3

Spatial and Cultural Units in Central California Archaeology

David A. Fredrickson (1973)

The Central California Taxonomic System their cultures were considered to be typical, in the and the Culture-Area Concept normative sense, of the area. Groups situated some distance from the center, or the "climax" region as HECULTURE SEQUENCE that forms the foundation Kroeber(1936, 1939) referred to it, have fewer ofthe forthe Central California chronology is at best a characteristic traits of the area. Such groups were regional sequence, rather than an areal or subareal often called "marginal." Groups situated at the bor- one. It appears that the underlying logic of assuming ders of the area have traits which are derived from that the cultural sequence of the lower Sacramento morethanoneclimax region. Ithasoftenbeenpointed Valleycould legitimatelybeextended tootherregions out that culture centers, or climax regions, are rela- of Central California was intimately connected with tively easy to determine, but that the borders of cul- the ethnographic concept of the culture-area. It is ture-areas tend to be indeterminate with sharpbound- worthwhile to review this concept and to point out aries between culture-areas quite rare (Kroeber 1939; some of the consequences of its application to ar- Driver 1962). chaeological materials. Although several archaeologists have observed Basic to the culture-area concept is the finding that their coworkers rarely make explicit use of the Athat particular culture traits, both material and culture-area concept, Jennings (1968:5) pointed out nonmaterial, tend to be associated with one another in its implicit use. "When the archaeologist describes or given regions, and that this association tends to be delineates an archeologic region on the basis ofmany confined to such regions. The ethnographic findings sites with similar technology and subsistence, he is in ofWissler (1926) in regard to culture-areas were that effectestablishing a prehistoric culture area, although the various groups within a given culture-area each the term is rarely used by archaeologists." Chang possessed to a greater or lesser extent the trait ele- (1967:118) suggested a reason why: mentscharacteristicofthe area. Wisslerpresented the the culture-area concept has not been used in archaeology too explicitly or vigorously. The notion that each culture-area had a center and that archaeologist, I hink, in general terms tends to culture elements diffused outward from the center, resist the concept because in the archaeological subject to limitations of natural boundaries. Groups scale of time cultures move and macro-envi- situated nearthe centerofthe culture-area were found ronmental changes occur, and cultural types and to have all or nearly all ofits characteristic traits, and macro-environments do not associate stably 26 Toward a New Taxonomic Frameworkfor Central California

