May 1, 2018 - Trade, Technology, Subsistence, and Mobility Patterns at Sjútkanga, ..... Controlling for Volume and Years in each Temporal Period . ...... Figure 41. Unit 19 Stratigraphic Profile. .... lithic procurement strategies, and technological organization. ...... California and oversees and Education and Cultural Learning ...
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE
Trade, Technology, Subsistence, and Mobility Patterns at Sjútkanga, the Encino Village Site, California
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Anthropology, Public Archaeology By Joanne S. Minerbi
May 2018
Copyright by Joanne S. Minerbi 2018
ii
The thesis of Joanne S. Minerbi is approved:
_______________________________________________
__________________
Dr. Cathy Lynne Costin
Date
_______________________________________________
__________________
Dr. Kathleen L. Hull
Date
_______________________________________________
__________________
Dr. Matthew R. Des Lauriers, Chair
Date
California State University, Northridge iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The years I’ve spent working on this thesis have been some of the most rewarding of my life. I have tremendous gratitude for this experience and the people who made it possible. Thanks go first to my thesis committee. I would like to begin with acknowledgement of my committee chair, Dr. Matthew Des Lauriers. As a mentor, you have generously shared your knowledge of and passion for archaeology, challenged me toward greater understanding, and inspired me to strive for my best work. In doing so, you have made a profound contribution to my life and career! Dr. Cathy Costin, your thoughtful feedback throughout grad school encouraged me to aim for the highest standards in scholarship and writing. I am grateful for your nurturing support and caring attention to detail. I wish to thank Dr. Kathleen Hull for always having my back. You’ve contributed so much to this process with your expertise, professionalism, and intelligent insights—and always with warmth and optimism. Dr. James Snead, I’d like to recognize the support and encouragement that you have provided to me at CSUN. You are responsible for the referral to the internship that led to the subject of this thesis. My internship, and subsequent volunteer work, was under the supervision of Barbara Tejada, Associate Archaeologist at the California Department of Parks and Recreation. Barbara, your patience with my incessant questions contributed significantly towards my learning process. It has truly been a pleasure to work with you. Thanks go out to the gals at Los Encinos State Historic Park for sharing your knowledge and companionship, especially Rachel Olsthoorn, Darlene Deppe-Carrillo, and Jennifer Dandurand. I always looked forward to Fridays with you. Thank you, Rachel, for reading an early draft of the thesis and kicking the organization into shape. Dr. Carol Mackey
iv
also read an early draft and provided feedback. Carol, your belief in me and your friendship are very meaningful to me. At various times, I received extra help with lab work. First props go to Olivella shell bead expert extraordinaire, Chester King. Thank you for generously offering your skills and expertise to this humbled student. Dr. Matthew Des Lauriers, thank you for visiting Los Encinos to help me with shell bead and lithic analysis. Some lab sorting was assisted by Catherine Girod, Jay Moulthrop, and Dylan Moulthrop. The quality photos in this thesis are the handiwork of Jay Moulthrop. Paul Adede helped me with the statistics, and Nadine Khoury was a frequent study partner. Christopher M. Salvano, MLIS, Map Curator in the Department of Geography at CSUN researched early maps of Encino. I would also like to express appreciation for my grad school cohort of friends and colleagues, who inspired and challenged me. Thank you to the California Department of Parks and Recreation for providing funds for Energy Dispersive X-ray Fluorescence analysis. I am thankful for the opportunity to collaborate on several cultural resources workshops with Kimia Fatehi, Chief of Staff for the Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians. I would like to thank the Fernandeño Tataviam Council of Elders and Tribal President Rudy Ortega Jr. for their approval of this research. Tribal President Ortega Jr. and Kimia provided valuable feedback on this thesis. This process would not have been possible without the love and support of my parents, Susan and Maurice Minerbi. My father passed away this year, so he will not see this accomplishment in person. I know that my parents are both proud and happy that I have pursued this dream. My sisters Dawn, Jill, Diane, and Kinsey vicariously enjoyed
v
my passion for learning and rooted me on. I feel so fortunate to be surrounded by loving family, friends, and colleagues on this journey and into the future.
vi
DEDICATION To Michael R. Walsh for helping me believe in the dream. To Susan and Maurice Minerbi for helping me make it come true.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS Copyright Page.................................................................................................................... ii Signature Page ................................................................................................................... iii Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ iv Dedication ......................................................................................................................... vii List of Tables .................................................................................................................... xii List of Figures ................................................................................................................. xvii Abstract ..............................................................................................................................xx
— INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 1 — ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXTS ...................................................... 5 San Fernando Valley Context ............................................................................... 10 Sjútkanga Context ................................................................................................. 16 Historic Sjútkanga ..................................................................................... 16 Archaeological Investigations ................................................................... 18 The Descendant Community, The Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians..................................................................................... 24 — ANALYTIC FRAMEWORKS .............................................................. 29 Hunter-Gatherers and the Forager/Collector Model ............................................. 29 Lithic Technological Organization ....................................................................... 32 X-Ray Fluorescence and Obsidian Hydration .......................................... 33 Curated and Expedient Tools .................................................................... 34 Chaîne Opératoire and Behavioral Archaeology ................................................. 35 Materiality ............................................................................................................. 39 The Dimensions of Materiality ................................................................. 39 Application of the Concept of Materiality ................................................ 42 Historical Processualism ....................................................................................... 44 Tying It All Together ............................................................................................ 45 viii
— METHODOLOGY ................................................................................ 46 Sampling Strategy ................................................................................................. 46 Lithic Analysis ...................................................................................................... 47 Debitage Analysis ..................................................................................... 47 Analysis of Formal Chipped Stone Tools ................................................. 52 Identification of Heat Treatment and Other Effects of Heat ..................... 55 Raw Material Sourcing ......................................................................................... 56 Summary of Lithic Analytical Methods ............................................................... 57 — CHRONOLOGY OF THE RESEARCH ASSEMBLAGE ................... 58 Calibrated Radiocarbon Dates .............................................................................. 59 Obsidian Hydration ............................................................................................... 63 Shell Bead Analysis .............................................................................................. 64 Stratigraphic Profiles ............................................................................................ 71 Statistical Analyses ............................................................................................... 73 Using ANOVAs to Determine Whether Excavation Level Means Differ Significantly ................................................................................... 73 ANOVA Post Hoc (Multiple Comparison) Tests to Determine Which Excavation Levels Should be Temporally Clustered .................... 75 Chi-Square Tests to See if Temporal Periods are Distinctly Different ..... 78 Two-Proportion Z-Tests to Match Chronological Frameworks with Temporal Periods .............................................................................. 79 Summary of Chronology of the Research Assemblage ........................................ 89 — THE LITHIC ASSEMBLAGE .............................................................. 90 Constraints of the Data.......................................................................................... 90 The Aggregated Research Assemblage ................................................................ 91 Debitage .................................................................................................... 91 Cores and Tested Cobbles ......................................................................... 93 Expedient Tools ........................................................................................ 94 Formal Tools ............................................................................................. 94 Ground Stone Tools and Percussive Implements ..................................... 95 Other Lithic Implements ........................................................................... 97 Multifunctional Tools ............................................................................... 97 Summary for the Lithic Assemblage .................................................................... 98
ix
— LITHIC DATA PATTERNS ............................................................... 100 Controlling for Volume and Years in each Temporal Period ............................. 100 Patterns in the Debitage Assemblage .................................................................. 101 Temporal Patterns in the Debitage Assemblage ..................................... 102 Relationships between Sourced Material Types ..................................... 105 Individual Flake Analysis of Chert ......................................................... 110 Patterns in the Tool Assemblage......................................................................... 114 Temporal Patterns in the Tool Assemblage ............................................ 122 Projectile Point Fracture Patterns............................................................ 125 Diagnostic Projectile Points .................................................................... 126 Summary of Lithic Data Patterns ........................................................................ 127 Debitage .................................................................................................. 127 Tools ....................................................................................................... 128 — DISCUSSION ...................................................................................... 131 What can be inferred about subsistence, mobility, lithic technological organization, and social and economic ties of the site occupants? ..................... 132 Subsistence .............................................................................................. 132 Mobility................................................................................................... 133 Lithic Technological Organization ......................................................... 135 Social and Economic Ties (Trade and Exchange) .................................. 141 How do these cultural practices change over time? ............................................ 143 Changes in Subsistence ........................................................................... 143 Changes in Mobility................................................................................ 144 Changes in Lithic Technological Organization ...................................... 146 Changes in Social and Economic Ties (Trade and Exchange) ............... 147 If these cultural practices do change over time, what internal or external correlates can explain this change? ....................................................... 150 Summary of the Discussion ................................................................................ 155 — CONCLUSION ................................................................................... 157 Current Limitations and Future Research ........................................................... 158 Concluding Thoughts .......................................................................................... 160
x
Appendix A: Native Flora of the San Fernando Valley and Santa Monica Mountains .............................................................................................. 176 Appendix B: Native Fauna of the San Fernando Valley and Santa Monica Mountains ...........................................................................................................178 Appendix C: Chipped Stone Material Descriptions.........................................................181 Appendix D: Sjútkanga Chert Debitage Typology ..........................................................184 Appendix E: Tool Typologies for the Research Collection .............................................186 Appendix F: Obsidian Debitage Samples Selected for Energy Dispersive X-ray Fluorescence Testing ........................................................................189 Appendix G: Original Excavation Inventories and Level Summaries............................ 191 Appendix H: Energy Dispersive X-ray Fluorescence Report from the Geochemical Research Laboratory ............................................................231 Appendix I: Obsidian Hydration Report from Origer’s Obsidian Laboratory ................235 Appendix J: Obsidian Hydration Test Results. ................................................................237 Appendix K: Obsidian Hydration Analysis Report from Kathleen L. Hull, Ph.D. .........238 Appendix L: Bead Inventories for Three Research Units without Radiocarbon Determinations (Units 19, 38, and 48) .......................................................245 Appendix M: Bead Types and Quantities by Level in Units 19, 38, and 48 .................. 250 Appendix N: Stratigraphic Profiles and Lithofacies for the Five Research Units ...........253 Appendix O: ANOVA Post Hoc Results for all Five Research Units to Determine Chronological Clustering of Unit Levels ...................................................259 Appendix P: Chi-square Tests to Compare Proportions of Rock Types Between Temporal Periods .......................................................................................302 Appendix Q: Unit Summaries and Feature Descriptions for Material Present in the Research Assemblage .......................................................................305 Appendix R: Data Tables for Exploration of Lithic Data Patterns ..................................324 Appendix S: Artifact Inventory from the Research Assemblage.....................................328 Appendix T: Sample Artifact Photographs ......................................................................341
xi
LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Aspects of Foraging and Collecting Strategies of Hunting and Gathering Groups .............................................................................................................. 30 Table 2. Unit 8 Charcoal Samples and Their Radiocarbon Determinations. .................... 60 Table 3. Unit 20 Charcoal Samples and Their Radiocarbon Determinations. .................. 61 Table 4. Diagnostic Bead Types in the Research Assemblage with Southern California Temporal Significance. .................................................................................... 66 Table 5. Lithologic Strata Matching Temporal Periods in Units 8 and 20. ...................... 72 Table 6. ANOVA for Comparison of all Levels within Unit 8. ....................................... 74 Table 7. ANOVA for Comparison of Levels within Unit 19. .......................................... 74 Table 8. ANOVA for Comparison of all Levels within Unit 20. ..................................... 74 Table 9. ANOVA for Comparison of all Levels within Unit 38. ..................................... 75 Table 10. ANOVA for Comparison of all Levels within Unit 48. ................................... 75 Table 11. The Chronological Frameworks Determined by ANOVA Post Hoc Results. .............................................................................................................. 78 Table 12. Unit 19 CF1 Statistical Test Results for Comparing Two Proportions. ........... 81 Table 13. Unit 19 CF2 Statistical Test Results for Comparing Two Proportions. ........... 82 Table 14. Unit 19 CF3 Statistical Test Results for Comparing Two Proportions. ........... 82 Table 15. Unit 19 CF4 Statistical Test Results for Comparing Two Proportions. ........... 82 Table 16. Unit 19 CF5 Statistical Results for Comparing Two Proportions. ................... 83 Table 17. Unit 20 CF1 Statistical Test Results for Comparing Two Proportions. ........... 84 Table 18. Unit 38 CF1 Statistical Test Results for Comparing Two Proportions. ........... 84 Table 19. Unit 38 CF2 Statistical Test Results for Comparing Two Proportions. ........... 85 Table 20. Unit 38 CF3 Statistical Test Results for Comparing Two Proportions. ........... 85 Table 21. Unit 48 CF1 Statistical Test Results for Comparing Two Proportions. ........... 86
xii
Table 22. Unit 48 CF2 Statistical Test Results for Comparing Two Proportions. ........... 86 Table 23. Unit 48 CF3 Statistical Test Results for Comparing Two Proportions. ........... 86 Table 24. Unit 48 CF4 Statistical Test Results for Comparing Two Proportions. ........... 87 Table 25. Levels, Strata, and Determinations of Temporal Periods for Units with Chronological Frameworks. .............................................................................................. 88 Table 26. Levels from Each Unit in the Temporal Periods. ............................................. 88 Table 27. Quantities of Material in the Total Debitage Assemblage. ............................... 92 Table 28. The Total Tool Assemblage, Quantified by Category. ..................................... 93 Table 29. Cores and Tested Cobbles by Tool Type. ......................................................... 93 Table 30. Quantity and Percentage of Expedient Tools by Tool Type. ............................ 94 Table 31. Quantity and Percentage of Formal Tools by Tool Type. ................................ 95 Table 32. Quantities of Ground Stone and Percussive Tools by Type. ............................ 95 Table 33. Quantity and Percentage of Other Lithic Implements in the Research Assemblage. ...................................................................................................................... 97 Table 34. Calculation of Density-Time Index for Debitage in Each Temporal Period.............................................................................................................. 102 Table 35. Sjútkanga Chert Debitage Typology Key. ...................................................... 110 Table 36. Cores and Tested Cobbles from all Five Units by Type and Material. .......... 116 Table 37. Expedient Tools from all Five Units by Tool Type and Material. ................. 117 Table 38. Formal Tools from all Five Units by Type and Material. ............................... 118 Table 39. Ground Stone and Percussive Tools from all Five Units by Quantity and Percentage. ............................................................................................................... 119 Table 40. Other Lithic Tools from all Five Units by Type and Material........................ 119 Table 41. Basket-Related Tools and Raw Material from Unit 38. ................................. 120 Table 42. Heat Modification Observed in Artifacts from all Five Units. ....................... 121 Table 43. Calculation of Density-Time Index for Tools in Each Temporal Period. ...... 123 Table 44. Projectile Point Fracture Type by Temporal Period. ...................................... 126
xiii
Table 45. Native Flora of the San Fernando Valley and Santa Monica Mountains. ...... 176 Table 46. Native Fauna of the San Fernando Valley and Santa Monica Mountains. ..... 178 Table 47. Chipped Tool Stone Material Descriptions. ................................................... 181 Table 48. Sjútkanga Chert Debitage Typology............................................................... 184 Table 49. Tool Typology Descriptions for Cores and Tested Cobbles........................... 186 Table 50. Tool Typology Descriptions for Expedient Tools. ......................................... 186 Table 51. Tool Typology Descriptions for Formal Tools. .............................................. 187 Table 52. Tool Typology Descriptions for Ground Stone Tools and Percussive Implements.................................................................................................... 188 Table 53. Obsidian Debitage Samples Selected for Energy Dispersive X-ray Fluorescence Testing. ........................................................................................... 189 Table 54. Unit 8 Artifact Inventory Reported Upon Excavation. ................................... 200 Table 55. Unit 19 Artifact Inventory Reported Upon Excavation. ................................. 206 Table 56. Unit 20 Artifact Inventory Reported Upon Excavation. ................................. 215 Table 57. Unit 38 Artifact Inventory Reported Upon Excavation. ................................. 223 Table 58. Unit 48 Artifact Inventory Reported Upon Excavation. ................................. 230 Table 59. Obsidian Hydration Test Results. ................................................................... 237 Table 60. Unit 19 Bead Inventory................................................................................... 245 Table 61. Unit 38 Bead Inventory................................................................................... 246 Table 62. Unit 48 Bead Inventory................................................................................... 248 Table 63. Unit 19 Bead Types and Quantity by Level. .................................................. 250 Table 64. Unit 38 Bead Types and Quantity by Level. .................................................. 250 Table 65. Unit 48 Bead Types and Quantity by Level. .................................................. 251 Table 66. Unit 8 ANOVA Post Hoc Multiple Comparisons. ......................................... 259 Table 67. Unit 19 ANOVA Post Hoc Multiple Comparisons. ....................................... 266 Table 68. Unit 20 ANOVA Multiple Comparisons. ....................................................... 279
xiv
Table 69. Unit 38 ANOVA Post Hoc Multiple Comparisons. ....................................... 289 Table 70. Unit 48 ANOVA Multiple Comparisons. ....................................................... 294 Table 71. Chi-square Tests to Compare Proportions Between Temporal Periods. ........ 302 Table 72. Color Key for Temporal Periods and their Respective Time Frames............. 305 Table 73. Unit 8 Debitage by Material Type. ................................................................. 307 Table 74. Tools in the Unit 8 Assemblage. ..................................................................... 308 Table 75. Unit 19 Debitage by Material Type. ............................................................... 310 Table 76. Tools Present in the Unit 19 Research Assemblage. ...................................... 312 Table 77. Unit 20 Debitage by Material Type. ............................................................... 314 Table 78. Tools Present in the Unit 20 Research Assemblage. ...................................... 315 Table 79. Unit 38 Debitage by Material Type. ............................................................... 318 Table 80. Tools Present in the Unit 38 Research Assemblage. ...................................... 319 Table 81. Unit 48 Debitage by Material Type. ............................................................... 322 Table 82. Tools Present in the Unit 48 Research Assemblage ....................................... 323 Table 83. Debitage Counts for Material Types Quantified in Each Temporal Period. .. 324 Table 84. Density-Time Indices for Most Common Lithic Material Types in Each Temporal Period..................................................................................................... 324 Table 85. Percentages of Most Common Lithic Material Types in Each Temporal Period.............................................................................................................. 324 Table 86. Density-Time Index of Fused Shale in Each Temporal Period as a Basis for Linear Regression Tests................................................................................... 325 Table 87. Density-Time Index of Obsidian in Each Temporal Period as a Basis for Linear Regression Tests. .......................................................................................... 325 Table 88. Density-Time Index of Rhyolite in Each Temporal Period as a Basis for Linear Regression Tests. .......................................................................................... 325 Table 89. Model Summary for Obsidian to Fused Shale Regression. ............................ 325 Table 90. Model Summary for Obsidian to Fused Shale Regression, Outlier Removed. ............................................................................................................ 326
xv
Table 91. Model Summary for Rhyolite to Obsidian Regression. .................................. 326 Table 92. Model Summary for Rhyolite to Obsidian Regression, Outlier Removed. .... 326 Table 93. Sjútkanga Chert Debitage Counts by Type and Temporal Period. ................. 326 Table 94. Density Time Indices for Sjútkanga Chert Debitage. ..................................... 327 Table 95. Artifact Inventory from the Research Assemblage......................................... 328
xvi
LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Native Trade Routes in Southern California, after Davis 1961........................... 8 Figure 2. San Fernando Valley and Los Angeles Topography. ........................................ 11 Figure 3. Lithic Sources in Southern California in Relation to Sjútkanga. ...................... 15 Figure 4. Archaeological Investigations in the Vicinity of Sjútkanga (CA-LAN-43). ..... 19 Figure 5. Archaeological Investigations at the Site of Sjútkanga (CA-LAN-43). ............ 22 Figure 6. Ancestral Tribal Territory of the Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians............................................................................................................. 26 Figure 7. General Life-History of an Object. .................................................................... 38 Figure 8. Chaîne Opératoire of Sjútkanga Chert.............................................................. 51 Figure 9. Units 8 and 20 Calibrated Radiocarbon Determinations. .................................. 62 Figure 10. Bead Chronology for Unit 19. ......................................................................... 68 Figure 11. Bead Chronology for Unit 38. ......................................................................... 69 Figure 12. Bead Chronology for Unit 48. ......................................................................... 70 Figure 13. A Sample of Unit 8 ANOVA Post Hoc Results Showing Clusters of Excavation Levels Similar to 50–60 cm. .......................................................................... 76 Figure 14. A Sample of Unit 8 ANOVA Post Hoc Results Showing Clusters of Excavation Levels Similar to 70–80 cm. .......................................................................... 77 Figure 15. Comparisons of Proportions of Rock Types in Unit 19 CF1 to Temporal Periods Determined through Calibrated Radiocarbon Dating. ......................................... 80 Figure 16. Debitage Counts and Percentages for the Research Assemblage. ................. 101 Figure 17. Density-Time Index for Debitage. ................................................................. 103 Figure 18. Changes in Proportions of the Most Common Lithic Materials Over Time According to the Density-Time Index. ......................................................... 104 Figure 19. Density-Time Index of the Most Common Lithic Materials Over Time. ..... 105 Figure 20. Regression Line for the Relationship of Fused Shale to Obsidian. ............... 106
xvii
Figure 21. Regression Line for the Relationship of Fused Shale to Obsidian, Outlier Removed. ............................................................................................................ 107 Figure 22. Regression Line for the Relationship of Rhyolite to Obsidian...................... 107 Figure 23. Regression Line for the Relationship of Rhyolite to Obsidian, Outlier Removed. ............................................................................................................ 108 Figure 24. Density-Time Index for Fused Shale. ............................................................ 109 Figure 25. Density-Time Index for Obsidian. ................................................................. 109 Figure 26. Density-Time Index for Rhyolite. ................................................................. 109 Figure 27. Chert Debitage from Units 8 and 20 by Type and Percentage Over Time According to the Density-Time Index. .................................................................. 111 Figure 28. Density-Time Index of Chert Debitage from Units 8 and 20 by Type Over Time. ............................................................................................................. 112 Figure 29. Density-Time Index for Chert Manufacturing Stages. .................................. 113 Figure 30. Percentage of Cortical versus Non-Cortical Chert Debitage Over Time in Units 8 and 20 According to the Density-Time Index. ..................................... 114 Figure 31. All Tools in the Research Assemblage by Category, Quantity, and Percentage. ............................................................................................................... 115 Figure 32 . Cores and Tested Cobbles from all Five Units by Material Type. ............... 116 Figure 33. Expedient Tools from all Five Units by Material Type. ............................... 117 Figure 34. Formal Tools from all Five Units by Material Type. .................................... 118 Figure 35. Fracture Patterns on Projectile Points from all Five Units. ........................... 122 Figure 36. Density-Time Index for Tools Over Time (for all Tools within Temporal Periods). .......................................................................................................... 123 Figure 37. Density-Time Index for Tools Over Time by Tool Type. ............................. 125 Figure 38. Percentage of Tools Over Time by Tool Type According to the Density-Time Index. ....................................................................................................... 125 Figure 39. Diagnostic Projectile Points in the Research Assemblage. ........................... 126 Figure 40. Unit 8 Stratigraphic Profile. .......................................................................... 254 Figure 41. Unit 19 Stratigraphic Profile. ........................................................................ 255
xviii
Figure 42. Unit 20 Stratigraphic Profile. ........................................................................ 256 Figure 43. Unit 38 Stratigraphic Profile. ........................................................................ 257 Figure 44. Unit 48 Stratigraphic Profile. ........................................................................ 258 Figure 45. Cores and Tested Cobbles—Various Basalt Cores. ...................................... 341 Figure 46. Cores and Tested Cobbles—Chert, Quartz, and Chalcedony Cores. ............ 342 Figure 47. Expedient Tools—Scrapers, an Edge-Modified Flake, and a Chopper/Percussive Implement. ..................................................................................... 343 Figure 48. Expedient Tools—Scrapers, a Borer, and Edge-Modified Flakes. ............... 344 Figure 49. Expedient Tool—Wedge. .............................................................................. 345 Figure 50. Formal Tools—Bifaces. ................................................................................ 346 Figure 51. Formal Tools—Drills. ................................................................................... 347 Figure 52. Formal Tools—Projectile Points and a Knife. .............................................. 348 Figure 53. Ground Stone and Percussive Tools—Hammerstones. ................................. 349 Figure 54. Ground Stone and Percussive Tools—Manos. .............................................. 350 Figure 55. Ground Stone and Percussive Tools—Pestles. .............................................. 351 Figure 56. Ground Stone and Percussive Tools—Metate. .............................................. 352 Figure 57. Ground Stone and Percussive Tools—Various Ground Stone Implements............................................................................................................ 353 Figure 58. Ground Stone and Percussive Tools—Bowl and Cooking Stone Fragments.............................................................................................................. 354 Figure 59. Ground Stone and Percussive Tools—Modelo “Cutting” Board. ................. 355
xix
ABSTRACT Trade, Technology, Subsistence, and Mobility Patterns at Sjútkanga, the Encino Village Site, California By Joanne Minerbi Master of Arts in Anthropology, Public Archaeology
Lifeways of hunter gatherers in the San Fernando Valley of California are not well understood, perhaps because urban development has limited this potential knowledge. The orphaned archaeological collection from the Encino Village Site provides a means to gain insight into subsistence, mobility, lithic technological organization, and social and economic ties of the people at this locale. Known as Sjútkanga to its descendants, the site is believed to be the location of the 1769 Portolá Expedition’s first resting place in the San Fernando Valley. The collection speaks to a culturally-rich and diverse way of life. In the course of this research, I conducted detailed individual flake analysis of chert and looked closely at the density and composition of debitage from the site. I also observed tool density and diversity, heat treatment, and projectile point breakage patterns. Obsidian from several units was sourced, primarily to the Coso Volcanic Field. Results of these analyses confirm that the locale was the site of a significant village. Analysis investigated how subsistence, mobility, lithic technological organization, and social and economic ties changed through time and why. I found that the Medieval Climatic Anomaly (circa A.D. 800 to 1350) impacted ways of life at the site, but with its dependable spring, Sjútkanga was a locus of intensified occupation. During this time, villagers broadened the base of their diet, decreased their mobility, produced tools over
xx
the full use life from procurement to discard, and shifted their social and economic focus from the desert to the coast. This research contributes to literature that investigates the impact of climate change on cultural and demographic patterns, especially in the American West. These findings may impact knowledge about adaptations to environmental stress in indigenous populations of Southern California. Little has been published regarding lithics in the San Fernando Valley, so this research affords a deeper consideration of technological patterns of ethnic groups about whom not enough is known. Analysis of the Sjútkanga lithics also sheds light on what people ate, how they moved about the landscape, and why and how they interacted with surrounding groups. The foundation of research presented here suggests additional opportunities for researchers to work with the Sjútkanga archaeological collection. A variety of materials and methodologies have the potential to inform us of life at the village.
