UC Merced Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology

Title Gilreath and Hildebrandt: Prehistoric Use of the Coso Volcanic Field

Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/04s2n7xw

Journal Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology, 20(2)

ISSN 0191-3557

Author Rhode, David

Publication Date 1998-07-01

Peer reviewed

eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California REVIEWS

Prehistoric Use of the Coso Volcanic Field. jumbles of debris representing different ages and Amy J. Gilreath and William R. Hildebrandt. technologies—and then they took away all the Berkeley: Contributions of the University of usefiil end products! These factors can turn ar­ California Archaeological Research Facility chaeological recording, sampling, artifact analy­ No. 56, 1997, X + 202 pp., 12 maps, 26 fig­ sis, chronology building, and technological inter­ ures, 9 plates, 87 tables, $25.95 (paper). pretation into daunting tasks indeed. Such were the prospects and problems facing Reviewed by: Amy Gilreath and William Hildebrandt in Pre­ DAVID RHODE historic Use of the Coso Volcanic Field, a vol­ Quaternary Sciences Center, Desert Research Institute, 2215 Raggio Parkway, Reno, NV 89512. ume that represents the results of several years of toil at the Coso obsidian quarry in central Over a century ago, William Henry Holmes eastern California. The principal research goal, inspected a gigantic pile of chert quarry blanks state the authors, is "to monitor the prehistoric at Rock Creek, Maryland, not far from his home production, use, and exchange of Coso obsidian, in Washington, D.C. The blanks bore a striking and determine the relationship of these activities resemblance to paleolithic tools known from Eu­ to other socio-economic developments in the re­ rope, but Holmes realized that these implements gion" (p. 7). Through judicious field sampling, were early stages in the manufacture of stone detailed analyses of rejected tools and debitage, tools by more recent Native Americans. Holmes and extensive obsidian hydration dating, the au­ (1892) used these insights to help demolish the thors develop a history of stone tool production then-popular notion of an American Paleolithic. at Coso and place it in the context of the vast Since Holmes's day, the study of lithic quar­ economic network that Coso supplied. The re­ ries has continued to be a fmitful avenue of ar­ sult is valuable both as an account of changing chaeological inquiry. The reasons are obvious. production patterns at an important toolstone Quarries are important because stone tools were source for southern California, as well as an ex­ essential to prehistoric native economies, not ample of the applicafion of well-grounded ar­ only in that how stone is crafted into tools chaeological methods to solve some of the diffi­ strongly influences the nature of the archaeologi­ culties associated with studying quarries. cal record, but also because the distinctive quali­ The Coso Volcanic Field, located south of ties of stone obtained from certain quarries can Owens Lake in the northern Mojave Desert, allow one to trace ancient patterns of interaction contains thousands of separate quarry areas on and exchange in some detail. its steep, glassy, rhyolite domes and surrounding Yet, despite their prehistoric importance and ridges and fans. Quarries occur in both primary interpretive potential, quarries can be a real outcrops and secondary lag deposits. Primary pain. The ethnographic record provides few outcrops such as Sugarloaf Mountain, West Sug- clues about how stone tool production and trans­ arloaf, Joshua Ridge, and Cactus Peak are tmly port were integrated into prehistoric economic impressive, with hundreds of tons of large obsid­ systems, as metal tools often quickly replaced ian boulders. Smaller obsidian pebbles and cob­ stone early in the contact period. Worse yet, bles are embedded in pyroclastic debris flows quarries were usually visited time and again over and air fall tephra beds. Scatters of these nod­ the centuries. The "quarriers" often left dense ules frequently occupy ridgetops, left as a sur- 286 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY face lag after finer matrix has eroded away. rected for effective hydration temperature (EHT) The nodules in these lag deposits are smaller in the region where the artifacts are found. than at the primary outcrops, but they are more Having adopted a rate, the authors approach widely distributed and generally more accessible the problem of giving assemblages a date in a than the primary outcrops. couple of ways. For assemblages with hydration The fine-quality glass available at Coso had values yielding ages less than about 5,500 B.P., attracted stoneworkers since earliest Archaic Pe­ the authors assign an assemblage to a certain pe­ riod times, as indicated by numerous Great Ba­ riod based on its average value. Periods used in sin Stemmed points and a few concave-based Pa­ this analysis correspond to those defined by Bet­ leoindian points. However, the number of pro­ tinger and Taylor (1974), with the Middle Ar­ jectile points in the region was not sufficient to chaic Newberry Period subdivided into early, put together a detailed chronology of quarry use. middle and late. If the distribution of hydration Instead, the authors rely mainly on obsidian hy­ values in an assemblage is bimodal or spread dration dating for chronometric control, employ­ out, the assemblage may be assigned to two sep­ ing a data base of over 4,600 hydration measure­ arate periods. Large hydration values, estimated ments from the project area. to be older than 5,500 B.P., were considered How these hydration measurements are trans­ simply "Early," because the hydration rate the formed into chronometers is an important mat­ authors use is less precise and less securely ter. First, what is the hydration rate of Coso grounded after 5,500 B.P., and because the evi­ obsidian? Several induced hydration experi­ dence suggests that older assemblages have more ments have been attempted with Coso glass; in­ variable hydration measurements. deed, Coso is becoming a sort of standard test One may argue against using a single rate for bed for different approaches to experimental Coso, when in all likelihood several rates prob­ measurement of hydration rates. These experi­ ably apply; and the resulting chronology of ments demonstrate that there is probably no sin­ events at Coso may change somewhat as Coso gle rate for Coso, but rather several different hydration rates become better known and more rates depending on the source and chemical con­ refined. However, the patterns of use at Coso tent of the glass. However, different experimen­ adduced by the authors are unlikely to change tal protocols yield different and sometimes in- much, in my opinion, since they seem to fit well congmous results, even when performed (pre­ with region-wide cultural patterns dated by other sumably) on die same kind of glass (although a methods. In any case, it is refreshing to find an rigorous side-by-side comparison of different application of hydration dating that explicitly methods on known identical glass has yet to be considers many factors known to be important in done). The authors review these efforts, but feel controlling rates, and states its assumptions that the rates obtained from these induced hydra­ about chronology-building clearly. The attention tion experiments are not replicable, nor are they given by the authors is a signal that obsidian hy­ especially tmstworthy. Instead, they adopt a dration dating is finally coming of age and can single rate developed by Mark Basgall (1990), fulfill its considerable potential for regional based on artifacts manufactured from West Sug­ chronological comparisons. arloaf and Sugarloaf glass found in well-dated, So what happened at Coso? Prior to about intact, depositional contexts at the Lubkin Creek 3,500 years ago (Early and Littie Lake times), site (CA-INY-30; Basgall and McGuire 1988) in quarry activities focused on lag deposits, with the southern Owens Valley. For regional com­ short-term occupations devoted to the on-site parisons of hydration values, this rate is cor­ production of cores, early stage bifaces, unifa- REVIEWS 287 cial tools, and formed flake tools. Core reduc­ of specialized biface production at Coso, with an tion dominated at the quarries, while the empha­ extensive network of obsidian exchange that en­ sis was on biface reduction at off-quarry locali­ compassed Owens Valley, the southern Sierra ties. Stone tool production was generalized and Nevada, and population centers in coastal south­ opportunistic,' 'embedded within subsistence-set­ ern California. tlement systems characterized by high degrees of Between 1,275 and 650 B.P. (Haiwee Peri­ residential mobility, minimal use of seed re­ od), use of the Coso region declined precipitous­ sources, a probable emphasis on hunting both ly: only one quarry and one biface production large and small game, and little concern with the station are reported here. However, consider­ inter-regional exchange of obsidian" (p. 178). able obsidian confinued to flow out of Coso, as Evidence of subsistence pursuits dating to this attested by hydration profiles of obsidian arti­ time is limited to a few projectile points and facts from surrounding regions, especially the very few millingstones, and most of the short- deserts to the south and southeast. Apparently, term occupation in the region was directed to­ primary outcrops were still being quarried inten­ wards obsidian procurement. sively, but did not involve many off-quarry stag­ From 3,500 to 2,300 B.P. (Early and Middle ing areas. The authors surmise that "these Newberry periods), use of lag quarries persisted, changes probably reflect production by a limited but use of these quarries had waned by Middle number of local people who regularly exploited Newberry times. The abundance of off-quarry favored seams of obsidian, and transported the reduction areas increased significanfly compared products to residential bases outside the Volcanic with the previous period. Bifaces were the focus Field for fiirther reduction (e.g., Coso Junction of production both at the quarries and off-quarry Ranch). Reduced access to the Coso quarries by staging areas. Occupation continued to be short- non-local people is also supported to some de­ term with an emphasis on obsidian procurement, gree by a region-wide reduction in mobility" (p. but a greater differentiation among site types and 179). A small number of seed processing sta­ increased numbers of milling equipment, projec­ tions, consisting of a hearth feature and a mil­ tile points, and other tools may indicate a slight­ lingstone or two, also date to the Haiwee Period, ly greater subsistence focus and somewhat lon­ reflecting limited subsistence activities in the ger term settiements. area. A