No radiocarbon ages were produced from Windust Cave; in 1964 there were only two radiocarbon ages—both less than 8000 B.P.—from Marmes Rockshelter, but by 1968 there were at least 11 ages from the site, and three of them were greater than 10,000 B.P. Stemmed points (of several kinds) were stratigraphically associated with the older ages (Rice, 1969). Thus, what came to be known as the “Windust Phase”—dating as early as 10,000 B.P.— and its stemmed points became the basal culture for eastern Washington. By the middle 1960s, an age of 8700 B.P. suggested the Lind Coulee materials were little more than a manifestation of a descendant culture rather than representative of the basal cultural manifestation. Formal similarities between Lind Cou- lee points and some stemmed points from the basal strata at Windust Caves and Marmes Rockshelter helped the Lind Coulee materials regain the status as the earliest cultural material in eastern Washington that they enjoyed in the 1950s. However, mere formal similarity does not necessarily signify that the “Lind Coulee assemblage is a likely ancestor for the Windust Phase” (Leonhardy and Rice, 1970: 24–25). For example, D.G. Rice (1972:170) indicates that the “stemmed and leaf- shaped projectile points from Lind Coulee show strong resemblance to the Windust Phase assemblage [comprising materials from Windust Caves, Marmes Rockshel- ter, and Granite Point], but they are not interchangeable with the latter specimens in style.” And H.S. Rice (1965:35) states “projectile points from the Lind Coulee site are quite similar to the specimens from [Windust Caves], but the Lind Coulee points are generally larger and exhibit better workmanship than that found on the Windust [Caves] specimens.” No one has yet performed a detailed comparative analysis of the Lind Coulee and Windust Phase points. Nor have ﬂuted points yet been found in a stratigraphic column also containing Windust-style points.

Why Distrust Radiocarbon Dates? I suspect radiocarbon dating did not immediately see a great deal of use in the 1950s for three reasons. First, Daugherty (1956a:226) noted that the “reliability of certain radiocarbon dates” had to be “assumed.” He apparently was cautious because an early article on the dating technique (Bliss, 1952) he referred to “points short up the problem of contamination of specimens and the possible resulting errors in standard

GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL 621 GEA(Wiley) LEFT BATCH

LYMAN dating,” though he indicated that “the basic methodology is sound” (Daugherty, 1956b:92). I suspect Plateau archaeologists were aware of the concern expressed by various geologists regarding the validity of the radiocarbon method (e.g., Antevs, 1953; Hunt, 1955, 1956), though I am aware of no evidence of such an awareness. That awareness may, however, explain Bruce Stallard’s assessment of a radiocarbon age from Wakemap Mound (45KL26). The age of 1080 (Ϯ200 [M-247]) was “from what appeared to be a good sample of wood from the bottom level of the site,” but it was “surprising” to Stallard (1958:36) because, according to him, typological cross dating suggested an age of 2000–2500 B.P., most likely the latter, and therefore he concluded that “the carbon date is erroneous.” Stallard did not indicate his source of information regarding the age; he apparently was unaware of two other ages from the same stratum (Butler’s [1960:87] Stratum A) and of similar age (1070 Ϯ 200 [M-409]; 1090 Ϯ 200 [M-410]). Crane and Griffin (1958b: 1121) published the M-427 date in November 1958; the other two ages were published in May 1958 (Crane and Griffin, 1958a:1103). Contamination was the first reason local archaeologists were cautious when it came to evaluating the validity of radiocarbon ages. The second reason resided in the question: Are radiocarbon ages in fact measuring the age of the target event, or something else? Plateau archaeologists were comfortable with discarding an age as inaccurate if it did not fit their notions regarding local prehistory or failed to corroborate other chronological information such as that from geological context or typological cross dating. For example, Stallard (1958:22) accepted the validity of the 8700 B.P. age for Lind Coulee because it was “in agreement with the geology of the site.” The fact that the dated event is not always the target event, and therefore one must be sure the two are in direct or temporal association, was a point made abundantly clear by archaeologists Luther Cressman (1951) and Clement Meighan (1956) in significant but seldom cited early papers on the technique. The additional care during field recovery demanded by the radiocarbon method as an indirect dating technique probably contributed to its slow adoption by eastern Washington archaeologists. The third reason radiocarbon dating probably was not used much by local archaeologists in the first two decades of its availability is that the general assump- tion—at least until the age from Lind Coulee (corroborated by geological evidence) became available—was that, as various remarks quoted earlier indicate, the human occupation of eastern Washington had no great time depth. Geologist Roald Fryxell (1963:1), for example, indicated that in the 1940s the answer to the question, “When did people first come to Washington state?” would have been “Three or four thousand years ago, at most.” Evidence corroborating this observation is found in the remarks of Douglas Osborne (1956:38) who, after noting the seminal Lind Coulee radiocarbon age, indicated he had expected nothing earlier than mid-Holocene in age, so it came “as a distinct surprise” to him that Clovis-like fluted points had in fact been found in the Northwest—points that suggested people had been present since at least the terminal Pleistocene. short standard

622 VOL. 15, NO. 7 GEA(Wiley) RIGHT BATCH

BUILDING CULTURAL CHRONOLOGY IN EASTERN WASHINGTON

WHEN WERE RADIOCARBON AGES REPORTED? Radiocarbon ages trickled into the literature at a gradual pace in the 1950s and early 1960s, but these were not always widely reported and thus were not well known. For instance, after the Lind Coulee age was reported, a set of ages— comprising nine individual assays on materials from Wakemap Mound—was published in two parts in 1958 by the laboratory that ran them (Crane and Griffin, 1958a, 1958b). These ages were first reported in the archaeological literature in Robert Butler’s (1960) master’s thesis but did not appear in any published and readily accessible archaeological report until 1965 (Butler, 1965). The Wakemap Mound ages are not mentioned in Warren Caldwell’s (1956) dissertation on the site, though Caldwell collected the samples and commented via personal communication on the ages (as reported in Butler [1960]). In the 1960s, several more ages were assayed, but many of them were single ages from each of several sites. In his master’s thesis completed in 1966, David Browman (1966:125) listed 13 ages from nine eastern Washington sites; seven sites had one age, one site had two ages, and one site—Schaake Village, 45KT17 (Holmes, 1966)—had four (see also Fairhall et al., 1966). By 1967, five ages had been reported for Three Springs Bar (45FR39; Daugherty et al., 1967). Five ages for the Alderdale site in 1967 (45KL5; Cole, 1966, 1967) have been published, but two other samples from this site (350 Ϯ 100 [GaK-1312]; sample [Gak-915] was “contaminated” and did not produce an age) have not appeared in the literature that is generally available; these two ages are discussed in an unpublished manuscript (Oetting, 1986). In 1968 four ages had been run on material from the Ryegrass Coulee site (45KT88), though only three of them are listed in the site report (Munsell, 1968); the fourth is found in a different publication (Kigoshi et al., 1969), and my perception is that it is not well known among local archaeologists. This fourth age (3940 Ϯ 220 [GaK- 1486]) compares favorably with one of the three better known ages from the site (3525 Ϯ 145 [UW-112]). The 1960s also saw the initiation of a dating program focused on the deep stratified deposits at Marmes Rockshelter and the adjacent floodplain sediments—a program that continued, if sporadically, for the next 25 years. The first radiocarbon age from Marmes Rockshelter was reported in 1962 (Fryxell, 1962; Sheppard et al., 1987); 20 additional ages were produced before 1970 (R.M. Chatters, 1968; Fryxell and Keel, 1969; Rice, 1969; see also Kelley et al., 1978), but only one—sample WSU- 120 (Daugherty [1964] lists only the age, not the laboratory number)—was reported in the literature prior to 1965. Three ages are mentioned in Fryxell et al. (1968) but most appear in the literature of the following year (Fryxell and Keel, 1969; Rice, 1969). Some of the series of 21 ages indicated human occupation of the area more than 10,000 years ago, confirming the age of human remains dated to the late Pleis- tocene on the basis of geochronological observations (Fryxell and Keel, 1969; Fry- xell et al., 1968). Problems with the precise chronology of occupation of the rockshelter and the depositional sequence there prompted restudy of the then-available short standard

GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL 623 GEA(Wiley) LEFT BATCH

LYMAN ages in the 1980s (Sheppard et al., 1984), and an additional six ages were run as checks on the original 21 ages (Sheppard et al., 1987). With a total of 27 ages (one of which produced an age assay of “modern”), Marmes is not only one of the oldest sites in eastern Washington (another is the Richey-Roberts Clovis cache [Mehringer and Foit, 1990]) but the most extensively controlled chronologically on the basis of radiocarbon ages. That more ages exist for Marmes than for any other archaeological site in the area seems appropriate because it is one of very few sites with virtually the entire Holocene depositional and cultural sequence represented in its deposits. There was a peak output of reports of ages in the 1980s as the result of several large archaeological projects that took place from the late 1970s through the mid- 1980s. This peak is readily apparent in a plot of the frequency of radiocarbon ages published per five-year period beginning with the 1950–1954 period (Figure 2). To compile this graph, I used the earliest published record of which I was aware for each age. Thus many of the individual ages are plotted some years later than when they were actually run, though I presume this has little influence on the trends in dating apparent in Figure 2. The graph signifies that archaeological remains recovered and described before 1970 seldom have associated radiocarbon ages. This is perhaps why some analysts (e.g., Browman and Munsell, 1969) listed only a few ages in their syntheses whereas others listed only one (e.g., Leonhardy and Rice, 1970). But there may be another reason for the latter as well.