xxi
— INTRODUCTION In a California valley more than three leagues wide and eight leagues long, inhabitants of a Native American village welcomed an unusual band of men and animals and provided them with food. On this day, August 5th of 1769, the members of the Spanish Portolá Expedition rested and watered their horses at a large pool of water. They named the plain El Valle de Santa Catalina de Bononia de Los Encinos (Bolton 1971:151). Before the expedition’s departure two days later, more than 200 Native Americans greeted the visitors (Boneu Companys 1983). This ethnohistoric information, from the diaries of Fray Juan Crespi and Miguel Costanso, was insufficient to identify the actual location of the Native American village where the expedition camped. Therefore, it became known as the “Lost Village of Los Encinos,” although it was never lost to its descendants Archaeological site CA-LAN-43, near a natural spring in Encino, California in the San Fernando Valley, suggests a possible location for this village (Whitney-Desautels 1986a:1). This ancestral village of the Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians is the focus of this research. Known to its descendants as Sjútkanga, or “Place of the Live Oak,” I will hereafter refer to the site by its indigenous name. It is, however, important to note that to the Fernandeño Tataviam, Sjútkanga is not an isolated “archaeological” site, but rather the geographical space now known as Encino, California. In California archaeology, lifeways of hunter gatherers in the San Fernando Valley of California are not well understood. My research goal is to use lithic analysis to elucidate trade, technological, and strategic patterns of life of the inhabitants of Sjútkanga. To date, the lithics from the site have never been analyzed. The orphaned
1
archaeological collection from Sjútkanga offers an extraordinary opportunity to learn about lifeways of the Valley’s original residents. In the mid-1980s, demolition and grading began on the parcel at the southeast corner of Ventura and Balboa Boulevards, in advance of a proposed development for condominiums and an office building. The cultural resource management firm expected to find historic deposits. Instead, evidence of indigenous inhabitants appeared. Trenching to test for buried cultural deposits uncovered a dog burial. Further inspection revealed the presence of human bone. The archaeological project was in flux from the beginning, as a result of legal, financial, practical and ethical issues (Tejada 2015; Whitney-Desautels 1986a). In 1985, some ancestral remains and associated burial goods were reinterred (Tejada 2015; Whitney-Desautels 1986a). In 2015, the majority of the artifact collection moved to its current home at Los Encinos State Historic Park. In September 2017, approximately 50 additional boxes related to the collection were identified in storage at Palomar College. As non-perishable materials, lithics are the most likely material culture to remain in the archaeological record. The waste products of the chipped tool-making process, debitage, and discarded broken tools are common elements of archaeological assemblages. Debitage and tools may elucidate subsistence strategies, mobility patterns, lithic procurement strategies, and technological organization. Sources of lithic raw materials are identifiable and informative regarding the spread of material and the movements of people, allowing for inferences about land use and mobility patterns (Andrefsky 2008:9). The quantity of obsidian present in the study excavation units allows for deeper insight into practices of procurement of this material
2
into the Los Angeles Basin. By pairing obsidian hydration analytical results with available radiocarbon dates from Sjútkanga, it may be possible to refine a hydration rate of obsidian for the San Fernando Valley. This information provides clues to social and economic ties related to lithics, and, by inference, to other materials of exchange. Therefore, because they are ubiquitous and informative, lithics offer opportunities to answer questions about culture and behavior. The questions I pose for the lithics of the Sjútkanga assemblage are: 1) What can be inferred about subsistence, mobility, lithic technological organization and social and economic ties of the site occupants? 2) How do these cultural practices change over time? 3) If these cultural practices do change over time, what internal or external correlates can explain this change? Little published literature is available for lithic analysis in the San Fernando Valley specifically. Knowledge of the original inhabitants of Sjútkanga, whose descendants are the Fernandeño Tataviam, is scanty, since European colonialism decimated their population and language. The descendants of lineage-members at Sjútkanga refer to themselves today as the Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians (Fernandeño Tataviam). To the Fernandeño Tataviam, residents of Sjútkanga were of the Pipimaram, or coastal, culture (Rudy Ortega Jr., personal communication 2018), who were related to the islanders from Santa Catalina (Kroeber 1976[1925]:634). Research has the potential to contribute to the local knowledge base regarding lithics and Fernandeño Tataviam history and their way of life in the San Fernando Valley.
3
Sjútkanga is known to the Fernandeño Tataviam as a village site that was home to the lineage Sjútkabit (Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians 2017c). The current research confirms this knowledge from the standpoint of lithic analysis. As such, the Sjútkanga archaeological collection offers a substantial opportunity to learn about village life in the San Fernando Valley and environs. With a continuous chronological sequence of occupation in a single site, from at least 2,000 years ago through the historic period, one can gain insight into village lifeways over time. This thesis is organized in a way that gradually narrows from general concepts to detailed results and conclusions, then relates back to the larger picture. Chapter 2 introduces the archaeological contexts relevant to Sjútkanga. The broad picture of California indigenous history narrows into characterizations of the San Fernando Valley and the site of Sjútkanga itself. Chapter 3 details the theoretical frameworks used to investigate the hunting and gathering lifestyle of Sjútkanga’s ancestral people and their lithic material culture. Chapter 4 documents the sampling strategy and methodological techniques for this lithic analysis. The methods and investigation into the chronological profile of the data is the subject of Chapter 5. The lithic assemblage is introduced in Chapter 6, with an acknowledgment of data constraints and observations about the research assemblage as a whole. Chapter 7 explores patterns in the lithic data, and Chapter 8 offers interpretations of these results by returning to the questions posed above. The final chapter discusses why my results are significant and suggests next steps for research of these data and the Sjútkanga collection.
4
— ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXTS Results of this thesis research support the idea that Sjútkanga was occupied during the Late Holocene. Culture history of the Late Holocene, after 4000 B.C., is anything but simple in what the California archaeological record tells us, and what scholars agree upon for cultural chronologies. Indigenous California was vast and diverse, ecologically, socioculturally and otherwise. However, Arnold and Walsh (2010:32) note some generalities: •
Population increased, while certain areas were vacated
•
People started practicing logistical organization and relative sedentism
•
Resource acquisition intensified, to the detriment of some environments
•
Territoriality increased
•
Regional exchange networks became substantial
•
Complex political systems emerged in some areas
The Late Holocene brought cooler and wetter conditions, similar to what we experience today, although oscillations are evident at certain localities (Arnold and Walsh 2010). Warmer temperatures characterized the Medieval Climatic Anomaly around cal A.D. 800 to 1350, including two extended droughts separated by a wet interval from A.D. 1010 to 1210 (Jones et al. 1999:153; Schwitalla and Jones 2012:100). These climate changes impacted lifeways in some regions of the state (Arnold and Walsh 2010; Schwitalla and Jones 2012). Climatic conditions over millennia changed sea levels and therefore coastal ecosystems, impacting marine resources available to humans (Masters and Aiello 2007). Sea surface temperatures (SSTs) have also varied but appear to have been less stable in the Late Holocene (West et al. 2007). West and colleagues (2007) identified the period
5
between A.D. 950 and 1300 (roughly coincident with the Medieval Climatic Anomaly) as a period of particularly good marine productivity. During the Late Holocene, population pressure contributed to changing lifeways in certain areas of the state. As populations grew in the Owens Valley of eastern California, free-ranging groups became territorially restricted, leading to sedentism and adaptations in subsistence strategies (Arnold and Walsh 2010). In central California, Jones and colleagues (2008) note that coastal groups practiced a semi-sedentary lifestyle and collected marine resources year-round, while inland groups were more mobile, collecting marine resources and harvesting acorns seasonally. Intensive subsistence resource collection played a prominent role in the Late Holocene. Technological innovations allowed for more effective management of resource abundance. However, subsistence resource depletion has been identified archaeologically as a consequence of overpredation of resources and possible changes in the environment (Arnold and Walsh 2010). Native Californians exploited natural resources for many purposes other than food—there were utilitarian, spiritual and medicinal needs to be met. Lithics represent a small portion of California material culture. Technology plays a very important role in ways of life and identity during the Late Holocene. Bow and arrow technology was introduced in California A.D. 200 to 600 (Arnold and Walsh 2010; Sutton et al. 2007), and in southern coastal California around A.D. 500 to 900 (Kennett et al. 2013). Native Californians excelled at basketry, but pottery production was limited to eastern parts of the state (Lightfoot and Parrish 2009). Altogether, pre-colonial material culture in the state is quite diverse.
6
It is debatable whether this diversity is a result of migratory patterns, diffusion of material culture or local cultural development (Voss 2012:311). In any case, identity may have been expressed through material culture—clothing, technological traditions, etc. This appears to be an important part of social life in the Late Holocene (Voss 2012). Obsidian and shell beads are indicators of complex networks of exchange that developed by the Late Holocene (Arnold and Walsh 2010). Both materials, with welldocumented sources of origin, were traded over long distances (Hughes and Milliken 2007). Chemical analysis of shell found in the Owens and Central Valleys indicates their origins in the southern California coastal region (Eerkens et al. 2005). Exchange systems were probably a social adaptive response to increased population pressure and territoriality during the Late Holocene. Figure 1 shows pre-colonial trade routes in Southern California, which may have originally been indigenous pathways or game trails (Davis 1961:8). The distribution of the most prominent contact-period groups in Southern California are also shown. The Tataviam and Fernandeño culture areas in gray are pertinent to this research. Social relations between groups formed a web of intermarriage, kinship ties, military alliances, and exchange networks that crosscut simple definitions of territory, political authority, and language (Voss 2012:310). Golla (2011:2) declares that “in this region, uniquely in North America, the idea that a distinct common language is the social glue that holds together a tribe or nation played no significant role.” Instead, people intermarried with speakers of other languages and dialects.
7
The basic polity in California was defined by Kroeber as a tribelet, each having the following characteristics (Kroeber 1966:95): •
Tribelets comprised a main village, possibly smaller outlying settlements
•
Tribelets were largely autonomous and self-governing
•
Land ownership was the purview of tribelets vs. larger socio-political units
•
Tribelet communities consisted of no more than five hundred individuals, generally with kinship ties, but probably averaged about 250 persons
Since the work of Kroeber, the notion of a tribelet has expanded: populations and territories are thought to be potentially quite a bit larger than Kroeber’s definition; certain tribelets maintained hierarchical organization; and, tribelets may have engaged in larger political alliances (Lightfoot 2005:45).
Figure 1. Native Trade Routes in Southern California, after Davis 1961. Trade routes in thin pink lines overlay tribal territories as per Kroeber 1976 [1925]. The jurisdiction of the Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians is marked in light gray.
8
Early ethnographies of native Californians contribute to knowledge about groups in the Late Holocene. However, most of the data captured through informants tells a story of life after European contact. In fact, Native Californians have unique and deep histories that pre-date colonial interest in ethnographic documentation (Lightfoot 2005:46). This indigenous population of California at the time of European colonialism was larger than any other equivalently-sized region north of Mexico (Lightfoot and Parrish 2009:5). Population estimates range from 310,000 to 700,000 people, most of whom were hunter-gatherers and some of whose population densities exceeded those of other such groups around the world (Arnold and Walsh 2010:3; Bartelink 2009:228). There were an estimated 600 tribelets, or self-governing units, throughout the state (Kroeber 1966:92). Population aggregation and territoriality occurred as sedentism increased (Arnold and Walsh 2010:36). Aside from some groups in the southeast portion of the state, native Californians did not adopt agriculture as a mode of subsistence. Some groups in certain regions, however, presented patterns associated with agrarian societies, such as complex political hierarchies (Lightfoot and Parrish 2009:4). That’s not to say that these groups did not manage their environments. In fact, habitat and economic diversity was enhanced by practices such as fire management and cultivation of wild crops (Anderson 2006; Lightfoot and Parrish 2009; Schiffman 2005; West et al. 2007). The diversity of subsistence patterns is mirrored in the diversity of languages. It is estimated that Native Americans in California and Baja California expressed up to 78‒100 mutually unintelligible languages, which is approximately one-fifth to onethird of known native languages north of Mesoamerica (Golla 2011:1; Johnson et al.
9
2012:49; Lightfoot and Parrish 2009:7). Golla (2011) identifies five primary language families for California indigenous populations, plus three languages of unknown origin: − Algic − Athabaskan (Na-Dene) − Hokan − Penutian − Uto-Aztecan •
Yukian
•
Chumash
•
Waikuri
In the next section, I investigate cultural and environmental phenomena at a more fine-grained level. San Fernando Valley Context The San Fernando Valley is a basin surrounded by mountains (Figure 2). Encino and Sjútkanga are situated in the south-central San Fernando Valley and include part of the north slope of the Santa Monica Mountains.
10
Figure 2. San Fernando Valley and Los Angeles Topography. Base map adapted from William Hammond Hall, State Engineer, Sacramento (circa 1880), courtesy of the David Rumsey Historical Map Collection (davidyrumsey.com).
The Glendale Narrows cuts between the Santa Monica and Verdugo mountains and the Cahuenga Pass connects the San Fernando Valley and the Los Angeles Basin over the modern U.S. Route 101 (Glantz 1977). The Sepulveda Pass connects the San Fernando Valley with the Los Angeles Basin through what has become the 405 Interstate. A connection between the San Fernando and Simi Valleys is formed by the Santa Susana Pass at an elevation of 370 m (1,200 feet). The Newhall Pass divides the San Gabriels from the Santa Susana Mountains (Glantz 1977). Today, the Newhall Pass is marked by the interchange of Interstate 5 to the Santa Clarita Valley and Route 14 leading to the
11
interior deserts (Heath 1966), a route that may have originally been an indigenous pathway (Faull 2006; Scharlotta 2014). The San Fernando Valley climate is transitional between the cool coast and high temperatures of regions north and east, including mountains and desert (Glantz 1977). The modern, Mediterranean climate of Southern California is unique in North America, due to a combination of effects from its latitude, terrain and cold ocean currents (Schiffman 2005:39). Summers are warm and dry, while winters are cool and moderately wet. El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) events bring rains to the region that may be detrimental to some natural resources and beneficial to others (West et al. 2007). Dry conditions of La Niña periods cycle with the El Niño events. The most prominent hydrological feature of the San Fernando Valley is the Los Angeles River, which flowed through the historic Rancho Encino. In an 1865 Geological Survey of California (Whitney 1865:119), the valley floor is described thus: It is about twenty miles long and twelve miles wide, and drain[s] towards the south by the Los Angeles River. The soil of most of the plain is sandy, and the streams running into the valley from various directions sink when they strike it, and do not flow on the surface, except during the seasons of heavy and long-continued rains. Headwaters for the Los Angeles River begin at the confluence of Bell Creek and Arroyo Calabasas. The Pacoima Wash and Tujunga Wash, in the eastern area of the San Fernando Valley, originate in the San Gabriel Mountains, and flow into the Los Angeles River (Carpenter 1948; Glantz 1977). Also prominent to the San Fernando Valley is the Encino Spring, currently located on the grounds of Los Encinos State Historic Park, just north of Sjútkanga. Josiah Dwight Whitney (1865:119–120), who participated in California geological field work from 1860 through 1864, describes the Encino Spring:
12
A warm spring occurs on the south side of the plain, at the base of the Santa Monica [Mountains], on the Encino Ranch. The water had, in February, 1861, a temperature of 83°, and a slightly alkaline taste, and appeared to contain carbonate of soda and the sulphates of soda and magnesia, in so considerable a quantity as to be unfit for irrigation. The Encino Spring was a significant source of water for the area, used as drinking water by the public and livestock at that time. However, crops on the Encino Rancho were dependent on winter rain (Carpenter 1948). At the time of European contact, three ecosystems constituted the native landscape of the San Fernando Valley and its environs: chaparral and coastal sage scrub on the hillsides and prairie or savannah on the flatlands of the valley (Schiffman 2005; West et al. 2007). Native flora provided food, shelter, and other culturally significant resources to indigenous Californians (Schiffman 2005). Appendix A notes the character and abundance of the area flora. Inhabitants of Sjútkanga would have encountered bear, antelope and many smaller species. Appendix B identifies a diverse range of species that would have been available to native people. According to a 1931 U.S. Geological Survey, the geological composition of the San Fernando Valley is alluvial material (Carpenter 1948:98). Alluvial fan and floodplain deposits in the western portion of the valley are composed of silty sand derived from smaller drainages with sedimentary rocks as their source, or of clayey alluvium issuing from shale bedrock (Hitchcock 2000). The Tujunga and Pacoima washes, originating in the San Gabriel Mountains, are sources of late Quaternary sediments in the eastern part of the valley (Hitchcock 2000). The upper Miocene Modelo formation, with its high silica content, has a wide distribution along and near the Coast Ranges, from north of San Francisco to south of Los Angeles (Bramlette 1946:2). Silicious rocks of this formation include chert, porcelainite, 13
dolomite, and mudstone (Bramlette 1946:2; Hall 2007). Found at the southern edge of Encino in the Santa Monica Mountains, near the Sepulveda Pass, it contains sandstone, diatomaceous shale, and small quantities of conglomerate, which includes quartzites (Carpenter 1948:99; Hall 2007:253). Obsidian and fused shale do not have sources in the Los Angeles Basin; the former is generally from the Coso Volcanic Field in eastern California, while the latter is from Grimes Canyon and Happy Camp Canyon between Moorpark and Fillmore in Ventura County (Gamble and King 1997:62). The sources of fused shale are within 40 linear km (25 miles) to Sjútkanga. The Coso Volcanic Field is over 225 linear km (140 miles) from Sjútkanga. Chert sources can be found in the Monterey formation from Point Dume and the Malibu coast, Calabasas near LAN-225 (Century Ranch), silty chert in Agoura, and meta-chert from Malibu Creek State Park (Gamble and King 1997:62). The Jurassic Franciscan and the Monterey Formations are both interbedded with cherts (Hall 2007; Schoenherr et al. 1999). The Franciscan Formation includes shales, diatomites, and serpentinite which are exposed from San Francisco Bay to the Coast Ranges and even to some of the Channel Islands. The Monterey Formation, which crops out in the Western Transverse Ranges, is composed of shales interbedded with diatomaceous sedimentary cherty rocks (Hall 2007). Asphaltum from the Monterey Formation was available in the vicinities of Carpenteria and University of California, Santa Barbara, and a short distance inland from Pismo Beach (Hall 2007:279), as well as from the Tar Pits at La Brea. Sandstone is found in Los Angeles County’s Topanga Formation, north of Topanga Beach (Hall 2007:25). Catalina Schist is present in the Los Angeles Basin at Palos Verdes (Hall 2007:170).
14
The Conejo volcanics in the Santa Monica Mountains are a local source of andesite and basalt, Topanga Canyon a source of basalt, and the Santa Monica Mountains, Simi Hills and Calabasas Formation sources of quartzite (Gamble and King 1997:62; Yerkes and Campbell 1979). Figure 3 shows some lithic sources in relation to Sjútkanga.
Figure 3. Lithic Sources in Southern California in Relation to Sjútkanga. Northwest Research Obsidian Studies Laboratory (sourcecatalog.com/image_maps/image_maps.html#ca), Hughes and Peterson 2009: Fig. 1, Scharlotta 2014: Fig.1, and Hill 2016.
15
Sjútkanga Context Historic Sjútkanga Indigenous Sjútkanga was dramatically impacted by European contact and colonialism. As my research is primarily concerned with the pre-colonial village, only brief historical information relevant to Sjútkanga and Rancho Encino is provided here. The Portolá Expedition (1769‒1770), the first European exploration of inland California, is thought to have arrived in the San Fernando Valley through the Sepulveda Pass on August 5th, 1769 (Bolton 1971:151). Inspired by an oak grove, they named the area El Valle de Santa Catalina de Bononia de los Encinos (The Valley of Saint Catharine of Bononia of the Live Oaks). Miguel Costanso described the experience: …we discerned a very large and pleasant valley. We descended to it and halted near the watering-place, which consisted of a very large pool. Near this there was a populous Indian village, very good-natured and peaceful. They offered us their seeds in trays or baskets of rushes, and came to the camp in such numbers that, had they been armed, they might have caused us apprehension, as we counted as many as two hundred and five, including men, women, and children. All of them offered us something to eat, and we, in turn, gave them our glass beads and ribbons… (Costanso 1911[1770]:23) The large pool and watering place are believed to be the pond and spring on the grounds of Los Encinos State Historic Park, and the village may be Sjútkanga (WhitneyDesautels 1986a:1). The Spanish party stayed in place for one day (Costanso 1911[1770]:25). In the following two days, the Expedition crossed the Valle de Los Encinos to the north, travelled through a canyon and high hills and descended into another valley (presumably Santa Clarita) on their journey toward Monterey. Months later, on January 15, 1770, the expedition, on its return from Monterey, again stayed over by Encino’s natural spring (Costanso 1911[1770]:157‒159).
16
More than 25 years later, the mission system arrived in the San Fernando Valley. Founded in September 1797, San Fernando Rey de España was the seventeenth mission established by the Franciscans in California. Its location was intended to reduce the gap between the missions of San Gabriel and San Buenaventura (Engelhardt 1927). The aboriginal village of Achoicominga, later Reyes Rancho, was chosen for its location (Engelhardt 1927; Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians 2017a). The census of Native American neophytes at San Fernando Mission counted 56 people in its natal year 1797, 660 in 1802, around 1,081 at its peak in 1811, and 541 in 1835 (Engelhardt 1927). The missions of California were secularized during the Mexican Period (1821‒ 1848). The Mexican Secularization Act of 1834 recognized the rights of Native Americans to retain Mission lands, practice self-government, and enjoy political protection (Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians 2009:27). In July 1845, Mexican Governor Pico gave a land grant of Encino, which encompassed Sjútkanga, to three Native Americans—Roman, Francisco “Papabubaba,” and Roque—in an unusual case of Mission Indians obtaining lands formerly controlled by the Spanish crown (Tejada 2015). The grant amounted to one square league (4,460 acres) of grazing land and included the Encino spring (Carpenter 1948). In 1846 the American flag was raised in Monterey, ending the Mexican-American War. California was among the territories ceded to the United States as a provision of the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, which was supposed to preserve Native American liberty and property rights under the Mexican Secularization Act of 1834; however, implementation of these rights under the treaty were not effectively recognized in most cases (Fatehi 2017; Klein 1996).
17
Rancho Encino was legally recognized as a Mexican land grant of 4460.73 acres in January of 1873. Rancho Encino was an important stopping point for travelers. Ventura Road, the road to San Fernando, and the stage route from Los Angeles to Santa Barbara converged at Encino (Carpenter 1948). A trading post dating to the early 1870s was present along the Ventura County Road, which was then known as El Camino Real and is now called Ventura Boulevard (Carpenter 1948). The period from 1893 to 1916 saw the breakup of Rancho Encino, largely due to the incoming phenomena of trains, paved roads and water from the Owens River Aqueduct (Carpenter 1948:37). In 1916, owners of the Rancho Encino let go of 1,700 acres of the southern portion of the parcel for a major subdivision. Subsequent divisions of land led to its urbanization. The Encino Reservoir was constructed by 1924, and the Sepulveda Flood Control Basin and Dam came into being by 1941 on the northeast area of the rancho. Los Encinos State Historic Park was established in 1949. Archaeological Investigations The location of the Los Encinos spring was of historical and archaeological significance, since local tradition held that this was where the Portolá Expedition stopped on the way to San Francisco Bay in 1769 (Wallace 1960:2). However, most archaeological assessments in the vicinity of Los Encinos State Historic Park failed to recognize the possibility that there was a substantial pre-colonial settlement (Figure 4). Some believed that a small hill north of Ventura Boulevard and east of the Los Encinos State Historic Park may have been the village site (Tejada 2015). Known locally as the “burial mound,” it had been graded for development in the 1940s and 50s, and although artifacts were encountered, there was no mention of burials (Tejada 2015).
18
In 1960, when William J. Wallace conducted excavations at the Park north of Ventura Boulevard, he was unable to find evidence of a native village or Spanish encampment (Whitney-Desautels 1986a). In the same year, CA-LAN-43 was recorded south of Ventura Boulevard near Balboa Boulevard by Charles Rozaire, based on surface artifacts, but the site was deemed to be a temporary camp site (Whitney-Desautels 1986a). A 1975 survey of CA-LAN-43 conducted by the Northridge Archaeological Research Center of California State University, Northridge, was the only one to propose a high likelihood of indigenous cultural deposits (Romani 1975).
Figure 4. Archaeological Investigations in the Vicinity of Sjútkanga (CA-LAN-43). After Whitney-Desautels 1986a:2, Figure 1.
