More Than Toolstone: Differential Utilization of Glass Mountain Obsidian by Carolyn Dean Dillian B.A. (University of Pennsylvania) 1996 M.S. (University of Pennsylvania) 1996 A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Anthropology in the GRADUATE DIVISION of the UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY Committee in charge: Professor Kent G. Lightfoot Adjunct Professor M. Steven Shackley Professor Ian S. Carmichael Spring 2002 The dissertation of Carolyn Dean Dillian is approved: Co-Chair Date Co-Chair Date Date University of California, Berkeley Spring 2002 More than Toolstone: Differential Utilization of Glass Mountain Obsidian Copyright 2002 by Carolyn Dean Dillian Abstract More than Toolstone: Differential Utilization of Glass Mountain Obsidian by Carolyn Dean Dillian Doctor of Philosophy in Anthropology University of California, Berkeley Professor Kent G. Lightfoot, Co-Chair Adjunct Professor M. Steven Shackley, Co-Chair Archaeological studies of lithic material procurement and use have traditionally focused on raw material quality and proximity to source as sole indicators for selection of particular materials for stone tool manufacture. Yet this effectively denies the role of human action and belief in the choice of lithic materials. The Glass Mountain obsidian quarry provides evidence of the integration of prehistoric belief systems into toolstone procurement patterns as visible through differential toolstone use in prehistory and the selection of specific raw material types for particular categories of objects. Large obsidian bifaces from northern California have long been known as non- utilitarian ceremonial and wealth objects. Despite their uniform and stylized shape, bifaces were manufactured from several different obsidian sources. Glass Mountain in Siskiyou County, California was one source for black obsidian bifaces. The lithic assemblage at Glass Mountain and X-ray fluorescence data from the surrounding region indicate that this obsidian was used almost entirely for biface production, and was 1 neglected as a source for utilitarian objects. Just as obsidian objects fulfilled utilitarian or non-utilitarian functions, obsidian sources retained special roles within the context of prehistoric culture and belief systems. Ultimately, differential use of Glass Mountain obsidian lies in the context of cultural beliefs, which hold it as a special source to be used exclusively for the production of valued objects. Certainly Glass Mountain is not the only obsidian utilized for value objects, but it is unique in that it was used almost entirely for non-utilitarian purposes, while other nearby obsidian was exploited for utilitarian objects. The cultural context of Glass Mountain obsidian utilization varied across and within territorial and geographic boundaries, yet despite cultural differences, the concept of value is intricately linked with Glass Mountain obsidian and the large bifaces made from it. In this sense, the quarry was in itself also an active agent, which gave value to things. It provides evidence for integration of prehistoric belief systems into toolstone procurement and use patterns through the selective use of Glass Mountain obsidian for ceremonial and value objects. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1: Introduction……………………………………………………..1 Research Plan……………………………………………………….2 Glass Mountain………………………………………………….…. 3 Integral Issues in Raw Material Utilization…………………………6 Organization……………………………………………………… 13 Conclusion…………………………………………………………. 18 Chapter 2: Quarries and Quarry Research………………………………… 20 Introduction………………………………………………………… 20 Procurement………………………………………………………... 21 Production………………………………………………………….. 26 Resource Control and Restricted Access………………………… 29 Ritual and Belief Systems…………………………………………. 32 Methodology………………………………………………………. 34 Conclusion…………………………………………………………. 38 Chapter 3: Bifaces: Background and Review of Previous Research……… 40 Introduction……………………………………………………….. 40 Ethnography……………………………………………………….. 43 Archaeology……………………………………………………….. 53 Conclusion………………………………………………………… 59 Chapter 4: The Geology of Glass Mountain Obsidian……………………. 60 Introduction………………………………………………………… 60 Obsidian Formation………………………………………………... 61 Glass Mountain……………………………………………………. 65 Glass Mountain in Prehistory……………………………………… 73 Chapter 5: Value and Value Creation……………………………………… 76 Introduction………………………………………………………… 76 The Creation of Value……………………………………………… 77 Value and Status…………………………………………………… 81 Exchange…………………………………………………………… 86 Bifaces as Wealth and Value………………………………………. 89 Glass Mountain and Value………………………………………… 92 Conclusion………………………………………………………… 93 Chapter 6: Territories and Territoriality…………………………………… 95 Introduction………………………………………………………… 95 Background………………………………………………………… 96 Theoretical Approaches……………………………………………. 