short Figure 2. Frequency distribution of radiocarbon ages published per 5-year period. standard

624 VOL. 15, NO. 7 GEA(Wiley) RIGHT BATCH

BUILDING CULTURAL CHRONOLOGY IN EASTERN WASHINGTON

EARLY PROBLEMS WITH RADIOCARBON AGES Once the bottom dropped out of the previously perceived shallow time depth of eastern Washington’s archaeological record, the goal became one of filling in the gap between the recent materials and the ancient materials. Charles Borden (1958: 1235), for example, noted that we “do not have as yet in Washington any inkling of the grand and continuous sweep of cultural development from early post-Pleis- tocene times onward. . . .The sites investigated in the interior of Washington to date are either only a few centuries old or, like Lind Coulee, belong in the category of Early Man. A gap of some 7,000 years remains to be filled.” These remarks echo those made with respect to other areas of the continent 20 years earlier (e.g., Kid- der, 1936). But filling the gap in eastern Washington was not straightforward. As noted above, some archaeologists of the 1950s were hesitant to accept the validity of radiocarbon ages; but this hesitancy seems to have faded as time went on, and they came to better understand the dating technique. As the second decade of radiocarbon dating drew to a close, however, another cause for concern arose. What might be the problem if the age of a sample did not coincide with the pre- sumed age of the deposit from which the sample derived? It might be that the sample was intrusive to the deposit, such as when the age was younger or older than the age of deposition suspected on the basis of geochronological or other lines of evidence. Fryxell (1962) encountered what he took to be a case of the latter—an older than expected age for the Missoula flood(s). Or it might be that the sample material could not be trusted, such as when a radiocarbon age was considerably older than the suspected age of the deposit. The second possibility became the subject of some discussion and concern in the late 1960s. Results of excavations at Granite Point (45WT41) formed the basis of Leon- hardy’s (1970) doctoral dissertation. In it, Leonhardy (1970:69) noted that excavations elsewhere had produced a radiocarbon age on charcoal and another on freshwater mussel shell, and that “the shell dated earlier than the charcoal by nearly 1,000 years.” Leonhardy gave the laboratory accession numbers for the two ages but did not report the ages or the site that had produced them. The site was 45GA17; the ages were 2230 Ϯ 310 (WSU-465) on charcoal and 3450 Ϯ 325 (WSU-893) on shell. The latter age is not mentioned in Schroedl (1973), though the charcoal age is. A third age, on bone collagen (845 Ϯ 290, WSU-892), is not mentioned by Schroedl (1973) nor is it listed in OAHP (1990). All three ages are found together only in an unpublished (and not widely known) manuscript (Schroedl, n.d.) completed in about 1972 summarizing the field work and findings at 45GA17. Leonhardy (1970:69) concluded, based on the single pair of charcoal and shell ages from 45GA17 and the geological contexts of the ages from Granite Point, that “it is wise to consider the [three] shell ages [from Granite Point] as limiting ages only. The actual age of associated phenomena must be considered less than the [shell] date[s].” Leonhardy mentioned no reason for the discrepancy, though his hand-written editorial notes in Schroedl (n.d.) admonish, “I would consider the short shell to be the least reliable, the bone the next least reliable.” In his dissertation, standard

GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL 625 GEA(Wiley) LEFT BATCH

LYMAN

David Rice (1972:30, 32) referred to Leonhardy’s (1970) concerns and stated that “Rubin and Taylor (1963) have noted possible problems involving 14C measurements based on shell” but did not specify what those potential problems were. Rice (1972:32) then noted that for a pair of associated ages from Marmes Rockshelter, the “shell dated 310 14C years earlier than the charcoal date, but is within one-sigma agreement. Two shell dates (WSU-209 [7400 Ϯ 110] and WSU-210 [7870 Ϯ 110]) are in close agreement.” The former pair of ages is 8700 Ϯ 300 (W-2208) on charcoal and 9010 Ϯ 300 (W-2207) on shell. Rubin and Taylor (1963) suggested, although not very clearly, that mollusc-shell ages were untrustworthy. A more clearly worded discussion of the problem they address is found in an article published in the pages immediately prior to Rubin and Taylor’s (1963) article. Keith and Anderson (1963) followed the work of others and showed, using modern specimens, that shells would often produce ages that were too old by various degrees. For example, modern shells of freshwater mol- luscs they studied produced ages of 440–2300 B.P. The degree of difference in the real age and the radiocarbon-determined age depended, as Keith and Anderson (1963) suggested, not only on the bedrock-influenced mineralogy of the water in which the mollusc lived but on the organic carbon added to the water from sedi- mentary humus. In short, the studies of Keith and Anderson (1963), Rubin and Taylor (1963), and their predecessors suggested shell ages were potentially untrustworthy, and this, in conjunction with the inferred local geochronological sequence, is undoubtedly what concerned Leonhardy (1970), Rice (1972), and other archaeologists working in eastern Washington. To evaluate the basis for the concern over the validity of shell ages, Sheppard et al. (1979:258) argued that “use of paired sets of radiocarbon dates provides the opportunity to evaluate whether significant systematic differences exist between various materials used for radiocarbon dating.” They used “data from the literature...toprovide a larger and more significant sample for paired-t analysis” (Sheppard et al., 1979:288). They found that “shell–charcoal [age] pairs have a small but statistically significant [difference, but that difference] is not large and shell dates may be useful for radiocarbon dating of archaeological sites” (Sheppard et al., 1979:292). The problem was examined again several years later by James Chat- ters (1986), who followed the procedure used by Sheppard et al. (1979) of plotting paired ages of associated samples of charcoal and shell on a scatterplot. Impor- tantly, Chatters restricted his samples to those from eastern Washington, a wise procedure given the observations of Keith and Anderson (1963) that local hydrology seems to influence the validity of shell ages. Chatters (1986) found that if the charcoal ages were younger than about 5000 B.P., the associated shell ages tended to be older. He also found that when shell ages were plotted against charcoal ages from the same stratigraphic context, the shell ages tended to be about the same as the radiocarbon ages if the latter were older than about 6500 B.P., a result mimicked by Sheppard et al. (1987) a year later in an analysis using some of the same data. Data that did not exist when Chatters (1986) and Sheppard et al. (1987) did their short analyses are now available. I used the data in Table II, and followed Sheppard et standard

626 VOL. 15, NO. 7 GEA(Wiley) RIGHT BATCH

BUILDING CULTURAL CHRONOLOGY IN EASTERN WASHINGTON

Table II. Stratigraphically associated sets of shell and charcoal radiocarbon ages from eastern Wash- ington archaeological sites (modiﬁed and updated from Chatters [1986]). Laboratory Site Material Age No. Reference 45FR50 Charcoal 660 Ϯ 75 WSU-3034 Sheppard et al., 1987 Shell 1600 Ϯ 100 WSU-3033 Sheppard et al., 1987 45OK197 Charcoal 800 Ϯ 70 Beta-8818 Chatters, 1984b Shell 1840 Ϯ 70 Beta-8816 Chatters, 1984b 45OK197 Charcoal 980 Ϯ 140 Beta-5266 Chatters, 1984b Shell 2310 Ϯ 70 Beta-8814 Chatters, 1984b 45WT134 Charcoal 1250 Ϯ 70a Tx-5831 Chance et al., 1989 Charcoal 1410 Ϯ 70a UGa-5734 Chance et al., 1989 Shell 6170 Ϯ 90 Tx-5914 Chance et al., 1989 45GA17 Charcoal 2330 Ϯ 310a WSU-465 Schroedl, n.d. Shell 3450 Ϯ 325 WSU-893 Schroedl, n.d. 45DO372 Charcoal 2400 Ϯ 80 Beta-8141 Chatters, 1986 Shell 4010 Ϯ 80a Beta-8142 Chatters, 1986 45DO190/191 Charcoal 2500 Ϯ 90 Beta-5892 Chatters, 1984a Shell 4590 Ϯ 90 Beta-6264 Chatters, 1984a 45DO189 Charcoal 2960 Ϯ 80a Beta-5894 Chatters, 1984a Shell 4500 Ϯ 100a Beta-20341 Galm and Lyman, 1988 45DO372 Charcoal 2960 Ϯ 70 Beta-10254 Chatters, 1986 Charcoal 3340 Ϯ 80 Beta-9871 Chatters, 1986 Shell 4840 Ϯ 70 Beta-8144 Chatters, 1986 45WT134 Charcoal 3640 Ϯ 60a UGa-5731 Chance et al., 1989 Charcoal 3980 Ϯ 50a Tx-5828 Chance et al., 1989 Shell 5530 Ϯ 80a Tx-5832 Chance et al., 1989 Shell 6035 Ϯ 75a UGa-5735 Chance et al., 1989 45OK383 Charcoal 4010 Ϯ 90 Beta-6394 Chatters, 1986 Charcoal 4420 Ϯ 180 Beta-9965 Chatters, 1986 Shell 5090 Ϯ 120 Beta-10304 Chatters, 1986 45OK74 Charcoal 4160 Ϯ 90 Beta-8139 Chatters, 1986 Shell 4900 Ϯ 80 Beta-8140 Chatters, 1986 45KT88 Charcoal 6790 Ϯ 340 UW-114 Munsell, 1968 Shell 6480 Ϯ 80 UW-113 Munsell, 1968 45FR50 Mazama ash 6730a Shell 6200 Ϯ 457 I-638 Fryxell and Daugherty, 1962 Shell 7070 Ϯ 110 WSU-3036 Sheppard et al., 1987 45WT2 Mazama ash 6730a Shell 7300 Ϯ 180a WSU-170 Chatters, 1968; Nance, 1966 45FR50 Charcoal 8700 Ϯ 300 W-2208 Fryxell and Keel, 1969b Shell 9010 Ϯ 300 W-2207 Fryxell and Keel, 1969b 45FR50 Charcoal 9200 Ϯ 110 Y-2482 Fryxell and Keel, 1969b Shell 9540 Ϯ 300 W-2210 Fryxell and Keel, 1969b 45FT50 Charcoal 9840 Ϯ 300 W-2212 Fryxell and Keel, 1969b Charcoal 10,130 Ϯ 300 W-2218 Fryxell and Keel, 1969b Shell 9820 Ϯ 300 W-2209 Fryxell and Keel, 1969b Shell 9970 Ϯ 110 W-2481 Fryxell and Keel, 1969 a New or different ages than those in Chatters (1986:91). b See also Kelley et al. (1978). short standard

GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL 627 GEA(Wiley) LEFT BATCH

LYMAN al.’s (1979) and Chatter’s (1986) procedure of plotting charcoal ages against their associated shell ages. I also followed Chatters (1986) and Sheppard et al. (1987) and included several shell ages from specimens directly beneath Mazama ash, using an age of 6730 B.P. for that ash (Chatters [1986] and Sheppard et al. [1987] use an age of 6700 B.P.). The age of the climatic eruption of Mount Mazama is today variously given by archaeologists in eastern Washington as 6845 Ϯ 50—a weighted average of four ages reported by Bacon (1983)—or 6730 Ϯ 40—a weighted average based on an analysis of 65 ages (they do not include Libby’s [1952] date) performed by Hallett et al. (1997). I use the latter estimate because of its consideration of more samples than the former and because it has been confirmed by new AMS ages (Zdanowicz et al., 1999). For my analysis I assumed that the oldest shell and radiocarbon ages from Mar- mes Rockshelter were stratigraphically associated, at least at a coarse scale. These old ages from Marmes are, in fact, from different strata—the two shell ages stratigraphically overlay the two charcoal ages—but the strata involved are generally interpreted to have been deposited over a few decades given the radiocarbon ages (e.g., Sheppard et al., 1987). I also plotted every possible age pair; that is, if two charcoal ages were associated with one shell age, then I plotted each charcoal age against the shell age. The resulting scatterplot of age sets (Figure 3) tends to corroborate Chatters’ (1986) conclusions. To enhance what is shown by the scatterplot in Figure 3, I have added two lines. The straight line is simply the diagonal, which is where the plotted points should fall if paired charcoal and shell ages measured time the same way. The curved line is the polynomial best-fit third-order regression line; it shows approximately where other plotted points would fall were they available and were the plotted points a representative sample of all such points possible. As shown in Figure 3, shell ages associated with charcoal ages younger than about 6500 B.P. tend to produce relatively older ages than the charcoal ages; the few charcoal ages older than that match fairly well with their associated shell ages, though the paucity of points between about 7000 and 10,000 radiocarbon years based on charcoal is trouble- some. Why the plotted points fall the way they do is not at all clear; it may be the result of changes in stream erosional and depositional regimes after about 6500 B.P. That this occurred is suggested by various paleoclimatic data (e.g., Chatters, 1995); these changes may have resulted in the introduction of more old carbonates into the water in which the mussels live and those old carbonates being incorpo- rated into the animals’ shells (Keith and Anderson, 1963) after 6500 B.P. Again following Sheppard et al.’s (1979) procedure, I calculated the paired t statistic for the 18 age pairs in which the charcoal age was Ͻ 5000 B.P., and for the 10 age pairs in which the charcoal (or Mazama ash) age was Ͼ 5000 B.P. Pairs of ages in the former set are significantly different (t ϭ 6.55, p Ͻ .0001); the pairs in the latter set are not (t ϭ .032, p Ͼ .5). Whatever the cause, these statistics and the scatterplot in Figure 3 suggest chronological issues should not rest solely on radiocarbon ages derived from river mussel shells that produce ages less than 6500 short standard

628 VOL. 15, NO. 7 GEA(Wiley) RIGHT BATCH

BUILDING CULTURAL CHRONOLOGY IN EASTERN WASHINGTON

Figure 3. The relation between radiocarbon ages run on charcoal and on shell from the same provenience (see Table II for data). Points should fall near the diagonal line if ages in a pair are similar. The curved line is the best-ﬁt polynomial regression line (r ϭ .93). years, but perhaps can rest on those falling between about 6500 and 10,000 B.P. Two thirds (58 of 87) of the shell ages in my data base produced ages Ͼ 5000 B.P.; the remainder produced ages Ͻ 5000 B.P. Most of the older shell ages seem to have been assayed for the simple reason that other dateable material was not available (Figure 4). I suspect Leonhardy and Rice (1970) took the problem with shell ages into account when they built their cultural chronology. Both of them had recognized the potential problem in the materials they were studying—Leonhardy at Granite Point, Rice at Marmes Rockshelter. Those two sites, plus Windust Caves (Rice, 1965), provided the major basis upon which Leonhardy and Rice’s chronology was built; the ﬁrst two sites contained virtually the entire cultural sequence for eastern Washington and provided charcoal and shell ages. No radiocarbon ages were (or are) available for Windust Caves, though the entire cultural sequence is represented in good stratigraphic context. Given the history of archaeological research as of 1970, what they termed the Lower Snake River Region had seen considerable archaeological research relative to other areas of eastern Washington. That would change some 15 years later when the archaeological record on the banks of the Columbia River between Wells Dam and Grand Coulee Dam was intensively studied. This prompts consideration of how ages are geographically distributed. short standard

GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL 629 GEA(Wiley) LEFT BATCH

LYMAN

Figure 4. Frequency distribution of radiocarbon ages per 500-year period. Three ages Ͼ 11,500 B.P. are not shown.

HOW ARE RADIOCARBON AGES DISTRIBUED ACROSS GEOGRAPHIC SPACE? Using the 20 counties as spatial units, the 756 ages are geographically distributed as shown in Table III. Clearly the ages are not randomly distributed; were they so distributed, there should be 37 or 38 (756 Ϭ 20 ϭ 37.8) ages per county. Chi square analysis indicates a significant departure from this (chi2 ϭ 1032.305, p Ͻ .001). The next thing to consider is whether all of the counties depart from the pattern expected given random chance, or if only some of the counties contribute to the departure. To evaluate this, I analyzed the residuals (see Everitt [1977] for a description of the statistical technique). Results are given in Table III and indicate that only three counties—Grant, Kittitas, and Whitman—do not contribute to the departure of the frequencies of ages per county from a random pattern. In other words, only those three counties have about as many ages as they might be expected to were the ages randomly distributed across all counties. Eleven counties have significantly (p Յ .05) fewer ages than they should given random chance; six counties—Chelan, Douglas, Franklin, Okanogan, Pend Oreille, and Stevens—have significantly more than they should. short The number of ages per county probably tells us less about what we know of standard

630 VOL. 15, NO. 7 GEA(Wiley) RIGHT BATCH

BUILDING CULTURAL CHRONOLOGY IN EASTERN WASHINGTON the cultural chronology of particular counties than about the intensity of effort to date sites in particular counties. For this reason, I tallied the number of sites with one or more radiocarbon ages per county and found that this value also varies across the counties (Table III). Given a total of 204 dated sites in eastern Washing- ton and 20 counties, there should be about 10.2 dated sites per county. Again, chi square analysis indicates a significant departure from a random distribution of dated sites per county (chi2 ϭ 236.394, p Ͻ .001). Analysis of residuals indicates nine counties do not contribute to this statistic (Table III). Eight counties have significantly fewer than the number of dated sites expected given random chance, and three counties—Douglas, Okanogan, and Stevens—have significantly more dated sites than chance suggests they should. Counties with both more ages and more dated sites are Douglas, Okanogan, and Stevens. The first two counties contain sites that were the focus of two large cultural resource management projects in the 1980s. Those projects took place in the Wells Dam Reservoir and the Chief Joseph Dam Reservoir (Figure 1). Together, these projects produced a total of 141 radiocarbon ages; of the 195 total ages from these two counties of which I am aware, 72% were the direct result of these two projects. The high frequencies of ages and dated sites in Stevens County are the result of work in Lake Roosevelt—the reservoir behind Grand Coulee Dam. Much work took place there in the late 1970s and early 1980s and produced 26 ages;

Table III. Frequency of radiocarbon ages per county and frequency of dated sites per county. County N of Ages Conclusiona N of Dated Sites Conclusiona Adams 1 Too few 1 Too few Asotin 10 Too few 3 Too few Benton 10 Too few 8 Correcta Chelan 55 Too many 12 Correcta Columbia 1 Too few 1 Too few Douglas 87 Too many 25 Too many Ferry 22 Too few 10 Correcta Franklin 71 Too many 10 Correcta Garfield 4 Too few 2 Too few Grant 36 Correcta 12 Correcta Kittitas 44 Correcta 14 Correcta Klickitat 19 Too few 4 Too few Lincoln 7 Too few 2 Too few Okanogan 195 Too many 50 Too many Pend Oreille 63 Too many 8 Correcta Spokane 15 Too few 7 Correcta Stevens 58 Too many 19 Too many Walla Walla 6 Too few 2 Too few Whitman 44 Correcta 9 Correcta Yakima 8 Too few 5 Too few a “Conclusion” signifies the results of a statistical analysis of residuals; “correct” values are not signifi- short cantly different from frequencies expected given random chance; for all others p Ͻ .05. standard

GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL 631 GEA(Wiley) LEFT BATCH

LYMAN additional work in the mid 1990s produced 29 more ages. Thus, of the 58 total ages from Stevens County, 55 (95%) resulted from these projects. A ﬁnal way to examine the distribution of radiocarbon ages across space is to examine the number of sites with one age, the number with two ages, the number with three ages, and so on. These data are summarized in Figure 5. As might be expected, most sites with radiocarbon ages have only one or two. This means that when a site produced evidence of multiple components, the ages of those components often had to be assessed based on stratigraphy and/or on typological cross dating.