major acceleration in lithic production and After 650 B.P. (the Marana Period), lithic a marked shift in production patterns are recog­ production declined even further, with littie or nizable from 2,300 to 1,275 B.P. (Late Newber­ no specialized quarrying at either lag deposits or ry Period). Primary outcrops on Joshua Ridge primary outcrops. Obsidian hydrafion profiles and Sugarloaf Mountain (Elston and Zeier 1984) from outiying areas show that distribution of were heavily exploited for specialized biface Coso obsidian virtually ceased. ' 'Just when mo­ production; lag quarries were no longer used. bility had been reduced to a point where some Quarries at these primary outcrops focused on level of control over the quarries could have high-quality seams of glass, yielding early-stage been achieved," note the authors, "the obsidian bifaces significantly larger than those previously production and exchange system collapsed, and made at the lag quarries. Biface production areas the Volcanic Field became the focus of intensive located away from the main primary quarry out­ seed processing activities" (p. 179). Seed pro­ crops are also plentifiil. Other kinds of end pro­ cessing stations substantially increase in number. ducts (unifaces, flakes, cores) are extremely The dearth of obsidian at these sites renders hy­ rare. The Late Newberry Period was the heyday dration dating ineffective, but radiocarbon dates 288 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY on associated hearths consistently yield Late Pre­ have reduced the need for large amounts of ex­ historic Period ages. Nonportable, well-worn ported obsidian. Why the distribution of Coso milling equipment at these sites may indicate that glass seems to have shifted away from the they were established near productive seed Owens Valley/southern Sierra Nevada towards patches and were regularly revisited. the deserts to the south and east at the same This descriptive story is strongly supported time, remains uncertain. The trends toward re­ by detailed chronological and technological anal­ stricted territoriality and increasing seed exploi­ yses, both from Coso itself and from outlying tation culminated in the Marana Period, and the regional records as well. Regarding the causes regional exchange system collapsed as obsidian of the dramatic shifts in production at Coso, the declined as an exchange commodity, Coso was authors are more speculative and tentative. Fol­ no longer an important toolstone source, and the lowing a brief review of obsidian production Volcanic Field became a seed-gathering plot for curves elsewhere in Califomia and Oregon, and local folk. a short discussion of previous explanations for The causes put forward here, and the region- notable shifts in production, the authors posit wide developments that they imply, should be their own interpretation. The great surge in pro­ grist for hypothesis-testing for years to come. duction during Late Newberry times, they sug­ In testing any such hypotheses, this volume will gest, resulted from a more regular settiement serve as a benchmark: the patterns of technolo­ schedule among residentially mobile populations, gy, production, and distribution of Coso obsid­ coupled with heightened demand for toolstone. ian that are carefully detailed in this volume will In turn, "[i]ncreased predictability of settlement be important archaeological facts that any hy­ locations during the annual subsistence-settle­ pothesis must accommodate to be successful. ment cycle is hypothesized to have allowed regu­ Likewise, the methods of analysis used in this larized exchange relationships to develop" (p. sttidy of the Coso Volcanic Field should prove 178), resulting in greater movement of high- valuable at many other stone tool production quality glass between groups. Nonlocal people sites. Should the causes suggested by the au­ did not entirely rely on exchange, but may have thors be substantiated by future research, they scheduled visits to Coso to obtain their own sup­ will no doubt yield important lessons for chang­ plies as well: "the acquisition and distribution ing patterns of stone tool production and ex­ of obsidian reached peak proportions when vari­ change in other regions of the world beyond ous groups had access to the quarries. Whether Coso and southern California. All of which they originated from across the Sierra Nevada, shows that laboring in the quarry can be well or were east-side people conducting exchanges worth the effort. with westerners and southerners during a regu­ larized seasonal round, the cmcial point is there REFERENCES was a demand for obsidian and little or no con­ Basgall, Mark E. straints inhibifing its acquisition" (p. 181). 1990 Hydration Dating of Coso Obsidian: Prob­ lems and Prospects. Paper presented at The shift in production and distribution dur­ the annual meetings of the Society for ing Haiwee times may have to do with increas­ Califoraia Archaeology, Foster City. ing territoriality and a changing valuation of Basgall, Mark E., and Kelly R. McGuire toolstone. Residential groups living near Coso 1988 The Archaeology of CA-INY-30: Prehis­ may have controlled and limited access to quarry toric Change in the Southera Owens Val­ ley, Califoraia. Report on file at Califor­ areas. Adopfion of bow and arrow hunting tech­ nia Department of Transportation, Office nology and greater emphasis on plant foods may of Environmental Analysis, Sacramento. REVIEWS 289

