Evaluating the Validity of the Chico Regional Culture

Home , Coso Volcanic Field, Glottochronology, Pit River

EVALUATING THE VALIDITY OF THE CHICO REGIONAL

CULTURE CHRONOLOGY: RADIOCARBON AND

OBSIDIAN ANALYSIS AT THREE LATE

PERIOD VILLAGE SITES

______

A Thesis

Presented

to the Faculty of

California State University, Chico

______

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Arts

Anthropology

______

Devin L. Snyder

Spring 2014 EVALUATING THE VALIDITY OF THE CHICO REGIONAL

CULTURE CHRONOLOGY: RADIOCARBON AND

OBSIDIAN ANALYSIS AT THREE LATE

PERIOD VILLAGE SITES

A Thesis

Devin L. Snyder

Spring 2014

APPROVED BY THE DEAN OF GRADUATE STUDIES AND VICE PROVOST FOR RESEARCH:

______Eun K. Park, Ph.D.

APPROVED BY THE GRADUATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE:

______Guy Q. King, Ph.D. Antoinette Martinez, Ph.D., Chair Graduate Coordinator

______Frank E. Bayham, Ph.D. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Like anything that requires hard work and dedication, this thesis would not have been possible without the help and support of numerous individuals. First and foremost, I would like to thank my committee, Dr. Antoinette Martinez and Dr. Frank

Bayham, for continually pushing me to improve as a writer, researcher, and archaeologist. Within the CSU, Chico Anthropology Department, Dr. Eric Bartelink, Dr.

Keith Johnson, and Kevin Dalton also offered insight and facilitated access to resources that I would have otherwise been unable to utilize. Despite his constantly busy schedule and the fact that he wasn’t even on my thesis committee or obligated to help me, Dr.

Bartelink put me in contact with one of his colleagues and allowed me to receive a reduced rate for radiocarbon dating. Kevin also put up with me throughout the research and writing processes, and helped me conduct obsidian sourcing in the Archaeological

Lab. I can only imagine how tired he got of hearing “Hey Kevin, can you help me with

______?” from me. In my mind, the efforts the above individuals took on my behalf really speaks to the type of people that they are.

Outside of CSU, Chico, I also received support and insight from a number of people, including Arlene Ward and Mike DeSpain of the Mechoopda Maidu Tribe,

Benjamin Fuller, Dr. Simon Fahrni, and Shari Bush of the W. M. Keck CCAMS

Laboratory at UC Irvine, numerous staff members at Far Western Anthropological

Research Group, Dr. Graham Bench at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Dr.

iii Richard Hughes at the Geochemical Research Laboratory, Tom Origer and associates at

Origer’s Obsidian Lab, and Dr. Terry Joslin and the 2012 James A. Bennyhoff Memorial

Fund Award Committee. While Arlene was with the Far West Heritage Association

(FWHA), she helped me locate portions of the CA-BUT-1 collection and persuaded members of the FWHA board to allow me to use artifacts for obsidian studies. Far

Western staff, including Jeff Rosenthal, Mike Darcangelo, Bill Hildebrandt, Jack Meyer, and Phil Kaijankoski, shared a number of CRM reports concerning the greater Chico area that were relevant to my studies. Benjamin, Simon, and Shari were responsible for processing a majority of the radiocarbon samples included in this thesis, and did so at a steeply discounted rate.

As part of the Bennyhoff Memorial Fund Award, Dr. Graham Bench provided additional radiocarbon dating services free of charge. Dr. Richard Hughes and Tom

Origer and associates provided obsidian sourcing and hydration analysis work for free as well as part of this award. Each of these people deserves recognition for their efforts because without them, I would not have been able to complete my thesis. Additional funding for research was also made available by the CSU, Chico Associated Student

Sustainability Fund Committee, the CSU, Chico Office of Graduate Studies Student

Research Grant, and the James A. Bennyhoff Memorial Fund Award.

I would also like to thank all of my Chico area friends and family for their assistance in this process (whether knowingly or unknowingly), particularly when I was in the latter stages of writing this thesis and needed some encouragement to finish. Last but certainly not least, I would like to thank my parents, Ross and Lori, my brother

iv Garrett, and Aimee Van Havermaat for their unwavering support in my pursuit of a career in archaeology.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

Acknowledgments ...... iii

List of Tables...... ix

List of Figures...... x

Abstract...... xii

CHAPTER

I. Introduction...... 1

Purpose of Study...... 10 Study Area Location...... 11 Thesis Structure...... 12

II. A History of Chronology Construction and Archaeological Investigation in Northern California ...... 14

Introduction ...... 14 Chronology-Building in the Sacramento Valley ...... 15 Chronology-Building in the Oroville Locality...... 21 Chronology-Building in the Chico Vicinity...... 27 Assessing the Existing Chronological Framework...... 38 Site Selection...... 43 Chapter Summary...... 44

III. Ethnographic and Environmental Setting...... 46

Introduction ...... 46 Issues Concerning Ethnographic Literature ...... 47 Linguistic Background ...... 49 Territory and Social Organization...... 50 Flora and Fauna ...... 53 Subsistence ...... 56

CHAPTER PAGE

Villages, Seasonal Rounds, and Property Rights ...... 58 Traditional Material Culture...... 60 External Relations and Interpersonal Conflict ...... 61 Post-Euro-American Contact...... 64 Chapter Summary...... 65

IV. Methodology...... 67

Introduction ...... 67 Existing Collections Description...... 68 Sampling Strategy ...... 77 Radiocarbon Dating...... 80 Radiocarbon Sampling Strategy...... 81 Obsidian Sourcing ...... 83 Obsidian Hydration ...... 85 Obsidian Sampling Strategy...... 86 Chapter Summary...... 88

V. Results...... 90

Introduction ...... 90 AMS Radiocarbon Results ...... 91 Obsidian Sourcing Results ...... 97 Obsidian Hydration Results...... 100 Chapter Summary...... 111

VI. Discussion and Interpretation of Results...... 113

Introduction ...... 113 Obsidian Sourcing and Hydration Results ...... 114 Radiocarbon Results...... 129 Radiocarbon and Obsidian Hydration Discrepancies...... 136 Chapter Summary...... 142

VII. Summary and Conclusion...... 144

Contributing to the Chico Chronology...... 144 Areas for Future Research...... 148

References Cited...... 150

vii

CHAPTER PAGE

Appendices

A. Obsidian Sourcing Sample Lists and Results...... 167 B. Obsidian Hydration Sample Lists and Results ...... 204 C. Radiocarbon Sample Lists and Results ...... 223

viii LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE

1. Existing Radiocarbon Support for the Chico Chronology Prior to This Undertaking...... 7

2. The Chico Chronology Prior to This Undertaking...... 9

3. CA-BUT-1 AMS Radiocarbon Results...... 93

4. CA-BUT-7 AMS Radiocarbon Results...... 94

5. CA-BUT-12 AMS Radiocarbon Results...... 96

6. CA-BUT-1 Obsidian Hydration Results ...... 103

7. CA-BUT-7 Obsidian Hydration Results ...... 106

8. CA-BUT-12 Obsidian Hydration Results ...... 109

ix LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE PAGE

1. Location of the Study Area...... 5

2. Archaeological Sites of Significance in the Study Area ...... 29

3. Incised Bird Bone Ear Tubes Characteristic of the Mechoopda ...... 62

4. House Floor Feature 1, CA-BUT-12...... 63

5. The Patrick Site with Numbered House Pit Depressions ...... 70

6. House Floor Features 45 (Foreground) and 2 (Back Left), CA-BUT-1...... 78

7. Probable Hearth Feature 23, CA-BUT-1...... 79

8. Surface House Pit Depressions at CA-BUT-12, Locus C ...... 80

9. Obsidian Source Prevalence at CA-BUT-1...... 99

10. Obsidian Source Prevalence at CA-BUT-7...... 100

11. Obsidian Source Prevalence at CA-BUT-12...... 101

12. Obsidian Hydration Rim Width Measurement Distribution at CA-BUT-1 Regardless of Obsidian Source...... 104

13. Tuscan Obsidian Hydration Rim Width Measurement Distribution at CA-BUT-1...... 105

14. Obsidian Hydration Rim Width Measurement Distribution at CA-BUT-7 Regardless of Obsidian Source...... 107

15. Tuscan Obsidian Hydration Rim Width Measurement Distribution at CA-BUT-7...... 108

x FIGURE PAGE

16. Obsidian Hydration Rim Width Measurement Distribution at CA-BUT-12 Regardless of Obsidian Source ...... 110

17. Tuscan Obsidian Hydration Rim Width Measurement Distribution at CA-BUT-12...... 110

18. Obsidian Hydration-Radiocarbon Pairing Rate Curve for CA-BUT-1, CA-BUT-7, and CA-BUT-12...... 126

19. The Tuscan Hydration Curve Reported by Bayham and Johnson (1990) for CA-GLE-105...... 127

20. A Comparison of Radiocarbon and Obsidian Hydration Date Ranges at the Sites of Interest...... 136

21. A Comparison of Radiocarbon and Obsidian Hydration Date Ranges at the Sites of Interest with Obsidian Hydration Outliers Omitted ...... 137

xi ABSTRACT

EVALUATING THE VALIDITY OF THE CHICO REGIONAL

CULTURE CHRONOLOGY: RADIOCARBON AND

OBSIDIAN ANALYSIS AT THREE LATE

PERIOD VILLAGE SITES

Devin L. Snyder

Master of Arts in Anthropology

California State University, Chico

Spring 2014

Since the initial development of the Chico regional culture chronology during the 1960s, chronometric support for the last 600 years of prehistoric occupation in the area has been noticeably limited. This period of Chico prehistory is particularly significant, as the indigenous peoples of the area, the Mechoopda Maidu, are perceived to have migrated into the region during this time (ca. 550 to 600 years before present). The three most prominent sites interpreted as defining this occupational event and the archaeological phase that succeeds it (referred to as the Chico Complex, 450 years before present to Historic Contac or approximately 150 years before present) have only been dated through relative methods such as projectile point and shell bead typologies, site stratigraphy, and linguistic models, however. Using existing collections from these sites,

xii which include CA-BUT-1, CA-BUT-7, and CA-BUT-12, radiocarbon and obsidian hydration studies were conducted to determine whether the presumed occupational ranges of each site correspond with dates derived via additional absolute and relative techniques.

While obsidian hydration results are wholly different from radiocarbon determinations, and each sites demonstrates evidence of significant component mixing, the latter dating method provides results indicating that the sites largely date to the period of occupation that the chronology had outlined. Such results lend support to the existing chronology and interpretations concerning when the Mechoopda arrived in the Chico vicinity.

xiii

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Archaeologists, at the most basic level, have an acute interest in the long view of past events and processes. This interest requires a temporal framework and a need to construct chronologies. Time is used primarily as an organizing principle for past events, and the most basic archaeological questions involve the ordering of these events. Within

Cultural Resource Management (CRM) archaeology, chronologies serve as a means to not only convey a broad understanding of past culture change in a succinct and accessible manner, but also act as a tool to assist in the management of cultural resources within the existing legal frameworks that state and federal agencies set forth (e.g., Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the California Environmental Quality Act,

California Public Resource Code 5024, and the Native American Graves Protection and

Repatriation Act). Though the degree of temporal resolution required for chronology construction is certainly dictated by the theoretical questions driving the research, stage and phase based chronologies utilizing broad heuristic categories are both useful and prevalent in CRM archaeology because they simultaneously convey much of the necessary information required to manage cultural resources while also contributing to the compliance process for many state and federal mandates.

The significance of chronology construction to CRM archaeology is by no means unique to California. By some estimates, “as much as 90 percent of the

1 2 archaeology done in the United States today is carried out in the field of Cultural

Resource Management” (Sebastian 2009:7). In many parts of the United States, the largest and most extensive CRM projects conducted between the 1960s and 1980s

(particularly reservoir and waterway construction projects) resulted in the publication of benchmark synthetic volumes that presented new chronologies and culture histories that continue to invigorate local and regional research. Notable projects during this period, as well as more recently, include the Lower Verde Archaeological Project in Central

Arizona (Whittlesey et al. 1997); the Dolores Archaeological Project in Southwestern

Colorado (Breternitz 1993; Breternitz et al. 1986; Lipe 2000); the Black Mesa

Archaeological Project in Northeastern Arizona (Gunerman 1984; Powell and Smiley

2002); the FAI-270 Project in Southern Illinois (Bareis and Porter 1984; Fortier et al.

2006); the Tellico Archaeological Project along the Little Tennessee River in Tennessee

(Chapman 1985, 1995); the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway project along the shared border of Mississippi and Alabama (Brose 1991; Stine 1992); and the Richard B. Russell

Multiple Resource Area project along the Savannah River in both South Carolina and

Georgia (Kane and Keeton 1994).

Looking to California, a similar profusion of CRM-sponsored literature has been crucial to the development and refinement of local and regional chronological sequences. Although by no means exhaustive, a wide variety of significant projects resulting in the development and/or refinement of chronological sequences include the

New Melones Archaeological Project in Calaveras and Tuolumne counties (Moratto

2002; Moratto et al. 1988); archaeological investigations at Pilot Ridge on the North

Coast (Hildebrandt and Hayes 1983); the Anderson Flat Project in the Clear Lake Basin

(White et al. 2002); the East Sonora Bypass Project in the North-Central Sierra Nevada

(Rosenthal et al. 2011); and archaeological investigations at both Lassen National (White et al. 2005) and Yosemite National (Hull and Moratto 1999) Parks. As important as the above research, and research of a similar vein, has been for the development and modification of chronological sequences in California, perhaps more significant is the process by which such chronological sequences can evolve by incorporating more modern chronometric information and absolute dating support.

Unfortunately, chronologies oftentimes become static and outdated, acting as a significant impediment to archaeological research rather than facilitating a greater understanding of the past. In many cases, culture chronologies attribute culture change in

Native American prehistory to external processes such as diffusion and migration while making little effort to reveal why cultures have accepted or rejected new traits, or how innovations have transformed societies internally (Trigger 2006:311). Such explanations not only gloss over the substantial culture changes that Native American groups in

California experienced as a result of internal developments, but also run the risk of perpetuating the idea that Native American cultures are “static entities which exist in a timeless historic present”, and were essentially unable to experience significant culture change from within (Trigger 1980:672). These perceptions have persisted in American archaeology since the popularization of the cultural-historical approach, and will continue to be present within the discipline unless existing chronologies are continually reexamined and re-invested in by archaeologists today.

Culture chronologies and aspects of the cultural-historical approach remain important to current archaeological research despite their limitations. According to

Trigger (2006:312), “a more limited and formalist view of the cultural-historical approach remains important” to archaeological endeavors today, and “it is necessary to construct cultural-historical frameworks as a prerequisite for addressing other problems” in contemporary studies. Chronology in California prehistory, as elsewhere, is a central issue because of its relevance to the other major issues of contemporary archaeology

(Meighan 1978:237). In order to make a contribution to existing chronological frameworks, one must first be aware of and acknowledge the problems associated with chronology construction in the past so that it can be addressed and avoided in the future.

Throughout the northern or Upper Sacramento Valley, the deficiencies of local chronological sequences have been well-documented by numerous authors

(Crawford 2011; Dugas 1995; Johnson 2005; Kowta 1988; Rosenthal et al. 2007; White

2003a, 2003b), with many currently relying on the cross-dating of stylistically distinct artifact types (e.g., projectile points and shell beads) and linguistic models in the absence of adequate radiocarbon and obsidian hydration dating. In several cases, artifact chronologies were essentially borrowed from the Great Basin and southern Central

Valley and transposed onto the Upper Sacramento Valley and North-Central Sierra

Nevada with little consideration for regional variability or local applicability (Rosenthal et al. 2011:3). This is not to say that projectile points and shell beads are not valid chronological units, as Baumhoff and Byrne (1959), Beardsley (1954), Beck (1988),

Bennyhoff and Hughes (1987), Elsasser (1978), Heizer and Hester (1978), King (1978),

Zancanella (1987), and others have previously demonstrated both locally and elsewhere, but rather that we should strive to reinforce the interpretations provided by these relative dating methods with absolute data derived from local contexts. Although Groza (2002)

5 and Rosenthal and colleagues (2011) have recently made significant contributions to the chronological sequences of the Central Valley and Sierra Nevada through absolute dating, such an effort, albeit at a smaller scale, has yet to take place within the Chico area. This thesis proposes to conduct such an undertaking in the Chico vicinity (Figure 1).

FIGURE 1. Location of the study area.

Adapted from: Johnson, Keith L., 2005, Archaeological Identification of The Valley Maidu in Northern California. In Onward and Upward! Papers in Honor of Clement W. Meighan, edited by Keith L. Johnson, pp. 57-74. Stansbury Publishing, Chico. Reprinted with permission.

The process by which chronology construction and refinement occurs, like most changes in archaeological method, theory, and technique, is through a continual process of critical examination and incremental change (Meltzer 1979:654) The desired result, regardless of the process, is to construct an accurate chronological framework that is reinforced with the most absolute or precise data as is possible, especially when deficiencies in the data are known to exist. This process, in turn, is most effectively carried out by means of “independent, extra cultural cross-dating” such as radiocarbon and obsidian hydration dating that “do not involve assumptions about culture” or the ordering of cultural patterns (Willey and Phillips 1958:44).

In comparison to many local chronological sequences in Northern California, the Chico chronology appears to have a wealth of radiocarbon support at first glance

(Table 1). Beginning in 1964, California State University, Chico (then Chico State

College) initiated a “small research program to investigate the archaeological resources of Butte and Glenn Counties, especially the areas of Indian habitation in and around the city of Chico” (Johnson 1964:12). Since that time, a total of 28 radiocarbon dates from eight different sites (Table 1) have been used to reinforce a provisional archaeological sequence (Table 2) most recently outlined by Johnson (2005:68). These dates come from a combination of both academic (Bayham and Johnson 1990; Johnson 2005; Kowta 1988;

Nelson 1997; Zancanella 1987) and Cultural Resource Management (CRM; Hildebrandt and Kaijankoski 2011; Meyer and Rosenthal 2008; Rosenthal and Meyer 2009; White

2003b) based research, and cover a timespan of approximately 6,100 years, from 6600 years before present (B.P.) to approximately 500 years B.P. In numerous cases, however, dates obtained from shell samples by Hildebrandt and Kaijankoski (2011) appear to have

TABLE 1. Existing radiocarbon support for the Chico Chronology prior to this undertaking.

Site Material 14C Date Calibrated Phase Source(s) (Years Date B.P.) (Years B.P.) CA-BUT-233 Charcoal 1060 + 90 959 Pine Numerous* Creek 2 CA-BUT-233 Charcoal 1190 + 90 1127 Pine Numerous* Creek 2 CA-BUT-233 Animal Skin Robe 1340 + 250 1284 Pine Numerous* Creek 1 CA-BUT-233 Charcoal 2140 + 100 2138 Llano 2 Numerous* CA-BUT-233 Carbonized Acorn 4240 + 140 4832 Llano 1 Numerous* CA-BUT-294 Charcoal 520 + 80 567 Pine Numerous* Creek 2 CA-BUT-294 Human Bone 1200 + 95 1132 Pine Numerous* Collagen Creek 2 CA-BUT-294 Human Bone 2510 + 95 2575 Pine Numerous* Collagen Creek 1 CA-BUT-294 Charcoal 2630 + 90 2677 Llano 2 Numerous* CA-BUT-294 Human Bone 3990 + 110 4430 Llano 1 Numerous* Collagen CA-GLE-105 Mule Deer Bone 2140 + 230 2138 Llano 2 Bayham and Johnson Collagen (1990) CA-GLE-105 Mule Deer Bone 2550 + 85 2736 Llano 2 Bayham and Johnson Collagen (1990) CA-GLE-693 Bulk Sediment from 1390 + 25 1303 Pine Rosenthal and Meyer Buried Soil Deposit Creek 1 (2009) CA-GLE-695 Shell (Unknown 2160 + 30 2167** Llano 2 Hildebrandt and Freshwater Shellfish) Kaijankoski (2011) CA-GLE-695 Shell (Unknown 2370 + 30 2462** Llano 2 Hildebrandt and Freshwater Shellfish) Kaijankoski (2011) CA-GLE-699 Carbonized Wild 465 + 25 515 Pine Hildebrandt and Cucumber Nutshell Creek 2 Kaijankoski (2011) CA-GLE-699 Shell (Margaritifera) 1600 + 30 1474** Pine Hildebrandt and Creek 1 Kaijankoski (2011) CA-GLE-699 Carbonized Acorn 445 + 25 507 Pine Hildebrandt and Creek 2 Kaijankoski (2011) CA-GLE-699 Shell (Gonidea) 1560 + 25 1465** Pine Hildebrandt and Creek 1 Kaijankoski (2011) CA-GLE-700 Carbonized Wild 2700 + 30 2812 Llano 2 Hildebrandt and Cucumber Nutshell Kaijankoski (2011) CA-GLE-700 Shell (Margaritifera) 3620 + 35 3935** Llano 1 Hildebrandt and Kaijankoski (2011) CA-GLE-700 Carbonized Wild 1210 + 25 1138 Pine Hildebrandt and Cucumber Nutshell Creek 2 Kaijankoski (2011) CA-GLE-700 Shell (Unknown 1730 + 30 1643** Pine Hildebrandt and Freshwater Shellfish) Creek 1 Kaijankoski (2011) CA-GLE-701 Carbonized Wild 5280 + 30 6073 (?) Hildebrandt and Cucumber Nutshell Kaijankoski (2011)

Table 1 (continued)

Site Material 14C Date Calibrated Phase Source(s) (Years Date B.P.) (Years B.P.) CA-GLE-701 Carbonized Wild 5560 + 40 6354 (?) Hildebrandt and Cucumber Nutshell Kaijankoski (2011) CA-GLE-701 Charcoal 5660 + 30 6444 (?) Hildebrandt and Kaijankoski (2011) CA-GLE-701 Carbonized Wild 5800 + 30 6599 (?) Hildebrandt and Cucumber Nutshell Kaijankoski (2011) CA-GLE-701 Shell (Unknown 3480 + 30 3756 Llano 1 Hildebrandt and Freshwater Shellfish) Kaijankoski (2011)

* Radiocarbon determinations for CA-BUT-233 and CA-BUT-294 can be found in Bayham and Johnson (1990), Johnson (2005), Nelson (1997), White (2003b), and Zancanella (1987). ** Dates with two asterisks are most likely inflated due to reservoir effect.

been skewed or inflated by a strong freshwater reservoir effect among local shellfish species (i.e., fossil carbonates from the local aquatic ecosystem being incorporated into the shell), and are thus considered unreliable.

When examining the available radiocarbon support for each phase of the

Chico cultural sequence, there is a noticeable lack of data for the Chico Complex (450

B.P. to 150 B.P. [Historic Contact]) relative to other, earlier time periods. The last prehistoric phase of the Chico chronology, surprisingly, is also its most poorly represented in terms of absolute dating information. Despite the trend through prehistory of substantial population growth and increasing village size and number during the Late

Period in Northern California, only three radiocarbon dates fall even remotely close to the perceived timespan of the Chico Complex, and they come from but two sites, CA-GLE-

699 (n = 2) and CA-BUT-233 (n = 1). These dates, while near the Pine Creek 2 – Chico

Complex transition, are still perceived as being reflective of the end of the Pine Creek 2 phase rather than the beginning of the Chico Complex. Adding to the poor representation

TABLE 2. The Chico Chronology prior to this undertaking. This chronology is based on Johnson’s (2005) modifications to White’s (2003b) provisional sequence. Radiocarbon data from more recent work by Hildebrandt and Kaijankoski (2011) and Rosenthal and Meyer (2009) have also been incorporated. Note that each phase is depicted proportional to the total timespan that it occupies.

Timespan Phase and Associated Source(s) Previous C14 (Years B.P.) Site Components Determinations 150 – 450 Chico Complex; Johnson (2005), Kowta (1988), White 0 BUT-1, BUT-7, (2003b) BUT-12 450 – 1200 Pine Creek 2; BUT- Bayham and Johnson (1990), Johnson 7 233, BUT-294, (2005), Hildebrandt and Kaijankoski GLE-699, GLE-700 (2011), Nelson (1997), White (2003b), Zancanella (1987) 1200 – 1950 Pine Creek 1; BUT- Bayham and Johnson (1990), Johnson 6 233, BUT-294, (2005), Hildebrandt and Kaijankoski GLE-693, GLE-699, (2011), GLE-700 Nelson (1997), Rosenthal and Meyer (2009), White (2003b), Zancanella (1987) 1950 – 2950 Llano 2; BUT-233, Bayham and Johnson (1990), Johnson 7 GLE-105, GLE-695, (2005), Hildebrandt and Kaijankoski GLE-700 (2011), Nelson (1997), Rosenthal and Meyer (2009), White (2003b), Zancanella (1987) 2950 – 4950 Llano 1; BUT-233, Bayham and Johnson (1990), Johnson 4 BUT-294, GLE-700, (2005), Hildebrandt and Kaijankoski GLE-701 (2011), Nelson (1997), Rosenthal and Meyer (2009), White (2003b), Zancanella (1987) 4950 – 6500 (?), GLE-701 Hildebrandt and Kaijankoski (2011) 4

of Chico Complex sites is that the radiocarbon data that is most closely associated with the phase comes from a site with only an ephemeral Upper Emergent or Late Period component (CA-BUT-233), and another (CA-GLE-699) which has been significantly disturbed by an almond orchard and lies on the periphery of the Chico chronology’s geographic scope. If a critical examination of the validity of the Chico chronology is to

10 take place, it is arguably most appropriate to begin with the phase that demonstrates the greatest need for further radiocarbon support.

In addition to being the most archaeologically substantial and diverse period for the Chico region, the Chico Complex also holds significance in the sense that it is widely held that during this time the Mechoopda Maidu, the currently recognized indigenous peoples of the Chico area, migrated into and intensively occupied the region.

According to both linguistic (Golla 2007; Kowta 1988:182-190; Levy 1997) and archaeological (Johnson 2005; Kowta 1988) interpretations, the Mechoopda are currently believed to have expanded their territory onto the valley floor of the northernmost

Sacramento Valley around 550 B.P. (1400 A.D.), where large mounded village sites were settled and continuously occupied until Historic Contact or shortly before. However, the same sites that are viewed as representing such an occupational event have never been radiocarbon dated despite being previously excavated and researched (Johnson 2005). By radiocarbon dating these resources, and providing additional temporal data in the form of obsidian hydration to supplement such information, there exists the possibility to make a significant contribution to the local chronology and continue the long-term research program that California, State University Chico initiated in 1964 through the utilization of existing collections.

Purpose of Study

The primary purpose of this study is to evaluate the validity of the Chico cultural sequence, particularly the Chico Complex, by conducting radiocarbon dating and obsidian hydration on existing archaeological collections that have yet to receive such an

11 examination, and comparing those results to their presumed temporal ranges based predominately on relative dating techniques and linguistic models. A secondary purpose, which is inter-related to the evaluation and refinement of the existing chronology, is to use absolute dating support from these same sites to attempt to determine when the

Mechoopda arrived in the Chico area.

Study Area Location

The study area (Figure 1) is located in the northernmost portion of the

Sacramento Valley, at the junction of the southern extension of the Cascade Range and the northwestern Sierra Nevada foothills. The boundaries of the study area correspond with the ethnographic boundaries of the Mechoopda, and include portions of both Glenn and Butte counties. This territory is largely defined by the major waterways of the region, including the Sacramento and Feather Rivers, as well as their tributaries, which include

Big Chico, Little Chico, Clear, Mud, Butte, Pine, and Dry Creeks. To the north, the study area, and Mechoopda territory, are defined as being located just north of Pine Creek and the mouth of Rice Creek, where significant geological and vegetative changes differentiate the valley floor and foothill environments (Johnson 2005:64-65; Dreyer

1984:4). The eastern boundary is the western branch or West Fork of the Feather River, which generally flows north-to-south. Along the western border of the study area, there has been considerable debate as to whether the Mechoopda occupied both sides of the

Sacramento River due to conflicting ethnographic reports (Bayham and Johnson 1990:16;

Johnson 2005:64-65). Using Mechoopda diagnostic market traits, Johnson (2005:64-65,

68) has argued that Mechoopda territory may have extended as far west of the

Sacramento River as the modern-day community of Orland, but at minimum reached to at least “one or two miles” west of the riverbank. Lastly, bucking the trend of water resources serving as territorial boundaries, the southernmost extension of the study area is defined by the lowlands surrounding the Sutter Buttes (Dreyer 1984:4). A more detailed discussion of Mechoopda ethnographic and environmental settings is provided in Chapter

III.

Thesis Structure

To more clearly convey how and why regional chronologies are to be evaluated and ultimately improved upon, it is necessary to first discuss the environmental and cultural settings in which they were developed and applied, the theoretical frameworks that have been used to construct chronologies in Northern California over the course of archaeological research in the region, and the methods by which such a contribution can be effectively made. Building on the ideas set forth in Chapter I, Chapter

II focuses on chronology construction in the Sacramento Valley in the broad sense, as well as at the local level, before addressing the specific deficiencies of the Chico cultural sequence. Following this review, Chapter III describes the ethnographic setting of the

Chico area and its indigenous inhabitants, the Mechoopda Maidu. Chapter IV, the methodology section of the thesis, introduces the sites that were ultimately selected for study, how such a process was made, and the radiocarbon and obsidian hydration sampling strategies that were used for each resource. Chapters V and VI include the results (Chapter V) of both radiocarbon and obsidian hydration testing at these sites, as well as a discussion of the implications (Chapter VI) that such results carry for the

13 existing chronological sequence. Lastly, Chapter VII summarizes the objectives and findings of this thesis, as well as potential avenues for future research concerning the

Chico chronology.

CHAPTER II

CHRONOLOGY CONSTRUCTION AND

ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION

IN NORTHERN CALIFORNIA

Introduction

Although the chronometric research objectives that guide this thesis are usually discussed in terms of methodology elsewhere, in a broad sense, an understanding of the relationship between form and time, space and time, or assemblage patterning and ethnicity will always require a theoretical paradigm for guidance (Chartkoff 1992:9). In this case, such a paradigm necessitates that the most absolute or precise dating information be compiled from local archaeological resources to create an internally developed chronology for the Chico area without hinging on the previous chronological sequences developed elsewhere in the Central Valley. To ascertain whether aspects of a chronological framework are indeed valid, it is also necessary to examine how it was initially developed, and the means by which it was informed and guided by the works that preceded it. As such, this chapter is dedicated to a discussion of the history of chronology-building and archaeological research in the Sacramento Valley in the broad sense, as well as those of the Oroville locality and the Chico vicinity at the local scale because each are inextricably linked. This chapter will additionally highlight the

14 15 deficiencies of the existing chronological sequence for the study area in greater detail than when they were previously introduced in the first chapter.

Chronology-Building in the Sacramento Valley

The earliest archaeological investigations in California, beginning in 1870, were dedicated to “sporadic digging for museum materials,” and occurred throughout the

Delta, Bay Area, San Joaquin Valley, and lower Sacramento Valley (Chartkoff and

Chartkoff 1984; Heizer 1978; Meredith 1900). Between 1893 and 1901, J. A. Barr and H.

C. Meredith excavated dozens of mound sites in the Stockton locality, leading to the publication of two early accounts concerning Delta archaeology (Meredith 1900; Heizer

1978). Additional research by W. H. Holmes and P. M. Jones in the “Stockton District,” including the excavation of Sac-82, a large mound site where Barr had previously exhumed more than 50 burials, contributed to the beginnings of a basic understanding of

Delta prehistory (Moratto 1984). In spite of these initial contributions to research in the area, artifact collecting for the quasi-scientific purpose of increasing museum acquisitions persisted into the 1920s and 1930s throughout the Sacramento Valley, with materials often being displayed in natural historical context and little thought given to archaeological or ethnographic implications (Heizer 1978).

At around the same time (1901) that excavations were being conducted in the

Delta, the Department and Museum of Anthropology were established at the University of California, Berkeley under the guidance of F. W. Putnam and J. C. Merriam (Heizer

1978). Research by Llewellyn L. Loud, and the systematic excavation of shell mounds in the San Francisco Bay Area by Max Uhle at Emeryville in 1907 and Nels C. Nelson at

Ellis Landing in 1909 initiated true scientific archaeological investigations in Northern

California (Heizer 1978). These excavations focused on the relationship that existed between artifact forms and site stratigraphy, and interpretations of site assemblages noted gradual cultural change rather than the rapid processes that were perceived by Uhle and

Nelson’s peers elsewhere (Heizer 1978; Trigger 2006). Although these investigations contributed to an assumed understanding of Sacramento Valley prehistory by association, as the Central Valley was largely treated as a single culture area at this time, systematic scientific research specifically concerning sites in the Sacramento Valley north of the

Delta were limited to the survey of mound sites near Tehama and Red Bluff by Nelson in

1907 (Moratto 1984:193).

Following the training of Barr, Elmer Dawson began the first systematic exploration of archaeological sites near Lodi in 1912. His work included careful note taking concerning the provenience of artifacts and burial association, as well as recognizing that significant cultural changes had occurred throughout the timespan of occupation at the mound sites he was studying (Moratto 1984). At the same time this research was taking place, Gifford and Schenck (1926) were conducting the first large- scale excavation project in the southern San Joaquin Valley. The resultant Archaeology of the Southern San Joaquin Valley that they produced served as a template for the establishment of an archaeological sequence for the remainder of the valley (Gifford and

Schenck 1926; Moratto 1984).

Working with the data Dawson had collected between 1912 and the late 1920s from the Stockton and Sacramento areas, Schenck produced an overview of the archaeology of the northern San Joaquin Valley in 1929 to compliment his previous

17 research. Although Schenck did divide the excavated mounds of the area into three “age- groups” according to their respective artifact types and topographic location, he rejected the sequence of an early, middle, and late tradition that Dawson proposed in favor of one that left little room for culture change or time depth and suggested that the oldest site near

Lodi was only 1,500 years old (Moratto 1984; Schenck and Dawson 1929). This view of a static past pervaded much of the archaeological and ethnographic research occurring in the area during this time, including Kroeber’s (1925) “salvage ethnography” work, ultimately limiting the scope of archaeological investigations and interpretations.

As the focus of archaeological research continued to be directed increasingly northward within the Central Valley, the lower Sacramento Valley experienced its most significant period of investigation to date during the 1930s. Unlike the previous 60 years of study in California, this period marked the first time in which work conducted in the

Sacramento Valley had profound implications outside of the region, particularly for later interpretations of Central California prehistory (Moratto 1984). Beginning in 1931,

Sacramento Junior College (now California State University, Sacramento) excavated numerous sites near the Deer Creek-Consumnes River confluence of the Delta region, including the Augustine (Sac-127), Booth (Sac-126), and Windmiller (Sac-107) mounds.

J. B. Lillard and W. K. Purves, the principal investigators of the project, reported a gradual change in artifacts and material culture at these mounds, and broke the periods of change they documented into three periods, including the Early, Intermediate, and Recent culture levels (Lillard and Purves 1936).

This three period sequence, later refined and expanded upon in works by

Heizer and Fenega (1939) and Lillard, Heizer, and Fenega (1939) through additional

18 excavation and interpretation of cultural horizons, became the well-known Early, Middle or Transitional, Late, and Post-Contact classification that we continue to see the remnants of in California archaeology today. Additional fieldwork was conducted by these researchers and other Sacramento Junior College faculty in the northern

Sacramento Valley at Sha-47 and Col-1, Col-2, and Col-3, but such work was done mainly to test the geographic extent and cultural variability of the recently developed cultural sequence identified in the Delta (Moratto 1984:193). Although these ambitious

Depression-era salvage efforts largely validated the earlier interpretations of Dawson, they suffered from substantial sampling biases, relied almost exclusively on large, highly visible artifacts and burial mode to delineate periods, and had little regard for the analysis of dietary remains and technological features (Moratto 1984; Rosenthal et al. 2007).

As early sequences for the valley continued to be refined and reevaluated by

Beardsley (1948) and Heizer (1949), synthetic studies of both shell and bone artifact types (Gifford 1940, 1947) were published, Heizer’s (1941, 1958) “direct-historical approach” was outlined and implemented, and the potential for the recently developed process of radiocarbon dating was being championed by Cressman (1951:289) and others as a way to “evaluate the chronological picture of Western prehistory in a more definite frame of reference than hitherto provided by methods of geology, paleontology, pollen profiles, climatic evidence, etc.” Extensive surveys and the subsequent salvage of proposed reservoir areas in and near the Sacramento Valley as part of the River Basin

Survey program (which documented 181 sites in the areas of Nimbus, Oroville, Lost

Creek, Little Grass Valley, Redbank, Lewiston, and Trinity Reservoirs), and limited excavation in Yolo county were also underway (Tregaza 1953; Heizer and Cook 1953).

However, no single work during this time was as influential to the construction of a chronological sequence for the Sacramento Valley as Beardsley’s (1954) landmark work,

Temporal and Areal Relationships in Central California Archaeology.