97 Territoriality at Glass Mountain…………………………………… 110 Conclusion…………………………………………………………. 116 i Chapter 7: Exchange……………………………………………………….. 118 Introduction………………………………………………………… 118 Formalist vs. Substantivist Approaches……………………………. 120 Economic Models of Exchange……………………………………. 122 Social Models of Exchange……………………………………….. 127 Archaeological Methods and Identification……………………….. 132 Conclusion…………………………………………………………. 135 Chapter 8: Culture Contact in Northern California…………………………137 Introduction………………………………………………………… 137 Late Prehistory: Northeastern California………………………….. 142 Late Prehistory: North Coast………………………………………. 144 History of Contact: Inland Regions……………………………….. 146 History of Contact: North Coast…………………………………… 154 Biological Effects of Contact: Health and Disease………………… 159 Environmental Effects of Contact………………………………….. 163 Economic Effects of Contact………………………………………. 165 Warfare…………………………………………………………….. 168 Native Californian Resistance………………………………………170 Culture Contact and the Use of Glass Mountain Obsidian………… 176 Conclusion…………………………………………………………. 178 Chapter 9: The Glass Mountain Archaeological Project………………….. 180 Introduction………………………………………………………… 180 Archaeological Survey…………………………………………….. 181 Site Criteria and Recording Methodology…………………………. 183 Archaeological Sites……………………………………………….. 202 Test Excavations…………………………………………………… 209 Conclusion…………………………………………………………. 218 Chapter 10: Biface Production at Glass Mountain………………………… 219 Introduction………………………………………………………… 219 Biface Reduction Stages…………………………………………… 221 Biface Reduction at Glass Mountain………………………………. 224 Conclusion………………………………………………………… 243 Chapter 11: Geochemical Characterization of Glass Mountain Obsidian… 245 Introduction………………………………………………………… 245 X-Ray Fluorescence……………………………………………….. 246 Analysis Procedures and Instrumentation…………………………. 247 Obsidian Sampling and Characterization………………………….. 249 X-Ray Fluorescence in Cultural Resource Management Contexts… 254 X-Ray Fluorescence of Value Objects…………………………….. 260 Conclusion…………………………………………………………. 265 ii Chapter 12: Obsidian Hydration…………………………………………… 267 Introduction………………………………………………………… 267 Methodology……………………………………………………….. 269 Analysis……………………………………………………………. 271 Discussion…………………………………………………………..277 Conclusion…………………………………………………………. 286 Chapter 13: Synthesis and Conclusions……………………………………. 288 The Glass Mountain Archaeological Project………………………. 290 Conclusion…………………………………………………………. 300 Chapter 14: Directions for Future Research……………………………….. 302 Bibliography………………………………………………………………. 306 iii LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1.1 Glass Mountain location map…………………………………………. 4 1.2 Glass Mountain location map, Northern California……………………. 5 3.1 Bipointed Obsidian Bifaces (Kroeber 1925)……………………………41 3.2 Bipointed and Straight Based Obsidian Bifaces (Heflin 1982)……….. 42 3.3 Northern California, Western Nevada, and Southern Oregon Obsidian Sources (Schalk 1995)………………………………….. 44 3.4 The White Deerskin Dance (Kroeber 1925)…………………………… 46 3.5 Ethnographic Territories (after Kroeber 1925)………………………… 49 4.1 Geologic Map of Glass Mountain (Anderson 1933: 489)…………….. 66 4.2 Glass Mountain Obsidian……………………………………………… 67 4.3 Aerial Image of Glass Mountain Dome (USGS 2000)………………… 69 4.4 Cross-Section of Rhyolite Dome Containing Obsidian (Hughes and Smith 1993: 82)……………………………………… 71 6.1 Resource Availability and Territoriality (Dyson-Hudson and Smith 1978, Shackley 1990: 55)………………………………. 99 6.2 Perimeter Defense and Social Boundary Defense (Kelly 1995: 201)….. 104 6.3 Ethnographic Territories (after Kroeber 1925)………………………… 111 8.1 Early Explorations in Northern California…………………………….. 147 8.2 Lost River and Lava Beds, Northeastern California…………………… 153 8.3 California Missions (Kealhofer 1996: 66)…………………………….. 172 9.1 Glass Mountain Archaeological Project Survey Area…………………. 182 9.2 Modoc National Forest Site Record Form…………………………….. 185 9.3 GMAP Locus Record Form……………………………………………. 194 9.4 Locus Overview……………………………………………………….. 196 9.5 Typical Density at Loci………………………………………………… 197 9.6 20x20cm Template for Sampling and Analysis in the Field……………199 9.7 Mapping Using the Trimble Geoexplorer 3 Global Positioning System. 201 9.8 Glass Mountain Archaeological Project Site Location Map…………… 203 9.9 Overview of Glass Mountain Vegetation and Ground Visibility……… 205 9.10 Sketch Map of FS 05-09-56-3001/H Excavation Units………………. 210 9.11 Excavation Units Plan View………………………………………….. 211 9.12 South Wall Profile. Test Unit #4…………………………………….. 212 9.13 Excavated Debitage Size Graded Flake Types Graphs………………. 214 10.1 Biface Fragments by Reduction Stage……………………………….. 220 10.2 Biface Reduction Stages (Callahan 1979, Andrefsky 1998: 31)…….