Finding Mid-19Th Century Native Settlements: Cartographic and Archaeological Evidence from Central California

Journal of Field Archaeology

ISSN: 0093-4690 (Print) 2042-4582 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/yjfa20

Finding Mid-19th Century Native Settlements: Cartographic and Archaeological Evidence from Central California

Lee M. Panich, Tsim D. Schneider & R. Scott Byram

To cite this article: Lee M. Panich, Tsim D. Schneider & R. Scott Byram (2018) Finding Mid-19th Century Native Settlements: Cartographic and Archaeological Evidence from Central California, Journal of Field Archaeology, 43:2, 152-165, DOI: 10.1080/00934690.2017.1416849 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00934690.2017.1416849

Published online: 15 Jan 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 417

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=yjfa20 JOURNAL OF FIELD ARCHAEOLOGY, 2018 VOL. 43, NO. 2, 152–165 https://doi.org/10.1080/00934690.2017.1416849

Finding Mid-19th Century Native Settlements: Cartographic and Archaeological Evidence from Central California Lee M. Panicha, Tsim D. Schneiderb and R. Scott Byramc aSanta Clara University, Santa Clara, CA; bUniversity of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA; cUniversity of California Berkeley, Berkeley, CA

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS Historical maps have the potential to aid archaeological investigations into the persistence of Native Historical maps; Mexican land American settlements during the mid-19th century, a time when many Native communities disappear grants; General Land Office; from archaeological view. Focusing on Tomales Bay in central California, we evaluate the usefulness of United States Coast Survey; historical maps as a way to discover and interpret archaeological deposits dating to the period, with indigenous persistence the aim of better understanding indigenous patterns of residence at the transition from missionary to settler colonialism. In particular, we focus on diseños and plats created to document Mexican-era land grants as well as early maps produced by the General Land Office and United States Coast Survey. Although we note inconsistencies regarding the inclusion of indigenous settlements on historical maps, our case study offers an example of how archaeologists can employ historical maps and targeted archaeological ground-truthing to discover sites that are poorly represented in the historical and archaeological records.

Introduction maps for special projects, county maps and atlases, and As research on colonial entanglements expands both tem- reconstructed maps” (1988: 92). Many archaeologists regu- porally and spatially, archaeologists face the challenge of dis- larly consult historical maps to analyze cultural landscapes covering and identifying sites located beyond Euroamerican and settlement patterns, to document diachronic landscape institutions or settlements. Recently, this topic has been modifications, to identify site occupants, and simply to locate addressed in contexts ranging from maroon communities liv- sites in space (Costello et al. 2008; Lape 2002; Mann 2012; ing in marginal environments (Sayers 2014) to indigenous Miller 1988; Winston-Gregson 1985). sites of refuge (Holly 2008) to relatively unobtrusive sites Yet the information provided by historical maps cannot be used by highly mobile Native American groups (Seymour taken at face value. For one, not all cultural features on his- 2010). In central California, conventional wisdom holds torical maps were grounded in reality, as demonstrated by that Spanish colonization of the region led to a total collapse mid-19th century maps showing multiple speculative plats of indigenous populations outside of a handful of missions of nonexistent townsites in California (Purser and Shaver founded by the Franciscan order (Milliken 1995). Recently, 2008). Perhaps more challenging are the socio-politics of however, archaeologists have directed attention to places mapmaking (Harley 1989). Byrne (2003), for example, where Native Californians lived during and after the initial demonstrates that colonial cadastral mapping projects were colonization of the region by the Spanish. This work includes effectively blind—if not openly hostile—to continuing indi- careful examination of the archaeological record of colonial genous use of the landscape in Australia, whereas studies in missions for clues to outside connections (Arkush 2011; western North America have shown how colonial maps Panich 2016), the discovery of autonomous villages and serve to support particular visions of the landscape while sim- refuge sites in the course of cultural resource management ultaneously undermining other, typically indigenous, claims projects (Reddy 2015) and regional surveys (Bernard et al. of residency (Brealey 1995; Colwell-Chanthaphonh and Hill 2014), and the reanalysis of colonial documents (Farris 2004; Oliver 2011). As stressed by Seasholes (1988: 93), 2014; Panich 2015; T. D. Schneider 2015a). Here, we assess then, archaeologists must evaluate historical maps in the the potential of historical maps to aid in our understanding same way that they would any historical document, taking of shifting patterns of indigenous residence through the mis- into account what is known about the mapmaker, the sion era (ca. 1769–1840s) and into the middle decades of mid- map’s purpose, and its intended audience. 19th century, when the region was transformed once again by In sum, different cartographic technologies and agendas American settler colonialism. produce a range of maps and associated documents, some Historical maps, ranging from rural cadastral surveys of which will be more useful than others for archaeologists (intended to record property boundaries) to urban fire insur- interested in post-contact indigenous residence. Native ance maps, are an integral part of the archaeologist’s toolkit. people, for their part, often used the landscape in ways that Seasholes, for example, gives an overview of the range of his- conflicted not only with Euroamerican values but also with torical maps available to historical archaeologists working in the synchronic and totalizing view of colonial cartography and around Boston, Massachusetts, including “eighteenth- (Oliver 2010: 79). Such representations, however, remain an and nineteenth-century maps showing structures, directory important window into the past, particularly for regions in maps, atlas maps, bird’s eye views, plat plans, utility maps, which the persistence of Native groups is not well