In building on the previous three-period Delta sequence that was developed largely through the fieldwork of Sacramento Junior College faculty and students,

Beardsley (1954) formalized the Central California Taxonomic System (CCTS) by means of additional excavation and data collection at sites across the southern Sacramento and northern San Joaquin Valleys. While still consisting of three basic sequences, Early,

Middle, and Late, periods became horizons, zones were set apart as geographic entities that separated coastal and Central Valley areas, components were used to designate an archaeological record of occupation at a single site during a brief interval of time, and facies and provinces were used to describe a group of closely related components (facies) or related facies (province). Much like the initial chronology construction that preceded it though, Beardsley’s CCTS chronology relied heavily on the relative dating of artifact types through superimposition and seriation, created artificial delineations of culture and time by forcing site assemblages into rigidly defined horizons, and over-used the “direct- historical” approach of applying ethnographically documented culture traits to interpretations concerning the recent archaeological record (Chartkoff and Chartkoff

1984; Moratto 1984; Trigger 2006).

While the CCTS framework did acknowledge local variations and specific regional archaeological patterns and complexes, they were poorly understood and the chronology still based its interpretations on a limited number of sites in the Sacramento-

San Joaquin Delta and forced such findings onto the assemblages recovered from the rest

20 of the Central Valley. This generalization of the prehistory of the Central Valley would continue until the 1960s, when North American archaeology experienced a paradigm shift from the cultural-historical approach to a processual one that advocated the use of the scientific method, and large-scale salvage archaeology projects as part of the Central

Valley Water Project commenced (Moratto 1984; Trigger 2006). Under the provisions of the Reservoir Salvage Act of 1960, numerous universities and the California Department of Parks and Beaches began extensive survey and excavation programs in the proposed areas of impact throughout the state, including the Oroville area as part of the Oroville

Dam and Reservoir Project (Chartkoff and Chartkoff 1984).

These large-scale reservoir projects and other similar salvage investigations would spur the development of local chronological sequences across the valley during the following decade. With the aid of an increased use of radiocarbon dating and the recently developed obsidian hydration method (Clark 1964; Freidman and Smith 1960), local archaeological records were utilized to make significant contributions to our understanding of regional sequences rather than being glossed over by imposing a regional framework, as had been done in the past. Such as process is manifested in the taxonomic framework that was later developed by Bennyhoff and Fredrickson

(Fredrickson 1973, 1974; Bennyhoff and Fredrickson 1994). This scheme was further updated by additional radiocarbon determinations by Groza (2002), LaJeunese and Pryor

(1996), and Meyer and Rosenthal (1997), and currently consists of the following divisions: Paleo-Indian (11,550 to 8550 cal B.C.), Lower Archaic (8550 to 5500 cal

B.C.), Middle Archaic (5550 to 550 cal B.C.), Upper Archaic (550 cal B.C. to cal A.D.

1100), and Emergent (cal A.D. 1100 to Historic; Rosenthal et al. 2007:150-159).

Chronology-Building in the Oroville Locality

Prior to the early 1960s, little was known of the prehistory of Butte County and neighboring regions, save for the ethnographic information that had been compiled by Dixon (1905), Kroeber (1925, 1932), Voegelin (1942) and others on the Northwestern or Konkow Maidu. As alluded to previously, a number of survey and excavation projects undertaken in connection with the construction of the Oroville Dam and the development of Lake Oroville as a recreational facility between the early 1960s and late 1970s precipitated the formation of a cultural chronology for the district (Kowta 1988; Riddell and Olson 1963). A summary of these works, and the chronological sequence for the

Oroville area that they produced, is provided in the following pages.

The initial investigations necessitated by the Oroville Dam project were carried out as a result of the need to relocate a portion of the Western Pacific Railroad for dam construction to take place (Kowta 1988). Beginning in 1960, F.A. Riddell and

William Olsen (1963) led an archaeological survey along the proposed railroad line right- of-way, identifying 12 archaeological sites in the process. As funding made available by the State Division of Beaches and Parks for excavation was limited, only four sites were selected for subsurface testing by the Central California Archaeological Foundation

(Kowta 1988; Riddell and Olsen 1963). These included large occupation sites CA-BUT-

98, CA-BUT-103, CA-BUT-105, and CA-BUT-131, which contained numerous burials.

In a related project conducted by the Department of Parks and Recreation under the supervision of Riddell and Olsen, CA-BUT-157, a multicomponent site that yielded a series of radiocarbon dates, CA-BUT-90, a cemetery, and numerous other sites were additionally excavated around this time (Riddell and 1963; Olsen and Riddell 1963).

Together, these projects identified three distinct phases in the Oroville area, including the

Mesilla (3,000 to 2,000 B.P.), Sweetwater (1,200 to 500 B.P.), and Oroville Complexes

(500 B.P. to Contact), and provided the basic foundation that still forms the basis for the

Oroville chronology. Additional contributions by Jewell (1964), Pritchard et al. (1966) and Markley (1978) complimented work by Olsen and Riddell, and Ritter (1968, 1970) later added the Bidwell Complex (2,000 to 1,200 B.P.) to this chronological framework.

The earliest known occupation of the foothills of Butte County was defined as the Mesilla Complex by Olsen and Riddell, and was present archaeologically in the form of mano and millingstone seed processing tools, large leaf-shaped, stemmed, and side- notched dart points fashioned primarily of basalt, and atlatl weights and spurs (Bayham and Johnson 1990; Kowta 1988). The Mesilla Complex was initially proposed through research at CA-BUT-98, and was later identified by Markley (1978) at CA-BUT-48, CA-

BUT-21, CA-BUT-521, and CA-BUT-157 during the excavation of five sites in the Lime

Saddle Recreation Area for the Department of Parks and Recreation. A radiocarbon date of 820 B.C. from CA-BUT-157 at a depth of 60 to 72 inches below surface, which was not the deepest extent of the site, confirmed that the Mesilla Complex likely dated to before 1000 B.C. (Kowta 1988; Markley 1978). The Mesilla Complex is interpreted to represent the Sacramento Valley manifestation of the Martis Tradition, with Hokan speaking pre-Maidu hunter-gatherers exhibiting high levels of mobility and seasonal round subsistence strategies (Moratto 1984:299; Ritter 1970:174).

The thesis research of Ritter (1968, 1970) reinforced the previous findings of

Olsen and Riddell, Jewel, and Pritchard and colleagues while also identifying an additional phase, which he identified as the Bidwell Complex. According to Ritter

(1970), the Bidwell Complex is a transitional period between the Mesilla and Sweetwater when the mano-millingstone combination still predominated over mortar and pestle use, large basalt projectile points continued to be present, and a marked intensification and diversification of subsistence activities occurs. Wooden mortars and pestles are incorporated into the artifact assemblage at this time, however, as are bone awls, steatite bowls and dishes, net sinkers, tubular bone beads, large basalt drills, and an increasing number of smaller projectile points potentially reflective of the introduction of the bow and arrow into the region (Bayham and Johnson 1990:9; Kowta 1988:149). Kowta

(1988:150) notes that the Bidwell Complex can be most appropriately viewed as a

“continuation of the Mesilla Complex enriched with adaptive innovations and (the) adoption of traits from Central California.”

In terms of identifying this phase at Oroville area sites, the Bidwell Complex is best represented at CA-BUT-84, also referred to Tie Wiah (the local Konkow name for

“Western Oak”), a heavily excavated multicomponent site that produced at least 135 burials, over 2,600 projectile points, 75 to 100 house pits representing habitation and ceremonial structures, and a period of continuous occupation spanning from the Mesilla

Complex to just prior to the Historic period (Ritter 1968). Evidence of this phase is additionally present at both CA-BUT-157 and CA-BUT-521. Based on the more recent work of Bethard (1988) at CA-BUT-301, a rock shelter in the northern Sierra foothills, the Bidwell Complex was combined with the succeeding Sweetwater Complex due to the minimal cultural and material differences that were observed between the two periods.

There appears to be some disagreement concerning this interpretation, however, and as

24 such, the two phases are treated as distinctly different and the division between them is retained.

Like the Mesilla phase, the Sweetwater Complex was initially identified by

Olsen and Riddell during the early 1960s as part of their research related to the construction of the Oroville Dam. Of the sites they excavated, Sweetwater components were identified at a majority, including CA-BUT-90, CA-BUT-98, CA-BUT-103, CA-

BUT-105, and CA-BUT-131, and were argued to be “clearly related to Late Horizon

Phase I times in the Sacramento Valley” (Riddell and Olsen 1963:12). Later investigations by Markley (1978) and Ritter (1968) also identified Sweetwater components at CA-BUT-521 and CA-BUT-84, respectively. In particular, however, this complex was differentiated from the preceding Bidwell Complex on the basis of investigations at CA-BUT-84 and CA-BUT-90, where a marked difference in burial tradition from the flexed burials with occasional rock cairns of the early phase of the period were replaced by extended or semi-flexed burials during the late Sweetwater

(Ritter 1970:176-177).

The artifact assemblage of the Sweetwater phase is characterized by stone mortars and pestles (including miniature “pigment mortars”) which replace the wooden mortar pestle variety, bone pins, incised tubes, spatulas, gorge fishhooks, split-punched and square Olivella shell beads, and Haliotis “banjo” ornaments. Steatite vessels also decrease in prevalence, but steatite and hematite pipes are introduced, and small- stemmed, barbed, and corner-notched projectile points increase in frequency (Bayham and Johnson 1990:9). Ritter (1970:181) suggests that the anomalous extended burials, evidence of trauma from “arrow wounds,” and unusual burial associated artifacts that

25 occur at CA-BUT-90 reveal the intrusion of another group into the region during this time. In agreement with this interpretation, Kowta (1988:152) elaborates that this complex was one of significant population growth, an increased reliance on acorns, and a general elaboration and refinement of material culture that collectively point to the arrival of Maiduan-speaking peoples from the south.

The final complex prior to historic contact, the Oroville phase, is attributed to the Maidu, and was initially identified by Riddell and Olsen (1963:12) as being “directly equitable with the Late Horizon Phase II occupation in the Sacramento Valley.” Riddell and Olsen identified Oroville components at CA-BUT-90, CA-BUT-101, CA-BUT-105, and CA-BUT-131, but research at CA-BUT-90 was particularly important in regard to characterizing the complex. Contemporary research projects associated with the construction of the Oroville Dam also identified Oroville Complex at numerous other sites. The excavation of three house pit sites along the Feather River Spillway by Donald

P. Jewell (1964) in 1961 identified the Oroville phase at CA-BUT-101, and shed light on the construction of semi-subterranean family dwellings and large dance houses used during this period. Another project that identified Oroville Complex materials was the excavation of the Porter Rockshelter (formerly But-s177, now CA-BUT-420) in 1962

(Pritchard et al. 1966). Together, these investigations, along with the later identification of Oroville components at CA-BUT-84, CA-BUT-521, and CA-BUT-584, a bedrock milling locality, allowed this phase to become one of the most well documented and defined in the region.

Characteristic features of the Oroville phase include the placement of portable stone mortars in the earthen floors of semi-subterranean dwellings, the use of clamshell

26 disc beads as currency, and the incorporation of thick-lipped Olivella beads and Desert

Side-Notched, Gunther Stemmed, and Cottonwood Triangular projectile point types into the artifact assemblage (Bayham and Johnson 1990:10; Kowta 1988:153-154). Steatite vessels also disappear, owing to an increased reliance on coiled basketry for cooking and storage purposes. Taken as a whole, the Oroville Complex represents a continuation and intensification of trends initiated during the Sweetwater period. Population growth and increased sedentism occur until the Historic period (post A.D. 1850), when Euro-

American artifacts are introduced into protohistoric site assemblages. Evidence of extensive trade for non-local aboriginal items such as magnesite beads and large abalone pendants is additionally present at Historic period sites such as CA-BUT-208 prior to its eventual abandonment (Kowta 1988).

The construction of the Oroville chronology was significant not only for the eastern portion of Butte County, but also the western extent, which encompassed the

Chico area. In the absence of a local sequence or sufficient chronological data for the

Chico region during this time, the Oroville chronology was essentially applied by association due to it being the geographically closest and culturally similar. As with the previous regional frameworks that were used to characterize the northern portion of the

Sacramento Valley, such as the earlier CCTS, none of the sites used to develop the

Oroville Chronology that was applied to Chico prehistory were actually from the Chico area. Additionally, during their initial development of the Oroville chronology, Riddell and Olsen (1963:13) continued to tie their framework back to the CCTS, stating that “the tentative dating of the foothill areas, Oroville and Tehama, rests on the better known

Central California sequence dates.” If a local chronology for the Chico area was to be

27 established, it had to be developed through research in the area, for that specific area only, without relying on the interpretations of associated regional or local sequences that were not initially developed with Chico prehistory in mind.

Although the Oroville sequence has continued to be refined and expanded upon more recently, for the purposes of this discussion, only the period prior to 1983 is of interest because it was during this time that the Oroville sequence was also applied to the

Chico area without acknowledging the differences that existed between local archaeological patterns. We now turn our attention to the Chico chronology, which developed in response to, and was certainly influenced by, the Oroville and CCTS sequences that preceded it.

Chronology-Building in the Chico Vicinity

At the same time that the Oroville chronology was being established to the east, Keith Johnson (1964) and Chico State College began to direct increased attention toward developing an understanding of the prehistory of the Chico vicinity.

Archaeological investigations had been conducted sporadically in the region since 1933, however (Johnson 1964:12). Early works in the Chico area were largely dedicated to small-scale field class or university-sponsored projects that were minimally documented and produced artifact assemblages that were poorly catalogued and analyzed by current standards. Significant projects during this time include the excavation of several rock shelters in the canyon above Big Chico Creek by Peveril Meigs, George Neitz, and students in 1940; the documentation of CA-BUT-1, a village site containing at least 100 house floor depressions by T. D. McCown in 1947 (later re-recorded by R. Shehi and H.

Patrick in 1962 and Abraham Gruber in 1963); the recordation of CA-BUT-7, a large central village complex with bedrock milling features, 17 surface house pit depressions, and a rock shelter by A. R. Pilling in 1949; the excavation of CA-BUT-48 along the

Sacramento River by the UC Archaeological Survey under the direction of T.W. McKern in 1952; the surface collection of a habitation site in Bidwell Park by Chico State in 1955; and the initial excavation of a large protohistoric village, CA-BUT-12, by Francis Riddell beginning in 1963 (see Figure 2; Bayham and Johnson 1990:5; Gruber 1963; Johnson

1964:12-13; Maniery and Maniery 1986:15-17). While these investigations were certainly significant in their own right, in terms of organizing archaeological resources in time and space, such an effort was not undertaken before 1964, and a chronology specifically pertaining to the area was not created until much later.

In The Archaeology of Chico and Vicinity, Johnson (1964:13) took the first steps toward chronology construction by dividing the archaeological resources of the region into four major groups, including caves and rock shelters, house pit sites, debris mounds, and bedrock mortars. More importantly, however, he outlined the necessary means to systematically construct a local sequence, advocated for additional site sampling and recordation, proposed to differentiate between ethnographic Maidu and

Wintun villages, and spearheaded the ambitious research program dedicated to such endeavors as the co-founder of the Anthropology Department at California State

University, Chico (CSUC). Under the guidance of Johnson and Makoto Kowta of CSUC and Joseph and Kerry Chartkoff of the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), archaeological research in the Chico area flourished between 1966 and 1990, and most of the necessary chronological information required to construct a basic local sequence was

Figure 2. Archaeological sites of significance in the study area.

Adapted from: Johnson, Keith L., 2005, Archaeological Identification of the Valley Maidu in Northern California. In Onward and Upward! Papers in Honor of Clement W. Meighan. Keith L. Johnson, ed. Pp. 57- 74. Chico: Stansbury Publishing. Reprinted with permission.

obtained during this period. Later cultural resource management (CRM) work by Far

Western Anthropological Research Group (Hildebrandt and Kaijankoski 2011; Rosenthal and Meyer 2009) along the western side of the Sacramento River added to this

30 chronology substantially to produce a five phase chronology that includes the Llano 1

(4950 to 2950 B.P.), Llano 2 (2950 to 1949 B.P,), Pine Creek 1 (1949 to 1200 B.P.), Pine

Creek 2 (1200 to 450 B.P.), and Chico (450 B.P. to Historic Contact) Complexes. A sixth phase, dating from 6500 to 4950 B.P., may additionally exist, but the relationship between the Llano 1 phase and this recently identified component of Chico prehistory are currently unclear.

As part of the ongoing research program that Johnson and colleagues initiated, numerous sites were investigated over the next twenty plus years. One of the first sites to receive additional attention was CA-BUT-12, a site located on the east bank of the

Sacramento River near the mouth of Pine Creek and the Highway 32 bridge at Hamilton

City. At CA-BUT-12, also known as the Finch site and the ethnographic Mechoopda village of Shidawi, Johnson continued the work that Riddell began in 1963 with excavations during the 1964 field season. This marked the beginning of systematic archaeological excavations in the research area. Subsequent testing at CA-BUT-12 occurred in 1967 when Chartkoff and Chartkoff (1968) directed a UCLA summer field school at the site, and later in 1983 and 1984 when Kowta supervised CSUC field classes there. Although the cultural materials recovered from this from this resource have yet to be completely analyzed or reported on to date, enough was known about its semi- subterranean house feature and artifact assemblage at the time to identify it as a protohistoric Mechoopda village (Bayham and Johnson 1990; Chartkoff 2010).

To the southeast of the Finch site and approximately 2.5 miles southeast of the city of Chico between Little Chico and Butte Creeks, a joint effort by UCLA and CSUC forces in the subsurface testing of numerous house pit features at CA-BUT-1, the Patrick

31 site, took place during the summers of 1965 and 1966. Ethnographically, this site was the village of Mechoopda, and was occupied into the historic period, perhaps as late as 1890 before the site and surrounding land was purchased as part of the Garrison Patrick Ranch during the Gold Rush era (Gruber 1963; McGie 1982). Based on the excavation of 12 of an estimated 100 house floor features, Chartkoff and Chartkoff (1983) proposed that there were significant differences between Late Period assemblages in the Chico and

Oroville areas. Accordingly, they suggested that several assemblage traits present at the

Patrick site that differentiated it from the Oroville Complex, including differences in house feature size and complexity, the presence of mano and milling stones, higher rates of mortar and pestle use, the inclusion of high amounts of chert into the lithic assemblage, and a more intensive and diversified diet with a heavier reliance on fish and waterfowl, be referred to as the Chico Complex (Chartkoff and Chartkoff 1983:47-48;

Henderson 1976). Limited obsidian hydration testing was conducted on 30 obsidian specimens to verify such interpretations, but as a method of relative dating that was developed relatively recently, the interpretation of results that such work produced was somewhat limited and only indicated that the site was occupied within the last 1,000 years (Chartkoff and Chartkoff 1983:45). Nonetheless, CA-BUT-1, along with CA-BUT-

12, were identified as the archaeological type sites for the Mechoopda at this time and noted as particularly significant in Chico prehistory (Bayham and Johnson 1990;

Chartkoff and Chartkoff 1983; Gruber 1963).

Under the direction of Joseph Chartkoff, UCLA also investigated three aboriginal village sites northeast of Chico along both sides of the Sacramento River, including the excavation of two house pits at CA-TEH-248 (formerly S247), the

Bambauer site, beginning in 1965. While situated in ethnographic Maidu territory, the initial interpretation of assemblages recovered from the site suggested probable Wintun occupation prehistorically (Bayham and Johnson 1990:5). To further evaluate the linguistic and cultural affiliation of the site, Johnson returned in 1974 and excavated four additional house pit features. Based on this additional testing, Johnson (2005:64) confirmed that CA-TEH-248 belonged to the River Nomlaki rather than the nearby

Mechoopda peoples who claimed ethnographic affinity. This research, along with similar work at CA-BUT-1, CA-BUT-12, and later at CA-BUT-7 and CA-BUT-434, helped to define cultural marker traits specific to the Mechoopda and Nomlaki, and delineate prehistoric Maidu-Wintun boundaries.

Numerous research projects continued into the late 1960s and early 1970s in

Chico and the immediately surrounding area, including smaller scale endeavors at CA-

BUT-434 (S184) in 1967, CA-BUT-300 in 1969, and GLE-18 in 1973 through CSUC.

However, in terms of making a contribution to the development of the local chronology, the excavations of CA-BUT-233 (S290) between 1966 and 1969, CA-BUT-294 (S487) between 1969 and 1971, CA-BUT-7 in 1970, CA-GLE-101 in 1972, and CA-BUT-288 from 1971 to 1974 were especially relevant. Of these sites, two (CA-BUT-233 and CA-

BUT-294) were additionally radiocarbon dated, a significant step in the move toward the formation of a local cultural chronology.

CA-BUT-233, the Llano Seco site, provided the first radiocarbon dates for the area (see Table 1), and was perceived to represent the earliest occupation of the Chico area until very recently. With five radiocarbon dates obtained from throughout a buried midden deposit that was 12 feet deep, at least 3,873 years of human occupation were

33 confirmed (Johnson 2005:66). According to White (2003b:73), early occupation at the

Llano site is represented in the archaeological record by manos and metates, L series

Olivella beads, drilled stone plummets, and large stemmed and leaf-shaped points.

Researchers noted that projectile points could be arranged into four distinct stratigraphic clusters, and that a shift from the predominant use of the mano and metate during earlier occupation to that of the mortar and pestle later in time (marked by wooden mortar pestles) also took place (Dreyer 1984; Zancanella 1987). Such findings demonstrated not only substantial change over time, but also hinted at discreet cultural phases.

Following the significant findings at CA-BUT-233, CSUC directed its attention to the Wurlitzer site, CA-BUT-294, and the Cana Highway site, CA-BUT-288 over the course of the following five years. Much like Llano Seco, these large mounds had substantial cultural deposits (eight feet and 14 feet, respectively) and an artifact assemblage that spanned from the Upper Archaic through the Lower Emergent. Five radiocarbon dates were obtained following subsurface testing at CA-BUT-294, including a basal date indicating initial occupation at around 2950 B. P., and another date marking the abandonment of the site at approximately 450 B. P. (Bayham and Johnson 1990;

Johnson 2005; Nelson 1997; Zancanella 1987). Along with a comparable cultural assemblage, these dates confirmed the site’s contemporaneity with CA-BUT-233. By comparison, CA-BUT-288 had two components believed to span between 3000 B.P. and

700. B.P. (Deal 1987; White 2003b). However, despite the recovery of ten burials, and the excavation of 18 additional features, including rock-lined ovens, hearths, house floor sections, and caches of baked clay balls, no radiocarbon data has been produced to date.

Though not as prominent as the research of CA-BUT-233, CA-BUT-294, or

CA-BUT-288, brief mention must also be made of the work at CA-BUT-7 and CA-GLE-

101 that occurred during the 1971 and 1972 field seasons. CA-BUT-7, located along Mud

Creek approximately 5.5 miles north of Chico, was excavated in the summer of 1970 by archaeology field school students from both Queens College in New York and CSUC.

More commonly referred to as the Richardson Springs locality, this site is a large house pit village consisting of five loci (three of which had dense midden deposits and two which contained a total of 15 house pit depressions), one rock shelter, a pecked boulder petroglyph and an area that appears to have been used repeatedly for cooking using rock- lined hearth features. Like CA-BUT-1 and CA-BUT-12, this resource was dated to the

Late Horizon, Phase II between 1500 and 150 B. P. using projectile point and shell bead chronologies. CA-GLE-101, also known as Wyler One, was excavated the following summer after CA-BUT-7 and consisted of a small mound with cultural materials similar to those from Llano Seco that appear to fall within the 3000-year timeframe of occupation established for CA-BUT-233. Before these interpretations could be confirmed through additional testing, excavations at CA-BUT-7 were halted due to an outbreak of coccidioidomycosis (Valley Fever) and CA-GLE-101 was leveled for agricultural use.

Existing collections for both resources have the potential to be dated using additional methods such as radiocarbon and obsidian hydration testing, however.

Based primarily on groundstone assemblages, but also including available archaeological and ethnographic information, Dreyer (1984) built on the assertions that

Chartkoff and Chartkoff (1983, 1984) had made concerning the differences between

Chico and Oroville prehistory, proposing three separate occupational phases for the

35 valley floor and adjacent foothills within the Chico area. The first phase, according to the author, began around 3950 B.P. and lasted until roughly 1450 B.P., with the occupation of the area within or adjacent to the river floodplains at sites such as CA-BUT-233, CA-

BUT-294, CA-BUT-288, and potentially CA-GLE-101. Phase Two extends from 1450

B.P. to 550 B.P., and is characterized by the increased use of the mortar and pestle and small projectile point types relative to larger point forms and the mano and millingstone at the above sites. Dreyer (1984:40-41) suggests such a trend is potentially representative of the expansion of Penutian groups into the area. During the latter portion of this second phase, around 850 B.P., CA-BUT-233 was abandoned and occupation at both CA-BUT-

288 and CA-BUT-294 was terminated by 500 B.P. The final phase, spanning from 550

B.P. to the arrival Euro-Americans, was believed to represent the northward expansion of

Maidu groups out of the Oroville area and into the Chico area where sites such as CA-

BUT-1, CA-BUT-12, and possibly CA-BUT-7 were settled. Although certainly far from complete, this rough chronological framework relying on information obtained from solely local sites was the first of its kind for the Chico vicinity.

The establishment of an initial local sequence for the Chico area was followed by the synthesis of local prehistoric research in Kowta’s (1988) seminal work, The

Archaeology and Prehistory of Plumas and Butte Counties, California: An Introduction and Interpretation Model. A projectile point chronology for the eastern Sacramento

Valley that incorporated radiocarbon data from BUT-233 and CA-BUT294 was also established by Zancanella (1987), and Dugas (1995) conducted thesis research dedicated to understanding Maidu territorial boundaries, a particularly important aspect when concerned with applying a chronology geographically. Numerous other research projects

36 and theses included local sites in their analyses (see Broughton 1988,1994; Deal 1987;

Eugster 1990; Nelson 1997; Welden 1990; Valente 1998), and Hill (1970,1978) the latter of which chronicled the history of the Mechoopda post-contact. Lastly, radiocarbon support from CA-GLE-105 (see Table 1) was contributed to the existing body of absolute support for the Chico chronology by Bayham and Johnson (1990) as part of a CRM project they conducted for the Army Corps of Engineers along the Sacramento River.

The chronology that Dreyer (1984) and Chartkoff and Chartkoff (1983, 1984) outlined did not see significant refinement until nearly 25 years later, when White

(2003b) proposed a revised provisional chronology as part of another CRM project concerning territory along the Sacramento River in Tehama, Butte, Glenn, and Colusa counties. Using the radiocarbon information derived from CA-233 and CA-BUT-294, as well as other non-absolute chronometric information obtained from CA-BUT-12 and CA-

BUT-288, White (2003b:73-74) devised a five phase sequence consisting of the Llano 1

(2300 to 500 B.C.), Llano 2 (500 B.C. to A.D. 1), Pine Creek 1(500 B.C. to A.D. 700),

Pine Creek 2 (A.D. 800 to A.D. 1500), and Chico Complex (1500 A.D. to Historic

Contact) periods. He noted that while previous projects had lumped the entire span of occupation at CA-BUT-233 into a single phase spanning from 2300 B.C. to A.D. 800, such an interpretation appeared to be an oversimplification of three distinct phases that may have belonged to a single cultural pattern. These three phases, including Llano 1,

Llano 2, and Pine Creek 1, had artifact assemblages that demonstrated the early occupants of the site operated within the Central California interaction sphere while also maintaining close ties to the contemporaneous Mesilla and Bidwell complexes (White

203b:73).

Along with dividing the prehistory of the Chico area into discreet time periods, White also detailed the artifact assemblages and major cultural changes associated with each phase. The Llano 1 phase was represented by manos and metates, L series Olivella beads, drilled stone plummets, and notched leaf-shaped projectile points at

CA-BUT-233 and CA-BUT-294. Following initial habitation of the Chico area, Llano 2 components were represented by large stemmed points, bowl mortars, Olivella A1a and C series beads, and Macoma clam disk beads at a total of three sites, including CA-BUT-

233, CA-BUT-294, and CA-BUT-288. Much like the Llano 2 phase, Pine Creek 1 was evident at CA-BUT-233, CA-BUT-294, and CA-BUT-288. The artifact assemblage was considerably different, however, and was marked by the predominant use of the mortar and pestle (wooden mortar pestles), stemmed, notched, and concave-based points, as well as Olivella G and F series beads.

The Pine Creek 2 phase, interpreted as a local variant of the Augustine

Pattern, Phase 1, was evident at only CA-BUT-233 and CA-BUT-294, and included

Gunther barbed and Rosegate series points reflecting the introduction of the bow and arrow, as well as willow-leaf Haliotis pendants and Olivella A1a/A1b spire-lopped and

M series beads (White 2003b; Deal 1987). The last phase of prehistoric occupation, the

Chico Complex (local variant of the Augustine Pattern, Phase 2), marked the introduction of the Mechoopda into the Chico region, and was identified at CA-BUT-12 by Chartkoff and Chartkoff (1983) as being contemporaneous with the Oroville Complex but specific to the Sacramento Valley foothills between the foothills and Sacramento River. Artifacts representative of this phase include both bowl and hopper mortars, mano and metates, clam shell disk beads, Olivella A series spire-lopped beads, incised bird bone beads, a

38 variety of plummet types, desert side-notched, triangular, and small corned-notched points made primarily from chert, stone pedants ad cylinders, and a heavy reliance on deer and shellfish with fish and waterfowl supplementing the diet (Chartkoff 2010; White

2003b:75).

Based on the calibrated 14C date of 2882 B.C. for the initial occupation of CA-

BUT-233, Johnson (2005:68) later made a slight modifications to the chronology that

White devised and pushed the beginning of the Llano 1 phase back to 3000 B.C. Data from CA-BUT-1, CA-BUT-7, and CA-GLE-105 were also incorporated, and the territory included in White’s Chico chronology was expanded to include both sides of the

Sacramento River as far west as the community of Orland (Johnson 2005). These revisions produced the chronology that is currently utilized. Despite the more recent contributions that have been made by Far Western Anthropological Research Group

(Hildebrandt and Kaijankoski 2011; Rosenthal and Meyer 2009), including the procurement of 18 radiocarbon dates from five additional sites (CA-GLE-693, CA-GLE-

695, CA-GLE-699, CA-GLE-700, and CA-GLE-701) on the west side of the Sacramento

River that suggests the initial occupation of the Chico area began around 6600 B.P., the

Chico chronology has yet to be updated in nearly a decade.

Assessing the Existing Chronological Framework

As previously mentioned, the most recent sequence for the Chico area is

Johnson’s (2005:68) update to the chronology that White (2003b:73-74) produced, and is based on the partial reporting of sites CA-BUT-1, CA-BUT-12, CA-BUT-233, CA-BUT-

288, CA-BUT-294, and GLE-105. Of these six sites, three (CA-BUT-1, CA-BUT-12, and

CA-BUT-288) have never been radiocarbon dated despite the important role they serve.

Additional radiocarbon data is available from CA-GLE-693, GLE-695, CA-GLE-699,

GLE-700, and GLE-701, but due to the recent nature of such findings, this data and the implications it undoubtedly carries have yet to be fully incorporated into the existing chronology. There are several potential ways in which to add to our understanding of

Chico prehistory and evaluate the existing chronology, but deciding which avenue will result in the most significant contribution requires further discussion.

The oldest radiocarbon dates obtained from the Chico area come from CA-

GLE-701 (n = 4), an early Middle Archaic site that, due to its relatively recent discovery and considerable age, is not currently associated with an existing complex or phase within the chronological sequence (Hildebrandt and Kaijankoski 2011:113). There is a clear need for future research concerning this time period, as it carries significant implications for the Chico chronology and our understanding of initial human occupation in the valley. It is currently unclear as to how CA-GLE-701 relates to the Llano 1 phase, however, and there are simply no existing collections perceived to date to this period, no previously located sites that are believed to be contemporaneous, and no model for determining the location of new sites of such an age in the area. Given these limitations, and the presence of existing site collections housed at the CSUC Archaeology Laboratory that have the potential to make contributions to the local chronological sequence, it is best to focus our attention elsewhere at this time.

Following the as-of-yet unnamed period between 6600 B.P. and 4950 B.P., the earliest phase of the current Chico sequence, Llano 1 (4950 – 2950 B.P.), is represented by a total of four radiocarbon dates from occupation at CA-BUT-233 (n = 1),

CA-BUT-294 (n = 1), CA-GLE-700 (n=1), and CA-GLE-701 (n = 1), although the date from CA-GLE-700 is most likely exaggerated due to reservoir effect. While CA-GLE-

700 and GLE-701 certainly necessitate further study, CA-BUT-233 and CA-BUT-294 are arguably two of the most exhaustively studied sites in the region, with well-defined Llano

1 components that have been heavily sampled by previous excavations, and previously incorporated into numerous studies and reports (Bayham and Johnson 1990; Dreyer

1984; Johnson 2005; Nelson 1997; Welden 1990; Zancanella 1987; White 2003b). Given the considerable body of information we have concerning these two resources, perhaps it is better to continue to look for more glaring deficiencies in later phases of the chronology.

In comparison to the Llano 1 phase, Llano 2 (2950 – 1949 B.P.) is represented by more radiocarbon support (n = 7) from more sites (n = 5), including CA-BUT-233 (n

=1), CA-BUT-294 (n = 1), CA-GLE=105 (n = 2), CA-GLE-695 (n = 2), and CA-GLE-

700 (n = 1). As with the Llano 1 phase, however, the two dates associated with CA-GLE-

695 were taken from shellfish remains and appear to be skewed by the presence of fossil carbonates in the local aquatic ecosystem (Hildebrandt and Kaijankoski 2011:67). It goes without saying that this phase is well supported by absolute dating relative to the periods that preceded it at both CA-BUT-233 and CA-BUT-294. Even though CA-GLE-695 and

CA-GLE-700 are intriguing in their own right due to the potential for future studies that they carry, the dates they provide largely support the more concrete finding at CA-BUT-

233, CA-BUT-294, and GLE-105 rather than representing the only radiocarbon support for the phase. Additionally, CA-GLE-105 was the sole subject of an exhaustive report by

Bayham and Johnson (1990), and appears to date predominately to this phase. Rather

41 than being considered for future study, this phase is perhaps the least problematic for the

Chico chronology.

Marked by the predominant use of the mortar and pestle (wooden mortar pestles), stemmed, notched, and concave base points, as well as the Olivella G and F series beads, the Pine Creek 1 phase (1949 – 1200 B.P.) is represented by six radiocarbon dates from five sites, including CA-BUT-233 (n = 1), CA-BUT-294 (n = 1), CA-GLE-

693 (n = 1), CA-GLE-699 (n = 2), and CA-GLE-700 (n = 1). Of these six dates, however, half (both samples from CA-GLE-699 and the lone sample from CA-GLE-700) were obtained from shell samples and appear to be inflated as a result of reservoir effect

(Hildebrandt and Kaijankoski 2011:67, 88). If we exclude both CA-GLE-699 and CA-

GLE-700 from the sample of sites reflecting the Pine Creek 1 phase, we are still left with three separate sites that collectively reinforce the interpretations concerning this phase of the existing chronology.

Much like the preceding phase, Pine Creek 2 (1200 – 450 B.P.) is represented by a similar amount of radiocarbon support (n = 7 dates) from slightly fewer sites. CA-

BUT-233 (n = 3), CA-BUT-294 (n = 1), CA-GLE-699 (n = 2), and CA-BUT-700 (n = 1) each have Pine Creek 2 phases that have been verified using absolute methods. In this case, none of the radiocarbon dates are derived from shellfish remains or appear to be skewed by reservoir effect. If we hold the Pine Creek 2 phase to the same standards as

Pine Creek 1, then radiocarbon support from four separate sites hardly qualifies as being poorly represented.

The last phase of the Chico chronology, the Chico Complex (450 B.P. –

Culture Contact), is also its most poorly represented in terms of radiocarbon support.

Despite the trend through prehistory of substantial population growth and increasing village size and number during the Late Period in Northern California, there is no radiocarbon support for the Chico Complex. While two sites, CA-GLE-699 (n = 2) and

CA-BUT-233 (n = 1), have a combined total of three dates that fall between approximately 530 and 500 years B.P. near the end of the Pine Creek 2 phase, there are no dates reflecting later occupation. Adding to the poor representation of Chico Complex sites is that the radiocarbon data that is even remotely close to the same time period comes from a site with only an ephemeral Pine Creek 2 component (CA-BUT-233), and another (CA-GLE-699) which has been significantly disturbed by an almond orchard and lies on the periphery of the Chico chronology’s geographic scope. If a critical examination of the validity of the Chico chronology is to take place, it is arguably most appropriate to begin with the phase that demonstrates the greatest need for additional radiocarbon support.

In American archaeology, the initial popularization of culture chronology construction took place during a time in which Native American culture as a whole was largely perceived to have remained static and simple (primitive) during prehistoric times

(Trigger 1980:663; Trigger 2006). If chronologies that are rooted in these negative and incorrect perceptions of Native American culture are not continually critiqued and improved upon, current archaeologists risk perpetuating such stereotypes through complacency rather than distancing themselves from outdated beliefs. Additionally, culture chronologies must also change in response to the temporal goals that research dictates, because “to assess the abstract validity of chronological units is to examine the fit between temporal goals and chronology” (Ramenofsky 1998:81). In many ways,

43 chronologies are expected to undergo continual change and improvement to remain not only valid but also relevant to current archaeological discourse.

