AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF Francine M. Havercroft for the degree of Master of Arts in Interdisciplinary Studies in Anthropology, History and Anthropology presented on June 16, 1986. Title: Subsistence Variability in the Willamette Valley Redacted for Privacy Abstract approved: V Richard E. Ross During the summer of 1981, Oregon State University archaeologically tested three prehistoric sites on the William L. Finley National Wildlife Refuge. Among the sites tested were typical Willamette Valley floodplain and adjacent upland sites. Most settlement-subsistence pattern models proposed for the Willamette Valley have been generated with data from the eastern valley floor, western Cascade Range foothills. The work at Wm. L. Finley National Wildlife Refuge provides one of the first opportunities to view similar settings along the western margins of the Willamette Valley. Valley Subsistence Variabilityin the Willamette by Francine M. Havercroft A THESIS submitted to Oregon StateUniversity in partial fulfillmentof the requirementsfor the degree of Master of Arts in InterdisciplinaryStudies Completed June 15, 1986 Commencement June 1987 APPROVED: Redacted for Privacy Professor of Anthropology inAT6cg-tof major A Redacted for Privacy Professor of History in charge of co-field Redacted for Privacy Professor of Anthropology in charge of co-field Redacted for Privacy Chairman of department of Anthropology Dean of Graduate School Date thesis is presented June 16, 1986 Typed by Ellinor Curtis for Francine M. Havercroft ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Throughout this project, several individuals have provided valuable contributions, and I extend a debt of gratitude to all those who have helped. The Oregon State university Archaeology field school, conducted atthe Wm. L. Finley Refuge, wasdirected by Dr. David Brauner. Graduate students Judith Sanders-Chapman,Alexy Simmons, and myself served as field supervisors. The students participating in the excavations were JanelleBaglien, Joseph Coyne, Annie Ford, MicheleGiammatteo, Dennis Griffin, John Hatch, Peter Holm, ChuckKifer, Pete Kiigemagi, Duncan MacLeod, Alan McCabe,Valerie Merrill, Dave Schmitt, Jennifer Short,Lucie Tisdale, and Matt Zweifel. Amy Brauner, Dennis Crawford, DonMueller, and Lynda Sekora volunteered valuableassistance in the field work. The archaeological collections wereprocessed and catalogued by Janelle Baglien, Mike Drydan,Chuck Kifer, Mike McCandless, and Lucie Tisdale. The analysis was made possible bythe support of the Wm. L. Finley National WildlifeRefuge manager. I am most grateful to palmer Sekora for hissupport and encouragement while writing this report. Dr. David Brauner assisted in formulatingthe direction and scope of the analysis and photographed mostof the artifact collections. Special thanks go to Dr. Lee Lyman,who identified the faunal collection andcontributed valuable analytical insights into the data. Tony Walters volunteered valuable ethnobotanicalresearch time in the identification of plant samples. Lee Sappington, University of Idaho Research Associate,provided an affordable X-ray fluorescence traceelement analysis of the obsidian specimens. Radiocarbon dates were analyzed under the direction of Dr. Sheppardat the Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory, Washington StateUniversity. I would like to thank my colleagues, ClaytonLebow, for help in formulating the analytic methods inthe lithic analysis; Lucie Tisdale, for producing mostof the base map data from which the locationalinformation is derived; and Thomas Connolly, from the Universityof Oregon, for providing copies of his research papers. Furd Halsell produced the artifact drawing. I am especially gratefulto my committee, Dr. Richard Ross (chairman), Dr.Courtland Smith, and Dr. Thomas McClintock for assisting me andediting this report. Technical assistance was providedby Susannah Tenny, Administrative Assistant, Departmentof Anthropology. Eleanor Curtis spent severallate nights driving the floppy disk. Dr. Elizabeth Budy ofIntermountain Research offered valuable comments onediting the first draft. The assistance of Jim Gilmore and DougSoutherland (Nevada State Museum) in the darkroomis greatly appreciated. Lastly, my deepest appreciation to my veryspecial family. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Chapter 1. Introduction 1 Chapter 2. Environmental Setting 6 Geography 6 Geology 7 Soils 9 Climate 11 Flora 12 Fauna 18 Chapter 3. Ethnographic Setting 20 Linguistic Identity and Distribution 20 The Reconstruction of Kalapuya Culture 31 Subsistence and Settlement Pattern 36 Chapter 4. Previous Archaeology 52 Chapter 5. Methodology 74 Field Methodology 74 Analytic Methodology 77 Chapter 6. Descriptive Archaeology 82 35BE37 82 35BE10 100 35BE39 112 Chapter 7. Discussion and Conclusions 125 Lithic Technology and production patterns 125 Reconstruction of prehistoric Settlement and Subsistence Patterns 142 References Cited 152 APPENDIX A: Fauna in the Wm. L. Finley National Wildlife Refuge 163 APPENDIX B: Artifact Typology 175 APPENDIX C: Ethnobotanical Research Service Report 198 APPENDIX D: Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory Report 201 APPENDIX E: X-Ray Fluorescence Trace Element Analysis 203 APPENDIX F: Artifact Photographs 207 LIST OF FIGURES Page 1. Location of the Wm. L. FinleyNational Wildlife Refuge 2 2. Vegetation in the Wm. L.Finley National Wildlife Refuge 15 3. Oregon Indian distribution in 1850 22 4. The Kalapuya communities 24 5. Reconstruction of Kalapuyasubsistence pattern 37 6. Location of majorarchaeological sites discussed in the text 53 7. Location of test pits, 35BE37 84 8. Stratigraphic profile of thewest wall, test pit B, 35BE37 86 9. Stratigraphic profile, testpit H, west wall, site 35BE37 96 10. Location of test pits, site 35BE10 101 11. Stratigraphic profile, testpit D, site 35BE10 (B) 104 12. Location of test pits, 35BE39 116 13. Stratigraphic profile of testpit C, north wall, 35BE39 117 14. Location of obsidian sourcesused for comparison with the 35BE37 sample 206 15. Projectile points, 35BE37 208 16. Projectile points, 35BE37 210 17. Projectile points, 35BE37 212 18. Projectile points, 35BE37 214 19. Projectile points, 35BE10 216 20. Projectile points, 35BE1OB 218 21. Projectile points, 35BE1OB 220 22. Knives, 35BE37 222 23. Drills and gravers, 35BE37 224 24. Scrapers, 35BE37 226 25. Worked river cobbles, 35BE37 228 26. Edge ground cobbles, 35BE37 230 27. Hammerstones, 35BE37 232 28. Anvil and pestle, 35BE37 234 29. Mortars, 35BE37 236 30. Shaft abraders, 35BE37 238 31. Manuports, 35BE37 240 32. Incised bone, 35BE37 242 33. Drills, gravers, andworked river cobbles, 35BE10 244 34. Cobble choppers, 35BE10 246 r 35. Pestles and hammerstones, 35BE10 248 36. Graver-perforators and scrapers,35BE39 250 37. Worked river cobble,edge polished cobbles, cobble chopper, hammerstone, and mortar 35BE39 252 LIST OF TABLES Page 1. Climatic Data, Corvallis, Oregon, Oregon Weather Station 12 2. Variations for the Term Kalapuya 23 3. Central Willamette Valley Kalapuya Groupsin Various Sources 30 4. Inventory of Kalapuyan Food Resources 43 5. Kalapuya Material Culture 48 6. Location of Major Archaeological Sites Discussed in Text (Key to Figure 6) 54 7. Archaeological Traits Commonly Associated with Chronological Periods of the Upper Willamette Valley 70 8. Summary of Upper Willamette Valley Site Chronology 72 9. Artifact Distribution, Upper Cultural Stratum, 35BE37 87 10. Frequency Distribution of Debitage, 35BE37 89 11. Faunal Remains, 35BE37 91 12. Artifact Distribution, Lower Cultural Stratum, 35BE37 98 13. Faunal Remains, 35BE10 (Area B) 110 14. Prehistoric Artifact Assemblage for 35BE10 113 15. Faunal Remains, 35BE39 119 16. Prehistoric Tool Assemblage for 35BE39 121 17. Distribution of Artifacts at Site 35BE39 122 18. Frequency Distribution of Debitage, 35BE39 124 19. Material Composition in Debitage andTool Collections from Sites 35BE37, 35BE10, and 35BE39 126 20. Summary of Selected Attributes Derived from 353E37 Debitage 127 21. Comparison of CryptocrystallineSilica Flaked Tools and Debitage, Site 35BE37 130 22. Comparative Abundances of Obsidianin Debitage Collections from Selected Willamette Valley Sites 132 23. Distribution and Frequency ofProjectile Point Types Found at 35BE37, 35BE10, and 35BE39 140 24. Mammals of Wm. L. Finley NationalWildlife Refuge 165 25. Fish of the Wm. L FinleyNational Wildlife Refuge 168 26. Reptiles of the Wm. L. FinleyWildlife Refuge 170 27. Birds of the Wm. L. FinleyNational Wildlife Refuge 171 28. Trace ElementIntensities for Samples From 35E37 205 29. Correlation of theObsidian Items From 358E37 205 Subsistence Variabilityin the Willamette Valley Chapter 1. Introduction located in south- The William L.Finley Refuge is of Corvallis, central Benton County,about ten miles south of this refuge is Oregon (Figure1). The 5,325 acres federal ownership on perhaps the largestland parcel in The Refuge was the floor of theWillamette Valley. William L. Finley, an established in 1964and named for President Theodore early naturalistwho persuaded wildlife refuges. Roosevelt to createthe first national in the Finley The evaluationof cultural resources survey Refuge began in 1980with an archaeological In accordancewith conducted by OregonState University. Environmental Policy various federallegislation (National Preservation Act of 1966, Act of 1969,National Historic Fish and Wildlife and Executive Order11593), the U.S. protect, and enhance Service was obliged"to inventory, lands they manage" the culturalenvironment on the inventory (Wildeson 1977:i). The cultural resource preliminary step in (Peterson, Bell,Brauner