CONTACT Lee M. Panich [email protected] Santa Clara University, Santa Clara, California, USA © Trustees of Boston University 2018 JOURNAL OF FIELD ARCHAEOLOGY 153 documented historically or archaeologically. Historical maps, investigations, was a complete abandonment of Native vil- then, can be used in combination with archaeological, archi- lages. As summarized by Milliken, “all tribal lands within val, and ethnographic evidence to target under-documented 40 miles to the north of San Francisco Bay and 80 miles to sites and to understand the complexity of early historical the east were empty of villages” by the 1830s (1995: 220). landscapes. Given such statements, it is not surprising that archaeologists rarely identify mid-19th century Native American sites in the field. Expanding the Archaeology of Mid-19th Century Here, we examine how historical maps from Tomales Bay, Central California in central California, can help recalibrate expectations about Archaeologists working in central California have offered mid-19th century Native sites—both where they are located insights into how indigenous people dealt with Euroamerican and what they might look like archaeologically. In many colonialism. Much of this research has focused on the region’s cases, maps offer invaluable glimpses of how Native people numerous Spanish colonial missions (Allen 1998; Arkush used the landscape during transitional times and places, par- 2011; Mendoza 2014a; Panich et al. 2014), the Russian mer- ticularly when such sites are relatively unobtrusive or masked cantile outpost at Colony Ross (Lightfoot 2005), and Native by the presence of mass-produced material culture. Located villages located away from colonial settlements (T. D. Schnei- in west Marin County (FIGURE 1), Tomales Bay was inhabited der 2015b). With some notable exceptions (Silliman 2004), by indigenous Coast Miwok people before and during Span- relatively few archaeological studies have explicitly con- ish missionization, and it remained a significant area of considered places occupied by Native Californians after the secu- tinuity and adjustment in the decades afterward. larization of the missions during the 1830s–1840s and the closing of Colony Ross in 1841. Native people living in central Maps from Mid-19th Century California California effectively disappear from archaeological view during the mid-19th century (Lightfoot 2006: 282). In this section, we review some of the most salient map The near-invisibility of Native Californians in the archae- types for our study area and time period: diseños associated ology of mid-19th century California has three interrelated with Mexican-era land grants; American-period plats causes. First, much of the early historical archaeological (cadastral maps to demarcate land holdings), including research in the region was rooted in acculturation frame- those created by the General Land Office (GLO); and works that assumed fundamental and lasting cultural change early coastal maps produced by the United States Coast Sur- among Native people as the result of missionization and con- vey (USCS). We consider the original context of the maps’ comitant population decline (Panich 2013). In this view, the creation, including the cartographers who made them, the far-reaching social and demographic changes of the first techniques involved, and the information included by the phases of colonization all but prevented the formation of mapmakers. an appreciable archaeological record related to Native people in the post-mission era. Second, those Native Cali- Mexican-era diseños fornians along the coastal strip who did maintain distinct indigenous identities into the mid-19th century were, by One of the earliest widespread sources of cartographic that point, so enmeshed in broader economic and social information for central California comes from the maps networks that their material culture is difficult to dis- associated with Mexican-era (ca. 1821–1846) land grants. tinguish from that of the dominant Euroamerican society Although some 27 private land grants were awarded (Silliman 2010). Lastly, it is likely that archaeologists have under Spanish rule (pre-1821), the vast majority of the incorrectly classified many indigenous sites dating to the roughly 800 land grants, referred to as ranchos in Califor- second half of the 19th century as multicomponent sites nia, were awarded between the secularization of the Fran- with apparently-Euroamerican materials overlying prehistoric ciscan missions in 1834 and American annexation in deposits (Beaudoin 2016; T. D. Schneider 2015a). Together, 1846 (Hornbeck 1978: 376–378). In Mexican California, these issues limit our understanding of long-term indigenous land grants were awarded in parcels of up to 48,000 histories and serve to support narratives of indigenous acres; by the time the territory was acquired by the United extinction in the region (Field et al. 2013). States, private landholdings totaled between 12 and 13 Our central California study area is particularly well suited million acres of prime real estate along the coasts and for this type of investigation, due, in part, to the intensity of inland valleys (Clay 1999: 123–124). settlement during the Spanish and Mexican periods (ca. The earliest land grant maps, usually dating to the 1830s 1770s–1840s). Franciscan missionaries founded several mis- and 1840s, are sketch maps called diseños, which are cur- sions, at which Native people from multiple autonomous rently being revisited for various research purposes (Mendoza polities were resettled. The region was also home to a military 2014b). Diseños typically show the proposed rancho bound- presidio, two secular towns, and various outlying ranches aries, as well as other pertinent features, such as local topogra- under Spanish and later Mexican rule. Just north of the Span- phy, waterways, and occasionally aspects of the built ish frontier was Colony Ross, where the Russian American environment, including roads and structures (Lucido 2014). Company established a mercantile outpost, a seaport, and Given the lack of professional surveyors in Spanish or Mexi- three ranching operations during the period 1812–1841. can California (W. W. Robinson 1948: 202), these highly sty- Both colonial systems relied heavily on local Native people lized maps provide the viewer a general impression of the for labor, although only the missions actively sought to trans- local landscape based on hills, waterways, and vegetation form indigenous lifeways (Lightfoot 2005), resulting in large- patches and are not always drawn to scale (FIGURE 2). Some scale changes to precontact residence patterns. The net effect, diseños include indigenous place names that can aid anthro- according to many historical and archaeological pological and archaeological investigations (Johnson 1978; 154 L. M. PANICH ET AL.

Figure 1. Study area with mid-19th century rancho boundaries and places mentioned in text. Map by Tsim D. Schneider.

King 1975), but the number of Native settlements depicted in American period plats Mexican-era maps is generally small, perhaps due to regu- Two broad categories of plats were created in the early lations that prohibited private grants from infringing upon years after American annexation of California: maps pro- mission lands or those of unmissionized Native villages duced to document and adjudicate Mexican-era land grants (Engstrand 1985: 287; Farris 2014). It is worth noting here that, after secularization, Native and plats created by the GLO. With regard to the former, people were legally able to petition for grants of ex-mission the California Land Claims Act established a system to lands, which the Franciscans had been ostensibly holding patent existing landholdings carried over from Mexican in trust for the indigenous residents of particular missions. California (Clay 1999). Given the amateur nature of the Although very few land grants were awarded to Native Mexican-era diseños, many land grants had to be re-sur- people (Hornbeck 1978: 388), diseños of lands granted to veyed using the common professional surveying techniques former mission neophytes represent an important line of of the time, such as chain and compass. The resulting evidence for understanding where indigenous people maps, including those created to show multiple land grants went—or stayed—after the closing of the missions. They across whole counties, more fully conformed to emerging may also provide insights to later patterns of land recovery standards of cadastral mapping. by dispossessed Indian communities (K. R. Schneider Another set of mid-19th century cadastral maps for central 2010). A prime example in central California is Rancho California was created by surveyors working for the GLO, a Posolmi (FIGURE 3), which was granted in the 1840s to precursor to the Unites States Bureau of Land Management an Ohlone man named Lope Inigo who had spent his (BLM). These maps facilitated the recording of land transfers adult life at Mission Santa Clara. This land probably in California and divided the land following the township included Inigo’s home village, which he left in the 1780s, and range system used across large portions of the United as well as several shellmounds that likely contained the States. In California, GLO surveys began in the early buried remains of his ancestors (Bryne and Byrd 2009; 1850s, but excluded areas within earlier Mexican-era land Shoup and Milliken 1999). grants (Byram 2013: 7; W. W. Robinson 1948: 208–209). JOURNAL OF FIELD ARCHAEOLOGY 155

Figure 2. Mexican-era diseño showing Point Reyes and Tomales Bay, ca. 1840s. Compare to actual landform, as depicted in FIGURE 1.[“Terreno que se solicita del Cañada de Tamales, Cañada de Baulines y Punta de Reyes”]. Courtesy of the Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley.

Data derived from GLO surveys, particularly from field notes, surveyors to establish township borders and the boundaries have been used extensively for research on historical ecology between all interior sections, and the historical information (Schulte and Mladenoff 2001), while the resulting plats are a present in GLO plats is therefore most robust for those common starting point for archaeological research in many areas close to section perimeters (Whittaker 2015: 140). The parts of the United States (Collins and Molyneaux 2003: intent of GLO surveys, moreover, was to produce plats for 31–33). Generally speaking, the GLO contracted local transfer of land, and the resulting documents contrast sharply