Site Selection

Although the Chico Complex is poorly supported in terms of radiocarbon data, numerous sites presumably dating to this phase have been previously excavated by

CSUC over the course of the past 50 years. In particular, large habitation sites designated as CA-BUT-1, CA-BUT-7, and CA-BUT-12 have been extensively researched as part of various Master’s theses (Broughton 1988; Crawford 2011; Dreyer 1984; Eugster 1990;

Valente 1998), numerous field school and methodology classes, and other various publications (Bayham and Johnson 1990; Broughton 1994; Chartkoff 2010; Chartkoff and Chartkoff 1968, 1983; Gruber 1963; Henderson 1976; Johnson 1964, 2005; Kowta

1988; White 2003b). These sites are collectively acknowledged as holding particular importance for Late Period Chico prehistory, and work at both CA-BUT-1 and CA-BUT-

12, the type sites for the Mechoopda, ultimately led Chartkoff and Chartkoff (1983) to propose the Chico Complex and differentiate between Oroville and Chico sequences.

Unfortunately, despite the significant amount of attention these resources has received, and arguably deserve, radiocarbon testing has yet to be performed and obsidian hydration was only minimally conducted at a single site (CA-BUT-1) when the process was still relatively new and poorly understood.

In addition to representing the last phase in Chico prehistory prior to culture contact in the region, the Chico Complex is also significant in the sense that it is widely held that during this time the Mechoopda migrated into and intensively occupied the

44 region. According to both linguistic (Kowta 1988:182-190; Levy 1997; Golla 2007) and archaeological (Johnson 2005) interpretations, the Mechoopda are currently believed to have expanded their territory onto the valley floor of the northernmost Sacramento Valley around 550 B.P. (1400 A.D.), where large villages were settled and occupied until

Historic Contact. If CA-BUT-1, CA-BUT-7, and CA-BUT-12 are indeed reflective of such a migration and occupational event, they have the potential to date the arrival of the

Mechoopda in the Chico area, an important task that has yet to be accomplished. The remainder of this thesis is concerned with dating CA-BUT-1, CA-BUT-7, and CA-BUT-

12 and incorporating the chronometric information they provide into the existing Chico chronology.

Chapter Summary

This chapter has provided an overview of chronology construction through time in the Chico area, as well as that of the neighboring Oroville locality and surrounding Sacramento Valley. These chronologies are inextricably linked, and an understanding of the Chico chronology can only be gained by first understanding the chronological frameworks that proceeded and influence it. The specific needs of the

Chico chronology, particularly those of the Chico Complex, have also been reviewed in detail. Potential sites that can contribute to our understanding of this period have additionally been identified, including CA-BUT-1, CA-BUT-7, and CA-BUT-12. Though other sites, such as CA-BUT-288, CA-BUT-300, CA-GLE-18, CA-GLE-101, CA-TEH-

248, and others certainly warrant further study, the potential they carry to make significant contributions to the local chronology is outweighed by the importance of these

45 later period village sites. Before addressing these resources further, however, it is necessary to first provide a basic summarization of the ethnographic information concerning the Mechoopda so that we can better understand the importance of these Late

Period sites.

CHAPTER III

ETHNOGRAPHIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL

SETTING

Introduction

The term “Medioo” or “Maidu,” meaning person, man, or people, refers to the loosely affiliated village groups in central and northern California that spoke similar dialects of the larger Maiduan language stock (Powers 1976). Groups inhabiting portions of the Sacramento Valley and surrounding foothills have been alternatively referred to as the Northwestern Maidu (Dixon 1905; Kroeber 1925, 1932), Konkow (Kowta 1988;

Riddell 1978), or Valley and Foothill Maidu (Johnson 2005). In the Chico area, however, the native peoples inhabiting the valley floor during the ethnographic period were affiliated with the central village of Mechoopda (CA-BUT-1), and are known today as the

Mechoopda Maidu (Dreyer 1984; Hill 1970, 1978).

The brief ethnographic and environmental overview that follows is predominately concerned with the traits of Mechoopda culture that might be visible in the archaeological record, including territorial boundaries and social organization, subsistence practices, seasonal rounds and property rights, material culture, and external relations and interpersonal conflict, as well as the environmental setting in which such traits developed. The majority of the ethnographic information summarized in the following pages is derived from the accounts of Dixon (1905), Kroeber (1925, 1932),

46 47

Riddell (1978), and Voegelin (1942), but contributions also come from Dreyer (1984),

Hill (1970, 1978) and Johnson (2005). A discussion of linguistic information and the period of history following Euro-American contact is additionally included, as both linguistic interpretations and historical records have played a central role alongside ethnographic accounts in the construction of the local chronological framework, particularly for the Chico Complex. Before delving into these topics further, however, the issues that affect ethnographic validity must first be addressed.

Issues Concerning Ethnographic Literature

Much like culture chronologies, ethnographic research conducted in Northern

California during the late 19th and early 20th centuries was heavily influenced by the cultural-historical paradigm and the direct-historical approach, which both viewed Native

American culture at Euro-American contact as essentially being reflective of the prehistoric past as a whole (Keter 2009:39; Raab 2000:13-14). Adding to the biases that this perception creates were the problematic ways in which ethnographic research was carried out during this time. When Alfred Kroeber founded the Department of

Anthropology at Berkeley in 1901, he was dismayed by what he perceived to be a rapidly disappearing and dying indigenous Californian population (Lightfoot 2005:31-32). In response to this observation, Kroeber initiated a program of “salvage” ethnography that employed a conceptual scheme for classifying indigenous peoples by language, culture area, and polity (Lightfoot 2005:34). Such a classification model essentially glossed over many of the less prominent cultural characteristics that define California’s indigenous peoples while simultaneously placing an unnecessary level of emphasis on others.

Instead of incorporating much participant observation of extant Native

American settlements and reservations, anthropologists adhering to the Berkeley program utilized a “memory culture” methodology that involved interviews with a few tribal elders about indigenous life prior to the major disruptions caused by Euro-American colonialism (Lightfoot 2005:32-33; Lightfoot and Parrish 2009:77-78). Beyond the problems associated with interviewing a limited number of tribal elders about past lifeways they likely experienced decades ago, ethnographers focused their research predominately on groups they considered the least contaminated or influenced

(“untouched”) by contact. In this sense, ethnographic information gathered during this time can be viewed as incomplete because it is neither representative of a wide variety of tribal groups nor the perceptions of non-elders.

By the late 1930s, Kroeber came to the realization that most of the informants used to create ethnographies were born well after Culture Contact occurred. In an effort to capture what little pre-Contact cultural information remained, the “Culture Element

Survey” was put into practice (Heizer 1978). Culture traits soon became listed items checked off during interviews, with researchers often taking pre-prepared lists of traits or

“elements” into the field (Heizer 1978). Under this model, the more geographically and culturally widespread a trait, the older the trait was perceived to have been. Such a model did not allow for convergence or independent variation, and downplayed the historic processes that influenced native cultures. Although the model was critiqued by Julian

Steward, the culture trait idea was never fully abandoned in ethnographic methodology and was instead adopted in a more biological incarnation (Trigger 2006).

Despite the limitations and inherent biases associated with ethnographic research in Northern California, ethnographies do supply insight into the lifeways of many indigenous groups, act as historical records that document the interaction between academics and their indigenous informants, and provide some guidance for archaeologists concerned with the most recent prehistoric past. Rather than accepting ethnographic literature as being reflective of prehistoric lifeways without critique or critical examination, ethnographic reconstructions should be viewed as hypotheses that are constructed in an interpretive shape and direction from the theoretical context in which they are erected (Raab 2000:14).

Linguistic Background

Reconstructing aboriginal territories in Northern California has typically been accomplished through a reliance on ethnographic accounts and glottochronology as interpreted by linguists. Linguistic-based migration models are also valuable for interpreting when a particular group arrived in its respective contact-period location. The

Mechoopda, whom Golla (2007:77) simply calls the Chico Maidu, belong to the Maiduan language family of the Penutian stock along with the closely related but mutually unintelligible dialects of the Konkow, Mountain or Northeastern Maidu, and Nisenan.

The relationship between these languages is a historically shallow one, and the northern three – Konkow, Chico, and Mountain Maidu – form a closely knit subgroup known as

Northern Maidu while Nisenan is the lone dialect assigned to the Southern Maidu subgroup. As three of the four Maiduan languages are located in the northern third of

Maidu territory, a southward spread of these dialects from a proto-Maiduan homeland

50 into an area formerly held by Hokan speakers is likely (Golla 2007:77). Levy (1997) proposes that a single Maiduan migration into central California occurred, with subsequent splits into proto-Nisenan and proto-Konkow in A.D. 500, Mountain Maidu and Konkow around A.D. 1000, and Mechoopda in A.D. 1400. Using this model, in conjunction with Maidu legends and the Oroville sequence, Kowta (1988:190) has encapsulated the later prehistory of the Chico and Oroville regions as follows:

In summary, it is our current opinion that the Maiduan-speakers originally entered California from the north sometime around A.D. 500 and settled first in the foothills or valley edge in what is now Nisenan territory. There they were to assimilate resident Hokan-speaking people and various Central California cultural traits, some of which they transmitted to the Hokan-speakers of the Oroville area, the bearers of the Mesilla and Bidwell Complexes. These proto-Nisenan also grew in number and by around A.D. 800 began to expand into what is now Konkow territory in Butte County, introducing these various traits ultimately derived from the Central California Late Horizon, Phase I, cultures to form the local Sweetwater complex (A.D. 800 to A.D. 1600), representing the earliest Maiduans in Konkow territory. In turn, by A.D. 1000 or A.D. 1200, still within the Sweetwater period, the Proto-Konkow population grew sufficiently to expand northward into Plumas County to establish Maiduan-speakers there. Finally, around A.D. 1400, the Konkow spread out onto the Sacramento Valley floor where the numerous settlements of the Mechoopda were to be noted by historic observers.

Territory and Social Organization

The territory of the Mechoopda is synonymous with the geographical applicability of the Chico sequence, and is reported to have covered approximately 90 square miles (Johnson 2005:58). As summarized in the Introduction of this thesis, the precise boundaries of Mechoopda traditional territory are not entirely clear, and there is no oral tradition concerning migration into the region. Unlike linguistic interpretations, the Mechoopda creation myth states that they were created at Tadoiko, a site that lies to

51 the south of Chico along Little Butte Creek, and have always resided in the upper

Sacramento Valley (Hildebrandt and Kaijankoski 2011:19).

Based on the work of Dreyer (1984) and Johnson (2005), along with various ethnographic accounts (Dixon 1905; Kroeber 1925, 1932; Powers 1976), general boundaries appear to have extended from Rock Creek in the north to Clear Creek in the south, including portions of the Mud, Big Chico, and Butte Creek drainages. Along the southern extent of the territory, Kroeber (1925) and Dreyer (1984) note that there was a buffer zone extending approximately ten miles north of the Sutter Buttes that was jointly used by the Mechoopda, River Patwin, and Maidu-speaking groups living along the

Feather River for hunting and fishing purposes. To the west, the Mechoopda were the only foothill or central valley group to hold territory on the opposite side of the

Sacramento River, stretching from Butte City in the south to Nord in the north (Dixon

1905; Dreyer 1984). Though the west side of the Sacramento River is believed to have been sparsely populated relative to the much more densely occupied land east of the river, two villages with ethnographic place names, Batsi and Cheno, were identified by

Mechoopda informants (Heizer and Hester 1970; Kroeber 1932). Overall, this land was held and defended in common, with use normally open to all members of the group

(Kowta 1988:16).

Much like the surrounding landscape within the Sacramento Valley, the study area is well watered, and is characterized by an inland Mediterranean climate that is relatively mild and allows for year-round habitation (Dreyer 1984:6). There are essentially only two seasons in the region, including a hot dry summer lasting from May to September, and a cool, wet winter lasting from October to April. As the northernmost

52 portion of the Great Valley geologic province, the study area can be divided into two main physiographic zones: a foothill zone of volcanic and mud flows (known as the

Tuscan Formation) dissected by streams, and a valley zone of alluvial deposition where floodplains, flood basins, and alluvial plains and fans (including the Chico Alluvial Fan) occur (Olmstead and Davis 1961:21-33,186).

In the social and political realms, the Mechoopda as a whole did not function as a tightly integrated political unit, and were marked by a lack of centrally controlled political power. Instead, they were organized into smaller, independent and autonomous

“tribelets” that were composed of several adjoining villages connected through marriage and kinship ties (Kroeber 1925). Each of these tribelets had a central village with a large dance house that oftentimes served as the residence of the headman or chief. This individual was primarily an advisor and spokesman, not an autocratic ruler, and was generally selected through the aid of a shaman and/or based on favorable qualities such as the wealth, generosity, and the ability to lead (Riddell 1978:379).

Although the chief’s authority went no further than was allowed by the people whom he commanded, he was responsible for a number of specific duties, including leading his tribe into battle, keeping his people from trespassing, directing special festivals, arbitrating disputes, acting as an official host at ceremonial gatherings, organizing communal hunting, fishing, and gathering activities, and redistributing food when required (Dixon 1905). Each extended family also had its own leader who would assist in decisions concerning the community, and the chief’s power in matters of authority was further limited by a council of spiritual elders associated with the Kuksu cult. Little information concerning the role of women in Mechoopda political or social

53 organization is included in ethnographic accounts, but this is most likely reflective of the individuals and time period in which these narratives were created rather than their actual standing in the culture.

Flora and Fauna

While the seasonal and elevational variability is fairly minimal in the Chico area, the region has considerable vegetative diversity, including four main plant communities: valley grasslands, oak woodlands, riparian forests, and freshwater marshes

(which include swamps and sloughs; Schoenherr 1992). These biotic communities allowed for rich diversity in terms of subsistence resources for prehistoric hunter- gatherers prior to Euro-American contact and the substantial modification of the local environment. Large expanses of the valley between oak woodland communities and the lower foothills were blanketed by the open grassland of the California prairie, which contained a thick mat of both perennial and annual grasses (Burcham 1982). Perennial purple needlegrass (Stipa pulchara) is thought to have been a dominant species, along with nodding needlegrass (S. cernua), blue wild rye (Elmyus glaucus), pine bluegrass

(Poa scabrella), and deergrass (Muhlenbergia regins [Burcham 1982:80]).

Foothill woodlands, located along the margins of grassland and riparian communities, were dominated by hardwoods, including valley (Quercus lobata) and blue oak (Q. douglasii), as well as scattered interior live oak (Q. wislizenii) and scrub oak (Q. dumasa). The underlying savanna was open, carpeted by native bunchgrasses and annual grasses, including wild rye (Lemyus triticoides [Griffin 1977; West 1977]). A sparse understory in the oak woodland was also present, and included poison oak

(Toxicodendron diversilobum), elderberry (Sambucus mexicana), California buckeye

(Aesculus californica), and wild rose (Rosa californica [West 1977]).

Riparian forests along the Sacramento and Feather Rivers often formed dense, multi-tiered canopies of primarily deciduous species. The lowest terraces and sub-canopy of this biotic zone were occupied by willows (Salix alba), Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii), white and box alder (Acer rhombifolia and negundo), California buckeye bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), elderberry, grapevine (Vitus spp.), blackberry

(Rubus villosus), mugwort (Artemisia douglassiana), and poison oak, while the overstory was dominated by valley oak, California sycamore (Platanus fremontii), Oregon ash

(Fraxinus latifolia), and black walnut (Juglans nigra [Burcham 1982; Thompson 1961;

West 1977]). Nearby freshwater marshes and tule lake communities supported common tule (Scirpus actutus), cattail (Typha spp.), as well as numerous sedges, rushes, and reeds including bulrush (Scirpus spp.) and spike-rush (Heleocharis palustris). Many of the species present in these biotic communities (willow, oak, elderberry, cattail, tule, etc.) were economically important to the Mechoopda prehistorically.

Within the Chico area, three species of artiodactyls would have been available to hunter-gatherers, including black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus), tule elk (Cervus Canadensis roosevelti), and pronghorn (Antilocapra americana). Deer and pronghorn would have been the most common across the lower foothill prairie, with elk restricted to riparian forests and marshes (Whitaker 2010). In addition, carnivores and omnivores, including grizzly bear (Ursus chelan), black bear (U. americanus), mountain lion (Felis concolor), coyote (Canis latrans), bobcat (Lynx rufus), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), ringtail (Bassariscus astutus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), pine marten

(Martes americana), fisher (M. pennanti), long-tailed weasel (Mustela frenata), ermine

(M. erminea), mink (M. vision), badger (Taxidea taxus), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), and spotted skunk (Spilogale putorius) inhabited the region. River otter (Lutra canadensis), and beaver (Castor canadensis) were found in riparian and marsh habitats, while hares and rabbits, including the white tailed jackrabbit (Lepus townsendi), black- tailed jackrabbit (L. californicus), and brush rabbit (Sylvilagus bachmani) spanned the

Sacramento Valley and Sierra Nevada foothills. Other terrestrial foothill residents included the gray squirrel (Scirius griseus), ground squirrels (Spermophilus spp.), porcupine (Erethizon dorsatum), woodrat (Neotoma ssp.), and several subspecies of chipmunk (Neotamias spp), gopher (Thomomys spp.), rats (Rattus spp.), and mice

(Heteromyidae).

Aside from terrestrial mammals, marsh, grassland, woodland, and riparian habitats were home to a diverse group of resident waterfowl and both freshwater and anadromous fishes. This included numerous species of duck (Anas, Aythya, Bucephala,

Mareca, and Mergus), coot (Fulica Americana), cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus), grebes (Aechmophorus occidentalis), herons (Ardeidae), cranes (Grus spp.), egrets

(Ardea spp.), and gulls (Larus spp.). As the region is situated along the Pacific Coast

Flyway, flocks of migratory waterfowl, including as many as 39 different species of ducks, geese (Branta canadensis, Anser, and Chen spp.), brants (Branta spp.), and swans

(Olor spp.) would also use the valley marshes as transitional feeding grounds during their migration. Other resident avifauna in the surrounding area consisted of primarily hawks and eagles (Accipitridae), mourning dove (Zenaidura macroura), California quail

(Lophortyx californicus), flickers and woodpeckers (Picidae), owls (Tytonidae and

Strigidae), wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo), turkey vultures (Cathartes aura), and numerous passerine (i.e., perching) birds. Salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.), steelhead (O. mykiss), white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus), green sturgeon (A. medirostris),

Pacific lamprey (Entosphenus tridentatus), river lamprey (Lampetra ayresii), perch

(Archoplites interruptus), trout (Salmo spp.), and suckers (Catostomus spp.) additionally inhabited major waterways.

Subsistence

Much like other native California groups, Mechoopda traditional subsistence was based largely upon the gathering of wild plant foods, supplemented by fishing, the hunting of passerine birds, waterfowl, and game animals, and the collection of various insects. The storage of these resources for later use during periods of seasonal scarcity was a crucial component to hunter-gatherer lifeways. Central to the diet was the acorn, which was harvested annually by all members of the community in the autumn for both immediate consumption and for storage in granaries through the winter and spring (Dixon

1905:188). Over a dozen varieties of acorn were harvested within the valley floor and lower foothill zones, with preferred species being the black oak, canyon live oak, and interior live oak (Dixon 1905:181). Blue and black oak were more readily available staple crops in Mechoopda territory though, whereas black oak was less accessible and often obtained through trade from the Timah (Konkow) foothill groups (Voegelin 1942:180).

In addition to acorns, a number of small seeds (particularly grasses), roots, and bulbs

(including blue camas, tule, and cattail) were harvested by women (Riddell 1987:374).

Pine nuts and manzanita berries were obtained from neighboring groups in the Sierra

57 foothills as well, with the latter being used to produce cider. As with acorns, these plant foods could be boiled, roasted, ground, or dried for either immediate use or storage.

Though not part of the diet, special mention must also be made of the cultivation wild tobacco, the leaves of which were smoked for both ceremonial and social purposes.

Given their proximity to the Sacramento River and numerous related backwater marshes, creeks, and streams, the pre-contact Mechoopda were less reliant on hunting large mammals than other Maiduan-speaking tribes. Valente (1998:63-64,81) in examining the faunal assemblage at CA-BUT-1, notes that ducks and geese were more important to the diet than fish, and more waterfowl were taken than elk, deer, and antelope combined. Ducks and geese were obtained in a variety of ways, including with reed nooses, nets and decoys, and by bow and arrow. Aside from migratory waterfowl, which could be procured in great number during their migration along the Pacific

Flyway, men also shot grouse, snared quail using basketry traps, and took crows for their skins (Dixon 1905:196).

Like birds, fishing arguably served a more important economic role to the

Mechoopda than the hunting of mammals. Among ethnographic sources, salmon and lamprey eel are the most often cited anadromous species, but lentic fish were also significant aquatic staples in the diet. During the salmon runs of the fall and spring, groups of men would construct fish weirs across the eastern tributaries of the Sacramento

River and trap and spear large groups of migrating fish. These fish, along with other species, could additionally be taken individually using gigs or spears, or in groups using large dip or seine nets in the strong eddy of a creek during other periods of the year

(Dixon 1905:197). In some cases, salmon bone, like that of deer vertebrae, was pulverized and eaten raw (Hildebrandt and Kaijankoski 2011:23).

Even though terrestrial mammals and insects may have been ranked lower on the food spectrum than either fish or waterfowl, they were nonetheless important contributors to the subsistence of the Mechoopda. Deer, specifically blacktail, were the most commonly pursued artiodactyl, but pronghorn and tule elk would have also been taken prior to Euro-American contact. Brush fences were erected for communal deer drives, and all three species of artiodactyl were stalked by small hunting parties and dispatched with a bow and arrow. Bear were hunted at higher elevations with the aid of dogs, and smaller mammals like hares and rabbits were taken with blunt arrows or driven into nets and clubbed (Dixon 1905:195; Kowta 1988:15). Meat obtained during these various pursuits was usually cooked by baking in rock-lined ovens or roasting directly on hot coals, but boiling also occurred. Lastly, women and children caught yellow jacket larvae, angleworms, locusts, grasshoppers, and crickets in baskets to be eaten dried or roasted (Dixon 1905:190-191).

Villages, Seasonal Rounds, and Property Rights

The territory of the Mechoopda includes 23 villages with ethnographic place names, as plotted by Hester and Heizer (1970), Merriam (1976), and Riddell (1978). Of these 23, the locations of ten correspond with recorded archaeological sites, including both Mechoopda (CA-BUT-1) and Shidawi (CA-BUT-12). These large village communities were inhabited year-round, and consisted of numerous circular, semi- subterranean, earth-covered house structures known as hubo that were built around a

59 central dance house referred to as a kum. Most of the hubo were extended or multi-family dwellings that measured six or more meters in diameter, while kum were at least nine meters (Johnson 2005:58). Dixon (1905:135,185) notes that Maidu house structures can be distinguished from those of the Wintun because the former are circular in floorplan and have one or more slab or block mortars set directly into their earthen floors. In addition to these structure types, wicker acorn granaries were built around each hum, and smaller brush shelters, supported by upright poles, were built at temporary summer food- gathering locations (Kroeber 1925:407-408). With up to twenty family homes being simultaneously occupied, village populations may have been as high as 150 to 200 people in some cases (Kroeber 1925:397). While population estimates for the Mechoopda at the time of European contact are not available, Kroeber (1925) estimates the Maidu population as a whole at around 6,000 individuals.

Along with a temperate climate, the continual occupation of villages in the valley and lower foothills was made possible through the high degree of storage that was practiced. Logistical forays to nearby resource patches such as seed-bearing fields, acorn groves, and hunting and fishing locales were frequent, but travel outside of the community territory was often limited to distances of less than twenty miles (Dixon

1905:201). As relative sedentism increased, so too did the reinforcement of community territorial boundaries, which were strictly demarcated and guarded. While such tribelet territories were owned communally, fishing holes were sometimes privately owned by families, as was the right to erect drive fences for deer hunting (Dixon 1905:223-225). At the level of the individual, a man’s nets, bows and arrows, spears, canoe, clothing, and

60 house were considered private property, and a woman’s baskets, utensils, pestles, mats, and digging sticks fell into the same ownership category.

Traditional Material Culture

Mechoopda traditional culture was similar to that of many other northern and central California tribes in many respects. Some of the most significant cultural materials, such as animal skin robes and blankets, coiled and twined basketry, dugout canoes, tule mats and bags, cordage netting, and sinew-backed bows constructed of yew wood were organic in nature, and as a result, are not well represented in the archaeological record.

Other tools, weaponry, and adornments, constructed of stone, bone, antler, shell, and wood (if carbonized), are present though, and offer insight into late prehistoric period lifeways. A variety of flaked stone materials, including obsidian, basalt, and cryptocrystalline silicates were used to construct knives, spear points, and arrows. These artifacts were manufactured using sharpened bone flakers, antler, and hammerstones, with the first two being employed primarily for tool finishing (Dixon 1905:134). Ground stone tools like hopper and bowl mortars, cylindrical and oval pestles, and milling slabs were additionally used for processing a variety of food resources such as seeds, acorns, roots, tubers, bulbs, meat and even salmon bone and deer vertebrae (Dixon 1905:184).

The study area is notoriously devoid of high-quality toolstone, like much of the surrounding Sacramento Valley (Hildebrandt and Kaijankoski 2011:10). While volcanic portions of the Sutter Buttes do contain andesite, rhyolite, and tuff, the obsidians, basalts, cherts, quartzites, and other raw materials favored by the Mechoopda for tool production are restricted to the metamorphic and sedimentary belts of the

61 adjoining foothills, or the volcanic uplands of the Klamath and Sierra ranges and the

Modoc Plateau (Hildebrandt and Kaijankoski 2011:10). Although a small amount of raw toolstone reached the area through natural forces by being carried downslope by the larger creeks that drain the surrounding foothills and mountains, a majority of the preferred materials for tool manufacture were often transported to the valley through trade with neighboring groups.

Though less prevalent in site assemblages than flaked and ground stone tools, equally important artifacts included steatite bowls and dishes, bone and stone pipes, and a number of types of shell artifacts which served as both adornments and currency. More important to the potential sites of interest featured in this research project, however, are the diagnostic “marker trait” elements that Bayham and Johnson (1990:13) have identified as being unique to the Mechoopda and used to distinguish between Maidu and

Wintun habitation sites. These include bird bone ear tubes with incised, triangular designs filled with black cross-hatching (Figure 3), slab or block mortars embedded in house floors, and sub-floor pits (both depicted in Figure 4), which Henderson (1976:21) refers to as cobble storage pits. The presence of these artifacts in the Chico area has been used more recently by Johnson (2005:63-64) to designate five archaeological sites as being inhabited by Mechoopda groups, including CA-BUT-1, CA-BUT-7, CA-BUT-12, CA-

BUT-434, and CA-GLE-18.

External Relations and Interpersonal Conflict

Interaction between Mechoopda villages, as well as with surrounding foreign tribes, was largely influenced by economic constraints. Despite Dixon (1905:201) noting

FIGURE 3. Incised bird bone ear tubes characteristic of the Mechoopda.

Source: Johnson, Keith L., 2005, Archaeological Identification of the Valley Maidu in Northern California. In Onward and Upward! Papers in Honor of Clement W. Meighan. Keith L. Johnson, ed. Pp. 57- 74. Chico: Stansbury Publishing. Reprinted with permission.

that Maidu-speaking groups were not particularly active trade partners, trade with the

Wintun for clamshell beads, Pomo magnesite cylinder beads, and abalone ornaments was common, and pine nuts, salmon, salt, and bow-making materials were exchanged with the

Konkow. As the territory of the Mechoopda was devoid of high quality toolstone, these raw materials were often obtained from neighboring Maidu groups to both the east and west. Aside from trade, they also shared the practice of the Kuksu cult society with several central California groups, and practiced exogamy across tribal boundaries in some cases. Merriam (1967) notes that many of the Mechoopda villages bordering Patwin,

Wintun, and Konkow territories also tended to be bilingual.

While contact between villages and surrounding tribes was largely positive, and organize warfare was unknown, fairly regular bouts of interpersonal violence occurred within and amongst tribelet groups. These skirmishes typically included the use of the bow and arrow, wooden clubs, and thrusting spears with lethal results. Feuds

FIGURE 4. House floor feature 1, CA-BUT-12. Note the excavated sub-floor pit in the center of the photograph and the block mortar immediately to the right. Photograph courtesy of the CSUC Archaeology Lab Archives.

between individual villages sometimes led to raiding and ambushes, and the Mechoopda were known to be hostile toward the Yana to the north and occasionally fight with the

Wintun across the Sacramento River to the west. Scalping took place, and male prisoners, if taken, were often tortured before being executed (Dixon 1905:207). In examining violent behavior through time in central California prehistory, Nelson (1997) found that cranial fractures increase in prevalence through the Late Period as population densities rise, foraging efficiency is reduced, and territorial boundaries are established and more

64 actively defended. Mechoopda territory was no exception to such a pattern, as evidenced through burial remains recovered from CA-BUT-294, CA-BUT-288, and CA0-GLE-101.

Post-Euro-American Contact

Initial contact with European and American settlers in Mechoopda territory came with the brief investigations of the area by Spanish military explorer Luis Arguello and his chaplain Father Blas de Ordaz in 1821, as well as early fur trapping by the

Jedediah Smith party in 1828. Between 1828 and 1836, the Hudson Bay Company led increasingly large parties of hunters in search of fur-bearing river animals into the

Sacramento Valley from the northeast (Hill 1978). During this period, malaria and other epidemic diseases were introduced throughout the Central Valley, resulting in the decimation of indigenous populations. Cook (1955) estimates that by 1833, approximately 75 percent of California’s aboriginal population had died due to these epidemics, depleting the region to the point that native groups could offer little opposition to the influx of Euro-American settlers.

During the early 1840s, there were thought to be approximately 100 settlers living throughout California, with less than 27 ranchos being occupied in northern

California by 1845 (Hill 1978). Less than a decade later, there were more than 100,000 ranchers, miners, and trappers inhabiting the same territory. Increased Euro-American occupation was made possible by the issuing of Spanish land grants, including a portion of Mechoopda territory to the north of Chico Creek known as Rancho Arroyo Chico to

William Dickey in 1845. This rancho, later sold to John Bidwell, employed a number of

Mechoopda, first as ranch hands and later as miners when gold was discovered on the

65 property in 1848 (Hill 1978). With the discovery of gold throughout the area, an influx of prospectors and miners further disrupted native culture by infringing on traditional hunting territories, depleting natural resources, and silting up major waterways with hydraulic mining.

As the Mechoopda were increasingly forced to adopt an entirely foreign way of life, they were also removed from their once-thriving villages and placed on various reservations and rancherias as part of government policies dedicated to separating native and settler populations. In 1863, more than 450 Mechoopda were forced to march to the

Round Valley Reservation more than 113 kilometers (70 miles) to the west. Those that escaped this forced march were able to seek refuge on Bidwell’s property at the Chico

Rancheria and the new village of Mechoopda. In the decades that followed, the

Mechoopda continued to face oppression, discrimination, and racism in their native homeland. It was not until 1992 that the tribe was federally recognized by the United

States government. Despite the substantial hardships that they have endured, the

Mechoopda have remained resilient and continue to be a vital part of the Chico community today.

Chapter Summary

This chapter has offered insight into the lifeways and environment of the

Mechoopda in the time that immediately preceded culture contact during the Chico

Complex, as well as the period that followed. A discussion of traditional material culture has allowed us to more accurately understand who the Mechoopda are, as well as why their sites hold significance in terms of the prehistory of the Chico vicinity. With this

66 information in hand, we are now more qualified to make a contribution to the Chico chronology by dating the sites they once occupied and drawing inferences based on such information.

CHAPTER IV

METHODOLOGY

Introduction

In order to test the validity of the Chico Complex, additional chronometric information is required from CA-BUT-1, CA-BUT-7, and CA-BUT-12. In particular, radiocarbon and obsidian hydration data obtained from discrete feature and stratigraphic contexts must be targeted in order to depict the temporal nature and extent of each resource. When paired together, dating information obtained from both radiocarbon and obsidian hydration studies will ideally compliment and reinforce one another, creating a more definitive picture of pre-contact Chico prehistory. This chapter will first describe the existing collections associated with these three sites, and the previous interpretations that were made based on the analysis of these materials. Following this section, the radiocarbon and obsidian sampling strategies employed at each site will be detailed, including sample lists of artifacts used for both radiocarbon and obsidian studies. The final section of this chapter briefly summarizes the methodologies used in the sample selection process, as well as the Accelerator Mass Spectrometer (AMS) radiocarbon and obsidian sourcing and hydration processes that were relied on to produce the raw results reported in Chapter V.

67 68

Existing Collections Description

Sites CA-BUT-1, CA-BUT-7, and CA-BUT-12 were selected for further study primarily because of the role they serve in defining the Chico Complex. However, these sites are also ideal candidates for additional research because of the extensive existing archaeological collections that are associated with them, a majority of which are housed in the CSUC Archaeological Laboratory curation facility. The assemblages recovered from each resource are described below, and are reflective of a wide range of sampling strategies, research questions, and field methods.

CA-BUT-1, the village of Mechoopda

Between 1965 and 1966, under the direction of Donald Miller and Keith

Johnson, an estimated 1.5 percent (17,250 cubic feet) of the 12-acre (293,000 square feet) mound site was sampled, with a total of 138 five-foot square test units revealing a deposit ranging in depth from three to five feet (representing a total volume of about 1,175,000 cubic feet) with only one discernible component (Chartkoff and Chartkoff 1983:7, 45).

Although aerial photographs and the collection of surface materials showed that the midden once covered more than 650,000 square feet, part of the site had been plowed to depths of three feet, leaving a much smaller area of the site where house pits were observed on the surface undisturbed (Chartkoff and Chartkoff 1983:4). These housepit depressions were the primary focus of subsurface investigations, with 12 of an estimated

100 total housepit features (including the combined totals of 42 surface and an estimated

58 plus subsurface depressions) being sampled using arbitrary levels of six inches.

Sampled housepit features were designated as Houses 1, 2, 21, 41, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49,

50, and 51, and were selected from five separate work areas located in the southwest, northeast, and southeast quadrants of the site (Figure 5).

The excavation of the housepit features that Miller and Johnson targeted, as well as testing outside and below them where midden was present, yielded well over

19,000 total artifacts, including diagnostic artifacts such as projectile points (n = 606) and shell beads and pendants (n = 1502). In their report on the site, Chartkoff and

Chartkoff (1983:46) suggested that such projectile point and shell bead types, along with obsidian hydration data, architectural style, and house contents placed the most intensive occupation of the site between A.D. 1400 and AD. 1840. More recent reports by

Crawford (2011:73) and Johnson (2005:63) place the occupation of CA-BUT-1 more generally between 1500 and 150 years B.P., spanning parts of the Pine Creek 1, Pine

Creek 2, and Chico Complex phases, or most of the Upper Archaic and Emergent

Periods.

After cataloguing portions of the site assemblage in the CSUC laboratory, artifacts were accessioned in the UCLA accession system, with the 1965 collection receiving number 491 and the 1996 collection number 495 (Chartkoff and Chartkoff

1983:9). While a majority of the CA-BUT-1 collection was transported to UCLA, unmodified bone and shell from the 1965 excavations, soil samples collected from each pit, and numerous samples of burned house posts and fire hearth contents were retained by the laboratory for dating purposes and further analysis (Chartkoff and Chartkoff

1983:7). When Valente (1998) conducted her thesis research on the faunal remains collected from Houses 1 and 2, she noted that unmodified bone and shell recovered during the 1966 season were discarded after being bagged and weighed. By the time

FIGURE 5. The Patrick site with numbered house pit depressions.

Source: Chartkoff, Joseph L. and Kerry K. Chartkoff, 1983, Excavations at the Patrick Site (4-Butte-1). In The Archaeology of Two Northern California Sites. Ernestine S. Elster, ed. Pp. 1-52. Institute of Archaeology Monograph 22. Los Angeles: University of California. Reprinted with permission.

71 investigations into the whereabouts of the collection began as part of this thesis,

Accessions 491 and 495 had been returned to the Patrick family, who in turn donated them to the Far West Heritage Association (stewards of the Chico Museum) along with the Patrick Ranch property itself in 2001. During this process, a large portion of the original 19,000-artifact collection appears to have been deaccessioned. Human remains associated with a lone burial uncovered between House Features 2 and 45 were also repatriated to the Mechoopda in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). All that remained of the artifact collection at the CSUC

Archaeological Laboratory were partial site records, an incomplete artifact list, a small number of unprovenienced artifacts, the faunal remains associated with 1965 fieldwork, and soil and carbon samples from Houses 1, 2, 44, 45, 46, 47, and 48.