with fixed ethnographic boundaries. There- cultural intensity from area to area and notes fore, archaeologists often focus their eyes on that in areas of greatest intensity, climaxes theculture, togetherwiththeenvironment with or cultural richness and complexity can be which it interacts, but not on fixed geographic recognized. His identification ofcultural cli- areas. The co-tradition concept, said to be max areas is derived from ethnographic data 'culture areas in time depth,' is an eloquent but tends to agree with archeologic findings, example (Bennett 1948; Rouse 1954). so that some ethnographically delineated cul- Willey (1966:5), in his synthesis ofNorth and ture areas are also fairly accurate demarca- Middle American archaeology, makes explicit use tionsofculturedifference and similarityinthe prehistoric periods. For example, the cli- of the culture-area concept, and also discussed maxesobservedarchaeologicallyintheSouth- circumstances prompting the resistance referred to eastandSouthwestwereidentifiedbyKroeber by Chang. from etngraphic data The archaeological culture areas, as em- In his early summaries of California's position ployed here, are extensions of the traditional ethnographic culture areaconcept. It is, how- in regard to culture-areas, Kroeber (1920, 1925) in- ever, much more difficult to delineate ar- cluded the bulkofCalifornia, the areausually referred chaeological areas than those which are pro- to as Central California, with the Great Basin to form jected for a single ethnographic horizon, be- a single culture-area. Northwestern California was cause archaeological culture boundaries included withthe NorthPacific Coastculture-areaand change through time. Occasionally, such SouthernCaliforniawas included withtheSouthwest- changes are drastic. Suchphenomenausually coincide with the inception orintroduction of ern culture-area. In his later work, however, Kroeber a new major cultural tradition. A prime ex- (1936, 1939:53-54) isolated a separate California cul- ample would be the differentiation of the ture-area: SouthwestUnited States areafrom thenearby Otis T. Mason made his California area in- Great Basin area which partially surrounds it clude Oregon. Wisslermakes it cotenminous Atanearlyperiodthetwoareaswereone,with withCalifomia,exceptforexcludingthesouth- the wholecharacterized by the Desertcultural eastern comerofthe state and including west- tradition. Later, with the rise ofvillage farm- emNevada. My classification gives southern ing patterns and the beginnings ofthe South- California to the Southwest, the northwestern western cultural tradition, the Southwest area comer to the Northwest Coast, the northeast- came into existence. Often, however, the em. . . to the GreatBasin, the eastern ortrans- 'hearts' or 'cores' of culture areas remain Sierra fringe also to the Basin. This leaves to relatively fixed, with only the borderlands the California area only the region which in expanding or retracting with the passage of earlierclassifications, madewith alocalrather time. Sometimes this is true even in spite of thancontinentalview,IcalledCentralCalifor- major cultural traditional shifts. Thus, the nia. Essentially, this areaconsistsoftheGreat Eastern Woodlands ofNorth America main- (or Interior) Valley of California with the tained an integrity as a culture area, as the CoastRanges and Sierra Nevada that flank it. homeland ofthe earlier Archaic tradition and Driver and Massey (1957), employing detailed of the two later traditions which succeeded statistical analysis, also distinguished California as a it-apparently a testimony to the powerful separate culture-area, but differed from Kroeber in conditioningfactorsofnaturalenvironmentin culture development, at least under certain that Southern California and the northwestern corner conditions. In sum, archaeological culture ofBajaCalifornia were included as partofthe Califor- areas must be compromises which will em- nia area rather than the Southwest area. Willey brace a significant cultural unity through a (1966:361ff.) utilized a demarcation ofthe California significant span oftime. area similar to that of Driver and Massey in his Jennings's (1968:4-5) brief comment on the re- summary treatment of archaeological culture-areas, lationship between ethnographic and archaeological but added Northeastern California, which Driver and culture areas is appropriate tothepresentconcernwith Massey had placed in the Plateau area. Central California archaeology: The changes in status of California vis-A-vis its ... Kroeber does emphasize the variation in culture-area assignments are in large part measures of Spatial and Cultural Units 27 the diversity of its cultures and the strength of influ- Valley in the north, and the ocean coast on ences from the surrounding culture-areas, both of the west to the Sierra Nevada crest on the which factors are closely related to the physiographic east, may be divided into three zones: (1) coastal (i.e., shore plus Coast Range sec- diversity ofthe state. Kroeber (1920:151), recogniz- tion), (2), interiorvalley (thecombined Sac- ing this complexity, was explicit in emphasizing that ramento and San Joaquin valleys), and (3) the divisions he had made ofCalifornia did not imply Sierran (western slopes of the Sierra Ne- identity of culture: vada). ... any map ofthis nature creates an errone- Although not stated explicitly, Heizer's "zones" are ous impression of internal uniformity and physiographic divisions, and he appears to imply that coherence. Thus, all in all, it is true that the the zones can also betreated as separate cultural units, 'central' Yokuts are probably more similar to the 'central' Wintun inthe totality oftheir with each showing variation from the basic regional life than to the 'southern' Gabrielino. But sequence according to environmental influences. innumerable cultural elementshave reached "Generally speaking, allowing for local ecologic ad- the Yokuts from the south, and they them- justments to tidal shore (as against valley riverine selves have very likely developed local pe- locale), the Middle and Late sequence on the bay culiaritiesofwhichsomehavefiltered across conforms to that already sketched for the Interior the mountains to the Gabrielino. Conse- quently, any statement which tended to cre- Valley [read: for the lower Sacramento Valley]" atetheimpressionthatthe Yokutsand Wintun (Heizer 1964:129). The idea that border or marginal belonged to a block of nations in which areas can be referred to climax regions is also illus- certain traits were standard and exclusive, trated inthefollowing statementbyHeizer(1964:130): would mislead. "Just westofthe head ofthe Sacramento Valley, inthe In his later work Kroeber (1939:55) recognized three CoastRange section, salvagearchaeologyin reservoir subdivisions within Central California, including the areas has yielded an abundance oflatermaterials that climax regions, which he extended from "the lower are basically central Californian in type [read: basi- Sacramento to theRussian River." Klimek (1935), on cally similar to the lower Sacramento Valley in type] the basis of his comprehensive statistical analysis, but are modified by influences reaching southeast made even more internal distinctions. from the distinctive culture development of north- Within the Central California subarea the exist- western California." ing archaeological sequence was established from The emphasis upon the prehistory of culture excavations conducted primarily within what was the climax regions, based upon the assumption that the ethnographic territory ofthe Plains Miwok, located in significant cultural developments ofthe area had their the lower Sacramento Valley. Although it has not origins in such regions, not only produces a difficulty beenexpressly stated, the assumption appears to have in the classification of marginal or border region been that the archaeology of this region adequately cultures (which could be considered simply a me- represented the climax region of Central California. chanical procedure), but more importantly serves to Thus, following the implications of the culture-area obscure cultural processes, some of which may be concept, marginal or border regions were not impor- unique to marginal or border regions and some of tant to the understanding of the cultural development which may strongly influence the course of develop- of the area under consideration, since their cultures ment of climax cultures. For example, evidence of derived from traits which spread from one or more population movement or territorial expansion may be climax regions. recovered archaeologically only in marginalorborder It is illuminating to analyze a portion ofHeizer's regions. (1964:126) recent review paperfrom this perspective. Heizer's definition of Central California also He defined Central California as follows: carries theimplicit assumption that acultural unitwith Central California, defined here as the re- a predictable degree of homogeneity is contained gion lying between Tehachapi (where the included in the defini- Sierra Nevadas join with the Coast Range) within the geographic space in the south to the head of the Sacramento tion. When data are available to demonstrate that the 28 Toward a New Taxonomic Frameworkfor Central California geographic space is not predictably culturally hamge- immediately adjacent to the lower Sacramento Val- neous, there is no corresponding change made in the ley, namely, the northern San Joaquin Valley, which definition ofthe space. Thus, the culture-area model presumably should have undergone the same devel- serves as a principle from which propositions con- opment as its neighbor region to the north, we find at cerning the nature ofspecific marginal cultures canbe least one significant difference, which has been little deduced. These deductions should be tested as hy- noticed until quite recently. This difference occurs in potheses and subjected to modification when data the mortuary practices found within the northern por- warrant. tion ofthe San Joaquin Valley as contrasted with the For example, the southern San Joaquin Valley, practices reported forthe three-part cultural sequence included in Central California by Heizer, was briefly of the lower Sacramento Valley. characterized as follows: Each of the three cultural units in the Central Inthe southern SanJoaquin Valley ... .[there California sequence has characteristic or modal mor- is] a long sequence of cultures that go back tuary practices (Heizer 1949; Beardsley 1954). The to the same period as the Early Horizon Early Horizonis characterized by fully extended buri- culture [of the lower Sacramento Valley] and continue into the historic period. The als, face down, most frequently oriented to the west. Late period shows influence from the Santa Flexure and cremation also occur, but rarely. During Barbara coast, as well as from the Colorado theMiddle Horizon, the prone burial position is rather region (Heizer 1964:128). abruptly replaced by the flexed burial position along It is of interest that, despite placing the region within with variable burial orientation. Occasional crema- the Central California subarea, noclaim foridentityor tion also occurs. During the Late Horizonboth flexed relatedness ofsouthern San Joaquin Valley materials burial and cremation take place, with cremation be- with the lower Sacramento Valley is made, only a coming more important as the Late Horizon contin- temporal connection. Examination ofarchaeological ues. Orientation continues to be variable. materials from the southern San Joaquin Valley Until quite recently occurrences of extended (Gifford and Schenck 1926; Fredrickson 1964; Wedel burials (whetherprone or supine, regardless oforien- 1941) reveals virtually no direct relationship with tation), which lacked clear-cut artifactual linkages to lowerSacramento Valley materials; instead, the simi- defined cultural units, were often referred to the Early larity with Santa Barbara coastal materials is quite Horizon simply on the basis of extension. A brief clear. It is evident that the southern San Joaquin unpublished report on Fre-373, in Fresno County, Valley does not belong culturally with the Central evaluating the dating of the site on the basis ofburial California subarea, regardless of its physiographic position, illustrates the point "The belief that the characteristics, but instead should be included with undisturbed burials in block 22 might be Early Hori- theSouthernCaliforniaCoastal subarea. This sugges- zon was based on the fact that the burials were all tion is compatible with Kroeber's (1959) discussion extended, and regularly oriented west.. ." The report of Yokuts geographic movements (based upon lin- continued with an alternative temporal placement, guistic relationships), wherein he suggested that the showing the influence of finds in nearby Merced movement of Yokuts into the northern San Joaquin County (Olsen 1968; Riddell 1968): "However, re- Valley is relatively recent, probably beginning no cent information suggested that the burials might be more than 500 years ago, and that the major late from the earlyphasesoftheLate Horizon. Thistheory expansion of Yokuts "has almost certainly been to- had its origin in the fact that the Yokuts apparently ward the delta, not from it" (Kroeber 1959:277). returned to extended burial during that time" (Milner Kroeber's discussion in itself is provocative in 1964). regard to our understanding of the prehistory of the The apparent return to extension noted above Interior Valley. In the discussion here so far, prob- refers to findings from site Mer-14 in Merced County lemsofdealingwithmarginal and borderarchaeologi- where both supine and extended burials and flexure cal manifestations in terms of the lower Sacramento were recovered from a context clearly dated by arti- Valley have been emphasized. Ifwe move to a region factual similarities as contemporaneous withthe early Spatial and Cultural Units 29 portion ofPhase I ofthe Late Horizon (Riddell 1968; possible that the Transition horizon of site Olsen 1968). Additional evidence is accumulating, C.141 is closely connected with the Early however, which allows the working hypothesis that period and derives the extended burial posi- tion from it, yet the material culture speaks the occurrence ofextended burials in the San Joaquin againstthis since there are fewEarly artifact Valley during temporal periods more recent than the types present. Probably the situation is Early Horizon is not necessarily a return to extension, this-in this Delta area is a local specializa- but possibly a continuation and modification of a tion in the mortuary complex, the develop- mortuary tradition which had its origins during the mentofwhich was more orless independent period represented by the Early Horizon. Extended oftheMokelumne-Cosumnes regionfurther burials found at Buena Vista Lake in the southern San north and east. Joaquin Valley (Wedel 1941) are acknowledged as More recently, dorsally extended burials have been being in all probability coterminous with the Early recovered from site CCo-31 near Pleasant Hill in Horizon ofthe lower Sacramento Valley. Contra Costa County in association with type 3b2 Although no radiocarbon dates have been ob- modified saddle Olivella beads (Kemnitzer 1968), tained for the Buena Vista extended burials, the pres- which are late Middle Horizon time markers ence ofmilling stones and handstones links the com- (Bennyhoff and Heizer 1958). plex to the early milling stone horizon. No burials This distribution in time and space of extended identifiable with this horizon have yet been reported burials, while not by any means conclusive of the from the San Joaquin Valley north of Buena Vista working hypothesis suggested earlier, can be taken to Lake, but it seems likely that such burials may yet be support the argument that the culture history of the found. Extended burials representative of later time San Joaquin Valley differs significantly from the periods have been found in the San Joaquin Valley, culture history of the lower Sacramento Valley and however, in localities from the central to the northern that a priori application of the lower Sacramento portion of the valley. Foote (1964) in a brief unpub- Valley three-part cultural sequence to all of Central lished communication reported dorsal and ventral California is not warranted. Although evidence has extension, as well as flexure, from site Sta-133 in beenpresented here in supportofthe workinghypoth- Stanislaus County. Recovered withtheseburials were esis that the peoples of the San Joaquin Valley fol- full saddle Olivella beads (type 3b) which are middle lowed a cultural pattern different from that of the Middle Horizon time markers in Central California lower Sacramento Valley, it seems quite clear thatthe (Bennyhoff and Heizer 1958). King (1968) also cultures of both regions were variants ofthe Archaic reported dorsal and ventral extended burials, as well pattern. Itis on this higherlevel ofgeneralization that asloose flexure, from siteMad-1 17 inMadera County, the culture-area concept seems useful. That is, during which he dated on the basis of artifactual analysis as thechronologicalperiod inquestion, alltheculturesof "roughly contemporaneous with the Brazil and Need Central California appear to have been at the Archaic phases [of the Middle Horizon] in the Cosumnes stage ofdevelopment. Locality ... in the 2-3000 year B.P. time slot." Whilethe classificationofprehistoric California In Contra Costa County, in a district adjacent to groups as Archaic is a valid procedure, the long time the northern San Joaquin Valley, unexplained ven- span encompassed by the Archaic stage itself ob- trally and dorsally extended burials were reported scures the fundamental processes and differences be- from site CCo-141 (site C.141) from a Middle Hori- tween groups so classified. Significant processes and zon context. Of this occurrence, Lillard, Heizer, and differences expected on the basis ofthe large area and Fenenga (1939:55) wrote: great ecological diversity within the Central Califor- It is impossible to account for the variety of nia subarea are blurred. As a step toward rectifying burialpositions-theventrally extended pos- this situation, the existing practice of dropping the ture has heretofore been noted only in the horizon as used in the Central California Early period; dorsal extension may occur in concept Late period sites (e.g., site S.1, S.3) though system and substituting sequences oflocally orregion- it seems localized in its manifestations. It is ally defined complexes, while perhaps satisfactory for 30 Toward a New Taxonomic Frameworkfor Central California local interests, does not suffice for synthesizing or changes, however. First, she discarded the tenns integrative efforts. In the following pages modifica- "Early," "Middle," and "Late," substituting for them tions which have already been made in, or suggested "Windmiller,""Cosumnes," and"Hotchkiss," respec- for,theCentralCaliforniaTaxonomic System (CCTS) tively. Second, she replaced the term "horizon" with arediscussed, and aproposal is offered forintegrative the term "culture." units which seem appropriate for the current state of Referring to "growing evidence of very early knowledge in Central California. cultures inSouthern California,"Ragir(1972:9) made The Central California Taxonomic System the following cogent comments: and Recent Modifications Giventhe present system ofnaming groups which are typologically and temporally re- I have previously discussed the basic organiza- lated,onewouldhavetocall anearlierculture, tion of the CCTS, the definitions and concepts em- the 'EarlierEarly Horizon.' Furhermore, the ployed in it, and some ofthe reasons why it should be tripartite system inalocal sequenceinvariably at least partially abandoned. I suggested that several causes confusion when one compares sites factors contributed to this situation, among them the from one area to those of another which has either temporarily or permanently classified absence ofany discussion as to the minimum number its local sequence in a similar fashion. Thus, of specific features that are diagnostic of each of the one finds the Early Lovelock culture coeval horizons and also the failure to separate the cultural with the 'Middle Horizon' in Central Califor- from the temporal dimensions, confounding cultural nia and the Late Phaseofthe Desert Archaic... horizonmarkerswithtemporalhorizonmarkers. Apart 'Early', 'Middle', and 'Late' designations limit from the operational modifications which seem to pre-history to thee phases despite the fat that evidence sometimes suggests four or more have developed without any explicit formulation, changes important enough to warrant equiva- there have been a number of changes explicitly sug- lent classificatory recognition. gested for the system. Bennyhoff (1977), for ex- Ragir (1972:9) went on to state that "archaeological ample, grouped "sites which were occupied by cultur- cultures ought to be named afterthe type localities or, ally related people into localities which have been where adequately excavated type localities do not named after some feature of the local geography." exist, aftergeographical regions where large numbers Bennyhoff's localities, which appearto be somewhat of sites occur and there is a possibility of further but not completely concordant with the provinces of work." Shechose,however, to"classifythetemporal- theCentral Californiascheme, werefoundtocorrelate cultural division defined by California archaeologists with the territories occupied by language groups- as cultures named after the type sites or regions Cosumnes locality: Plains Miwok language; Sutter important in their early history." Thus, Windmiller locality: Valley Nisenan language; Solano locality: culture was selected for Early Horizon, Cosumnes Southern Patwin language; Diablo locality: Bay Mi- culture forMiddle Horizon, and Hotchkiss culture for wok language; Stockton locality: Northern Yokuts Late Horizon. language. More recently Bennyhoff has substituted Ragir's reasoning for substituting the term "cul- the term districtforlocality. Both terms are discussed ture" for the term "horizon" is , however, not directly in more detail below. related to the criticism of the concept which I have Ragir (1972), in her monograph on the Early developed. She (Ragir 1972:8, my addition) wrote Horizon, did not continue Bennyhoff's usage but that: retained thetermprovinceapparentlyunchanged from Based on considerable evidence ta several its original application despite Bennyhoffs findings. 'Early' sites represent more than just burial Ragir's (1972:table 1) chart on Central California complexes,this [study]introducessomemodi- fications of Central Californian archaeologi- culture classification showed the Delta Province oc- cal nomenclature. Thecombinationofvillage cupied by Plains Miwok, Southern Patwin, and and cemetery had long been recognized in Nisenan, with no mention of the finer distinctions 'Late' and 'Middle' period sites inthe Central offered byBennyhoff. Ragirdid make two significant Valley. With the presence of 'Early' sites of Spatial and Cultural Units 31