WHEN IN TIME DO RADIOCARBON AGES FALL? The frequency of radiocarbon ages available for eastern Washington archaeological sites can be used as a proxy measure of how the temporal record has been sampled. Do we perhaps know more about some time periods than others? The frequency distribution of radiocarbon ages per 500-year increment suggests that indeed this is probable. As shown in Figure 4, we have many radiocarbon ages that are younger than 4500 B.P. but significantly fewer for earlier time periods. The overall frequency distribution of all radiocarbon ages suggests that even today, 50 years after Libby produced the first radiocarbon ages, we may be hard pressed to detect fine-scale temporal variation in archaeological materials of the late Pleisto-

short Figure 5. Frequency of sites with 1, 2, 3, etc. radiocarbon ages. standard

632 VOL. 15, NO. 7 GEA(Wiley) RIGHT BATCH

BUILDING CULTURAL CHRONOLOGY IN EASTERN WASHINGTON cene and early and middle Holocene simply because there are few collections that have been dated by radiocarbon and that are older than 4500 radiocarbon years. Evidence that the paucity of radiocarbon ages exceeding 4500 B.P. is influencing our understanding of local prehistory may reside in the frequency of cultural units or phases identified. That is, greater temporal resolution provided by large numbers of radiocarbon ages may allow finer temporal distinctions among variants of artifact form. In short, the frequency of radiocarbon ages may vary directly with the frequency of cultural units identified. This in fact seems to be the case in eastern Washington. Thirty or more radiocarbon ages are available for each 500-year period younger than 4500 B.P.; fewer than 20 ages are available for each 500-year period older than 4500 B.P. (Figure 4). I examined eight cultural chronologies proposed for various portions of eastern Washington and tallied the number of cultural units postdating 4500 B.P. and the number of cultural units pre-dating 4500 B.P. (Table IV). Although not statistically significant (Student’s t ϭ 1.54, p ϭ 0.15), there are on average more cultural units postdating 4500 B.P. (average ϭ 3.38) than there are predating 4500 B.P. (average ϭ 2.28). This suggests that the frequency of radiocarbon ages per time period may be influencing our understanding of local prehistory. There is a potential fallacy with the preceding suggestion, however. The diversity of artifact forms may, as Nelson (1969:300) suggests, have increased over time. If so, then the greater number of cultural units postdating 4500 B.P. could simply be a function of that factor rather than the increasing frequency of radiocarbon ages as we draw progressively nearer to the present. However, given how artifact types used as index fossils to signify cultural units have been constructed, this alternative is difficult to evaluate. This in turn begs the question of how artifact types have been constructed.

DISCUSSION In a revised and updated version of a report first submitted in 1959, Osborne (1967:28) wrote, “we know little indeed of the story and chronology of the rise and fall of our Plateau artifact types.” Given that the bottom of the cultural chronology dropped out in the mid-1950s and the age of the basal culture(s) of the eastern Washington sequence fell near the terminal Pleistocene, one might think things would have changed between 1959 and the late 1960s and that Osborne’s observation could be readily falsified. But it cannot. Virtually no archaeologist working in the Southern Plateau has attempted to monitor “the rise and fall of artifact types.” Perhaps they had not done so as of the early 1960s because as Osborne et al. (1961: 301) observed, “sites that can give information on cultural sequences in the most easily readable manner, by stratigraphy, are few here.” I do not find this argument compelling, however, because when stratified sites were found and excavated, Pla- teau archaeologists typically plotted silhouettes of types in their average stratigraphic position (e.g., Nelson, 1969:300; Rice, 1972:134). A clear example of such short is shown in Figure 6, which is taken from Rice’s (1965:108) Master’s Thesis; it standard

GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL 633 GEA(Wiley) LEFT BATCH

LYMAN Munsell (1969) Browman and VII VI V IV III II I River Plateau Rice (1970) Lower Snake Late Cascade Early Cascade Windust Numipu Late Harder (Early) Harder Tucannon Warren (1968) Leonhardy and Cold Springs Old Cordilleran Windust Plateau Selah Springs Middle (1981) Columbia Yakima Valley Galm et al. Late Vantage Early Vantage Windust Historic Late Cayuse Early Cayuse Middle (1969) Springs Columbia Nelson Vantage ?(unnamed) Historic Cayuse III Cayuse II Cayuse I Frenchman Cold Springs Reservoir (1968, 1970) Wells Dam Grabert Okanogan Cassimir Bar Chilwist (1984) Chief Joseph Dam Reservoir Campbell Coyote Creek Hudnut Chance (1982, 1985) Grand Coulee Dam Reservoir Sinaikst Takumakst Pre-Takumakst Ksunku Selected cultural chronologies for portions of eastern Washington.

Age short 4500 B.P. Shonitkwu Kartar Indian Dan 4500 B.P. Shwayip Ͼ Reference: Chance and Table IV. Ͻ standard

634 VOL. 15, NO. 7 GEA(Wiley) RIGHT BATCH

short Figure 6. A typical diagram of a site’s stratigraphic column, the silhouette of projectile point types standard associated with particular strata, and the breakdown into cultural units. Small numbers next to a silhouette represents the number of specimens in a type. Scale bar refers to projectile points (after Rice, 1965). GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL 635 GEA(Wiley) LEFT BATCH

LYMAN represents the earliest detailed illustration of artifact chronologies for eastern Washington of which I am aware. Earlier illustrations (Fryxwell, 1963:16; Fryxwell and Daugherty, 1962:19) are similar but are significantly less detailed and consist of an idealized model rather than a summary of a particular data set. The intellec- tual roots of this approach to measuring time are easily traced. Recall that Swanson (1962b:1) indicated that in the middle 1950s Daugherty was “in the process of demonstrating [the axiom that] typology [as] an index of antiquity . . . was of little significance in the identification of Early Man in the Plateau.” Daugherty (1956a) adopted Americanist archaeology’s typological tenets as expressed by Alex Krieger (1944:272): “the purpose of a type in archaeology must be to provide an organizational tool which will enable the investigator to group specimens into bodies which have demonstrable historical meaning in terms of be- havior patterns.” That is, an archaeological type must be an analytical device—a measurement unit—that allows the archaeologist to monitor time’s passage and cultural stability and change. To build such measurement units, Daugherty (1956a: 233) employed “a slight refinement of [Krieger’s] typological concept.” His refinement involved the designation of two additional kinds of units. First, what he termed a “form” was a kind of artifact with “diagnostic formal characteristics” (Daugherty, 1956a:233). Second, if “a form is found to recur with some regularity and, as such, may have additional cultural significance, it is also designated a style” (Daugherty, 1956a:233). It seems that Daugherty’s forms were recognizable (subjectively? intuitively?) and sortable because they had visible diagnostic attributes. Further, if multiple specimens could be sorted into the same pile because they shared or held in com- mon attributes diagnostic of a form, then that pile comprised a style. Finally, if “the temporal, spatial, and relational factors (i.e., historical factors) for a given style have been determined, such a style will then be given a type designation” (Daugh- erty, 1956a:233). In other words, if, and apparently only if, a style has “demonstrable historical meaning,” to borrow Krieger’s words, then it attains the status of a type. At least one archaeologist working in the Pacific Northwest found Daugherty’s approach to classification variously unnecessary and inappropriately applied to the Lind Coulee specimens (Cressman, 1957). More importantly, Daugherty did not explicitly answer one critical question. How is it determined if a style has historical meaning or significance? The pro- grammatic and substantive literature indicate that a style attains type status if it occurs in a single stratigraphically distinct context (Lyman et al., 1997). This basically was the procedure employed by culture historians throughout North Amer- ica during the 1950s (e.g., Phillips and Willey, 1953; Willey and Phillips, 1958); by that time they had largely abandoned methods such as frequency seriation and percentage stratigraphy for measuring time continuously (Lyman and O’Brien, 1999; Lyman et al., 1997, 1998; O’Brien and Lyman, 1999). Instead, they adopted a procedure founded on Krieger’s, or another similar concept, of the notion type, and it was the one used to help construct the seminal cultural chronologies for short eastern Washington (e.g., Fryxell, 1963; Fryxell and Daugherty, 1962; Rice, 1965). standard