Figure 3. Diseño of Rancho Posolmi, ca. 1840s. [“Diseño del terreno del Rancho de Ynigo”]. Courtesy of the Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley. 156 L. M. PANICH ET AL. with maps such as those produced by the USCS discussed Tomales Bay: Mapping a Coast Miwok Refugium below (Byram 2013: 7). Our current study focuses on the long-term indigenous occu- Court cases regarding land claims in early American- pation of Tomales Bay, on the western margins of Marin period California ensured that many original Mexican-era County, California. This region was home to Coast Miwok diseños and related plats entered the documentary record. people for generations before the arrival of Europeans. The University of California, Berkeley’s Bancroft Library During the 1770s, the Spanish extended their New World holds a large collection of these maps, which are available empire into the greater San Francisco Bay region. Native through the Online Archive of California (http://www.oac. people from the Tomales area were late to join Spanish mis- cdlib.org/) and the Calisphere web portal (https://calisphere. sions, with roughly two thirds of the baptisms of people from org/). Similar finding aids can be consulted for other regions the region occurring after 1817 (Milliken 2009). Others of colonial North America (Greaser 2009). GLO survey plats became associated with nearby Colony Ross, the Russian and associated records, long limited to microfilm or physical mercantile outpost that maintained several settlements after copies in BLM district offices, are now in many cases available 1812. Still others likely remained at Tomales Bay. New on the BLM’s website (https://glorecords.blm.gov/default. research is examining life outside the mission walls, including aspx). connections between baptized Native people and their ancestral homelands as well as sites of refuge on and beyond the Coast Survey maps margins of the Spanish colony (Arkush 2011; Bernard et al. 2014; Panich and Schneider 2015; T. D. Schneider 2015a). The USCS began documenting the shoreline of central Cali- For our Marin County study area, two major issues com- fornia in the early 1850s. Intended to ensure the safe naviga- plicate the archaeological understanding of how Native tion of coastal waterways, the agency’s maps were the most people used their ancestral homelands during and after the accurate and detailed maps yet produced of the Pacific mission period. The first is the continued focus on mission Coast of North America. The USCS grew out of earlier sys- sites themselves, an issue addressed in detail elsewhere tematic efforts to document coastal conditions dating back (Panich and Schneider 2015; T. D. Schneider and Panich to the early 1800s; it is today part of the National Oceanic 2014). The second challenge is that most previous archaeol- and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) as the Office of ogy of post-contact indigenous sites on the Pacific Coast of Coast Survey (Byram 2013:9–13). Marin County has focused on two early landfalls that The USCS employed relatively sophisticated mapping occurred near Point Reyes, Francis Drake’s in 1579 and methods for the time, including triangulation based on geo- Sebastián Rodríguez Cermeño’s in 1595 (Heizer 1941, detic control points as well as in-field mapping using plane 1947). Besides overshadowing indigenous people’s nego- table and alidade (Byram 2005: 263–269, 2013:16–18; Gros- tiation of these encounters (Russell 2011), the quest for singer et al. 2005:18–23). The resulting maps are referred to hard evidence of 16th-century visits drew attention away as T-sheets, and are generally recorded in a scale of 1:10,000 from another interesting aspect of the west Marin landscape: or 1:20,000. While some documentation was recorded in field the region’s potential as safe harbor, or “refugium,” for those notebooks, the USCS survey technique maximized the poten- fleeing or evading the Spanish missions some 250 years later tial of direct observation of the landscape. The maps also (Moratto 1970: 268). included topographic contouring—the “t” in T-sheet stands Below, we present our findings from a systematic review of for topography—providing three-dimensional information maps for mid-19th century Tomales Bay that may help about historical shoreline conditions. Individual surveyors archaeologists understand how native people maintained appear to have exercised wide latitude in determining the autonomy during and after the mission period. Note that to level of detail of each map; however, the overarching goal protect vulnerable archaeological resources, we provide only was to “choose the landmarks that were ‘intervisible,’ or limited locational data in the text and figures. shared a line of sight, and that were relatively stable for later relocation” (Byram 2013: 18). Research using Coast Survey maps has, to date, been Mexican-era diseños undertaken most commonly by historical ecologists (Engstrom 2006; Grossinger et al. 2007). The archaeological Given that Tomales Bay was on the far northern fringes of potential of USCS maps includes the discovery of previously Mexican California, the area did not attract the kinds of undocumented sites, contextual data regarding the physical entrenched Euroamerican ranching operations that charac- environment, and baseline information about landscape terized other portions of coastal California during the Mexi- changes relevant to site preservation (Byram 2013;M.H. can era (Avery 2009:21–23). During the Mexican period, the Robinson et al. 2010; Yentsch 1994:23–25). Scholarly use lands bordering Tomales Bay were divided between five of USCS maps was, until recently, constrained by limited major land grants (FIGURE 1). These lands changed hands physical access in federal repositories and the lack of high- often and in many cases were partitioned, but the associated quality digital scans (Byram 2013:15–16; Grossinger et al. diseños offer some of the earliest recorded maps depicting 2005: 3). Today, some 7800 historical USCS maps can be Tomales Bay at the end of the mission period. In our exam- viewed as georeferenced layers via Google Earth or down- ination of these maps, we note the paucity of Native settle- loaded as relatively high resolution .jpg image files. Digital ments. While not all of the original diseños for these grants scans of 8400 more USCS maps that have not been georefer- appear to have survived, the extant maps include very little enced (including most of the mid-19th century T-sheets for detail regarding the lands being solicited. central California), as well as some written descriptions, are The only Native settlement present in the diseños we also available for download as .jpgs from NOAA (https:// examined is shown on one (but not all) of the diseños for shoreline.noaa.gov/data/datasheets/T-sheets.html). Rancho Nicasio (Anonymous n.d.). This map, produced JOURNAL OF FIELD ARCHAEOLOGY 157

Figure 4. “Diseño del Rancho Nicasio”, ca. 1840s. Note inset showing detail of “Casa de los Indios de Nicasio.” Courtesy of the Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley. sometime in the 1840s, shows a vacant shoreline of Tomales three circular shapes near the modern settlement of Marshall, Bay (labeled “Bahía de Esteros”) but includes more detail and appears to represent the ethnographically-documented southeast of the bay (FIGURE 4). There, the map depicts a rec- Coast Miwok village of Echacolom. The other three rancher- tangular structure with a gabled roof and the label “Casa de ías are on the west side of the bay. One is near present-day los Indios de Nicasio.” The “Indios de Nicasio” were a Lairds Landing, where the map shows two clusters of circular group of ex-neophytes from Mission San Rafael who tempor- shapes along a small cove. Another is on a cove north of Peli- arily secured the region via land grant in the years immedi- can Point, and is again depicted by several circular shapes. ately following the mission’s secularization. However, their The final ranchería is directly across the bay from the tip of title to the 56,000-acre grant was quickly undermined by Toms Point, a distinctive landmark on the east side of Mexican-era elites, and although Native people continued to maintain a sizable population near the town of Nicasio— the ethnographically documented Coast Miwok village of Echa-tamal—they were never able to regain legal ownership (Dietz 1976). Its large number of inhabitants and the fact that it played a key role in many legal machinations regarding the Rancho Nicasio grant likely explain Echa-tamal’s inclusion on the diseño.

American-era plats Plats related to the land grants along Tomales Bay show more Native settlements than the diseños do. A manuscript map titled “Map of the County of Marin” dating to 1860 (Van Dorn 1860) depicts the Mexican-era ranchos of Marin County along with information regarding the disposition of those grants, such as subsequent partitions, and their acreage. Besides land divisions, the plat includes several named locales. Some of these are fledgling towns, while others are simply occupied places identified by a Euroamerican surname. Four places along Tomales Bay carry the label “ran- chería,” which is the term used in California to denote indigenous settlements of various forms (FIGURE 5). One of Figure 5. Detail from “Map of the County of Marin” (Van Dorn 1860) showing these rancherías is on the east side of Tomales Bay, in a par- rancherías (circled) along Tomales Bay. Courtesy of the Bancroft Library, Univer- tition of the original Nicasio grant. It is shown as a group of sity of California, Berkeley. 158 L. M. PANICH ET AL.

Tomales Bay. As with the others on the map, this ranchería is three relevant mid-19th century maps, all of which were designated by three circular shapes. approved in the spring of 1865 based on local surveys going Two other plats depict the ranchería of Echacolom near back more than a decade (General Land Office 1865a, present-day Marshall. One is a manuscript map titled “Plat 1865b, 1865c). None of the maps depict rancherías. Interest- of a road as surveyed from the Arroyo de San Antonio to ingly, one map and a later variant do show the area of the the Bay of Tomales,” which was based on a survey conducted Marshall ranchería mentioned above; however, this part of in the winter of 1866–1867 (Anonymous 1867). It depicts four the Tomales Bay shoreline is blank in the GLO map due to triangles with the label “Rancharee” at the same location as the its inclusion in the Nicasio land grant (General Land Office Marshall ranchería on the map by Van Dorn (1860). The 1865a). Similarly, the settlement at Toms Point, discussed second is an untitled manuscript map that depicts the bound- in detail below, is not depicted on the GLO plat even though aries of ranchos in northern Marin and southern Sonoma that landform does show property subdivisions (FIGURE 6) counties, circa 1870 (Anonymous 1870). This map depicts (General Land Office 1865b). Although the surveyors’ field six structures at the settlement, but does not appear to use stan- notes accompanying GLO plats are often useful for historians dardized shapes to represent the built environment. and archaeologists, field notes are not available for the maps The shapes used by American mapmakers to depict in question. Native rancherías on the first two plats contrast sharply with locations that appear to have been occupied by Euroa- U.S. Coast Survey maps mericans, which are all marked by square shapes. That circular and triangular shapes were used exclusively for the The USCS produced a handful of manuscript maps that rancherías suggests that the occupants of these places were depict portions of Tomales Bay during the mid-19th cen- living in Native-style conical dwellings constructed of red- tury. Many of these maps provide important documen- wood bark or tule rushes typical of the region. The number tation of the historical landscape, including details of shapes at each ranchería is also noteworthy. Only the regarding early Euroamerican settlements, landings, and most populous Euroamerican places along Tomales Bay— commercial enterprises. Only two USCS maps clearly depict such as Preston Point and Keyesville—include multiple active Native American settlements dating to the period in shapes, which likely correlate loosely with the number of question. The earliest is a T-sheet from 1856 (Ellis 1856) structures present at a particular locale. The relative abun- that shows a point of land labelled “Indian Village” on dance of shapes at each ranchería serves as an indication the west side of Tomales Bay near Hog Island. The village of the large indigenous population living along Tomales consists of what appear to be six structures (indicated by Bay in the 1860s. solid shapes): five circular and one rectangular. The map, In contrast, the GLO plats dating to this period do not pro- titled “Sketch of Tomales Bay Station,” was intended to vide information useful for understanding mid-19th century provide detailed information regarding the location of the indigenous residence. Given that most of the Tomales Bay key survey stations along Tomales Bay. That the surveyor region was included in Mexican-era land grants, few early included the Native American village, which is outside of GLO plats exist for our study area. Indeed, we located only the area of greatest detail on the sketch, suggests that the