bothhabitaonmiddenandxcemetenes,arecord Throughoutthe discussions it was reiterated that of the major portion of the cultural activity individual workers try utilizing some ofthe proposed taking place would exist, and the settlements woulddeservethestatusofaculultradition. revisions in order to test their usefulness, but refrain Although the designation of 'Culture' to ar- from employing them in publication until a definite chaeological materials had not yet come into consensus had been achieved. Unfortunately, no use, Heizer implied such a status in his paper consensus was achieved, but publication did occur. on the 'Early Horizon.' Following the March 1968 workshop, Gaumer(1968) Ragir did not define "culture," nor did she elaborate published a note in the Newsletter of the Society for further as to how the two terms might differ. California Archaeology in which he reported that In the fall of 1967 the Center for Archaeological "tradition" hadbeenselected as abasicterm to replace Research at Davis, inconjunction withthe Society for "horizon" and that the following changes in terminol- California Archaeology, issued invitations to a num- ogy had been agreed upon: Augustine Tradition for berofarchaeologists to attend aneveningworkshopat Late Horizon; Emery Tradition for Middle Horizon; the University ofCalifornia, Davis to discuss current and WindmillerTradition forEarly Horizon. Gaumer problems in California archaeology. Individuals rep- stated that "All present agreed to use this new termi- resenting at least fourteen institutions and organiza- nological system in their own areas, and have set Fall tions attended this highly successful meeting, which of 1968 as the date for anothercolloquium forpresen- turned out to be the first of six such workshops held tationofprogress reports." Laterworkshops rendered over the next two years (Nov. 22, 1967; Feb. 10-11, Gaumer's announcement premature when alternate Mar. 31, Nov. 9-10, 1968; Feb. 22, Oct. 25-26, 1969 revisions were suggested, including substituting Ber- [the October 1969 meetings were held at Sacramento keley for Emery and pattern for tradition, but with no State College, the remainderat Davis]). Amongmany final agreement reached. Terminology reported by diverse topics brought up during these meetings was Gaumerhas since appeared inprint. King(1968:116), the CCTS and proposed revisions in it. forexample, employed"EmeryTradition" for "Middle The workshops were initially quite successful. Horizon," as well as other terminology introduced in The concept of locality (as utilized by Bennyhoff the workshop context, and Schulz (1970:187) pub- [1977]) was tested in a series ofsubsequent presenta- lished "Windmiller Tradition" for "Early Horizon," tions by regional specialists, with general agreement stating that "While this concept will undoubtedly that local assemblages could be distinguished on the undergo considerable redefinition in the future, as basis of stylistic differences. Evidence also was used here it is only a modification of the 'facies' presented regarding apparent contemporaneity ofthe concept (Beardsley 1948:3)." Middle Horizon culture-type in the Littoral Zone of So it was with the CCTS: agreement that the Central California with the Early Horizon culture- original framework was no longer workable, lack of type ofthe Interior Valley Zone. There appeared to be consensus on revisions, and defacto introduction of general agreement that the CCTS was outmoded, and terminology whichwasinthe discussionphase. In the a number of suggestions were made in regard to discussion to follow I offer a revision of the CCTS, terminological revision. For example, it was sug- incorporating what I believe to be some of the basic gested that the terms Early, Middle, and Late be agreements arrived atduringthe Davisworkshops and replaced by terms which do not imply temporal se- taking into account the modifications already sug- quence. It was also suggested that the term "horizon" gested by such workers as Bennyhoff and Ragir. I be dropped and replaced by either "culture," "tradi- begin the discussion with spatial units, then move on tion," or "pattern." A conceptual suggestion was later to consider cultural units. made that stylistic factors not be included as diagnos- tic criteria in the taxonomic scheme and be kept Spatial Units separate from techno-economic factors. Ultimately, The units I employ here to designate the geo- however, no general agreement was reached as to graphic space occupied by various cultural units are details of revision. essentially those ofWilley and Phillips (1958). These 32 Toward a New Taxonomic Frameworkfor Central California are the site, locality, region, subarea, and area. An usually reflects cooperative groupsoftribelets. Since important additional spatial unit, midway betweenthe differences between tribelets within the locality often locality and the region, is the district (Lehmer and involve only percentage frequencies, the total culture Caldwell 1966). One ofthemajorreasons foremploy- can be considered "completely uniform." ing these terms, rather than those presented by Bennyhoff(1977) has employedtheterm district Beardsley (1948, 1954; see also Heizer 1949), is that to Central California materials utilizing highly de- the Willey and Phillips terms are more generally used tailed comparisons of cultural inventory. He states throughout the New World. It should be emphasized that in California, an area of reasonably stable popu- that the boundaries of the various spatial units may lation, there is sufficient evidence available to allow shiftthroughtime, asthedifferentculturalunits which the equation of districts with language groups in the occupytheirgeographic spaces shifttheir boundaries. Protohistoric andlaterprehistoricperiods. Bennyhoffs Definitions ofspatial units which rest solely orprima- Diablo District, forexample, includes the Bay Miwok rily on geographic or physiographic criteria are not tribelets of Saklan, Chupan, Wolwon, Julpun, and adequate for archaeological analysis. For example, Ompin. Bennyhoff divides the Diablo District into the inclusion ofthe southern San Joaquin Valley with two localities (Oakley and Walnut Creek), each with the Central California prehistoric culture area (as two or three tribelets. defined by Heizer 1964:126) is not justified on the The district is the geographic space, normally basis of archaeological material so far recovered. In largerthan a locality but smaller than a region, which regardto spatialunitssmallerthanthe area,Bennyhoff exhibits a significant degree of total cultural unifor- (chapters 1 and 8, this volume) has demonstrated the mity among its constituent components. The district expansion and contraction of the Stockton District is the basic spatial unit of analysis in the phases, the across three physiographic provinces at the end ofthe basic temporal units which are coterminous with dis- Middle Horizon in Central California. trictboundaries. Only one phase exists in one district Site, Locality, and District. An archaeological at any one time. In ethnographic terms in California site was described by Willey and Phillips (1958:18) as the unity exhibited within districts is possibly related "the smallestunitofspacedealtwithby the archaeolo- to the ease of linguistic communication plus factors gist and the most difficult to define." Without mini- such as dance and ceremonial exchanges documented mizing the many problems involved in the uniform for the Kuksu and Ghost Dance. definition ofa site, and pointing out that the same site Ideally districts are defined in contrast to adja- may be assigned to differing larger spatial units at cent districts where cultural differences are readily different times in its history, it can be defined as "a apparent. Most districts appear to have a distinctive discrete area fairly continuously covered by remains ecological core, but the peripheral boundaries often offormerhumanoccupation orproviding evidence of fluctuate, sometimes radically, into adjacent physi- human activity" (chapter 2, p. 13). ographic provinces. Various reasons can be offered According to Willey and Phillips (1958:18) the forthe fluctuation, such as climaticchange, accultura- locality is "generally not larger than the space that tion ofand by adjacentgroups, and population expan- might be occupied by a single community or local sion, but such reasons often remain hypothetical un- group." They stated that "In strictly archaeological less a large body of analyzed data is available. terms, thelocalityisageographical spacesmallenough Region, Area, and Subarea. The region of topermittheworking assumptionofcompletecultural Willey and Phillips (1958:19) "is roughly equivalent homogeneity at any given time." Evidence already to the space that might be occupied by a social unit available indicates that complete cultural uniformity larger than the community, a unit to which we may was often shared by several local groups, which dur- with extreme trepidation apply the term 'tribe' or ing the ethnographic period in California are called 'society."' In Central California, where tribes in the tribelets, thatis, autonomous socialunits intermediate sense conveyed by Willey and Phillips were absent, in size between bands and tribes (Kroeber 1962). In the cultural similarities would appearto bedue to both chapter 2 Bennyhoff and I suggest that the locality direct and indirect interaction (including trade net- Spatial and Cultural Units 33

