High-Elevation Prehistoric Land Use in the Central Sierra Nevada, Yosemite National Park, California
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
High-Elevation Prehistoric Land Use in the Central Sierra Nevada, Yosemite National Park, California Suzanna Theresa Montague B.A., Colorado College, Colorado Springs, 1982 THESIS Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS in ANTHROPOLOGY at CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO SPRING 2010 High-Elevation Prehistoric Land Use in the Central Sierra Nevada, Yosemite National Park, California A Thesis by Suzanna Theresa Montague Approved by: __________________________________, Committee Chair Mark E. Basgall, Ph.D. __________________________________, Second Reader David W. Zeanah, Ph.D. ____________________________ Date ii Student: Suzanna Theresa Montague I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University format manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to be awarded for the thesis. __________________________, ___________________ Michael Delacorte, Ph.D, Graduate Coordinator Date Department of Anthropology iii Abstract of High-Elevation Prehistoric Land Use in the Central Sierra Nevada, Yosemite National Park, California by Suzanna Theresa Montague The study investigated pre-contact land use on the western slope of California’s central Sierra Nevada, within the subalpine and alpine zones of the Tuolumne River watershed, Yosemite National Park. Relying on existing data for 373 archaeological sites and minimal surface materials collected for this project, examination of site constituents and their presumed functions in light of geography and chronology indicated two distinctive archaeological patterns. First, limited-use sites—lithic scatters thought to represent hunting, travel, or obsidian procurement activities—were most prevalent in pre- 1500 B.P. contexts. Second, intensive-use sites, containing features and artifacts believed to represent a broader range of activities, were most prevalent in post-1500 B.P. contexts and were confined to two of the trans-Sierra corridors. These findings are consistent with high-elevation archaeological patterns previously identified in the region, and with lower- elevation cultural developments of increased population, territorial circumscription, and subsistence intensification in the late period. _______________________, Committee Chair Mark E. Basgall, Ph.D. _______________________ Date iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I count myself lucky to have been a student of Yosemite and California State University, Sacramento, at the same time, a happy circumstance where the intellectual and emotional support of many people broadened my understanding of California archaeology and deepened my sense of place. At Sacramento, professors Mark Basgall, David Zeanah, and Michael Delacorte provided critical guidance on this project and reviewed various versions of the draft. Basgall, in particular, took the time on numerous occasions to discuss the project, comment on early stages of the draft, and generally encourage a broader consideration of regional archaeological issues. At Yosemite, the project could not have been undertaken without the support of National Park Service managers, notably Laura Kirn, Branch Chief of Anthropology and Archeology, and Dr. Niki Nicholas, Chief of Resources Management and Science. I am most grateful for Laura’s involvement and her continuing patience with this project, which certainly went longer than anticipated. The larger part of the project involved compilation of data from previous investigations, and as such, it relied on the hard work of many current and former Yosemite archaeologists, to name a few: Scott R. Jackson, Paul DePascale, Laura Kirn, Kathleen Hull, Joe Mundy, Peter Gavette, David Curtis, and Bruce Kahl. Tony Brochini, chairman of the American Indian Council of Mariposa County, also discussed his view of Native American use of the Yosemite high country with me. Several other people engaged in this endeavor in various important ways. Craig Skinner, of the Northwest Research Obsidian Studies Laboratory, generously carried out v obsidian studies at a student price. Dr. Kathleen Hull, professor of anthropology at University of California, Merced, and James B. Snyder, former Yosemite Historian/Archivist, provided much appreciated input on the project. At school, fellow student Jennifer Thomas kept me clued in to the thesis process, a thing that is sometimes difficult to track, much less accomplish, from afar. Finally, my husband Peter Devine was, as he always is, the most important person involved in this project. He waited up for me on too many occasions to count, he let me work weekends without guilt, and he carried the heavy stuff. Although many people helped me with this effort, the mistakes are all mine. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments............................................................................................................... v List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... xi List of Figures .................................................................................................................. xiii Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1 Thesis Organization ....................................................................................................... 4 2. NATURAL AND CULTURAL SETTING ................................................................... 5 Natural Setting ............................................................................................................... 5 Geology and Topography .......................................................................................... 5 Vegetation and Fauna ................................................................................................ 8 Climate and Hydrology ........................................................................................... 11 Ethnography ................................................................................................................. 14 Prehistory ..................................................................................................................... 21 Eastern Sierra Nevada ............................................................................................. 23 Western Sierra Nevada ............................................................................................ 26 Summary ...................................................................................................................... 31 3. ELABORATION OF THE PROBLEM ...................................................................... 34 Regional High-Elevation Studies ................................................................................. 34 Great Basin .............................................................................................................. 34 Southern Sierra Nevada ........................................................................................... 40 Yosemite Studies ..................................................................................................... 43 vii Summary ................................................................................................................. 45 Study Problem and Theory .......................................................................................... 47 4. METHODS .................................................................................................................. 51 Description of Existing Data Sets ................................................................................ 51 Surveyed Areas ....................................................................................................... 52 Site and Isolate Data ................................................................................................ 55 Excavations ............................................................................................................. 56 Chronological Data ................................................................................................. 56 Sampling and Field Methods ....................................................................................... 58 Laboratory Methods ..................................................................................................... 61 Analytical Studies ........................................................................................................ 63 Conversion of Obsidian Hydration Data ................................................................. 69 Limitations and Assumptions ....................................................................................... 74 5. DESCRIPTION OF CULTURAL MATERIAL ......................................................... 76 Thesis Collections ........................................................................................................ 76 Projectile Points ....................................................................................................... 76 Desert Series ......................................................................................................... 78 Rosegate Series ..................................................................................................... 79 Elko Series ............................................................................................................ 80 Contracting Stem Series .......................................................................................