CA-BUT-7, The Richardson Springs Site

In comparison to CA-BUT-1, CA-BUT-7 has no formal report, although it has been included in numerous theses (Crawford 2011; Dreyer 1984; Dugas 1995) and regional discussions of the area (Johnson 2005; Kowta 1988). This is due, in part, to the outbreak of coccidioidomycosis that terminated excavations at the site and led to the designation of the area as endemic for the disease. Along with extensive field notes concerning the excavation that was led by Donald Miller and Makoto Kowta in 1970, a complete artifact catalogue is present in the CSUC Archaeological Laboratory and numerous site record updates by H. O. Bass in 1971, Michael Boynton in 1973, William

Dreyer in 1989, and Alex DeGeorgey in 2005 provide a more complete narrative description of the site. Together, they describe a large central village complex with five loci measuring 100 meters north-south by 350 meters east-west, with a surface area of

35,000 square meters encompassing an alluvial terrace on the south side of Mud Creek

(DeGeorgey 2005:23). Both DeGeorgey (2005) and Dreyer (1989) noted that the site appeared to have good integrity at the time of recordation despite being significantly impacted by road construction and transmission line poles and demonstrating evidence of surface collection and probable subsurface disturbance in Locus D (rock shelter).

During the summer of 1970, each of the five site loci were partially excavated, including: Locus A, a mound containing nine surface house pit depressions; Locus B, an area of midden deposit between Locus A and Locus C; Locus C, a mound containing seven surface house pit depressions; Locus D, a rock shelter with a smoke-stained roof and midden deposit located approximately 50 meters upslope (north) from Locus C; and

Locus E, an area that appeared to have been used repeatedly for cooking and contained a total of ten ash lenses and three rock concentrations. Much like at CA-BUT-1, these loci were sampled using five-by-five foot units and six-inch arbitrary levels. In total, over

5,500 artifacts were collected and accessioned at CSUC (more than 4,400 of which come from Loci A and C alone), with a small portion of artifacts from across the site being assigned accession number 36 and the remainder of each loci assemblage receiving a separate accession number between 40 and 44 (40 for Locus A, 41 for Locus B, 42 for

Locus C, 43 for Locus D, and 44 for Locus E). Included in this assemblage were artifacts recovered from at least six house floor and several probable cooking features. Loci A and

C contained the most substantial deposits extending to a depth of nearly three meters, but

Locus B also contained evidence of considerable midden development and was excavated to depths of over 3.3 meters. No excavations were conducted outside of the five loci.

Based on the analysis of diagnostic artifacts at the site, as well as interpretations of stratigraphy and house feature style, CA-BUT-7 was interpreted as being generally contemporaneous with CA-BUT-1, or between 1500 and 150 years B.P. in age. Dreyer (1989:96) notes that there are “slight indications of an older component” potentially dating to 2000 years B.P., but that the resource largely contained only a single component of continuous occupation reflective of the Late Horizon, Phase II. The most intensive use of the site is perceived to have spanned between approximately 700 and 150 years B.P. Based on the similarity of Gunther Series projectile points at CA-BUT-7 to those found at Wintuan sites, Dugas (1995:210) suggested that either Nomlaki or Wintu populations used the site prior to Mechoopda expansion into the Chico area. The author also notes that Gunther Series points at CA-BUT-7, which are presumably older than the

Desert Side-notched (DSN) style, are dominated by obsidian, only then to be replaced by a DSN assemblage consisting of predominately cryptocrystalline silicates (CCS; Dugas

1995:205). Such a shift in lithic material preference is attributed to a new procurement range after Gunther Series points were already in use (Dugas 1995:205).

When the artifact collection was examined in preparation for radiocarbon and obsidian studies, the assemblage appeared to be relatively well accounted for and was largely reflective of the artifact catalogues and field notes associated with each loci. All materials associated with the site are currently housed in the CSUC Archaeological

Laboratory curation facility. Aside from a lone burial that was repatriated in accordance with NAGPRA, the existing collection associated with CA-BUT-7 is far more complete and diverse than the assemblage from CA-BUT-1, although they share many similarities in terms of excavation strategy and feature sampling.

CA-BUT-12, The Village of Shidawi

CA-BUT-12, also referred to as the Finch site, is a distinct, elevated mound located on a former channel or slough of the Sacramento River. The mound stands five meters high, and was at one time believed to cover approximately 7,500 square meters with a volume of 11,250 square meters of midden soil. Much of the southern half of the mound was cut away in the mid-twentieth century by the construction of a farmhouse, outbuildings, and a corral, however, leaving only a 325 foot (north-south) by 375 foot

(east-west) northern portion of the site intact into the 1960s (Chartkoff 2010:2). Several excavations have been undertaken at the site, including those led by Francis Riddell

(CSUC) in 1963, Keith Johnson (CSUC) in 1964, Joseph Chartkoff (UCLA) in 1967, and

Makoto Kowta (CSUC) from 1983 to 1984. The first three of these investigations focused almost exclusively on the densest cultural deposits of the site, which existed in the upper

1.2 meters of the mound. Only the most recent investigations by Kowta revealed that midden soil extended to a maximum depth of 2.4 meters below surface, residing on a light brown, sandy alluvium.

Although the site is primarily a prehistoric resource interpreted to have been settled as early as 1700 years B.P. (Crawford 2011:73), historic materials are present, consistent with ethnographic occupation as late as 150 years B.P. Intensive occupation is believed to have occurred between at least A.D. 1400 and A.D. 1600, a minimum timespan of 350 years (White 2003b:68). Similar to the published literature concerning

CA-BUT-7, there is no formal report synthesizing the fieldwork that occurred at Shidawi between 1963 and 1984, although the site is described in regional works pertaining to the area (Johnson 2005; Kowta 1988), summarized in a CRM report (White 2003b), included

75 in the analyses of several theses (Broughton 1988; Dreyer 1984; Dugas 1995; Eugster

1990), and was discussed in a recent publication in the Society for California

Archaeology Proceedings comparing it to a similar Late Period riverine site in central southern Michigan (Chartkoff 2010). Chartkoff and Chartkoff (1968) additionally outline the excavations they planned at CA-BUT-12 in Excavations at the Finch Site: Research

Strategy and Procedures, but no follow-up was produced.

Despite the limitations of the written record, field notes and a complete artifact catalogue detail the series of excavations that recovered approximately 3,200 total artifacts and dozens of soil samples that have yet to be incorporated into the artifact catalogue. Early excavations in 1963 and 1964 consisted of seven five foot square units excavated in six inch increments to a maximum depth of 78 inches during the 1963 field season and only 36 inches in 1964. The main focus of these excavations was the sampling of house pit depressions, and at least three features (two probable house floors and a third feature of unknown function) were identified. Like the work of Riddell and Johnson,

Chartkoff’s fieldwork in 1967 was guided by research questions pertaining to protohistoric hunter-gatherer environmental adaptation and sociocultural organization

(Chartkoff and Chartkoff 1968). The upper portion of the midden was sampled to a depth of only 60 centimeters, as it was believed that the most recent architectural features could be found within this depth.

It was not until 1983 that the vertical extent of the midden deposit at CA-

BUT-12 was tested. Excavations during 1983 and 1984 were intended to not only sample the deepest components of the site, but also determine cultural affiliation and assess stratigraphic integrity and the intensity of occupation. Four two-meter square units were

76 excavated in ten-centimeter increments at this time, and were designated as S10/W6,

S12/W10, S10/W8, and S8/W7. Units S10/W6 and S12/W10 were excavated to a depth of 90 centimeters below surface while Unit S8/W7 was excavated to 200 centimeters and

Unit S10/W6 to 230 centimeters. These excavations revealed five prehistoric features, including a compacted ash lense (Feature 1), three probable house floors or living surfaces (Features 3, 4, and 6), and a probable hearth (Feature 5) at depths ranging between 20 and 100 centimeters. Three of these features were identified in Unit S8/W7 and two were identified in Unit S10/W8.

In comparison to the excavation strategies utilized at CA-BUT-1 and CA-

BUT-7, the work conducted at CA-BUT-12 was more limited in terms of horizontal scope. Nevertheless, a combined total of nine features were identified during 1963-1964 and 1983-1984, and datable materials recovered from or in direct association with these features are present in existing collections. Portions of the 1963-1964 collections were initially accessioned at CSUC under accession number 312, but the remainder of these assemblages and the entirety of the 1983-1984 collections are part of accession number 4.

The artifact catalogue and curation materials associated with theses collections were recently updated, and the collection itself appears to be in excellent condition with nearly all listed artifacts present and accounted for. Only a small amount of poorly provenienced materials were previously deaccessioned, and repatriation was limited to isolated, fragmentary human remains. The excavations conducted in 1967 by UCLA included about 1.28 percent of the remaining midden at the site (Chartkoff and Chartkoff 1968), but the assemblage associated with this work was not examined as part of this thesis as it

77 reflects the same upper half of the midden deposits that Riddell and Johnson targeted and is housed at the UCLA curation facility.

Sampling Strategy

To accurately depict the chronological nature and extent of each site, a phased, non-random sampling strategy that focused on temporally restricted site components (especially from cultural features) was utilized. The goal of this sampling strategy was to select samples that were collectively representative or reflective of the entire span of occupation at each resource. No minimum or maximum sample counts were identified as being sufficient, as the assemblages recovered from each site are each unique and necessitate equally specific treatments. Rather, an opportunistic approach was taken in which as many samples would be used for dating purposes as was deemed economically practical.

Phase I of the sampling strategy was directed toward dating intact features such as house floors (Figure 6), hearths (Figure 7), and ash lenses. In many cases, sampled house pit depressions were evident on the surface of sites (Figure 8). Aside from human burials, all of which have been repatriated at the three sites of interest, these features are arguably the most definitive evidence of intensive prehistoric occupation at the sites. If such features did not contain materials suitable for radiocarbon dating, artifacts such as charcoal, bone, shell, or carbonized plant remains recovered in direct associated were used to date them. In addition to dating intact features, a second phase

(Phase II) of sampling identified additional organic materials that were recovered outside or below features in midden deposits to date the full horizontal and vertical extent of each

FIGURE 6. House Floor Features 45 (foreground) and 2 (back left), CA-BUT-1. Photograph courtesy of the CSUC Archaeological Lab Archives.

resource, at least to the degree that existing collections would allow. Lastly, Phase III of the sampling strategy was concerned with pairing obsidian samples with previously selected radiocarbon samples to reinforce chronometric determinations. Although in some cases obsidian specimens were not available from the same proveniences as radiocarbon samples, those specimens that were in the closest stratigraphic association were selected. Additional obsidian samples that were collected from deeper midden deposits or different unit designations where organic material was not present were also incorporated into respective sample groups to add to the body of chronometric data derived from each site.

FIGURE 7. Probable Hearth Feature 23, CA-BUT-1. Photograph courtesy of the CSUC Archaeological Lab Archives.

Operating under ideal circumstances, each site would have radiocarbon and obsidian samples taken from all previously excavated features as well as from non- randomly selected stratigraphic contexts that span their respective vertical and horizontal extents. Unfortunately, the existing collections associated with each site do not necessarily contain materials from each documented feature or from across the deposits.

The following sample lists are reflective of these limitations and are argued to best represent the nature and extent of each resource given the materials present. All provenience measurements relating to depth were standardized to metric for purposes of uniformity.

FIGURE 8. Surface house pit depressions at CA-BUT-12, Locus C. Photograph courtesy of the CSUC Archaeological Lab Archives.

Radiocarbon Dating

In general, the archaeological materials which can be dated by radiocarbon must be organic, carbon-based, and have measurable rates of carbon-14 (14C) decay

(Bowman 1990:12). When a plant or animal dies, it ceases to participate in carbon exchange with the biosphere and no longer takes in the radioactive isotope 14C. As 14C is unstable, it decays at a rate measured by the 14C half-life (Taylor 1987). The radiocarbon age of a sample is based on a measurement of its residual 14C content, and is obtained via destructive analysis (Taylor 1997:66).

Currently, there are two methods for measuring 14C derived from archaeological contexts. The first, known as the conventional or standard radiometric

81 method, detects the number of electrons emitted per unit time and weight of sample by the decay of 14C (Bowman 1990:12). By comparison, the second method, known as accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) dating, directly measures the number, or a proportion of the number, of 14C atoms relative to 13C or 12C atoms in the sample once it has been converted to graphite (elemental carbon; Bowman 1990:31). Although the principles of conventional and AMS dating are fundamentally different, both produce radiocarbon results that can be interpreted in the same way. For the purposes of this thesis, all samples were submitted to the AMS dating method, as it is more precise and requires a smaller sample size than the conventional method (Taylor 2000:15).

Radiocarbon Sampling Strategy

CA-BUT-1

At the time research related to this thesis began, only feature-associated materials from Houses 1, 2, 44, 45, 46, 47, and 48 were present in the collection out of a possible 12 sampled house pit depressions. Datable materials were selected from each of these features, and include carbonized post samples and acorn fragments, as well as unmodified faunal remains and charcoal collected from the compacted earthen floors. An additional five samples were selected from midden deposits outside or below these features. As subterranean house floor features were often constructed in existing midden soil, it was suggested that the oldest components of the site might be represented in these areas (Keith Johnson, personal communication on November 9, 2012). These samples consist of unmodified faunal remains, charcoal and carbonized acorn fragments. A

82 summarized sample list is provided in Appendix C: Radiocarbon Sample Lists and

Results.

CA-BUT-7

A total of six house floor features were sampled as part of the excavations at this resource. These features, three of which were located in Locus A and three of which were located in Locus C, were each represented by datable materials such as shell

(freshwater mollusk), charcoal, carbonized acorn fragments, and unmodified faunal remains in the existing collection. Samples from each were selected for 14C dating purposes. In addition to the two loci containing house pit depressions, radiocarbon samples were also taken from the three other loci, as they represent activity areas that may potentially reflect different periods of site usage. Two samples were selected from both Loci B and E, and three were selected from Locus D. Because no features were identified in these loci, charcoal samples were taken from the deepest portions of each where stratigraphic integrity was noted. Locus D received particular attention despite its comparatively small size and shallow midden deposit because it was noted that rock shelter features in the area might have been utilized prior to more intensive occupation

(Keith Johnson, personal communication on November 9, 2012). Together, the five loci at CA-BUT-7 are represented by 13 radiocarbon samples (Appendix C: Radiocarbon

Sample Lists and Results).

CA-BUT-12

The eight combined prehistoric features identified at CA-BUT-12 during excavations in 1963-1964 (n = three) and 1983-1984 (n = five) were each sampled for radiocarbon dating. Charcoal, a burnt seed fragment of indeterminate species, a single

83 clamshell disc bead, and unmodified faunal remains were included in this sub-sample.

Five non-feature associated samples of either charcoal, unmodified faunal remains, or carbonized acorn fragments were taken from 1983-1984 excavation units S10/W8 and

S8/W7 where midden deposits extended to their deepest point. Like CA-BUT-7, a combined total of 13 radiocarbon samples were selected at the Finch site (Appendix C:

Radiocarbon Sample Lists and Results).

Obsidian Sourcing

In order to accurately date obsidian artifacts recovered from archaeological contexts, such materials must first be geochemically sourced to a particular “chemical group” or “geochemical variety” using non-destructive energy dispersive x-ray fluorescence (Hughes 1998b:104). Energy dispersive x-ray fluorescence, more commonly referred to as edxrf, is based on the principle that individual atoms, when excited by an external energy source, emit X-ray photons of a characteristic energy or wavelength.

(Jenkins 1999:124-125). By counting the number of photons of each energy emitted from a sample, the elements present may be identified and quantitated. The identification of elements by X-ray methods is possible due to the characteristic radiation emitted from the inner electronic shells of the atoms under certain conditions (Jenkins 1999:124-125). The emitted quanta of radiation are X-ray photons whose specific energies permit the identification of their source atoms.

As a glassy volcanic rock of rhyolitic composition, all obsidians contain the same basic elements in differing proportions; 70-78 percent silicon dioxide (SiO2); 11-16 percent aluminum oxide (Al2O3); 0.1-5 percent ferric oxide (Fe2O3); 0.1-4 percent ferrous

84 oxide (FeO); 0.1-1 percent magnesium oxide (MgO); 0.1-5 percent calcium oxide (CaO);

2-6 percent sodium oxide (Na2O); and 1-5 percent potassium oxide (K2O; Friedman et al.

1997:297). What differentiate parent obsidian types from one another, however, are their trace elemental values. In particular, artifacts can be assigned to a parent obsidian type if diagnostic trace element concentration values (i.e., parts per million counts by weight for rubidium [Rb], strontium [Sr], yttrium [Y], zirconium [Zr], niobium [Nb], and when

T necessary barium [Ba], titanium [Ti], manganese [Mn], and total ferrous oxide [Fe2O3 ) fall within two standard deviations of values for known obsidian sources. Such values are available in works by Bowman et al. (1973), Hughes (1983, 1985, 1986, 1988a, 1989,

1994), Jack (1976), Jackson (1989), and Stross et al. (1976), and were utilized for sourcing determinations.

For the purposes of this thesis, both a portable Bruker Tracer III V+ Handheld

X-Ray Fluorescence Unit and a QuanX-EC (Thermo Electron Corporation) edxrf spectrometer were utilized for different batches of obsidian samples. Samples analyzed using the Bruker Tracer III V+ Handheld X-Ray Fluorescence Unit were measured at

40kV, 60 μA (the highest setting available), with a 0.012” Al, 0.001” Ti, 0.006” Cu filter and no vacuum (as per the Bruker manual). Samples were placed in the x-ray path for

150-second live-time count. Once part per million concentration values for trace elements were produced, the values were calibrated using the GL1.CFZ file that Bruker recommended for obsidian sourcing purposes. Additional information concerning the specifications of the QuanX-EC edxrf spectrometer, as well as obsidian sourcing sample lists for each site, can be found in Appendix A: Obsidian Sourcing Sample Lists and

Results.

Obsidian Hydration

Once a sample has been geochemically sourced, it can then be submitted to the destructive obsidian hydration method. This technique makes use of the fact that an obsidian surface, as soon as it is created, will adsorb water from the atmosphere to form an adherent hydrated layer or rind which thickens with time as the water slowly diffuses into the glass (Friedman et al. 1997:298). The hydrated layer has a higher density and refractive index than the original volcanic glass, and can be observed and measured under a microscope on thin sections cut normal to the surface of the artifact (Friedman et al.

1997:298). When a thin section has been procured, hydration rims or bands are counted and evaluated for thickness. For the purposes of this thesis, all obsidian hydration was conducted by Thomas Origer and staff at Origer’s Obsidian Laboratory (OOL) in two 50- specimen batches. The specific methods by which Origer and staff obtained obsidian thin sections and determined hydration band measurements can be found in Appendix B:

Obsidian Hydration Sample Lists and Results.

While the dating of obsidian is possible through the hydration method, the rate of hydration is dependent on a number of variables, including (but not limited to): the temperature of the environment in which the glass is deposited; the chemical composition or geochemical source of the glass itself; the relative humidity (rH) of the environment in which it hydrated; the soil chemistry of the matrix in which it is deposited; and the depth below soil surface at which the glass hydrated (Friedman et al. 1997:299). Put another way, obsidian hydration rates are source and environment specific. To account for source-specific hydration rates, hydration curves for a number of archaeologically significant obsidian sources in California have been developed by pairing hydrated

86 obsidian samples with 14C samples derived from the same site-specific proveniences and plotting them along a hydration rate curve. Existing obsidian hydration rate curves consulted as part of thesis include those derived from Basgall and Hildebrandt (1989),

Bayham and Johnson (1990), Origer (1982, 1987), and White et al. (2002, 2005).

Obsidian Sampling Strategy

The selection of obsidian specimens was largely determined by the provenience from which radiocarbon samples were taken. Where possible, obsidian samples were taken from the same or similar contexts as 14C samples to compliment radiocarbon determinations. Additional samples were also taken from contexts that necessitated further dating information but yielded no organic materials. The total number of hydration readings, however, was limited to 100, which was the number of hydration readings provided by Origer’s Obsidian Laboratory as part of the Society for

California Archaeology’s James A. Bennyhoff Memorial Fund Award. This number was deemed sufficient to reflect the hydration profile at each site, with 30 specimens being selected from CA-BUT-1 and CA-BUT-12, and 40 specimens coming from CA-BUT-7.

Within these respective assemblages, both projectile points and debitage were sampled, but provenience took precedence. Projectile points were typed after Justice (2002), with non-identifiable points being designated as their probable type, or as either darts or arrows when probable type could not be established.

CA-BUT-1

Given the incomplete nature of the Patrick sites existing lithic assemblage, pairing radiocarbon and obsidian samples from the same proveniences or even the same

87 features was expected to be a difficult task. However, a far more extensive selection of obsidian samples from both feature and non-feature associated contexts was retained by the Far West Heritage Association. As with radiocarbon sampling, the focus was still on selecting a group of feature-associated specimens first, then pairing them with samples taken from intact midden deposits above, outside, and below excavated structures.

Samples from house features 1, 2 (n = 2), 44 (n = 2), 45 (n = 2), 46, 47, and 48 (n = 2) were selected so that radiocarbon and hydration readings could be compared. Single obsidian specimens from Houses 21 and 41 were also identified in the collection and incorporated into the sample. Lastly, 17 non-feature associated samples were selected from a variety of different proveniences represented in the assemblage, with a preference for samples recovered from the deepest, and presumably oldest extents of the midden deposit. A sample list of specimens is provided in Appendix B: Obsidian Hydration

Sample Lists and Results.

CA-BUT-7

Of the 40 obsidian specimens selected from CA-BUT-7, an attempt was made to include a representative sample from each of the five separate loci identified at the site in much the same manner as radiocarbon samples were selected (Appendix B: Obsidian

Hydration Sample Lists and Results). Nine specimens were selected from both Loci A and C (18 combined samples), as they were the only loci containing well-defined excavated features. Feature associated samples were limited to twelve specimens, nine of which came from the three probable house floors in Locus A. Eight samples were selected from both Loci B and D (16 combined samples), with an emphasis on taking obsidian from the same proveniences as radiocarbon samples where possible. This same

88 selection process was utilized at Locus E, although fewer samples (n = 6) were taken from this locus than the other four. A more limited sample at this locus was largely due to the lower amount of obsidian present in the collection.

CA-BUT-12

The obsidian samples selected from CA-BUT-12, like the radiocarbon samples chosen from the site, come from both the 1963-1964 and 1983-1984 excavations, with the latter being represented by significantly more specimens (n = 24) than the former (n = 6; Appendix B: Obsidian Hydration Sample Lists and Results). Nine of these specimens are from features identified during the 1983-1984 excavations, including

Features 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6. The remaining 24 specimens are from the same proveniences as radiocarbon samples, or as close an association as the existing collection would allow. No feature-associated obsidian specimens were available from the 1963-1964 excavations.

Chapter Summary

A total of 38 AMS radiocarbon samples were selected from three sites, including 12 from CA-BUT-1 and 13 each from CA-BUT-7 and CA-BUT-12. Of these

38, 34 were submitted to the W. M. Keck Carbon Cycle Accelerator Mass Spectrometry

Laboratory at University of California, Irvine (KCCAMS UCI) as part of a collaborative research effort with Benjamin Fuller, Shari Bush, and Dr. Simon Fahri. The remaining four samples, including Samples BUT-1-12, BUT-7-13, BUT-12-12, and BUT-12-13 were submitted to the Center for Accelerator Mass Spectrometry at Lawrence Livermore

National Laboratory (which is operated by Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC for the U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration under

Contract DE-AC52-07NA27344) and processed by Dr. Graham Bench as part of the

Society for California Archaeology’s James A. Bennyhoff Memorial Fund Award.

As an additional component of the Bennyhoff award, 50 obsidian source and

100 obsidian hydration readings were made available for research. Thirty specimens from both CA-BUT-1 and CA-BUT-12 and 40 specimens from CA-BUT-7 were selected to compliment radiocarbon data. Of the total 100 samples selected for obsidian studies, 50 were submitted to Dr. Richard Hughes at the Geochemical Research Laboratory (GRL) for sourcing purposes using non-destructive energy dispersive x-ray fluorescence (edxrf) on a QuanX-EC (Thermo Electron Scientific Instruments Corporation) spectrometer. The remaining 50 were sourced by the author (with the assistance of Anthropology

Department member Kevin Dalton) in the CSUC Archaeological Laboratory using a recently acquired Bruker Tracer III V+ Handheld X-Ray Fluorescence Unit. Following source identification, samples were sent to Thomas Origer and staff at Origer’s Obsidian

Laboratory (OOL) in two 50-specimen batches for hydration analysis. The results of radiocarbon, obsidian sourcing, and obsidian hydration analyses are reported in the following chapter.

CHAPTER V

RESULTS

Introduction

As previously detailed, a total of 100 combined obsidian specimens and 38

AMS radiocarbon samples from CA-BUT-1, CA-BUT-7, and CA-BUT-12 were carefully selected and submitted to obsidian and radiocarbon laboratories at a number of different locations throughout California. In addition, 50 of the total 100 obsidian specimens were geochemically sourced at the CSUC Archaeological Laboratory. This thesis chapter is dedicated to presenting the results of said radiocarbon, obsidian sourcing, and obsidian hydration studies.

For each body of data, results are first presented as a whole, and then divided by site. Radiocarbon data is presented in both uncalibrated and calibrated forms. Obsidian sourcing data is presented in both bar graph form and as a percentage of the total assemblage at each locality. Obsidian hydration data is presented as both a range and mean (in microns) for each sample. Lastly, using existing hydration curves developed through previous CRM research in Northern California, mean hydration rim values are also converted and presented as age ranges. More detailed information concerning radiocarbon, obsidian sourcing, and obsidian hydration results can be found in Appendix

A (Obsidian Sourcing Sample Lists and Results), Appendix B (Obsidian Hydration

Sample Lists and Results), and Appendix C (Radiocarbon Sample Lists and Results).

90 91

AMS Radiocarbon Results

In total, 38 AMS radiocarbon samples were taken from the existing collections associated with CA-BUT-1, CA-BUT-7, and CA-BUT-12. Thirteen samples were selected from both CA-BUT-7 and CA-BUT-12, and 12 were selected from CA-

BUT-1. Thirty-four of these samples were submitted to the W. M. Keck Carbon Cycle

Accelerator Mass Spectrometry Laboratory (KCCAMS) at the University of California,

Irvine while the remaining four were submitted to Lawrence Livermore National

Laboratories Center for Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (CAMS) facility. Of these samples, 32 yielded dates. Six bone samples did not contain a sufficient amount of collagen for AMS dating purposes. The results of AMS dating at CA-BUT-1, CA-BUT-

7, and CA-BUT-12 are provided in the following tables (Tables 3-5), and are divided by site.

The following tables for each site include basic information about each sample, including sample provenience (depth and feature association information) and material type. Also included are conventional 14C dates as they were reported in the letter reports provided by the W. M. Keck Carbon Cycle Accelerator Mass Spectrometry

Laboratory and the Center for Accelerator Mass Spectrometry at Lawrence Livermore

National Laboratories (Appendix C: Radiocarbon Sample Lists and Results). Using the

CALIB Radiocarbon Calibration Program Rev. 6.1.1, these conventional 14C dates (also referred to as the radiocarbon age) were calibrated to calendar years (cal B.P.) by calculating the probability distribution of the samples true age. For all but two radiocarbon samples within the 32-specimen group (Samples BUT-7-2 and BUT-12-3), the INTCAL09 Curve Selection Dataset was utilized in accordance with Stuiver and

Reimer (1993). For these samples, the 2-sigma error range and the calibrated mean probability of the 2-sigma error range (which provides 95.4 percent confidence limits) are reported, with the latter representing a single date. The two remaining samples, both of which are composed of shell, were calibrated using the Mixed Marine & NH Atmosphere

Curve Selection Dataset. Like the previous 32 samples described above, the calibrated mean probability of the 2-sigma error range are also reported for the two shell samples.

Collectively, the 32 AMS radiocarbon samples at the three sites range in age from 109 to

946 cal B.P.

CA-BUT-1

From the initial sample size of 12 radiocarbon samples, nine had sufficient carbon to yield conventional 14C dates. Of these nine, seven were derived from feature- associated contexts, including numerous housefloors (Table 3). Materials that were successfully radiocarbon dated include charcoal, faunal bone, and carbonized acorn fragments. The three faunal bone samples that did not contain sufficient collagen for

AMS dating purposes include Samples BUT-1-5, BUT-1-6, and BUT-1-8. None of these samples were derived from feature-associated contexts.

The calibrated date range for CA-BUT-1 extends from 109 to 394 cal B.P., with a mean age of 222 cal B.P. Interestingly, the youngest radiocarbon date (109 cal

B.P.) was derived from housefloor feature-associated contexts that were located at a greater depth below surface than the oldest date (394 cal B.P.), which was also housefloor feature-associated at a much shallower level. None of the nine radiocarbon samples appear to have suffered any form of contamination or any other associated issues that would skew calibrated age results.

TABLE 3. CA-BUT-1 AMS radiocarbon results.

Sample Depth Material Feature Conventional 2- Calibrated CAL BP Number, (cm) Assoc.? C14 (BP) Age (BP) Median Description Probability BUT-1-1, 150-168 Charcoal Yes 125 + 15 59-146 109 House 47 BUT-1-2, 138 Charcoal Yes 175 + 15 167-217 185 House 46 BUT-1-3, 76-107 Charcoal Yes 300 + 20 352-435 394 House 48 BUT-1-4, 137 Bone Yes 165 + 15 168-220 189 House 2 BUT-1-5, 107 Bone No No Data – Insufficient Collagen Area 4 BUT-1-6, 120 Bone No No Data – Insufficient Collagen Area 4 BUT-1-7, 104 Bone Yes 225 + 15 282-302 279 House 1 BUT-1-8, 76 Bone No No Data – Insufficient Collagen Area 4 BUT-1-9, 106-122 Charcoal No 160 + 15 169-222 190 Area 2 BUT-1-10, 76 Charcoal Yes 275 + 20 286-324 313 House 45 BUT-1-11, 122-137 Carbonized No 170 + 15 168-218 187 Area 2 Acorn BUT-1-12, 61-76 Carbonized Yes 150 + 35 167-234 152 Area 5 Acorn

CA-BUT-7

Radiocarbon date ranges for CA-BUT-7 are based on 11 successful AMS samples (Table 4). These samples include charcoal, carbonized acorn fragments, and freshwater mollusk shell. More than half (six) of the radiocarbon samples used to date this resource were selected from feature-associated contexts, and all five loci at the site have at least one radiocarbon date. The two faunal bone samples that did not yield

TABLE 4. CA-BUT-7 AMS radiocarbon results.

Sample Depth Material Feature Conventiona 2- Calibrated CAL BP Number, (cm) Assoc. l C14 (BP) Age (BP) Median Description ? Probability BUT-7-1, 213-228 Charcoal Yes 230 + 15 282-303 287 Locus A BUT-7-2, 228-243 Shell Yes 1415 + 15 909-1025 955 Locus A (Mollusk) (skewed by (ca. 200-300) (ca. 200-300) reservoir effect) BUT-7-3, 260-275 Charcoal Yes 190 + 20 145-215 178 Locus A BUT-7-4, 305-320 Charcoal No 570 + 25 589-642 603 Locus B BUT-7-5, 213-228 Charcoal No 130 + 20 59-150 117 Locus B BUT-7-6, 137-152 Carbonized Yes 200 + 15 148-188 168 Locus C Acorn BUT-7-7, 106-121 Bone Yes No Data – Insufficient Collagen Locus C BUT-7-8, 137-152 Bone Yes No Data – Insufficient Collagen Locus C BUT-7-9, 30-45 Charcoal No 170 + 15 168-218 187 Locus D BUT-7-10, 75-90 Charcoal No 1035 + 15 928-963 946 Locus D BUT-7-11, 121-137 Charcoal Yes 215 + 15 151-172 166 Locus E BUT-7-12, 183-198 Charcoal Yes 110 + 20 54-143 111 Locus E BUT-7-13, 168-183 Charcoal No 190 + 35 136-224 179 Locus D

sufficient collagen for AMS dating purposes include Samples BUT-7-7 and BUT-7-8.

Both of these samples were originally recovered from probable housefloor features at

Locus C.

CA-BUT-7 has a calibrated date range extending from 111 to 955 cal B.P., with a mean age of 354 cal B.P. A majority of the samples date to between 100 and 300 years cal B.P., with only two samples (BUT-7-2 and BUT-7-10) exceeding that timeframe. When these two samples are excluded from the results, the mean age drops to

222 cal B.P. The youngest sample within the dataset, Sample BUT-7-1, comes from housefloor-associated charcoal at a depth of 150-168 centimeters. The oldest sample

(BUT-7-2), dating to 955 cal B.P., is derived from shell that likely has an exaggerated date due to freshwater reservoir effect. In all probability, this sample dates to a period much later in time (ca. 200 to 300 years B.P.) based on samples taken from similar proveniences at the site. The second-oldest sample, which was recovered from Locus D

(a rockshelter located on the periphery of the resource) has a date of 946 cal B.P. that appears to be valid. No other samples have reported ages that appear to be skewed or inflated due to contamination.

CA-BUT-12

Of the 13 radiocarbon samples submitted from the CA-BUT-12 collection, only one faunal bone sample (BUT-12-6) did not contain sufficient collagen to yield an

AMS radiocarbon date (Table 5). The remaining 12 samples, which include charcoal, faunal bone, carbonized acorn and unidentifiable seed fragments, and a single clamshell disc bead, were recovered from both feature and non-feature associated contexts. Seven of the 12 samples come from either housefloor, ash lense, or hearth features, while the remaining five were recovered from midden deposit. Feature-associated samples range in depth from 20 to 110 centimeters in depth while samples derived from non-feature associated midden deposit range in depth from 150 to 230 centimeters in depth.

TABLE 5. CA-BUT-12 AMS radiocarbon results.

Sample Depth Material Feature Convention 2- Calibrated CAL BP Number, (cm) Assoc. al C14 (BP) Age (BP) Description ? BUT-12-1, 76-91 Charcoal Yes 115 + 15 58-142 109 Feature 1 BUT-12-2, 66-76 Carbonized Yes 125 + 15 59-146 109 Feature 3 Seed Frag. BUT-12-3, 61-76 Clamshell Yes 855 + 15 449-151 485 Feature 2 Disc Bead (skewed by (ca. 150-300) reservoir effect ) BUT-12-4, 20-30 Charcoal Yes 160 + 15 169-222 190 Ash Lense BUT-12-5, 50-60 Charcoal Yes 125 + 15 59-146 109 House Floor BUT-12-6, 60-70 Bone Yes No Data – Insufficient Collagen House Floor BUT-12-7, 70-80 Charcoal Yes 135 + 15 65-118 123 Hearth BUT-12-8, 100-110 Charcoal Yes 175 + 15 167-217 185 House Floor BUT-12-9, 150-160 Bone No 665 + 15 643-668 648 Unit S10/W8 BUT-12-10, 180-190 Charcoal No 230 + 20 280-306 285 Unit S10/W8 BUT-12-11, 220-230 Charcoal No 180 + 20 142-218 183 Unit S10/W8 BUT-12-12, 190-200 Carbonized No 310 + 30 346-436 388 Unit S8/W7 Acorn BUT-12-13, 150-160 Charcoal No 110 + 30 12-148 114 Unit S8/W7

The calibrated date range for CA-BUT-12 extends from 109 to 648 cal B.P., with a mean age of 244 cal B.P. Although Sample BUT-12-3, the clamshell disc bead, has a date that is most likely skewed by marine reservoir effect, its calibrated date (485 cal B.P.) still falls within the overall date range of the other samples. The youngest

97 radiocarbon dates (n = 2), dating to 109 cal B.P., both come from features (previously designated as Features 1 and 3) that range in depth from 66 to 91 centimeters below surface. By comparison, the oldest radiocarbon date comes from faunal bone recovered from midden deposit at a depth of 150-160 centimeters. Aside from Sample BUT-12-3, which most likely dates to be between 150 and 300 years B.P. according to Bennyhoff and Fredrickson (1967), Golla (2002), and King (1978), no other samples have reported ages that appear to be skewed or inflated due to contamination.

Obsidian Sourcing Results

The combined efforts of geochemical sourcing at both the Geochemical

Research Laboratory and the CSUC Archaeological Laboratory resulted in the identification of six geochemically distinct obsidian sources at the three sites of interest.

These sources include Tuscan obsidian from the southernmost portion of the Cascade

Range; Grasshopper Flat/Lost Iron Well obsidian from the Medicine Lake Highland (a combination of two sources that could not be geochemically distinguished between using edxrf); Kelly Mountain obsidian from just south of Lassen Volcanic National Park in northern Plumas County; Borax Lake obsidian from the Clear Lake basin; Napa Valley obsidian from Napa Valley; and Sugar Hill obsidian from the northern Warner

Mountains. Both the Medicine Lake Highland and Warner Range contains several different, chemically distinct varieties of obsidian; Grasshopper Flat/Lost Iron Well and

Sugar Hill obsidians represent but three sources amongst more than a dozen combined.

All obsidian sources listed above are from Northern California, with Tuscan obsidian representing the closest geographic source to the study area.

Within the 100-specimen sample, Tuscan obsidian is the dominant source, comprising 68 percent (68 specimens) of the assemblage. Grasshopper Flat/Lost Iron

Well obsidians are the second-most prevalent source, accounting for 14 percent (14 specimens) of the sample. Both Borax Lake and Kelly Mountain obsidians account for seven percent of the assemblage each (seven Borax Lake and seven Kelly Mountain samples). Napa Valley obsidians comprise three percent of the assemblage (three specimens), and a single obsidian flake represents the lone representation of Sugar Hill obsidian (one percent of the total assemblage).