works) and to tribelet environments which resembled graphic space to one district or another, or to one eachotherenoughto allow the developmentofsimilar subarea or another, is dependent upon cultural rather subsistence activities. A region in Central California, than strictly ecological orenvironmental factors. The then, could include speakers of different languages, nature and extent ofany particular spatial unit cannot for example, Bay Miwok, Plains Miwok, and South- be assumed a pnori butmust be determined by cultural ern Patwin. analysis and comparison. To illustrate the above The region in some respects is similar to discussion, a classification of some of the spatial Beardsley's (1954:6-7) concept of province, which divisions in California, adapted from chapter 2, ap- has both geographic and cultural significance, being pears in table 3.1. defined as a geographic grouping of several facies Cultural Integrative Units in Central formedonthebasisofculturalresemblances. Beardsley California Archaeology recognized that the boundaries of a province can change from one period to the next and accounted for In general, my use of cultural units follows the possibility by naming the provinces of each suc- Willey and Phillips (1958:2140), but two additional cessive time period separately. concepts are introduced which appear useful for un- The area, followingWilleyandPhillips (1958:20) derstanding the Central California materials. These "corresponds roughly tothe culture area oftheethnog- two concepts, discussed in greater detail below, are rapher." The identical difficulty applies to the ar- thepattern (cf. chapter 2), used to integrate materials chaeological culture area as to the ethnographic cul- from one or more regions, and the aspect, a district ture area: although both may have general physi- integrativeunit, similarbutnotidentical inmeaning to ographic integrity, the boundaries are not easy to itsuse intheMidwesternTaxonomic System (McKem define as those of the smaller region. In each case, 1939). examination of cultural inventories is necessary to Component and Assemblage. The archaeo- determine areal boundaries. California as an archaeo- logical componentwas defined by Beardsley(1954:6) logical area would include several subareas (Willey as the "archaeological record ofhuman occupancy at and Phillips 1958:20), that is, "territories of geo- a single locality at a specific time." Although graphical extent intermediate between the region and Beardsley's definition is essentially identical with the the area which possess qualities and degrees of cul- Willey and Phillips (1958:21-22) definition of the turalunity." Duringdifferentculturalperiods, subareas same term, the word "locality" is not used with the may differ as well. For the Protohistoric period precise meaning ofWilley and Phillips. Concordance Central California would be one such subarea, the can be achieved by replacing the "single locality" of Southern California Coast another. As has been the Beardsley definition with the phrase "specific mentioned, the boundaries of any one subarea may site." Heizer (1949:2) introduced the term "settle- intrudeintothephysiographic space ofanothersubarea, ment," favoring it over the equivalent term "compo- as in the example ofthe southern San Joaquin Valley nent," which was already in use in the Midwestern relating culturally to the Southern California Coastal system. Later, however, Beardsley (1954:6) selected subarea, rather than to the Central California subarea, component since, although components mightwellbe despite physiography. "entire settlements or communities," they "need not In practice, with the exception ofthe site, each of necessarily be so." Although the term assemblage is the spatial units, from the locality to the area, may be sometimes used to referto the totality ofartifacts from conceived in terms of an ecological core, becoming a given site, in this essay the assemblage is the totality more generalized as one proceeds from the locality to of artifacts found in any one component. Thus a the largergeographic units. It is at the borders ofeach stratified site containing three cultural components of the territories that the assignment of the space would also contain three artifactual assemblages. occupied by a particular culture becomes dependent One of the first tasks of the archaeologist as upon cultural factors, rather than ecological ones. In fieldworiker is the definition of the various compo- the final analysis, the assignment of a particular geo- nents represented by the site under investigation. In 34 Toward a New Taxonomic Frameworkfor Central California

TABLE 3.1 Some Archaeological Spatial Units in California

California Area Soutem California Coastal Subarea Southern San Joaquin Valley Region Central California Subarea San Fmnisco Bay Region Alameda District Carquinez Locality Oakland Locality Newark Locality Livermore Valley Locality Santa Clara Valley Locality Peninsula Locality Manin District Delta Region Diablo District Oakley Locality Walnut Creek Locality Cosumnes District American Locality Cosumnes Locality Mokelumne Locality Solano District Stockton District North Coast Ranges Region Mendocino District Clear Lake District Northeastern California Region South Coast Ranges Region

some cases, such as in a deep, physically homoge- System (McKern 1939) and thefacies ofthe existing neous site, this cannot be achieved completely until Central California cultural classification system excavations havebeencompleted and careful analysis (Beardsley 1954:6). Willey and Phillips (1958:22) of the distribution of all recovered cultural materials described phase as, "an archaeological unit possess- hasbeenmade. Inmanycases, however, afieldworker ing traits sufficiently characteristic to distinguish it can distinguish between the various cultural compo- from all other units similarly conceived, whether of nents onthe basis ofobserved physical stratigraphy in the same or other cultures or civilizations, spatially the field and later analysis will usually confirm and limited to the order of magnitude of a locality or add greater detail to the initial working hypothesis. region and chronologically limited to a relatively Phase and Aspect. The concept ofphase em- brief interval of time." The phase is the smallest ployed here is identical to that of Willey and Phillips culturalunitrecognizablein space and time inCentral (1958:22ff.). Since the term "phase" is in wide usage California (see chapter 2). The use of the tenn throughout the New World, it is preferred to the "phase" in Beardsley's Central California frame- equivalent termsfocus ofthe MidwesternTaxonomic work, as in Phase 1 and Phase 2 ofthe Late Horizon, Spatial and Cultural Units 35 includes much greatergeographic space thaneven the In the earlier discussion of the district, it was region suggested by Willey and Phillips, and in use is stated that only one phase existed in one district at any more closely equivalent to the period concept, dis- onetime, andthattheculturaluniformity found within cussed below. a district during any phase was possibly related to the Although Willey and Phillips designated the ease of verbal communication plus factors such as phase as "the practicable and intelligible unit of ar- dance and ceremonial exchange. A sequence of chaeological study," it must be pointed out that the phases within a single district is referred to herein as phase, as conceptualized here, can only be defined an aspect. Both phases (during a single time interval) precisely after a considerable amount ofcomparative and aspects (usually covering several time intervals) analysis of larger, more generalized units has been are district representatives of apattern, a generalized carried out. Inpracticelargerprehistoric cultural units cultural configuration usually encompassing one or are not "built up" out ofphases, the smallest discern- more regions. These are discussed in greater detail ible unit, but phases are analyzed out of the larger below. units. Thus, to a large degree, phase distinctions The aspect is often discernible in the archaeo- involve recognition of cultural differences compa- logical record before its constituent phases can be rable to those made between two adjacent societies isolated, but like phases the aspect is analyzed out of within a common environmental setting. In regard to a larger, more generalized unit, the pattern. Pro- technology, economy, social and political organiza- cedurally, the pattern is the most readily identified tion, and ceremonial practices, such societies will configuration in an archaeological component. As probably be quite similar, but in language and many spatial data come under control, the pattern can be nuances ofculture they may be quite different. Most broken up into a numberofaspects. As temporal data importantly, they experience themselves as different comeundercontrol, the aspects canbe subdivided into peoples. The recognition of phase differences, then, constituent phases. In this scheme, patterns them- involves recognizing culturalnuances,oftenexpressed selves are not broken up into phases, but rather the as stylistic differences, which distinguish two similar temporal dimension is subdivided on the basis oftime societies from one another. I have employed the term markers, technically artifacts orstylistic details on the "societies" here, rather than cultures, since archaeo- order of the horizon-style of Willey and Phillips logical cultures usually are not isomorphic with dis- (1958:29ff.), which are limited in temporal distribu- crete ethnographic cultures but are comparable to tion. groupings of cultures such as those found in culture The analytic isolation of the aspect is greatly areas (cf. Rouse 1965). This problem is discussed in dependent upon what are called district markers here more detail in the section on "district markers." (cf. Bennyhoff 1977), that is distinctive artifacts, The definition of phases and their temporal and qualities of workmanship, or stylistic details which spatial relationships withone anotherallow the recog- arelimited in spatial distribution. Some district mark- nition of many processes, ranging from those in- ers may persist through time for a short while, and volved in the interaction of two adjacent societies, to others may persist for a prolonged period. District those accompanying alterations inthe environment, to markers may also serve as time markers within the those hypothesized on the basis of systems theory districts in which they occur. The definition of the (Boulding 1956; Hall and Fagan 1956; both cited in phase, then, is dependent upon the intersection within Hole and Heizer 1969:378ff.). For example, else- an assemblage of district markers and time markers. where(Fredrickson 1974b)Ihavedevelopedthe work- ing hypothesis of a growing importance of social District Markers and Time Markers ranking in the Walnut Creek locality of the Diablo Archaeological workers in Central California Districton thebasis ofsystematic differences inburial have placed a great emphasis upon certain artifact practices during successive phases of the Emergent forms and stylistic detail, such as the forms of shell period (Late Horizon) beginning perhaps 2000 years beads and ornaments and the ornamentation on bone ago and culminating in the Protohistoric period. and shell artifacts, because of their proven value in 36 Toward a New Taxonomic Frameworkfor Central California showing temporal relationships between assemblages We expectthat people who occupy a common indifferent regions. Bennyhoffand Heizer(1958), for territory and share acommonmaterial culture will also share such things as language, ideas instance, discussed the value ofCalifornia shell beads about right and wrong, preference in art, reli- for the cross-dating of Great Basin archaeological gion, and other intangible traits. These ele- sites, while Baumhoff and Byrne (1959) and more ments of nonmaterial culture are not recov- recently O'Connell (1967) have suggested the utility ered by prehistoric archaeologists, but every of employing certain forms of projectile points as effort is made to make inferences about the temporalmarkers. With the exceptionofBennyhoff's social and nonmaterial aspects ofthe remains they examine. (1977) study, rather little attention has been focused We may add to this that data are also available which upon cultural characteristics which assist the analyst inform us that material products themselves often are indistinguishing between one community or group of invested with nonmaterial meaning related to cultural communities and another. Thesecharacteristics, com- identity. Dawson(1963), forexample,haspointed out bined underthe heading ofdistrict markers, may vary from the quality of workmanship exhibited in the that cultural standardization in mush boiling baskets (and presumably other basketry forms as well) is manufacture of fish spears to the characteristic de- accomplished throughmutual criticism ofthe makers, signs incised upon bone tubes (Bennyhoff 1977). Beardsley's (1954:76ff.) comparative discus- that is, by ridiculing deviations from the nonn. Thus, sion of the Late Horizon in the Cosumnes (Delta in Whilkut mush boiling baskets can be consistently differentiated from the mush boiling baskets of the Beardsley's table 1) and Colusa provinces included itemization oftraits helpful in the cultural differentia- neighboring Yurok, who exhibit and reinforce a dif- ferent standardization: "the shape was different and tionofone province from theother. His interpretation the weave ofthe lateral reinforcement was different." refers to the cultural detail ofa specific cultural group: Dawson added that in the teaching of the young, Areal differenation is toanon... brought instructions include "not only technical manipula- by the appearance oftraits in an earlier facies of one province than of another. Traits of tions but also the tribal ethos and style precepts about Hollister Facies, for example, which are ab- baskets." sent from Sandhill Facies components but Foodpreferences showthatcultural identitymay appear well marked in MillerFacies ofPhase have at least partially an ecological basis. DuBois 2 include: fully flexedburial indug grave pits; (1935:6-7) reported that various subgroups of the pre-interment burning in the grave pit; deep, Wintu ridicule one another in regard to food prefer- angular serrations on obsidian points; incised birdbonetubes;single-piece,bilaterallybarbed ences: 'The Upper Sacramento Wintu were called fish spears; banjo-shaped ornaments ofHali- derisively 'musseleaters' and ridiculedbytheMcCloud