In 1978 and 1979, Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc. (SRS), a cultural resource management (CRM) firm, conducted archaeological investigations on the 9-acre parcel 19
slated for development by First Financial Group (FFG) (Mason1986:9; Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc. 1978). California law required that FFG initiate this assessment in order to determine whether cultural deposits of significance were present. This parcel included the recorded archaeological site of CA-LAN-43. Field testing took place east of CA-LAN-43 in 1978. Included were surface inspections, monitoring and spot screening of some trenched soil tests conducted by Pacific Soils Engineers, and hand excavation of four 1.5-m2 units (Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc. 1978:14‒17). These units were excavated in arbitrary 10 cm levels and wet screened through 1/8-inch mesh. Nearly 4,000 artifacts of Euroamerican manufacture were recovered, none of which appeared to belong to the Spanish or Mexican period. The number of indigenous artifacts recovered was described as sparse. Altogether, SRS and professional consultants found nothing to indicate the presence of an extensive indigenous settlement (Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc. 1978:30). SRS concluded that the village mentioned by Portolá was located elsewhere. Further investigations of the western portion of FFG’s parcel included CA-LAN-43. SRS predicted that historic structures might be uncovered during the demolition process, since their 1979 excavation to the east included a historic roadhouse, privy, corral and trash scatters (Mason 1986:9; Whitney-Desautels 1986a:1). SRS monitored the removal of a layer of asphalt and several buildings on the corner, including Poppy’s Star Restaurant, a used car lot, and a bank building (Mason 1986:9; Whitney-Desautels 1986a:1). During demolition in 1984, trenches to test for archaeological deposits uncovered indigenous material, including human and canid burials, revealing the Lost Village (Mason 1986:9). SRS spent eight months excavating CA-LAN-43. Approximately 11.2
20
percent of the archaeological site was sampled (Mason 1986:9, 13). A total of 70 systematically-placed 2-x-2 m blocks were positioned to determine the boundaries of the site and collect samples of the midden, and 95 units of varying sizes were placed according to judgmental sampling where features were expected (Mason 1986:13) (Figure 5). Units were excavated in arbitrary 10 cm levels. Ninety-four features were recorded, including hearths, rock clusters, burials, a seed concentration, lithic caches and rock cairns, historic and pre-Colonial artifact concentrations, and an articulated animal skeleton. Terrain conductivity meter studies at the site revealed a prehistoric stream bed that ran north and west of the site (Riddell 1985; Whitney-Desautels 1986b). Sjútkanga was excavated during a time when public discourse over the disposition of Native American remains was in full force. The fact that human burials and cremations were present at the site and that an extensive assemblage of artifacts was being collected caused political, financial, and social upheaval. Native Americans, archaeologists, FFG, the California Department of Parks and Recreation, and the California Legislature became involved in the ensuing disputes (Tejada 2015). Representatives of the Gabrielino and Fernandeño tribes were present to monitor ground disturbances and excavations. Among them were Sparky Morales (Gabrielino), Charlie Cooke (Fernandeño), and Rudy Ortega Sr. (Fernandeño) (Rudy Ortega Jr., personal communication 2018).
21
22
Figure 5. Archaeological Investigations at the Site of Sjútkanga (CA-LAN-43). Excavation units in black form the research sample.
On April 15, 1985 human and canid burials and associated grave goods were reinterred (Tejada 2015). This marked the cessation of payments from FFG to SRS, leaving sorting, analysis, and curation in limbo (Whitney-Desautels 1986a:6). Although additional curation efforts were called for, FFG claimed that it had complied with its financial requirements for mitigation under the California Environmental Quality Act. SRS continued to curate artifacts on the ethical premise that decay of perishable materials needed to be addressed and insistence that the landowner was still responsible for this portion of the archaeological investigation. Additional human remains were found during sorting, further complicating matters. The Gabrielino advised that they might sue both FFG and the City of Los Angeles (Whitney-Desautels 1986a:7). In response FFG threatened to rebury the whole collection. The principal of SRS sued FFG for $1 million and refused to hand over any of the collection until payment was received (Lerner 1988). In 1989, a $450,000 financial settlement was reached between SRS and FFG. At some point, a portion of the collection was moved from SRS’s warehouse in Newport Beach to a shipping container on the premises of Palomar College in San Marcos. It languished there for an unknown number of years, unanalyzed and unpublished except for a few student cataloguing projects, a set of 1986 articles and a single 2011 article in the Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly. Aspects of the site discussed in this journal include CRM challenges, a summary of the archaeological project, terrain conductivity meter study results, radiocarbon determinations, conditions of a sample of human interments, information about the animal burials, and the association of ceramics with Olivella grooved rectangular shell beads.
23
In late 2014, the collection came home to Los Encinos State Historic Park. Fernandeño Tataviam Tribal President Rudy Ortega Jr., the great-great-great grandson of Francisco “Papabubaba,” a grantee of the Encino land grant, was present to bring the collection home. By December 2015, the remainder of the Sjútkanga collection was housed at the Park. Over 90,000 catalogued items are being organized, resorted and verified, which is a fraction of the material collected from the excavation of the village. A second round of repatriation is anticipated, after which some artifacts will be unavailable for analysis. Human remains continue to be identified as the collection is processed. In September 2017, subsequent to the completion of the first draft of this thesis, about 50 additional boxes that belong with the Sjútkanga collection were identified at Palomar College. The Descendant Community, The Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians The Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians is a native sovereign nation of northern Los Angeles County. Ancestors of the Fernandeño Tataviam were recruited to the Mission San Fernando Rey de España (present day Mission Hills, California) from lineages in the surrounding areas of Simi, Santa Clarita, San Fernando, the Antelope Valley, and parts of the Angeles National Forest. The native peoples recruited to the San Fernando Mission were collectively called the Fernandeño, but included people originating from Tataviam, Chumash, Pipimaram, Kitanemuk, Serrano and Vanyume lineages, all of whom spoke distinct languages or dialects (Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians 2017b). Language boundaries are not to be confused with political boundaries. Local tribelets maintained social and political systems based on kinship arrangements. Local villages/lineages maintained
24
social and political systems and held territory based on kinship arrangements (Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians 2009). Groups practiced exogamy, which expanded their social and economic networks. Oral tradition and ethnographic records identify the territory of the San Fernando Mission neophytes as the San Fernando, Santa Clarita, Simi and Antelope Valleys and sections of the Angeles National Forest (Fatehi 2017:9). The ancestral site of Sjútkanga in Encino was among the villages from which neophytes were recruited. The Fernandeño Tataviam refer to their ancestors from this village as Sjúkavitam, or the people of Sjútkanga. Throughout the years, the voluntary coalition or network of lineages was preserved. Today, these affiliated lineages refer to themselves as the Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians (“Fernandeño Tataviam” or “the Tribe”). The Tribe’s members trace descent from people of area villages recruited to the Mission system (Figure 6).
25
Figure 6. Ancestral Tribal Territory of the Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians. Map courtesy of the Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians, www.tataviam-nsn.us.
The name that the Tataviam gave themselves is lost. These inhabitants of the upper Santa Clara River were known to their Ventureño Chumash neighbors as the Alliklik (Kroeber 1976[1925]). Today, the Tribe has chosen to represent themselves as Fernandeño, Mission San Fernando-associated peoples, and Tataviam, a Kitanemuk term meaning “people facing the sun” (Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians 2017b; King and Blackburn 1978:537). Although the Tataviam language is largely lost, what is known points to the Takic group of the Shoshonean, northern Uto-Aztecan language family (Kroeber 1976[1925]). 26
Kroeber (1976[1925]:621) places the Fernandeño group as related to the Gabrielino. The Gabrielino are the Native Americans who were recruited to Mission San Gabriel. The residents of Sjútkanga are considered by the Fernandeño Tataviam as culturally affiliated with coastal people, or the Pipimaram (Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians, personal communication 2017). Of the lineages of the Fernandeño Tataviam Tribe today, the “Ortega lineage” descends directly from Sjútkanga. The progenitor of the lineage is Maria Rita Alipaz (Ortega), a traditional leader who cared for the lands of El Encino until Spanish settler Vicente de la Osa gained access to the shares in 1849. Her father was Francisco “Papabubaba,” who along with two other Fernandeño natives had petitioned the governor for Encino in the Mexican Period. Fernandeño Tataviam lineages were sovereign, autonomous groups with traditional leaders in territorial villages. However, these sovereign groups were not isolated. They had numerous familial, social, political, economic, and other ties to their neighbors. European contact and colonialism disrupted traditions and decimated indigenous populations. Nonetheless, the Tribe has actively worked to preserve their culture, society, and ceremonies in the face of overt attempts to dismantle their way of life. Despite the loss of land and people, they have retained their own social and political networks related to traditional lineages. Today, two branches of Tribal government lead the Fernandeño Tataviam: the Executive and Legislative groups, which are entrusted with defending their governing document, the Tribal Constitution. The Tribe maintains its headquarters in San Fernando, California and oversees and Education and Cultural Learning Department, Indian Child and Welfare Act Department, Office of Tribal Citizenship, and more. The Tribe’s
27
Historic and Cultural Preservation Department is dedicated to consulting on a government to government level with local and public agencies to protect and preserve tribal cultural resources. The Tribe is active in outreach efforts. In 1971, the Tribe established the nonprofit Pukúu Cultural Community Services to further the well-being of its citizens and the larger Native American community in northern Los Angeles County. The Tribe and Pukúu maintain Haramokngna, an American Indian Cultural Center that provides information about the lives of the five aboriginal groups who share connection to the San Gabriel Mountains. They also host a variety of cultural festivities and maintain Rudy Ortega Sr. Park in San Fernando, which is named after the previously elected Tribal President. The park is located on a historic land grant received by Rogerio Rocha, a historic Fernandeño captain. As of 2015, the Tribe is under active review by the U.S. Department of the Interior for Federal recognition.
28
— ANALYTIC FRAMEWORKS An analysis of lithic production and use at Sjútkanga should seek to understand both physical and cultural elements of the sequence of making tools—what the process was like for individuals, and how and why certain types of stone were utilized or viewed by people who selected them. No theory from any social science is capable of full and complete insights into the behavior of past peoples (Schiffer 1999:168). However, various research questions and interests may be served by particular theoretical or analytical frameworks (Hodder 2012b:5). Researchers have many choices that impact the direction of their work. My inclination is that a broader combination of theoretical approaches will yield the most detailed interpretive results. Therefore, I have engaged with several concepts that, when intertwined, apply to lithic studies in the service of addressing questions about human behavior. First, I discuss the forager/collector model from hunter-gatherer theory. Second, aspects of lithic technological organization are discussed. Third, the chaîne opératoire and behavioral archaeology are considered. Fourth, material culture is placed at the forefront of this research with inquiries into materiality. Lastly, I describe Historical Processualism and how it will elucidate human behavior. Hunter-Gatherers and the Forager/Collector Model Hunting and gathering was the mode of most pre-colonial Native Californians, including the residents of Sjútkanga. In 1980, Binford proposed a descriptive model characterizing settlement and land use patterns by hunter-gatherers that would be evident in the archaeological record (Binford 1980:4). Called the Forager/Collector model, it assumes that people who “forage” for resources are highly residentially mobile and leave a different pattern of cultural material in the archaeological record than those who are 29
more sedentary and employ a “collecting” strategy (Binford 1980:5‒12). Subsequent studies built upon the model that Binford proposed because it was found to be applicable in only limited cases (Bettinger and Baumhoff 1982:488; Weissner 1982:172). However, his work on site formation processes is insightful—it continues to provide a foundation for how to look at patterns of archaeological data and ultimately how to interpret human behavior from the data (Table 1). Table 1. Aspects of Foraging and Collecting Strategies of Hunting and Gathering Groups (after Binford 1980). Foraging
Collecting
Mobility
HIGH. Frequent, seasonal residential moves among resource patches
MODERATE. Fewer residential moves
Group Size
Adjustable and smaller
Larger
Resource Use
MAPPING ON. Moving consumers to resources
LOGISTICAL. Moving resources to consumers, task groups
Subsistence Strategies
Encounter basis and known patches
Specific resources in specific contexts
Site Types
Residential base Locations of extractive tasks
Residential base Location Field camps Stations Caches
Activity Types
Few functionally-specific sites with low visibility
Functionally-specific sites with varying debris types
Assemblages
Fine-grained
Coarse-grained
Storage
No
Yes
Climate
Longer growing seasons
Shorter growing seasons and variability
Binford (1980:12) suggests that foragers procure resources daily, moving consumers TO resources, also referred to as “mapping on.” Groups are small and highly mobile with frequent residential moves and have a relatively large foraging radius (Binford 1980:7). Foragers find resources on an encounter basis. Such groups are
30
assumed to have two site types: a residential base which moves seasonally, and a location where procurement tasks are executed (Binford 1980:9). Archaeological assemblages for highly mobile groups will be fine grained—accumulated over a short span of time such that remains can be associated with discrete events (Binford 1980:17). Collectors move resources TO consumers through the efforts of logistical task groups composed of individuals with specific procurement skills and goals. These groups initiate fewer residential moves (Binford 1980:15). Food is systematically procured and stored. In addition to residential bases and locations, collectors form field camps (“a temporary operational center for a task group”), stations (temporary centers for information gathering), and caches (temporary storage of bulk resources) (Binford 1980:11–12). Low mobility should be associated with coarse-grained assemblages, for which it is difficult to associate remains with discrete events because there has been accumulation of material over a longer time span (Binford 1980:17). In his discussion of settlement patterns of foragers vs. collectors, Binford refers to a 1970 article by G.P. Murdock and Diana O. Morrow titled Subsistence Economy and Supportive Practices: Cross-cultural Codes. Binford explores Murdock and Morrow’s idea that environmental conditions and productivity can predict levels of mobility, as well as the relative abundance of food resources. He finds that as temperature becomes more variable and growing season decreases, the more a collector strategy will be employed (Binford 1980:15). Human behavior is dynamic and responsive to changing circumstances and needs. As such, the Forager/Collector Model is best considered as a spectrum of behavior, rather than separate and distinct modes of being. It follows, then, that lithic
31
patterns in the archaeological record can be variable. However, the Forager/Collector Model provides enough structure to make some inferences about mobility, settlement type, and resource use. Lithic Technological Organization In the pursuit of a hunting and gathering lifestyle, the people of Sjútkanga would have engaged with lithic material to accomplish their daily tasks. Lithic technological organization is revealing about the nature of those tasks. This term refers to the coordination of resource exploitation activities and technological decisions throughout the whole life-history of lithic objects, from procurement through discard (Andrefsky 2008:4, 2009). Binford (1979) published seminal work regarding hunter-gatherer resource procurement strategies, based on his ethnographic research with the Nunamiut in the Arctic. He found that the Nunamiut gather some resource materials as part of activities involved in collecting other primary resources. For example, during a fishing expedition, some individuals may branch out to visit a lithic quarry (Binford 1979:259). Procurement costs are thus reduced, since travel to the quarry vicinity was already planned. Collection of this secondary resource is therefore “embedded” in the scheduling of subsistence activities, to fulfill future needs for the resource (Binford 1979:266). The opposite strategy is planning specific resource procurement from a particular location. Travel to and from the resource is exclusive of other resource procurement. This strategy is termed “direct procurement” by Binford (1979). Alternatively, people can obtain raw material through exchange. In such a case, the form of the lithic item received may vary, depending upon how far one is from the
32
source and the nature of the exchange relationship. For example, obsidian from a distant source may be knapped into bifacial form, in order to reduce weight of the material and thereby reduce transportation costs (Kelly 1988). Less mobile groups may turn to trade and exchange in order to procure their raw material or may choose to utilize lesser quality local material. X-Ray Fluorescence and Obsidian Hydration Energy Dispersive X-ray Fluorescence is a technique used to identify where raw lithic material originated. Andrefsky (2008:9) states that the “distribution and availability of lithic raw materials are undeniably important in stipulating how humans manufactured, used, and reconfigured stone tools.” Understanding how, when, and where people procured their raw lithic material can provide information about group mobility and interaction spheres. The chemical composition of obsidian flows differs based upon mixing of magma (Wilson and Pollard 2001:511). Geochemical characterization techniques, such as Energy Dispersive X-ray Fluorescence, capture the chemical signature of a lithic sample. The elements that make up this signature are major elements (≥2% of the material), minor elements (0.1 to 2% of the material), and trace elements (>0.1% of the material) (Edmonds 2001:462). Some assumptions are inherent to this method (Wilson and Pollard 2001:507‒508) are that: •
the chemical makeup of the raw material does not change as an object is finished into a tool
•
the chemical signature of a source can be discerned and matched to its geochemical source
33
•
measurements of this chemical signature are precise enough to discern a specific source
•
post-depositional processes do not significantly affect this chemical signature
The signature of the sample is compared to signatures from known sources to make a match and determine provenance of the obsidian artifact. Further examination using obsidian hydration analysis can provide chronological information about the sample. When a piece of obsidian is broken and exposed to the elements, it begins to absorb water at certain rates from the surrounding environment, creating a layer of hydration that can be measured under a microscope (Ambrose 2001; Friedman and Smith 1960). Theoretically, the thickness of this layer, or hydration rind, can be measured and correlated with chronological data (Friedman and Smith 1960:477). The rate of hydration is not so straightforward, however—a number of variables have been found to affect this rate. The primary variables influencing this rate are temperature and chemical composition (Friedman and Smith 1960:476). According to Friedman and Smith (1960:476) “obsidian hydrates more rapidly at a higher temperature.” Hydration rates also differ based on chemical composition, which varies by geological source. In order to establish an effective mathematical hydration rate formula, both the source and depositional environment must be taken into consideration. Curated and Expedient Tools People make tools to serve either immediate or anticipated needs/functions. Binford (1979:271) declares that the function of a tool in a technological system influences its morphology, use, manufacture, and discard. Other factors also influence the
34
form and disposition of a tool, such as supply of a raw resource, demand for a finished product made from that resource, and the quality of the material (Andrefsky 1994). Expedient tools are created based on immediate circumstances. Binford (1979:266) notes that immediate needs and resource availability affect the form of such tools. This tool type is expected to evidence usewear and edge modification. The use-life of such a tool is short. Its presence in the archaeological record should be abundant, as it is easily manufactured, discarded, and replaced. In contrast, those tools which require greater skill and knowledge to manufacture are called formal tools. They generally require a lengthy manufacturing process and are represented in lesser quantities in the archaeological record. Some tools are carefully maintained, reused or recycled. Such curated tools may anticipate future needs, have multiple functions, or be recovered and reshaped. Tools manufactured with high-quality toolstone or raw material that is not locally available may be extensively curated. Moreover, groups may be inclined to curate tools if access to raw material is limited. The concept of curation is best understood in relation to the utility of a tool, rather than its typological classification (Andrefsky 2008:8). Shott (1996:267) characterizes curation as the maximum utility derived from a tool prior to its loss or discard. The use-life of curated tools should be enduring, and the tool may be transformed in function or morphology over the course of its life-history (Andrefsky 2008). Chaîne Opératoire and Behavioral Archaeology An individual who manufactures a tool plans the resulting form and implements a sequence of steps in order to achieve this result. Chaîne opératoire, or “operational
35
sequence,” is a theoretical concept that acknowledges the cognitive and kinesthetic ability of humans to implement technological choices according to a culturally-intended notion of a product’s form and function (Johnson 2011:477; Shott 2003). The term is commonly used by French archaeologists in lithic analysis to study the process of lithic tool manufacture, from procurement of raw material through discard or loss of the tool (Sellet 1993:106; Shott 2003). Shott (2003:100) declares that chaîne opératoires “describe[s] reduction but also reveal[s] the intent behind it, which is culture-bound and therefore contextual.” However, it should not be presumed that any particular culture’s reduction strategies are static. The tool-making process is a continuum (Shott 2003:102). Material properties and availability, cultural expectations, and circumstance may create variation in the chaîne opératoire (Shott 2003:100). Tool-making stages as defined by archaeologists are arbitrary—the properties of physical matter and situational circumstances during any part of the flintknapping process may require that the flintknapper revise their reduction strategy in order to proceed. At a high level, a chaîne opératoire is used to distinguish procedural steps in the procurement of raw material, production, use, maintenance and final disposition of an artifact through discard, abandonment, or loss (Sellet 1993:108). Patterns of raw material procurement and lithic reduction sequences can be recognized through a detailed study of the forms of raw materials, as inferred by core and flake types, classification of flakes according to their technological attributes, and typologies of finished products. When all these patterns are correlated with distinct raw material types, the use-life of a tool provides a picture of the form of the technological system (Sellet 1993:109).
36
The French concept of chaîne opératoire differs slightly from the related American idea of behavioral archaeology (Schiffer 1972; Sellet 1993:107). Chaîne opératoire includes the cognitive processes of lithic manufacture and has been adopted as a detailed methodological approach to understanding the objects, motor skills and mental templates involved (Sellet 1993:107). With different research objectives, American archaeologists have a more materialist focus on technological organization (Sellet 1993:108). Behavioral archaeology provides structures for inferring processes of human/object interactions in space and time—what series of behaviors are enacted, how the material record is formed, and why variations in behavior occur (LaMotta 2012:64– 65). Material culture, people, and the interactions between them form the elements of the behavioral approach to archaeology (LaMotta 2012:64). Behavioral archaeology acknowledges the crucial role of material culture in what it means to be human and emphasizes both internal and external motivations for human behavior (Knappett 2012; LaMotta 2012:64). Material culture includes both portable and non-portable objects. Tracking of human behavior is accomplished in behavioral archaeology by researching “traces” of interactions and the formation of the archaeological record (LaMotta 2012:67). Traces is a term applied to the material manifestation of human/object interactions, which are observed in the morphology of artifacts and their context in both an archaeological record and assemblage (LaMotta 2012:67). One of the strengths of behavioral archaeology is that these traces can be observed in the depositional environment. Three processes contribute to formation of the archaeological record: cultural deposition, cultural disturbance, and non-cultural mechanisms (LaMotta 2012:68). In any
37
one of the three processes, a trace of human-object interaction may enter or leave the archaeological record or be modified (LaMotta 2012:68). The former two processes manifest as a result of politics, issues of personal or group identity, religion, and economics, to name a few (LaMotta 2012:69). It is therefore important to determine how deposition developed before making behavioral inferences. Activities and things are linked in logical, life-history progressions by “flows of matter, energy, and information” (Hodder 2012:4; LaMotta 2012:71). Life-history models can be general, from raw material procurement through final disposition, or may be specific to an object (LaMotta 2012:70; Schiffer 2004). LaMotta (2012:72) identifies eight phases of a general life-history process, as seen in Figure 7. Activities at each phase leaves material traces, which can be interpreted. As life-histories of objects differ, not all objects may be represented by all phases, and traces may not be preserved or recognized in each phase (LaMotta 2012:71 and 73; Schiffer 1972).
Figure 7. General Life-History of an Object. Adapted from LaMotta 2012, Fig. 4.1.
38
At the heart of behavioral archaeology is material culture in the archaeological record and the behavior that can be inferred. Life-history progressions and material traces allow the researcher to develop expectations about how the archaeological record may be patterned as a result of an activity or behavior (LaMotta 2012:75). Materiality While as archaeologists we find physical matter from the archaeological record to be a primary concern, examining the archaeological record brings into focus the human behavior around things. Materiality studies regard the characteristics of portable and non-portable physical matter, the attendant human relationships with and knowledge of these things, and the interactions of people and things within their social systems. The qualities of matter itself are as important to consider as the social aspects of behavior around things. The theory of materiality concerns the relationships between people and things, and between things and people (Praetzellis 2015:156). It comprises how we think and interact with materials as well as the materials themselves (Hodder 2012a). Materiality has five dimensions: the properties of physical matter, human relations with physical matter, the role(s) of physical matter in social relations, connections between suites of physical matter, and interactions between all of these dimensions (Hodder 2012a; Knappett 2012). The Dimensions of Materiality 1) Properties of Physical Matter. There is a physicality to things that is independent of people. Archaeological contexts reveal physical matter in its qualities and quantities, categories and functions. The properties of a material 39
affect its performance characteristics. This raw physicality may impact humans in the way that they use/modify the materials and incorporate them in their lives. Physical matter has affordances (capabilities or potentials for certain actions) and constraints (limitations in contributing to certain actions) (Hodder 2012a:49). 2) Human Relations with Physical Matter. There is a physicality to human interaction with things (Johnson 2010:225). Human anatomy plays a role in what, where, when, why and how we use physical matter. The materiality of things includes human perceptions by all the five senses, although things are so ingrained in our everyday experience that they are almost unnoticeable (Knappett 2014:4700). Human relations with physical matter encompass phenomenological matters experienced through cultural lenses, what Bourdieu calls “habitus” (Praetzellis 2015:156). Bourdieu’s conception of culture in the term habitus consists of a society’s shared practices, norms and beliefs (Praetzellis 2015:156). I would include spatial contexts in these relations, since they are also linked to activities; for example, rock art caves used for conducting religious practices, or bedrock mortars near oak groves for acorn processing. 3) The Role(s) of Physical Matter in Social Relations. The individual’s relationship with physical matter is augmented by the social relationship that groups of people have with things. Social structures are generally taken for granted, since they’re experienced from birth, just as things become unnoticeable to the senses through familiarity (Johnson 2010:109; Praetzellis
40
2015:156). However, people are not necessarily passive within these systems. Humans are fully capable of being independent actors in their social system, whether or not they are fully cognizant of the agency that they employ. Similarly, things themselves are not inert (Hodder 2012a:4; Johnson 2010:226). Things can be manipulated and transformed in practice, in quotidian social contexts (Johnson 2010:108). Things and humans are cogenerative—just as we shape things to serve our social and cultural lives and needs, things have a role in shaping our humanity (Hodder 2012a). Thus, the concept of agency is attributable to both humans and things. 4) Connections between Suites of Physical Matter. Things have plurality, according to Knappett (2012:195). By plurality, Knappett (2012) suggests that things have “ensembles” of characteristics that are associated with each other. He provides an example of “bundling” of characteristics with an apple—it is round, edible, and usually red (Keane 2005:188; 2006:200). Things also exist with other things in chains of production and consumption, as suites of related things throughout a thing’s life-history (Hodder 2012a:43). As part of active social, economic, ideological and technological systems, physical matter clusters in suites of things. For example, hammerstones, leather lap mats, antler hammers, abraders and antler pressure flakers may be part of the suite of tools for making a projectile point. Further, the tools used to make these implements are adjacent parts of this suite. 5) Interactions between Dimensions of Materiality. Concepts of materiality consider how properties of things carry meanings in, and interact with, social
41
contexts (Johnson 2010:117). Meaning is created, negotiated and transformed as things pass in and out of our lives. The things that interact with us, that we interact with, have affordances and constraints—so do human beings. In this comment, I mean that the human body has capabilities and limitations in its interactions with things, just as material properties allow for the appropriate use of things under certain circumstances. What is appropriate depends upon the material properties and socio-cultural norms/practices, or habitus. Application of the Concept of Materiality Materiality theory, and the five dimensions just described, can be directly applied to the study of lithic artifacts. The relations of materiality are exemplified here using the “thing” called obsidian. Obsidian has aesthetic and physical properties that make it unique. Obsidian is a brittle, lithic material that often has a translucent appearance. Aside from water, it is one of few natural items that it is extremely glassy. It may be heavy in nodular form. Cobble size and form impact final output and production sequences. Most salient to humans, it is extraordinarily sharp, so it is useful in its affordances as tools for cutting and piercing. Obsidian is but one choice of lithic material that can be used to produce tools, but its properties make it a good choice for certain purposes and types of tools. Humans have a relationship to obsidian’s physical properties through manufacture and use. The activity of flintknapping involves a range of motion, somewhat like a throwing an object. The knapper exerts arm and back muscles to make percussive contact with the obsidian. Since obsidian is so sharp, people must take care not to injure themselves. The flintknapper feels the weight and roughness of the stone, hears it break,
42
and sees how it fractures conchoidally. We can see a flake slice through animal hide as a testament to how sharp it is. Obsidian plays a role in social relations. Although obsidian has inherent physical properties that make it important as a source of tools, it also has value. Individual flintknappers may relate to obsidian as a favored material to work with. It may represent a social relationship with a neighboring tribe that controls access to the obsidian source. Obsidian has an economic value in subsistence pursuits. Obsidian was highly prized by some groups for whom it was not easily obtained, creating a perceived worth. It may serve as a cultural marker, of identity and wealth, or be an element of ideological relationships, perhaps having ceremonial purposes (Rust 1905). The plurality of characteristics of obsidian include that it is glassy, sharp, and known for making tools. Obsidian is associated with and opposed to other lithics, in a suite of materials that a flintknapper chooses from. Other associated tools such as antler hammers or leather lap pads are used in the transformation of the raw material into functional objects. Multiple dimensions of obsidian materiality interact. For example, its physical properties and social interactions are related. Obsidian has value culturally, economically, etc. Its value and attributes give meanings to the thing, obsidian. Its physical affordances include cutting and piercing; in different contexts its socio-cultural-economic affordances allow for trade, accumulation of wealth, and successful subsistence outcomes. Physical constraints could be the size and quality of tools produced, as in the case of material that is only available in pebble size or if the obsidian has inclusions. Socio-cultural-economic constraints may include availability of material due to social relations with neighboring
43
groups, technological organization, and gender-based access to material. Production and consumption of obsidian may take place in bounded spaces, as in a craft workshop. The theoretical paradigm of materiality discussed in this chapter lends itself to analysis in archaeology, as shown with the example of obsidian. Researchers using this theoretical stance need to consider the properties of a material, independent of the impact of human beings, in addition to the social aspects of materials. Things are not important solely because human beings interact with them. Yet they are of value in allowing archaeologists to make inferences about lithics artifacts in social contexts. Historical Processualism Historical processualism moves beyond attributions of social change to solely external factors such as the environment or population pressure (Sassaman and Holly, Jr. 2011). This model will help explain what people did at Sjútkanga and how they accomplished their activities over time. As opposed to the long-view of evolutionary theories, historical processualism recognizes that change may be punctuated, and acknowledges that humans are active agents in their strategies for subsistence, settlement, and social organization. As stated by Jones (2004:329), “we are required to simultaneously consider how it is that artefacts are socially and culturally constructed, while also taking into account the physical and mechanical construction of artefacts.” Humans are dynamic beings that have the power of choice within their habitus. A historical processual perspective acknowledges the role of human agency in socio-cultural change, which may be punctuated or occur gradually over a lengthy period of time.