Figure 6. Detail of GLO plat (General Land Office 1865b) showing Toms Point in upper left. Compare to more detailed USCS depiction in FIGURE 8. JOURNAL OF FIELD ARCHAEOLOGY 159

details, such as the names of landforms or settlements, than the contemporaneous sheet showing the northern portions of the bay. The map does not include any places marked explicitly as rancherías, nor does it contain any triangular structures. It is worth noting here that, although they are both dated 1862, the two maps were drawn by different USCS surveyors: the northern map was by David Kerr, while the southern map was created by Augustus F. Rodgers, two of the most prolific USCS surveyors in central Califor- nia. As part of their extensive research related to the region’s historical ecology, Grossinger and colleagues (2005:29–34) compared several USCS maps credited to Kerr and Rodgers. With regard to natural phenomena such as estuarine chan- nels, they found that Kerr and his party recorded small features more consistently than Rodgers did. Differences in the Figure 7. Detail from T-849 (Kerr 1862), showing Native ranchería near present- two T-sheets from 1862 portraying Tomales Bay underscore day Marshall, California. this assessment and ultimately complicate the picture of Native occupation of the southern portion of the bay during that time period. mapmaker saw it as an important, relatively permanent local landmark. Summary The most revealing USCS map dates to 1862 (Kerr 1862) and provides an overview of the northern two-thirds of In our review of historical maps portraying Tomales Bay in Tomales Bay. This manuscript T-sheet depicts two areas the mid-19th century, we identified seven indigenous settle- labeled “ranchería.” One of the rancherías is on the same ments. Clockwise from the mouth of the bay, these are: a point of land as the “Indian Village” noted on the 1856 residential compound at Toms Point, the village of Echaco- map. On this later map, the settlement is depicted as having lom near present-day Marshall, the village of Echa-tamal five structures—four triangular and one rectangular— near present-day Nicasio, a ranchería just north of Lairds suggesting that the village was surveyed anew and not simply Landing, a ranchería on a point of land near Hog Island, copied from the earlier map. The other ranchería is on the an apparent ranchería in a cove just north of that point, east side of Tomales Bay, in the same general location as and a ranchería across from Toms Point. Several of these the ranchería of Echacolom present on the plats discussed places are present in the same general form on both the above. Here too, the ranchería is portrayed as a significant USCS T-sheet dating to 1862 and the Marin County plat settlement. The USCS T-sheet depicts fourteen structures at of 1860, suggesting that they were relatively stable and Echacolom: 10 triangles of different sizes, three rectangles, important locales well into the second half of the 19th cen- and one circle (FIGURE 7). Triangular structures appear at tury, nearly a generation after the secularization of the mis- two other places on the map: one is an historic-era trading sions in the mid-1830s. Echacolom, for example, is depicted post at Toms Point known to have been home to numerous on several different maps, appearing as late as 1870. These Native people (discussed in more detail below), and the locations, however, are only present on a small minority other is an isolated structure on the west side of the bay at ofthemapswereviewed,offering an important reminder the approximate location of one of the rancherías depicted that, when assessing the historical landscape, an absence on the map by Van Dorn (1860). of cartographic evidence is not always evidence of absence As with the American-era plats, the shapes of the apparent (Brealey 1995). structures at these four sites pose an interpretive challenge. For archaeologists, the information gleaned from these Given the relatively standardized symbol conventions maps can be used several ways. The most obvious way is to employed by the USCS in the region (Byram 2013: 17; Gros- locate sites occupied by Native people after the secularization singer et al. 2005:24–27), we can infer that solid shapes rep- of the region’s Franciscan missions. In many cases, the resent roofed structures. The triangular features only appear locations in our study correspond to previously documented at four places on the map: two are labeled “ranchería,” one prehistoric archaeological sites as well as vaguely placed vil- is at a site known to have been occupied by Native people, lages mentioned in the early ethnographic record (Barrett and one is an isolate that generally corresponds to a ranchería 1908). With map information, these sites can now be more depicted on a separate, roughly contemporaneous map. thoroughly examined for evidence of occupation from the Given this pattern, and the depiction of dwellings at the point of contact forward. Historical maps also offer insight “Indian Village” in 1856 as circular, the mapmakers were into the relative size of indigenous settlements, principally likely portraying Native-style conical bark or rush houses. through the number of depicted structures. One unresolved The circular structure present at Echacolom on the 1862 T- issue is whether the differences in the number of structures sheet, in which most other structures in the ranchería are recorded for the same villages in different maps actually rep- shown as triangles, may be a sweat lodge, a structure that resents shifting community size through time, or if these dis- would have been circular in footprint and dome-shaped in crepancies are an artifact of different mapping conventions profile. and styles. The symbols used to represent structures them- AthirdUSCST-sheet,also from 1862, shows the selves offer several lines of investigation, including potential southern third of Tomales Bay (Rodgers 1862). While the building types present, possible site hierarchy (in cases of map does show several structures, it includes fewer ancillary similar shapes of different sizes), and relation to other 160 L. M. PANICH ET AL. landscape features. In this sense, the maps provide a starting point from which to interpret the physical features of a given site.