otis shell . . ; generalelaboration in forms and Wintu forgrinding deerbones into flour, to which the decorative styles of abalone ornaments .. .; UpperSacramentopeople responded thattheMcCloud and Olivella bead type 3e ... In the reverse people ate salmon-bone flour and 'besides they stank direction come relatively few traits: tubular salmon and bear."' If we can actual food anddiscmagnesitebeads are foundinSandhill of expect Facies(MillerB Component) as well as Miller preferences to parallel the food prejudices, we can Facies, but do not arrive in the Cosumnes hypothesize that an abundance of "mussel" shells in Province until Mosher Facies develops. The archaeological sitesinone Wintu district as contrasted regularity withwhichthesoutherntraits occur with another would reflect not only local availability in Phase 2 Howells Point Component in the but also the identity of the specific Wintu subgroup. north, in to appear- contrast their spasmodic we could hypothesize that there would be a ance in associated sites of the Miller Facies, Further, has led Heizer [1941:109] to suggest north- relative abundance of mussel debris in Upper Sacra- ward migration of a Delta group as a cause mento Wintu sites where local availability would not rather than simple spread ofelements. support this prediction. In this regard, I (Fredrickson Hole and Heizer(1969:43) expressed a common 1969) have inferred movement or expansion of a archaeological view when they stated that: bayshore-oriented society into the interior Walnut Spatial and Cultural Units 37

Creeklocality partly on the basis ofchanges in dietary criteria unsupported by independent dating practices, including a change marked by an abun- may have considerable temporal depth and thatthe assumedconelation isnot necessarily dance ofmarine molluscan remains where previously horizontal butmay, andprobablydoes, have a such remains were virtually absent. 'slope' depending on the amount of time re- DuBois's data are particularly interesting in that quired for the spread of the elements used as she "lays stress upon behavior and attitudes ofminds" horizon markers. ratherthan simply "presenting what may be called the This definition is similar to the use ofhorizon in type culture" (DuBois 1935:1). Unfortunately, most the Central California cultural sequenceexcept that in of the existing ethnographic accounts of California the Willey and Phillips concept the horizon would Indian groups do not contain the wealth of attitudinal occupy a very short time span (cf. Deetz 1967:59ff.) information that DuBois's work on the Wintu con- rather than the thousand years or more ofeach of the tains. There are occasional references, devoid of the California horizons. The example given above, affective implications, that cultural traits, including wherein certain traits occur initially in the Cosumnes decorative elements, are related to cultural identity. Province during Phase I ofthe Late Horizon and then Gifford (1965:56) for instance, stated: laterin the ColusaProvince during Phase2 ofthe Late The tattooing on the women's faces was dif- Horizon, would seem to fit the Willey and Phillips ferent among each tribe or group in this gen- definition but forseveral shortcomings. The criterion eral region, andthe CoastYuki show thatthey of"broad and rapid spread" is not clearly met; the two form no exception to this rule. They used fine contem- marksinconsiderable quantitiesonthecheeks facies concerned here are not approximately andchin, butdidnotemployheavy wide chin- poraneous; and in chronometric terms, Phase I lasted tattooing as did some other tribes. perhaps 1000 years and can now be divided into a On the basis of these kinds of data, it can be numberofsmallertemporal units whilePhase 2 lasted postulated that when two cultures are closely related close to 300 years and can also be divided into smaller to one another in total organization and content, the temporal units. identity of each group may be projected into what The above example highlights the difficulty of might appear to be minor cultural detail. This detail applying even the Willey and Phillips concept of may be invested with emotional significance not nec- horizon in Central California archaeology. The more essarily corresponding to its seemingly minor signifi- valuable concept for Central California is not the cance to the culture generally. It can be further horizon,butthehorizon-style,which,accordingtoWilley postulated that at least a portion of the concept of and Phillips (1958:32), district markers themselves may be the equivalent of may be roughly defined as a specialized cul- material symbols of cultural identity. tural continuum represented by a wide distri- bution of a recognizable art style. On the Earlier in this essay the concept of horizon as assumption ofhistorical uniqueness ofstylis- used inCentral California was criticized on the grounds tic pattern, coupled with the further assump- that the binding of time and culture into a single tion that styles normally change with consid- concept was unduly limiting. The Central California erable rapidity, the temporal dimension is usage can also be contrasted with widespread New theoretically reduced to a point where the usage term horizon. Willey and Phillips horizon-style becomes useful in equating World ofthe phasesorlargerunitsofculturethatarewidely (1958:29ff.) defined horizon as "a primarily spatial separated in space. continuity represented by cultural traits and assem- It is apparent that the horizon-style of Willey and blages whose nature and mode of occurrence permit Phillips is simply another formulation of the well- the assumption of a broad and rapid spread." They known concept ofcross-dating on the basis ofartifact emphasized that: similarities, but with emphasis upon art styles rather The archaeological units linked by a horizon in and withthe arethus assumedtobeapproximatelycontem- thanuponjustartifacts general implicit poraneous. The word isitalicized because itis assumption that the horizon-style is representative of recognized that horizons based on cultural the horizon assemblage. 38 Toward a New Taxonomic Frameworkfor Central California