CA-BUT-1

As with the collective 100-specimen sample, the 30 obsidian samples sourced from the CA-BUT-1 collection are predominately Tuscan obsidian with 17 artifacts in the sample group (56.6 percent of the assemblage; Figure 9). Borax Lake obsidian represents

16.7 percent of the assemblage (five samples), and Grasshopper Flat/Lost Iron Well represents 13.3 percent (four samples). Kelly Mountain and Napa Valley obsidians are both represented by two samples, accounting for 6.7 percent of the assemblage each. No

Sugar Hill obsidian is present in the CA-BUT-1 group.

CA-BUT-7

Of the 40 obsidian samples submitted to edxrf from CA-BUT-7, 24 (60 percent; Figure 10) were Tuscan obsidian. Grasshopper Flat/ Lost Iron Well obsidians were represented by 9 specimens (22.5 percent), while Kelly Mountain obsidian was represented by five (12.5 percent). A single sample of both Borax Lake (2.5 percent) and

Sugar Hill (2.5 percent) obsidians are additionally present, but Napa Valley obsidian is absent from the sample group.

FIGURE 9. Obsidian source prevalence at CA-BUT-1.

CA-BUT-12

Although CA-BUT-1 and CA-BUT-7 each had high rates of Tuscan obsidian in their respective sample groups, neither compare to the disproportionate amount of

Tuscan obsidian present within the CA-BUT-12 sample. Twenty-seven of a total 30 samples are Tuscan obsidian, accounting for 90 percent of the assemblage (Figure 11).

The three remaining obsidian samples are one each of Grasshopper Flat/Lost Iron Well,

Borax Lake, and Napa Valley obsidians (3.3 percent of the sample group each). Neither

Kelly Mountain nor Sugar Hill obsidians were present in the CA-BUT-12 sample group.

100

FIGURE 10. Obsidian source prevalence at CA-BUT-7.

Obsidian Hydration Results

Following geochemical sourcing, the entire 100-specimen obsidian sample was submitted to Origer’s Obsidian Laboratory for hydration band analysis. Ninety of

100 samples had measureable hydration bands that could be quantified and used for chronometric dating, and one sample from CA-BUT-1 (Sample # 3649, Lab #’s 12.1 and

12.2) had two separate hydration readings from different parts of the artifact. The remaining ten samples, all of which were Tuscan obsidian, did not yield useful hydration band measurements. These samples exhibited either no visible hydration band (NVB), or had diffuse hydration (DH), which occurs when the border between the hydrated and

101

FIGURE 11. Obsidian source prevalence at CA-BUT-12.

non-hydrated material (the “hydration front”) is so poorly defined that a measurement is not possible. Hydrated obsidian samples had readings ranging between 1.1 and 7.7 microns. In each case, the single hydration reading assigned to the obsidian sample represents the mean value derived from six separate hydration readings made by the staff at Origer’s Obsidian Laboratory. These separate readings, as well as additional remarks concerning sample condition, can be found in Appendix B (Obsidian Hydration Sample

Lists and Results).

The results of hydration analyses are reported by site in Tables 6-8 and

Figures 12-17. Results are further subdivided by obsidian source, and the mean, standard

102 deviation, and coefficient of variation for hydration reading groupings of the same source are included. Hydration sample groups were evaluated using the coefficient of variation statistic, as it measures sample homogeneity relative to the mean. Standard deviation was additionally included, not only because it is needed to calculate the coefficient of variation, but also because it measures the extent of deviation relative to the mean for each source group as a whole. Figures 12, 14, and 16 illustrate rim width measurement frequency distribution for each site regardless of geochemical source. Figures 13, 15, and

17 illustrate rim width measurement frequency distribution for Tuscan obsidian only.

In the final two columns of each site table, hydration readings are converted to both a mean age and approximate age ranges utilizing existing hydration curves developed specific to each source. Hydration conversion rates for both Tuscan and

Grasshopper Flat/Lost Iron Well obsidians are derived from Johnson and Bayham

(1990:64-69), who in turn based their conversions on those found in Basgall and

Hildebrandt (1989:195-200). Napa Valley obsidian hydration values are converted after

Origer (1982:85-94, 1987), while Borax Lake obsidian is converted using the curve developed by White et al. (2002:425-427). Kelly Mountain obsidian hydration rates are converted in accordance with the rates proposed by White et al. (2005:168-176). As no hydration curve currently exists for Sugar Hill obsidian, and the source is represented by only a single specimen at CA-BUT-7, no age approximation information is provided.

CA-BUT-1

At CA-BUT-1, 27 of the total 30 obsidian samples submitted for hydration analysis yielded readings that could be converted to age ranges. As previously noted, one of these samples (Sample #3649, Appendix B) had two separate hydration band

103 measurements taken from different surface edges as per the decision by the staff at

Origer’s Obsidian Laboratory. The micron readings in parentheses in Table 6 are taken from said sample. The three remaining obsidian samples that failed to yield measureable hydration bands that could be converted to calendar dates exhibited either no visible band

(n = 2) or diffuse hydration (n = 1). These three samples, all of which were Tuscan obsidian, have been omitted from Table 6 but are included in Figures 12 and 13.

TABLE 6. CA-BUT-1 obsidian hydration results.

Source Count Mean Standard Coefficient Readings Mean Approximate (microns) Deviation of (microns) Age Age Range Variation (BP) (BP) Tuscan 14 1.5 0.64 42% 1.1, 1.1, ca.1280 ca. 895 – 3875 1.1, 1.2, 1.2, 1.2, 1.3, 1.3, 1.3, 1.5, 1.6, 2.0, 2.3, 3.4 GF/LIW 4 2.7 1.52 57% 1.1, (1.4), ca.1280 ca. 565 – 2710 2.3, 4.2, (4.3) Borax 5 1.9 0.48 26% 1.3, 1.5, ca. 250 ca. 150 – 400 Lake 2.0, 2.3, 2.4 Napa 2 1.6 0.21 14% 1.4, 1.7 ca. 375 ca. 300 – 450 Valley Kelly 2 3.2 1.70 53% 4.4, 2.0 ca. 1930 ca. 850 – 3410 Mountain

Converted hydration readings at CA-BUT-1 ranged from 150 to 3875 years

B.P. For Tuscan obsidian, the dominant source, the age range was slightly more restricted, extending from approximately 895 to 3875 years B.P. Kelly Mountain obsidian samples had a similar age range, from between 850 and 3410 years B.P. Borax Lake and

104

Napa Valley age ranges were considerably younger, ranging from 150 to 400 years B.P. and 300 to 450 years B.P., respectively. Figure 12 depicts the frequency of rim width measurements (in microns) represented in the obsidian sample regardless of geochemical source. For the sake of clarity and simplicity, a 1.0-micron interval scale is used to group obsidian hydration rim width measurements. Samples exhibiting no visible hydration band (n = 2) are included in the figure between 0.0-1.0 microns because although they have no measureable hydration rim, they still have chronometric value. Figure 13 depicts the distribution of obsidian hydration rim width measurement frequencies for Tuscan obsidian only. Note that Figures 12 and 13 both illustrate a concentration of rim width measurements at between 1.0-2.0 microns. In both cases, hydration rim width measurements do not exceed 5.0 microns.

FIGURE 12. Obsidian hydration rim width measurement distribution at CA-BUT-1 regardless of obsidian source.

105

FIGURE 13. Tuscan obsidian hydration rim width measurement distribution at CA- BUT-1.

CA-BUT-7

A total of 40 obsidian samples were submitted to hydration analysis at CA-

BUT-7, with 36 providing measurable hydration bands. In the case of the 36 samples that provided measurable hydration rims, only one cross-section was taken from each sample during laboratory analysis (36 specimens provided 36 hydration band measurements).

The remaining four obsidian samples that failed to yield measureable hydration rim widths exhibited either no visible band (n = 2) or diffuse hydration (n = 2), and were not included in the summarized obsidian hydration results table for the site (Table 7). Like

CA-BUT-1, each of these four samples was geochemically sourced as Tuscan obsidian.

The two samples exhibiting no visible hydration band are included in histograms concerning obsidian hydration rim width measurement frequencies, however.

106

TABLE 7. CA-BUT-7 obsidian hydration results.

Source Count Mean Standard Coefficient Readings Mean Approximate (microns) Deviation of (microns) Age Age Range Variation (BP) (BP) Tuscan 20 2.3 0.84 37% 1.1, 1.3, ca. 2200 ca. 895 - 1.3, 1.3, 5000 1.5, 1.8, 1.8, 1.8, 1.8, 2.0, 2.4, 2.5, 2.5, 2.7, 2.8, 3.0, 3.1, 3.5, 3.6, 3.9 GF/LIW 9 3.6 1.84 51% 1.4, 2.2, ca. 2500 ca. 450 - 2.4, 2.5, 5190 2.8, 4.2, 4.3, 6.4, 6.5 Borax 1 4.8 ------4.8 ca. 2400 ca. 2400 Lake Kelly 5 4.9 2.15 44% 2.0, 3.9, ca. 4100 ca. 850 - Mountain 4.7, 6.0, 9180 7.7 Sugar 1 2.6 ------2.6 N/A N/A Hill

In comparison to CA-BUT-1, approximate ages based on hydration readings at CA-BUT-7 were even more variable with a total range between 450 and 9180 years

B.P. Tuscan obsidian alone had an approximate age range extending from roughly 895 to

5000 years B.P., and Grasshopper Flat/Lost Iron Well had a similarly extensive range (ca.

450 to 5190 years B.P.). Kelly Mountain obsidian hydration results displayed even greater temporal breadth, with samples ranging in age from approximately 850 to 9180 years B.P. The lone Borax Lake obsidian sample dates to approximately 2400 years B.P., falling within the age range of Tuscan, Grasshopper Flat/Lost Iron Well, and Kelly

Mountain samples. As previously noted, the single Sugar Hill obsidian specimen was not

107 dated due to a lack of an existing hydration curve for the source. Despite this, the specimen is argued to fall within the age range of other sources represented within the site assemblage. Figure 14 illustrates the distribution of rim values (in microns) regardless of obsidian source at CA-BUT-7. Figure 15 depicts rim value frequencies for

Tuscan obsidian only. In Figure 14, hydration values are concentrated at 1.0-3.0 microns.

Although there are no hydration rim width measurements for 5.0-6.0 microns, three hydration rim width measurements are present between 6.0-8.0 microns. In Figure 15, however, Tuscan hydration values are most concentrated at 1.0-4.0 microns, with the highest frequency at 1.0-2.0 microns.

FIGURE 14. Obsidian hydration rim width measurement distribution at CA-BUT-7 regardless of obsidian source.

108

FIGURE 15. Tuscan obsidian hydration rim width measurement distribution at CA- BUT-7.

CA-BUT-12

Of the 30 obsidian hydration samples selected from CA-BUT-12, 27 had measureable hydration bands. Each of these obsidian samples was cut only a single time.

The three remaining samples from the hydration data set that failed to yield measureable hydration rim width values exhibited either no visible band (n = 1) or diffuse hydration

(n = 2). These samples, all of which were Tuscan obsidian, were not included in the following obsidian hydration results table (Table 8) but are included in histograms concerning obsidian hydration rim width measurement frequencies.

The age range of obsidian samples at CA-BUT-12 is largely dictated by

Tuscan obsidian. Although the age range provided by the entire hydration sample as a whole, 450 to 2600 years B.P., is slightly higher than that of Tuscan obsidian alone

109

TABLE 8. CA-BUT-12 obsidian hydration results.

Source Count Mean Standard Coefficient Readings Mean Approximate (microns) Deviation of (microns) Age Age Range Variation (BP) (BP) Tuscan 24 1.5 0.42 28% 1.1, 1.2, 1.2, ca. ca. 895 - 1.2, 1.2, 1.3, 1280 2600 1.3, 1.3, 1.3, 1.3, 1.3, 1.3, 1.3, 1.3, 1.3, 1.3, 1.3, 1.7, 1.8, 1.8, 2.1, 2.2, 2.5,2.5 GF/LIW 1 1.8 ------1.8 ca. ca. 1600 1600 Borax 1 2.7 ------2.7 ca. 450 ca. 450 Lake Napa 1 2.4 ------2.4 ca. 875 ca. 875 Valley

(ca. 895 to 2600 years B.P.), only single Borax Lake and Napa Valley obsidian samples fall outside the Tuscan range (dating to ca. 450 years B.P. and ca. 875 years B.P., respectively). The single Grasshopper Flat/Lost Iron Well sample, dating to approximately 1600 years B.P., falls within the range of Tuscan obsidian, however.

Figure 16 depicts the distribution of these rim width measurement results (in microns) regardless of obsidian source. Figure 17 specifically depicts the distribution of Tuscan obsidian rim width measurements at CA-BUT-12. As with CA-BUT-1, the obsidian hydration rim width measurements at CA-BUT-12 are concentrated at between 1.0-2.0 microns in Figures 16 and 17. No hydration rim width measurement exceeds 3.0 microns in either figure.

110

FIGURE 16. Obsidian hydration rim width measurement distribution at CA-BUT-12 regardless of obsidian source.

FIGURE 17. Tuscan obsidian hydration rim width measurement distribution at CA- BUT-12.

111

Chapter Summary

The previous pages have detailed the results of radiocarbon dating, obsidian sourcing, and obsidian hydration analyses conducted using existing collections associated with sites CA-BUT-1, CA-BUT-7, and CA-BUT-12. Results were first divided by analysis type, and then further subdivided by site. Thirty-two successful AMS radiocarbon dates ranged in age from 109 to 955 cal B.P., and are divided by site in

Tables 3-5. These samples were selected from both feature and non-feature contexts, and are argued to capture the chronometric nature and extent of the existing collections associated with each resource.

Obsidian sourcing results were reported in order of source prevalence, with bar graphs included (Figures 9-11) to illustrate the overwhelming presence of Tuscan obsidian at all three prehistoric resources. In total, six geologically distinct obsidians obtained from locations throughout Northern California were identified as a result of souring studies, including Tuscan, Grasshopper Flat/Lost Iron Well, Borax Lake, Napa

Valley, Kelly Mountain, and Sugar Hill obsidians. The same obsidian samples that were subjected to sourcing analysis were also used for hydration studies. Collectively, these samples had hydration measurements ranging from 1.1 to 7.7 microns. Existing hydration curves specific to each obsidian source were then used to convert hydration measurements to calendar dates. Approximate age ranges for obsidian extend from approximately 150 years B.P. to 9180 years B.P. Hydration data is presented in Tables 6-

8 and Figures 12-17. Of the 100-specimen obsidian sample utilized for this thesis, only ten specimens failed to yield hydration measurements that could be converted to calendar

112 dates. The implications of these results, in addition to the results of radiocarbon and obsidian sourcing analyses, are discussed in the following chapter.

CHAPTER VI

DISCUSSION AND INTERPRETATION

OF RESULTS

Introduction

Moving beyond simply reporting the results of radiocarbon and obsidian studies as separate, unrelated bodies of data, this chapter strives to give meaning to such information by collectively placing it within the contexts of previous interpretations concerning Chico prehistory. Although the primary focus of this thesis was to use radiocarbon and obsidian hydration data derived from CA-BUT-1, CA-BUT-7, and CA-

BUT-12 to evaluate and make contributions to the existing Chico chronology, obsidian sourcing information at these resources was also compiled as a necessary component of hydration studies. This chapter will first discuss and evaluate the results of geochemical sourcing, comparing them to sourcing studies conducted at other Chico site localities.

Following that discussion, obsidian hydration results will be compared to previous dating methods used to characterize the nature and extent of the three sites of interest. Hydration data will additionally be used to evaluate site integrity by examining the relationship between hydration band measurements and stratigraphic context. Possible factors accounting for the hydration profiles observed at each resource will also be explored in the Obsidian Sourcing and Hydration Results section.

113 114

Much like the results of hydration studies, radiocarbon data from CA-BUT-1,

CA-BUT-7, and CA-BUT-12 will be compared to previous dating methods applied at each site, as well as arranged stratigraphically for the purposes of assessing site integrity.

Influences that may skew radiocarbon data, such as reservoir effect, will also be expounded upon. In the last section of this chapter, radiocarbon and hydration data and the relationship they share at the three sites of interest will be further detailed. By evaluating these bodies of chronometric dating together, a more meaningful contribution to our understanding of where CA-BUT-1, CA-BUT-7, and CA-BUT-12 fit within the schemes of Chico prehistory, the Chico culture chronology, and the Chico Complex can be made.

Obsidian Sourcing and Hydration Results

Obsidian Sourcing Results

As previously noted, this project obtained sourcing data on 100 obsidian samples from three sites. While there were no expectations concerning sourcing results per se, a cursory examination of previous literature concerning obsidian utilization in the

Chico area suggested Tuscan obsidian would dominate Late Period assemblages, and that other Northern California sources would be sparingly represented. For the entire sample,

Tuscan obsidian is indeed the most ubiquitous source, representing 68 percent of the assemblage. Although Hamusek-McGann (1993, 1995) has previously identified 12 different artifact-quality subsources within a 200-square mile area of the Tuscan

Formation in the northern Sacramento Valley, Tuscan subsources are not regularly distinguished from each other during geochemical analyses. Unfortunately, such is the

115 case for the current sample, and as a result, there is uncertainty as to which subsource the material at these sites is derived from. If we examine obsidian allocation from an energetic perspective, however, the closest subsource would be predicted to be the most heavily exploited (Hildebrandt and Kaijankoski 2011:149). Put another way, the relative reliance on a particular source is expected to decline as the energetic cost of acquiring it increases. For this study, the closest available Tuscan obsidian to the study area comes from the Paradise Ridge and Paynes Creek subsources, located approximately 10 miles east/northeast and 40 miles north/northwest of present-day Chico, respectively.

The remaining 32 percent of the obsidian sample is derived from a variety of locations in Northern California, including at the Grasshopper Flat/Lost Iron Well (14 percent), Borax Lake (seven percent), Kelly Mountain (seven percent), Napa Valley

(three percent), and Sugar Hill (one percent) obsidian sources. These results, along with

Tuscan source prevalence, compare favorably to those reported by Bayham and Johnson

(1990) at CA-GLE-105; Deal (1987) at CA-BUT-288 and CA-BUT-233; Hildebrandt and

Kaijankoski (2011) at CA-GLE-695, CA-GLE-699, and CA-GLE-701; and Zancanella

(1987) at CA-BUT-294. In continuing to view sourcing results from an energetic perspective after Hildebrandt and Kaijankoski (2011:149-151), the above sources were organized in order of least cost-allocation where the closest source requiring the lowest energetic cost was ranked first, and the most distant source requiring the highest energy expenditure to acquire was ranked last. Following Tuscan obsidian, Kelly Mountain obsidian is the second least costly, and Borax Lake and Napa Valley rank a close third and fourth. Surprisingly, the Grasshopper Flat/Lost Iron Well source is one of the least

116 cost effective obsidians to acquire relative to the study area, followed only by the Sugar

Hill source.

Of the six sources represented at the three sites of interest, only the Paradise

Ridge and Paynes Creek subsources fall within neighboring Konkow (Paradise Ridge) and Yana (Paynes Creek) territories (Hildebrandt and Kaijankoski 2011:150). The remaining sources and subsources are located in either Northeastern Maidu (Kelly

Mountain), Pomo (Borax Lake), Wappo (Napa Valley), or Achumawi Pit River

(Grasshopper Flat/Lost Iron Well and Sugar Hill) ethnographic tribal territories

(Hildebrandt and Kaijankoski 2011:150). The relationships that the Mechoopda had with these groups, as well as other neighboring tribes, undoubtedly influenced access to

Northern California obsidian sources. Obsidian sourcing can be used to inform archaeologists on dimensions of territoriality, intertribal trade and exchange, social ranking, craft specialization, and a multitude of other cultural aspects. However, as obsidian sourcing is not the primary focus of this thesis, exploring such research issues at

CA-BUT-1, CA-BUT-7, and CA-BUT-12 are better left to future researchers.

The stratigraphic relationship between material type, depth, and association was also briefly explored at each site. When sourcing results were organized by depth at

CA-BUT-1, no discernible trend was found between obsidian source prevalence and depth below surface. Tuscan obsidian was the dominant source throughout the site deposit regardless of depth, and each of the other four sources are present at depths ranging between approximately 60 and 200 centimeters below surface. Due to existing collection limitations, only a single obsidian sample was available for sourcing and hydration analysis above 60 centimeters. Feature-associated samples were not found to be

117 correlated with a particular source, and tools (three projectile points, one biface, and two edge-modified flakes) were created from all five sources represented in the sourcing sample.

At CA-BUT-7, obsidian samples were organized by depth at each separate locus. Tuscan obsidian was the dominant source across each loci regardless of depth with the exception of Locus E, which had more Grasshopper Flat/Lost Iron Well (n = 3) obsidian than Tuscan (n = 1), Kelly Mountain (n = 1), or Sugar Hill (n = 1) sources. As with the results at CA-BUT-1, those at CA-BUT-7 suffer from small sample size when each loci is targeted individually. Nevertheless, it must be noted that none of the older probable dart points (n = 3; Artifacts BUT-7-6, BUT-7-13, and BUT-7-26) within the sample group were constructed of Tuscan obsidian, instead being fashioned of either

Kelly Mountain or Grasshopper Flat/Lost Iron Well obsidians.

Sourcing results at CA-BUT-12 demonstrated that not only was Tuscan obsidian the dominant obsidian source across all sampled portions of the site, but that other non-local sources are minimally represented. Interestingly, however, is that two of the three non-Tuscan obsidian samples are recorded from the deepest, and presumably oldest extents of the site at a depth of 220 to 230 centimeters below surface. Two of the three non-Tuscan obsidian samples, which include Artifacts BUT-12-14 and BUT-12-25, are also projectile point fragments.

Obsidian Hydration Results

Obsidian hydration results from the three sites of interest were first used to evaluate stratigraphic integrity by ordering samples by depth. Working under the assumption that the oldest samples or those exhibiting hydration band measurements with

118 the greatest thickness would be present at the deepest extents of the site, samples were arranged by depth within their respective units, loci, or excavation areas. As each obsidian source hydrates at a specific rate, and not all obsidian sources are adequately represented throughout each respective site deposit, only Tuscan obsidian was used to assess site integrity. Samples exhibiting either diffuse hydration or no visible hydration band were also excluded.

At CA-BUT-1, samples were ordered by excavation area (Areas 1 through 5).

In the first excavation area (Area 1), Unit 1 was represented by four obsidian samples from depths between 76 and 198 centimeters below surface. The oldest sample (BUT-1-

4), measuring 3.4 microns, was recovered from a depth of 122 to 137 centimeters, but another sample taken from 152 to 167 centimeters had a measurement of only 1.2 microns. From Area 2, a similar case was noted, where the sample exhibiting the thickest hydration band measurement (2.0 microns, Artifact BUT-1-10) was recovered above (137 to 152 centimeters) samples with measurements of 1.1 and 1.3 microns taken between

152 and 183 centimeters. Two samples from Area 3 had measurements of 1.3 and 1.6 microns, with the latter being recovered from a shallower depth (76 to 91 centimeters) than the former (91 to 106 centimeters). Only a single obsidian sample fitting the criteria necessary for evaluating stratigraphic integrity was present from Area 4, so the area was excluded from consideration. Area 5 was the lone area that demonstrated limited stratigraphic integrity based on obsidian hydration rim width measurements, with a single sample exhibiting a hydration measurement of 1.1 microns being recovered above (46 to

61 centimeters) two samples that had higher micron measurements (2.3 and 1.3 microns

119 at 61 to 76 centimeters). Overall, however, CA-BUT-1 exhibits evidence of stratigraphic mixing and disturbance when obsidian hydration values are evaluated relative to depth.

Obsidian samples selected from CA-BUT-7 were divided by loci (Loci A through E), and then organized by depth. Four obsidian samples from Locus A demonstrated evidence of stratigraphic mixing, with a sample measuring 2.4 microns located above (183 to 198 centimeters) samples with measurements of 1.8, 3.0, and 3.5 microns at 228 to 243 centimeters. At Locus B, two of three samples had the same micron measurement, 2.5 microns, despite being recovered from two different levels (213 to 228 centimeters and 228 to 243 centimeters), while the third sample from 228 to 243 centimeters had a measurement of 2.8 microns. Locus C, like Locus A, had demonstrable evidence of disturbance, with the deepest obsidian sample, at 244 to 259 centimeters below surface, having the lowest hydration band measurement (1.1 microns), and the oldest sample (3.9 microns) coming from one of the shallowest contexts (106 to 121 centimeters). Within Locus D, the samples recovered from the deepest extents of the area between 167 and 183 centimeters measured only 1.8 microns in comparison to samples with higher micron values (2.0 and 2.7) being located at much shallower depths (46 to 61 and 61-76 centimeters, respectively). The last locus, Locus E, did not contain a sufficient sample of Tuscan obsidian for stratigraphic evaluation. Nonetheless, the remaining four loci at CA-BUT-7 each contain evidence of stratigraphic mixing and disturbance.

In addition to eliminating non-Tuscan obsidians and samples with either no visible hydration band or diffuse hydration from the CA-BUT-12 obsidian sample,

Artifacts BUT-12-1 through BUT-12-6 were also eliminated because they each came from separate excavation units and did not share a meaningful level of association to

120 warrant comparison. The remaining 18 obsidian samples that fit the criteria used for stratigraphic evaluation came from Units S8/W7 (n =10) and S10/W8 (n = 8). At Unit

S8/W7, samples ranging from 20 to 70 centimeters below depth all had measurements of

1.3 microns. Beyond 80 centimeters, however, a sample measuring 2.2 microns at 80 to

90 centimeters was located above samples with values of 1.8 (90 to 100 centimeters), 1.3

(150 to 160 centimeters), and 1.3 (190 to 200 centimeters) microns. Samples derived from Unit S10/W8 had evidence of disturbance as well, with one of the oldest samples

(2.5 microns) coming from the second-shallowest depth (85 to 90 centimeters). Although the samples used to evaluate stratigraphic integrity at CA-BUT-12 come from only two units, both contain evidence of mixing.

While it is clear that CA-BUT-1, CA-BUT-7, and CA-BUT-12 each have been impacted by subsurface disturbances based on Tuscan obsidian hydration profiles, the why behind such a result is less apparent. Literature concerning the excavation of these sites notes that evidence of disturbance and stratigraphic mixing were present at all three sites during fieldwork efforts, so the results of hydration profile interpretations should come as no surprise. Given that all three sites had the same overall evidence of disturbance, it is likely that the cause or causes were something shared by each site.

Bioturbation is a probable culprit, as each site was undoubtedly impacted by subsurface plant and animal activity. As each site was also situated in a depositional environment located in close proximity to past watercourse routes in the Chico vicinity, flooding and erosion most likely shaped existing site stratigraphy to a similar extent.

Subsurface disturbances at these resources might also be related to intensive site occupation, in that subsurface features such as house structures, human internments,

121 and hearths were reported to have been constructed in existing midden deposits at the three sites. Aside from prehistoric-era disturbances, both CA-BUT-1 and CA-BUT-12 were situated in areas known to have been used for historic-era agricultural pursuits prior to their excavation. Despite the compromised nature of the stratigraphy at each of these resources, these are by no means issues unique to the sites of interest, and the obsidian hydration data they yielded still has substantial chronometric value when viewed independently of provenience.

Arguably, one of the most appropriate ways to evaluate the results of converted obsidian hydration readings are to compare them against age estimates for the sites of interest base on previous relative dating techniques (i.e., projectile point and shell bead typologies, stratigraphic interpretations, and linguistic modeling). Such interpretations at CA-BUT-1 initially suggested a maximum range of occupation extending from approximately 1500 to 150 years B.P. Overall converted hydration readings at the site ranged from 150 to 3875 years B.P., spanning the entirety of the

Chico Complex, Pine Creek 2, Pine Creek 1, and Llano 2 phases and encompassing part of the Llano 2 phase. Taken at face value, these age approximations appear fairly dissimilar, at least on the older end of the spectrum. However, of the 28 hydration values available from CA-BUT-1, 22 fall within the 1,350-year timeframe that was previously assigned to the site. In addition, the mean age values for all but the Kelly Mountain obsidian group (ca. 1930 B.P., based on two hydration measurements) also fall within the same timeframe. Of the six hydration values that exceed 1,500 years in age, two are

Tuscan (2.3 and 3.4 microns), two are Grasshopper Flat/Lost Iron Well (4.2 and 4.3 microns), one is Napa Valley (1.7 microns), and one is Kelly Mountain (4.4 microns)

122 obsidian. These samples collectively represent 21 percent of the total hydration profile, whereas those samples that fall between 1500 and 150 years B.P. represent 79 percent.

The standard deviation and coefficient of variation for each obsidian source were also utilized because they measure how concentrated the data are around the mean

(standard deviation), as well as sample homogeneity relative to the mean (coefficient of variation). In the latter case, coefficient of variation was used to determine whether hydration groupings were reflective of a single temporal component. Groups of hydration readings producing coefficient of variation values equal to or less than approximately 25 percent were identified as representing a single temporal component after Rosenthal et al.

(2011:41). At CA-BUT-1, only Napa Valley (14 percent coefficient of variation) and

Borax Lake (26 percent coefficient of variation) obsidians are reflective of single period- components, whereas Tuscan, Grasshopper Flat/Lost Iron Well, and Kelly Mountain hydration profiles are likely reflective of two or more archaeological periods.

Similar to that of CA-BUT-1, CA-BUT-7 had an approximate range of occupation beginning as early as 1500 years B.P. and ending around 150 years B.P. based on prior relative dating schemes. A total of 35 converted hydration readings from the site ranged between 450 and 9180 years B.P., extending from the Pine Creek 2-Chico

Complex transition to well beyond the oldest absolute data previously reported in the area

(approximately 6500 years B.P. at CA-GLE-701). If the 9180 B.P. date that the Kelly

Mountain hydration sample provided were valid, it would be the oldest in the study area by more than 2,600 years. Of the total 35 sample hydration group, only 11 fall within the timeframe between 1500 and 150 years B.P. Amongst these 11 samples, five were

Tuscan (1.1, 1.3, 1.3, 1.3, and 1.5 microns), five were Grasshopper Flat/Lost Iron Well

123

(1.4, 2.2, 2.4, 2.5, and 2.8 microns), and one was Kelly Mountain (2.0 microns) obsidian.

When mean age values for hydration sample groupings are examined, none for CA-BUT-

7 are less than 1,500 years in age. The 11 samples that fall between 1500 and 150 years

B.P. represent only 31 percent of the converted hydration sample compared to 69 percent that fall outside that range. Paired with this discrepancy is the fact that none of the three obsidian sources at the site that are represented by more than one hydration band measurement had coefficient of variation values at or below 25 percent. While the hydration profile from CA-BUT-1 compared favorably with the previous 1,350 year timespan that was reported, nearly the exact opposite relationship is apparent at CA-

BUT-7.

The approximate age range for CA-BUT-12 was reported as extending from

1700 to 150 years B.P., 200 years greater than both CA-BUT-1 and CA-BUT-12.

Hydration readings from the site date to between approximately 450 and 2600 years B.P., or from the Pine Creek 2-Chico Complex transition through most of the Llano 2 phase.

Of the 27 obsidian samples with meaningful hydration measurements, 23 had converted hydration date ranges that fell within the 1,550-year timespan. The four samples with converted hydration readings that exceeded 1,700 years in age, including measurements of 2.1, 2.2, 2.5, and 2.5 microns, were all geochemically sourced as Tuscan obsidian.

These samples represent a mere 15 percent of the hydration sample, not including samples with either diffuse hydration or no visible hydration band; the remaining 85 percent compare favorably to with the relative dating timeframe. The standard deviation of 28 percent for Tuscan obsidian hydration samples suggests that these samples are

124 likely from more than one temporal component. No other obsidian sources represented at the site had sufficient sample sizes for such an evaluation.

Even though the hydration profiles at both CA-BUT-1 and CA-BUT-12 compare favorably to the relative date ranges previously assigned to these sites overall, there are outliers that necessitate discussion. These outliers may represent the oldest, most ephemeral use of the sites prior to later, more intensive occupation. Alternatively, such artifacts may be present as a result of tool curation and/or lithic recycling. The lone artifact with two hydration readings more than 2,100 years apart, Artifact BUT-1-23, lends credibility to such a possibility. In any case, such hydration band measurements are the minority and do little to undermine the comparable date ranges that hydration profiles and other relative dating techniques provide.

The implications of hydration data from CA-BUT-7 are far less clear. Aside from hydration band measurements, no other body of dating information suggests the site is more than 1,500 years of age. Unlike either CA-BUT-1 or CA-BUT-12, 69 percent of the sample cannot be viewed as representing an earlier, more ephemeral component of site usage when older samples are derived from all five loci and both feature and non- feature associated contexts. Similarly, the presence of such high quantities of older obsidian cannot be attributed to either tool curation or lithic recycling alone, especially when locally available Tuscan obsidian debitage is included in the older sample group.

The discrepancy between the hydration profile at CA-BUT-7 and relative dating information previously used to interpret site chronology may additionally be attributed to the use of poor hydration rate models, or the application of hydration rate models that were not developed specifically for the Chico area. Hydration rate models for

125

Borax Lake, Napa Valley, and Kelly Mountain obsidian sources were established elsewhere in California and were not specifically adapted for use in the Chico area as part of this thesis. Environment-specific factors responsible for influencing hydration rates such as effective hydration temperature (EHT) and humidity were not adjusted for, undoubtedly skewing obsidian hydration rim width conversions to at least a limited degree.

Although Borax Lake, Napa Valley, and Kelly Mountain obsidian hydration curves were not adapted for use in the Chico area, both Tuscan and Grasshopper

Flat/Lost Iron Well hydration curves were modified and successfully implemented by

Bayham and Johnson (1990) during investigations at CA-GLE-105. As CA-GLE-105 is situated in a similar environment to CA-BUT-7, the expectation was that existing

Grasshopper Flat/Lost Iron Well and Tuscan hydration curves would serve Chico area hydration studies well. However, such an assumption warrants further scrutiny.

In order to evaluate perhaps the most significant obsidian hydration curve for the purposes of this thesis, a total of ten combined Tuscan obsidian samples from CA-

BUT-1, CA-BUT-7, and CA-BUT-12 were selected along with their paired radiocarbon counterpart and plotted in a scatterplot that designates paired radiocarbon and obsidian hydration rim width measurements as a single point (Figure 18). These samples were selected based on the strength of the association between obsidian hydration and radiocarbon pairings, and include obsidian sample BUT-1-4H and radiocarbon sample

BUT-1-1 (Housefloor Feature 47 associated); obsidian sample BUT-1-18H and radiocarbon sample BUT-1-3 (Housefloor Feature 48 associated); obsidian sample BUT-

1-20H and radiocarbon sample BUT-1-10 (Housefloor Feature 45 associated); obsidian

126

FIGURE 18. Obsidian Hydration-Radiocarbon Pairing Rate Curve for CA-BUT-1, CA- BUT-7, and CA-BUT-12.

sample BUT-7-18H and radiocarbon sample BUT-7-6 (Housefloor Feature with “Acorn

Cache Pit” associated); obsidian sample BUT-7-3H and radiocarbon sample BUT-7-1

(Housefloor Feature 1 associated); obsidian sample BUT-7-7H and radiocarbon sample

BUT-7-3 (Housefloor Feature 3 associated); obsidian sample BUT-12-7H and radiocarbon sample BUT-12-4 (Ash Lense Feature 1 associated); obsidian sample BUT-

12-10H and radiocarbon sample BUT-12-5 (Housefloor Feature 3 associated); obsidian sample BUT-12-16H and radiocarbon sample BUT-12-7 (Hearth Feature 5 associated); and obsidian sample BUT-12-19H and radiocarbon sample BUT-12-8 (Housefloor

Feature 6 associated). Once these pairings and their corresponding error rates were plotted, a simple linear regression or trend line (depicted in red) was added to the figure.

127

In comparison to the rate curve that Bayham and Johnson (1990:67-68) constructed at CA-GLE-105 (recreated in Figure 19), the obsidian hydration-radiocarbon pairings selected from CA-BUT-1, CA-BUT-7, and CA-BUT-12 do not exhibit the same clear hydration rate curve evident in Bayham and Johnson’s (1990) report. In particular, the area of Bayham and Johnson’s curve encompassed by the red circle generally coincides with the Late Period but exhibits little similarity to Chico Complex obsidian hydration-radiocarbon pairings plotted in Figure 18.

FIGURE 19. The Tuscan hydration curve reported by Bayham and Johnson (1990) for CA-GLE-105.

Adapted from Bayham, Frank E. and Keith L. Johnson, 1990, Archaeological Investigations at CA-GLE-105: A Multicomponent Site Along the Sacramento River, Glenn County, California. Archaeological Research Program Report No. 90-109. California State University, Chico.