Toms Point: Ground-Truthing the Mid-19th Century Native Settlement In this section, we briefly describe our work to ground-truth one of the Native settlements depicted in the historical maps of Tomales Bay, an effort that is the first stage in a regional reassessment of Native residency patterns in the mid-19th century. An enduring presence in the history of Tomales Bay is a man named George Thomas Wood, also known as “Tom Vaquero.” A merchant sailor, Wood jumped ship and mar- ried an unknown Coast Miwok woman sometime in the Figure 8. Detail from T-849 (Kerr 1862), showing settlement at Toms Point (left late 1840s. The couple set up a household and trading post hand side of peninsula). at the eponymous Toms Point near the mouth of Tomales Bay. Historical evidence indicates that a relatively large Native Californian population resided at the site during the Nels Nelson (1909: 11) was the first to officially document middle decades of the 19th century. For example, local his- what is today CA-MRN-202 (his site No. 26), but offered only tories state that, “Tom’s home was the rendezvous of all the a brief description of the site’s marine shell constituents. The Indian tribes,” serving as “the shipping and trading point next official documentation of the site came in 1940, when it for all the Spanish, Russian, French, and English trading was recorded by an unknown member of the University of coasters” (Lauff [1916] 2009: 43–46). Another account California Archaeological Survey. The words “Shell-dirt” (Munro-Fraser 1880: 123) recalls a visit to Tom Vaquero’s are the only description offered, despite the excavation of “ranchería” in 1854, suggesting that the encampment was five test pits (Anonymous 1940). In 1964, a tsunami revealed seen by outsiders as a distinctly Native place. a large deposit of materials eroding out of CA-MRN-202 into To locate the historical settlement within the approxi- the adjacent intertidal zone. Over the subsequent three years, mately 70-acre landform of Toms Point, we turned to a local amateur archaeologist collected hundreds of artifacts two sources of information: historical maps and previous —including obsidian projectile points, glass beads, porcelain, archaeological site records. In our map research, Toms and metal objects—from the intertidal area, which had been Point is empty of human settlement on nearly all the exposed to looters (Gerkin 1967). This deposit was given its maps dating to the known period of occupation, including own trinomial site number, CA-MRN-489. a plat of Rancho Bolsa de Tomales dating to the 1850s and While these early archaeologists left useful records, the the GLO plat from 1865. The earliest known depiction of official documentation for sites CA-MRN-202 and CA- the settlement appears in the notes of a USCS surveyor MRN-489 included no mention of the area’s early historical who, in June of 1856, sketched the landform and a single occupation. To securely identify Tom Vaquero’s trading structure, writing that he placed a survey station “immedi- post and collect a representative sample of archaeological ately above, and to the Southward of Tom Vaquero’s materials, we conducted targeted field investigations at CA- house” (Fairfield 1855–1858;Byram2013:37–38). The MRN-202 in 2015 and 2016. This work included a ground USCS T-sheet dating to 1862 (Kerr 1862) portrays the penetrating radar (GPR) survey, surface collection, auger settlement in more detail. The map depicts five distinct probes, and excavation totaling 11 m2. The results of this occupational features on Toms Point (FIGURE 8). The lar- work indicate the presence of a shallow (∼50 cm) midden gest is a solid L-shaped feature, while three others are with materials consistent with the historically-documented depicted as solid triangular shapes. A dashed line extends occupation range of Tom Vaquero’s trading post and associ- to the south of the L-shaped feature and encompasses the ated Native ranchería from the late 1840s into the 1860s. three triangular shapes. Based on knowledge of USCS map- From this deposit, which rests upon a sand dune, we collected ping practices (Byram 2013: 17; Grossinger et al. 2005:24– quantities of metal, flaked glass, glass beads, and ceramic arti- 27), we can infer that the four solid features represent facts alongside marine shell, obsidian flakes, and faunal roofed structures, including what appear to be Native remains from domesticated and wild animals (FIGURE 9). style conical dwellings, and that the dashed line may rep- No structural features were found, despite a relative abun- resent a fence or a mound. dance of nails and other metal fasteners. To investigate the We also examined previous archaeological documentation possible erosion of the architectural features depicted on of Toms Point for information regarding the exact placement the USCS T-sheet, we created an overlay of the Tom Vaquero of Tom Vaquero’s trading post and the associated Native ran- residential compound circa 1862 and modern aerial imagery chería. Nearly all earlier archaeological work at Toms Point using the distinctive topographic forms of the point and sur- focused on the area’s prehistoric occupants (Beardsley rounding landscape. This exercise suggests that the area 1954), culminating in the identification of four recorded around CA-MRN-202 may have suffered several meters of archaeological sites. By comparing the historical USCS map coastal erosion since the 1860s, likely resulting in the for- to existing site records we were able to identify two sites mation of CA-MRN-489. Even as early as 1909, Nelson related to the mid-19th century use of Toms Point: CA- observed that part of the site had been “washed away” (Nel- MRN-202 and CA-MRN-489. son 1909: 11). A decade later, in 1921, surveyors for the USCS JOURNAL OF FIELD ARCHAEOLOGY 161

Figure 9. Historic-era artifacts from CA-MRN-202: A) glass beads of various types; B) lead gunpowder tin cap; C) copper alloy percussion caps. compared the contemporary shoreline of northern Tomales the remaining terrestrial components are vertically discrete Bay to that recorded in the previous survey, presumably in at CA-MRN-202. the 1860s. They noted “The greatest change in the shore The association between CA-MRN-202 and the Toms line was found between Dillion’s Beach and Tom’s Point” Point ranchería is also bolstered by the presence at the site of (Engle 1921). This information, combined with the apparent sizable quantities of metal maritime fastenings (FIGURE 10). accuracy of USCS Aid David Kerr, the surveyor responsible These materials appear to be from the wreck of the Oxford, for the 1862 T-sheet (Grossinger et al. 2005:29–34), indicates a merchant ship that ran aground in Tomales Bay in 1852 that much of the site has eroded into Tomales Bay over the after becoming lost in the region’s notorious coastal fog. course of the past century and a half. While the ship’s main cargo—“seventy-five tons, principally The comparison of artifacts recovered in 2015–2016 and dry goods and liquors” bound for Gold Rush-era San Fran- those found in the intertidal component (CA-MRN-489) in cisco—was rescued, the vessel itself was stranded in the the 1960s also attests to the erosion of site materials into sand (Gilbert et al. 1852: 1). The wreck is shown on a the bay. Similar artifacts of Euroamerican origin, such as USCS T-sheet published soon afterward (Bache 1853–1854) glass beads, metal fasteners, and ceramics, are present in as lying just north of Toms Point. Although the map does both collections (Gerkin 1967). However, the collection from the intertidal portion of the site also contains dozens of obsidian projectile point types that are usually associated with Middle Period (2150–950 B.P.) sites in the region. To investigate the potential for earlier deposits, we conducted a series of deep auger probes, which detected small quantities of deeply buried cultural material approximately two meters below the basal deposits dating to the 19th century. The auger probes and a subsequent profile cut of the dune face, which revealed discontinuous cultural deposits at the same depth, confirm the presence of an earlier, precontact site at the same location as the Tom Vaquero trading post and ranchería. The eroded portions of the two temporal components appear to have blended in the intertidal zone (CA-MRN-489), but our tests confirm that Figure 10. Copper and iron spikes from CA-MRN-202. 162 L. M. PANICH ET AL. not depict Toms Point in any detail, local histories (Munro- village locations may still be present in diseños for cases in Fraser 1880: 124) indicate that Tom Vaquero and the occu- which indigenous claims were an important part of the pants of the ranchería salvaged portions of the vessel for legal proceedings. The cartographic record from the early use at their settlement (Byram 2013:37–38). Collections American period contains uneven evidence of indigenous from CA-MRN-202 and CA-MRN-489 both contain numer- persistence. Plat maps showing the boundaries and partitions ous ferrous and cuprous nails, spikes, and bolts that are con- of earlier Mexican land grants depict a surprising number of sistent with those likely to have been used on the Oxford Native rancherías in our study area, while the initial GLO (James Delgado, personal communication). These items are plats are devoid of indigenous settlements. As seen in the identical to ship fastenings recovered from Camp Castaway, cases of Echa-tamal and Toms Point, the GLO plats largely a temporary settlement constructed from materials that exclude Mexican-era land grants and the rancherías within were salvaged from a shipwreck in the same year, 1852, at them, in favor of other forms of land tenure. These plats con- Coos Bay, Oregon (Tveskov et al. 2015). Coincidentally, the trast sharply with the accuracy and detail of USCS maps. In Camp Castaway site was also discovered through research addition to producing clean topographic renderings for on USCS surveys (Byram 2013:66–75). ships to safely navigate the coast, the USCS surveyors’ attention to nearshore features included the presence of both Natives and newcomers. Discussion Despite such inconsistences, cartographic evidence offers a Previous work has demonstrated the utility of combining his- starting point for archaeologists. We note that the USCS map torical map research, early archaeological collections, and depicting the Toms Point settlement (Kerr 1862) suggests a modern analytical techniques to document historic-era kind of hybrid space that was considered neither authentically Native American sites (Erlandson et al. 1997; Tveskov 2000; Native nor fully European. The map shows a mixture of conical Whittaker 2016). In central California, however, such sites and rectangular structures, but lacks the formal “ranchería” are often overlooked due to popular and scholarly assump- label or the family surname used to denote Euroamerican tions regarding the outcomes of Spanish missionization farmsteads on the same map. Excavations at CA-MRN-202 (Panich 2013). This practice is evident in the everyday par- reveal a similarly ambiguous archaeological record. Guided sing of prehistoric and historical sites, creating an analytical by a handful of small shapes drawn by USCS surveyors in separation between precolonial Native American places and 1862, we discovered a mixed assemblage—containing objects more recent sites with Euroamerican material culture (T. D. both local and foreign, traditional and mass-produced—that Schneider 2015a). Historically, anthropological biases played supports our contention that CA-MRN-202 was the location a role in distinguishing culturally “extinct” Native groups clo- of the coastal mart established by George Wood, his Native sely associated with colonial missions from unacculturated wife, and an unknown number of Native people. tribes who might have offered useful insights into precontact More significant than relocating Tom Vaquero’s former lifeways (Lightfoot 2005; Lightfoot et al. 2013). In essence, place of business, however, the combination of historical anthropologists have determined not only what indigenous map research and strategic archaeological fieldwork brings people should be, but also where they should be (Brealey us one step closer to understanding the lives and choices of 1995). Native communities rebuilding in the wake of missionization. The near-invisibility of historic-era Native places outside Indeed, we recognize that historical maps—and the archaeol- of colonial institutions and established reservations, we ogy based upon them—still rely on the significance accorded argue, can be countered through close inspection of carto- to certain places by non-Native mapmakers. In contrast, graphic and archaeological evidence associated with hinter- Native people maintained their own agendas apart from land spaces. To do so requires acknowledging the those practiced by agents of settler colonialism. Research incomplete nature of both lines of evidence. Maps were such as ours, therefore, could be augmented by still other made by colonial agents and therefore contain certain biases. ways of knowing and traversing the land, including Native As static depictions, moreover, they can conceal the ongoing oral histories, the accounts of travelers, photographs, and histories of site use and mobility that are inherent to Native other lines of evidence that could help to fill in the picture people’s persistent, seasonal uses of some coastal areas. of post-mission Native American landscapes (Whittaker Archaeological ground-truthing similarly relies on a pres- 2016). ence/absence approach that may limit our ability to detect clandestine and/or short-term occupations of particular Conclusion places. While neither the cartographic nor archaeological record is entirely straightforward, as our case study demon- Despite legitimate concerns regarding the utility of colonial- strates, used together they can broaden our expectations era maps to illuminate the lives of indigenous people, we about mid-19th century Native sites, including when they see great potential in the combined use of historical maps were occupied, what they looked like, and who lived at them. and targeted archaeological testing to broaden our perspec- In our review of maps from our study area, we can discern tive on the enduring ties between Native people and their patterns that may be relevant to other regions. Native people ancestral landscapes. In researching Tomales Bay, we con- leaving the missions after secularization clearly found ways to sidered a variety of maps produced by numerous individuals remain connected to the landscapes and places they once working for distinct purposes under the auspices of two knew. For some, this meant petitioning the Mexican govern- different colonial powers. The inclusion of Native settlements ment for rights to portions of their traditional homelands. is uneven. Mexican-era diseños show very few Native ran- When they were successful, the related diseños and other cherías. Later American-period plats marking the boundaries documents are often preserved in the documentary record. of those same land grants depict a large number of indigenous In cases where settler interests prevailed, as at Echa-tamal, places. Surveyors working for the GLO seem to have ignored JOURNAL OF FIELD ARCHAEOLOGY 163