Because of the emphasis upon formal art style, years. Rowe (1959:320) recommended that short- Willey and Phillips (1958:32) state that the "horizon- comings of typological dating can be avoided "by style concept has limited application, since it presup- using significant features as the unit of study instead poses, a level of aesthetic development that many oftypes." A feature is "any characteristic or detail of archaeological cultures in the New World failed to anobjectwhichcanbe observed and isolated, whether reach." Rowe (1959) has introduced analytic con- of material or workmanship or decoration." With cepts which make the horizon-style concept broadly respect to relative dating, Rowe (1959:320) pointed applicable, including within Central California, the out: cultures of which are not noted for elaborate artistic The most useful features for dating purposes development, as contrasted, for example, with the are those which occur frequently during a Andean cultures ofPeru. Rowe's contribution shows relatively shortspan oftime and arenot found earlier or later. Features which occur at the thatthe greatimportance ofthe horizon-style is not so beginning ofthe record being analyzed, have much its potential for demonstrating culture contact, a continuous existence, and go out before the as emphasized by Willey and Phillips, but its potential endoftherecordare alsouseful, as arefeatures for allowing precise relative dating ofphases. Rowe which come in after the beginning of the (1959:317) aptly stated: record and last until the end. Features which Patterns ofcultural change begin to appear in do not occurin one ofthese patterns are ofno the archaeological record as soon as the evi- use in making chronological distinctions, no dence can be arranged in any kind ofchrono- matter how prominent they may be or how logical order. With increasingly precise rela- useful they may become in the study ofother tive dating it becomes possible to study the problems. Theyarenotsignificantfeaturesfor cirumstancesunderwhichtheknownchanges relative dating. took place and to observe others. Any devel- InCentralCalifornia, Bennyhoff(chapter1,1977; opment in archaeology whichmakes possible Bennyhoff and Heizer 1958) has employed Rowe's more precise relative dating, therefore, in- method of feature analysis to define horizon-styles creasestheopportunities forstudying cultural which have been utilized both for extensional dating process. and for more precise division of the existing Central Rowe was concerned with changes that occur Califomiahorizonsintonumerousphases. Bennyhoff within a tradition as defined by Willey and Phillips has examined fluctuations in various features, or at- [1958:37]-"a temporal continuity represented by tributes, ofshellbeads, forinstance, andhas foundthat persistent configurations in single technologies or the location of the perforation in small, rectangular other systems of related forms." He focuses in par- Olivella beads is an important temporal indicator ticular upon ceramic traditions in Peru. The fine duringtheLate Horizon. Similarly, duringtheMiddle distinctionspossibleemployingthemethodsuggested Horizon, the size of the central perforation in shell by Rowe can form the basis of horizon-style traits in beads is a feature with temporal significance. synchronicinterpretation. Rowe(1959:318)observed Thus, morphological feature analysis ofvarious one of the handicaps of the typological concept in traditions, which by definition are presumed to have general use among both American and European temporal continuity, allows the recognition ofsignifi- archaeologists (cf. Willey and Phillips 1958:12-13): cant attributes, often attributes that appearto be minor Since cultural change is normally a gradual stylistic details. This recognition allows more precise process, it takes relatively long periods for enough change to accumulate in the appear- division ofthe aspects into phases to which the tradi- ance of a given kind of object so that it no tions belong than otherwise would be possible. Fur- longerqualifies as descriptively similarto the ther analysis and comparison can identify those ele- type specimen. Consequently, types set up in ments ofthe tradition which are spatially restricted to this way have relatively long spans of exist- the district under consideration, (thus making them ence in time, rarely less than 200 years. district markers) and those which are widely spread In Central California the time span of recognized through space, presumably by means oftrade or other artifact types may extend for literally thousands of similar means of transport (thus serving as time Spatial and Cultural Units 39 markers, orhorizon-styles). Thehorizon-styleshould Periods in California Prehistory receive the name ofthe style which characterizes it in I suggest that California's prehistory be divided order to emphasize the distributional and synchronic into four major chronological periods, with each pe- nature ofthe cultural relationship and to avoid unwar- riod being named for the dominant stage. We would ranted implications of cultural identity. thushave ahypothetical "EarlyLithicperiod," alittle- In field investigations known horizon-styles can investigated "Paleo-Indian period," and the firmly be employed as aids inthe assessment ofthe temporal established "Archaic" and "Emergent" periods. Fur- standing of a given site or cluster of sites. No impli- ther, I suggest that the current status of substantive cation of cultural identity then need be present when knowledge allows us to place the periods within a a site component is temporally identified by horizon- chronological framework specific for the California style. Horizon-styles may also be employed by field area. Although precise time boundaries between the workers as aids in the assessment of direction and periods will be subject to change, it seems less likely intensity of cultural influences which derive from that radical change in the overall chronology will be outside the locality ofthe site or sites underinvestiga- necessary. I have tentatively divided the Archaic into tion. Lower and Upper periods. The Lower Archaic is Stone cultures with a Period and Pattern dominated by the Early Milling relatively simple and uniform culture-type, although Period and Stage. Willey and Phillips (1958: subareal variations occur. The Upper Archaic, the 65) have pointed outthat itis only recently that formal beginning of which I have made more or less coter- acknowledgment has been given to the distinction minous withthe beginning ofthe Medithermal, would between an archaeological stage and an archaeologi- include the Middle Horizon ofthe traditional Central cal period, citing Krieger (1953) as presenting the California cultural sequence and the "Intermediate" "first adequate developmental scheme for North culturesofsouthern California (Wallace 1955). I have America as a whole. .. [containing] the clearest suggested earlier in this essay that this period should discrimination between the concepts of stage and be characterized by considerable diversity and irregu- period that we have yet seen in print." It is relevant larity of pattern. here to repeat Krieger's (1953:24748) formulation: I have also divided the Emergent into a Lower Forpresent purposes, I will consider a 'stage' and an Upper. In Central California the LowerEmer- to be a segment of a historical sequence in a gent period would be represented by Phase I of the given area, characterized by a dominating Late Horizon and the UpperEmergent representative pattern of economic existence. The general would be Phase 2. During the ethnographic period, economic life and outlines ofsocial structure which would be coterminous with the Upper Emer- of past peoples can often be infened from archaeological remains and can be related to gent period, geographically and culturally marginal similar phenomena, whether the dates are groups, such as the Yana, Atsugewi, and Coast Yuki, known ornot. Theterm 'period', on the other would have cultures of the Archaic Stage of cultural hand, might be considered to depend upon developmental but would be assigned to the Emergent chronology. Thus a stage may be recognized period on the basis of chronology. The proposed by content alone, and, in the event that accu- periods, provisional dating, and examples ofarchaeo- ratedatescanbeobtained foritinagiven area, it could be said that the stage here existed logical sites and units assigned to each period appear during such-and-such a period. Further, the in table 3.2. same stage may be said to appear at different Two additional terms, theuse ofwhichis already timesorperiods indifferent areas and alsoend established in California, are protohistoric and his- at different times. A stage may also include toric. The original use ofprotohistoric, a tenn coined several locally distinctive culture complexes by the French (Hole and Heizer 1969:37), was in and minor time divisions. A great deal of of who were without discussion is needed on these points. relation to the study peoples writing themselves, but who must be studied with 40 Toward a New Taxonomic Frameworkfor Central California reference tothehistoryofa literate society. Following of the units or their relationship with comparable this meaning, the 1542 voyage of Cabrillo along the units. What must be introduced now is an integrative California coast canbe taken as marking the beginning concept that fulfills the cultural function of the hori- of the Protohistoric period in California. The 1492 zon concept, but without the temporal implications. I contact of Columbus with the West Indies could also have chosento referto the conceptby the term pattern betaken as markingthe beginning oftheProtohistoric and will discuss the choice ofthis term below. period, taking intoconsideration thatdiseasesbrought The pattern is the archaeological unit out of by the Columbus voyages conceivably could have which different phases and aspects are abstracted. spread widely and quickly throughoutthe New World The conceptis similarto the conceptof"culture" in its (S. T. Brooks, personal communication). "culture-area" usage. That is, inherent in the concept The more commonly applied meaning for are a numberofseparate, coexisting societies, each of protohistoric as applied to Californian materials, and which possesses to a greater or lesser extent similar the one recommended here, is for the designation of characteristics. The pattern, then, is a way of life the cultural period immediately prior to historic con- shared by a number of different peoples residing in a tact. Inthis sense theterms seems best appliedto local particular geographic space. The pattern differs deci- and regional sequences. In the lower Sacramento sively from the culture-area concept in that the terri- ValleyandSanFrancisco BayregionstheProtohistoric tory in which it is manifested is considerably smaller period is equivalent to the Upper Emergent period in extent than the territory included in the spatial unit (Phase 2 oftheLate Horizon). Different dating forthe of the area, and is also smaller than the unit of the Protohistoric period is found in some other regions. subarea, at least as these units are found in California. For example, King (1968:115) assigned the upper Theclosestparallel inrespecttoculturalgroupings are component at Mad-I 17 in the San Joaquin Valley to the "cultural provinces" of Klimek (1935), which "an entirely protohistoric date, suggesting a time were arrived at inductively through statistical analy- depth probably not exceeding 700 years." sis. Thus, a number of separate, but inter-related Bennyhoff (1977) placed the beginning of the archaeological patterns exist within the Central Cali- historic period in California concurrent with the ar- fornia subarea. A single pattern may be restricted rival ofthe Spanish on the California coastin 1769. It spatially to a single region, although several regions is obvious that many groups were not affected by maybeincluded. A sequence ofpatterns inone region European contact until considerably later, thus it may may not be identical with the sequence of patterns in be more useful to cite local or regional dates for the another region, even though both regions may be commencement of the historic period. Use of the included within the same subarea. There is no neces- terms should be specified. sary temporal sequence implied by terminology. Employing the above framework fieldworkers, An archaeological pattern, as defined here, rep- onthebasisofhorizon-styles andotherknown, widely resents an adaptive mode shared in general outline by spread cultural characteristics, would have a substan- a number of analytically separable cultures over a tial likelihood ofaccurately assigning a given site to a particularperiod oftime within a comparatively large specific period, but, once again, without necessarily geographic space. Following Kroeber (1936, 1939), identifying the culture under investigation with some the pattern of a climax region is likely to differ from reference point culture, such as oneofthose located in the pattern of adjacent marginal regions, despite the the lower Sacramento Valley. probability ofshared historic origins ofthe cultures of Pattern. The division of California prehistory the two kinds ofregions. Cultures that share a pattern into major periods functions much the same as the can be assumed to interact more with one another, traditional horizon framework, except for the crucial both directly and indirectly, than with cultures exhib- difference that the temporal dimension is kept sepa- iting different patterns. Relationships which can be rate from the cultural one. It follows, then, that the discerned between different patterns can be indicated assigning ofaparticularphase or aspect to a particular by descriptive commentaries, since inclusion in the period indicates little about the actual cultural content same culture-area implies fundamental relationships. Spatial and Cultural Units 41

TABLE 32 Archaeological Periods in Central California

Period and Dating Upper Emergent Phase 2, Late Horizon A.D. 1500 Lower Emergent Phase 1, Late Horizon A.D. 300 Upper Archaic Middle Horizon 2000 B.C. Intermediate Cultures Lower Archaic Early Horizon 6000 B.C. Early San Francisco Bay Early Milling Stone Cultures Paleo-Indian San Dieguito 10,000 B.C.? Western Clovis Early Lithic ? Farmington ? Santa Rosa Island ?

Note: Thetemporalboundariesofanyonearchaeologicalculture maynotcorrespondprecisely with the datesgiven, e.g., Early Horizon (Windmiller Pattern) perhaps begins as late as 3000 B.C. and may persist until 500 B.C. (Ragir 1972).

A pattern is characterized by (a) similar techno- that some patterns may have specific linguistic corre- logical skills and devices (specific cultural items); (b) lates in regard to origins, but such correlates must be similar economic modes (production, distribution, demonstrated rather than assumed. During any one consumption), including especially participation in style-horizon, representatives ofdiverselanguage fami- trade networks and practices surrounding wealth (of- lies may share the identical pattern. ten inferential); and (c) similar mortuary and ceremo- A specific pattern should be defined in such a nial practices. way as to make the identifying characteristics as A single pattern will not be specifically uniform generalized as possible, yet any two patterns should throughout the entire geographic space which itoccu- clearly contrast with one another. Itshould be empha- pies. Regional and local variation, sometimes ex- sized thatthe definition ofa particular pattern is based treme, will occur, depending upon factors such as (a) upon a configuration of trait elements. Individual abundance and nature of specific environmental re- characteristics may be shared mutually between two sources; (b) regional specializations and elaborations, or more patterns, but the overall configuration of sometimes resulting from unique historic events; (c) each pattern should be distinctive. Within a single degree ofcultural and geographic marginality; and (d) culture-area or subarea, several patterns should be influences ofneighboring patterns. It is hypothesized distinguishable. Although sharp boundaries between 42 Toward a New Taxonomic Frameworkfor Central California