44
Tying It All Together As mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, certain analytical and theoretical frameworks are more applicable to certain research questions and topics (Hodder 2012b:5). Herein, I have mentioned several frameworks that apply to the study of lithic artifacts and hunter-gatherers—the forager/collector model, lithic technological organization, the chaîne opératoire and behavioral archaeology, materiality, and historical processualism. The data generated for this research have explanatory potential through these frameworks.
45
— METHODOLOGY A number of methods have the potential to provide data that can be used to answer questions about Sjútkanga and its inhabitants—what can be inferred about their subsistence, mobility, lithic technological organization, and social and economic ties; how these change over time; and why they may have changed. Three general types of analysis were conducted—lithic analysis, raw material sourcing, and chronological data acquisition. The first two methods are the subject of this chapter. The sampling strategy from research on the collection is described below. For reference, the site map can be viewed in Figure 5. Sampling Strategy With over 160 units originally excavated at the site, I decided that a sufficient sample for review would include the lithic artifacts from five excavation units, which represents approximately a three percent sample. Units 8 and 20 were selected because they have chronological control through radiocarbon dating. Radiocarbon dating of 50 samples was previously reported for several items recovered: charcoal, human and canid remains, and marine shell (Taylor et al. 1986:35). Charcoal radiocarbon dates were obtained for Units 8 and 20 in generally contiguous levels. The remaining three excavation units selected were also judgmentally chosen for this research. The criteria included units for which most of the original collection was available, for which disturbance was not initially apparent, and that were spaced across the site to represent different areas. This proved to be challenging, since substantial amounts of material are still in field bags and many units of the collection housed at Los Encinos State Historic Park appear to be missing material from some excavation levels.
46
The lithic material for Unit 48 is contiguous and matches descriptions in the level records. As one of the farthest west units it was chosen to represent this area of the site. Several more unit boxes were examined, but the deposits were heavily disturbed or material was missing from several levels or quadrants. Two relatively complete unit assemblages added to the sample are those from Units 19 and 38. Unit 19 was excavated to a depth of 280 cm, but material may be missing from the 120‒130-cm level. The last level excavated in Unit 38 was from 190‒245 cm, so the penultimate level, 180–190 cm, is missing. Altogether, approximately 27,000 pieces of debitage and about 550 expedient and formal tools are included in this sample. Lithic Analysis The lithic analysis of the Sjútkanga collection began with detailed sorting of the waste products from the tool-making process. Debitage analysis can reveal the stages of tool manufacture that took place and the breadth of material types utilized at the site. Another lithic analytical task included sorting of tools, which are informative regarding technological organization, tasks, adaptive strategies and procurement practices. Technological choices are culturally significant, and temporal changes in these choices may reveal shifts in cultural and economic practices. Debitage Analysis Lithic analysis requires an understanding of basic concepts, including fracture mechanics and lithic reduction techniques (Kooyman 2000:9; Odell 2003:43). Using these concepts, I explored how to analyze the Sjútkanga debitage. I considered the applicability of three methods for assigning debitage to a lithic reduction sequence: typology, mass analysis, and individual flake analysis. 47
A typological approach to debitage involves sorting flakes into categories typically defined as primary, secondary and tertiary flakes, from the most to least amount of cortex present (Sullivan and Rozen 1985:756). The premise is that stages of manufacture are represented by the amount of cortex. Primary flakes with 100% dorsal cortex indicate early stage core reduction, secondary flakes with some fraction of dorsal cortex demonstrate middle reduction phase, and tertiary flakes, sans cortex, suggest the final stages of production, such as biface reduction or resharpening. This typology represents these stages in the most general of terms, but so generally that I find this methodology limited in its ability to be definitive about human behavior and technology. Mass analysis is a technique of looking at an assemblage as a whole by sorting flakes through screens of different mesh sizes. An assumption is made that size grades are indicative of manufacturing stage. The smaller the flake, the later it was created in the tool-making process. This methodology is advantageous because it removes bias and perception of the researcher, and it allows her or him to approach large quantities of debitage in an efficient manner (Ahler 1989:85). However, mass analysis has a number of sources of error and questionable assumptions—it is quite simplistic and fails to be precise about manufacturing techniques (Andrefsky 2007:392). On the other hand, individual flake analysis is a way of sorting each flake in a sample by attributes at a very granular level. Debitage is sorted by material, and then examined for manufacturing technique as part of the chaîne opératoire, or the sequence of production (Soressi and Geneste 2011:338). Categories of flakes may include biface thinning, pressure, and alternate flakes, among others. Several authors point out that individual flake analysis is time consuming and costly, and can be subjective, and is thus
48
unreliable (Ahler 1989:85; Amick and Mauldin 1989:166; Sullivan and Rozen 1985:755). It requires a high level of skill, but individual flake analysis is the best methodology to reveal technological choices of the artisans. Therefore, I employ this method in my research. The first step in debitage analysis for my research was to sort pieces by material type. Sjútkanga occupants utilized at least 13 different materials for chipped stone tool technologies. Knappable raw materials included andesite, basalt, chalcedony, chert, fused shale, metasandstone, modelo, mud/siltstone, obsidian, quartz, quartzite, rhyolite, and other volcanic lithics. Appendix C includes a table describing the composition, appearance, and sources of chipped lithics from Sjútkanga. Once debitage material was sorted by material type, it became apparent that chert was the most prevalent in quantity, at 40.4% of the debitage assemblage for the five research units. For this reason, I chose chert for individual flake analysis. Sellet (1993:110) states that the “type of classification needed in a chaîne opératoire analysis is peculiar to each situation and answers specific analytical needs.” Using experimental archaeology and visual observation of the archaeological collection, I developed a flake typology and chaîne opératoire specific to the apparent nature of the chert reduction at Sjútkanga. Experimental research comprised a single sample of Monterey chert from the Lithics Lab at California State University, Northridge. The raw nodule was roughly knapped to get a sense of the debitage that resulted from reduction of this material. An examination of the resultant chipped stone showed that the experimental assemblage resembled chert in the archaeological assemblage.
49
Experimental flintknapping studies fall into the category of middle range theory (Carr and Bradbury 2010:77). According to Carr and Bradbury (2010:73), experimental archaeology has “provided the necessary link between static flake debris excavated from the archaeological record and the dynamic behaviors that produced the debris.” Experimental archaeology techniques can be helpful in understanding the chaîne opératoire of tool manufacturing. Experimental archaeology is both lauded and disparaged (Carr and Bradbury 2010; Metin et al. 2016). The techniques are subject to issues of equifinality, replicability, reliability, and theoretical robusticity. Equifinality indicates that multiple means or approaches can yield the same results or patterns (Carr and Bradbury 2010:73; Shott 1994:83). These issues in experimental archaeology for lithic debitage can be mitigated. Researchers should rely on empirical evidence to make strong, objective, and structured comparisons as opposed to intuitive interpretations made just because one has a high level of flintknapping skill (Metin et al. 2016:104). Metin and colleagues (2016:103) identify hypothesis testing, experimental variables, experimental design, and statistical analysis as critical to a scientific replication experiment. Goals, scope, controls, assemblage size and data analysis are considered important by Carr and Bradbury (2010:79). Amick et al. (1989:1) identify control over variables as essential to experimental archaeology. Utilizing more than a single analytical method provides corroboration of experimental results (Carr and Bradbury 2010:73, 78; Magne 2001:23). Simple experimental archaeology was helpful in analysis of Sjútkanga debitage. The chaîne opératoire of Sjútkanga chert and the Sjútkanga Chert Flake Typology were
50
developed specifically to reflect the Monterey chert debitage from the experimental nodule and to mimic the observed archaeological chert assemblage. The Sjútkanga Chert Flake Typology includes 12 classes, which are described in detail in Appendix D. Figure 8 depicts the chaîne opératoire of Sjútkanga chert. The major products of flintknapping activities at the site are expedient tools and flake blanks reduced into bifaces and other formal tools, such as projectile points. Experimental knapping of the Monterey chert nodule resulted in ample angular shatter as a result of cortex removal and numerous flakes with from one to about eight dorsal scars, many with cortex. A number of flakes produced were serviceable as expedient tools with little or no modification. Some were large and thin enough to be used as flake blanks for further bifacial reduction.
Figure 8. Chaîne Opératoire of Sjútkanga Chert. The path in yellow is the most common operational sequence for lithic reduction at the site.
51
The Sjútkanga Chert Flake Typology is relatively easy to use, in part because platform diagnostics and flake size are not taken into account—the primary mode of categorization is counting of dorsal flake scars. The highest level of analytical skill required is in the identification of biface thinning, alternate, bipolar, margin collapse, notching and pressure flakes. Further, it is possible to categorize most flake fragments by the number of dorsal flake scars, whereas in other typologies they would be considered non-diagnostic. Because the cortical categories include any amount of cortex present, intuitive judgements are removed from a determination of the percentage of cortex. This method is therefore replicable with a modest amount of acquired skill. Some disadvantages exist in using the Sjútkanga Chert Flake Typology. Broken flakes may be sorted in either simple or complex, cortical or non-cortical categories. Some flakes may be misidentified as non-cortical if the missing part of the flake had cortex. Likewise, some flakes categorized as simple may have been categorized as complex if additional flake scars had been present on the missing section. This involves a judgement call as to whether enough of the flake is present to make a determination of the number of dorsal flake scars. However, in cases where clarity is lacking, these flakes may be categorized as Indeterminate Flake Fragments. Analysis of Formal Chipped Stone Tools When available to the archaeologist, lithic tools provide detailed information about a culture’s technological traditions and resource procurement. Culturally-modified stone generally falls into two categories—chipped stone, which is modified by percussive and pressured forces, and ground stone, which is modified through abrasive or pecking
52
forces. Chipped stone tools may pierce, cut or scrape another material. Ground stone tools grind, abrade, polish or impact another material (Adams 2002:1). Morphology, or shape, is a key to classifying tools. Typologies are useful in developing chronological and cultural markers for sites and enable cross-cultural and intra-cultural comparisons (Andrefsky 2008:13). When tool function can be determined, one can make inferences about tasks completed with the tool (Andrefsky 2008:13). Chipped lithic tools from the five excavation units were categorized as cores and tested cobbles, expedient flaked tools, and formal flaked tools. Ground stone and percussive implements formed another category. Tools that were not chipped, ground stone, or percussive were placed in a category of other lithic implements. These categories are further subdivided for the sake of detailed cataloging and analysis (see Appendix E for categories and descriptions). A few formal tools from the Sjútkanga assemblage proved to be diagnostic, based upon style and technological origin. Diagnostic tools may enable verification of dates obtained through other methods, can be indicative of cultural affiliation, reveal information about a group’s adaptive strategies, or provide clues to lithic technological organization. However, tools break and require maintenance, resharpening or reshaping; thus, their morphology may be transformed through their life-history, and/or they may serve different functions through time (Andrefsky 2008:3–4). Projectile points are found as cultural remains because they’ve broken in the process of manufacture or in the course of use, or they are lost. Studies have shown that certain breakage patterns are characteristic of fracturing upon impact with another material and can be distinguished from manufacturing errors (Frison 1974; Titmus and
53
Woods 1986). My research concerns macroscopic evidence of breakage patterns. Differentiating the cause of a fracture in a projectile point can be difficult but doing so provides information about site function or task-specific areas within a site (Titmus and Woods 1986:37). Scholars have associated burination, fluting, crushing and bending fractures with impact events, or percussive contact with a target or other material (Bergman and Newcomer 1983:240-241; Iovita et al. 2016; Titmus and Woods 1986; Weitzel et al. 2014). Burination is characterized by spalls that detach along the longitudinal axis of the projectile point in line with the applied forces of impact. Fluting is recognized by a flake scar that extends from the distal or proximal end of the point across the face of the tool, and they may terminate in a hinge or step fracture. Multiple small flake scars with step and hinge terminations are likely with crushing, most commonly found at the distal end of a point. Bending breaks are transverse breaks perpendicular to the longitudinal axis. Bending breaks may also occur during manufacture. However, with diagnostic impact fractures there can be pronounced lipping of the break that rolls over from the cross section of the transverse break to the face of the workpiece. These bending breaks initiate from a high point positioned towards the center of the workpiece’s cross section, away from the margins. In experimental studies by Titmus and Woods (1986), manufacturing errors most commonly took place during final stages of production, when the point was notched and a barb or ear was accidentally removed. Bending breaks during manufacture are the result of improper support of the workpiece that causes it to snap (Whittaker 1994). The perverse fracture—a transverse, diagonal break in a twisting direction—is a distinctive
54
manufacturing error that can take place during pressure flaking (Whittaker 1994). The fracture can be seen in the cross section of the flaked artifact with its initiation propagating from one margin across to the opposite margin. Identification of Heat Treatment and Other Effects of Heat The effects of heat were noted on lithics in the course of this research. Some poor quality silicious materials may be artificially improved through intentional heat treatment. Thermal alteration of chert has been shown to alter the mechanical properties of the material and improve its flaking qualities (Domanski and Webb 2007; Merceica and Hiscock 2008). Another result of this process is macroscopic alteration of the appearance of the lithic. The most typical visual alteration in chert is the development of a waxy or greasy luster. Color changes may occur, tending towards red hues (Domanski and Webb 2007:158). Thermal fracturing phenomena are distinctive and can be identified by the presence of potlidding or crazing. Crazing is a very obvious pattern of fine cracks in the lithic material. Ground stone and shell beads can also exhibit visual indications of thermal effects as a result of processes that are not intended for modification of a material’s mechanical properties. Blackening or reddening may occur with ground stone or soot may be present. Heat fractures are sometimes evident with ground stone. Burnt shell beads change from white to dark gray. Visual methods of identifying heat effects are not always definitive—they are difficult to gauge and quantify because of variations in heat treatment or postdepositional processes (Domanski and Webb 2007:158). Intentional heat treatment of artifacts is denoted in this thesis in cases where it was patently obvious, especially in
55
patterns of crazing or heat fracturing. As such, it may be underreported and represent a larger phenomenon than would be indicated by this research. Raw Material Sourcing Raw material selection is one of the first decisions to be considered by the flintknapper. If suitable lithic materials are not locally available, material will be obtained by direct means, as part of an embedded strategy, or through exchange. Since obsidian does not occur naturally in the Los Angeles Basin, the obsidian in the research assemblage had to be transported some distance to the site. The nearest source of obsidian to Sjútkanga is the Coso Volcanic Field, over 225 km (140 miles) away. A few other sources have been identified in Southern California, two in San Bernardino County, and one near the Salton Sea in Imperial County (Northwest Research Obsidian Studies Laboratory 2018). I obtained Energy Dispersive X-ray Fluorescence analytical data from the Geochemical Research Laboratory for twenty-one samples of obsidian debitage. This data allowed me to see how far the obsidian was transported, how culturally important it was compared to other materials, and the possible method(s) of their acquisition. Energy Dispersive X-ray Fluorescence requires samples that have sufficient material mass available for the process—the thickness, length, and width need to be above a minimum size (approximately 1 cm for length and width). Sjútkanga sample selection this analysis was primarily driven by these requirements. One flake of unusual clarity (Specimen ID=K) was selected from Unit 38—visual examination led to the supposition that it may not be from the Coso Volcanic Field. Two of the obsidian samples sent out for analysis were large enough for reliable quantitative composition estimates,
56
while the other samples required a laboratory analysis protocol for small specimens (Hughes 2010; 2017). Of the 21samples, one (sample S) is from an unknown source and another (sample A) is from Casa Diablo in east-central California. All other pieces of obsidian debitage for which provenance could be determined come from various sources in the Coso Volcanic Field. The obsidian sample of unusual clarity does come from the Coso Volcanic Field but is from a different lava flow (Sugarloaf Mountain) than the other samples. Documentation of Sjútkanga obsidian selected for Energy Dispersive X-ray Fluorescence can be found in Appendix F. Summary of Lithic Analytical Methods Lithic analytical methods were extensive for this research. To reiterate, sample excavation units were judgmentally chosen. Individual flake analysis and experimental archaeology were conducted on chert debitage to derive information about the chaîne opératoire and manufacturing choices made by the people of Sjútkanga. Tools were categorized for further description and analysis, and heat treatment and projectile point breakage patterns were noted. Provenience of obsidian samples was also determined. This chapter outlines the majority of methods employed for this research. Methods and results of chronological data acquisition are a subject for the following chapter.
57
— CHRONOLOGY OF THE RESEARCH ASSEMBLAGE Prior to work on this thesis, little attention had been given to the chronology of the Sjútkanga collection since the acquisition of 14C results by Taylor and colleagues in 1986. Deriving a chronology was necessary in order to learn how subsistence, mobility, lithic technological organization, and social and economic ties changed over time at Sjútkanga. Only two units in the research sample (8 and 20) had chronological information based on radiocarbon determinations. Hereafter, I refer to time spans from these units as Temporal Periods (TP). Time spans were discerned for Units 19, 38, and 48, which had no previous scientifically-derived chronological determinations. I refer to these time spans as Chronological Frameworks (CF). Chronological Frameworks merely identify excavation levels that are temporally associated but have not yet been assigned to a Temporal Period with definitive chronological dates. Five methods were used to develop a sense of time for the research assemblage. My first task was to calibrate conventional 14C values for Units 8 and 20 obtained by Taylor and colleagues in 1986. Second, obsidian hydration was conducted using paired radiocarbon dates, with the goal of generating temporal data primarily for Unit 48. Third, further information was generated for Units 19, 38, and 48 by reviewing diagnostic shell beads. Fourth, stratigraphic profiles of the research units were scrutinized to discern layers and find evidence of disturbance. Fifth, statistical analyses were run for the purpose of determining clusters of temporally-related levels within and between each unit.
58
Calibrated Radiocarbon Dates Results of 50 radiocarbon assays from Sjútkanga (CA-LAN-43) were reported in a volume of the Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly (Taylor et al. 1986). Taylor and colleagues reported 29 radiocarbon determinations on charcoal from Units 8 and 20 as conventional 14C dates, testing all but two levels between 60 and 210 cm in depth for Unit 8 and all levels for Unit 20 between 90 and 220 cm in depth. I have calibrated these dates using version 7.1 of the Calib online radiocarbon calibration program, using the Intcal13.14c calibration curve (http://calib.org/calib/). The first four columns of Table 2 and Table 3 document chronological information obtained by Taylor and colleagues (1986) for charcoal from Unit 8 and 20, respectively. Calibrated 14C dates for this research are reported in the right three columns of these tables. Radiocarbon dating in the lowest levels of these two units returned modern conventional values in years B.P. Aside from this fact, the calibrated dates for Unit 8 are progressively older at increasing depths, suggesting that the unit stratigraphy is generally intact (Taylor et al. 1986) (Figure 9). In Unit 20, from 170 cm to the bottom level tested, the dates are progressively younger with increasing depth. I believe that Unit 8 is relatively undisturbed, but bioturbation is a larger problem for Unit 20.
59
Table 2. Unit 8 Charcoal Samples and Their Radiocarbon Determinations. Lab Number, C, and Conventional C Values per Taylor et al. 1986. Unit 8 Charcoal Samples and Their Radiocarbon Determinations Calibrated 14C Dates
Level (cm)
δ13C (per mil wrt PDB)
Conventional 14 C Value (14C years BP)
UCR-1992
50-60
-24.66
0.50%
Mud/Siltstone Metasandstone
9 3
>0.50% >0.50%
27655
100%
TOTAL
Just as the debitage is diverse, so are the 561 tools represented in the research assemblage (Table 28). Within each tool category are a variety of forms, described in Appendix E, Table 49 through Table 52. A full inventory of tools present in the research assemblage can be found in Appendix S and photographs of selected lithics are available in Appendix T. Some tools were identified that did not fall under the categories of Cores and Tested Cobbles, Formal Tools, Expedient Tools, or Ground Stone/Percussive Implements. These tools are categorized as Other Lithic Implements (n=81, 14.4%) and include tarring pebbles, manuports, boiling rocks, a pebble with blue residue, a rock with asphaltum, rocks with ochre, and pieces of asphaltum.