Bettinger, Robert L., and R. E. Taylor this southern California group has expanded. As 1974 Suggested Revisions in Archaeological Se­ quences of the Great Basin and Interior a result, the full scope of this literature has Southera Califoraia. Reno: Nevada Ar­ grown far beyond the grasp of most individual chaeological Survey Research Paper 5:1- scholars. Holmes and Johnson pull together an 26. astounding 1,177 original references which fea- Elston, Robert G., and C. D. Zeier ttire information on one or more aspects of Chu­ 1984 The Sugarloaf Obsidian Quarry. Naval mash life, complemented by nearly 100 citations Weapons Center Administrative Publica­ tion 313, China Lake, Califoraia. of published reviews of books and other major Holmes, William H. works on the Chumash. Every serious sttident 1892 Modera Quarry Refuse and the Paleolithic of Nafive Californian lifeways will want to have Theory. Science 20:295-297. this volume. It is a well-organized, eminentiy useful sourcebook for research endeavors of all kinds, and readers will undoubtedly share my experience in using it—finding, at the very least, dozens of previously undiscovered, interesting new (or old) entries. The volume opens with a map of Chumash towns in the late 1700s, which helps to orient readers to the important placenames and major geographic features of the contact era. The eight major sections represented are Ethnology The Chumash and Their Predecessors: An and Ethnohistory, Rock Art, Linguistics, Archae­ Annotated Bibliography. Compiled and anno­ ology, Physical Anthropology, First Contacts: tated by Marie S. Holmes and John R. John­ 1542-1780, Juvenile and Education, and Re­ son. Contributions in Anthropology No. 1, views. Three invaluable indices at the end allow Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, quick access to authors, subjects, and archaeo­ 1998, xiv -I- 228 pp., 1 map, 3 indices, logical sites. Johnson's Foreword describes the $32.50 (paper). nature of Chumash population and political or­ ganization, the origin of the appellation "Chu­ Reviewed by: mash," and the history of some of the early ex­ JEANNE E. ARNOLD plorers and researchers who contacted the Chu­ Dept. of Anthropology and Institute of Archaeology, University of Califomia, Los Angeles, CA 90095- mash between the 1540s and 1930s. While it is 1510. worth noting that Johnson's view of heterarchi- cal relations among the Chumash is not one Twenty years after Ballena Press published shared by all scholars working on these prob­ Eugene Anderson's (1978) updated bibliography lems, the Foreword as a whole is a balanced and of the Chumash, the Santa Barbara Museum of essential introduction to the big issues and influ­ Natural History has released a beautiflilly pro­ ential contributions found within this impressive duced current bibliography of the Chumash, body of literature. Extensive and appropriate compiled and annotated by Marie S. Holmes and acknowledgement is given to John P. Harring­ John R. Johnson. Significant numbers of new ton, whose 200,000-plus pages of rich, multilin­ published works in all areas of Chumash studies gual, convoluted notes on the Chumash, deposit­ ed at the National Anthropological Archives of have appeared since the 1970s, as scholarly and the Smithsonian Insfitution, serve as the source educational interests in the cultural heritage of