128

The lack of a discernible curve in Figure 18 may be the result of several causal factors. Poor obsidian hydration-radiocarbon pairing may be at least partly to blame, but the 10 paired samples selected from the three sites of interest represent the most closely associated samples available from the existing collections. Results are undoubtedly influenced by the significant component mixing that is evident at these resources as well. The sample of obsidian hydration-radiocarbon pairings used in Figure

18 may also be problematic in the sense that they are solely from Chico Complex contexts. Lastly, there exists the possibility that the current hydration rate curve developed for Tuscan obsidian simply does not accurately reflect the true ages of samples derived from Late Period contexts. If the latter scenario is the case, then the existing

Tuscan obsidian hydration curve for the Chico area necessitates reevaluation.

Adding to the potential problems concerning the existing Tuscan obsidian hydration rate curve is the very slow rate at which the subsources hydrate, the substantial amount of subsource variability that exists within the Tuscan Formation, and the fact that the source is composed of old ash flow tuff glass found in lahar landscapes that incorporate obsidian nodules derived from different vents and magma chambers. In all probability, Tuscan subsources are reflective of different ages, or at the very least, different stages of magma development (Hughes and Smith 1993). Put another way, specific geochemical subtypes within the Tuscan Formation likely have specific hydration rates that necessitate specific hydration rate curves.

When Figures 18 and 19 are evaluated, it is apparent that the Tuscan hydration rim measurements dating to less than 1,000 years in age have such small hydration band accumulations that age approximations are highly variable and likely not reflective of

129 true specimen age. As Hull (2009:127-128) has previously demonstrated in her dissertation research concerning population reconstruction using hydration rim frequencies in the Yosemite region, obsidian specimens exhibiting no visible hydration band may actually be reflective of Late Period occupation but the rate at which a particular obsidian hydrates may prevent a measurable amount of hydration rim from forming. For purposes of chronometric assessment, the five Tuscan obsidian no visible hydration band within the 100-specimen obsidian sample group utilized for this thesis are argued to be reflective of the Late Period despite not having a measureable hydration band or rim.

Perhaps the most salient point to be made concerning Tuscan obsidian is that the particularly slow rate of hydration for the source makes it problematic for dating Late

Period sites. In future research endeavors, the use of Tuscan obsidian to date presumed

Late Period sites should be avoided, as the temporal resolution necessary for chronometric assessment simply does not exist in the minimal hydration band accumulations that are present. Although the nature of Tuscan obsidian hydration has not necessarily added clarity to interpretations concerning the Chico chronology, findings also do not contradict the existing chronological framework.

Radiocarbon Results

To ensure that obsidian hydration data as it relates to site integrity was properly interpreted, radiocarbon data was also arranged stratigraphically at each site.

Like hydration data from CA-BUT-1, radiocarbon samples from the resource were first organized by the area they were procured from. At the first excavation area (Area 1), only

130 a single sample (BUT-1-11) dating to 109 cal B.P. from 150 to 168 centimeters below surface was taken, so an intra-area comparison could not be made. In the second excavation area (Area 2), three radiocarbon samples were taken, with the three dates exhibiting a tight range from 185 to 190 cal B.P. As with Area 1, Area 3 had only a single sample dating to 394 cal B.P. from 76 to 107 centimeters. From Area 4, three successful radiocarbon samples were taken, with the oldest sample (BUT-1-7, 279 cal B.P.) coming from a shallower depth (104 centimeters) than the youngest (BUT-1-4, 189 cal B.P.) at

137 centimeters. Area 5 had only a single sample taken from 61 to 76 centimeters that dated to 152 cal B.P. When samples are arranged stratigraphically regardless of site area, the sample obtained from the deepest context (BUT-1-1, 150 to 168 centimeters) is the youngest of the nine total samples and the oldest two (BUT-1-3 and BUT-1-10) are recovered from some of the shallowest extents, between 76 and 107 centimeters. Like the hydration profile from CA-BUT-1, radiocarbon data demonstrate evidence of stratigraphic mixing and disturbance at areas of the site that were sampled.

Radiocarbon samples from CA-BUT-7 were divided by loci (Loci A through

E), and then organized by depth. Three samples from Locus A demonstrated evidence of stratigraphic mixing, with the youngest non-shell sample (BUT-7-3, 178 cal B.P.) coming from a greater depth (260 to 275 centimeters) than Sample BUT-7-1, which dated to 278 cal B.P. and was recovered from between 213 and 228 centimeters. At Locus B, two samples demonstrated evidence of stratigraphic integrity, with the oldest sample (BUT-7-

4, 603 cal B.P.) coming from a greater depth (305 to 320 centimeters) than the youngest

(BUT-7-5, 117 cal B.P.) at 213 to 228 centimeters. Although three radiocarbon samples were originally submitted from Locus C, only a single sample (BUT-7-6) from 137 to

131

152 centimeters had sufficient carbon to return a date of 168 cal B.P. Looking to Locus

D, the oldest radiocarbon date (BUT-7-10, 946 cal B.P.) was recovered from a significantly shallower depth (75 to 90 centimeters) than the youngest (BUT-7-13, 179 cal B.P.), which was taken at a depth of 168 to 183 centimeters. The last locus, Locus E, additionally demonstrated evidence of disturbance, as the sample taken from the deepest contexts had a younger date (111 cal B.P.) than the other sample (BUT-7-11, 166 cal

B.P.) procured from a shallower provenience (121 to 137 centimeters). When viewed as a whole, the radiocarbon data from CA-BUT-7 points to a site with compromised stratigraphic integrity.

The radiocarbon samples from CA-BUT-12 were divided by unit provenience, with five associated with Unit S8/W7, four associated with Unit S10/W8, and three samples from 1963-1964 excavation Units N230/W25, N230/W220, and N230/W215. At

Unit S8/W7 the oldest sample (BUT-12-12, 388 cal B.P.) was derived from the deepest level sampled (190 to 200 centimeters), but the second oldest date (190 cal B.P.) comes from a depth of only 20 to 30 centimeters. Dates of 109 cal B.P. at 50 to 60 centimeters,

123 cal B.P. at 70 to 80 centimeters, and 114 cal B.P. at 150 to 160 centimeters were procured from lower levels of Unit S8/W7, suggesting at least a limited amount of disturbance. Samples derived from Unit S10/W8 demonstrated a greater degree of disturbance, with the youngest date (183 cal B.P., BUT-12-11) coming from the deepest level (220 to 230 centimeters) and the oldest (648 cal B.P., BUT-12-9) residing at a depth of 150 to 160 centimeters. Lastly, samples used from the 1963-1964 excavations also demonstrated mixing, with the oldest date (485 cal B.P.) coming from a depth of 61 to 76

132 centimeters while dates of 109 cal B.P. were provided by samples from depths of 66 to 76 and 76 to 91 centimeters.

Subsurface disturbance is apparent at all three of the sites of interest when radiocarbon data are examined. These findings reinforce field observations and hydration profile interpretations. Like the hydration data that was previously examined, there are likely numerous causes for stratigraphic mixing, including (but not limited to) bioturbation, periodic flooding and erosional events, subsurface feature construction, and historic-era agricultural impacts. Also like obsidian hydration data, the radiocarbon results still have considerable chronometric value when treated independently of provenience.

Radiocarbon data were additionally compared to the relative date ranges previously used to characterize the temporal nature of the three sites of interest. At CA-

BUT-1, radiocarbon results range from 109 to 394 cal B.P., with a mean of 222 cal B.P.

In comparison to the previous date range of 1500 to 150 years B.P. that was assigned to the site, the radiocarbon results suggest a far narrower and more recent period of occupation. Though these dates certainly fall within the 1,350-year approximate age range, they are all grouped at the later end of the spectrum. When radiocarbon data are compared to linguistic and archaeological interpretations concerning when the

Mechoopda arrived in the Chico area (see Golla 2007; Johnson 2005; Kowta 1988; and

Levy 1997) they do not compare more favorably. Although the oldest radiocarbon date at

CA-BUT-1, 394 cal B.P. is still nearly 200 years younger than the anticipated arrival of the Mechoopda in the Chico vicinity between approximately 600 and 550 years B.P., the site is still attributed primarily to the Chico Complex based on radiocarbon

133 determinations. A single radiocarbon date (109 cal B.P.) also falls within the early

Historic Period (post 150 B.P.).

In speaking with Keith Johnson (personal communication on November 9,

2012), one of the principal investigators at CA-BUT-1 during 1965-1966 excavations, he noted that the narrow date range for radiocarbon data might be a result of the excavation strategy implemented at the site. Johnson stated that older components at CA-BUT-1 were tentatively identified below excavated midden deposits and housefloor features, but that they were not sampled or represented in the existing collections. Unfortunately, this project relied exclusively on said existing collections to characterize the nature and extent of each site, and the curated materials available from CA-BUT-1 were severely limited.

The difference in absolute and relative date ranges at CA-BUT-1 may additionally be related to how the site was utilized over time. While the site most likely functioned as a central village that was intensively and continuously occupied between at least 109 and

394 years B.P., it is possible that prior use of the site was more ephemeral and did not result in the deposition of archaeological materials that could be radiocarbon dated. In any case, the radiocarbon data for CA-BUT-1 are far narrower in scope than previously proposed date ranges. Radiocarbon and obsidian hydration date ranges are compared and evaluated in Radiocarbon and Obsidian Hydration Discrepancies.

CA-BUT-7 initially had a calibrated radiocarbon date range extending from

111 to 955 B.P. with a mean of 354 years B.P. This date range extends from the earliest part of the Historic Period through the Chico Complex and most of the Pine Creek 2 phase. The lone shell sample submitted to radiocarbon dating from the site (Sample BUT-

7-2, Margaritifera falcata) returned a date of 955 cal B.P. that did not pair well with

134 samples derived from similar proveniences, or all but one of the other radiocarbon dates.

This sample has a date that is likely inflated by the presence of fossil carbonates in the local aquatic ecosystem; it was not corrected for marine reservoir effect using the CALIB program because it is a freshwater shellfish sample. Based on the roughly 960-year discrepancy that Hildebrandt and Kaijankoski (2011:67) observed between local shellfish and charred nutshell samples at CA-GLE-699, this sample is argued to date to much later in time. Two other radiocarbon samples taken from the same loci (Locus A) as Sample

BUT-7-2 date to between approximately 200 and 300 years B.P., and the shell is argued to most likely fall within this range.

When the shellfish sample is corrected for freshwater reservoir effect, the oldest sample at CA-BUT-7 becomes Sample BUT-7-10. This sample, taken from the rockshelter on-site (Locus D), is one of only two at the site that exceeds 300 years of age.

With a calibrated date of 946 years B.P., this sample does not compare favorably with the date range of 111 to 603 cal B.P. that the other samples provide. At the same time that possible explanations as to why such a discrepancy would exist were being explored in the CSUC Archaeological Laboratory, Dr. Keith Johnson was in the process of examining archaeological collections recovered from rockshelters throughout Butte

County. Although not part of the excavation efforts at CA-BUT-7, Dr. Johnson was familiar with the site and suggested that the rockshelter should be expected to have the oldest radiocarbon dates on-site because its use may have predated more intensive occupation later in time. The 946 cal B.P. date associated with Locus D is argued to be reflective of ephemeral usage of the area prior to village settlement.

135

Collectively, the ten valid radiocarbon samples from CA-BUT-7 and the 835- year timespan they provide are not in agreement with the 1,350-year timespan that previous relative dating techniques suggest. None of the radiocarbon dates exceed 1,000 years in age, let alone 1,500. When the single outlier date from the rockshelter is removed from the sample group, the timespan is reduced to 492 years (111 to 603 years B.P.).

Although the early end of this date range is roughly 150 years earlier than the beginning of the Chico Complex, it is consistent with when the Mechoopda are interpreted to have arrived in the Chico area.

At CA-BUT-12, 12 successful radiocarbon dates extended from 109 to 648 cal

B.P., which includes the earliest part of the Historic Period, the entire Chico Complex, and part of the Pine Creek 2 phase. All radiocarbon dates appear to be valid with the exception of Samples BUT-12-3, a clamshell disc bead (Saxidomus nuttalli) collected from feature-associated contexts. This sample yielded an uncalibrated 14C date of 855 +

15 years, far older than the date range of 300 years B.P. to Culture Contact that

Bennyhoff and Fredrickson (1967), Golla (2002), and King (1978) provided for clamshell disc beads in the region. This sample likely suffers from marine reservoir effect, and as a result, was calibrated using the CALIB marine sample file that is intended to correct for inflated radiocarbon ages for marine-derived specimens. However, the supposedly corrected date of 485 cal B.P. still falls almost 200 years outside the well-established age range for clamshell disc beads in Northern California. For the purposes of this thesis,

Sample BUT-12-3 was assumed to be no more than 300 years in age.

Excluding the clamshell disc bead, the remaining 11 radiocarbon samples still date to between 109 and 648 cal B.P. This date range is not nearly as wide as the

136 previously assigned date range of 1700 to 150 years B.P. based on relative dating schemes. The single radiocarbon date of 648 cal B.P. does pair well with interpretations concerning Mechoopda settlement in the vicinity of Chico around 550 to 600 years B.P., however. Viewed collectively, the radiocarbon data from CA-BUT-12 point predominately to Chico Complex and Historic Period occupation, with only one date

(648 cal B.P.) suggesting late Pine Creek 2 site settlement.

Radiocarbon and Obsidian Hydration Discrepancies

Aside from both demonstrating that the three sites of interest have compromised stratigraphic integrity, radiocarbon and obsidian hydration date ranges have comparatively little in common. When temporal compatibility is considered, radiocarbon and obsidian hydration age ranges demonstrate little overlap at CA-BUT-1, CA-BUT-7, and CA-BUT-12 (Figure 20). When the oldest obsidian sample outliers most likely

FIGURE 20. A comparison of radiocarbon and obsidian hydration date ranges at the sites of interest.

137 reflective of tool curation and/or lithic recycling are omitted from their respective site groups, the discrepancy between radiocarbon and obsidian hydration age profiles is far less pronounced (Figure 21). However, obsidian hydration age ranges are still consistently older than their radiocarbon counterparts at each site, particularly in the case of CA-BUT-7.

FIGURE 21. A comparison of radiocarbon and obsidian hydration date ranges at the sites of interest with obsidian hydration outliers omitted.

For CA-BUT-1, five obsidian hydration samples were excluded from the initial 30-specimen sample group, including BUT-1-10H, BUT-1-19H, BUT-1-23H,

BUT-1-27H, and BUT-1-29H. Within the CA-BUT-7 group, eight obsidian hydration samples were excluded from the original 40-specimen sample, including BUT-7-5H,

BUT-7-6H, BUT-7-7H, BUT-7-9H, BUT-7-13H, BUT-7-21H, BUT-7-26H, and BUT-7-

36H. Lastly, at CA-BUT-12, seven obsidian samples were excluded from the original 30- specimen sample group, including BUT-12-15H, BUT-12-17H, BUT-12-18H, BUT-12-

23H, BUT-12-24H, BUT-12-25H, and BUT-12-26H. At CA-BUT-1 and CA-BUT-7, the

138

13 total obsidian samples omitted from Figure 21 are predominately non-Tuscan obsidians (62 percent of the total assemblage). By comparison, all of the obsidian samples omitted from CA-BUT-12 were Tuscan obsidian.

As chronometric dating tools, both obsidian hydration and radiocarbon dating have the potential to provide valuable data that can be used to assess site chronology.

However, it is important to emphasize that while radiocarbon dating provides absolute data and has a much longer history of application, modification, and evaluation, obsidian hydration is still widely regarded as a relative dating technique despite being used to assign absolute ages to artifacts. Also of particular relevance for sites CA-BUT-1, CA-

BUT-7, and CA-BUT-12 is the fact that the lithic assemblages at each of these sites is composed of predominately basalt and chert, with obsidian representing 20 percent or less of their respective assemblages. If obsidian is a relatively minor part of the total lithic assemblage, using it to make broad inferences about site occupation is arguably not the best choice when alternative dating methods are available.

The problems associated with using obsidian hydration as an absolute dating method have been identified since the techniques inception (Arnovitz et al. 1999;

Freidman and Smith 1960; Ridings 1996). Throughout California, numerous studies, including those by Bevill (2004), Hull (1991), Hull and Moratto (1999), Martin and

Meyer (2005), Onken (1991), Rosenthal et al. (2011), and Zimmer (2013) have shown significant discrepancies between radiocarbon and hydration results. In these cases, radiocarbon results were relied upon over hydration data for the purpose of assessing site chronology, particularly when a sufficient sample size of radiocarbon determinations exist and specimens are derived from both feature and non-feature associated contexts

139 across the vertical and horizontal extents of each resource. As these requirements have been satisfied at CA-BUT-1, CA-BUT-7, and CA-BUT-12, radiocarbon results are relied upon over hydration data in assessing site chronology for this thesis. A comparison of radiocarbon and obsidian hydration results by site is provided in the following paragraphs.

CA-BUT-1

Radiocarbon determinations for CA-BUT-1 extend from 109 to 394 cal B.P.

Hydration data selected from the same or similar proveniences as radiocarbon samples date to between 150 and 3875 years B.P. In Figure 10, there appears to be considerable overlap between radiocarbon and obsidian hydration results, with a shared period of almost 250 years between 150 and 394 B.P. Unfortunately, the figure fails to illustrate the fact that only six converted hydration measurements or 21 percent of the hydration sample with valid readings fall within this range. When compared to one another, obsidian hydration and radiocarbon determinations at CA-BUT-1 are a poor fit.

Given that a sufficient sample size of successful radiocarbon dates (n = 9) were obtained from both feature (n = 7) and non-feature associated contexts (n = 2) from each of the previously excavated areas at CA-BUT-1, intensive occupation at the site is argued to be primarily reflective of the Chico Complex. A single radiocarbon date additionally corresponds to the early Historic Period, and relative dating techniques suggest ephemeral site usage extending as far back as 3875 years B.P., or the middle of the Llano 1 phase. Such findings are consistent with previous interpretations regarding site occupation being predominately associated with the Chico Complex. However, the radiocarbon date range does not pair well with either the previous relative date range

140 assigned to the site (1500 to 150 B.P.), nor the expected initial settlement date of 550 to

600 years B.P. that was proposed for Mechoopda village sites in the Chico area.

CA-BUT-7

Ten valid radiocarbon dates at CA-BUT-7 range between 111 and 946 years

B.P. Hydration data paired with radiocarbon samples have a roughly 8,700-year timespan, from between 450 and 9180 cal B.P. As depicted in Figure 10, the range of converted hydration readings at the site exceeds all other date ranges for the study, regardless of the type of dating under consideration. Despite the more variable nature of the hydration readings, only four hydration samples or 11 percent of the 35-specimen sample group fall within the roughly 500 year overlap from 450 to 946 B.P. that exists for radiocarbon and obsidian hydration date ranges. While the relationship between obsidian and radiocarbon determinations at CA-BUT-1 were considered poor, the relationship between date ranges at CA-BUT-7 is considerably worse.

Successful radiocarbon dates derived from both feature (n = 5) and non- feature (n = 5) associated contexts and all five recorded loci collectively point to a predominately Chico Complex occupation at CA-BUT-7., which is consistent with previous chronological interpretations. However, two radiocarbon dates (111 and 117 cal

B.P.) indicate early Historic Period site use, and a third date falls within the Pine Creek 2 phase (946 cal B.P.). These results are also consistent with expectations regarding earlier, more ephemeral usage of the site at the rockshelter (Locus D), and site occupation briefly continuing post-contact. The approximately 8,700-year period of occupation that hydration measurements exhibit is highly unlikely based on a comparison to all other dating techniques applied to the site; hydration readings are argued to be inflated (and as

141 a result unreliable) by site-specific environmental factors. When the date range of CA-

BUT-7 is compared to the relative date range of 1500 to 150 years B.P. previously assigned to the site, an approximately 500-year difference is observed. A lone radiocarbon date of 603 cal B.P. does lend credence to Mechoopda occupation beginning around 550 to 600 years B.P., however.

CA-BUT-12

The eleven valid radiocarbon determinations reported for CA-BUT-12 extend from 109 to 648 cal B.P. The 27 hydration readings paired with these radiocarbon samples returned an approximate age range of 2,150 years (450 to 2600 years B.P.). In comparison to the 539-year timespan that radiocarbon samples demonstrate, the two bodies of chronometric dating information share an approximately 200-year timespan.

Within this timeframe however, only a single Borax Lake obsidian sample dating to approximately 450 years B.P. is represented. Even more so than the cases of both CA-

BUT-1 and CA-BUT-7 that were previously discussed, the temporal overlap between radiocarbon and obsidian hydration results at CA-BUT-12 is nearly absent altogether.

Clearly, these data are a very poor fit.

Radiocarbon data from both feature (n = 6) and non-feature (n = 5) associated contexts indicate a Chico Complex phase occupation at CA-BUT-12, with several radiocarbon dates from the Historic Period (n = 5, 109 to 123 cal B.P.), and a single date from the Pine Creek 2 phase (n = 1, 648 cal B.P.) as well. These findings are largely consistent with previous assessments of site chronology, which generally assigned the site to the Chico Complex, Pine Creek 2, and Pine Creek 1 phases between 1700 and 150 years B.P. No indication of Pine Creek 1 occupation is present within the radiocarbon

142 results, but converted hydration readings fall within this phase. Similar to CA-BUT-7, a single radiocarbon date (648 cal B.P.) at CA-BUT-12 offers some support to the interpretation concerning initial occupation by the Mechoopda between 550 and 600 years B.P.

Chapter Summary

Radiocarbon determinations at CA-BUT-1, CA-BUT-7, and CA-BUT-12 collectively point to predominately Chico Complex phase occupation with ephemeral site usage during both the Historic Period and Pine Creek 2 phases. Paired obsidian hydration data is consistently older than radiocarbon results, and demonstrates little temporal overlap overall. For purposes of chronology assessment, absolute radiocarbon data are argued to be more valid than relative obsidian hydration data interpreted and applied in an absolute fashion. The specific cause or causes of radiocarbon and obsidian hydration discrepancies across the three sites of interest are not entirely clear. Reconciling such a discrepancy, while important for the Chico chronology, is outside the scope of this thesis.

However, there is a clear need to investigate the possibility of developing a new Tuscan obsidian hydration rate curve based on a larger sample group, better stratigraphic integrity, and better obsidian hydration and radiocarbon parings than either Hildebrandt and Basgall (1989) or Bayham and Johnson (1990) used to construct their respective rate curves. At present, it is recommended that Tuscan obsidian be avoided when attempting to assess site chronology at presumed Late Period resources.

In comparison to previous interpretations concerning the entire span of occupation at each site, radiocarbon determinations are not consistent with the broad date

143 range of 1500 to 150 B.P. assigned to CA-BUT-1 and CA-BUT-7, nor the 1700 to 150

B.P. range provided for CA-BUT-12. Obsidian hydration readings from the three sites span these timeframes, but are also far older and highly variable, lending doubt to their validity. When radiocarbon data are compared against the previous interpretation that the

Mechoopda initially occupied these village sites between approximately 550 and 600 years B.P., a single date of 603 cal B.P. from CA-BUT-7 and a date of 648 cal B.P. from

CA-BUT-12 fit are just outside this general timeframe. Those these dates are hardly definitive evidence of initial Mechoopda occupation, they do lend support to the existing theory even though they fall slightly earlier in time.

CHAPTER VII

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Contributing to the Chico Chronology

Nearly 50 years ago, California State University, Chico initiated a long-term research program dedicated to establishing a regional chronology for Glenn and Butte counties in Northern California (Johnson 1964). Since that time, major contributions have been made by the likes of Bayham and Johnson (1990), Chartkoff and Chartkoff (1968;

1983), Deal (1987), Dreyer (1984), Hildebrandt and Kaijankoski (2011), Hill (1970),

Johnson (2005), Kowta (1988), Rosenthal and Meyer (2009), White (2003b), Zancanella

(1987), and others in constructing a culture chronology for the Chico area. Unfortunately, radiocarbon support for the chronology has not been distributed evenly amongst the phases of Chico prehistory, and there was a distinct gap in radiocarbon dating information between approximately 100 and 600 years B.P. (Table 2). In particular, the

Chico Complex (450 to 150 years B.P.) had no radiocarbon support prior to this study despite a total of 28 radiocarbon dates being previously compiled for the region (Table

1). This thesis has endeavored to resolve such a deficiency by conducting radiocarbon and obsidian hydration studies at the three most prominent sites used to define the Chico

Complex, including CA-BUT-1, CA-BUT-7, and CA-BUT-12, and comparing the results of said studies to the sites presumed temporal ranges (based primarily on relative dating techniques and linguistic models).

144 145

A secondary focus of this thesis, which is inter-related to the refinement of the existing chronology, was to use absolute dating information from the same three sites of interest to evaluate when the Mechoopda first arrived in the Chico vicinity. Previous estimates concerning their arrival and intensive occupation of the Chico area suggest population replacement occurring between roughly 550 and 600 years B.P. (Johnson

2005). By evaluating such an interpretation using radiocarbon and obsidian hydration data, the intent was to make a more definitive case for when the Mechoopda may have first occupied the region. Together, both the primary and secondary focuses of this thesis also share a common goal: to bolster the existing chronology so that it might better assist archaeologists in the management of cultural resources within the realm of Cultural

Resource Management (CRM) archaeology.

The radiocarbon results of this thesis suggest that not only do CA-BUT-1,

CA-BUT-7, and CA-BUT-12 truly define the Chico Complex, but also that they are primarily Chico Complex village sites with more limited Historic Period and Pine Creek

2 phase usage. A total of 19 radiocarbon dates are available for the Chico Complex as a result of this thesis, with eight coming from CA-BUT-1, six from CA-BUT-7, and five from CA-BUT-12. This wealth of radiocarbon support for the Chico Complex is complemented by an additional 11 combined radiocarbon dates representing the Historic

Period (n = 8) and Pine Creek 2 (n = 3) phases at these resources. When radiocarbon data are compared against the proposed arrival date of the Mechoopda (approximately 550 to

600 years B.P.), two dates of 603 cal B.P. (CA-BUT-7) and 648 cal B.P. (CA-BUT-12) lend some support to existing interpretations even though they are not strictly within the

50-year timeframe. It is important to note that while these radiocarbon determinations

146 and the implications they carry are significant for evaluating the Chico chronology, such findings are not meant to conflict with Mechoopda creation myths or oral traditions concerning their arrival in the Chico area. Instead, such data is intended to be viewed as a separate body of evidence that presents an equally valid, alternative viewpoint of past events.

Although radiocarbon data at CA-BUT-1, CA-BUT-7, and CA-BUT-12 support the existing Chico chronology between approximately 100 and 600 years B.P., obsidian hydration data demonstrate limited temporal overlap with radiocarbon timespans at the sites of interest. Ideally, radiocarbon and obsidian hydration age ranges at these sites would compare favorably with one another, offering even stronger chronometric support for interpretations relating to the Chico Complex and Mechoopda migration into the Chico vicinity. The reality, however, is that they are a poor fit at all three sites, and that converted hydration measurements are considerably older and far more variable than they radiocarbon samples they are paired with. While obsidian hydration readings demonstrate more favorable comparisons with the approximate age ranges previously assigned to CA-BUT-1 and CA-BUT-12 using other relative dating techniques, for the purposes of assessing site chronology, radiocarbon determinations will nearly always be relied upon over obsidian hydration age estimates. This is especially the case when a sufficient sample size of radiocarbon samples have been derived from both feature and non-feature associated contexts, as is the case for CA-BUT-1, CA-BUT-7, and CA-BUT-

12.

The discrepancy between radiocarbon and obsidian hydration age estimates may be as a result of several potentially interrelated factors that skew obsidian band

147 measurements and thus alter age estimates. Environment-specific variables such as effective hydration temperature and humidity are known to depress obsidian hydration rates in buried site deposits; inflated hydration band measurements might also be skewed by such variables or a variety of other site, context, and source specific factors that cannot be fully explored within this study. Using a lithic material that represents only approximately 20 percent of the collective toolstone assemblages recovered from the sites of interest to characterize their chronological nature also invites problems in its own right. Tuscan obsidian specifically appears to be a poor tool for assessing Late Period site chronology given the considerably slow rate at which it hydrates. As previously mentioned, reconciling the difference between radiocarbon and obsidian hydration results is outside the scope of this study. Nonetheless, such a discrepancy requires further consideration.

In addition to the discrepancies between radiocarbon and obsidian age estimates observed at the three sites of interest, there were noticeable limitations encountered when using existing collections. Simply put, the collections associated with

CA-BUT-1, CA-BUT-7, and CA-BUT-12 were not excavated to the same rigorous standards that current archaeologists utilize in the field. This is not to criticize the archaeologists responsible for excavating these resources, as they used the field methods popular in their specific time and place, but rather to note that the excavation strategies utilized at these sites ultimately played a significant role in the sampling strategy used for this study. Adding to issues of provenience was that curated portions of the collections were poorly maintained or even unaccounted for, particularly in the case of CA-BUT-1.

Limitations such as these are not unique to older curated archaeological collections; if

148 anything, they are the norm. Even with these significant limitations and impediments, these sites still yielded a tremendous amount of chronometric information and have the potential to provide further data that can contribute to our understanding of Chico prehistory.

Areas for Future Research

Despite the wealth of information we have concerning Chico area prehistory, there are multiple avenues for future studies to pursue that were identified as a byproduct of the research conducted for this study. The most apparent need is to identify the cause or causes of discrepancies observed between radiocarbon and obsidian hydration date ranges at the sites investigated in this thesis. Whether or not this includes constructing new hydration curves specific to the Chico area with better-provenienced obsidian and radiocarbon sample pairings, the Tuscan obsidian hydration curve necessitates reevaluation. The difference between Tuscan subsource hydration rates additionally necessitates investigation. Related to obsidian, geochemical sourcing results made available for 100 specimens as a result of this thesis have the potential to be utilized for either inter or intra-site comparisons. As geochemical sourcing was primarily conducted as a necessary component of obsidian hydration studies at CA-BUT-1, CA-BUT-7, and

CA-BUT-12, the implications of sourcing results at these resources were not fully explored.

In reviewing the site records associated with each site of interest, there is an immediate need to re-map and update pertinent site information using GPS recording devices as well. Each of these sites is still largely intact, and although they are all situated

149 on private parcels that are unlikely to be impacted in the foreseeable future, their significance to the Mechoopda and Chico prehistory warrants their continued preservation and re-recordation. Utilizing existing collections housed at the CSUC

Archaeological Laboratory, as this study did, should also take high priority. Existing collections from sites CA-BUT-288, CA-BUT-434, CA-BUT-496, CA-GLE-18, and CA-

GLE-101 have sufficient materials for radiocarbon dating and obsidian studies, yet no such studies have been conducted on collections from these sites at the time of this writing. Lastly, there is a need to further investigate the earliest occupation of the Chico area identified by Hildebrandt and Kaijankoski (2011) along the Sacramento River. The relationship sites such as CA-GLE-701 and the dating information they provide to the

Llano 1 phase is not clear and warrants further investigation. Collectively, these pursuits will help to ensure that the Chico chronology retains relevancy for CRM use and that archaeologists at California State University, Chico continue to follow the research agenda that Johnson (1964) initially outlined.

REFERENCES CITED

Anovitz, Lawrence M., J. Michael Elam, Lee R. Riciputi, and David R. Cole 1999 The Failure of Obsidian Hydration Dating: Sources, Implications, and New Directions. Journal of Archaeological Science 26:735-752.

Bareis, Charles J., and James W. Porter, eds. 1984 American Bottom Archaeology: A Summary of the FAI-270 Project Contribution to the Culture History of the Mississippi River Valley. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Basgall, Mark A., and William R. Hildebrandt 1989 Prehistory of the Sacramento River Canyon, Shasta County, California. Center for Archaeological Research at Davis, Publication Number 9. Davis: University of California.

Baumhoff, Martin A., and J. S. Byrne 1959 Desert Side-Notched Points as a Time Marker in California. University of California Archaeological Survey Report 48:32-65. Berkeley: University of California.

Bayham, Frank E., and Keith L. Johnson 1990 Archaeological Investigations at CA-GLE-105: A Multicomponent Site Along the Sacramento River, Glenn County, California. Archaeological Research Program Report No. 90-109. California State University, Chico.

Beardsley, Richard K. 1948 Cultural Sequences in Central California Archaeology. American Antiquity 14(1):1-28. 1954 Temporal and Areal Relationships in Central California Archaeology, Parts One and Two. Reports of the University of California Archaeological Survey Reports No. 24 and 25. Berkeley: University of California.

Beck, Charlotte 1988 Projectile Point Types as Valid Chronological Units. In Unit Issues in Archaeology: Measuring Time, Space, and Material. A. F. Ramenofsky and A. Steffen, eds. Pp. 21- 40. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

151 152

Beck, Charlotte, and George T. Jones 1994 Dating Surface Assemblages Using Obsidian Hydration. In Dating in Exposed and Surface Contexts. Charlotte Beck, ed. Pp. 47-76. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Bennyhoff, James A. 1994 Recent Thoughts on Archaeological Taxonomy. In Toward a New Taxonomic Framework for Central California Archaeology: Essays by James A. Bennyhoff and David A. Fredrickson. Richard E. Hughes, ed. Pp. 105-107. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility 52. Berkeley: University of California.

Bennyhoff, James A., and David A. Fredrickson 1967 A Typology of Shell and Stone Beads from Central California. Manuscript on file, Anthropological Studies Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, California. 1994 A Proposed Integrative Taxonomic System for Central California Archaeology. In Toward a New Taxonomic Framework for Central California Archaeology: Essays by James A. Bennyhoff and David A. Fredrickson. Richard E. Hughes, ed. Pp. 15-24. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility 52. Berkeley: University of California.

Bennyhoff, James A., and Richard E. Hughes 1987 Shell Bead and Ornament Exchange Networks Between California and the Western Great Basin. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History 64(2).

Bethard, Kenneth R. 1988 A Projectile Point Typology for Archaeological Site CA-BUT-301: An Exogene Cave in the Northern Sierra Foothills. Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, California State University, Sacramento.

Bevill, Russell 2004 Obsidian Hydration: The Squaw Creek Site Revisited. Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology 17:133-138.

Bowman, H. R., F. Asaro, and I. Perlman 1973 On the Uniformity of Composition in Obsidian and Evidence for Magnetic Mixing. Journal of Geology 81:312-327.

Bowman, Sheridan 1990 Radiocarbon Dating. Berkeley: University of California Press.

153

Breternitz, David A. 1993 The Dolores Archaeological Program: In Memoriam. American Antiquity 58(1):118-125.

Breternitz, David A., Christine K. Robinson, and G. Timothy Gross (compilers) 1986 Dolores Archaeological Program: Final Synthetic Report. Denver: USDI Bureau of Reclamation, Engineering and Research Center.

Brose, David S. 1991 Yesterday’s River: The Archaeology of 10,000 Years Along the Tennessee- Tombigbee Waterway. Cleveland: Cleveland Museum of Natural History.

Broughton, Jack M. 1988 Archaeological Patterns of Fish Exploitation in the Sacramento Valley. Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, California State University, Chico. 1994 Late Holocene Resource Intensification in the Sacramento Valley, California: The Vertebrate Evidence. Journal of Archaeological Science 21:501-514.

Chapman, Jefferson 1985 Tellico Archaeology: 12,000 Years of Native American History. Report of Investigations, No. 43, Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. 1995 Tellico Archaeology: 12,000 Years of Native American History. Revised Edition. Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press.

Chartkoff, Joseph L. 1992 Development of Theory in California Archaeology, 1966-1991. Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology 5:1-25. 2010 The Finch Site and the Root Site: A Comparison of Riverine Adaptations by Late- Period Hunter-Gatherers in California and Michigan. Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology 24:1-6.

Chartkoff, Joseph L., and Kerry K. Chartkoff 1968 Excavations at the Finch Site: Research Strategy and Procedures. University of California, Los Angeles, Archaeological Survey Annual Report 10:315-370. 1983 Excavations at the Patrick Site (4-Butte-1). In The Archaeology of Two Northern California Sites. Ernestine S. Elster, ed. Pp. 1-52. Institute of Archaeology Monograph 22. Los Angeles: University of California. 1984 The Archaeology of California. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Clark, Donovan L. 1964 Archaeological Chronology in California and the Obsidian Hydration Method: Part I. Archaeological Survey Annual Report 6:139-225.

154

Cook, Sherburne F. 1955 The Epidemic of 1830-1833 in California and Oregon. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 43:303-325.

Crawford, Kristina M. 2011 Daily Bread: Prehistoric Cooking Features in the Northern Sacramento Valley, California. Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, California State University, Chico.

Cressman, Luther S. 1951 Western Prehistory in the Light of Carbon 14 Dating. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 7(3):289-313.

Deal, Krista C. 1987 The Archaeology of the Cana Highway Site, CA-BUT-288, Butte County, California. Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, California State University, Chico.

Deis, Richard W. 1999 Spatial and Temporal Distribution of Rose Spring Projectile Points Within the North- Central Sierra Nevada. Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, California State University, Sacramento.

Dixon, Roland B. 1905 The Northern Maidu. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 17(3):119-346.

DeGeorgey, Alex 2005 A Phase I Archaeological Inventory of 1600 Acres of the Harry Merlo Property, Butte County, California. Sentinel Archaeological Research, Geyserville. Submitted to the Merlo Corporation, Portland. Report on file, Northeast Information Center, California State University, Chico.