92
Table 28. The Total Tool Assemblage, Quantified by Category. Total Tool Assemblage Tool Category
Quantity
Percent
Cores and Tested Cobbles Expedient Tools Formal Tools Ground Stone/Percussive Implements Other Lithic Implements
108 130 118 124 81
19.3% 23.2% 21.0% 22.1% 14.4%
TOTAL
561
100%
Cores and Tested Cobbles Sjútkanga occupants used several modes of core reduction. There were 108 cores and tested cobbles in the assemblage analyzed (Table 29, and see Appendix T, Figure 45 and Figure 46). Most are multidirectional. Six centripetal prepared cores, shaped for the express purpose of flake removal of a desired form and size, were present in the research assemblage. Twelve artifacts catalogued as cores or tested cobbles have evidence of multiple functions. Battered cores, a core/chopper, and core/hammerstones were included here, as their preliminary use was as a core (see the Artifact Inventory in Appendix S). They are listed in Table 29 by the method of core reduction. For example, one artifact identified as a metabasalt, multidirectional core/hammerstone has extensive battering, suggesting it was used like a hammerstone after flakes were removed. Table 29. Cores and Tested Cobbles by Tool Type. Cores and Tested Cobble Tool Type
Number (n)
Core‒Bipolar Core‒Centripetal Core‒Fragment Core‒Multidirectional Core‒Tabular Core‒Unidirectional Tested Cobble TOTAL
93
Percentage
8 6 1 73
7.4% 5.5% 0.9% 67.6%
2 14 4
1.9% 13.0% 3.7%
108
100%
Expedient Tools Expedient tools in the research assemblage (n=130) take a variety of forms (Table 30 and see Appendix T, Figure 47 through Figure 49). The identification of some expedient tools as scrapers is not to imply that these tools were used exclusively in a scraping motion, as usewear analysis was beyond the scope of this research. Such implements may have been utilized for various functions and are called scrapers so that they may be compared to tools commonly identified as scrapers in archaeological literature. See Appendix E for the typology of expedient tools. Table 30. Quantity and Percentage of Expedient Tools by Tool Type. Expedient Tool Type Borer Chopper Cutting Tool Edge-Modified Flake, Incidental Edge-Modified Flake Scraper‒Denticulate Scraper‒Domed Scraper‒Unifacial Wedge TOTAL
Quantity
Percentage 1 3 2
0.8% 2.3% 1.5%
69 32 3 11 8 1
53.0% 24.6% 2.3% 8.5% 6.2% 0.8%
130
100%
Formal Tools The category of formal tools (n=118) includes chipped lithic tools that require more advanced manufacturing knowledge and skill to produce than expedient tools. About 52% of the formal tools are bifaces, 39% have been identified as projectile points, and 8% as drills (Table 31 and see Appendix T, Figure 50 through Figure 52). Some of the projectile point types can be identified as known California forms including Elko Eared split-stemmed, Rose Spring, Vandenburg Contracting Stem, and Cottonwood types. Three of the nine drills may be bead drills—one is trapezoidal and the other two 94
are triangular in cross section. One drill used in a rotary motion is a reshaped biface (Figure 51A), and four of the drills would be described as foreshaft socket drills. Table 31. Quantity and Percentage of Formal Tools by Tool Type. Formal Tool Type
Quantity
Percentage
Biface Drill
61 5
51.7% 4.2%
Foreshaft Socket Drill Knife Microblade Projectile Point
4 1 1 46
3.4% 0.85% 0.85% 39.0%
118
100%
TOTAL
Ground Stone Tools and Percussive Implements Sjútkanga ground stone tools and percussive implements (n=124) were manufactured from a diverse range of lithic material types and are varied in terms of tool type. A number of implements could not be identified as to the material type. Quantities of ground stone and percussive implements by tool type are found in Table 32. Photos of ground stone and percussive tools can be viewed in Appendix T, Figure 53 through Figure 59. Table 32. Quantities of Ground Stone and Percussive Tools by Type. Ground Stone and Percussive Tools from All Five Units (n=124) Tool Type
Quantity
Percentage
Material Types
Abrader
5
4.0%
Modelo, sandstone
Basket Weaving Implement
2
1.6%
Modelo, slate
Beads (Lithic)
5
4.0%
Igneous, modelo, soapstone, steatite
Bowl Fragment
3
2.4%
Sandstone
Cooking Stone Fragment
2
1.6%
Steatite
Cutting Board
1
0.8%
Modelo
13
10.5%
3
2.4%
Hammerstone, Beaked Hammerstone, Other
95
Andesite, basalt, quartzite Basalt, quartzite
Ground Stone and Percussive Tools from All Five Units (n=124) Tool Type
Quantity
Percentage
Material Types Andesite, basalt, granite, quartz monzonite, quartzite, sandstone, unknown Andesite, diorite, sandstone, schist, unknown
Manos + Fragments
43
34.8%
Metates + Fragments
9
7.3%
Ornament Fragments
3
2.4%
Modelo
Percussive Implements
2
1.6%
Basalt
Pestles + Fragments
3
2.4%
Granite, modelo, unknown
Polishing Implement
1
0.8%
Limestone
29
23.4%
124
100%
Unidentifiable Fragment TOTAL
Diorite, granite, igneous, quartz monzonite, quartzite, sandstone, schist, unknown
Eighty-one percent of the percussive tools are beaked hammerstones. One artifact included as a Hammerstone, Other is a hammerstone spall. Core/hammerstones (n=6) and battered cores (n=6) have been counted with Cores/Tested Cobbles rather than with the Ground Stone and Percussive Implements, as their preliminary use was for flake removal. A single, fragmentary artifact has been categorized as a cutting board (Figure 59). The purpose of this designation is not to equate this artifact with cutting boards that function in the kitchen as a base for cutting food. It merely indicates that some material was placed upon this modelo slab and cut, leaving striated marks on the slab. Manos include both unifacial and bifacial examples and fragments; at least 30% (n=13) are fire-affected (Figure 54). A complete, unwashed metate was recovered from Unit 8, Level 170‒180 cm (Figure 56). One pestle from Unit 38 is highly polished from use and is burnt (Figure 55C). Another pestle, from Unit 19, is complete and is conically shaped (Figure 55B). No mortars were found among artifacts from the five research units. One of the cooking stone fragments exhibits a partial, bi-conically drilled hole (Figure 58B). The limestone polishing tool from Unit 38, Level 150‒160, appears to be a hide
96
polisher (Figure 57F). More than one-third (n=11) of the unidentifiable ground stone fragments are fire-affected. Other Lithic Implements Some artifacts in the research assemblage do not belong in the above four tool categories and have been listed as Other Lithic Implements (Table 33). These 81 artifacts include boiling rocks, manuports, a pebble with an unidentified blue residue, a rock with asphaltum, rocks with ochre, tarring pebbles, and some pieces of asphaltum. The latter fragments, which were found in Unit 38, 90–100 cm, have been counted as a single artifact. The manuports are composed of pumice, schist, and soapstone. Table 33. Quantity and Percentage of Other Lithic Implements in the Research Assemblage. Other Lithic Implements
Quantity
Percentage
Asphaltum Boiling Rock Manuport
1 52 4
1.2% 64.2% 5.0%
Pebble with Blue Residue Rock with Asphaltum Rock with Ochre Tarring Pebbles
1 1 3 19
1.2% 1.2% 3.7% 23.5%
TOTAL
81
100%
Multifunctional Tools It is noteworthy that a number of tools in the research assemblage were observed to have had multiple functions or uses. These multifunctional forms number 21, or 3.7% of the total tool assemblage. For example, several artifacts in the cores and tested cobbles category had secondary uses—lightly battered cores, cores clearly utilized as hammerstones, and one core used as a chopper (Figure 45F). Of three artifacts identified with the primary morphology of a chopper, one was used as a percussive implement as
97
well. A cutting tool exhibits impact wear along an edge. The drill used in a rotary fashion is a biface that was resharpened for this secondary purpose. One large, quartzite, edgemodified flake appears to have functioned secondarily as a beaked hammerstone (Figure 47B). One of the mano fragments with a distinct divit appears to have had a secondary function as an anvil, a form sometimes referred to in archaeological literature as a pitted stone. The modelo pestle from Unit 8, level 120‒130, was put to secondary use as a percussor (Figure 55A). It appears to have split longitudinally, perhaps during use, and then been pecked and chipped in order to section this segment from the initial mass for use as a hammerstone. The quantity of multifunctional tools is surely underreported, since these observations were made in passing, rather than as a quantitative focus of this research. Summary for the Lithic Assemblage The research sample includes lithics from five units of an excavation that was comprised of 165 units. Five units represent approximately a three percent sample. Most units were 2m by 2m, but some were smaller, so the volume of this research material may exceed three percent of the excavated lithics. The major issue with the data described in this chapter was the missing tools from Unit 20. In the following chapter, Unit 20 tools were included in consideration of general tool patterns, but not within a temporal context. The debitage from this unit also remained part of my analysis since it appeared to be fully accounted for in the collection. Meaningful lithic analysis was dependent on refinement of the chronological sequence of
98
the assemblage. With a solid sequence for each unit, lithics from different units could be aggregated for comparison between Temporal Periods.
99
— LITHIC DATA PATTERNS The objective of this research is to learn about subsistence, mobility, lithic technological organization, and social and economic ties of the people of Sjútkanga. Lithic data provide one means of expressing these systems. In this chapter I examine patterns in the debitage and tool assemblages of the research units in order to give voice to past ways of life at Sjútkanga. I look at each assemblage as a whole, then characterize portions of the assemblages that fall within the Temporal Periods defined in Chapter 5 (see Table 26). My first step was to make sure that when quantifying artifacts over time, I controlled for differing volume and number of years in each Temporal Period. Controlling for Volume and Years in each Temporal Period In order to study Temporal Periods on a comparable basis, the total volume of material must be calculated for each. In these calculations, the first level of Unit 48—38 to 50 cm—has been counted as one level. The number of years in each Temporal Period is straightforward except for Temporal Period 1, which dates to post-A.D. 1500. Material from this Temporal Period falls below fill in Units 8, 19, and 48. Temporal Period 1 is not associated with levels in Units 20 and 38 because they date later in time. Therefore, I have chosen to limit Temporal Period 1 up to A.D. 1800, for a span of 300 years, instead of through the present date. As a result, activity subsequent to the founding of Mission San Fernando Rey de España in A.D. 1797 is hypothetically not reflected. The calculations to control for volume and years in each Temporal Period (TP) result in a Density-Time Index: 1) Total Number of Levels in TP x Unit Width x Unit Length x Unit Height = Total Volume in Temporal Period
100
2) Artifact Frequency ÷ Total Volume in TP = Number of Artifacts per Cubic Meter in Temporal Period 3) Number of Artifacts per Cubic Meter ÷ No. of Years in TP = Density-Time Index The Density-Time Index is essentially the number of artifacts per cubic meter per year in a Temporal Period. The data for the calculations above are provided in detail in the following sub-sections related to temporal patterning (see Table 34 and Table 43). I begin each section with general observations of the debitage and tool assemblages.
Patterns in the Debitage Assemblage The debitage assemblage encompasses diverse material types. Figure 16 suggests the importance of and reliance on chert and basalt. Together, chert and basalt make up approximately two-thirds of the material types in the research assemblage.
Figure 16. Debitage Counts and Percentages for the Research Assemblage. The category of “other” includes andesite, metasandstone, mud/siltstone, obsidian, quartz, quartz crystal, rhyolite, undifferentiated volcanics, and unknown materials.
101
Temporal Patterns in the Debitage Assemblage Figure 16 provides background for all debitage material types, but it must be understood in a chronological context. It was necessary to obtain final counts of each material type within Temporal Periods (see Table 83 in Appendix R), since some excavation unit levels are not included in these time spans. The total amount of debitage within these Temporal Periods is 24,892 pieces. The number of levels that include debitage are shown in Table 34 in bold, and the Density-Time Index is calculated for each Temporal Period. Table 34. Calculation of Density-Time Index for Debitage in Each Temporal Period. No. Levels in Unit
DensityTime Index 300 1.61
Total Levels x width x Total Vol. Debitage Debitage Years length x height (in meters) in TP Count per m3 in TP 8 19 20 38 48 TP1 TP2 TP3 TP4 TP5 TP6
3 2 3 4 4
5 2 5 5 6 6 3 5
5 3 7 3
4 5 4
13 x 2 x 2 x .10
5.2 m3
2508
482
8 x 2 x 2 x .10 21 x 2 x 2 x .10 27 x 2 x 2 x .10 7 x 2 x 2 x .10 8 x 2 x 2 x .10
3
1853 3843 12649 1186 2853
579 458 1171 424 892
3.2 m 8.4 m3 10.8 m3 2.8 m3 3.2 m3
200 200 300 200 400
2.90 2.29 3.90 2.12 2.23
It would be valuable to know whether there are significant changes in debitage over time. Figure 17 depicts the pattern of debitage based on the Density-Time Index. The density of debitage is consistent from Temporal Period 6 to 5, after which it nearly doubles to an index of 3.90 in Temporal Period 4. The density drops from Temporal Period 4 into 3 by over 40%, then rises by about 27% going into Temporal Period 2. Debitage density in Temporal Period 1 is just over half of that in Temporal Period 2. This figure provides an overview of flintknapping activity at Sjútkanga. Next, I will go into detail about specific material types over time.
102
Density-Time Index for Debitage 3.90
Density-Time Index
4.00 2.90 3.00 2.23
2.29
2.12
1.61
2.00
1.00
0.00 TP6
TP5
older
TP4
TP3
Temporal Period
TP2
TP1
younger
Figure 17. Density-Time Index for Debitage.
Table 84 and Table 85 in Appendix R document the Density-Time Index and percentages, respectively, of the most common material types through time. Figure 18 is a visual representation of changes in proportions. The proportion of chert generally decreases through time, from 49.0% in Temporal Period 6 to 35.6% in Temporal Period 1. Another trend is an increase in the proportion of fused shale through the Temporal Periods from 8.7% to 27.6%. This is paralleled by decreasing percentages of “other” material types. Basalt comprises 21.1% of debitage in Temporal Period 6, increases abruptly in Temporal Period 5 to 30.0%, then drops off gradually. Chalcedony is at its lowest utilization in Temporal Period 5 (4.6%), rises through Temporal Period 3 (to 8.9%), and drops in proportion thereafter to the youngest Temporal Period. Quartzite in Temporal Period 6 makes up 8.0%, reaches a high of 10.5% in the following Temporal Period, then gradually diminishes through Temporal Period 1, where it is 4.7% of the debitage assemblage.
103
Changes in Proportions of Most Common Lithic Materials Over Time According to the Density-Time Index 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% TP6
TP5
older Basalt
TP4
TP3
TP2
Temporal Period Chalcedony
Chert
Fused Shale
TP1
younger Quartzite
Other
Figure 18. Changes in Proportions of the Most Common Lithic Materials Over Time According to the Density-Time Index. The category of other includes andesite, metasandstone, mud/siltstone, obsidian, quartz, quartz crystal, rhyolite, undifferentiated volcanics, and unknown material types.
The plot of the Density-Time Index in Figure 19 reveals a nuanced picture of the most common lithics utilized at Sjútkanga. Chert and basalt roughly mirror each other in density except for Temporal Period 6, in which basalt is utilized at less than half the rate of chert. The highest density of all knappable material occurs during Temporal Period 4. Fused shale has an overall rising trend from Temporal Period 6 through 2, although there are slight drops in Temporal Periods 5 and 3. Density of fused shale more than doubles from Temporal Period 3 to 2. The most intriguing aspect of this figure is that the density of fused shale is more than basalt only in Temporal Period 1.
104
Density-Time Indices of the Most Common Lithic Materials 1.600
Density-Time Index
1.400 1.200 1.000 0.800 0.600 0.400 0.200 0.000 TP6
TP5
older Basalt
Chalcedony
TP4
TP3
Temporal Period Chert
Fused Shale
TP2
TP1
younger Quartzite
Other
Figure 19. Density-Time Index of the Most Common Lithic Materials Over Time. The category of other includes andesite, metasandstone, mud/siltstone, obsidian, quartz, quartz crystal, rhyolite, undifferentiated volcanics, and unknown material types.
Relationships between Sourced Material Types I was interested in exploring the relationships between materials with identified sources—fused shale, obsidian, and rhyolite. Fused shale is found in Ventura and Santa Barbara Counties (Hughes and Peterson 2009). Obsidian in the assemblage comes primarily from the Coso Volcanic Field. Rhyolite could be local to Sjútkanga or may have been procured from sources in the Antelope Valley. Proportions of these three material types have been paired and run through statistical analysis to test the nature of their relationship. The Density-Time Indices of fused shale, obsidian, and rhyolite can be found in Table 86 through Table 88 in Appendix R. XLSTAT data analysis software version 2018.1 was used within Excel to model the data with the following linear regression tests. Model summaries and parameter estimates are located in Appendix R (Table 89 and Table 91, and with outliers removed in Table 90 and Table 92).
105
There is a negative correlation between obsidian and fused shale (Figure 20 and Figure 21). As fused shale increases, obsidian decreases in proportion. The r-square of 0.147 indicates a weak relationship (Table 89). I removed the Temporal Period 4, Density-Time Index outlier from the test, which resulted in an r-square of 0.416, showing a slightly stronger correlation (Table 90).
Figure 20. Regression Line for the Relationship of Fused Shale to Obsidian.
106
Figure 21. Regression Line for the Relationship of Fused Shale to Obsidian, Outlier Removed.
Figure 22 and Figure 23 show a positive correlation between rhyolite and obsidian. As rhyolite decreases in quantity over time, so does obsidian. The r-square of 0.425 indicates a relatively weak relationship. A very strong correlation exists when the outlier for Temporal Period 6 is removed, with a resulting r-square of 0.918 (Table 92).
Figure 22. Regression Line for the Relationship of Rhyolite to Obsidian.
107
Figure 23. Regression Line for the Relationship of Rhyolite to Obsidian, Outlier Removed.
The following figures give a better sense of patterns for these materials through time and allow for some observations about the outliers in the regression tests. Temporal Period 4 was an outlier in comparison of fused shale to obsidian. Figure 25 shows that obsidian increases in density dramatically in Temporal Period 4. Although fused shale also increases in this time span, the increase is more modest (Figure 24). Obsidian and rhyolite densities mirror each other, except for in Temporal Period 6, the outlier in the regression test for this relationship (Figure 25 and Figure 26). Rhyolite is at a high density and obsidian is at a low density.
108
Density-Time Index for Fused Shale 0.616
Density-Time Index
0.700 0.600
0.443
0.500 0.400 0.300
0.194
0.319
0.298
TP4
TP3
0.189
0.200 0.100 0.000 TP6
TP5
older
Temporal Period
TP2
TP1
younger
Figure 24. Density-Time Index for Fused Shale.
Density-Time Index
Density-Time Index for Obsidian 0.040 0.035 0.030 0.025 0.020 0.015 0.010 0.005 0.000
0.037
0.021 0.018 0.011
0.009
TP6
TP5
TP4
TP3
TP2
0.006
TP1
Temporal Period Figure 25. Density-Time Index for Obsidian.
Density-Time Index for Rhyolite Density-Time Index
0.120 0.100
0.101
0.091
0.080 0.049
0.045
0.060
0.039
0.040
0.023
0.020 0.000 TP6
TP5
older
TP4
TP3
Temporal Period
Figure 26. Density-Time Index for Rhyolite.
109
TP2
younger
TP1
Individual Flake Analysis of Chert Chert was selected for individual flake analysis because it dominates the chipped lithic assemblage in terms of debitage quantity. Chert from Units 8 and 20 was sorted using a typology developed specifically to represent this material in the assemblage. The Sjútkanga Chert Flake Typology includes 12 classes, which are described and shown in detail in Appendix D (see Table 48). The chaîne opératoire can be viewed in Chapter 4, Figure 8. Individual flake analysis of chert enabled insights into the stages of production represented in the debitage assemblage. Table 35 is the key to tables and figures that investigate Sjútkanga chert flake patterns. Alternate flakes, pressure flakes, biface thinning flakes, notching flakes, and margin collapses were combined—this group of debitage represents early (alternate flakes) and late manufacturing stages of a biface; together they are called Biface Preparatory Flakes (BPF). Table 35. Sjútkanga Chert Debitage Typology Key. Biface Preparatory Flakes include alternate, pressure, biface thinning, and notching flakes, and margin collapses. Sjútkanga Chert Debitage Typology Code Key CODE
FLAKE TYPE
AS
Angular Shatter
SC
Simple Debris Flake, Cortical
SNC
Simple Debris Flake, Non-Cortical
CC
Complex Preparatory Flake, Cortical
CNC
Complex Preparatory Flake, Non-Cortical
BPF
Biface Preparatory Flake
Bi
Bipolar Flake
In
Indeterminate Flake Fragment
110
Several aspects of Sjútkanga chert are notable in Figure 27. The proportion of angular shatter tends to increase over time. Indeterminate flake fragments increase through Temporal Period 2, then drop in Temporal Period 1. Complex cortical and noncortical flakes fluctuate in proportion. Complex cortical flakes make up a very small percentage of debitage in Temporal Period 1, at the same time that angular shatter in on the increase as a part of the assemblage. The most dramatic pattern concerns complex non-cortical flakes; they are the largest proportion of all types in every Temporal Period except Temporal Period 2, which has the most abundant indeterminate flake fragments. Chert Debitage from Units 8 and 20 by Type and Percentage Over Time According to the Density-Time Index 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% TP6
TP5
TP4
older
TP3
TP2
AS
SC
SNC
CC
CNC
TP1
younger
Temporal Period BPF
Bi
In
Figure 27. Chert Debitage from Units 8 and 20 by Type and Percentage Over Time According to the Density-Time Index.
The graph in Figure 28 shows that the density of complex non-cortical flakes is dramatically reduced through time. This phenomenon is especially striking between Temporal Period 6 and 5 (45% drop) and between Temporal Period 4 and 3 (46% drop). Simple non-cortical flakes represent the second-most prominent element of the chert
111
assemblage in Temporal Period 6. By Temporal Period 3 it is third in density. In Temporal Period 2, indeterminate flake fragments are at a higher frequency and proportion than any other flake type. Bipolar flakes are practically non-existent in all Temporal Periods; in Temporal Period 6 they have a Density-Time Index of 0.005, which is more than double their density in any other Temporal Period.
Figure 28. Density-Time Index of Chert Debitage from Units 8 and 20 by Type Over Time.
Simple cortical (SC), complex cortical (CC), and biface preparatory flakes (BPF) represent latter phases of the lithic manufacturing process. Early phases of manufacture include angular shatter (AS), simple non-cortical (SNC), and complex non-cortical (CNC) debitage. In Figure 29, debitage was aggregated by manufacturing stage, in accordance with the Density-Time Index. The trend in the chart shows that the relative density of later-stage manufacturing debitage declines over time in comparison to debitage that represents early phases. By Temporal Phase 1, It is clear that the intensity of chert biface production at Sjútkanga had diminished.
112
Density-Time Index for Chert Manufacturing Stages Density-Time Index
0.600
0.566
0.500 0.400
0.307
0.303
0.300 0.200
0.266 0.207
0.100 TP5
0.134
0.076
0.094
TP3
TP2
0.056
0.166
0.000 TP6
0.129
TP4
0.033 TP1
Temporal Period AS/SC/CC
SNC/CNC/BPF
Figure 29. Density-Time Index for Chert Manufacturing Stages.
Chert in the research assemblage exhibits relatively high amounts of cortex. Cortex was observed to be less frequent on basalt and quartzite. Even less cortex was observed on chalcedony and rhyolite. Almost no cortex was present for fused shale and obsidian. Only chert cortex has been quantified, and only for Units 8 and 20, since this debitage was sorted using individual flake analysis. Cortex reached a high of 25.7% in Temporal Period 5 and a low of 12.9% in Temporal Period 1 (Figure 30). This quantification does not include some flake types for which cortex was not quantified: angular shatter, alternate flakes, margin collapses, bipolar flakes, or indeterminate flake fragments, some portion of which would have cortex. Therefore, these percentages are certainly underreported.
113
Percentage of Cortical versus Non-Cortical Chert Over Time in Units 8 and 20, Controlled with Density-Time Index 100% 90% 80% 70% 60%
78.1% n=683
74.3% n=165
50%
81.5% n=936
78.3% n=199
79.8% n=79
18.5% n=212
21.7% n=55
20.2% n=20
TP4
TP3
TP2
87.1% n=91
40% 30% 20% 10%
25.7% n=57
21.9% n=191
0% TP6
TP5
older
Temporal Period Cortical
12.9% n=12 TP1
younger
Non-Cortical
Figure 30. Percentage of Cortical versus Non-Cortical Chert Debitage Over Time in Units 8 and 20 According to the Density-Time Index. Cortical quantities include simple cortical and complex cortical flakes. Non-cortical quantities include simple non-cortical, complex non-cortical, biface thinning, pressure, and notching flakes.
Patterns in the Tool Assemblage For this discussion of general patterns in Sjútkanga tools, all tools in the research assemblage have been quantified, regardless of their Temporal Period. Modelo tools are quantified separately from chert. The Sjútkanga lithic tools from the research assemblage are shown in Figure 31 according to their category, quantity, and percentage. There is a roughly equal distribution among cores and tested cobbles, expedient tools, formal tools, and ground stone and percussive tools. Tools in the “other” category are fewer in quantity, making up 15% of the tool assemblage.
114
All Tools in the Research Assemblage by Category, Quantity and Percentage Cores and Tested Cobbles 108 (19%)
Other Tools 81 (15%)
Ground Stone + Percussive Tools 124 (22%)
Expedient Tools 130 (23%)
Formal Tools 118 (21%)
Figure 31. All Tools in the Research Assemblage by Category, Quantity, and Percentage.
The majority of cores and tested cobbles are basalt (n=61; 56.5%), quartzite (n=20; 18.5%), and chert (n=17; 15.7%) (Figure 32). About two-thirds of the basalt cores are multidirectional (Table 36). Seven of the bipolar cores are chert, the remaining one is fused shale. All of the twelve cores that served secondary use as a percussive implement were multidirectional except for two. These two multifunctional cores are centripetal— one exhibits secondary use as a chopper and another as a hammerstone. All of the centripetal cores are basalt.
115
Cores and Tested Cobbles from All Five Research Units (n=108) 70
61
60 50 40 30
20
17
20 10
3
2
2
1
1
1
Modelo
Chalcedony
Andesite
Quartz
Fused Shale
Rhyolite
Chert
Quartzite
Basalt
0
Figure 32 . Cores and Tested Cobbles from all Five Units by Material Type.
Multidirectional Unidirectional
1
41
10
1
1
6
Tested Cobble
2
Tabular
16
TOTAL 2
3 7
Centripetal
Rhyolite
Quartzite
Quartz 1
11
Bipolar
73 14
1
8 6 1
1
Core Fragment
Modelo
Fused Shale
Chert
Chalcedony
Basalt
Andesite
Table 36. Cores and Tested Cobbles from all Five Units by Type and Material.
1
4 1
1
2 1
Expedient tools are primarily made of the same three material types that are most prevalent in the overall debitage assemblage (Figure 33 and Table 37). However, basalt (n=48, 36.9%) is the most common material for expedient tools, followed by chert (n=33, 25.4%), and then fused shale (n=17, 13.1%). Edge-modified flakes and those that are incidentally modified (grouped together in Table 37) make up the majority of the
116
expedient tools. They have been created from diverse material types, but primarily from chert, basalt, and fused shale, in that order. Sixty-eight percent of the scrapers were manufactured of basalt. Expedient Tools by Material Type (n=130) 60
Quantity (n)
50
48
40
33
30 17
20
14 6
10
5
4
1
1
1
Volcanic
Quartz
Mud/Siltstone
Andesite
Chalcedony
Rhyolite
Quartzite
Fused Shale
Chert
Basalt
0
Figure 33. Expedient Tools from all Five Units by Material Type.
1
Cutting Tool
TOTAL
1
Volcanic
Chopper
Rhyolite
15
Quartzite
2
Quartz
Scraper
Mud/Siltstone
29
Fused Shale
1
Chert
Basalt
EMF and EMFI
Chalcedony
Andesite
Table 37. Expedient Tools from all Five Units by Tool Type and Material. EMF=Edge-Modified Flake and EMFI=Incidentally Edge-Modified Flake.
5
31
16
1
1
10
6
1
101
2
1
22
1
3
2
2
Borer Wedge
2
1 1
1 1
Formal tools do not follow the same pattern of material types as expedient tools. Rather, chert is the most common material used to produce formal tools (n=70, 59.3%),
117
followed by fused shale (n=24, 20.4%), and chalcedony (n=11, 9.3%) (Figure 34 and Table 38). Obsidian comprises 4.3% of the formal tools and other materials make up 6.8% of formal tools. Most formal tools are bifaces (n=61, 52.5%) and projectile points (n=46, 38.9%). Formal Tools from All Five Units by Material Type (n=118) 70 70
Quantity (n)
60 50 40 30
24
20
11 5
10
3
2
1
1
1
Quartzite
Quartz
Modelo
Rhyolite
Basalt
Obsidian
Chalcedony
Fused Shale
Chert
0
Figure 34. Formal Tools from all Five Units by Material Type.
Basalt
Chalcedony
Chert
Fused Shale
Modelo
Obsidian
Quartz
Quartzite
Rhyolite
TOTAL
Table 38. Formal Tools from all Five Units by Type and Material.
Biface
2
3
34
15
1
3
1
1
1
61
Projectile Point
1
5
29
9
3
5
Drill
2
46 1
9
Knife
1
1
Microblade
1
1
Ground Stone and Percussive Tools are described in Appendix E (Table 52). For analysis, it is helpful to cluster these tools into groups reflecting probable function.