Native settlements in our study area, while those mapping the research and ground penetrating radar surveys, Byram specializes in coastline for the USCS often included detailed depictions of mid-19th century coastal landscapes in western North America. indigenous rancherías. These inconsistences need not be a deterrent to archaeologists studying Native negotiations of later colonialism. At References Toms Point, neither maps nor the archaeological record Allen, R. 1998. Native Americans at Mission Santa Cruz, 1791–1834: alone are particularly revealing. Only one map places Native Interpreting the Archaeological Record. Perspectives in California people on the landform in the mid-19th century while natural Archaeology 5 Vols. Los Angeles: University of California Institute formation processes have largely eroded architectural features of Archaeology. “ associated with the settlement. But together, the cartographic Anonymous. 1867. Plat of a Road as Surveyed from the Arroyo de San Antonio to the Bay of Tomales, in the County of Marin, State of and archaeological evidence provide for a clearer image of the California.” Map 451. Manuscript map on file, California Historical site, which can then be further contextualized through the Society, San Francisco. study of other maps and site records from the broader region. Anonymous. 1870. “Ranchos in Northern Marin and Southern Sonoma As snapshots, capturing single moments in time for indi- Counties, Calif.” Manuscript map on file, Bancroft Library, University genous people resuming their lives after the mission period, of California, Berkeley. Anonymous. 1940. “Archaeological Site Survey Record for CA-MRN- each type of map discussed above plots Native communities 202.” On file at the Northwest Information Center, Rohnert Park, at different places and in different configurations. Taken as California. a whole, however, the constellation of places reveal a popu- Anonymous. n.d. “Diseño del Rancho Nicasio.” Land Case Map B-841. lated and complicated landscape that counteracts destructive Manuscript map on file, Bancroft Library, University of California, narratives of loss and abandonment attributed to coloniza- Berkeley. Arkush, B. S. 2011. “Native Responses to European Intrusion: Cultural tion. Historical maps can therefore facilitate attempts by Persistence and Agency among Mission Neophytes in Spanish archaeologists to broaden the spatial and temporal scope of Colonial California.” Historical Archaeology 45 (4): 62–90. their investigations into indigenous persistence under coloni- Avery, C. 2009. Point Reyes National Seashore: Tomales Bay alism. In California, these developments are best represented Environmental History and Historic Resource Study. San Francisco: by attempts to expand the purview of colonial archaeology National Park Service, Pacific West Region. Bache, A. D. 1853–1854. Map of the Entrance of Tomales Bay California. beyond missions, presidios, and mercantile settings to Map T-439. Washington, DC: United States Coast Survey. account for autonomous Native settlements and regions out- Barrett, S. A. 1908. The Ethno-Geography of the Pomo and Neighboring side of direct colonial control. As artifacts created and largely Indians. University of California Publications in American designed for use by colonial powers, historical maps depict Archaeology and Ethnology 6 Vols. Berkeley: University of the locations of missions, adobe houses, and the roads and California. Beardsley, R. K. 1954. Temporal and Areal Relationships in Central waterways important for commerce. A closer reading of California Archaeology. Reports of the University of California these invaluable documents also shows Native places con- Archaeological Survey 24. Berkeley: University of California. nected to landscapes and sites of continued ancestral signifi- Beaudoin, M. A. 2016. “Archaeologists Colonizing Canada: The Effects cance and to new economic and social outlets. of Unquestioned Categories.” Archaeologies 12 (1): 7–37. Bernard, J., D. Robinson, and F. Sturt. 2014. “Points of Refuge in the South Central California Hinterlands.” In Indigenous Landscapes Acknowledgments and Spanish Missions: New Perspectives from Archaeology and Ethnohistory, edited by L. M. Panich and T. D. Schneider, 154–171. We thank the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria for supporting our Tucson: University of Arizona Press. work. Research for this project was funded by a Collaborative Research Brealey, K. G. 1995. “Mapping Them ‘Out’: Euro-Canadian Cartography Grant from the National Science Foundation (BCS 1558987 and and the Appropriation of the Nuxalk and Ts’ilhquot’in First Nations’ 1559666) and by an American Philosophical Society Franklin Research Territories, 1793–1916.” The Canadian Geographer/Le Géographe Grant. Audubon Canyon Ranch generously facilitated our fieldwork at Canadien 39 (2): 140–156. Toms Point. James Delgado provided information regarding the Oxford Bryne, S., and B. F. Byrd. 2009. “Mound Occupation in the South and maritime archaeology. We appreciate the efforts of all the students San Francisco Bay Area: The Yñigo Mound in Historical Context.” from Santa Clara University and the University of California Santa Cruz Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology 21: 82–88. who participated in field and laboratory research. The manuscript ben- Byram, R. S. 2005. “The Work of a Nation: Richard D. Cutts and the efitted from the insightful comments of two anonymous reviewers. Coast Survey Map of Fort Clatsop.” Oregon Historical Quarterly 106 (2): 254–271. Byram, R. S. 2013. Triangulating Archaeological Landscapes: The US Disclosure Statement Coast Survey in California, 1850–1895. Contributions of the Archaeological Research Facility 65. Berkeley: University of No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors. California. Byrne, D. R. 2003. “Nervous Landscapes: Race and Space in Australia.” Journal of Social Archaeology 3 (2): 169–193. Notes on Contributors Clay, K. B. 1999. “Property Rights and Institutions: Congress and the Lee M. Panich (Ph.D. 2009, University of California, Berkeley) is an California Land Act of 1851.” Journal of Economic History 59 (1): associate professor of anthropology at Santa Clara University. His 122–142. research focuses on the interaction between the indigenous groups of Collins, J. M., and B. L. Molyneaux. 2003. Archaeological Survey. Walnut western North American and Euroamerican colonial institutions. Creek: AltaMira Press. “ Tsim D. Schneider Colwell-Chanthaphonh, C., and J. B. Hill. 2004. Mapping History: (Ph.D. 2010, University of California, Berkeley) is an Cartography and the Construction of the San Pedro Valley.” assistant professor of anthropology at the University of California Santa – ’ History and Anthropology 15 (2): 175 200. Cruz. Schneider s research centers on the archaeology of colonial hinter- Costello, J. G., K. Hallaran, K. Warren, and M. Akin. 2008. “The Luck of lands as a context of indigenous cultural endurance in the greater Third Street: Archaeology of Chinatown, San Bernardino, California.” San Francisco Bay region. Historical Archaeology 42 (3): 136–151. R. Scott Byram (Ph.D. 2002, University of Oregon) is a visiting scholar at Dietz, S. A. 1976. “Echa-Tamal: A Study of Coast Miwok Acculturation.” the University of California, Berkeley, and the principal investigator at Masters thesis, Department of Anthropology, San Francisco State Byram Archaeological Consulting, LLC. Through historical map University. 164 L. M. PANICH ET AL.