Dreyer, William R. 1984 Prehistoric Settlement Strategies in Portions of the Northern Sacramento Valley, California. Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, California State University, Chico. 1989 An Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Harry Merlo Property on Richardson Springs Road, Butte County, California. Archaeological Research Program Report No. 85. California State University, Chico. Report on file, Northeast Information Center, California State University, Chico.

155

Dugas, Michael A. 1995 Ethnographic Boundaries at the Maidu Frontier: A Stylistic Analysis of Projectile Points. Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, California State University, Chico.

Elsasser, Albert B. 1978 Development of Regional and Prehistoric Cultures. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8: California. Robert Heizer, ed. Pp. 37-57. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution.

Eugster, Susan E. 1990 Freshwater Mussel Utilization at a Late Prehistoric Period Archaeological Site (CA-BUT-12) in the Northern Sacramento Valley, California. Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, California State University, Chico.

Fortier, Andrew C., Thomas E. Emerson, and Dale L. McElrath 2006 Calibrating and Reassessing American Bottom Culture History. Southeastern Archaeology 25(2):170-211.

Fredrickson, David A. 1973 Early Cultures of the North Coast of the North Coast Ranges, California. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis. 1974 Cultural Diversity in Early Central California: A View from the North Coast Ranges. Journal of California Anthropology 1:41-54.

Freidman, Irving, and Robert L. Smith 1960 A New Dating Method Using Obsidian: Part I, The Development of the Method. American Antiquity 25:476-522.

Friedman, Irving, Fred W. Trembour, and Richard E. Hughes 1997 Obsidian Hydration Dating. In Chronometric Dating in Archaeology. R. E. Taylor and Martin J. Aitken, eds. Pp. 297-321. New York: Plenum Press.

Gifford, Edward W. 1940 California Bone Artifacts. University of California Anthropological Records 3:153-237. 1947 California Shell Artifacts. University of California Anthropological Records 9:1-132.

Gifford, Edward W., and W. Egbert Schenck 1926 Archaeology of the Southern San Joaquin Valley, California. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 23(1). Berkeley: University of California Press.

156

Golla, Victor 2007 Linguistic Prehistory. In California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity. Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, eds. Pp. 71-82. Lanham: Alta Mira Press.

Griffin, James R. 1977 Oak Woodland. In Terrestrial Vegetation of California. Michael G. Barbour and Jack Major, eds. Pp. 383-415. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Groza, Randall 2002 An AMS Chronology for Central California Olivella Shell Beads. Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, San Francisco State University.

Gruber, Abraham 1963 The Patrick Rancheria. The Masterkey 37(1):30-34.

Gunerman, George G. 1984 A View from Black Mesa: The Changing Face of Archaeology. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

Hall, M. C., and R. J. Jackson 1989 Obsidian Hydration Rates in California. In Current Directions in California Obsidian Studies. Richard E. Hughes, ed. Pp. 31-58. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility No. 45. Berkeley: University of California.

Hamusek-McGann, Blossom 1993 What X Equals: The Archaeological and Geological Distribution of “Source X” Tuscan Obsidian in Northern California. Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, California State University, Chico. 1995 The Tuscan Obsidian Source of Northern California: Archaeological Implications and Geochemical Variability. Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology 8:13-32.

Heizer, Robert F. 1941 The Direct-Historical Approach in California Archaeology. American Antiquity 7(2):98-122. 1949 The Archaeology of Central California I: The Early Horizon. University of California Anthropological Records 12(1):1-74. 1958 Prehistoric Central California: A Problem in Historical-Developmental Classification. University of California Archaeological Survey Reports 41:19-26. Berkeley. 1978 History of Research. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8: California. Robert Heizer, eds. Pp. 6-15. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution.

157

Heizer, Robert F., and Sherburne F. Cook 1953 “Capay Man”, An Ancient Central California Indian Burial. University of California Archaeological Survey Reports 22:24-26.

Heizer, Robert F., and Franklin Fenega 1939 Archaeological Horizons in Central California. American Anthropologist 41(3):378- 399.

Heizer, Robert F., and Thomas R. Hester 1970 Names and Locations of Some Ethnographic Patwin and Maidu Indian Villages. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility 9:79-118. 1978 Great Basin Projectile Points: Form and Chronology. Socorro: Ballena Press.

Henderson, Margaret Y. 1976 Protohistoric Architecture at the Patrick Site (4-But-1), A Maidu Village Near Chico, California. Archives for California Archaeology, Paper 86. San Francisco: Society for California Archaeology.

Hildebrandt, William R., and John F. Hayes 1983 Archaeological Investigations on Pilot Ridge, Six Rivers National Forest. MS on file, Northwest Archaeological Information Center of the California Historical Resources Inventory System, Rohnert Park, California.

Hildebrandt, William R., and Philip Kaijankoski 2011 Archaeological and Architectural Site Evaluations for the Hamilton City Flood Damage Reduction and Ecological Restoration Area, Glenn County, California Volumes I and II. Far Western Research Group, Davis. Copy of report in possession of the author.

Hill, Dorothy J. 1970 Indians of Chico Rancheria: An Ethnohistoric Study. Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, California State University, Chico. 1978 The Indians of Chico Rancheria. Sacramento: State of California, Department of Parks and Recreation.

Hughes, Richard E. 1983 X-Ray Fluorescence Characterization of Obsidian. In The Archaeology of Monitor Valley: 2. Gatecliff Shelter. David Hurst Thomas, ed. Pp. 401-408. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History 59 (Part 1). New York: American Museum of Natural History. 1985 Obsidian Source Use at Hidden Cave. In The Archaeology of Hidden Cave, Nevada. David Hurst Thomas, ed. Pp. 332-353. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History 61 (Part 1). New York: American Museum of Natural History.

158

1986 Diachronic Variability in Obsidian Procurement Patterns in Northeastern California and Southcentral Oregon. University of California Publications in Anthropology 17. Berkeley: University of California Press. 1988a The Coso Volcanic Field Reexamined: Implications for Obsidian Sourcing and Hydration Dating Research. Geoarchaeology 3:253-265. 1998b On Reliability, Validity, and Scale in Obsidian Sourcing Research. In Unit Issues in Archaeology: Measuring Time, Space, and Material. Ann. F. Ramenofsky and Anastasia Steffen, eds. Pp. 103-114. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. 1989 A New Look at Mono Basin Obsidians. In Current Directions in California Obsidian Studies. Richard E. Hughes, ed. Pp. 1-12. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility No. 48. Berkeley: University of California. 1994 Intrasource Chemical Variability of Artefact-Quality Obsidians from the Casa Diablo Area, California. Journal of Archaeological Science 21:263-271.

Hughes, Richard E., and Randall Milliken 2007 Prehistoric Material Conveyance. In California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity. Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, eds. Pp. 259-271. Lanham: Alta Mira Press.

Hughes, Richard E., and R. L. Smith 1993 Archaeology, Geology, and Geochemistry in Obsidian Provenience Studies. In Effects of Scale on Archaeological and Geoscientific Perspective. J. K. Stein and A. R. Linse, eds. Pp. 79-91. Special Paper 283. Boulder: Geological Society of America.

Hull, Kathleen L. 1991 Report of Archaeological Data Recovery Excavations at CA-MRP-382, Mariposa County, California. Prepared by and for the Yosemite Research Center, Yosemite National Park, National Park Service, Department of the Interior. 2009 Pestilence and Persistence: Yosemite Indian Demography and Culture in Colonial California. Berkeley: University of California.

Hull, Kathleen L., and Michael J. Moratto 1999 Archaeological Synthesis and Research Design, Yosemite National Park, California. USDI National Park Service Yosemite Research Center Publications in Anthropology 21.

Jack, Robert N. 1976 Prehistoric Obsidian in California I: Geochemical Aspects. In Advances in Obsidian Glass Studies: Archaeological and Geochemical Perspectives. R. E. Taylor ed. Pp. 183-217. Park Ridge: Noyes Press.

159

Jackson, Thomas L. 1989 Late Prehistoric Obsidian Production and Exchange in the North Coast Ranges, California. In Current Directions in California Obsidian Studies. Richard E. Hughes, ed. Pp. 79-94. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility 48. Berkeley: University of California.

Jenkins, Ron 1999 X-ray Fluorescence Spectrometry. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley Interscience.

Jewell, Donald P. 1964 Archaeology of the Oroville Dam Spillway. Department of Parks and Recreation, Archaeological Report 10, Part I. Sacramento: Department of Parks and Recreation.

Johnson, Keith L. 1964 The Archaeology of Chico and Vicinity. The North State Review 1(1):12-17. Chico State College, California. 2005 Archaeological Identification of the Valley Maidu in Northern California. In Onward and Upward! Papers in Honor of Clement W. Meighan. Keith L. Johnson, ed. Pp. 57- 74. Chico: Stansbury Publishing.

Justice, Noel D. 2002 Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of California and the Great Basin. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Kane, Sharyn, and Richard Keeton 1994 Beneath These Waters: Archaeological and Historical Studies of 11,500 Years Along the Savannah River. Atlanta: National Park Service, Interagency Archaeological Services.

King, Chester D. 1978 Protohistoric and Historic Archaeology. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8: California. Robert Heizer, eds. Pp. 58-68. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution.

Keter, Thomas S. 2009 All Those Things You’re Liable to Read in the Ethnographic Literature They Ain’t Necessarily So. Paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the Society for California Archaeology, Modesto, California.

Kowta, Makoto 1988 The Archaeology and Prehistory of Plumas and Butte Counties, California: An Introduction and Interpretation Model. California Archaeological Site Inventory, Northeast Information Center. California State University, Chico.

160

Kroeber, Alfred L. 1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 78. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution. 1932 The Patwin and Their Neighbors. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 29(4):253-423. University of California Press, Berkeley.

La Jeunesse, Roger M., and John M. Pryor 1996 Skyrocket Appendices. Report on file, Department of Anthropology, California State University, Fresno.

Levy, Richard S. 1997 The Linguistic Prehistory of Central California: Historical Linguistics and Culture Process. In Contributions to the Linguistic Prehistory of Central and Baja California. Gary S. Breschini and Trudy Haversat, eds. Pp. 95-126. Salinas: Coyote Press.

Lightfoot, Kent G. 2005 Indians, Missionaries, and Merchants: The Legacy of Colonial Encounters on the California Frontier. Berkeley: University of California.

Lightfoot, Kent G., and Otis Parrish 2009 California Indians and Their Environment: An Introduction. California Natural History Guide Series, No. 96. Berkeley: University of California.

Lillard, J. B., R. F. Heizer, and Franklin Fenega 1939 An Introduction to the Archaeology of Central California. Sacramento Junior College, Department of Anthropology, Bulletin 2. Sacramento: Sacramento Junior College.

Lillard, J. B., and W. K. Purves 1936 The Archaeology of the Deer Creek-Consumnes Area, Sacramento County, California. Sacramento Junior College Department of Anthropology Bulletin 1. Sacramento: Sacramento Junior College.

Lipe, William D. 2000 A View from the Lake: The Dolores Archaeological Program in the McPhee Reservoir Area, SW Colorado. CRM 23(1):21-24.

Maniery, James G., and Mary L. Maniery 1986 Cultural Resources Inventory and Evaluation: Sacramento River Bank Protection (Unit 40) Project. Report on file at the U. S. Department of the Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District.

161

Markley, Richard E. 1978 Archaeological Excavations in the Oroville Locality, Butte County, California, 1975. Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, California State University, Chico.

McGie, Joseph F. 1982 History of Butte County, Volume 1, 1840-1919. Oroville: Butte County Board of Education.

Martin, Thomas, and Jack Meyer 2005 Archaeological Data Recovery at the Napa Creek Site (CA-NAP-916), State Route 29, Napa, California. Anthropological Studies Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park California. Prepared for and on file at California Department of Transportation, District 4, Oakland.

Meighan, Clement W. 1978 California. In Chronologies in New World Archaeology. R. E. Taylor and Clement W. Meighan, eds. Pp. 223-240. New York: Academic Press.

Merriam, C. Hart 1967 Ethnographic Notes on California Indian Tribes, III: Ethnographic Notes on Central California Indian Tribes. Robert Heizer, ed. University of California Archaeological Survey Reports 68, Part III. Berkeley: University of California.

Meltzer, David J. 1979 Paradigms and the Nature of Change in American Archaeology. American Antiquity 44(4):644-657.

Meredith, H. C. 1900 Archaeology of California: Central and Northern California. In Prehistoric Implements. W. K. Moorehead, ed. Sec. IX, pp. 258-295. Cincinnati: R. Clarke Company.

Meyer, Jack, and Jeffrey S. Rosenthal 1997 Archaeological and Geoarchaeological Investigations at Eight Prehistoric Sites in the Los Vaqueros Reservoir Area, Contra Costa County. In Los Vaqueros Project Final Report, prepared by the Anthropological Studies Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, California. Submitted to the Contra Costa Water District, Concord. Report on file, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, California. 2008 A Geochemical Overview and Assessment of Caltrans District 3: Cultural Resources Inventory of Caltrans District 3 Rural Conventional Highways. Far Western Research Group, Davis. Copy of report in possession of the author.

162

Moratto, Michael J. 1984 The Archaeology of California. Orlando: Academic Press. 2002 Culture History of the New Melones Reservoir Area, Calaveras and Tuolumne Counties, California. In Essays in California Archaeology: A Memorial to Franklin Fenega. W. J. Wallace and F. A. Riddell, eds. Pp. 25-54. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility No. 60. Berkeley: University of California. 2004 Looking Back: Advances in California Archaeology Since 1984. Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology 17:3-10.

Moratto, Michael J., J. D. Tordoff, and L. H. Shoup 1988 Cultural Change in the Central Sierra Nevada, 8000 B.C. – A.D. 1980. Final Report of the New Melones Archaeological Project 9, pp. 1-626. INFOTEC Research, Sonora, California. Submitted to the USDI Park Service, Washington, DC.

Nelson, James S. 1997 Interpersonal Violence in Prehistoric Northern California: A Bioarchaeological Approach. Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, California State University, Chico.

Olmstead, F. H., and G. H. Davis 1961 Geologic Features and Ground-Water Storage Capacity of the Sacramento Valley, California. U. S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1497. Washington DC: U. S. Government Printing Office.

Olsen, William H., and Francis A. Riddell 1963 The Archaeology of the Western Pacific Railroad Relocation. State Division of Beaches and Parks Archaeological Report No. 7. Sacramento: State Division of Beaches and Parks. 1967 Field Notes and Tables on the Excavations of But-90, But-131, But-157, and But-182. Manuscript on file with the Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento.

Onken, Jill 1991 The Effect of Microenvironmental Temperature Variation on the Hydration of Late Holocene Mono Craters Volcanic Ashes from East-Central California. Master’s Thesis, Department of Geosciences, University of Arizona, Tucson.

Origer, Thomas M. 1982 Temporal Control in the Southern North Coast Ranges of California: The Application of Obsidian Hydration Analysis. Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, San Francisco State University.

163

1987 Temporal Control in the Southern North Coast Ranges of California: The Application of Obsidian Hydration Analysis. Papers in Northern California Anthropology 1. Berkeley: Northern California Archaeological Group.

Origer, Thomas M., and Brian P. Wickstrom 1982 The Use of Hydration Measurements to Date Obsidian Materials from Sonoma County, California. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 4(1):123-131.

Powell, Shirley, and Francis E. Smiley, eds. 2002 Prehistoric Culture Change on the Colorado Plateau: Ten Thousand Years on Black Mesa. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

Powers, Stephen 1976 Tribes of California. Berkeley: University of California.

Pritchard, William E., Dorothy M. Hill, Sonia R. Purcell, and Roy Purcell 1966 The Porter Rock Shelter Site (But-s177), Butte County, California. Archaeological Survey Annual Report 8:287-315.

Raab, L. Mark 2000 Remodeling California Prehistory: Notes on the Changing Roles of Ethnohistory in Archaeology. Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology 13:11-26.

Ramenofsky, Ann F. 1998 The Illusion of Time. In Unit Issues in Archaeology: Measuring Time, Space, and Material. Ann F. Ramenofsky and Anastasia Steffen, eds. Pp. 74-84. Salt Lake City: The University of Utah Press.

Riddell, Francis A. 1978 Maidu and Konkow. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8: California. Robert Heizer, ed. Pp. 370-386. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution.

Riddell, Francis A., and William H. Olsen 1963 Butte County Prehistory. Butte County Historical Society Diggin’s 7(2):2-17.

Ridings, Rosanna 1996 Where in the World Does Obsidian Hydration Work? American Antiquity 61:136-148.

Ritter, Eric W. 1968 Culture History of the “Tie Wiah” (4-But-84), Oroville Locality, California. Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis.

164

1970 Northern Sierra Foothill Archaeology: Culture History and Culture Process. Papers on California and Great Basin Prehistory 2:173-184. Davis: University of California.

Rosenthal, Jeffrey S., Paul Brandy, Kimberly Carpenter, William Hildebrandt, Deborah Jones, Jerome King, Kelly R. McGuire, Jack Meyer, Patricia Mikkelsen, and Eric Wohlgemuth 2011 A New Frame of Reference: Prehistoric Cultural Chronology and Ecology in the North- Central Sierra Nevada. Center for Archaeological Research at Davis, Publication Number 16. Davis: University of California.

Rosenthal, Jeffrey S., and Kelly R. McGuire 2004 Middle Holocene Adaptations in the Central Sierra Nevada Foothills: Data Recovery Excavations at the Black Creek Site, CA-CAL-789. Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc., Davis. Submitted to California Department of Transportation, District 6, Fresno. On file, Central California Information Center, California State University, Stanislaus.

Rosenthal, Jeffery S., and Jack Meyer 2009 Cultural Resources Survey and Geoarchaeological Investigation of the Hamilton City Flood Damage Reduction and Ecological Restoration Area, Glenn County, California. Far Western Research Group, Davis. Copy of report in possession of the author.

Rosenthal, Jeffrey S., Gregory G. White, and Mark Q. Sutton 2007 The Central Valley: A View from the Catbird’s Seat. In California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity. Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, eds. Pp. 147-163. Lanham: Alta Mira Press.

Schenck, W. Egbert, and Elmer J. Dawson 1929 Archaeology of the Northern San Joaquin Valley, California. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 25:289-413. Berkeley: University of California.

Schoenherr, Alan A. 1992 A Natural History of California. Berkeley: University of California.

Sebastian, Lynne 2009 The Future of CRM Archaeology. In Archaeology and Cultural Resources Management: Visions for the Future. Lynne Sebastian and William D. Lipe, eds. Pp. 3-18. Santa Fe: School for Advanced Research Press.

165

Stross, Fred H., Thomas R. Hester, and Robert N. Jack 1976 Chemical and Archaeological Studies of Mesoamerican Obsidians. In Advances in Obsidian Glass Studies: Archaeological and Geochemical Perspectives. R. E. Taylor, ed. Pp. 240-258. Park Ridge: Noyes Press.

Stuiver, Minze, and Paula J. Reimer 1993 Extended 14C Data Base and Revised CALIB 3.0 14C Age Calibration Program. Radiocarbon 35(1):215-230.

Taylor, Royal E. 1987 Radiocarbon Dating: An Archaeological Perspective. Orlando: Academic Press. 1997 Radiocarbon Dating. In Chronometric Dating in Archaeology. R. E. Taylor and Martin J. Aitken, eds. Pp. 65-96. New York: Plenum Press. 2000 The Contribution of Radiocarbon Dating to New World Archaeology. Radiocarbon 42(1):1-21.

Thompson, Kenneth 1961 Riparian Forests of the Sacramento Valley, California. Annals of the Association of Geographers 51:294-315.

Tregaza, Adan E. 1953 The Archaeological Resources of Seven Reservoir Areas in Central and Northern California. Report to the National Park Service, San Francisco.

Trigger, Bruce G. 1980 Archaeology and the Image of the Native American. American Antiquity 45(4):662- 676. 2006 A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Valente, Nancy 1998 Resource Intensification and Foraging Efficiency at the Patrick Site (CA- BUT-1). Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, California State University, Chico.

Voegelin, Erminie W. 1942 Culture Element Distributions: XX - Northeast California. University of California Anthropological Records 7(2):47-252.

Welden, Bruce 1990 The Physical Being and Lifeways of the Indians of the Llano Seco Site, CA- BUT-233, Butte County, California. Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, California State University, Chico.

166

West, G. James 1977 Late Holocene Vegetation History of the Sac-San Joaquin Delta, California. Report presented by the California Department of Parks and Recreation for the Department of Water Resources, Interagency Agreement B-50173.

Whitaker, Adrian R. 2010 Archaeological Survey Report of 357 Acres for Beale Air Force Base Antenna Relocation Project. Davis: Far Western Anthropological Research Group.

White, Gregory G. 2003a Population Ecology of the Prehistoric Colusa Reach. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis. 2003b Cultural Resource Overview and Management Plan, Sacramento River Conservation Area, Tehama, Butte, Glenn, and Colusa Counties, California. California State University, Chico Archaeological Research Program Reports No. 50.

White, Gregory G., David A. Fredrickson, Lori D. Hager, Jack Meyer, Jeffrey Rosenthal, Michael R. Waters, G. James West, and Eric Wohlgemuth 2002 Cultural Diversity and Culture Change in the Prehistoric Clear Lake Basin: Final Report of the Anderson Valley Project. Center for Archaeological Research at Davis, Publication Number 13. Davis: University of California.

White, Gregory G., G. James West, and Jack Meyer 2005 Archaeological Overview and Assessment and Archaeological Research Design, Lassen National Park. Archaeological Research Program Reports Number 53. California State University, Chico.

Whittlesey, Stephanie M., Richard Ciolek-Torello, and Jeffrey H. Altschul 1997 Vanishing River, Landscapes and Lives of the Lower Verde Valley: The Lower Verde Archaeological Project. Tucson: Statistical Research Press.

Willey, Gordon R., and Philip Phillips 1958 Method and Theory in American Archaeology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Zancanella, John K. 1987 The Study of Projectile Points from the East Central Sacramento Valley, California. Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, California State University, Chico.

Zimmer, Paul D. 2013 Conflicting Chronometric Data from Three Prehistoric Sites in Contra Costa County, California. SCA Proceedings 27:273-280.

APPENDIX A

CA-BUT-1 Obsidian Sourcing Sample List

Sample Excavation Feature Sample Description Depth Weight Obsidian Number Unit Associated from (grams) Source (Y/N)? Surface BUT-1-1H Area 1, No Obsidian Debitage 76 to 0.46 g GF/LIW (Artifact Unit 1 Flake from above 106 cm (MLH) 495-647) Houses 21, 47 BUT-1-2H Area 1, No Obsidian Debitage 91 to 0.90 g Tuscan (Artifact Unit 1 Flake from above 106 cm 495-722) Houses 21, 47 BUT-1-3H Area 1, Yes House 21 Obsidian 106 to 1.06 g Tuscan (Artifact Unit 1 Debitage Sample 122 cm 495-895) (one flake from floor) BUT-1-4H Area 1, Yes House 47 Obsidian 122 to 1.35 g Tuscan (Artifact Unit 1 Debitage Sample 137 cm 495-1075) (one flake from floor) BUT-1-5H Area 1, No Obsidian Debitage 152 to 1.61 g Tuscan (Artifact Unit 1 Flake from below 167 cm 495-1511) House 47 Floor BUT-1-6H Area 1, No Obsidian Gunther 183 to 0.43 g Borax (Artifact Unit 1 Projectile Point 198 cm Lake 495-1589) Fragment (proximal end) from below House 47 Floor BUT-1-7H Area 2, No Obsidian Debitage 91 to 0.17 g Borax (Artifact Unit 2 Flake from outside 106 cm Lake 495-1067) Houses 41 and 46 BUT-1-8H Area 2, Yes House 41 Obsidian 106 to 0.75 g Tuscan (Artifact Unit 3 Debitage Sample 122 cm 495-1783) (one flake from floor)

BUT-1-9H Area 2, Yes House 46 Obsidian 122 to 0.77 g GF/LIW (Artifact Unit 4 Biface Margin (early 137 cm (MLH) 495-1764) stage; from floor) BUT-1-10H Area 2, No Obsidian Edge- 137 to 0.66 g Tuscan (Artifact Unit 1 modified Flake from 152 cm 495-1202) outside Houses 41, 46 BUT-1-11H Area 2, No Obsidian Debitage 152 to 0.43 g Tuscan (Artifact Unit 4 Flake from below 167 cm 495-1992) House 46 BUT-1-12H Area 2, No Obsidian Debitage 152 to 0.29 g Tuscan (Artifact Unit 4 Flake from below 167 cm 495-1922) House 46

168 169

CA-BUT-1 Obsidian Sourcing Sample List (continued)

Sample Excavation Feature Sample Description Depth Weight Obsidian Number Unit Associated from (grams) Source (Y/N)? Surface BUT-1-12H Area 2, No Obsidian Debitage 152 to 0.29 g Tuscan (Artifact Unit 4 Flake from below 167 cm 495-1922) House 46 BUT-1-13H Area 2, No Obsidian Desert Side- 167 to 0.83 g Tuscan (Artifact Unit 1 Notched Projectile 183 cm 495-2079) Point Fragment (missing distal end) from below House 46 BUT-1-14H Area 3, No Obsidian Debitage 61 to 0.14 g Napa (Artifact S29/W7 Flake from above 76 cm Valley 495-295) House 48 BUT-1-15H Area 3, No Obsidian Debitage 76 to 0.22 g Tuscan (Artifact Unit 3 Flake from north of 91 cm 495-1506) House 49 BUT-1-16H Area 3, Yes Obsidian Debitage 91 to 0.38 g Napa (Artifact Unit 2 Sample from House 48 106 cm Valley 495-1540) (one flake from floor) BUT-1-17H Area 3, No Obsidian Debitage 91 to 0.27 g Borax (Artifact Unit 1 Flake from outside 106 cm Lake 495-582) House 48 BUT-1-18H Area 3, Yes Obsidian Debitage 91 to 0.96 g Tuscan (Artifact Unit 5 Sample from House 48 106 cm 495-1770) (one flake from floor) BUT-1-19H Area 4, Yes Obsidian Debitage 61 to 0.28 g Kelly (Artifact Unit 2E Sample from House 45 76 cm Mountain 495-925) (one flake from floor) BUT-1-20H Area 4, Yes Obsidian Projectile 61 to 5.63 g Tuscan (Artifact Unit 1 Point (complete, large 76 cm 495-778) corner-notched probable dart with evidence of reworking) from House 45 floor BUT-1-21H Area 4, Yes Obsidian Debitage 91 to 0.44 g Borax (Artifact N27/E28 Sample from House 1 106 cm Lake 491-2777) (one flake from floor) BUT-1-22H Area 4, No Obsidian Debitage 91 to 0.29 g Tuscan (Artifact N28/E39 Flake from above 106 cm 491-2223) House 2

BUT-1-23H Area 4, No Obsidian Debitage 91 to 1.09 g GF/LIW (Artifact N27/E38 Flake from above 106 cm (MLH) 491-3649) House 2

170

CA-BUT-1 Obsidian Sourcing Sample List (continued)

Sample Excavation Feature Sample Description Depth Weight Obsidian Number Unit Associated from (grams) Source (Y/N)? Surface BUT-1-24H Area 4, Yes Obsidian Debitage 106 to 0.43 g Borax (Artifact N27/E38 Sample from House 2 122 cm Lake 491-3628) (one flake from floor) BUT-1-25H Area 4, Yes Obsidian Debitage 106 to 1.04 g Tuscan (Artifact N28/E38 Sample from House 2 122 cm 491-768) (one flake from floor) BUT-1-26H Area 5, No Obsidian Edge- 46 to 0.65 g Tuscan (Artifact Unit 2 modified Flake from 61 cm 495-435) above House 44 BUT-1-27H Area 5, No Obsidian Debitage 61 to 0.41 g Tuscan (Artifact N4/E10 Flake from above 76 cm 495-241) House 44 BUT-1-28H Area 5, No Obsidian Debitage 61 to 0.24 g Tuscan (Artifact Unit 3 Flake from above 76 cm 495-1006) House 44 BUT-1-29H Area 5, Yes Obsidian Debitage 76 to 0.14 g GF/LIW (Artifact Unit 2 Sample from House 44 91 cm (MLH) 495-1947) (one flake from floor) BUT-1-30H Area 5, Yes Obsidian Debitage 76 to 0.67 g Kelly (Artifact Unit 4 Sample from House 44 91 cm Mountain 495-2004) (one flake from floor)

171

CA-BUT-7 Obsidian Sourcing Sample List

Sample Excavation Feature Sample Description Depth Weight Obsidian Number Unit Associated from (grams) Source (Y/N)? Surface BUT-7-1H Locus A Yes House 1 Obsidian 213 to 0.05 g Borax (Artifact (N12/W49) Debitage Sample (one 228 cm Lake 40-1235) flake from floor) BUT-7-2H Locus A Yes House 1 Obsidian 183 to 0.26 g Tuscan (Artifact (N10/W49) Debitage Sample (one 198 cm 40-2177) flake from floor) BUT-7-3H Locus A Yes House 1 Obsidian 228 to 0.07 g Tuscan (Artifact (N10/W50) Debitage Sample (one 243 cm 40-2152) flake from floor) BUT-7-4H Locus A Yes House 2 Obsidian 228 to 0.23 g Tuscan (Artifact (N11/W59) Debitage Sample 243 cm 40-2233) (one flake from floor) BUT-7-5H Locus A Yes House 2 Obsidian 198 to 0.17 g Kelly (Artifact (N13/W60) Debitage Sample 213 cm Mountain 40-1849) (one flake from floor) BUT-7-6H Locus A Yes Obsidian Projectile Point 213 to 0.52 g GF/LIW (Artifact (N13/W59) Base Fragment (corner 228 cm (MLH) 40-414) notched, probable dart) from House 2 Floor BUT-7-7H Locus A Yes Obsidian Biface (mid- 228 to 2.05 g Tuscan (Artifact (N10/W42) stage distal end fragment) 243 cm 40-582) from House 3 Floor BUT-7-8H Locus A Yes Obsidian Projectile Point 213 to 1.21 g Tuscan (Artifact (N11/W42) (side-notched, arrow- 228 cm 40-591) sized) from House 3 Floor BUT-7-9H Locus A Yes House 3 Obsidian 259 to 0.14 g GF/LIW (Artifact (N10/W42) Debitage Sample 274 cm (MLH) 40-1541) (one flake from floor) BUT-7-10H Locus B No Obsidian Debitage from 320 to 0.20 g GF/LIW (Artifact (N14/W1) Non-feature Area in 335 cm (MLH) 41-140) Locus B BUT-7-11H Locus B No Obsidian Debitage from 243 to 0.22 g Kelly (Artifact (N9/W11) Non-feature Area in 259 cm Mountain 41-163) Locus B BUT-7-12H Locus B No Obsidian Gunther 228 to 0.27 g Tuscan (Artifact (N9/W1) Projectile Point 243 cm 41-73) (complete) from Non- feature area in Locus B BUT-7-13H Locus B No Obsidian Projectile Point 167 to 1.35 g Kelly (Artifact (S1/W2) (complete, one side-notch, 183 cm Mountain 41-69) arrow-sized) from Non- feature area in Locus B BUT-7-14H Locus B No Obsidian Gunther 183 to 0.95 g Tuscan (Artifact (N9/W11) Projectile Point Fragment 198 cm 41-84) (proximal end) from Non- feature area in Locus B

172

CA-BUT-7 Obsidian Sourcing Sample List (continued)

Sample Excavation Feature Sample Description Depth Weight Obsidian Number Unit Associated from (grams) Source (Y/N)? Surface BUT-7-15H Locus B No Obsidian Debitage from 228 to 0.14 g GF/LIW (Artifact (N9/W1) Non-feature Area in 243 cm (MLH) 41-114) Locus B BUT-7-16H Locus B No Obsidian Debitage from 213 to 0.13 g Tuscan (Artifact (N9/W11) Non-feature Area in 228 cm 41-147) Locus B BUT-7-17H Locus B No Obsidian Debitage from 228 to 0.09 g Tuscan (Artifact (N9/W11) Non-feature Area in 243 cm 41-152) Locus B BUT-7-18H Locus C Yes Obsidian Gunther 122 to 0.46 g Tuscan (Artifact (S1/E41) Projectile Point Fragment 137 cm 42-1218) (distal end) from Probable Housefloor w/ “Acorn Cache Pit” BUT-7-19H Locus C No Edge-modified flake from 91 to 0.57 g Tuscan (Artifact (N1/E41) above Probable 106 cm 42-405) Housefloor w/ “Acorn Cache Pit” BUT-7-20H Locus C No Obsidian Gunther 198 to 0.45 g Tuscan (Artifact (N1/E44) Projectile Point 213 cm 42-850) (complete) from below Probable Housefloor w/ “Acorn Cache Pit” BUT-7-21H Locus C Yes Obsidian Debitage from 106 to 0.28 g Tuscan (Artifact (N3/E27) Probable Housefloor, 121 cm 42-691) “Feature 1” BUT-7-22H Locus C No Obsidian Gunther 244 to 0.41 g Tuscan (Artifact (N4/E28) Projectile Point Fragment 259 cm 42-128) (one tang missing) from Probable Housefloor, “Feature 1” BUT-7-23H Locus C Yes Obsidian Desert Side- 106 to 0.28 g Tuscan (Artifact (N4/E29) Notched Projectile Point 121 cm 42-701) Fragment (proximal end) from Probable Housefloor, “Feature 1” BUT-7-24H Locus C Yes Obsidian Debitage Flake 122 to 0.21 g Tuscan (Artifact (N10/E41) from “Probable 137 cm 42-948) Housefloor” BUT-7-25H Locus C No Obsidian Desert Side- 152 to 0.54 g GF/LIW (Artifact (N8/E41) Notched Projectile Point 167 cm (MLH) 42-262) (complete) from below “Probable Housefloor” BUT-7-26H Locus C No Obsidian Projectile Point 213 to 3.36 g Kelly (Artifact (N7/E41) Fragment (proximal end 228 cm Mountain 42-1209) of large corner-notched dart) from below “Probable Housefloor”

173

CA-BUT-7 Obsidian Sourcing Sample List

Sample Excavation Feature Sample Description Depth Weight Obsidian Number Unit Associated from (grams) Source (Y/N)? Surface BUT-7-27H Locus D No Obsidian Debitage from 167 to 0.62 g Tuscan (Artifact (S46/E37) Non-feature Area in 183 cm 43-442) Locus D BUT-7-28H Locus D No Edge-modified flake from 76 to 0.69 g GF/LIW (Artifact (S44/E37) Non-feature Area in 91 cm (MLH) 43-231) Locus D BUT-7-29H Locus D No Edge-modified flake from 61 to 1.34 g Tuscan (Artifact (S44/E37) Non-feature Area in 76 cm 43-255) Locus D BUT-7-30H Locus D No Obsidian Gunther 46 to 0.85 g Tuscan (Artifact (S44/E36) Projectile Point 61 cm 43-142) (complete) from Non- feature Area in Locus D BUT-7-31H Locus D No Obsidian Debitage from 46 to 0.41 g Tuscan (Artifact (S49/E37) Non-feature Area in 61 cm 43-299) Locus D BUT-7-32H Locus D No Obsidian Projectile Point 30 to 0.57 g Tuscan (Artifact (S42/E37) Fragment (probable 46 cm 43-113) Gunther, part of base missing) from Non- feature Area in Locus D BUT-7-33H Locus D No Obsidian Biface Fragment 30 to 0.07 g Tuscan (Artifact (S48/E40) (late stage, distal end) 46 cm 43-352) from Non-feature Area in Locus D BUT-7-34H Locus D No Obsidian Gunther 15 to 1.08 g Tuscan (Artifact (S38/E37) Projectile Point Fragment 30 cm 43-173) (distal end) from Non- feature Area in Locus D BUT-7-35H Locus E No Obsidian Debitage from 167 to 0.41 g Sugar Hill (Artifact (N20/E32) Non-feature Area in 183 cm 44-139) Locus E BUT-7-36H Locus E No Obsidian Debitage from 152 to 0.23 g Tuscan (Artifact (N19/E29) Non-feature Area in 167 cm 44-116) Locus E BUT-7-37H Locus E No Obsidian Debitage from 152 to 0.22 g GF/LIW (Artifact (N20/E3) Non-feature Area in 167 cm (MLH) 44-70) Locus E BUT-7-38H Locus E No Obsidian Biface Fragment 137 to 1.72 g GF/LIW (Artifact (N18/E30) (early stage margin) from 152 cm (MLH) 44-7) Non-feature Area in Locus E BUT-7-39H Locus E No Obsidian Debitage from 137 to 1.66 g GF/LIW (Artifact (N20/E31) Non-feature Area in 152 cm (MLH) 44-29) Locus E

174

CA-BUT-7 Obsidian Sourcing Sample List

Sample Excavation Feature Sample Description Depth Weight Obsidian Number Unit Associated from (grams) Source (Y/N)? Surface BUT-7-40H Locus E No Obsidian Debitage from 137 to 0.21 g Kelly (Artifact (N18/E29) Non-feature Area in 152 cm Mountain 44-61) Locus E