118
Milling and Food Preparation Equipment form the majority of tools in this category with 60 artifacts (Table 39). This group includes bowl fragments, cooking stones, manos, metates, and pestles. Percussive tools number 18, of which the majority (n=13, 72.2%) are beaked hammerstones. Miscellaneous ground stone includes abraders, basket weaving implements, a cutting board, and a polishing implement. Table 39. Ground Stone and Percussive Tools from all Five Units by Quantity and Percentage. Tool Type
Quantity
Percentage
Milling and Food Preparation Equipment
60
48.4%
Unidentifiable Fragment
29
23.4%
Percussive Tools
18
14.5%
Ornamental Artifact
8
6.5%
Other Miscellaneous Ground Stone Tool
9
7.2%
124
100%
TOTAL
Of all the artifacts in the Other Lithic Implements category, only three have functions that are identifiable (Table 40). Asphaltum (several pieces from the same unit and level counted as one artifact) and tarring pebbles are commonly used in basketry manufacture, especially water bottles (Gamble 2005), and boiling rocks are used in food preparation. Forty-nine of the boiling rocks were found in Feature #8 in Unit 20, which was thought to be a cache of these artifacts. Table 40. Other Lithic Tools from all Five Units by Type and Material. Tool Type
Quantity
Boiling Rock Tarring Pebbles Manuport Rock with Ochre Asphaltum Pebble with Blue Residue Rock with Asphaltum TOTAL
119
Percentage 52 19
64.2% 23.5%
4 3 1 1 1
5.0% 3.7% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2%
81
100%
The unit with the most tarring pebbles is Unit 38 (n=9, 47.4%) (Table 41). Tarring pebbles are used in basketry production to affix asphaltum to the inside of a basket, thereby waterproofing it (Glassow et al. 2007:208). This is also the unit in which asphaltum and basket weaving implements were identified. Most of these basketry artifacts are fairly dispersed throughout the unit. Levels from 20 to 50 cm were comprised of fill. Levels from 50 to 80 cm fall within Temporal Period 3 and the 80–140 cm levels are from Temporal Period 4. Table 41. Basket-Related Tools and Raw Material from Unit 38.
20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70
Asphaltum
Basket Weaving Implements
Tarring Pebbles
Level (cm)
Unit 38 Basket-Related Tools and Raw Material
1 1 1
70-80 80-90 90-100 100-110 110-120 120-130 130-140
1 1 3 1
1
1
1
The phenomenon of heat treatment has not been quantified formally in this research. I observed the effects of heat in passing while categorizing the lithic assemblage. There is a difference between heat treatment with the intention of modifying the material qualities of a lithic and the effects of heat which occurred subsequent to the
120
manufacturing process. Three aspects of the effects of heat on artifacts are listed in Table 42. The quantities listed in the table cannot be considered to be extensive or complete. Table 42. Heat Modification Observed in Artifacts from all Five Units. Tool Type
Heat Treatment
Heat Spalled or Heat Fractured
Fire-Affected or Burnt
Biface
4 chert
5 chert
1 chert
Core
2 chert
1 basalt, 1 rhyolite
1 quartz 1 quartzite 1 rhyolite
Cutting Board EMF or EMFI Knife
1 modelo 1 chert
1 basalt 1 chert
1 quartzite
Mano
5 granite 3 quartzite 2 sandstone 3 unknown
Metate Ornament Fragment Percussive Implement
1 metabasalt
1 sandstone 1 modelo 1 andesite
3 chert
1 granite 1 chert
Pestle Projectile Point
4 chert
2 diorite 2 quartz monzonite 1 sandstone 6 unknown
Unidentifiable Ground Stone Fragments TOTAL
11
13
35
Tools that received heat treatment prior to manufacture include bifaces, cores, one incidentally edge-modified flake, and several projectile points; all of these tools are chert. The application of heat by some means was great enough to spall or fracture twelve artifacts post-production. This was observed in several bifaces and projectile points, a knife, two cores, an incidentally edge-modified basalt flake, and one percussive implement. Additionally, 35 post-manufacture artifacts were either fire-affected or severely burnt. Altogether, heat effects were casually observed on 10.5% of all tools.
121
Three projectile points in the research assemblage were roughly complete. The other 43 broken points were inspected to determine the reason they had fractured. Because this is difficult to discern, 14 of the 46 points could not be categorized for fracture type (Figure 35). More manufacturing errors were distinguished than diagnostic impact fractures. Implications of these patterns are discussed in the following chapter. Projectile Point Breakage Patterns Diagnostic Impact Fracture
10
Manufacturing Error
19
Unknown
14
Not Applicable
3 0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Quantity (n) Figure 35. Fracture Patterns on Projectile Points from all Five Units.
Temporal Patterns in the Tool Assemblage The information on tools that precedes this paragraph is not quantified with regard to chronology. In this section, I will investigate whether patterns in the tools can be revealed according to Temporal Period. For tools, as with debitage, some excavation unit levels were removed from temporal analysis because they either contained fill or the levels were not volumetrically consistent as a result of the slope of the unit base. Unit 20 tools have also been removed from the following data explorations; almost all are missing from the collection at this time, and those that are present do not represent the
122
variety found in other research units. The density of tools has been calculated as the Density-Time Index in Table 43. Table 43. Calculation of Density-Time Index for Tools in Each Temporal Period.
TP1 TP2 TP3 TP4 TP5 TP6
No. Levels in Unit Total Levels x width x length x height (in 8 19 38 48 meters) 13 31 31 13 x 2 x 2 x .10 10 6 15 8 x 2 x 2 x .10 23 9 33 34 16 x 2 x 2 x .10 68 16 76 3 21 x 2 x 2 x .10 22 13 7 x 2 x 2 x .10 29 3 x 2 x 2 x .10
Total Vol. in TP 5.2 m3 3.2 m3 6.4 m3 8.4 m3 2.8 m3 1.2 m3
Tool Count
Tools per m3
75 31 99 163 35 29
Years in TP
14.4 9.7 15.5 19.4 12.5 24.2
300 200 200 300 200 400
DensityTime Index 0.048 0.048 0.077 0.065 0.063 0.060
The density of tools rises slightly between Temporal Period 6 and 4, then jumps up in Temporal Period 3 to the highest density per cubic meter per year (Figure 36). Tool density drops by about 38% from Temporal Period 3 to 2, then remains the same in Temporal Period 1 and in Temporal Period 2.
Density-Time Index for Tools Over Time 0.077
0.08
Density-Time Index
0.07
0.06
0.063
0.065
0.06
0.048
0.048
0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0 TP6
older
TP5
TP4
TP3
Temporal Period
TP2
TP1
younger
Figure 36. Density-Time Index for Tools Over Time (for all Tools within Temporal Periods).
Percussive tools have been separated out of the ground stone category in Figure 37 and Figure 38. This category does not include multi-functional tools with secondary
123
percussive functions; these are included with cores and tested cobbles. Percussive tools have a relatively low density and proportion through time. Temporal Period 5 is the only time span in which percussive tools have a higher density than formal tools and almost the same density as cores and ground stone. Further, percussive tools are in their largest proportion of the tool assemblage in Temporal Period 5. Expedient tools are highest in density of all tools in Temporal Periods 5 and 1. They form the highest proportion of tools in Temporal Period 5. From Temporal Period 5 to 4, formal tools shift from the lowest density of all tool types to the highest, as they are in Temporal Period 3. In Temporal Period 2, formal and expedient tools are present in the same density and are in higher proportion than all other tool types. Cores form a larger proportion of tool types than formal tools in Temporal Periods 5 and 1. By proportion, cores are at their most in Temporal Periods 1 and 3. Ground stone has the highest density and proportion of tool types in the assemblage in Temporal Period 6, with expedient tools as the second highest. In Temporal Period 5 they swap places and remain higher than any other tool type in terms of density and proportion. Ground stone tools are at their highest density in Temporal Period 6. From this time span to the next, density drops by 45.2%, yet Temporal Period 5 has the second highest density of ground stone.
124
Figure 37. Density-Time Index for Tools Over Time by Tool Type.
Figure 38. Percentage of Tools Over Time by Tool Type According to the Density-Time Index.
Projectile Point Fracture Patterns Twenty-seven projectile points from the tool assemblage were associated with Temporal Periods and could be categorized by their fracture pattern (Table 44). It is
125
apparent that both manufacturing and diagnostic impact fractures occurred from Temporal Period 5 through 2. The only fracture pattern represented in Temporal Period 1 results from manufacturing error. Table 44. Projectile Point Fracture Type by Temporal Period. TP6
TP5
Manufacturing Error Diagnostic Impact Fracture
TP4 1 1
TP3 7 6
TP2 4 1
TP1 1 2
4
Diagnostic Projectile Points Forty-six projectile points were identified in the research assemblage. Four of these points were diagnostic of certain morphologies and chronologies (Figure 39). Three of these projectile points come from Temporal Period 4, which has a date range of A.D. 800–1100. Example A in Figure 39 is a Rose Spring arrow point base manufactured from fused shale. Point B is also made of fused shale and is likely the base of an Elko Eared point. Base C is a chalcedony Vandenberg Contracting Stem dart point. The fourth diagnostic projectile point (D) is a chalcedony, Cottonwood triangular point with a concave base from Temporal Period 3.
Figure 39. Diagnostic Projectile Points in the Research Assemblage. A=Unit 38, 130–140 cm, fused shale Rose Spring base, TP4; B=Unit 8, 150–160 cm, Catalog #30568, fused shale Elko Eared base, TP4; C=Unit 8, 150–160 cm, Catalog #53506, Vandenberg contracting stem chalcedony base, TP4; D=Unit 48, 130–140 cm, Cottonwood triangular chalcedony, TP3.
126
Summary of Lithic Data Patterns Many observations were possible through analysis of the Sjútkanga lithic research assemblage. Meaningful patterns are summarized below. Debitage •
Debitage material types are diverse
•
The most common material types in the debitage assemblage are chert (40%), basalt (27%), fused shale (12%), quartzite (8%), and chalcedony (7%)
•
Debitage density is highest in Temporal Period 4, followed by 2 and 3
•
Debitage material types that generally diminish in density over time are chert, basalt, and materials categorized as “other,” fused shale generally increases over time, and the highest proportion of chalcedony is in Temporal Period 4
•
Density of fused shale is higher than basalt only in Temporal Period 1
•
There is a negative, but weak, correlation between fused shale and obsidian
•
A relatively strong positive correlation exists between rhyolite and obsidian
•
The highest density of obsidian occurs in Temporal Period 4, followed by 5 and 3, in descending order
•
The highest density of rhyolite occurs in Temporal Period 4, followed by 6 and 3, in descending order
•
In the chert debitage typological assemblage: − Angular shatter increases in proportion over time − Indeterminate flake fragments have a higher density than any other flake type in Temporal Period 2 − Intensity of chert biface reduction decreases over time 127
− The quantity of debitage with cortex is relatively high for chert − Most bipolar reduction seems to have occurred in Temporal Period 6 •
Cortex is moderate for basalt and quartzite, even less for chalcedony and rhyolite, and is almost non-existent for fused shale and obsidian
Tools •
Tool type diversity is high
•
The highest tool density, in descending order: − For all tools combined is Temporal Period 3, followed by 4 and 5 − Cores and tested cobbles are highest in Temporal Period 3, followed by Temporal Period 4 − Expedient tools are highest in Temporal Period 5, followed by 1 − Formal tools are highest in Temporal Period 3, followed by 4 − Ground stone is highest in Temporal Period 6, followed by 5; in Temporal Periods 4 through 1 density remains roughly level − Percussive tools are highest in Temporal Period 5, followed by 6
•
The highest tool proportions, in descending order: − Cores and tested cobbles are highest in Temporal Period 1, followed by 4 and 3 which are almost equal in proportion − Expedient tools are highest in Temporal Period 5, followed by 1 − Formal tools are highest, and almost equal in proportion, in Temporal Periods 4 and 3 − Ground stone is highest in Temporal Period 6, followed by 2 − Percussive tools are highest in Temporal Period 5, followed by 6 128
•
Tool density is the same in Temporal Periods 2 and 1, where it is also the lowest of any time span
•
The most common material types for tools: − Cores and tested cobbles are primarily made of basalt (56.5%), quartzite (18.5%), and chert (15.7%); all bipolar cores are chert, with one exception; all centripetal cores are basalt − Expedient tools are primarily made of basalt (36.9%), chert (25.4%), and fused shale (13.1%); edge-modified and incidentally edge-modified flakes are made from diverse material types; all other tools in this category were manufactured of andesite, basalt, and quartzite − Formal tools are primarily made of chert (59.3%), fused shale (20.4%), and chalcedony (9.3%); obsidian comprises 4.3% of tools in this category
•
Most cores (67.6%) are multidirectional
•
Most of the percussive tools (72.2%) are beaked hammerstones
•
Most of the ground stone tools are related to milling and food preparation activities (48.4%)
•
Most tools in the category “other” are related to food preparation (boiling stones, 64.2%) or basketry (asphaltum and tarring pebbles, 24.7%)
•
Most of the basketry tools from Unit 38 fall within Temporal Period 4
•
Heat affects more than 10.5% of all tools; heat treatment intended to modify material properties only was observed for chert
•
Manufacturing errors and diagnostic impact fractures are both evident in the assemblage’s projectile points
129
•
Diagnostic dart points include an Elko point base and a Vandenberg Contracting Stem base from Temporal Period 4
•
Bow and arrow technology is represented by a Rose Spring point in Temporal Period 4 and a Cottonwood point base in Temporal Period 3
The discussion that follows this chapter makes sense of the patterns in the lithic data and offers some interpretations.
130
— DISCUSSION Sjútkanga’s residents practiced a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, leaving discernible patterns in their lithic material culture. Their technological decisions were made within social, economic, and environmental contexts, with consideration for material properties and availability. The following discussion of Sjútkanga lithics merits a return to the research questions outlined at the beginning of this document: 1) What can be inferred about subsistence, mobility, lithic technological organization, and social and economic ties of the site occupants? 2) How do these cultural practices change over time? 3) If these cultural practices do change over time, what internal or external correlates can explain this change? There are four major conclusions that can be drawn based on the results of the research and analysis conducted for this thesis. First, the lithic assemblage suggests a broad-based subsistence diet. Second, the people of Sjútkanga were, for the most part, semi-sedentary residents of a village. Third, the full life cycle of tool manufacture is represented at the village, from procurement through discard. Fourth, the residents had social ties that reflect deep relationships first with the desert and thereafter to the coast. These findings reflect the majority of the time for which data are available, but practices and site use changed over time. In this discussion, I will talk about how ways of life shifted over time and suggest possible explanations for these changes.
131
What can be inferred about subsistence, mobility, lithic technological organization, and social and economic ties of the site occupants? Subsistence Usewear may be the best avenue for accurate determination of how a tool functioned in a subsistence system (Andrefsky 2005), but usewear analysis was beyond the scope of this research. Macroscopic investigation of tool morphology indicates a wide range of tool forms and functions in the research assemblage. The tool types identified for this thesis portray diverse subsistence functions. Hunting (piercing) and processing gear are present in the research assemblage in the form of projectile points and bifaces. Large projectile points in the Sjútkanga collection discarded by site occupants could be early dart points used in hunting large game and smaller points could represent later bow and arrow technology. However, the assumptions that point size equates to hunting behavior and that a point is a projectile cannot be accepted without question (Odell 1988:335). Processing implements include manos, metates, and pestles. A total of 130 expedient tools attest to processing or other manufacturing activities. Food preparation is evident from the presence of boiling rocks, in addition to the milling gear. Subsistence practices at Sjútkanga show a reliance on plant and animal food resources, with some anecdotal evidence of marine or riverine fauna (see Appendix G). During artifact sorting at the Los Encinos State Historic Park lab, I observed fauna such as artiodactyl, lagomorph, fish vertebrae, otoliths, and edible mollusk remains, attesting to the availability of various resources.
132
Mobility In this section, I evaluate the possibility that Sjútkanga is a residential site whose occupants were semi-sedentary. Binford’s (1980) Forager/Collector Model is a good baseline for inquiry into the nature of a residential base and its archaeological signature. Binford (1980:17) describes this site type as having coarse-grained assemblages—in which specific short-term events cannot be discerned—that are the result of lower levels of mobility. These sites are “the hub of subsistence activities, the locus out of which foraging parties originate and where most processing, manufacturing, and maintenance activities take place” (Binford 1980:9). I look at these activities by investigating technology of the site’s occupants. Early stages of core reduction and a prevalence of local materials, which have low transport costs, could be expected at a residential site, or a site occupied by a group with low mobility (Andrefsky 2005:234; Holdaway et al. 2004:43; Ostahowski and Kelly 2014:120). Just such a profile is evident at Sjútkanga. Almost all cores in the research collection (95.4%) are from local materials—andesite, basalt, chalcedony, chert, modelo, quartz, and quartzite (Figure 32). I consider “local” to be within a 25 km (15 mile) radius of the site, which largely encompasses the San Fernando Valley. Core types are diverse (Table 29). This means that a variety of tools were produced at the site, rather than a limited range of special purpose tools. The most intensively used materials—chert and basalt—are locally available and make up over two-thirds of all debitage in the research assemblage (Figure 16). Sjútkanga chert exhibits a relatively high percentage of cortical flakes indicative of early stages of tool manufacture (Figure 30). This profile suggests that Sjútkanga’s occupation was residential in nature.
133
Processing and consumption of food generally occur at a base camp, and because a variety of activities take place in this setting, tool diversity can be expected to be high (Andrefsky 2005; Chatters 1987; Ostahowski and Kelly 2014). Most of the relatively ubiquitous ground stone tools in the research assemblage are related to food preparation (48.4%). Further evidence of food preparation is revealed by the boiling stone cache from Unit 20, Feature 8. Asphaltum, basket weaving implements, and tarring pebbles evince basketry production. According to Hill (2017:244), basket weaving takes place at locales that are inhabited for the long term. The diversity of tools and their association with domestic activities is in line with indigenous knowledge that Sjútkanga was a village with a semi-sedentary population. The residential base is also a setting for the full use-life of a tool, including its disposal. Sjútkanga chert exhibits a relatively high quantity of cortical flakes that represent procurement of raw material in nodule form for early stage manufacturing. Onsite tool production is indicated by diverse, abundant core forms (Table 29) and projectile point breakage as a result of manufacturing errors (Figure 35). Impact fractures are a noted attribute of a number of projectile points in the research assemblage—broken points were probably brought back to the site to be refurbished or replaced. In his ethnoarchaeological research with the Nunamiut, Binford (1979:263) observed that his informants either repaired or discarded worn out gear in the residential location rather than at the field site of the tool’s use. Together, these facts lend credence to the idea that Sjútkanga was utilized on a more permanent basis. Artifacts with longer use-lives may be more concentrated in locations that are occupied for a longer time period (Holdaway et al. 2004:43; Shott 1997). Resharpening
134
of a tool extends its use-life. Several tools in the assemblage were resharpened, including a biface that had been modified as a drill. Lacking cortex, fused shale and obsidian debitage also attest to resharpening. Additionally, multifunctional tools may be considered to have longer use-lives because they were utilized beyond their originallyintended purpose. I observed 21 tools in the research assemblage that had more than one function. I suggest that these examples indicate longer-term occupancy of Sjútkanga. Lithic Technological Organization This discussion of lithic technological organization begins with the first step in the chaîne opératoire, raw material procurement. The nature of a hunter-gatherer group’s technological organization has a fundamental relationship with geological availability of raw lithic material and its material properties, namely size, shape, and quality (Andrefsky 1994:375). Lithic procurement strategies include material choices, how those materials fit in with a technological system both in number and quality, the form in which it became part of the system, and whether it was procured directly or through trade (Sellet 1993:108). The proportions of different materials in the overall technological system may be a result of cultural beliefs and social practices, not just issues of access. At Sjútkanga moderate quality local lithics were abundantly available and chosen as preferred raw material (Figure 16). Basalt, andesite, and quartzite were transported to the site from nearby sources. Good to poor quality chert was transported to the site from local, apparently reliable sources, since it is the most intensively use material. Highquality non-local exotics were also used. Fused shale from Grimes Canyon or Happy Camp is one of the more prominent high-quality materials in the assemblage; at 11.7% of the debitage it is the third most common material type (Table 27). Obsidian from the
135
Coso Volcanic Field was used but is sparse in the assemblage (0.75% of the debitage by quantity). Lithic materials enter an organizational system in different forms such as raw nodules, partially knapped cores, bifaces, or finished tools (Dibble et al. 2005). Cortex is a key indicator of the arrangement of the lithic as it becomes part of the system and reflects several factors—the nature and intensity of the reduction activities (technology); the tool types and quantities of forms produced; the mode of procurement (direct or indirect); and nodule size, configuration, and shape (Dibble et al. 2005:546–547). At Sjútkanga, the presence of moderate amounts of cortex for basalt, andesite, and quartzite implies that some preliminary knapping took place before these materials were transported to the site. Cortical, Monterey chert is prevalent in the research assemblage, suggesting that it was introduced into the system primarily in raw nodular form. Cortex is scarce for fused shale and obsidian, which probably entered the system in bifacial or finished form. As distance to source from location of use increases, actions to reduce material bulk increase as a way of reducing transport costs (Binford 1979:260). Therefore, the level of processing of a material may be indicative of its mode of procurement. Sjútkanga chert was probably procured directly. It is unlikely that chert was an object of trade in its raw nodular form; without removal of cortex, a trading partner would not be able to evaluate quality and suitability of the material. The raw nodular forms may have been stockpiled for future knapping activities, perhaps as part of an embedded strategy. Local basalt, andesite, and quartzite arrived at the site partially reduced, hinting at direct procurement. Trade is speculated for fused shale and obsidian. Andrefsky (1994) notes
136
that exotic raw materials are less likely to be imported in raw cobble form. The lack of cortex for fused shale and obsidian suggests that these materials had been roughed out or finished as tools, reducing transport costs and enhancing the value of the “merchandise.” One possible step in the chaîne opératoire after raw material procurement is core reduction. Manufacturing techniques are evident in the tools used in lithic manufacture and the core types that are the end result. The production of chipped lithics includes the use of organic tools, such as antler, which do not survive in the archaeological record; however, hammerstones give clues to manufacturing technique and output. In the research assemblage, 14 of the 17 hammerstones are beaked (Table 32). When battered cores and core/hammerstones are also counted, fully 46% of percussive implements are beaked. Beaked hammerstones were most likely utilized for ground stone rejuvenation rather than flintknapping. There are two implications of this pattern: 1) most hammerstones used to make chipped stone tools were core forms first, and 2) hardwood such as oak may have been used as percussors. Cores encapsulate manufacturing techniques and reveal the kind of piece that was detached. In the five research units I found bipolar, centripetal, multidirectional, tabular, and unidirectional cores (Table 29). Bipolar cores are thought to optimize less readily available materials or those that have a diminutive configuration (Andrefsky 1994). All but one of the bipolar cores in the research assemblage are chert (Table 37). I believe the bipolar technique was used to obtain workable material from lesser quality or more highly cortical chert. Multidirectional and unidirectional cores are impacted wherever an appropriate platform is produced by prior detachment of material. In contrast, centripetal cores are termed formalized or prepared because multiple flakes are strategically
137
detached in order to obtain subsequent, usable flakes in a desired configuration (Andrefsky 2005:144; Des Lauriers 2010:105). Centripetal cores in the Sjútkanga research assemblage, all of which are basalt, were processed in order to generate relatively flat flake blanks. From the standpoint of materiality theory, raw material properties and availability influence the intended output, or type of tool, in a technological system. Individual flake analysis helped me to determine the intended products of chert core reduction at Sjútkanga. The proportion of early stage reduction debitage (44.7%; angular shatter, simple cortical, and simple non-cortical flakes) is about equal to the proportion of middle- to late-stage reduction flakes (44.0%; complex cortical, complex non-cortical, and biface preparatory flakes) (Table 93). The ubiquity of early-stage chert debitage may indicate that the raw material is found in small pieces with large surface area relative to nodule size. This is consistent with the abundance of cortical chert. The material itself is abundant in the assemblage and is assumed to be readily available from nearby sources. Much of it, though, is of average quality. Altogether, the picture of chert production portrays a focus on flake blanks rather than bifacial core production. Different raw materials may be suitable for different functions and types of tools in a lithic technological system (Andrefsky 2009). Both expedient and formal tools will be manufactured of high-quality material where it is local and abundant, but where it is not plentiful it is usually used for making formal tools (Andrefsky 1994, 2005). Obsidian and fused shale are the two high-quality materials in the research assemblage. Non-local fused shale makes an important appearance in the assemblage, comprising 20.3% of formal tools (Figure 34). However, 74% of Sjútkanga formal tools were manufactured
138
from local materials. Expedient tools are thought to be commonly made from lithics of moderate quality that are available locally (McCall 2012). About 82% of the expedient tools were manufactured of local, low- to good-quality lithics (Figure 33). Over 50% of the expedient tools are made of andesite, basalt, and quartzite, three materials that are sharp yet robust. It appears that both availability and performance characteristics of local lithics led to their extensive utilization. The abundance of local alternatives reduced dependence on outside sources for the manufacture of formal tools. Tools may be manufactured with anticipated use in mind, designed for multiple uses, conveyed to other locations, maintained, or repurposed—all aspects of the curation process, sensu Bamforth (1986). Curation should be assessed on a case-by-case basis because it is an adaptive response, so a culture may choose to curate their tools in specific ways (Odell 1996:53–54). Curation at Sjútkanga is shown by multiple lines of evidence. Impact fractures demonstrate that points and their hafting elements were brought back to Sjútkanga for reuse or rejuvenation (Figure 35). A biface modified into a drill is an example of recycling and a resharpened basalt chopper demonstrates maintenance. Multifunctional tools show repurposing. Odell (1996:57) acknowledges that these tools may be multifunctional by design or by implementation (use)—the former being deliberately planned and the latter being more spontaneous. Odell favors the former as it emphasizes the efficiency and planning inherent to foraging. I would argue that tools used spontaneously for multiple functions, such as battered cores and core/hammerstones, are strong evidence of the act of curation as well. The practice of curation, especially maintenance and recycling, is strongly linked to the availability and quality of raw material (Andrefsky 2009; Bamforth 1986;
139
MacDonald 2008; Odell 1996; Smith 2015). Core technology and degree of reduction have been shown to be affected by availability of raw material (Kuhn 1991). A study by Andrefsky (2008) suggests that proximity to a source influences whether a tool is resharpened, reconfigured, or discarded. Even though stone workers at Sjútkanga had access to abundant, diverse local lithics, they were generally of moderate quality, so curation seems to have been important. The high-quality obsidian and fused shale debitage exhibits little cortex. At least some of these flakes are from tool maintenance. Obsidian is sparse in the research assemblage, suggesting curation and repair (Jackson and Ericson 1994). A tool’s role in a technological system influences the timing and location of its discard (Binford 1979:271). If the full utility of a tool is considered, the degree of formal tool curation may be reflected in the condition of its discard. Expedient flake tools have minimal use-lives but may be highly curated in the sense that their utility is maximized prior to discard (Andrefsky 2008:72). At least seven of the nine complete bifaces in the research assemblage are made of low-quality material (one basalt, five chert, one fused shale with a flaw), perhaps discarded because their maximum utility was reduced by their material properties. My observation of discarded bifaces and projectile points is that not enough material remained for further curation, maintenance, or recycling. Village knappers appear to have derived maximum utility from most of their tools. Here I wish to summarize what I’ve learned about lithic technological organization at Sjútkanga. Moderate quality local materials were utilized for both expedient and formal tools, but high-quality materials were generally reserved for bifaces and projectile points. As indicated by the presence of cortex, chert entered the