636 VOL. 15, NO. 7 GEA(Wiley) RIGHT BATCH

BUILDING CULTURAL CHRONOLOGY IN EASTERN WASHINGTON

Types of artifacts—usually projectile points—used to mark the passage of time served as index fossils that allowed archaeologists to correlate components temporally and thereby to erect a chronology of cultures (e.g., Leonhardy and Rice, 1970; Nelson, 1969; Swanson, 1962b). Time was rendered discontinuous because cultural change and thus time were not measured continuously. This was not perceived as a problem because of the focus on geochronological data for establishing a temporal framework. For example, Leonhardy (1970) followed his predecessors and focused on building a geochronologically founded cultural sequence when he excavated Granite Point. Excavations there in the late 1960s and at Marmes Rockshelter (Fryxell, 1963; Fryxell and Daugherty, 1962; Fry- xell and Keel, 1969) and Windust Caves (Rice, 1965) in the mid and early 1960s, respectively, focused closely on the stratigraphic context of artifact forms that could serve as index fossils. As noted earlier, work at Marmes Rockshelter resulted in 21 radiocarbon ages by 1969; work at Granite Point produced six ages (Leonardy, 1970); no ages were assayed on materials from Windust Caves (Rice, 1965). The most often referenced and perhaps best known cultural chronology for eastern Washington is founded in large part on these three sites (Leonhardy and Rice, 1970). That this chronology rests on the geochronology of the Lower Snake River valley was clearly demonstrated several years later (Hammatt, 1977); the near-perfect coincidence of distinct strata with the cultural phases comprising the chronology is remarkable (Figure 7). Projectile-point types that corresponded to the depositional units had initially been recognized more than a decade earlier (e.g., Fryxell, 1963; Fryxell and Daugh- erty, 1962; Rice, 1965). These were the index fossils Leonhardy and Rice (1970) used to build their chronology. They explicitly followed the tenets of Willey and Phillips (1958) and Chang (1967), designating as their “basic analytical unit” the component, “defined as a configuration of artifacts and other archaeological phenomena distinct from all other such configurations within a site” (Leonhardy and Rice, 1970:2). The procedure for building the chronology involved “relat[ing] components one to another” to construct a cultural phase, which was “a polythetic set of similar components found within the region [that] represents a single segment of culture time and, hence, an archaeological stationary state” (Leonhardy and Rice, 1970:2). Implicit in their procedure was (1) the use of stratigraphic boundaries to aid the designation of components and (2) the use of artifact types similar to horizon styles, or index fossils, as the device for “relating components.” Interestingly, they explicitly recognized that their analytical protocal resulted in what appeared to be “stationary” cultural units—time was being measured discontinuously. Thus, in several respects, the building of cultural chronologies in eastern Wash- ington during the 1960s followed the basic procedures that archaeologists working in other areas were using at the same time. But in two important ways archaeologists in eastern Washington differed from many of their colleagues. First, they focused closely on geochronological data to help them not only build cultural chronologies, but to assess and model paleoenvironments as well. These practices short would be seldom remarked across the continent until some time later; earlier ef- standard

GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL 637 GEA(Wiley) LEFT BATCH

LYMAN

Figure 7. Correlation of Lower Snake River Region chronostratigraphic units and chronology of cultural phases (after Hammatt, 1977). short standard

638 VOL. 15, NO. 7 GEA(Wiley) RIGHT BATCH

BUILDING CULTURAL CHRONOLOGY IN EASTERN WASHINGTON forts such as those by Kirk Bryan had focused largely on establishing the deep antiquity of humans in the New World rather than working out the chronological details of their tenure there (Gifford and Rapp, 1985; Haynes, 1990). Statements on the value of geoarchaeology that appeared in the late 1970s (e.g., Gladfelter, 1977, 1981; Hassan, 1979) were old news in eastern Washington in the 1960s. By the time those statements appeared in the literature, no fewer than four Master’s theses (Amara, 1975; Cochran, 1978; Foley, 1976; Marshall, 1971) and three doctoral dis- sertations (Hammatt, 1977; Leonhardy, 1970; Moody, 1978) focused on or heavily based on geoarchaeology had been produced by Fryxell’s students and colleagues. For developing and teaching that focus to a host of archaeologists, Roald Fryxell (1934–1974) and Earl H. Swanson, Jr. (1927–1975) have been acknowledged (Wil- desen, 1986, and Harten et al., 1980, respectively). Second, archaeologists working in eastern Washington used not just index fossils, but assemblages of artifacts. Perhaps the earliest statement on the formulation of this approach was made by Leonhardy (1968:27), who noted, correctly in my view, that “interpretation of the kind of data we have to work with is a function of the kind of constructs we use to order the data.” By “constructs” Leonhardy meant analytical units such as types, components, phases, and the like. He went on to state “the major problem in interpreting archaeological data typical of the northwest [originated in] the kinds of lesser constructs we have been using as the basis for interpretation....Inthepast there has been no concerted effort by people working in the Plateau to try to formulate consistent constructs on any level” (Leon- hardy, 1968:28). Leonhardy’s proposed solution to this dilemma consisted of two parts. First, avoid focusing solely on “artifact typology,” particularly projectile-point typologies. Second, construct “analytical devices [what he termed ‘structural units’] which will allow more precise delimitation of prehistoric groups of people, whether there are actual correspondences to ethnographic entities or not....These units are sup- posed to be units of culture content consisting of constellations of data which can be analyzed and compared as units” (Leonhardy, 1968:29). These “constellations of data” comprised “constellations of associated types” or “total assemblages” of artifacts rather than just types of projectile points (Leonhardy, 1968:30). On one hand, the advantage to what became known to Leonhardy’s students and colleagues as “assemblage-based archaeology” was that “pronounced temporal and geographic differences [would] become apparent” because of the larger number of kinds of artifacts compared. Comparing archaeological manifestations solely on the basis of only a few potentially shared projectile-point types, on the other hand, would suggest minimal geographic or temporal difference (Leonhardy, 1968:30; see also Leonhardy, 1970). As a result of Leonhardy’s advocation of such, most of the archaeological phases comprising the cultural chronology originally proposed by Leonhardy and Rice (1970) for the Lower Snake River Region of southeastern Washington state were, in subsequent years, “validated” (to use the term of others) not just on the basis of projectile-point types, but assemblages—suites of associ- short ated kinds of artifacts (e.g., Bense, 1972; Kennedy, 1976; Rice, 1972; Yent, 1976). standard

GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL 639 GEA(Wiley) LEFT BATCH

LYMAN

That various of these cultural phases may not in fact represent evolutionary stable states has emerged from more recent analyses (e.g., Ames, 1982; Chatters, 1995). I have found only one case in which a Plateau archaeologist graphed changes in artifact frequencies against time (Nelson, 1969:301), but this singular instance is not a true percentage-stratigraphy graph for several reasons. First, artifact types are graphed against cultural periods rather than against strata or other independent evidence of time’s passage. Second, although it is stated that the “relative abun- dance of particular projectile point types” is plotted in the graph (Nelson, 1969: 102), summing the width of the battleship curves at different positions in the graph produces inconsistent results; in other words, they don’t consistently add up to 100 percent. Perhaps the ﬁrst two points can be accounted for by the fact that although the graph was based “primarily upon data from [one site],” information “from other sites in the [general area] was taken into account in the preparation of [the graph]” (Nelson, 1969:102). In short, the graph seems to be an interpretation based on composite data rather than a graph of any empirical archaeological reality. This was not an uncommon occurrence in early efforts to graph the rise and fall of artifact type frequencies in other regions of North America (Lyman et al., 1998). Simply put, percentage stratigraphy was not part of the analytical tool kit regu- larly used by Plateau archaeologists despite the fact that it was popular in other regions of North America and results of its application were widely published (e.g., Drucker, 1943; Evans, 1955; Ford, 1962; Phillips et al., 1951; Willey, 1949). Instead, archaeologists working in eastern Washington measured time discontinuously because (1) they constructed artifact types as index fossils signifying particular cultures, phases, and the like and (2) they collected those artifacts from strata— visibly distinct units of deposition—thereby exacerbating the appearance of “ar- chaeologically stationary states,” to borrow Leonhardy and Rice’s (1970) wording (Lyman and O’Brien, 1999; O’Brien and Lyman, 1999). Time simply was not perceived as a continuous dimension in the same way that it had been in other regions of North America. The advent of radiocarbon dating seems to have done nothing more than provide a way to assign absolute ages to depositional units, artifact types comprising index fossils that those strata contained, and the cultural units recognized.

CONCLUSION The addition of radiocarbon dating to the chronology-building tool kit of archaeologists working in eastern Washington did not create a revolution in the commonly meant sense of the term. Prehistory as it was understood did not have to be re- written, although it did have to be extended farther into the past than previously thought after the seminal age at Lind Coulee was produced. The same kind of event—having the chronological base drop away—happened in 1927 without the beneﬁt of radiocarbon dating for the North American continent when stone projectile points were found associated with latest Pleistocene–earliest Holocene-age short bison remains near Folsom, New Mexico. And, the same result—ﬁlling in the standard

640 VOL. 15, NO. 7 GEA(Wiley) RIGHT BATCH

BUILDING CULTURAL CHRONOLOGY IN EASTERN WASHINGTON temporal gaps between the remote past and the near recent—was produced continent-wide and in eastern Washington. But archaeologists working in eastern Washington initially did not trust the few radiocarbon ages they produced, sometimes with good reason. Instead, they favored what the geological record and what their artifact types seemed to indicate. Confusion regarding precisely when particular chronostratigraphic horizons such as various volcanic ashes had in fact been deposited were resolved with radiocarbon dating and chemical techniques for ash identification, but these only made temporal estimates of those chronostratigraphic horizons more precise. In my view, the full potential of radiocarbon dating has rarely been reached in the Plateau. This result is a function of how artifacts have been placed in time— stratigraphically—and classified—as index fossils allowing the temporal correlation of components. Thus we have stacks of phases and other cultural units such as those shown in Table IV, where any indication of change is invisible because it has been forced into the horizontal lines denoting the temporal boundaries of the units, a fact recognized elsewhere in North America over two decades ago (Plog, 1974). We know few details of the tempo and mode of change within cultural lineages (but see Chatters [1995] for an interesting effort in this respect). Radio- carbon ages have the potential to help us fill in those details by providing an absolute time scale against which frequency seriation or percentage stratigraphy data may be arrayed. If steps are taken to accomplish this, then the revolution will reside in how we structure and classify the archaeological record, not in the adoption of a new dating technique such as stratigraphic excavation or radiocarbon dating.