175

CA-BUT-12 Obsidian Sourcing Sample List

Sample Excavation Feature Sample Description Depth from Weight Obsidian Number Unit Associated Surface (grams) Source (Y/N)? BUT-12-1H N230/W230 No Edge-modified Flake 30 to 2.42 g Tuscan (Artifact from above Feature 1 46 cm 4-98) (Housefloor; 1963-1964) BUT-12-2H N220/W215 No Obsidian Debitage from 76 to 3.27 g Tuscan (Artifact below Feature 1 91 cm 4-227) (Housefloor; 1963-1964) BUT-12-3H N220/W220 No Edge-modified Flake 30 to 1.01 g Tuscan (Artifact from above Feature 3 46 cm 4-56) (Housefloor; 1963-1964) BUT-12-4H N215/W220 No Obsidian Debitage from 15 to 0.48 g Tuscan (Artifact Non-feature Area Midden 30 cm 4-48) (1963-1964) BUT-12-5H N215/W215 No Obsidian Debitage from 46 to 1.16 g Tuscan (Artifact above Feature 2 (1963- 61 cm 4-234) 1964) BUT-12-6H N175/W225 No Obsidian Desert Side- 106 to 0.38 g Tuscan (Artifact Notched Projectile Point 122 cm 4-312-91) (complete) from Non- feature area (1963-1964) BUT-12-7H S8/W7 Yes Obsidian Debitage from 20 to 0.08 g Tuscan (Artifact Feature 1 (Ash Lense; 30 cm 4-1943) 1983-1984) BUT-12-8H S8/W7 Yes Obsidian Debitage from 20 to 1.20 g Tuscan (Artifact Feature 1 (Ash Lense; 30 cm 4-1971) 1983-1984) BUT-12-9H S8/W7 No Obsidian Debitage from 30 to 0.48 g Tuscan (Artifact below Feature 1 (Ash 40 cm 4-1986) Lense; 1983-1984) BUT-12-10H S8/W7 Yes Obsidian Biface 50 to 0.95 g Tuscan (Artifact Fragment (middle stage 60 cm 4-2123) end) from Feature 3 (1983-1984) BUT-12-11H S8/W7 Yes Obsidian Debitage from 50 to 0.77 g Tuscan (Artifact Feature 3 (Housefloor; 60 cm 4-2125) 1983-1984) BUT-12-12H S8/W7 No Obsidian Debitage from 60 to 2.94 g Tuscan (Artifact Below Feature 3 and 70 cm 4-2171) Above Feature 5 BUT-12-13H S10/W8 Yes Obsidian Debitage from 60 to 0.59 g Tuscan (Artifact Feature 4 Housefloor 70 cm 4-1025) (1983-1984) BUT-12-14H S10/W8 Yes Projectile Point 60 to 0.39 g Borax (Artifact Midsection (probable 70 cm Lake 4-1044) Gunther missing stem, tip) from Feature 4 Housefloor

176

CA-BUT-12 Obsidian Sourcing Sample List (continued)

Sample Excavation Feature Sample Description Depth from Weight Obsidian Number Unit Associated Surface (grams) Source (Y/N)? BUT-12-15H S10/W8 No Edge-modified Flake 85 to 0.31 g Tuscan (Artifact from below Feature 4 90 cm 4-1209) Housefloor BUT-12-16H S8/W7 Yes Obsidian Debitage from 70 to 0.28 g Tuscan (Artifact Feature 5 Hearth (1983- 80 cm 4-2180) 1984) BUT-12-17H S8/W7 No Obsidian Debitage from 80 to 0.85 g Tuscan (Artifact below Feature 5 Hearth 90 cm 4-2202) (1983-1984) BUT-12-18H S8/W7 No Obsidian Debitage from 90 to 0.75 g Tuscan (Artifact below Feature 5 100 cm 4-2273) (1983-1984) BUT-12-19H S10/W8 Yes Obsidian Debitage from 100 to 110cm 2.25 g Tuscan (Artifact Feature 6 4-1434) (1983-1984) BUT-12-20H S10/W8 Yes Obsidian Gunther 100 to 0.69 g Tuscan (Artifact Projectile Point 110 cm 4-1423) (complete) from Feature 6 (1983-1984) BUT-12-21H S10/W8 No Debitage Flake from 110 to 0.40 g Tuscan (Artifact Below Feature 6 120 cm 4-1453) (1983-1984) BUT-12-22H S10/W8 No Debitage Flake from 130 to 0.42 g Tuscan (Artifact Non-feature Midden Area 140 cm 4-1624) BUT-12-23H S10/W8 No Debitage Flake from 150 to 0.08 g Tuscan (Artifact Non-feature Midden Area 160 cm 4-1512) BUT-12-24H S10/W8 No Debitage Flake from 160 to 0.06 g Tuscan (Artifact Non-feature Midden Area 170 cm 4-1531) BUT-12-25H S10/W8 No Projectile Point Fragment 180 to 0.77 g Tuscan (Artifact (split stem, corner- 190 cm 4-1555) notched, probable arrow missing one tang) from Non-feature Midden Area BUT-12-26H S8/W7 No Debitage Flake from 190 to 0.21 g Tuscan (Artifact Non-feature Midden Area 200 cm 4-2443) BUT-12-27H S8/W7 No Debitage Flake from 150 to 0.66 g Tuscan (Artifact Non-feature Midden Area 160 cm 4-2416) BUT-12-28H S8/W7 No Debitage Flake from 220 to 0.51 g Napa (Artifact Non-feature Midden Area 230 cm Valley 4-1666)

177

CA-BUT-12 Obsidian Sourcing Sample List (continued)

Sample Excavation Feature Sample Description Depth from Weight Obsidian Number Unit Associated Surface (grams) Source (Y/N)? BUT-12-29H S8/W7 No Debitage Flake from 220 to 1.04 g Tuscan (Artifact Non-feature Midden Area 230 cm 4-1656) BUT-12-30H S8/W7 No Projectile Point Fragment 220 to 0.63 g GF/LIW (Artifact (corner-notched probable 230 cm (MLH) 4-1665) arrow missing part of base) from Non-feature Midden Area

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

202

203

APPENDIX B

CA-BUT-1 Obsidian Hydration Sample List

Sample Excavation Feature Sample Description Depth Mean Hydration Approx. Number Unit Assoc. from Measurement Age (Y/N)? Surface (Microns) (Years BP) Based on Source BUT-1-1H Area 1, No Obsidian Debitage 76 to 1.1 ca. 895 (Artifact Unit 1 Flake from above 106 cm (Tuscan) 495-647) Houses 21, 47 BUT-1-2H Area 1, No Obsidian Debitage 91 to 1.2 ca. 895 (Artifact Unit 1 Flake from above 106 cm (Tuscan) 495-722) Houses 21, 47 BUT-1-3H Area 1, Yes House 21 Obsidian 106 to 1.2 ca. 895 (Artifact Unit 1 Debitage Sample 122 cm (Tuscan) 495-895) (one flake from floor) BUT-1-4H Area 1, Yes House 47 Obsidian 122 to 1.1 ca. 895 (Artifact Unit 1 Debitage Sample 137 cm (Tuscan) 495-1075) (one flake from floor) BUT-1-5H Area 1, No Obsidian Debitage 152 to 1.2 ca. 895 (Artifact Unit 1 Flake from below 167 cm (Tuscan) 495-1511) House 47 Floor BUT-1-6H Area 1, No Obsidian Gunther 183 to 2.3 ca. 300-400 (Artifact Unit 1 Projectile Point 198 cm (Borax 495-1589) Fragment (proximal Lake) end) from below House 47 Floor BUT-1-7H Area 2, No Obsidian Debitage 91 to 2.4 ca. 300-400 (Artifact Unit 2 Flake from outside 106 cm (Borax 495-1067) Houses 41 and 46 Lake) BUT-1-8H Area 2, Yes House 41 Obsidian 106 to 1.2 ca. 895 (Artifact Unit 3 Debitage Sample 122 cm (Tuscan) 495-1783) (one flake from floor)

BUT-1-9H Area 2, Yes House 46 Obsidian 122 to 2.3 ca. 895 (Artifact Unit 4 Biface Margin (early 137 cm (GF/LIW) 495-1764) stage; from floor) BUT-1-10H Area 2, No Obsidian Edge- 137 to 2.0 ca. 1710 (Artifact Unit 1 modified Flake from 152 cm (Tuscan) 495-1202) outside Houses 41, 46 BUT-1-11H Area 2, No Obsidian Debitage 152 to Diffuse Hydration N/A (Artifact Unit 4 Flake from below 167 cm (Tuscan) 495-1992) House 46 BUT-1-12H Area 2, No Obsidian Debitage 152 to 1.1 ca. 895 (Artifact Unit 4 Flake from below 167 cm (Tuscan) 495-1922) House 46

205 206

CA-BUT-1 Obsidian Hydration Sample List (continued)

Sample Excavation Feature Sample Description Depth Mean Hydration Approx. Number Unit Assoc. from Measurement Age (Y/N)? Surface (Microns) (Years BP) Based on Source BUT-1-13H Area 2, No Obsidian Desert Side- 167 to 1.3 ca. 1090 (Artifact Unit 1 Notched Projectile 183 cm (Tuscan) 495-2079) Point Fragment (missing distal end) from below House 46 BUT-1-14H Area 3, No Obsidian Debitage 61 to 1.4 ca. 301 (Artifact S29/W7 Flake from above 76 cm (Napa 495-295) House 48 Valley) BUT-1-15H Area 3, No Obsidian Debitage 76 to 1.6 ca. 1280 (Artifact Unit 3 Flake from north of 91 cm (Tuscan) 495-1506) House 49 BUT-1-16H Area 3, Yes Obsidian Debitage 91 to 1.7 ca. 301-614 (Artifact Unit 2 Sample from House 106 cm (Napa 495-1540) 48 (one flake from Valley) floor) BUT-1-17H Area 3, No Obsidian Debitage 91 to 2.0 ca. 250 (Artifact Unit 1 Flake from outside 106 cm (Borax 495-582) House 48 Lake) BUT-1-18H Area 3, Yes Obsidian Debitage 91 to 1.3 ca. 1090 (Artifact Unit 5 Sample from House 106 cm (Tuscan) 495-1770) 48 (one flake from floor) BUT-1-19H Area 4, Yes Obsidian Debitage 61 to 4.4 ca. 3410 (Artifact Unit 2E Sample from House 76 cm (Kelly 495-925) 45 (one flake from Mountain) floor) BUT-1-20H Area 4, Yes Obsidian Projectile 61 to 1.3 ca. 1090 (Artifact Unit 1 Point (complete, large 76 cm (Tuscan) 495-778) corner-notched probable dart with evidence of reworking) from House 45 floor BUT-1-21H Area 4, Yes Obsidian Debitage 91 to 1.5 ca. 200 (Artifact N27/E28 Sample from House 1 106 cm (Borax 491-2777) (one flake from floor) Lake) BUT-1-22H Area 4, No Obsidian Debitage 91 to No Visible N/A (Artifact N28/E39 Flake from above 106 cm Band (Tuscan) 491-2223) House 2

207

CA-BUT-1 Obsidian Hydration Sample List (continued)

Sample Excavation Feature Sample Description Depth Mean Hydration Approx. Number Unit Assoc. from Measurement Age (Y/N)? Surface (Microns) (Years BP) Based on Source BUT-1-23H Area 4, No Obsidian Debitage 91 to 1.4 ca. 565 (Artifact N27/E38 Flake from above 106 cm 4.3 ca. 2710 491-3649) House 2 (two separate (GF/LIW) measurements) BUT-1-24H Area 4, Yes Obsidian Debitage 106 to 1.3 ca. 150 (Artifact N27/E38 Sample from House 2 122 cm (Borax 491-3628) (one flake from floor) Lake) BUT-1-25H Area 4, Yes Obsidian Debitage 106 to 1.5 ca. 1280 (Artifact N28/E38 Sample from House 2 122 cm (Tuscan) 491-768) (one flake from floor) BUT-1-26H Area 5, No Obsidian Edge- 46 to 1.1 ca. 895 (Artifact Unit 2 modified Flake from 61 cm (Tuscan) 495-435) above House 44 BUT-1-27H Area 5, No Obsidian Debitage 61 to 2.3 ca. 2190 (Artifact N4/E10 Flake from above 76 cm (Tuscan) 495-241) House 44 BUT-1-28H Area 5, No Obsidian Debitage 61 to 1.5 ca. 1280 (Artifact Unit 3 Flake from above 76 cm (Tuscan) 495-1006) House 44 BUT-1-29H Area 5, Yes Obsidian Debitage 76 to 4.2 ca. 2710 (Artifact Unit 2 Sample from House 91 cm (GF/LIW) 495-1947) 44 (one flake from floor) BUT-1-30H Area 5, Yes Obsidian Debitage 76 to 2.0 ca. 850 (Artifact Unit 4 Sample from House 91 cm (Kelly 495-2004) 44 Mountain) (one flake from floor)

208

CA-BUT-7 Obsidian Hydration Sample List

Sample Excavation Feature Sample Description Depth Mean Approx. Number Unit Assoc. from Hydration Age (Y/N)? Surface Measurement (Years BP) (Microns) Based on Source BUT-7-1H Locus A Yes House 1 Obsidian 213 to 4.8 ca. 2000 (Artifact (N12/W49) Debitage Sample (one 228 cm (Borax 40-1235) flake from floor) Lake) BUT-7-2H Locus A Yes House 1 Obsidian 183 to 2.4 ca. 2710 (Artifact (N10/W49) Debitage Sample (one 198 cm (Tuscan) 40-2177) flake from floor) BUT-7-3H Locus A Yes House 1 Obsidian 228 to 1.8 ca. 1710 (Artifact (N10/W50) Debitage Sample (one 243 cm (Tuscan) 40-2152) flake from floor) BUT-7-4H Locus A Yes House 2 Obsidian 228 to 3.0 ca. 3275 (Artifact (N11/W59) Debitage Sample 243 cm (Tuscan) 40-2233) (one flake from floor) BUT-7-5H Locus A Yes House 2 Obsidian 198 to 4.7 ca. 3970 (Artifact (N13/W60) Debitage Sample 213 cm (Kelly 40-1849) (one flake from floor) Mountain) BUT-7-6H Locus A Yes Obsidian Projectile Point 213 to 6.5 5190 (Artifact (N13/W59) Base Fragment (corner 228 cm (GF/LIW) 40-414) notched, probable dart) from House 2 Floor BUT-7-7H Locus A Yes Obsidian Biface (mid- 228 to 3.5 ca. 3875- (Artifact (N10/W42) stage distal end fragment) 243 cm 4515 40-582) from House 3 Floor (Tuscan) BUT-7-8H Locus A Yes Obsidian Projectile Point 213 to Diffuse N/A (Artifact (N11/W42) (side-notched, arrow- 228 cm Hydration (Tuscan) 40-591) sized) from House 3 Floor BUT-7-9H Locus A Yes House 3 Obsidian 259 to 6.4 ca. 4515- (Artifact (N10/W42) Debitage Sample 274 cm 5190 40-1541) (one flake from floor) (GF/LIW) BUT-7-10H Locus B No Obsidian Debitage from 320 to 4.3 ca. 2710 (Artifact (N14/W1) Non-feature Area in 335 cm (GF/LIW) 41-140) Locus B BUT-7-11H Locus B No Obsidian Debitage from 243 to 3.9 ca. 2850 (Artifact (N9/W11) Non-feature Area in 259 cm (Kelly 41-163) Locus B Mountain) BUT-7-12H Locus B No Obsidian Gunther 228 to 2.5 ca. 2190- (Artifact (N9/W1) Projectile Point 243 cm 2710 41-73) (complete) from Non- (Tuscan) feature area, Locus B BUT-7-13H Locus B No Obsidian Projectile Point 167 to 6.0 ca. 5850 (Artifact (S1/W2) (complete, one side-notch, 183 cm (Kelly 41-69) arrow-sized) from Non- Mountain) feature area, Locus B

209

CA-BUT-7 Obsidian Hydration Sample List (continued)

Sample Excavation Feature Sample Description Depth Mean Approx. Number Unit Assoc. from Hydration Age (Y/N)? Surface Measurement (Years BP) (Microns) Based on Source BUT-7-14H Locus B No Obsidian Gunther 183 to No Visible N/A (Artifact (N9/W11) Projectile Point Fragment 198 cm Band (Tuscan) 41-84) (proximal end) from Non- feature area, Locus B BUT-7-15H Locus B No Obsidian Debitage from 228 to 4.2 ca. 2710 (Artifact (N9/W1) Non-feature Area in 243 cm (GF/LIW) 41-114) Locus B BUT-7-16H Locus B No Obsidian Debitage from 213 to 2.5 ca. 2190- (Artifact (N9/W11) Non-feature Area in 228 cm 2710 41-147) Locus B (Tuscan) BUT-7-17H Locus B No Obsidian Debitage from 228 to 2.8 ca. 2710- (Artifact (N9/W11) Non-feature Area in 243 cm 3275 41-152) Locus B (Tuscan) BUT-7-18H Locus C Yes Obsidian Gunther 122 to 1.8 ca. 1710 (Artifact (S1/E41) Projectile Point Fragment 137 cm (Tuscan) 42-1218) (distal end) from Probable Housefloor w/ “Acorn Cache Pit” BUT-7-19H Locus C No Edge-modified flake from 91 to 1.3 ca. 895- (Artifact (N1/E41) above Probable 106 cm 1280 42-405) Housefloor w/ “Acorn (Tuscan) Cache Pit” BUT-7-20H Locus C No Obsidian Gunther 198 to 3.1 ca. 3275 (Artifact (N1/E44) Projectile Point 213 cm (Tuscan) 42-850) (complete) from below Probable Housefloor w/ “Acorn Cache Pit” BUT-7-21H Locus C Yes Obsidian Debitage from 106 to 3.9 ca. 4515- (Artifact (N3/E27) Housefloor, “Feature 1” 121 cm 5190 42-691) BUT-7-22H Locus C No Obsidian Gunther 244 to 1.1 ca. 895 (Artifact (N4/E28) Projectile Point Fragment 259 cm (Tuscan) 42-128) from Housefloor, “Feature 1” BUT-7-23H Locus C Yes Obsidian Desert Side- 106 to 1.8 ca. 1280- (Artifact (N4/E29) Notched Projectile Point 121 cm 1710 42-701) Fragment (proximal end) (Tuscan) from Housefloor, “Feature 1” BUT-7-24H Locus C Yes Obsidian Debitage Flake 122 to Diffuse N/A (Artifact (N10/E41) from “Probable 137 cm Hydration (Tuscan) 42-948) Housefloor”

210

CA-BUT-7 Obsidian Hydration Sample List (continued)

Sample Excavation Feature Sample Description Depth Mean Approx. Number Unit Assoc. from Hydration Age (Y/N)? Surface Measurement (Years BP) (Microns) Based on Source BUT-7-25H Locus C No Obsidian Desert Side- 152 to 2.2 ca. 895 (Artifact (N8/E41) Notched Projectile Point 167 cm (GF/LIW) 42-262) (complete) from below “Housefloor” BUT-7-26H Locus C No Obsidian Projectile Point 213 to 7.7 ca. 9181 (Artifact (N7/E41) Fragment (proximal end 228 cm (Kelly 42-1209) of corner-notched dart) Mountain) from below “Housefloor” BUT-7-27H Locus D No Obsidian Debitage from 167 to 1.8 ca. 1710 (Artifact (S46/E37) Non-feature Area in 183 cm (Tuscan) 43-442) Locus D BUT-7-28H Locus D No Edge-modified flake from 76 to 2.5 ca. 1280 (Artifact (S44/E37) Non-feature Area in 91 cm (GF/LIW) 43-231) Locus D BUT-7-29H Locus D No Edge-modified flake from 61 to 2.7 ca. 2710 (Artifact (S44/E37) Non-feature Area in 76 cm (Tuscan) 43-255) Locus D BUT-7-30H Locus D No Obsidian Gunther 46 to 2.0 ca. 1710- (Artifact (S44/E36) Projectile Point 61 cm 2190 43-142) (complete) from Non- (Tuscan) feature Area in Locus D BUT-7-31H Locus D No Obsidian Debitage from 46 to 1.3 ca. 1090 (Artifact (S49/E37) Non-feature Area in 61 cm (Tuscan) 43-299) Locus D BUT-7-32H Locus D No Obsidian Projectile Point 30 to No Visible Band N/A (Artifact (S42/E37) Fragment (Gunther) from 46 cm (Tuscan) 43-113) Non-feature Area in Locus D BUT-7-33H Locus D No Obsidian Biface Fragment 30 to 1.5 ca. 1280 (Artifact (S48/E40) (late stage, distal end) 46 cm (Tuscan) 43-352) from Non-feature Area in Locus D BUT-7-34H Locus D No Obsidian Gunther 15 to 1.3 ca. 1090 (Artifact (S38/E37) Projectile Point Fragment 30 cm (Tuscan) 43-173) (distal end) from Non- feature Area in Locus D BUT-7-35H Locus E No Obsidian Debitage from 167 to 2.6 N/A (Artifact (N20/E32) Non-feature Area in 183 cm (Sugar 44-139) Locus E Hill) BUT-7-36H Locus E No Obsidian Debitage from 152 to 3.6 ca. 3875- (Artifact (N19/E29) Non-feature Area in 167 cm 4515 44-116) Locus E (Tuscan)

211

CA-BUT-7 Obsidian Hydration Sample List (continued)

Sample Excavation Feature Sample Description Depth Mean Approx. Number Unit Assoc. from Hydration Age (Y/N)? Surface Measurement (Years BP) (Microns) Based on Source BUT-7-37H Locus E No Obsidian Debitage from 152 to 2.8 ca. 1280 (Artifact (N20/E3) Non-feature Area in 167 cm (GF/LIW) 44-70) Locus E BUT-7-38H Locus E No Obsidian Biface Fragment 137 to 1.4 ca. 295-565 (Artifact (N18/E30) (early stage margin) from 152 cm (GF/LIW) 44-7) Non-feature Area in Locus E BUT-7-39H Locus E No Obsidian Debitage from 137 to 2.4 ca. 895- (Artifact (N20/E31) Non-feature Area in 152 cm 1280 44-29) Locus E (GF/LIW) BUT-7-40H Locus E No Obsidian Debitage from 137 to 2.0 ca. 850 (Artifact (N18/E29) Non-feature Area in 152 cm (Kelly 44-61) Locus E Mountain)

212

CA-BUT-12 Obsidian Hydration Sample List

Sample Excavation Feature Sample Description Depth Mean Approx. Number Unit Assoc. from Hydration Age (Y/N)? Surface Measurement (Years (Microns) BP) Based on Source BUT-12-1H N230/W230 No Edge-modified Flake 30 to 1.3 ca. 1090 (Artifact from above Feature 1 46 cm (Tuscan) 4-98) (Housefloor; 1963-1964) BUT-12-2H N220/W215 No Obsidian Debitage from 76 to 1.3 ca. 1090 (Artifact below Feature 1 91 cm (Tuscan) 4-227) (Housefloor; 1963-1964) BUT-12-3H N220/W220 No Edge-modified Flake 30 to 1.2 ca. 895 (Artifact from above Feature 3 46 cm (Tuscan) 4-56) (Housefloor; 1963-1964) BUT-12-4H N215/W220 No Obsidian Debitage from 15 to 1.2 ca. 895 (Artifact Non-feature Area 30 cm (Tuscan) 4-48) Midden (1963-1964) BUT-12-5H N215/W215 No Obsidian Debitage from 46 to 1.2 ca. 895 (Artifact above Feature 2 (1963- 61 cm (Tuscan) 4-234) 1964) BUT-12-6H N175/W225 No Obsidian Desert Side- 106 to 1.3 ca. 1090 (Artifact Notched Projectile Point 122 cm (Tuscan) 4-312-91) (complete) from Non- feature area (1963-1964) BUT-12-7H S8/W7 Yes Obsidian Debitage from 20 to 1.3 ca. 1090 (Artifact Feature 1 (Ash Lense; 30 cm (Tuscan) 4-1943) 1983-1984) BUT-12-8H S8/W7 Yes Obsidian Debitage from 20 to Diffuse N/A (Artifact Feature 1 (Ash Lense; 30 cm Hydration (Tuscan) 4-1971) 1983-1984) BUT-12-9H S8/W7 No Obsidian Debitage from 30 to 1.3 ca. 1090 (Artifact below Feature 1 (Ash 40 cm (Tuscan) 4-1986) Lense; 1983-1984) BUT-12-10H S8/W7 Yes Obsidian Biface 50 to 1.1 ca. 895 (Artifact Fragment (middle stage 60 cm (Tuscan) 4-2123) end) from Feature 3 (1983-1984) BUT-12-11H S8/W7 Yes Obsidian Debitage from 50 to 1.3 ca. 1090 (Artifact Feature 3 (Housefloor; 60 cm (Tuscan) 4-2125) 1983-1984) BUT-12-12H S8/W7 No Obsidian Debitage from 60 to 1.3 ca. 1090 (Artifact Below Feature 3 and 70 cm (Tuscan) 4-2171) Above Feature 5 BUT-12-13H S10/W8 Yes Obsidian Debitage from 60 to 1.2 ca. 895 (Artifact Feature 4 Housefloor 70 cm (Tuscan) 4-1025) (1983-1984)

213

CA-BUT-12 Obsidian Hydration Sample List (continued)

Sample Excavation Feature Sample Description Depth Mean Approx. Number Unit Assoc. from Hydration Age (Y/N)? Surface Measurement (Years BP) (Microns) Based on Source BUT-12-14H S10/W8 Yes Projectile Point 60 to 2.7 ca. 450 (Artifact Midsection (probable 70 cm (Borax 4-1044) Gunther missing stem, Lake) tip) from Feature 4 Housefloor BUT-12-15H S10/W8 No Edge-modified Flake 85 to 2.5 ca. 2190- (Artifact from below Feature 4 90 cm 2710 4-1209) Housefloor (Tuscan) BUT-12-16H S8/W7 Yes Obsidian Debitage from 70 to 1.3 ca. 1090 (Artifact Feature 5 Hearth (1983- 80 cm (Tuscan) 4-2180) 1984) BUT-12-17H S8/W7 No Obsidian Debitage from 80 to 2.2 ca. 2190 (Artifact below Feature 5 Hearth 90 cm (Tuscan) 4-2202) (1983-1984) BUT-12-18H S8/W7 No Obsidian Debitage from 90 to 1.8 ca. 1280- (Artifact below Feature 5 100 cm 1710 4-2273) (1983-1984) (Tuscan) BUT-12-19H S10/W8 Yes Obsidian Debitage from 100 to 1.3 ca. 1090 (Artifact Feature 6 110cm (Tuscan) 4-1434) (1983-1984) BUT-12-20H S10/W8 Yes Obsidian Gunther 100 to No Visible N/A (Artifact Projectile Point 110 cm Band (Tuscan) 4-1423) (complete) from Feature 6 (1983-1984) BUT-12-21H S10/W8 No Debitage Flake from 110 to 1.3 ca. 1090 (Artifact Below Feature 6 120 cm (Tuscan) 4-1453) (1983-1984) BUT-12-22H S10/W8 No Debitage Flake from 130 to 1.3 ca. 1090 (Artifact Non-feature Midden 140 cm (Tuscan) 4-1624) Area BUT-12-23H S10/W8 No Debitage Flake from 150 to 2.5 ca. 2190- (Artifact Non-feature Midden 160 cm 2710 4-1512) Area (Tuscan) BUT-12-24H S10/W8 No Debitage Flake from 160 to 2.1 ca. 1710- (Artifact Non-feature Midden 170 cm 2190 4-1531) Area (Tuscan) BUT-12-25H S10/W8 No Projectile Point 180 to 1.7 ca. 1280- (Artifact Fragment (split stem, 190 cm 1710 4-1555) corner-notched, probable (Tuscan) arrow missing one tang) from Non-feature Midden Area

214

CA-BUT-12 Obsidian Hydration Sample List (continued)

Sample Excavation Feature Sample Description Depth Mean Approx. Number Unit Assoc. from Hydration Age (Y/N)? Surface Measurement (Years BP) (Microns) Based on Source BUT-12-26H S8/W7 No Debitage Flake from 190 to 1.8 ca. 1280- (Artifact Non-feature Midden 200 cm 1710 4-2443) Area (Tuscan) BUT-12-27H S8/W7 No Debitage Flake from 150 to 1.3 ca. 1090 (Artifact Non-feature Midden 160 cm (Tuscan) 4-2416) Area BUT-12-28H S8/W7 No Debitage Flake from 220 to 2.4 ca. 877 (Artifact Non-feature Midden 230 cm (Napa 4-1666) Area Valley) BUT-12-29H S8/W7 No Debitage Flake from 220 to Diffuse N/A (Artifact Non-feature Midden 230 cm Hydration (Tuscan) 4-1656) Area BUT-12-30H S8/W7 No Projectile Point 220 to 1.8 ca. 565-895 (Artifact Fragment (corner- 230 cm (Tuscan) 4-1665) notched probable arrow missing part of base) from Non-feature Midden Area

215

216

217

218

219

220

221

222

APPENDIX C

CA-BUT-1 Radiocarbon Sample List

Sample Excavation Feature Sample Depth Material Weight 14C Age CAL Number Unit Assoc. Description from (grams) (BP) BP (Y/N)? Surface BUT-1-1 Area 1, Yes House 47 150 to 168 Charcoal 3.37 g 125 + 15 109 Unit 1 Post Sample cm BUT-1-2 Area 4, Yes House 46 138 cm Charcoal 5.80 g 175 + 15 185 Unit 2 Floor Sample BUT-1-3 Area 3, Yes House 48 76 to 107 Charcoal 5.85 g 300 + 20 394 Unit 4 Hearth Pit cm (Feature 20) BUT-1-4 Area 4 Yes House 2 137 cm Artiodactyl 8.84 g 165 + 15 189 (N29/E37) Floor Sample Distal Humerus Frag. BUT-1-5 Area 4 No Non-feature 107 cm Artiodactyl 2.19 g Insufficient N/A (N33/E33) Area Metapodial Collagen Northwest of Frag. House 2 BUT-1-6 Area 4 No Below 120 cm Artiodactyl 3.50 g Insufficient N/A (N28/E38) House 2 Floor Scapula Collagen Frag. BUT-1-7 Area 4 Yes House 1 104 cm Unidentified 5.49 g 225 + 15 279 (N22/E31) Floor Sample Lrg. Mammal Long Bone Frag. BUT-1-8 Area 4 No Non-feature 76 cm Unidentified 2.10 g Insufficient N/A (N18/E33) Area Lrg. Collagen Southeast of Mammal House 1 Long Bone Frag. BUT-1-9 Area 2, No Non-feature 106 to 122 Charcoal 3.47 g 160 + 15 190 Unit 2 Area Outside cm Houses 41 and 46 BUT-1-10 Area 4 Yes House 45 76 cm Charcoal 4.88 g 275 + 20 313 (N27/E40) Center Post BUT-1-11 Area 2, No Non-feature 122 to 137 Burnt Acorn 4.80 g 170 + 15 187 Unit 2 Area Outside cm Frag. Houses 41 and 46 BUT-1-12 Area 5, Yes House 44 61 to Burnt Acorn 0.45 g 150 + 35 152 Unit 3 Floor Sample 76 cm Frag.

224 225

CA-BUT-7 Radiocarbon Sample List

Sample Excavation Feature Sample Depth Material Weight 14C Age CAL Number Unit Assoc. Description from (grams) (BP) BP (Y/N)? Surface BUT-7-1 Locus A Yes House 1 213 to Charcoal 6.65 g 230 + 15 287 (Artifact (N12/W49) “Beam A” 228 cm 40-1232) BUT-7-2 Locus A Yes House 2 228 to Shell 0.9 g 1415 + 15 955 (Artifact (N11/W59) Floor Sample 243 cm (Mollusk) (skewed by (ca. 40-1468) reservoir 200- effect) 300) BUT-7-3 Locus A Yes House 3 260 to Charcoal 1.4 g 190 + 20 178 (Artifact (N10/W42) Floor Sample 275 cm 40-1924) BUT-7-4 Locus B No Non-feature 305 to Charcoal 1.1 g 570 + 25 603 (Artifact (N14/W1) Area in Locus 320 cm 41-138) B BUT-7-5 Locus B No Non-feature 213 to Charcoal 2.8 g 130 + 20 117 (Artifact (N9/W11) Area in Locus 228 cm 41-150) B BUT-7-6 Locus C Yes Probable 137 to Burnt 6.2 g 200 + 15 168 (Artifact (S1/E40) Housefloor 152 cm Acorn 42-2312) with “Acorn Fragment Cache Pit” BUT-7-7 Locus C Yes Probable 106 to Unidentified 0.75 g Insufficient N/A (Artifact (N3/E27) Housefloor; 121 cm Med.- Lrg. Collagen 42-626) “Feature 1” Mammal Long Bone Frag. BUT-7-8 Locus C Yes Probable 137 to Artiodactyl 0.57 g Insufficient N/A (Artifact (N10/E41) Housefloor 152 cm Metapodial Collagen 42-972) Fragment BUT-7-9 Locus D No Non-feature 30 to Charcoal 5.0 g 170 + 15 187 (Artifact (S38/E40) Area in Locus 45 cm 43-391) D BUT-7-10 Locus D No Non-feature 75 to Charcoal 1.7 g 1035 + 15 946 (Artifact (S44/E37) Area in Locus 90 cm 43-515) D BUT-7-11 Locus E Yes Probable 121 to Charcoal 2.23 g 215 + 15 166 (Artifact (N17/E29) Cooking Area 137 cm 44-56) BUT-7-12 Locus E Yes Probable 183 to Charcoal 4.86 g 110 + 20 111 (Artifact (N20/E31) Cooking Area 198 cm 44-131) BUT-7-13 Locus D No Non-feature 168 to Charcoal 1.4 g 190 + 35 179 (Artifact (S46/E37) Area in Locus 183 cm 43-445) D

226

CA-BUT-12 Radiocarbon Sample List

Sample Excavation Feature Sample Depth Material Weight 14C Age CAL Number Unit Assoc. Description from (grams) (BP) BP (Y/N)? Surface BUT-12-1 N 230/ Yes House 1 76 to Charcoal 0.39 g 115 + 15 109 (Artifact W225 (“Feature 1”; 91 cm 4-217) 1963 -1964) BUT-12-2 N 230/ Yes Housefloor 66 to Burnt Seed 0.60 g 125 + 15 109 (Artifact W220 (“Feature 3”; 76 cm Fragment 4-248) 1963 -1964) BUT-12-3 N230/ Yes Feature 2 61 to Clamshell 0.24 g 855 + 15 485 (Artifact W215 (Function 76 cm Disc Bead (skewed by (ca. 4-257) Unknown; reservoir 150- 1963 - 1964) effect) 300) BUT-12-4 S8/W7 Yes Feature 1 (Ash 20 to Charcoal 0.81 g 160 + 15 190 (Artifact Lense; 1983 - 30 cm 4-2926) 1984) BUT-12-5 S8/W7 Yes Feature 3 50 to Charcoal 1.20 g 125 + 15 109 (Artifact (Housefloor; 60 cm 4-2121) 1983-1984) BUT-12-6 S10/W8 Yes Feature 4 60 to Unidentified 4.94 g Insufficient N/A (Artifact (Housefloor; 70 cm Lrg. Collagen 4-1026) 1983-1984) Mammal Long Bone Frag. BUT-12-7 S8/W7 Yes Feature 5 70 to Charcoal 2.94 g 135 + 15 123 (Artifact (Hearth; 1983 - 80 cm 4-2195) 1984) BUT-12-8 S10/W8 Yes Feature 6 100 to Charcoal 1.54 g 175 + 15 185 (Artifact (Housefloor; 110 cm 4-1444) 1983-1984) BUT-12-9 S10/W8 No Non-feature 150 to Unidentified 1.96 g 665 + 15 648 (Artifact Area 160 cm Med. – Lrg. 4-1507) Mammal Long Bone Frag. BUT-12-10 S10/W8 No Non-feature 180 to Charcoal 0.37 g 230 + 20 285 (Artifact Area 190 cm 4-1550) BUT-12-11 S10/W8 No Non-feature 220 to Charcoal 0.56 g 180 + 20 183 (Artifact Area 230 cm 4-1658) BUT-12-12 S8/W7 No Non-feature 190 to Burnt Acorn 0.72 g 310 + 30 388 (Artifact Area 200 cm 4-2449) BUT-12-13 S8/W7 No Non-feature 150 to Charcoal 1.61 g 110 + 30 114 (Artifact Area 160 cm 4-2415)

227

Radiocarbon concentrations are given as fractions of the Modern standard, D14C, and conventional radiocarbon age, following the conventions of Stuiver and Polach (Radiocarbon, v. 19, p.355, 1977).

Sample preparation backgrounds have been subtracted, based on measurements of 14C-free wood (organics) and calcite (carbonates).

All results have been corrected for isotopic fractionation according to the conventions of Stuiver and Polach (1977), with d13C values measured on prepared graphite using the AMS spectrometer. These can differ from d13C of the original material, if fractionation ocurred during sample graphitization or the AMS measurement, and are not shown.

Comments: The shell samples But-7-2 and But-12-3 may be subject to reservoir age effects.

228

229

230