140
technological system as raw nodules, basalt and quartzite in partially reduced form, and fused shale and obsidian as preforms. Chert, basalt, andesite, and quartzite were procured directly, while trade was the mode of acquisition for fused shale and obsidian. Almost all cores consist of local material and exhibit diverse reduction technologies in the production of chipped tools. The primary reduction technology at Sjútkanga is flake blank production. Curation was an important part of the chaîne opératoire at the village, probably due to the lesser availability of high-quality raw material. Social and Economic Ties (Trade and Exchange) Two fundamental lines of evidence support the notion that Sjútkanga was part of a robust, complex social and economic interaction sphere—the presence of extra local raw material and “exotic” projectile points. Obsidian, Franciscan chert, fused shale, and rhyolite at Sjútkanga confirm the acquisition of non-local materials. The source of fused shale is approximately 64 km (40 miles) from Sjútkanga, located in post-colonial Ventureño Chumash territory (Gamble and Russell 2002; Walsh 2013). Direction of conveyance from the north into the San Fernando Valley is indicated by the ubiquitous presence of this material in the research assemblage. Nearly all obsidian samples for Energy Dispersive X-ray Fluorescence were from Coso sources, placing Sjútkanga in the Coso Obsidian economic exchange system. In Southern California, obsidian may have been conveyed along a trade corridor (over what is now Highway 14) linking the Antelope Valley to the coast (Faull 2006; Scharlotta 2014). Scharlotta (2014:231) reports that Coso obsidian and rhyolite co-occur at archaeological sites in the vicinity of this route. Rhyolite and obsidian in the research collection are positively correlated (Figure 22, Figure 23, Table 91, and Table 92). Seeing
141
that their presence is related, and that obsidian apparently arrived along trade routes across the desert, I suggest that both were acquired through the Antelope Valley. Embedded procurement of Rosamond Hills rhyolite is hypothesized for Antelope Valley ethnic groups (Scharlotta 2014), so this material may have entered Sjútkanga through down-the-line exchange as an element of the Coso economic exchange system. Monterey chert, which forms the overwhelming majority of this material type in the research assemblage, is found locally. However, Franciscan chert would have been obtained by groups in the Santa Monica Mountains from farther north in the form of finished tools (King 2011), possibly from Santa Barbara County, Mendocino County, or the San Francisco area. This gray and green Franciscan chert is rare in the research assemblage, but its presence is evidence of north-south directionality of exchange. Although non-local materials are present at Sjútkanga far from their sources, the means by which they arrived can only be hypothesized. Both linear and social distances have an impact on the nature of exchange. Linear or least-cost path distances to a geographic landmark define effective distance to resources. Social distance is a factor in interaction between groups, and is determined by kinship, social hierarchy, population density, shared ceremonial connections, and economic activities (Hughes 2011:8). For example, certain social groups may have had restricted access to obsidian sources, such that one’s ethnic association had a bearing on ease and mode of acquisition (Panich et al. 2018:2). Linear and social distances negate the implicit assumption that an exotic good found at considerable distance from its source is the result of formalized exchange. All four diagnostic projectile points in the research assemblage are manufactured of material that can be obtained in Southern California—chalcedony in the northwestern
142
Santa Monica Mountains or Santa Barbara Channel and fused shale northwest of the Simi Hills (King 2011:136). Fused shale has a coastal distribution in archaeological contexts and is found inland at sites in Ventura, Los Angeles, and Orange counties (Hughes and Peterson 2009:31). This material was generally traded in the region as finished arrowheads and bifaces (Hughes and Peterson 2009:32; King 2011:139). It may never be firmly determined whether these four specimens were knapped by the Chumash and imported to Sjútkanga or whether they were knapped at the village. Yet as the third most common raw material in the debitage, fused shale (11.7%) may be indicative of onsite knapping of various points or at least modification of preforms. The Cottonwood point is a typical Great Basin form that is found in the Sjútkanga collection in the local chalcedony material type. Elko and Rose Spring points also typify the Great Basin, but in this context are manufactured of a coastal material. The appearance of desert forms in coastal material at Sjútkanga suggests that residents may have had deep social and economic ties to the desert and the coast. How do these cultural practices change over time? Changes in Subsistence Without detailed faunal analysis, it is difficult to propose firm conclusions about changes in subsistence over time at Sjútkanga. A review of some of the tools allows for basic inferences. Ground stone tools are highest in density in Temporal Period 6 (Figure 37). From Temporal Period 4 on, these tools retain a relatively consistent density. Pestles are not represented in the research assemblage until Temporal Period 3 (after A.D. 1100; n=2), with one example later in Temporal Period 1. Seeds are ground with manos and metates, while mortars and pestles are associated with acorn pounding (Gamble and King 143
1997; Glassow et al. 2007; King 2011). Pestles may represent shift to a broader-based subsistence economy at Sjútkanga after A.D. 1100 with acorns as an element of the diet. Bow and arrow technology, introduced in Southern Coastal California between A.D. 500 and 900, is coincident with population aggregation and economic intensification (Kennett et al. 2013). The highest density of tools of all types occurs after A.D. 800 in Temporal Periods 4 and 3 (Figure 36), which is roughly concurrent to or somewhat subsequent to the adoption of the bow and arrow. This is also when cores, tested cobbles and formal tools are at their highest densities (Figure 37). Furthermore, tool diversity is greatest during this time span. These data indicate more intensive resource exploitation and a higher population level from A.D. 800 to 1300. Without finer chronological resolution, it is not possible to say whether the bow and arrow precipitated these shifts. The co-occurrence of a Rose Spring arrow point (Unit 38, 130–140 cm), an Elko dart (Unit 8, 150–160 cm), and a Vandenberg contracting stemmed dart point (Unit 8, 150–160 cm) in Temporal Period 4 suggests that atlatl technology was not immediately left behind with adoption of the bow and arrow. Bow and arrow technology is often presumed to be a more efficient hunting strategy than use of darts and spears (Justice 2002; Kennett et al. 2013; Tomka 2013), though some are skeptical of this sweeping judgement (Shott 1993). This technological overlap could demonstrate that broader prey choices coincided with adoption of the newer technology. Changes in Mobility Mobility patterns at Sjútkanga shift through time. From A.D. 200–800 (Temporal Periods 6 and 5) the site was utilized episodically by more mobile groups. This time
144
period is marked by a relatively moderate density of debitage (Figure 17) and tools (Figure 36) compared to other Temporal Periods. Ground stone in Temporal Period 6 was at its highest density (Figure 37), yet at the same time all other tool types are at their lowest density of any Temporal Period. Then in Temporal Period 5 density of expedient tools is the highest in any time span and is lowest for formal tools. Tool diversity is low which means that fewer activities were conducted at the site. I believe these data reflect more sporadic site use in these earlier Temporal Periods, perhaps as a temporary camp. More stable site use by a larger, semi-sedentary population from A.D. 800–1300 (during Temporal Periods 4 and 3) is indicated by several patterns in the data. Tool diversity and density are high, and proportions of tools are more evenly distributed signaling engagement in a variety of activities (Figure 36 and Figure 38). Debitage density nearly doubles from Temporal Period 5 to 4 then drops back down in Temporal Period 3 (Figure 17). These patterns suggest that Sjútkanga was occupied intensively during this time span Some internal or external correlate caused site use to diminish after Temporal Period 3. Debitage density is the second highest of any Temporal Period in Period 2 but then drops to its lowest in Temporal Period 1. Tool density is at its lowest in Temporal Periods 2 (A.D. 1300–1500) and 1 (post-A.D. 1500). This pattern may indicate that site use became sporadic again after Temporal Period 3 Temporal changes in material preferences allow for a characterization of mobility in Temporal Period 6. Quartzite is the most common material for tools; all cores and scrapers, two edge-modified flakes, and one incidentally edge-modified flake are made of quartzite (see Appendix S). Of 12 manos, two are quartzite and one is basalt. The two
145
hammerstones in this Temporal Period are andesite and quartzite. Two tools (one edgemodified and one incidentally edge-modified flake) in this Temporal Period are made of raw material that is not locally available, that is, fused shale. In terms of extra local debitage, rhyolite is 4.1% of all material in Temporal Period 6 and obsidian is 4.9%, the highest proportions for any Temporal Period. Local chert makes up just under 50% of Temporal Period 6 debitage and includes about 44% of all chert bipolar flakes in the research assemblage. What I suggest is that Sjútkanga’s early visitors may have hailed from the Great Basin deserts and from early times were using local materials, such as chert. The amount of ground stone may indicate that this was a good place to stop and process foods. Changes in Lithic Technological Organization Two aspects of the research assemblage show that lithic technological organization at Sjútkanga changed through time. Choice of raw material shifted (Figure 24 and Figure 25), and the magnitude of biface reduction decreased (Figure 29). Performance characteristics of raw material and functional demands of an artifact influence the material used, but these choices are also socially and culturally significant. As village knappers increased the usage of fused shale, their utilization of chert and obsidian was reduced (Figure 18). Fused shale and obsidian are inversely correlated (Figure 20, and Figure 21). Gilreath and Hildebrandt (1997) note a decrease in obsidian production at the Coso Volcanic Field between 1275–650 B.P, which may coincide with the adoption of the bow and arrow. Earlier in time at Sjútkanga, obsidian is lower in density (Figure 25). The highest density of obsidian occurs in Temporal Period 4, after which levels drop until they are at the lowest in Temporal Period 1. Obsidian
146
density patterns at Sjútkanga are not consistent with what Gilreath and Hildebrandt have observed. Bow and arrow technology was introduced in Southern Coastal California between A.D. 500 and 900 (Kennett et al. 2013). Fused shale was utilized in greater quantities subsequent to adoption of the bow and arrow, circa A.D. 700 (King 2011), and are especially notable in the late Middle Period, after about A.D. 1050 (Gamble and Russell 2002:116; King 2011:141). The geological configuration of fused shale as it is known today is as small chunks or thin veins, which would have been conducive to the production of smaller arrow points (Hughes and Peterson 2009:47). In general accordance with local trends in raw material knapping and tool management practices, fused shale density is lowest in Temporal Periods 6 and 5, rises to a high in 2, and drops by almost 30 % to a low in Period 1 (Gamble and Russell 2002) (Figure 24). The intensity of chert biface manufacture and maintenance at Sjútkanga attests to changes in lithic technological organization. The intensity of lithic reduction diminishes through time (Figure 28). However, the proportion of chert flakes from early and late stages of manufacture remain similar (Figure 27). This could be attributed to a shift in production of chipped stone points from atlatl dart to bow and arrow technology. Larger dart points have greater material requirements in terms of volume and quantity than later manufacture of smaller arrow points (Moratto 2011:247). This trend in Sjútkanga data agrees with regional trends that show a decrease in point size over time (Justice 2002:16). Changes in Social and Economic Ties (Trade and Exchange) A material’s presence in an archaeological context reveals its transfer from its source, but not the mechanism(s) by which it was conveyed (Beck and Jones 2011:55).
147
Was the material obtained directly from the source, through informal opportunistic exchange, or via a system of formal exchange? Various modes of acquisition may have been employed by the same social group (Hughes 2011) for different materials or different social opportunities. Each material type in the research assemblage should be considered separately when posing questions about conveyance. Chert from Units 8 and 20 exhibits high quantities of cortex (Figure 30). Proportions of cortical chert are relatively consistent from Temporal Period 6 to 2, averaging about 21%, but there is a significant drop in Temporal Period 1. The steep decline in cortex after A.D. 1500 may reflect social and economic disruption, perhaps due in part to Spanish colonialism. Access to chert sources may have become socially circumscribed or acquired through exchange, whereas it was probably acquired through direct means prior to arrival of Europeans. In Chapter 7, I explored the relationships of fused shale to obsidian and rhyolite to obsidian (see Table 89, Table 91, Figure 20, and Figure 22). Statistical analysis showed a negative correlation between fused shale and obsidian, and a positive correlation between rhyolite and obsidian. These relationships are meaningful because none of these materials is local to Sjútkanga; they had to be conveyed from distant sources in order to reach the village. Fused shale is prominent in coastal assemblages around Orange, Ventura and Los Angeles Counties (Arnold 2011; Hughes and Peterson 2009). Obsidian hydration results document a spectrum of mean hydration rinds, suggesting that this material conveyance to Sjútkanga, whether through direct procurement or trade, occurred over the long term. Most research samples came from the Coso Volcanic Field. Scharlotta (2014:229) asserts that the “…most direct and least cost travel route, in terms of terrain, from the Coso
148
Range to coastal southern California is to go through the heart of the [Antelope Valley] and follow the corridor through the mountains that is now the path of Highway 14.” My suggestion is that the relative quantities of rhyolite and obsidian reflect early, strong social ties to the desert (Table 83). Later in time, when fused shale becomes more dominant and rhyolite and obsidian drop off, social ties are more focused on the coast. Two significant lithics from the research assemblage reinforce this point. The Elko Eared dart point and Rose Spring corner-notched arrow point (both from Temporal Period 4) are typical Great Basin forms made from a coastal resource, fused shale. Neither of these desert forms is unknown in Southern California archaeological contexts. Elko Eared points are widely distributed in the Great Basin and date from as early as 1500 B.C to as late as A.D. 700 (Justice 2002:304, 307). The sample from Sjútkanga is on the periphery of its distribution and outside its normal material and temporal affiliations. The Rose Spring point type is thought to represent the first bow and arrow in the Great Basin between A.D. 500 and 1300 (Justice 2002:321). According to Justice (2002:328), distribution of the Rose Spring type occurs throughout the Great Basin, the western extent of which is placed in eastern California. The Sjútkanga Rose Spring point is located west of the form’s main distribution and was manufactured using a coastal material but falls within normal temporal parameters for the type. The disposal of both point types at a site not far inland from the coast evokes a relationship towards the east that is quite direct, because manufacturing and stylistic knowledge for these projectile points had to be “imported.” Van Horn (1990) refers to tanged corner-notched points from coastal Southern California as the “Marymount” series. Defined by Van Horn (1990), and typically made
149
of fused shale, the Marymount point may indicate trade relations with interior California (Justice 2002:330). Sutton (2009:53) posits that as points that are morphologically similar to the Rose Spring type, Marymount points appear “to be the coastal equivalent of the Rose Spring Series.” Van Horn acknowledges a possible cultural association between the Marymount type and Shoshonean (Numic) speakers of the Late Prehistoric Period (Van Horn 1990:35). In the next section, I will discuss this language family and the people associated with it. If these cultural practices do change over time, what internal or external correlates can explain this change? Fluctuations in climatic variation, changes in population density, territorial shifts, sociopolitical situations, and technological developments can influence the effective and social distances to subsistence and other resources (Hughes 2011; Jackson and Ericson 1994). They can affect a group’s mobility; organization of their lithic technological system, and/or relationships, alliances, or exchange with neighbors. Here I will explore some possible reasons why cultural patterns in subsistence, mobility, lithic technological organization, and social and economic relationships at Sjútkanga changed over time. During the mid-Holocene, western North America and parts of the North Atlantic region experienced a period of drought alternating with wet intervals, as shown by three lines of evidence: ocean cores, dendrochronology, and archaeology (Kennett et al. 2007). Southern California dendrochronological research indicates alternating wet and dry intervals during the following approximate time spans (Kennett 2005; Schwitalla and Jones 2012): •
A.D. 950–1150, extreme drought
150
•
A.D. 1150–1250, wet interval
•
A.D. 1250–1350, extreme drought
Archaeologists have suggested that this set of climatic shifts, known as the Medieval Climatic Anomaly, disrupted human populations in California and the Great Basin between A.D. 800 and 1350 (Arnold 1992; Jones et al. 1999; Schwitalla and Jones 2012). This disturbance seems to be evidence in site abandonment, cultural change, increase in violence, and decline in exchange (Schwitalla and Jones 2012). The chronological time period known in Southern California archaeology as the Middle/Late Transition (MLT, A.D. 1150–1300) is characterized by accelerated cultural change, including social hierarchy in the Northern Channel Islands (Arnold 1992; Jazwa et al. 2016:103; Raab and Larson 1997). With the Medieval Climatic Anomaly (ca. 1150 B.P.), exchange networks of obsidian in California were disrupted (Arnold and Walsh 2010:38; Gilreath and Hildebrandt 1997). Some scholars argue that cultural change preceded this period (Gamble 2005). Temporal Periods 4 (A.D. 800–1100) and 3 (A.D. 1100–1300) at Sjútkanga reveal the highest density of lithic production activity at the village (Figure 17 and Figure 36), coincident with the onset and continuation of the Medieval Climatic Anomaly. This intensity of lithic production is reflected in the quantities of tools and debitage and the diversity of tools in these two Temporal Periods. In fact, the Temporal Periods right before A.D. 800 and right after A.D. 1300 exhibit relatively few tools and comparably minimal debitage. However, site usage and lithic production patterns at Sjútkanga shift from the early part of the Medieval Climatic Anomaly to the latter portion. It may be that a lower
151
population was supportable at the village during Temporal Period 3 and was therefore intentionally reduced. Subsistence patterns may have changed at Sjútkanga after A.D. 1100 as well. Temporal Period 3 is the first point in the chronology of the research assemblage that includes a pestle, and for this Temporal Period there are two. Pestles are thought to be used for large seed and acorn processing, so it is possible that the villagers expanded their diet breadth during these hard times. Evidence suggests Sjútkanga was a locus of protracted activity during climatic changes, counter to population and settlement trends in the Santa Barbara Channel region and the Channel Islands (Arnold 1992; Arnold and Walsh 2010; Jones et al. 1999; Raab and Larson 1997). Advancements in technology, shifts in settlement and exchange patterns, and increases in population size occur in southern California in the Late Holocene (Bettinger 2015; Glassow et al. 2007; Kennett et al. 2013). These shifts developed around the time of the adoption of the bow and arrow but are not necessarily causally related to the technology. The bow and arrow are hypothesized to have been well established in the Mojave Desert around A.D. 500 (Yohe 1998:28) and to have reached the Southern Coast of California between A.D. 650 and 900 (Kennett et al. 2013). Circa A.D. 500, longdistance trade in California diminished in some places while local exchange intensified (Gamble and Russell 2002:115). Gamble and Russell (2002) note that this timing corresponds with arrival of the bow and arrow in the state. Other possibilities behind shifting cultural patterns at Sjútkanga are population migration, aggregation, and/or replacement. Hunter-gatherer population movements may be evident in the spread of language. In linguistically diverse indigenous California, the Tataviam and Fernandeño at the time of European contact were speakers of a Takic
152
language, a branch of the Uto-Aztecan language family (Golla 2007; Johnson and Earle 1990:197). The Takic subfamily is hypothesized to have branched from the Uto-Aztecan family an estimated 4,500 to 2,000 years ago (Codding and Jones 2013; Golla 2007; Sutton 2009). The geographic and ethnic origins of Takic speakers and the dates of their migration into Southern California from northern deserts has been much debated. Their incursion was around 3,500 years ago due to displacement by Penutians migrating in a southward direction (Sutton 2009). Eshleman and Smith (2007:296, 298) provide evidence that Takic populations’ mitochondrial DNA is distinct from that of their Chumash neighbors, and suggest a disjuncture between these populations more than 3,000 years in age. One of the final expansions of Takic speakers into California began with the Middle Period, and researcher have suggested that their social organization included hereditary transference of political and religious leadership (King 2011:301). Another related main branch of Uto-Aztecan includes Numic languages, whose speakers’ ancestral territory was either southeast California (Bettinger and Baumhoff 1982:490) or the foothills of the Southern Sierra Nevada (Sutton2009:37). The Numic subfamily is thought to have branched from the main language family between 1,000 to 2,000 years ago (Codding and Jones 2013; Golla 2007; Sutton 2009). The Numic population dispersal, which occurred at the beginning of the Sjútkanga Temporal Periods, is a subject of debate. Numic expansion outward from southeast California into the Great Basin occurred as early as 1,000 years ago (Bettinger and Baumhoff 1982; Lamb 1958). People of this language group are hypothesized to have replaced earlier populations that resided
153
in the Great Basin, and indeed the modern populations have been shown to be genetically dissimilar from the ancient peoples (Eshleman and Smith 2007; Kaestle and Smith 2001). Determining the impetus and processes involved in this expansion is difficult—culture history is poorly understood, and it is difficult to equate material culture with ethnic groups or biology with language (Wilde 1997:138–139). Bettinger and Baumhoff (1982:497) posit that adaptive strategies gave the Numic peoples the ability to outcompete their pre-Numic predecessors. Pre-Numic populations, characterized as travelers, procured high-quality, highly-ranked resources, requiring a large time investment but less effort to extract and process; the opposite is true for the Numic peoples, characterized as processors (Bettinger and Baumhoff 1982:487). Alternatively, climate, cultural change, or demographic pressure may have precipitated the Numic expansion. Of these possible explanations, climate may bear the most relevance—expansion circa A.D. 1000 places this process in the middle of the Medieval Climatic Anomaly during an interval of extreme drought. Coincidentally (perhaps) the spread of Numic people roughly corresponds to shifts in technological organization and increased site use at Sjútkanga in TP4 (A.D. 800– 1100). I am not suggesting that the village was occupied by Numic speakers, but the dispersal of new people across the landscape of the Great Basin may have contributed to phenomena that are visible in the archaeological record at Sjútkanga: •
The overall decline in obsidian at the village after Temporal Period 4 (see Table 83 and Table 86)
•
The increased reliance on fused shale versus obsidian after Temporal Period 4 (see Figure 20)
154
•
The presence of both dart and arrow points in Temporal Period 4, and the presence of a Cottonwood arrow point after Temporal Period 4 (see Figure 39)
If Numic peoples spread about 1,000 years ago, their spread probably displaced populations previously engaged in east-west relationships between the interior and the coast. The incursion of the new population into the Great Basin may have uprooted trade and communication networks, precipitated changes in trading partners, and disrupted access to Coso obsidian; exploitation and distribution of Coso obsidian in Ventura, Los Angeles and Orange counties has been shown to decline after 1000 B.P. (Gilreath and Hildebrandt 2011). As a result, Sjútkanga’s knappers turned towards the north toward Chumash territory. From these neighbors they procured fused shale preforms, a highquality material replacement for obsidian. The villagers may have also obtained finished lithic products, as the Chumash are known to have traded finished points in the region that were typically made of chert or fused shale (King 1990). Summary of the Discussion Little is known about the original inhabitants of the San Fernando Valley. Prior to colonialization, it was inhabited by semi-sedentary indigenous groups whose experiences were melded within environmental and socio-political contingencies and opportunities. Prior to suburban development, the area was rich with agriculture. In the process of urban growth, much evidence of the indigenous Valley occupants was obscured or obliterated. Available data, in the form of radiocarbon dates, support a human presence at Sjútkanga in the San Fernando Valley of California for nearly 2,000 years. Analysis provides a glimpse into ways of life at the village. The scope of this research includes lithic analysis to answer questions about ways of life at the indigenous village—by what
155
technological means did residents of Sjútkanga make use of the environment’s edible resources? How frequently did they move around in pursuit of these resources? What were the dynamics of the tool-making process, from procurement through discard? With whom did they interact, and in terms of technology what did they procure? In the final chapter to follow, I explain why the answers to these questions are significant to the body of regional archaeological research.
156
— CONCLUSION The primary conclusions of the preceding discussion are three-fold. First, the onset of the Medieval Climatic Anomaly is implicated in cultural change in the San Fernando Valley, as it is in the region. Second, adoption of the bow and arrow, as well as the Medieval Climatic Anomaly, heralded shifts in subsistence and ways of life. Third, the Numic expansion was a disruptive force in regional culture that may have been catalyzed and stimulated by environmental stress. While the impact of the Medieval Climatic Anomaly has regional ramifications, adaptations to these shifts are very much local. Lithic data presented in this thesis advances the idea that the local population was forced to adapt with change in the environment. This is most evident in temporal developments in subsistence, mobility, lithic technological organization, and social and economic exchange at Sjútkanga: •
Residents incorporated a broader subsistence diet during the Medieval Climatic Anomaly, as evidenced by an increase in tool diversity and density and the adoption of the bow and arrow
•
Sjútkanga was used on a residential basis, and more intensively, during the Medieval Climatic Anomaly, which is clear in multiple lines of evidence
•
Lithic technological organization reflects the full chaîne opératoire during the Medieval Climatic Anomaly
•
Changes in lithic technological organization are apparent during the Medieval Climatic Anomaly in the density of debitage and tools, choice of raw materials, curation, and diversity of production techniques and output
157
•
During the Medieval Climatic Anomaly, social and economic relations shifted from the desert towards the coast
Sjútkanga is a microcosm of transformations resulting from environmental stresses in southern California and the larger region. However, the site was more intensively occupied during the Medieval Climatic Anomaly, which runs counter to regional trends. One reason could be the perennial source of water at the village spring. Access to water was a foundational element in the establishment of permanent settlement location, especially in arid or drought-prone regions (Jazwa et al. 2016:101). A number of factors probably contributed to shifts in cultural, technological, and economic patterns through time at the village. With its regular and predictable water source, Sjútkanga was probably a well-known location where people congregated, shared information and exchanged goods during the Medieval Climatic Anomaly. Some lifeways shifted concurrent with regional trends, suggesting to me that some broad phenomenon was the catalyst for sets of related dynamics. Late Holocene environmental stress seems to be the likely candidate. Current Limitations and Future Research San Fernando Valley archaeological research is limited by urban development but can advance using existing collections. Orphaned collections provide rich opportunities to evaluate and contribute to current knowledge. The Sjútkanga archaeological collection at Los Encinos State Historic Park is incomplete. Thus, there are some limitations to further research on the collection. However, as of the publication of this work, approximately 50 boxes of archaeological material have been located at Palomar College, which may constitute the remainder of the collection.