I thank Gerald Schroedl for providing a copy of his unpublished manuscript on 45GA17 some years ago, and Albert Oetting for recently providing a copy of his unpublished report on 45KL5. Keo Boreson, Stan Gough, Rebecca Stevens, and especially Jerry Galm provided information on radiocarbon ages that are not yet in, or have just recently entered, the literature. Michael J. O’Brien provided helpful editorial comments and a key suggestion on how the focus of the paper might be perfected. I thank Ken Ames for encouragement, and Jerry Galm for comments on an early draft and his very sharp eyes.

REFERENCES Amara, M.S. (1975). Mechanical analysis of stratigraphic layers from the Lind Coulee archaeological site in central Washington, Master’s Thesis. Pullman: Washington State University (unpublished). Ames, K.M. (1982). Comments on the Tucannon Phase. Idaho Archaeologist, 5, 1–8. Antevs, E. (1948). The Great Basin with emphasis on Glacial and Post-Glacial times: Climatic changes and Pre-White Man. University of Utah Bulletin, 33, 168–191. Antevs, E. (1953). Geochronology of the deglacial and neothermal ages. Journal of Geology, 61, 195– 230. Bacon, C.R. (1983). Eruptive history of Mount Mazama and Crater Lake Caldera, Cascade Range, U.S.A. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, 18, 57–115. Bense, J.A. (1972). The Cascade Phase: A study in the effect of the Altithermal on a cultural system, Doctoral Dissertation. Pullman: Washington State University (unpublished). Bliss, W. (1952). Radiocarbon contamination. American Antiquity, 17, 250–251. Borden, C.E. (1958). Review of “Excavations in the McNary Reservoir Basin near Umatilla, Oregon” by short Douglas Osborne. American Anthropologist, 60, 1235. standard

GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL 641 GEA(Wiley) LEFT BATCH

LYMAN

Bretz, J.H. (1923a). Glacial drainage on the Columbia Plateau. Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, 34, 573–608. Bretz, J.H. (1923b). Channeled Scablands of the Columbia Plateau. Journal of Geology, 31, 617–649. Bretz, J.H. (1925). The Spokane Flood beyond the Channeled Scablands. Journal of Geology, 33, 97– 115, 236–259. Broecker, W.S., Kulp, J.L., & Tucek, C.S. (1956). Lamont natural radiocarbon measurements, III. Science, 124, 154–165. Browman, D.L. (1966). Contributions to the prehistory of the Columbia Plateau: The Indian Dan site, Master’s Thesis. Seattle: University of Washington (unpublished). Browman, D.L., & Givens, D.R. (1996). Stratigraphic excavation: The first “new archaeology.” American Anthropologist, 98, 80–95. Browman, D.L., & Munsell, D.A. (1969). Columbia Plateau prehistory: Cultural development and im- pinging influences. American Antiquity, 34, 249–264. Bryan, K. (1927). The “Palouse Soil” problem, with an account of elephant remains in wind-borne soil on the Columbia Plateau of Washington, Bulletin 790-B. Washington, DC: U.S. Geological Survey. Burroughs, C. (1951). Notes and news: North Pacific Coast and Basin-Plateau. American Antiquity, 16, 290. Butler, B.R. (1960). The physical stratigraphy of Wakemap Mound: A new interpretation, Master’s Thesis. Seattle: University of Washington (unpublished). Butler, B.R. (1961). The Old Cordilleran Culture in the Pacific Northwest, Occasional Papers of the Idaho State College Museum No. 5. Pocatello: Idaho State College. Butler, B.R. (1965). Perspectives on the prehistory of the lower Columbia valley. Tebiwa, 8, 1–16. Caldwell, W.W. (1956). The archaeology of Wakemap, Doctoral Dissertation. Seattle: University of Wash- ington (unpublished). Campbell, S.K. (Ed.) (1984). Summary of results, Chief Joseph Dam Cultural Resources Project, Wash- ington, report submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District. Seattle: Office of Public Archaeology, University of Washington. Campbell, S.K. (1989). Post-Columbian culture history in the northern Columbia Plateau: A.D. 1500– 1900, Doctoral Dissertation. Seattle: University of Washington (unpublished). Chance, D.H., & Chance, J.V. (1982). Kettle Falls: 1971/1974, salvage archaeology in Lake Roosevelt, Anthropological Research Manuscript Series No. 69. Moscow: University of Idaho. Chance, D.H., & Chance, J.V. (1985). Kettle Falls: 1978, further archaeological excavations in Lake Roosevelt, Anthropological Reports (Research Manuscript Series) No. 84. Moscow: University of Idaho. Chance, D.H., Chance, J.V., Anderson, E., Bowers, N., Cochran, B., Falen, A.L., Fosberg, M.A., Olson, D.L., Paul, E., Schalk, R., Steinhorst, R.K., Stenholm, N.A., Valastro, S., Jr., & Whitwer, S.B. (1989). Archaeology of the Hatiuhpuh Village, report submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla District, Walla Walla. Moscow: Laboratory of Anthropology, University of Idaho. Chang, K.C. (1967). Rethinking archaeology. New York: Random House. Chatters, J.C. (1984a). Dimensions of site structure: The archaeological record from two sites in Oka- nogan County, Washington, report submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, Seattle. Ellensburg, Washington: Central Washington Archaeological Survey. Chatters, J.C. (1984b). Human adaptation along the Columbia River, 4700–1600 BP, Research Report No. 84-1. Ellensburg, Washington: Central Washington University. Chatters, J.C. (1986). The Wells Reservoir archaeological project. Washington, Volume I: Summary of findings, Archaeological Report 86-6. Ellensburg, Washington: Central Washington Archaeological Survey. Chatters, J.C. (1995). Population growth, climatic cooling, and the development of collector strategies on the southern Plateau, western North America. Journal of World Prehistory, 9, 341–400. Chatters, R.M. (1968). Washington State University natural radiocarbon measurements I. Radiocarbon, 10, 479–498. Cochran, B.D. (1978). Late Quaternary stratigraphy and chronology in Johnson’s Canyon, central Wash- short ington, Master’s Thesis. Pullman: Washington State University (unpublished). standard

642 VOL. 15, NO. 7 GEA(Wiley) RIGHT BATCH

BUILDING CULTURAL CHRONOLOGY IN EASTERN WASHINGTON

Cole, D.L. (1966). Report on archaeological research in the John Day Dam Reservoir area—1965, report submitted to the National Park Service. Eugene: University of Oregon Museum of Natural History. Cole, D.L. (1967). Report on archaeological research in the John Day Dam Reservoir area—1966, report submitted to the National Park Service. Eugene: University of Oregon Museum of Natural History. Crane, H.R., & Griffin, J.B. (1958a). University of Michigan radiocarbon dates II. Science, 127, 1098– 1105. Crane, H.R., & Griffin, J.B. (1958b). University of Michigan radiocarbon dates III. Science, 128, 1117– 1123. Cressman, L.S. (1951). Western prehistory in the light of carbon 14 dating. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, 7, 289–313. Cressman, L.S. (1957). Review of “Early Man in the Columbia Intermontane Province” and “Archaeology of the Lind Coulee site, Washington” by R.D. Daugherty. American Antiquity, 23, 204–205. Daugherty, R.D. (1953). Early Man in the Columbia Intermontane Province, Doctoral Dissertation. Se- attle: University of Washington (unpublished). Daugherty, R.D. (1954). Notes and news: Pacific Coast. American Antiquity, 19, 421–422. Daugherty, R.D. (1956a). Archaeology of the Lind Coulee site, Washington. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 100, 223–278. Daugherty, R.D. (1956b). Early Man in the Columbia Intermontane Province, Anthropological Papers No. 24. Salt Lake City: University of Utah. Daugherty, R.D. (1959). Early Man in Washington, Information Circular No. 32. Olympia: Division of Mines and Geology, State of Washington. Daugherty, R.D. (1962a). Current research: Northwest. American Antiquity, 28, 264–267. Daugherty, R.D. (1962b). The Intermontane Western Tradition. American Antiquity,, 28, 144–150. Daugherty, R.D. (1964). Current research: Northwest. American Antiquity, 29, 554–559. Daugherty, R.D., Purdy, B.A., & Fryxell, R. (1967). The descriptive archaeology and geochronology of the Three Springs Bar archaeological site, Washington, Reports of Investigations No. 40. Pullman: Laboratory of Anthropology, Washington State University. Davis, J.O. (1985). Correlation of late Quaternary tephra layers in a long pluvial sequence near Summer Lake, Oregon. Quaternary Research, 23, 38–53. Drucker, P. (1943). Ceramic Stratigraphy at Cerro de las Mesas, Veracruz, Mexico. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin, 141, 1–95. Evans, C. (1955). A deramic study of Virginia archaeology. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin, 160, 1–195. Everitt, B.S. (1977). The analysis of contingency tables. London: Chapman and Hall. Fairhall, A.W., Schell, W.R., & Young, J.A. (1966). Radiocarbon dating at the University of Washington III. Radiocarbon, 8, 498–506. Foley, L.L. (1976). Slack water sediments in the Alpowa Creek drainage. Washington, Master’s Thesis. Pullman: Washington State University (unpublished). Ford, J.A. (1962). A auantitative method for deriving cultural chronology, Technical Bulletin No. 1. Washington, DC: Pan American Union. Fryxell, R. (1962). A radiocarbon limiting date for Scabland flooding. Northwest Science, 36, 113– 119. Fryxell, R. (1963). Late Glacial and Post Glacial geological and archaeological chronology of the Colum- bia Plateau, Washington, Reports of Investigations No. 23. Pullman: Laboratory of Anthropology, Washington State University. Fryxell, R. (1965). Mazama and Glacier Peak volcanic ash layers: Relative ages. Science, 147, 1288– 1290. Fryxell, R., Cook, E.F. (Eds.) (1964). A field guide to the loess deposits and Channeled Scablands of the Palouse area eastern Washington, Reports of Investigations No. 27. Pullman: Laboratory of Anthro- short pology, Washington State University. standard

GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL 643 GEA(Wiley) LEFT BATCH

LYMAN

Fryxell, R., & Daugherty, R.D. (1962). Interim report: Archeological salvage in the Lower Monumental Reservoir, Washington, Reports of Investigations No. 21. Pullman: Laboratory of Anthropology, Washington State University. Fryxell, R., & Keel, B.C. (1969). Emergency salvage excavations for the recovery of early human remains and related scientific materials from the Marmes Rockshelter archaeological site, Southeastern Washington, May 3–December 15, 1968, report submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla District. Pullman: Laboratory of Anthropology, Washington State University. Fryxell, R., Bielicki, T., Daugherty, R.D., Gustafson, C.E., Irwin, H.T., & Keel, B.C. (1968). A human skeleton from sediments of Mid-Pinedale age in southeastern Washington. American Antiquity, 33, 511–515. Galm, J.R., Lyman, R.L. (1988). Archaeological investigations at River Mile 590: The excavations at 45DO189, Reports in Archaeology and History 100-61. Cheney: Eastern Washington University. Galm, J.R., Hartmann, G.D., Masten, R.A., & Stephenson, G.O. (1981). A cultural resources overview of Bonneville Power Administration’s Mid-Columbia project, central Washington, Reports in Archae- ology and History 100-16. Cheney: Eastern Washington University. Gifford, J.A., & Rapp, G., Jr. (1985). The early development of archaeological geology in North America. In E.T. Drake & M.W. Jordan, (Eds.), Geologists and ideas: A history of North American geology (pp. 409–421), Centennial Special Volume 1. Boulder, Colorado: Geological Society of America. Gladfelter, B.G. (1977). Geoarchaeology: The geomorphologist and archaeology. American Antiquity, 42, 519–538. Gladfelter, B.G. (1981). Developments and directions in geoarchaeology. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, 4, 343–364. Grabert, G.F. (1968). North-central Washington prehistory: A final report on salvage archaeological in the Wells Reservoir—Part 1, Reports in Archaeology No. 1. Seattle: University of Washington (unpublished). Grabert, G.F. (1970). Prehistoric cultural stability in the Okanogan Valley of Washington and British Columbia, Doctoral Dissertation. Seattle: University of Washington (unpublished). Gruhn, R. (1962). Review of “The Old Cordilleran Culture in the Pacific Northwest” by B. Robert Butler. Man, 57, 109. Hallett, D.J., Hills, L.V., & Clague, J.J. (1997). New accelerator mass spectrometry radiocarbon ages for the Mazama tephra layer from Kootenay National Park, British Columbia, Canada. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 34, 1202–1209. Hammatt, H.H. (1977). Late Quaternary stratigraphy and archaeological chronology in the Lower Granite Reservoir, lower Snake River, Washington, Doctoral Dissertation. Pullman: Washington State Uni- versity (unpublished). Hansen, H.P. (1947). Postglacial forest succession, climate and chronology in the Pacific Northwest. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, 37, 1–130. Harten, L., Warren, C.N., & Tuohy, D.R. (Eds.) (1980). Anthropological papers in memory of Earl H. Swanson, Jr., Special Publication No. 6. Pocatello: Idaho Museum of Natural History. Hassan, F.A. (1979). Geoarchaeology: The geologist and archaeology. American Antiquity, 44, 267–270. Haynes, C.V., Jr. (1990). The Antevs–Bryan years and the legacy for Paleoindian geochronology. In L.F. Laporte (Ed.), Establishment of a geologic framework for paleoanthropology (pp. 51–68), Special Paper No. 242. Boulder, Colorado: Geological Society of America. Holmes, B.G. (1966). The Schaake site—a new study, Master’s Thesis. Seattle: University of Washington (unpublished). Hunt, C.B. (1955). Radiocarbon dating in the light of stratigraphy and weathering processes. Scientific Monthly, 81, 240–247. Hunt, C.B. (1956). A skeptic’s view of radiocarbon dates. In R. Anderson (Ed.), Papers of the Third Great Basin Archeological Conference (pp. 35–46), Anthropological Papers No. 26. Salt Lake City: University of Utah. Irwin, A.M., & Moody, U. (1976). The Lind Coulee site (45GR97): The 1973 field season, Project Report short No. 36. Pullman: Washington Archaeological Research Center. standard

644 VOL. 15, NO. 7 GEA(Wiley) RIGHT BATCH

BUILDING CULTURAL CHRONOLOGY IN EASTERN WASHINGTON

Irwin, A.M., Moody, U. (1978). The Lind Coulee site (45GR97), Project Report No. 56. Pullman: Wash- ington Archaeological Research Center. Keith, M.L., & Anderson, G.M. (1963). Radiocarbon dating: Fictitious results with mollusk shells. Science, 141, 634–637. Kelley, L., Spiker, E., & Rubin, M. (1978). U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia, radiocarbon dates XIV. Radiocarbon, 20, 283–312. Kennedy, H.K. (1976). An examination of the Tucannon Phase as a valid concept: Step one. Master’s Thesis. Moscow: University of Idaho (unpublished). Kidder, A.V. (1936). Speculations of New World prehistory. In R. Lowie (Ed.), Essays in anthropology presented to A.L. Kroeber (pp. 143–152). Berkeley: University of California Press. Kidder, M.A., & Kidder, A.V. (1917). Notes on the pottery of Pecos. American Anthropologist, 19, 325– 360. Kigoshi, K., Aizawa, H., & Suzuki, N. (1969). Gakushuin natural radiocarbon measurements VII. Radio- carbon, 11, 295–326. Krieger, A.D. (1944). The typological concept. American Antiquity, 9, 271–288. Krieger, A.D. (1952a). Notes and news: Early Man. American Antiquity, 17, 281–283. Krieger, A.D. (1952b). Notes and news: Early Man. American Antiquity, 18, 189–190. Leonhardy, F.C. (1968). An opinion on archaeological interpretation in the Plateau. Eastern New Mexico University, Contributions in Anthropology, 1, 27–31. Leonhardy, F.C. (1970). Artifact assemblages and archaeological units at Granite Point Locality 1 (45WT41), southeastern Washington, Doctoral Dissertation. Pullman: Washington State University (unpublished). Leonhardy, F.C., & Rice, D.G. (1970). A proposed culture typology for the lower Snake River region, southeastern Washington. Northwest Anthropological Research Notes, 4, 1–29. Libby, W.F. (1952). Radiocarbon dating. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Libby, W.F. (1954). Chicago radiocarbon dates V. Science, 120, 733–742. Lohse, E.S., & Sprague, R. (1998). History of research. In D.E. Walker, Jr. (Ed.), Handbook of North American Indians Volume 12: Plateau (pp. 8–28). Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Lyman, R.L., & O’Brien, M.J. (1999). Americanist stratigraphic excavation and the measurement of culture change. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 6, 55–108. Lyman, R.L., & O’Brien, M.J. (2000). Chronometers and units in early archaeology and paleontology. American Antiquity, 65, in press. Lyman, R.L., & O’Brien, M.J., & Dunnell, R.C. (1997). The rise and fall of culture history. New York: Plenum. Lyman, R.L., Wolverton, S., & O’Brien, M.J. (1998). Seriation, superposition, and interdigitation: A history of Americanist graphic depictions of culture change. American Antiquity, 63, 239–261. Marshall, A.G. (1971). An alluvial chronology of the lower Palouse River canyon and its relation to local archaeological sites, Master’s Thesis. Pullman: Washington State University (unpublished). Martin, P.S., Quimby, G.I., & Collier, D. (1947). Indians before Columbus. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Mehringer, P.J., Jr.,& Foit, F.F. Jr. (1990). Volcanic ash dating of the Clovis cache at East Wenatchee, Washington. National Geographic Research, 6, 495–503. Meighan, C.W. (1956). Responsibilities of the archaeologist in using the radiocarbon method. In R. Anderson (Ed.), Papers of the Third Great Basin Archeological Conference (pp. 48–53), Anthropo- logical Papers No. 26. Salt Lake City: University of Utah. Meltzer, D.J. (1983). The antiquity of man and the development of American archaeology. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, 6, 1–51. Moody, U.L. (1978). Microstratigraphy, paleoecology, and tephrochronology of the Lind Coulee site, central Washington. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Washington State University, Pullman. Mullineaux, D.R., Wilcon, R.E., Ebaugh, W.F., Fryxell, R., & Rugin, M. (1978). Age of the last major Scabland ﬂood of the Columbia Plateau in eastern Washington. Quaternary Research, 10, 171–180. Munsell, D.R. (1968). The Ryegrass Coulee site, Master’s Thesis. Seattle: University of Washington (un- short published). standard

GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL 645 GEA(Wiley) LEFT BATCH

LYMAN

Nance, C.R. (1966). 45-WT-2: An archaeological site on the lower Snake River, Master’s Thesis. Pullman: Washington State University (unpublished). Nelson, C.M. (1969). The Sunset Creek site (45KT28) and its place in Plateau prehistory, Reports of Investigations No. 47. Pullman: Laboratory of Anthropology, Washington State University. Nelson, N.C. (1916). Chronology of the Tano Ruins, New Mexico. American Anthropologist, 18, 159– 180. O’Brien, M.J., & Lyman, R.L. (1999). Seriation, stratigraphy, and index fossils: The backbone of archaeological dating. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum. Oetting, A.C. (1986). Archaeological investigations at Area 3 of the Alderdale site, 45KL5, unpublished manuscript on file with the author. Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP). (1990). Radiocarbon dates from archaeological sites in Washington. Olympia: Washington State Department of Community Development. Osborne, D. (1956). Evidence of the Early Lithic in the Pacific Northwest. Research Studies of the State College of Washington, 24, 38–44. Osborne, D. (1957). Excavations in the McNary Reservoir Basin near Umatilla, Oregon. Bureau of Amer- ican Ethnology Bulletin, 166, 1–258. Osborne, D. (1966). Review of “Occasional Papers of the Idaho State University Museum Nos. 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15.” American Anthropologist, 68, 577–579. Osborne, D. (1967). Archaeological tests in the Lower Grand Coulee, Washington, Occasional Papers of the Idaho State University Museum No. 20. Pocatello: Idaho State University. Osborne, D., Bryan, A., & Crabtree, R.H. (1961). The Sheep Island site and the Mid-Columbia Valley. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin, 179, 267–306. Phillips, P., & Willey, G.R. (1953). Method and theory in American archaeology: An operational basis for culture-historical integration. American Anthropologist, 55, 615–633. Phillips, P., Ford, J.A., & Griffin, J.B. (1951). Archaeological survey in the lower Mississippi Valley, 1940– 1947, Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology Papers No. 25. Cambridge, Mas- sachusetts: Harvard University. Plog, F.T. (1974). The study of prehistoric change. New York: Academic Press. Powers, H.S., & Wilcox, R.E. (1964). Volcanic ash from Mt. Mazama (Crater Lake) and from Glacier Peak. Science, 144, 1334–1336. Renfrew, A.C. (1973). Before civilization: The radiocarbon revolution and prehistoric Europe. London: Cape. Rice, D.G. (1969). Preliminary Report: Marmes Rockshelter Archaeological Site, Southern Columbia Plateau, report submitted to the National Park Service. Pullman: Laboratory of Anthropology, Wash- ington State University. Rice, D.G. (1972). The Windust Phase in lower Snake River region prehistory, Reports of Investigations No. 50. Pullman: Laboratory of Anthropology, Washington State University. Rice, H.S. (1965). The Cultural Sequence at Windust Caves, Master’s Thesis. Pullman: Washington State University (unpublished). Richmond, G.M., Fryxell, R., Montague, J., & Trimble, D.E. (1965a). Guidebook for Field Conference E: Northern and middle Rocky Mountains, International Association for Quaternary Research, 7th Con- gress. Lincoln: Nebraska Academy of Sciences. Richmond, G.M., Fryxell, R., Neff, G.E., & Weis, P.L. (1965b). The Cordilleran ice sheet of the northern Rocky Mountains, and related Quaternary history of the Columbia Plateau. In H.E. Wright Jr., & D.G. Frey (Eds.), The Quaternary of the United States (pp. 231–242). Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Rigg, G.B., & Gould, H.R. (1957). Age of Glacier Peak eruption and chronology of post-glacial peat deposits in Washington and surrounding areas. American Journal of Science, 255, 341–363. Rubin, M., & Alexander, C. (1960). U.S. Geological Survey radiocarbon dates V. Radiocarbon, 2, 129– 185. Rubin, M., & Taylor, D.W. (1963). Radiocarbon activity of shells from living clams and snails. Science, short 141, 637. standard

646 VOL. 15, NO. 7 GEA(Wiley) RIGHT BATCH

BUILDING CULTURAL CHRONOLOGY IN EASTERN WASHINGTON

Sarna-Wojcicki, A.M., Champion, D.E., & Davis, J.O. (1983). Holocene volcanism in the conterminous United States and the role of silicic volcanic ash layers in correlation of latest-Pleistocene and Holocene Deposits. In H.E. Wright, Jr. (Ed.), Late-Quaternary environments of the United States, Volume 2: The Holocene (pp. 52–77). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Schroedl, G.F. (1973). The archaeological occurrence of bison in the Southern Plateau, Reports of In- vestigations No. 51. Pullman: Laboratory of Anthropology, Washington State University. Schroedl, G.G. (n.d.). The archaeology of site 45GA17, unpublished manuscript on ﬁle with the author. Sheppard, J.C., & Chatters, R.M. (1976). Washington State University natural radiocarbon measurements II. Radiocarbon, 18, 140–149. Sheppard, J.C., Ali, S.Y., & Mehringer, P.J., Jr. (1979). Radiocarbon dating of organic components of sediments and peats. In R. Berger & H.E. Suess (Eds.), Radiocarbon dating (pp. 284–305). Berkeley: University of California Press. Sheppard, J.C., Wigand, P.E., & Rubin, M. (1984). The Marmes site revisited: Dating and stratigraphy. Tebiwa, 21, 45–49. Sheppard, J.C., Wigand, P.E., Gustafson, C.E., & Rubin, M. (1987). A reevaluation of the Marmes Rock- shelter radiocarbon chronology. American Antiquity, 52, 118–125. Shiner, J.L. (1961). The McNary Reservoir: A study in Plateau archaeology. Bureau of American Eth- nology Bulletin, 179, 149–266. Smith, H.I. (1906a). Preliminary notes on archaeology of the Yakima Valley, Washington. Science, 23, 551–555. Smith, H.I. (1906b). Recent archaeological discoveries in northwestern America. American Geographical Society Bulletin, 38, 1–9. Spaulding, A.C. (1960). The dimensions of archaeology. In G.E. Dole & R.I. Carneiro (Eds.), Essays in the science of culture in honor of Leslie A. White (pp. 437–456). New York: Crowell. Spier, L. (1917). An outline for a chronology of Zun˜ i Ruins. American Museum of Natural History, Anthropological Papers, 18, 207–331. Spinden, H.J. (1908). The Nez Perce Indians. American Anthropological Association, Memoir 2, 165– 274. Sprague, R. (1973). The Paciﬁc Northwest. In J.E. Fitting (Ed.), The development of North American archaeology (pp. 251–285). Garden City, New York: Anchor Press. Stallard, B. (1958). Archeology in Washington, Information Circular No. 30. Olympia: Division of Mines and Geology, State of Washington. Steen, V.C., & Fryxell, R. (1965). Mazama and Glacier Peak pumice glass: Uniformity of refractive index after weathering. Science, 150, 878–880. Sternberg, C.H. (1903). Elephas Columbi and other mammals in the swamps of Whitman County, Wash- ington. Science, 17, 511–512. Swanson, E.H., Jr. (1962a). Early cultures in Northwestern America. American Antiquity, 28, 151–158. Swanson, E.H., Jr. (1962b). The emergence of Plateau culture, Occasional Papers of the Idaho State College Museum No. 8. Pocatello: Idaho State College. Taylor, R.E. (1987). Radiocarbon dating: An archaeological perspective. Orlando, Florida: Academic Press. Taylor, R.E. (1996). Radiocarbon dating: The continuing revolution. Evolutionary Anthropology, 4, 169– 181. Warren, C.N. (1968). The view from Wenas: A study in Plateau prehistory, Occasional Papers of the Idaho State University Museum No. 24. Pocatello: Idaho State University. Wilcox, R.E. (1965). Volcanic-ash chronology. In H.E. Wright, Jr., & D.G. Frey (Eds.), The Quaternary of the United States (pp. 807–816). Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Wildesen, L.E. (1986). Roald Fryxell: A remembrance. American Antiquity, 51, 208–210. Willey, G.R. (1945). Horizon styles and pottery traditions in Peruvian archaeology. American Antiquity, 10, 49–56. Willey, G.R. (1949). Archeology of the Florida Gulf Coast, Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 113. short Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution. standard

GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL 647 GEA(Wiley) LEFT BATCH

LYMAN

Willey, G.R. (1953). Archaeological theories and interpretation: New World. In A.L. Koreber (Ed.), An- thropology today (pp. 361–385). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Willey, G.R., & Phillips, P. (1958). Method and theory in American archaeology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Willey, G.R., & Sabloff, J.A. (1993). A history of American archaeology (3rd edition). New York: Freeman. Yent, M.E. (1976). The cultural sequence at Wawawai (45WT39), Lower Snake River region, southeastern Washington, Master’s Thesis. Pullman: Washington State University (unpublished). Zdanowicz, C.M., Zielinski, G.A., & Germani, M.S. (1999). Mount Mazama eruption: Calendrical age veriﬁed and atmospheric impact assessed. Geology, 27, 621–624.

Received February 12, 2000 Accepted for publication May 8, 2000

short standard

648 VOL. 15, NO. 7