Ellis, C. B. 1856. Sketch of Tomales Bay Station. Map T-578. Washington, Lauff, C. [1916] 2009. “Reminiscences of Charles Lauff: As Published in DC: United States Coast Survey. The Independent, San Rafael, Jan. 25-May 23, 1916.” Compiled by the Engle, F. G. 1921. Descriptive Report for Topographic Sheet No. 3840 Anne T. Kent California Room, Marin County Free Library, San (Tomales Bay, California). Washington, DC: United States Coast Rafael, California. and Geodetic Survey. Lightfoot, K. G. 2005. Indians, Missionaries, and Merchants: The Legacy Engstrand, I. H. W. 1985. “California Ranchos: Their Hispanic of Colonial Encounters on the California Frontiers. Berkeley: Heritage.” Southern California Quarterly 67 (3): 281–290. University of California Press. Engstrom, W. N. 2006. “Nineteenth Century Coastal Geomorphology of Lightfoot, K. G. 2006. “Missions, Furs, Gold and Manifest Destiny: Southern California.” Journal of Coastal Research 224: 847–861. Rethinking an Archaeology of Colonialism for Western North Erlandson, J. M., M. A. Tveskov, and M. L. Moss. 1997. “Return to America.” In Historical Archaeology, edited by M. Hall and S. Chetlessenten: The Antiquity and Architecture of an Athabaskan Silliman, 272–292. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Village on the Southern Northwest Coast.” Journal of California Lightfoot, K. G., L. M. Panich, T. D. Schneider, S. L. Gonzalez, M. A. and Great Basin Anthropology 19 (2): 226–240. Russell, D. Modzelewski, T. Molino, and E. H. Blair. 2013. “The Fairfield, G. A. 1855–1858. Descriptions of Stations, Tomales Bay and Study of Indigenous Political Economies and Colonialism in Native Petaluma Creek. GA Series 25466, RG 23. Washington, DC: California: Implications for Contemporary Tribal Groups and National Archives and Records Administration. Federal Recognition.” American Antiquity 78: 89–104. Farris, G. J. 2014. “Depriving God and the Kind of the Means of Charity: Lucido, J. A. 2014. “Plotting out the Land: Diseños and Land Grants in Early Nineteenth-Century Missionaries’ Views of Cattle Ranchers Alta California (1821–1848).” Boletín: Journal of the California Near Mission La Purísima, California.” In Indigenous Landscapes Mission Studies Association 30 (1): 151–152. and Spanish Missions: New Perspectives from Archaeology and Mann, R. 2012. “Plazas and Power: Canary Islanders at Galveztown, an Ethnohistory, edited by L. M. Panich and T. D. Schneider, 135–153. Eighteenth-Century Spanish Colonial Outpost in Louisiana.” Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Historical Archaeology 46 (1): 49–61. Field, L. W., A. Leventhal, and R. Cambra. 2013. “Mapping Erasure: The Mendoza, R. G. 2014a. “María Santísima Nuestra Señora de la Soledad: Power of Nominative Cartography in the Past and Present of the The Archaeology and Architectural History of the Ex-Mision de la Muwekma Ohlones of the San Francisco Bay Area.” In Recognition, Soledad, 1791–1835.” Boletín: Journal of the California Mission Sovereignty Struggles, and Indigenous Rights in the United States: A Studies Association 30 (1): 46–81. Sourcebook, edited by A. E. Den Ouden and J. M. O’Brien, 287– Mendoza, R. G. 2014b. “The Diseños Project: A Geospatial 309. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Visualization of the Environmental History of California, 1769– General Land Office. 1865a. “Map of Township No. 4 North, Range No. 1892.” Boletín: Journal of the California Mission Studies 9 West, Mount Diablo Meridian.” DM ID 303481. https://glorecords. Association 30 (1): 152–153. blm.gov/. Miller, H. M. 1988. “Baroque Cities in the Wilderness: Archaeology and General Land Office. 1865b. “Map of Township No. 4 North, Range No. Urban Development in the Colonial Chesapeake.” Historical 10 West, Mount Diablo Meridian.” DM ID 308033. https:// Archaeology 22 (2): 57–73. glorecords.blm.gov/. Milliken, R. 1995. A Time of Little Choice: The Disintegration of Tribal General Land Office. 1865c. “Map of Township No. 5 North, Range No. Culture in the San Francisco Bay Area, 1769–1810. Menlo Park, 10 West, Mount Diablo Meridian.” DM ID 308041. https:// California: Ballena Press. glorecords.blm.gov/. Milliken, R. 2009. “Ethnohistory and Ethnogeography of the Gerkin, A. S. 1967. “MRN-S-297: An Intertidal Site on Tom’s Point in Coast Miwok and Their Neighbors, 1783–1840.” Archaeological/ Three Volumes and Five Apple Cartons.” Study 11206 on file at the Historical Consultants, Oakland, California. Report prepared for Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert the National Park Service, Golden Gate National Recreational Area, Park, California. Cultural Resources and Museum Management Division, Gilbert, E., E. C. Kemble, and E. Conner. 1852. “Lost Ship of the Oxford - San Francisco. Later Intelligence from the Wreck.” Daily Alta California, July 17. Moratto, M. J. 1970. “A Prospectus for the Archaeological Future of Greaser, G. D. 2009. New Guide to Spanish and Mexican Land Grants in Point Reyes Peninsula.” In Contributions to the Archaeology of South Texas. Austin: Texas General Land Office. Point Reyes National Seashore: A Compendium in Honor of Adan Grossinger, R. M., R. A. Askevold, and J. N. Collins. 2005. “T-sheet User E. Treganza, edited by R. E. Schenck, 257–273. Treganza Museum Guide.” San Francisco Estuary Institute Report No. 427, Oakland. Papers 6. San Francisco: San Francisco State College. Grossinger, R. M., C. J. Striplen, R. A. Askevold, E. Brewster, and E. E. Munro-Fraser, J. P. 1880. History of Marin County, California. Beller. 2007. “Historical Landscape Ecology of an Urbanized San Francisco: Alley, Bowen and Co. California Valley: Wetlands and Woodlands in the Santa Clara Nelson, N. C. 1909. “Archaeological Reconnaissance Notes: The Valley.” Landscape Ecology 22: 103–120. California Coast from the Russian River to the Golden Gate.” On Harley, J. B. 1989. “Deconstructing the Map.” Cartographica: The file at the Northwest Information Center, Rohnert Park, CA. International Journal for Geographic Information and Oliver, J. 2010. Landscapes and Social Transformations on the Northwest Geovisualization 26 (2): 1–20. Coast: Colonial Encounters in the Fraser Valley. Tucson: University of Heizer, R. F. 1941. “Archaeological Evidence of Sebastian Rodriguez Arizona Press. Cermeño’s California Visit in 1595.” California Historical Society Oliver, J. 2011. “On Mapping and its Afterlife: Unfolding Landscapes in Quarterly 20 (4): 315–328. Northwestern North America.” World Archaeology 43 (1): 66–85. Heizer, R. F. 1947. “Francis Drake and the California Indians, 1579.” Panich, L. M. 2013. “Archaeologies of Persistence: Reconsidering the University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Legacies of Colonialism in Native North America.” American Ethnology 42 (3): 251–302. Antiquity 78 (1): 105–122. Holly, D. H., Jr. 2008. “Social Aspects and Implications of ‘Running to Panich, L. M. 2015. “‘Sometimes They Bury the Deceased’s Clothes and the Hills’: The Case of the Beothuk Indians of Newfoundland.” Trinkets’: Indigenous Mortuary Practices at Mission Santa Clara de Journal of Island & Coastal Archaeology 3: 170–190. Asís.” Historical Archaeology 49 (4): 110–129. Hornbeck, D. 1978. “Land Tenure and Rancho Expansion in Alta Panich, L. M. 2016. “Beyond the Colonial Curtain: Investigating California, 1784–1846.” Journal of Historical Geography 4 (4): 371– Indigenous Use of Obsidian in Spanish California Through the 390. pXRF Analysis of Artifacts from Mission Santa Clara.” Journal of Johnson, J. R. 1978. “The Trail to Kashtɨq.” The Journal of California Archaeological Science: Reports 5: 521–530. Anthropology 5 (2): 188–198. Panich, L. M., H. Afaghani, and N. Mathwich. 2014. “Assessing the Kerr, D. 1862. Part of Tomales Bay California. Map T00849. Diversity of Mission Populations Through the Comparison of Washington, DC: United States Coast Survey. Native American Residences at Mission Santa Clara de Asís.” King, C. 1975. “The Names and Locations of Historic Chumash International Journal of Historical Archaeology 18 (3): 467–488. Villages.” The Journal of California Anthropology 2 (2): 171–179. Panich, L. M., and T. D. Schneider. 2015. “Expanding Mission Lape, P. V. 2002. “Historic Maps and Archaeology as a Means of Archaeology: A Landscape Approach to Indigenous Autonomy in Understanding Late Precolonial Settlement in the Banda Islands, Colonial California.” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 40: Indonesia.” Asian Perspectives 41 (1): 43–70. 48–58. JOURNAL OF FIELD ARCHAEOLOGY 165