patterns may not be discernible, the units themselves an assemblage of artifacts that recur repeat- should be more easily manageable than larger units edly associated together in dwellings of the same kind and with burials by the same rite. encompassing the entire area. It can be expected that The arbitrary peculiarities of implements, during any given period in Central California there weapons, ornaments, houses, burial rites and will probably exist a climax region pattern border ritual objects are assumed to be the concrete region patterns which are strongly influenced by more expression of common social traditions that than one climax culture, marginal region patterns bind together a people. where influence from two or more culture-areas is This usage would seem more appropriately applied to manifest, and coalescent patterns where characteris- the concept of phase than to that of pattern as dis- tics from an earlier period strongly influence newer cussed above, since itisthephase (inthisessay) which patterns. (See chapter2, pp. 20-21, forfurtherdiscus- comes closest to approximating a discrete ethno- sion of pattern variability, Ed.) graphic culture. Krieger (1964:26) proposed a much Within Archaic and Emergent cultures in Cen- broader use for the term culture, suggesting it be tral California, the milling complex will always be applied to "similar material that is found over great present The dominant or exclusive use ofthe mortar regions." The primary objection to the use ofthe term andpestle can usuallybecontrasted withthe dominant culture for the present context is that the word is or exclusive use of the handstone and milling stone. thoroughly entrenched in anthropological vocabulary Projectile points will always be present, with forms with a broad spectrum of meanings, and it does not beingmore conservative inmarginallocalities andthe seem advisable to restrictthis range. Cultureranges in quantity ofpoints in any single locality closely related meaning from the ways oflife practiced by members to the economic adaptation. Marginal localities will of a particular society, through the ways oflife com- have fewer trade items and will thus have smaller monto broadergroupings ofparticular societies (such numbers of imported objects, such as beads, orna- as those found withinculture-areas), tothewaysoflife ments, stone pipes, and charmstones. Climax regions common to all humankind. and tribelet centers will generally be richest in regard Asnoted earlier,theterm traditionwasoneofthe to artifact inventory and will show a greater variety of alternatives to horizon discussed during the Davis artifacts, more types of any given artifact, and more workshops. The fact that the term has already complex ceremonial indications than sites inmarginal appeared inprint several times (Gaumer 1968; King or subsidiary regions. 1968; Schulz 1970) argues in favor ofits adoption, Theterm pattern was selectedfrom several which since to intduce yet another term would seem to have been suggested in recent years for this level of add even more complexity to the literature. The integration: horizon, culture, tradition, and pattern. term has much to recommend it, especially in the The continued use of the term horizon (Beardsley senseemployedbyGoggin (1949:17,citedinWiley 1954; Heizer 1949), without the temporal dimension, and Phillips 1958:36ff.), which closely approxi- is not satisfactory forseveral reasons. Notonlywould mates the concept now being explicated: continued usage imply thetraditional Central Califor- My concept of Florida cultural traditions is similarintheory butmore inclusiveincontent nia meaning, linking time with culture when only thanaceramictradition. Aculturaltraditionis culture isdesired, but this linkage would be reinforced a distinctive way of life, reflected in various by the general New World denotation ofthe temporal aspects of the culture; perhaps extending dimensionoftheterm. There is also a conflict with the through some period of time and exhibiting use of horizon-style as defined earlier in this essay. normal internal cultural changes, but never- Ragir (1972) has substituted the term culture for thelessthroughout this period showing a basic consistent unity. In the whole history of a horizon in her recent modification of the Central tradition certain persistent themes dominate California Taxonomic System. Although she did not the life ofthe people. These give distinctive- define heruse ofthetern, the context implied compat- ness to the configurations. ibility withdefinitions such as thatofChilde (1950:2): Willey and Phillips, while recognizing the virtue of Spatial and Cultural Units 43

this usage, reject this use of tradition, preferring to Criteria for Several Patterns in restrict it to "single technologies or other systems of Central California1 related forms." Willey (1966:4), in his synthesis of Windmiller North and South American prehistory, employed the Windniiller Pattern. The Pattern, which appears to have its origin in the Lower Archaic term to refer to: into the Archaic major cultural groupings as these can be dis- period and to have persisted Upper cerned in geographical space and in chrono- period (Ragir 1972), includes the components previ- logical time. In every instance these dimen- ously included with the Early Horizon of the lower sions ofspace and time are appreciable. Each Sacramento Valley. It has recently been renamed by major cultural tradition also probably had a Ragir (1972) as the Windmiller culture. Windmiller definite ideological pattern or world view. components are restricted to the Cosumnes Districtof can for some ofthem in This be demonstrated Pattern theirthematicarts,evidencesofreligiousprac- the Delta region. Criteria for the Windmiller tices, and intellectual pursuits. For others, are as follows: however, particularly the eariest of the New a. Technological skills and devices. Mano and World traditions, the data are inadequate to metate, although rare, are accompanied by small mor- allow such reconstructions. tars (possibly meat or paint grinding implements). Thus, just as the term culture had a broad series of The dart and atlatl, as well as the spear occur. Atlatl meanings, so does tradition. I consider it advisable to spurs are rare and are of polished stone. Non-obsid- retain the flexibility of both terms rather than to ian, stemmed projectile points are dominant and nu- restrict their meaning to a single dimension. merous flaked points have basal edges smoothed by The term pattern can be similarly-cnticized in grinding. While the bone industry isnot elaborate, the that it has a range ofincreasingly broadermeanings. I polished stone industry is, including the biconical have selected it primarily because it is not widely drilling ofstone tubes and shell bead applique, but no employed in the archaeological literature in any ofits true inlay occurs. Impressions on baked clay docu- meanings (but see Warren 1968:26-27, Ed.), contrast- ment close twined basketry. ing in this respect with both culture and tradition. b. Economic modes. The relative number of As a general principle, I suggest that a pattern be projectile points as contrasted with the small number given the name of the first site at which it is recog- ofgrinding implements suggests a hunting emphasis. nized. This does notimply any archaeological priority Inferentially, neitherthe acorn norotherseeds are too forthe site thus employed. The priority relates only to important Trade appears to be focused primarily the recognitionby archaeologists, notto elaborateness upon acquisition of ceremonial and ornamental ob- ofculture content or to temporal priority forthe site in jects, which appear to have been obtained as finished a chronological sequence. Ifsuch a label proves to be specimens rather than as raw material. ambiguous, for instance, ifit is already in use in some c. Burial and ceremonial practices. Intennent other context, an alternate label should be chosen. occurs both in intravillage grave plots and in non- With respect to the archaeologist in the field, I midden, off-village cemeteries. The mortuary com- suggest that the pattern is the unit, along with the plex has aceremonial emphasis, with abundant, delib- period, which is most generally recognized. I empha- erate grave furnishings relatively common. The most size once again that in practice thepattern is not built frequent burial posture is westerly oriented ventral up of aspects, but that aspects and their constituent phases are analyzed out ofthe more generalpattern. Thus, a pattern is defined in terms of generalized forms and types, whereas aspects and phases are 1 Compare the additional detail in this section, pp. 43-47, defined in terms of certain distinctive features which with the outline developed by Bennyhoff and Fredrickson characterize these general forms and types. (chapter 2, pp. 22-24) six years earlier, Ed. 44 Toward a New Taxonomic Frameworkfor Central California extension, although westerly oriented dorsal exten- mally shaped cobble mortar and cobble pestle are sion also occurs. One site yields rare flexure and employed almost exclusively as the milling imple- secondary cremation. There is some work in human ments. Manos and metates, while sometimes present, bone and evidence of head-taking. The use of red arerare. Thedartand atlad arepresent, the atlatl being pigment and the paint palette is documented. represented by rare engaginghooks usuallyofboneor d. Variations in the Windmiller Pattern. The antler. Chipped stone projectile points are less fre- cluster of sites, predominantly on the Mokelumne quentthanin-theWindmillerPattern, andnonstemmed River, involved in the definition ofthe original Early forms predominate. There is a growing emphasis culture or Early Horizon, forms the nucleus of the upon the bone industry during the temporal span of present definition of the Windmiller Pattern. The this pattern. Mammal bone is more commonly em- elaborateness of the mortuary practices suggest that ployed than bird bone. The polished stone industry thesepractices maybe aregional specialization due to does not appearto be as highly developed as it is with favorable economic resources. The culture repre- the Windmiller Pattern. sented appearstohavebeenataclimaxpoint, possibly b. Economic modes. As indicated by a high related to the favored environment. Ifthis is assumed, proportion ofgrinding implements in relation to pro- then it can be hypothesized that the areas geographi- jectile points and by the regional accumulation of cally marginal to the Mokelumne cluster ofsites will large shellheaps, the BerkeleyPattern has acollecting presentanabbreviated versionofthe ceremonialcom- emphasis. The acorn is probably the dominant staple. plex. The BearCreek site (SJo-l 12; Olsenand Wilson The large number ofsites and great depths ofdeposit 1964), believed to be a Windmiller Pattern site, lo- suggest a largerpopulation than that supported by the catedmorethantenmilestothe southoftheMokelumne Windmiller Pattern. There is no apparent emphasis site cluster, shows a significantly smaller number of upon eithertrade or wealth. The use oflocal material charmstones and chipped stone tools as grave furni- predominates. Trade goods, when they appear, are ture. Although this is not necessarily indicative of a finished specimens, rather than raw material. significant difference in the ceremonial complex, it is c. Burial and ceremonial practices. The mortu- suggestive of such a difference. ary complex is rarely elaborated. Flexed burial with Berkeley Pattern. The Berkeley Pattern, pre- variable orientation occurs in village sites. Burial dominantly of the Upper Archaic period but with goods aremostly restrictedto a fewutilitarianitems or possible Lower Archaic antecedents, includes those to ornamental objects which are compatible with an components previously included within the Middle interpretation ofbeing part ofa relatively unelaborate Horizon, renamed by Ragir (1972) as the Cosumnes burial costume. Ceremonialism is indicated predomi- culture andreferredtobyGaumer(1968) astheEmery nantlyby shamanism, thatis,bythepresence ofsingle Tradition. The earliest phases ofthe Berkeley Pattern graves with objects compatible with known ethno- appearto be contemporaneous with the late phases of graphic "shaman's kits," e.g., quartz crystals, the Windmiller Pattern (Fredrickson 1966; Gerow charmstones, bone whistles. Graves are sometimes with Force 1968; Ragir 1972). The name Berkeley accompanied by bird and animal bone, occasionally rather than Emery (for Emeryville where this pattern by articulated portions of skeletons. Birds and ani- was first recognized) has been selected in order to mals sometime are found as ceremonial burials. avoid ambiguity, since Beardsley (1954) already used d. Variations in the Berkeley Pattern. Regional Emeryville as the name for a basic Late Horizon specializations reflect at times differing environmen- facies. Cosumnes isalsounacceptable sinceBennyhoff tal resources. For example, along the San Francisco (1977) used the word to refer to a district ofthe Delta Bay shoreline and the Marin-Sonoma coast, Berkeley region. Berkeley Pattern components are more nu- Pattern sites emphasize the collection of shellfish. merous than Windmiller Pattern components and are Notched stones, presumablynet weights, are common found intheDeltaand SanFrancisco Bay regions. The in these localities, while absent in interior sites. Ar- criteria for the Berkeley Pattern are as follows: chaeological components in the northern San Joaquin a. Technological skills and devices. The mini- Valley show a blending of the Windmiller with the Spatial and Cultural Units 45