Purser, M., and N. Shaver. 2008. “Plats and Place: The Transformation of Schulte, L. A., and D. J. Mladenoff. 2001. “The Original US Public Land 19th Century Speculation Townsites on the Sacramento River.” Survey Records: Their Use and Limitations in Reconstructing Historical Archaeology 42 (1): 26–46. Presettlement Vegetation.” Journal of Forestry 99: 5–10. Reddy, S. N. 2015. “Feeding Family and Ancestors: Persistence of Seasholes, N. S. 1988. “On the Use of Historical Maps.” In Documentary Traditional Native American Lifeways During the Mission Period Archaeology in the New World, edited by M. C. Beaudry, 92–118. in Coastal Southern California.” Journal of Anthropological Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Archaeology 37: 48–66. Seymour, D. J. 2010. “Contextual Incongruities, Statistical Outliers, and Robinson, W. W. 1948. Land in California: The Story of Mission Lands, Anomalies: Targeting Inconspicuous Occupational Events.” Ranchos, Squatters, Mining Claims, Railroad Grants, Land Scrip, American Antiquity 75 (1): 158–176. Homesteads. Berkeley: University of California Press. Shoup, L. H., and R. T. Milliken. 1999. Inigo of Rancho Posolmi: The Life Robinson, M. H., C. R. Alexander, C. W. Jackson, C. P. McCabe, and D. and Times of a Mission Indian. Novato: Ballena Press. Crass. 2010. “Threatened Archaeological, Historic, and Cultural Silliman, S. W. 2004. Lost Laborers in Colonial California: Native Resources of the Georgia Coast: Identification, Prioritization and Americans and the Archaeology of Rancho Petaluma. Tucson: Management Using GIS Technology.” Geoarchaeology: An University of Arizona Press. International Journal 25 (3): 312–326. Silliman, S. W. 2010. “Indigenous Traces in Colonial Spaces: Rodgers, A. F. 1862. Map of a Part of Tomales Bay California. Map T- Archaeologies of Ambiguity, Origin, and Practice.” Journal of Social 880. Washington, DC: United States Coast Survey. Archaeology 10 (1): 28–58. Russell, M. A. 2011. “Encounters at Tamál-húye: An Archaeology of Tveskov, M. 2000. “The Bandon Sandspit Site: The Archaeology of a Intercultural Engagement in Sixteenth Century Northern Proto-Historic Coquille Indian Village.” In Changing Landscapes: California.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley. Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Coquille Cultural Preservation Sayers, D. O. 2014. A Desolate Place for a Defiant People: The Conference, 1999, edited by R. J. Losey, 43–59. North Bend: Archaeology of Maroons, Indigenous Americans, and Enslaved Coquille Indian Tribe. Laborers in the Great Dismal Swamp. Gainesville: University Press Tveskov, M., K. Johnson, C. Rose, and R. S. Byram. 2015. of Florida. “Archaeological Investigations of Camp Castaway and the Wreck of Schneider, K. R. 2010. “Making Indian Land in the Allotment Era: the Transport Schooner Captain Lincoln.” Southern Oregon Northern California’s Indian Rancherias.” Western Historical University Laboratory of Anthropology Research Report 2012.07. Quarterly 41: 429–450. On file at the Southern Oregon University Laboratory of Schneider, T. D. 2015a. “Envisioning Colonial Landscapes Using Anthropology, Ashland, Oregon. Mission Registers, Radiocarbon, and Stable Isotopes: An Van Dorn, A. 1860. “Map of the County of Marin: State of California.” Experimental Approach from San Francisco Bay.” American Manuscript map on file, Bancroft Library, University of California, Antiquity 80 (3): 511–529. Berkeley. Schneider, T. D. 2015b. “Placing Refuge and the Archaeology Indigenous Whittaker, W. E. 2015. “Determining the Age of GLO-Mapped Trail Hinterlands in Colonial California.” American Antiquity 80 (4): 695– Networks: A GIS Analysis of Northern Iowa.” Midcontinental 713. Journal of Archaeology 40 (2): 134–148. Schneider, T. D., and L. M. Panich. 2014. “Native Agency at the Margins Whittaker, W. E. 2016. “An Analysis of Historic-Era Indian Locations in of Empire: Indigenous Landscapes, Spanish Missions, and Contested Iowa.” Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 41 (2): 159–185. Histories.” In Indigenous Landscapes and Spanish Missions: Winston-Gregson, J. H. 1985. “A Guide to Locating Settlements in Rural New Perspectives from Archaeology and Ethnohistory, edited by New South Wales.” Australian Historical Archaeology 3: 3–7. L. M. Panich and T. D. Schneider, 5–22. Tucson: University of Yentsch, A. E. 1994. A Chesapeake Family and Their Slaves. Cambridge: Arizona Press. Cambridge University Press.