Berkeley Pattern, although it appears that the ing from the North Coast Ranges, a region which in Windmiller Pattern has historical priority in the re- earlier periods did not appear to participate to any gion. With additional information it may prove nec- great extent in the patterns so far discussed. Social essary to distinguish the components in this region as differentiation in regard to wealth in the Augustine part of a separate pattern. Patternisevidencedbyconsiderablevariationingrave Augustine Pattern. The Augustine Pattern of furnishings. the Emergent period includes those cultures previ- c. Mortuary and ceremonial practices. Crema- ously included within the Late Horizon (named the tion and preinterment grave pit burning of burial Hotchkiss culture by Ragir [1972]). The Augustine furnishings co-occur with flexed burial, with crema- Pattern appears to be acoalescent pattern merging the tion apparently reserved for relatively wealthy and previous Berkeley Pattem with many new traits and prestigious individuals, judging from the differential involving a change in the general economic complex. distribution of grave gods often found with the two Augustine Pattern components occurin many regions burial modes. Grave orientationis variable. Ceremo- of the Central California subarea, although further nialism, possiblyindicativeofwidespread secretsoci- analysis is necessary before its precise distribution eties documented during the ethnographic period, is can be determined. Augustine Pattem criteria are as evidenced in the artifactual complexes, markedly follows: emphasizing shell beads and ornaments, found with a. Technologicalskillsanddevices. Well-shaped graves. mortars and pestles are common. The bow and arrow d. Variations in the Augustine Pattern. Due to are present, as evidenced by a growing increase in the the developing elaborateness of the trade networks, number of small projectile points beginning in the localities which were unfavorably situated with re- earlierphasesofthe pattern. Thedartand atlatl appear spect to trade routes show considerably less embel- to drop out of use early during the pattern. Fishing lishmentofthe Augustine Patternthanlocalities which implements, while rare in absolute terms, occur more are more favorably situated. Nonetheless, more trade commonly and in different types than in the Berkeley objects are evident in the marginal localities than in or Windmiller Patterns. The harpoon is introduced comparable localities which follow the Berkeley Pat- during early phases of the pattern. Bone work is not tem. The importance of fishing in the Augustine as extensive as with the Berkeley Pattern, but bone Pattern implies that localities favorably situated with awls, probably indicative of a coiled basketry indus- respect to fish resources will have a more elaborate try, are common. Polished stonenow includestubular cultural development than those in mountainous re- pipes as well as charmstones, which often are not as gions. In the northern San Joaquin Valley the pres- well made as those of the Berkeley and Windmiller ence of extended burials in components which tenta- Patterns. Use of and work in shell is common. tively can be classified as participating in the Augus- b. Economic modes. Fishing appears to be tine Pattern may reflect a continuing influence from added to a strong collecting emphasis, while hunting earlier Windmiller Pattern cultures. (inferredbygreaternumbersofprojectile points found BoraxLake Pattern. Whatishere referred to as in middens) may be more important than during the the BoraxLakePatternwas firstidentified as adistinc- period of the Berkeley Pattern. The acorn is the tive cultural manifestation at the Borax Lake site dominant staple, as judged in part by charred speci- (Harrington 1948) in the vicinity ofClear Lake. The mens found inmiddens. There ishighdevelopmentof pattern, which includes sites subsumed by Meighan trade, beginning initially with finished specimens (1955) asbelongingtothe BoraxLake andMendocino serving as trade items, and developing by the addition complexes, is characteristic of the Lower Archaic of raw materials involved in trade. Gradually, more period and has regional representatives persisting into trade items appear that can be identified as coming the Upper Archaic period. It has been suggested from relatively great distances. During the Upper (Baumhoff 1957; Baumhoffand Olmsted 1963,1964; Emergent period the Augustine Pattem appears Wallace 1954) that what is here referred to as the strongly influenced by trade and wealth items deriv- Borax Lake Pattern is historically related to the Early 46 Toward a New Taxonomic Frameworkfor Central California

Milling Stone cultures of the Southern California stones and a single occurrence of a small, tabular, subarea as well as to the Windmiller Pattern of the centrally side-notched, ground stone object, possibly Delta region. The spatial distribution of Borax Lake representing a form ancestral to the "painted tablets" Pattern components is not compatible with these pos- of the Napa and Berryessa valleys. sibilities. Borax Lake components are found through- d. Variations in the Borax Lake Pattern. At out the North Coast Ranges, with strong indication present two aspects of the Borax Lake Pattern have thatthe same ora related pattern may also occur inthe been identified, distinguished by the stone materials South Coast Ranges (Pilling 1955). Despite the pos- employed and the forms of the projectile points uti- sibility of a direct historical relationship between the lized. There is a northern aspect focused in Mendo- Borax Lake and Windmiller Patterns, the extent of cino County andextendingtotheeast sideofthe Coast difference in economic mode and ceremonial behav- Ranges, andasouthernaspect, focusedinLakeCounty ior gives sufficient justification for establishing two and extending southward into Sonoma, Napa, and distinct patterns. Criteria for the Borax Lake Pattern Solano counties. No regional specializations haveyet are as follows: been found, unless the "inscribed stones" of the a. Technological skills and devices. Mano and Redding District (Edwards 1969) can be so consid- metate occur with greater frequency than in the ered. If the Borax Lake Pattem were related to the Windmiller Pattern. Mortar and pestle commonly Windmiller Pattern, it would represent both a cultur- occur along with mano and metate in later phases. ally and geographically marginal variant. Atlatl (inferred) and dart occur, as well as the spear. Houx Pattern. The cultural assemblage which Stemmed, nonstemmed, and concave base projectile makes up what is referred to here as the Houx Pattern points, predominantly oflocal materials (eitherobsid- has not been previously described. The pattern is ian or chert), are present. There is some evidence of described at this time on the basis ofmaterials obtained a burin technology. Polished stone items are found, throughstratigraphicexcavations ata single site, Lak- but are quite rare. No evidence of a significant bone 261 (the Houx site), supplemented with comparative industry has yet turned up, although this may be due materials from neighboring localities. The Houx to differential preservation resulting from soil condi- Pattern, found at this time only in the North Coast tions. Similarly, no evidence of a shell industry has Ranges, is assigned to the Upper Archaic period, but been found. it appears significantly different from the Berkeley b. Economic modes. The relatively large num- Pattern which dominates this period in the Delta, ber of milling implements as contrasted with the SanFranciscoBay,andMadin-SonamCountycoastal relatively small number of stone projectile points site& Criteria for the Houx Pattern are as follows: suggests a generalized hunting-collecting economy, a. Technological skills and devices. The mortar with collecting given an edge over hunting in impor- and pestle dominate the milling industry. The atlad tance. No evidence for fishing has been preserved. (inferred) and dart occur, but the bow and arrow are The use of local materials predominates; trade does absent. Nonstemmed projectile points predominate, not appear to have been particularly well developed, but broad, triangular, stemmed projectile points also although in later phases contact with other patterns occur. Well-flaked scrapers of various shapes and appears to increase. There is no evidence of any sizes are common. Locally available obsidian and wealth emphasis. basalt are the raw materials for virtually all chipped c. Mortuary andceremonial practices. No inter- stone tools. Technical and possibly functional burins ments have been found in habitation sites in earlier are relatively common. No polished stone objects phases, although inonelatephase siteburials dooccur have yet been recovered. The bone industry does not in the midden. No non-midden burials have yet been appearto be particularly well developed, but this may identified. Utilitarian objects, mainly pestles and be due to soil conditions which act against preserva- projectile points, were found with the late phase tion of bone. Work in shell is present in the form of burials. Polished stone items suggestive of ceremo- beads, probably obtained by trade. nial purposes include rare ovoid perforated charm- b. Economic modes. Projectile points are ex- Spatial and Cultural Units 47 tremely numerous, both in absolute number and in d. Variations in the Houx Pattern. While the relationtonumberofmilling implements. Although HouxPattern mayprove to be a specialized adaptation this would strongly support a hunting emphasis, basedupontheBerkeleyPattern, atthis time it appears relatively little bone debris was recovered from the significantly different from the latter to wanrant clas- single stratigraphically excavated Houx compo- sification as a separate pattern. So far, Houx Pattern nent. Charred acorns were recovered fiom the site sites appear to be focused in Lake and Sonoma coun- matrix. Poor preservation of bone may be respon- ties, but similarities in projectile point types provoca- sibleforthisanomaly. Localmaterialspredominate tively suggestconnection with Berkeley Pattern com- with littledevelopmentoftrade except as suggested ponents onthe Marin-Sonoma coast and with compo- by thepresenceofshell beads. There is noevidence nents assigned tothe BerkeleyPattern inNapaCounty. of any wealth emphasis. Projectile point types and the burn technology also c. Mortuaryandceremonialpractices. Flexed suggest connections with Borax Lake Pattern sites of and semi-flexed intennents occurwithin thehabita- the earlierLowerArchaic period and withone ormore tion site. Althoughfewburialshavebeenrecovered, as yet undefined patterns (Martis Complex) of the those which were found show an undeveloped cer- Sierras. Further excavation must be carried out to emonial complex with few associations. They are determine in more detail relationships of the Houx suggestive neither of a ceremonial nor of a utilitarian Pattern to other patterns in both space and time. emphasis to the mortuary complex.