158
This thesis provides a foundation for further research on the Sjútkanga archaeological collection. Future investigations may corroborate or contradict the temporal structure outlined in this work. It is possible that a deeper look at the obsidian hydration effective temperature hydration rate will place dates derived through this analysis into alignment with radiocarbon determinations. Additional obsidian hydration testing of Unit 38 could verify the integrity of its stratigraphy and provide better context for the very old date obtained for this unit through this method. Additional studies that source the lithics—especially rhyolite, chalcedony, and schist—can advance our understanding of the local social interaction sphere. I have suggested that early stages of lithic manufacture took place at the site based on the quantity of cortical chert observed in Units 8 and 20. A larger sample size for the Sjútkanga Chert Flake Typology may strengthen the results of this thesis. Further analysis can document cortex in all chert in the research assemblage by quantifying types that were not included—angular shatter, alternate flakes, margin collapses, bipolar flakes, and indeterminate flake fragments. Chert from other excavation units may be incorporated or size grades could be added to the Chert Lithic Typology. Quantification of cortex in other material types would refine the picture of how and in what configuration these lithics arrived at the village. Other research on the site of Sjútkanga is ongoing. A thesis on shell beads is in progress, and a dissertation on osteology may be expected in the future. Other opportunities for study are present. An opportunity is present to conduct a faunal analysis that correlates animal protein diet with patterns seen in the lithics. Residue analysis is
159
possible, since several artifacts are noted as having been collected and placed in foil for future analysis. The scope of this research is limited to observations about a single village. Future comparative analysis with other regional village sites is a viable avenue of research. The nature of the site occupants’ cultural practices can be compared to those in the San Fernando Valley, Santa Monica Mountains, the Los Angeles Basin, and the coastal regions of Southern California. Archaeologists could refine culture history as manifested in the San Fernando Valley. Concluding Thoughts Sjútkanga may be the location of the Native American village that the 1769 Portolá Expedition visited when they first entered the San Fernando Valley. Patterns in the archaeological record of Sjútkanga lithics reveal a locus of domestic activity that represents a residential village during the Medieval Climatic Anomaly, and a more temporary base camp before and after this period. However, lithic material will never provide conclusive proof of the presence of Spanish conquerors. Instead, the lithics of Sjútkanga acknowledge the interconnectedness and intricacies of human life that allow us to survive, especially during difficult times. They highlight the creativity of people adapting to a variety of conditions. Sjútkanga was a good place for at least 2,000 years, and perhaps even a safe haven during the Medieval Climatic Anomaly.
160
REFERENCES Adams, Jenny L. 2002 Ground Stone Analysis: A Technological Approach. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Ahler, Stanley A. 1989 Mass Analysis of Flaking Debris: Studying the Forest Rather than the Tree. In Alternative Approaches to Lithic Analysis, edited by Donald O. Henry and George H. Odell, Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 1(1):85–118. Ambrose, W.R. 2001 Obsidian Hydration Dating. In Handbook of Archaeological Sciences, edited by D.R. Brothwell and A.M. Pollard, pp. 81–92. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Chichester. Amick, Daniel S. and Raymond P. Mauldin 1989 Comments on Sullivan and Rozen’s “Debitage Analysis and Archaeological Interpretation.” American Antiquity 54(1):166–168. Amick, Daniel S., Raymond P. Mauldin, and Lewis R. Binford 1989 The Potential of Experiments in Lithic Technology. In Experiments in Lithic Technology, edited by Daniel S. Amick and Raymond P Mauldin, pp. 1–14. BAR International Series 528, Oxford. Anderson, M. Kat 2006 The Use of Fire by Native Americans in California. In Fire in California's Ecosystems, edited by Neil G. Sugihara, Jan W. Van Wagtendonk, Joann FitesKaufman, Kevin E. Shaffer and Andrea E. Thode, pp. 417‒430. University of California Press, Berkeley. Andrefsky, William 1994 The Geological Occurrence of Lithic Material and Stone Tool Production Strategies. Geoarchaeology: An International Journal 9(5) 375–391. 2005 Lithics: Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 2007 The Application and Misapplication of Mass Analysis in Lithic Debitage Studies. Journal of Archaeological Science 34:392–402. 2008 An Introduction to Stone Tool Life History and Technological Organization. In Lithic Technology: Measures of Production, Use, and Curation, edited by William Andrefsky, Jr., pp. 3–22. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 2009 The Analysis of Stone Tool Procurement, Production, and Maintenance. Journal of Archaeological Research 17:65–103.
161
Arnold, Jeanne E. 1992 Complex Hunter-Gatherer-Fishers of Prehistoric California: Chiefs, Specialists, and Maritime Adaptations of the Channel Islands. American Antiquity 57(1):60–84. 2011 Technological decision making: fused shale tool production in California. North American Archaeologist 32(1), 15–48. Arnold, Jeanne E. and Michael R. Walsh 2010 California’s Ancient Past: From the Pacific to the Range of Light. Society for American Archaeology Press, Washington, D.C. Arnold, Jeanne E., Michael R. Walsh, and Sandra E. Hollimon 2004 The Archaeology of California. Journal of Archaeological Research 12(1):1–73. Bamforth, Douglas B. 1986 Technological Efficiency and Tool Curation. American Antiquity 51(1): 38– 50. Bartelink, Eric 2009 Late Holocene Dietary Change in the San Francisco Bay Area. California Archaeology 1(2):227–251. Bar‐Yosef, Ofer and Philip Van Peer 2009 The Chaîne Opératoire Approach in Middle Paleolithic Archaeology. Current Anthropology 50(1):103–131. Beck, R. Kelly 2008 Transport Distance and Debitage Assemblage Diversity: An Application of the Field Processing Model to Southern Utah Toolstone Procurement Sites. American Antiquity 73(4):759–780. Beck, Charlotte and George T. Jones 2011 The Role of Mobility and Exchange in the Conveyance of Toolstone During the Great Basin Paleoarchaic. In Perspectives in Prehistoric Trade and Exchange in California and the Great Basin, edited by Richard E. Hughes, pp. 55–82. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. 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):79‒175. American Museum of Natural History, New York. Bergman, Christopher A. and Mark H. Newcomer 1983 Flint Arrowhead Breakage: Examples from Ksar Akil, Lebanon. Journal of Field Archaeology 10(2):238–243. Bettinger, Robert L. 2015 Orderly Anarchy: Sociopolitical Evolution in Aboriginal California. University of California Press, Oakland.
162
Bettinger, Robert L. and Martin A. Baumhoff 1982 The Numic Spread: Great Basin Cultures in Competition. American Antiquity 47(3):485–503. Binford, Lewis R. 1979 Organization and Formation Processes: Looking at Curated Technologies. Journal of Anthropological Research 35(3):255–273. 1980 Willow Smoke and Dogs' Tails: Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems and Archaeological Site Formation. American Antiquity 45(1):4–20. Bolton, Herbert Eugene 1971 Fray Juan Crespi, Missionary Explorer on the Pacific Coast, 1769–1774. AMS Press, New York. Boneu Companys, F. 1983 Gaspar de Portolá: Explorer and Founder of California. Translated and revised by Alan K. Brown. Instituto de Estudios Ilerdenses, Lerida. Bramlette, M. N. 1946 The Monterey Formation of California and the Origin of its Siliceous Rocks. U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. Carpenter, Bruce R. 1948 Rancho Encino: Its Historical Geography. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Geography, University of California, Los Angeles. Carr, Philip J. and Andrew P. Bradbury 2010 Flake Debris and Flintknapping Experimentation. In Designing Experimental Research in Archaeology: Examining Technology through Production and Use, edited by Jeffrey R. Ferguson, pp. 71–91. University Press of Colorado, Boulder. Chatters, James C. 1987 Hunter-Gatherer Adaptations and Assemblage Structure. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 6:336–375. Codding, Brian F., and Terry L. Jones 2013 Environmental Productivity Predicts Migration, Demographic, and Linguistic Patterns in Prehistoric California. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110(36):14569. Coles, J.M. 1967 Experimental archaeology. In Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 49:1‒20. Costanso, Miguel 1911 The Portola Expedition of 1769-1770: Diary of Miguel Costanso. Translated by Frederick J. Teggart. Publications of the Academy of Pacific Coast History, Vol. 2, No. 4. University of California, Berkeley.
163
Davis, J.T. 1961 Trade Routes and Economic Exchange among the Indians of California. In University of California Archaeological Survey Report No. 54, pp. 1-71. University of California Press, Berkeley. Desautels-Wiley, Nancy 2011 Middle Holocene Ceramic Artifacts from the Encino Village Site. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 47(3&4):25–44. Des Lauriers, Matthew R. 2010 Island of Fogs: Archaeological Investigations of Isla Cedros, Baja California. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Dibble, Harold L., Utsav A. Schurmans, Radu P. Iovita and Michael V. McLaughlin 2005 The Measurement and Interpretation of Cortex in Lithic Assemblages. American Antiquity 70(3):545–560. Domanski, Marian and John Webb 2007 A Review of Heat Treatment Research. Lithic Technology 32(2):153–194. Edmonds, M. 2001 Lithic Exploitation and Use. In Handbook of Archaeological Sciences, edited by D. R. Brothwell and A. M. Pollard, pp. 461–470. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester. Eerkens, Jelmer W., Gregory S. Herbert, Jeffrey S. Rosenthal, and Howard J. Spero 2005 Provenance Analysis of Olivella biplicata Shell Beads from the California and Oregon Coast by Stable Isotope Fingerprinting. Journal of Archaeological Science 32(10):1501–1514. Engelhardt, Zephyrim 1927 San Fernando Rey, the Mission of the Valley. Franciscan Herald Press, Chicago. Eshleman, Jason A. and David Glenn Smith 2007 Prehistoric Mitochondrial DNA and Population Movements. In California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, pp. 291–298. AltaMira Press, Lanham, MD. Fatehi, Kimia 2017 Tribal Cultural Resources Management: A Case Study of the Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians. Master's Thesis, Department of American Indian Studies, University of California, Los Angeles. Faull, Mark R. 2006 Emerging Efforts to Define the Coso Obsidian Economic Exchange System in the Rose, Fremont and Antelope Valleys of the Western Mojave Desert, California. Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology 19:159–167.
164
Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians 2009 Federal Petition Criteria 87.3(b):1 2017a History. Electronic document, http://www.tataviam-nsn.us/heritage/history/, accessed August 2, 2017. 2017b History: Pre-Mission. Electronic document, http://www.tataviamnsn.us/heritage/history/pre-mission/, accessed August 2, 2017. 2017c History, Heritage: Tataviam Villages. Electronic document, http://www.tataviam-nsn.us/heritage/tataviam-villages/, accessed April 24, 2018. Friedman, I. and R. L. Smith 1960 A New Dating Method Using Obsidian: Part I, The Development of the Method. American Antiquity 25(4):476–493. Frison, George C. 1974 The Casper Site: A Hell Gap Bison Kill on the High Plains. Academic Press, Inc., New York. Gamble, Lynn H. 2005 Culture and Climate: Reconsidering the Effect of Paleoclimatic Variability among Southern California Hunter-Gatherer Societies. World Archaeology 37(1):92–108. Gamble, Lynn H. and Chester King 1997 Middle Holocene Adaptations in the Santa Monica Mountains. In Archaeology of the California Coast during the Middle Holocene, edited by Jon M. Erlandson and Michael A. Glassow, pp. 61–72. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. Gamble, Lynn H. and Glenn S. Russell 2002 A View from the Mainland: Late Holocene Cultural Developments Among the Ventureño Chumash and the Tongva. In Catalysts to Complexity: Late Holocene Societies of the California Coast, edited by Jon M. Erlandson and Terry L. Jones, pp. 101–126. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. Garfinkel, A. P. 2010 Rose Spring Point Chronology and Numic Population Movements in Eastern California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 43(1), 42-49. Gilreath, Amy J. and William R. Hildebrandt 1987 Prehistoric Use of the Coso Volcanic Field. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility No. 56, Berkeley. 2011 Current Perspectives on the Production and Conveyance of Coso Obsidian. In Perspectives on Prehistoric Trade and Exchange in California and the Great Basin, edited by Richard E. Hughes, pp. 171–188. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
165
Glantz, Joseph Ray 1977 San Fernando Valley Climate. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Department of Geography, California State University, Northridge. Glassow, Michael A., Lynn H. Gamble, Jennifer E. Perry, and Glenn S. Russell 2007 Prehistory of the Northern California Bight and the Adjacent Transverse Ranges. In California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, pp. 191–213. Alta Mira Press, Lanham. Golla, Victor 2007 Linguistic Prehistory. California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, pp. 71–82. Alta Mira Press, Lanham. 2011 California Indian Languages. University of California Press, Berkeley. Hall, Jr., Clarence A. 2007 Introduction to the Geology of Southern California and its Native Plants. University of California Press, Berkeley. Heath, George Joseph 1966 Geographical Influences on the History of the San Fernando Valley: 1769 to 1900. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Department of History, University of Southern California. Hill, Allison 2016 Lithic Procurement Patterns in the San Emigdio Hills of South Central California. Paper presented at the 50th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Orlando, Florida. 2017 Contextualizing ‘Aqnipis: An Archaeological Approach to Identifying Basket Production Locales in South Central California. Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, California State University, Northridge. Hitchcock, Christopher S. 2000 Quaternary Geology of the San Fernando Valley, Los Angeles County, California. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Sacramento. Hodder, Ian 2012a Entangled: An Archaeology of the Relationships between Humans and Things. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford. 2012b Introduction: Contemporary Theoretical Debate in Archaeology. In Archaeological Theory Today, Second Edition, edited by Ian Hodder, pp. 1–14. Polity Press, Cambridge. Holdaway, Simon J., Justin I. Shiner, and Patricia C. Fanning 2004 Hunter-gatherers and the archaeology of discard behavior: an analysis of surface stone artifacts from Sturt National Park, Western New South Wales, Australia. Asian Perspectives 43:34–74.
166
Hughes, Richard E. 2010 Determining the Geologic Provenance of Tiny Obsidian Flakes in Archaeology Using Nondestructive EDXRF. American Laboratory 42(7):27–31. 2011 Sources of Inspiration for Studies of Prehistoric Resource Acquisition and Materials Conveyance in California and the Great Basin. In Perspectives in Prehistoric Trade and Exchange in California and the Great Basin, edited by Richard E. Hughes, pp. 1–21. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. 2017 Energy Dispersive X-ray Fluorescence Analysis of Obsidian Artifacts from Archaeological Site CA-LAn-43 in Encino, Los Angeles County, California. Geochemical Research Laboratory Letter Report 2017-55. Hughes, Richard E. and Randall Milliken 2007 Prehistoric Material Conveyance. In California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, pp. 259–271. AltaMira Press, Lanham. Hughes, Richard E. and Polly A. Peterson 2009 Trace Element Analysis of Fused Shale: Implications for Revised Understanding of Obsidian Source Use Shifts in Southern Coastal Alta California. California Archaeology 1(1):29-54. Hull, Kathleen L. 2001 Reasserting the Utility of Obsidian Hydration Dating: A TemperatureDependent Empirical Approach to Practical Temporal Resolution with Archaeological Obsidians. Journal of Archaeological Science 28:1025–1040. Iovita, Radu, Holger Schönekeß, Sabine Gaudzinski-Windheuser, and Frank Jäger 2016 Identifying Weapon Delivery Systems Using Macrofracture Analysis and Fracture Propagation Velocity: A Controlled Experiment. In Multidisciplinary Approaches to the Study of Stone Age Weaponry, edited by Radu Iovita and Katsuhiro Sano, pp. 13–27. Springer Science+Business Media, Dordrecht. Jackson, Thomas L. and Jonathan E. Ericson 1994 Prehistoric Exchange Systems in California. In Prehistoric Exchange Systems in North America, edited by Timothy G. Baugh and Jonathan E. Ericson, pp. 385–415. Plenum Press, New York. Jazwa, Christopher S., Christopher J. Duffy, Lorne Leonard, and Douglas J. Kennett 2016 Hydrological Modeling and Prehistoric Settlement on Santa Rosa Island, California, USA. Geoarchaeology: An International Journal 31:101–120. Johnson, Christopher 2011 Leroi-Gourhan and the Limits of the Human. French Studies: A Quarterly Review, 65(4):471–487. Johnson, John R. and David D. Earle 1990 Tataviam Geography and Ethnohistory. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 12(2):191–214.
167
Johnson, John R., Brian M. Kemp, Cara Monroe and Joseph G. Lorenz 2012 A Land of Diversity: Genetic Insights into Ancestral Origins. In Contemporary Issues in California Archaeology, edited by Terry L. Jones and Jennifer E. Perry, pp. 49–72. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, CA. Johnson, Matthew 2010 Archaeological Theory: An Introduction, Second Edition. Wiley-Blackwell, West Sussex. Jones, Andy 2004 Archaeometry and Materiality: Materials-Based Analysis in Theory and Practice. Archaeometry 46:327–338. Jones, Terry L. and Al Schwitalla 2008 Archaeological perspectives on the effects of medieval drought in prehistoric California. Quaternary International 188:41–58. Jones, Terry L., Gary M. Brown, L. Mark Raab, Janet L. McVickar, W. Geoffrey Spaulding, Douglas J. Kennett, Andrew York, and Phillip L. Walker 1999 Environmental Imperatives Reconsidered: Demographic Crises in Western North America during the Medieval Climatic Anomaly. Current Anthropology 40(2):137–170. Jones, Terry L., Douglas J. Kennett, James P. Kennett and Brian F. Codding 2008 Seasonal Stability in Late Holocene Shellfish Harvesting on the Central California Coast, Journal of Archaeological Science 35(8):2286–2294. Justice, Noel D. 2002 Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of California and the Great Basin. Indiana University Press, Bloomington and Indianapolis. Kaestle, Frederika A. and David Glenn Smith 2001 Ancient Mitochondrial DNA Evidence for Prehistoric Population Movement: The Numic Expansion. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 115:1–12. Keane, Webb 2005 Signs are Not the Garb of Meaning: On the Social Analysis of Material Things. In Materiality, edited by Daniel Miller, pp. 182–205. Duke University Press, Durham. 2006 Subjects and Objects. In Handbook of Material Culture, edited by Chris Tilley, Webb Keane, Susanne Küchler, Mike Rowlands, and Patricia Spyer, pp. 197–202. Sage Publications Ltd., London. Kelly, Robert L. 1988 The Three Sides of a Biface. American Antiquity 53(4):717–734. Kennett, Douglas J. 2005 The Island Chumash: Behavioral Ecology of a Maritime Society. University of California Press, Berkeley.
168
Kennett, Douglas J., James P. Kennett, Jon M. Erlandson, and Kevin G. Cannariato 2007 Human responses to Middle Holocene climate change on California’s Channel Islands. Quaternary Science Reviews 26:351–367. Kennett, Douglas J., Patricia M. Lambert, John R. Johnson, and Brendan J. Culleton 2013 Sociopolitical Effects of Bow and Arrow Technology in Prehistoric Coastal California. Evolutionary Anthropology 22:124–132. King, Chester 2011 Overview of the History of American Indians in the Santa Monica Mountains. Topanga Anthropological Consultants, Topanga, CA. Prepared for the National Park Service Pacific West Region, Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area. King, Chester and Thomas C. Blackburn 1978 Tataviam. In Handbook of North American Indians, California, Vol. 8, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 535-537. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Klein, Christine A. 1996 Treaties of Conquest: Property Rights, Indian Treaties, and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. New Mexico Law Review 26, pp. 201–255. Knappett, Carl 2012 Materiality. In Archaeological Theory Today, Second Edition, edited by Ian Hodder, pp. 188–207. Polity Press, Cambridge. 2014 Materiality in Archaeological Theory. In Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology, edited by Claire Smith, pp. 4700–4708. Springer Science+Business Media, New York. Kooeyman, Brian P. 2000 Understanding Stone Tools and Archaeological Sites. University of Calgary Press, Calgary. Kroeber, Alfred L. 1966 The Nature of Land-Holding Groups in Aboriginal California. In Aboriginal California: Three Studies in Culture History, edited by R. F. Heizer, pp. 82–120. University of California Archaeological Research Facility, Berkeley. 1976 [1925] Handbook of the Indians of California. Dover Publications, New York. Kuhn, Steven L. 1991 “Unpacking” Reduction: Lithic Raw Material Economy in the Mousterian of West-Central Italy. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 10:76–106. Lamb, Sydney M. 1958 Linguistic Prehistory in the Great Basin. International Journal of American Linguistics 24(2):95–100. LaMotta, Vincent M. 2012 Behavioral Archaeology. In Archaeological Theory Today, Second Edition, edited by Ian Hodder, pp. 62–92. Polity Press, Cambridge. 169
Lerner, Patricia K. 1988 Of Relics and Rancor: Lost Village of Encino's Artifacts in Legal Limbo. Los Angeles Times 9 October:AA8. Los Angeles. Lightfoot, Kent G. 2005 Indians, Missionaries, and Merchants: The Legacy of Colonial Encounters on the California Frontiers. University of California Press, Berkeley. Lightfoot, Kent G. and Otis Parrish 2009 California Indians and Their Environment: An Introduction. University of California Press, Berkeley. MacDonald, Douglas H. 2008 The Role of Lithic Raw Material Availability and Quality in Determining Tool Kit Size, Tool Function, and Degree of Retouch: A Case Study from Skink Rockshelter (46NI445), West Virginia. In Lithic Technology: Measures of Production, Use, and Curation, edited by William Andrefsky, Jr., pp. 216–232. Magne, Martin P. R. 2001 Debitage Analysis as a Scientific Tool for Archaeological Knowledge. In Lithic Debitage: Context, Form, Meaning, edited by William Andrefsky, Jr., pp. 21–31. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Mason, Roger D. 1986 Summary of Work Carried Out at CA-LAN-43, The Encino Village Site. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 22(3):9–17. Masters, Patricia M. and Ivano W. Aiello 2007 Postglacial Evolution of Coastal Environments. In California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, pp. 35–51. AltaMira Press, Lanham, MD. McCall, Grant S. 2012 Ethnoarchaeology and the Organization of Lithic Technology. Journal of Archaeological Research 20:157–203. McIntyre, Michael James 1979 A Cultural Resource Management Program for the Upper Santa Clara River Valley, Los Angeles and Ventura Counties, California. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, California State University, Northridge. Mercieca, Alison and Peter Hiscock 2008 Experimental insights into alternative strategies of lithic heat treatment. Journal of Archaeological Science 35:2634–2639 Metin I. Eren, Stephen J. Lycett, Robert J. Patten, Briggs Buchanan, Justin Pargeter and Michael J. O'Brien 2016 Test, Model, and Method Validation: The Role of Experimental Stone Artifact Replication in Hypothesis-driven Archaeology, Ethnoarchaeology 8(2):103–136. Milliken, Randall T. and Al W. Schwitalla 2012 California and Great Basin Olivella Shell Bead Guide. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, CA. 170
Moratto, Michael J. 2011 Material Conveyance in Prehistoric California: Cultural Contexts and Mechanisms. In Perspectives on Prehistoric Trade and Exchange in California and the Great Basin, edited by Richard E. Hughes, pp. 242–252. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Murdock, George P. and Diana O. Morrow 1970 Subsistence Economy and Supportive Practices: Cross-Cultural Codes 1. Ethnology 9(3):302–330. Northwest Research Obsidian Studies Laboratory 2018 California Obsidian Sources, Map 4. Electronic document, http://sourcecatalog.com/image_maps/map_obsidian_california_map4.pdf, accessed May 1, 2018. Odell, George H. 1988 Prehistoric Hunting Practices Through Stone Tool Analysis. American Anthropologist, New Series 90(2):335–356. 1996 Economizing behavior and the concept of “curation.” In Stone Tools: Theoretical Insights into Human Prehistory, edited by G. H. Odell, pp. 51–80. Plenum Press, New York. 2003 Lithic Analysis. Springer Science+Business Media, Inc., New York. Ostahowski, Brian E. and Robert L. Kelly 2014 Alm Rockshelter Lithic Debitage Analysis: Implications for Hunter-Gatherer Mobility Strategies in the Big Horn Mountains, Wyoming. In Lithics in the West: Using Lithic Analysis to Solve Archaeological Problems in Western North America, edited by Douglas H. MacDonald, William Andrefsky and Pei-Lin Yu, pp. 120–141. University of Montana Press, Missoula. Panich, Lee M., Ben Griffin, and Tsim D. Schneider 2018 Native acquisition of obsidian in colonial-era central California: Implications from Mission San José. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 50:1–11. Praetzellis, Adrian 2015 Archaeological Theory in a Nutshell. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, CA. Raab, L. Mark and Daniel O. Larson 1997 Medieval Climatic Anomaly and Punctuated Cultural Evolution in Coastal Southern California. American Antiquity 62(2):319–336.
171
Reimer, Paula J., Edouard Bard, Alex Bayliss, J. Warren Beck, Paul G. Blackwell, Christopher Bronk Ramsey, Caitlin E Buck, Hai Cheng, R. Lawrence Edwards, Michael Friedrich, Pieter M. Grootes, Thomas P. Guilderson, Haflidi Haflidason, Irka Hajdas, Christine Hatté, Timothy J. Heaton, Dirk L. Hoffmann, Alan G. Hogg, Konrad A. Hughen, K. Felix Kaiser, Bernd Kromer, Sturt W. Manning, Mu Niu, Ron W. Reimer, David A. Richards, E. Marian Scott, John R. Southon, Richard A, Staff, Christian S. M. Turney and Johannes van der Plicht 2013 Intcal13 and Marine13 Radiocarbon Age Calibration Curves 0–50,000 Years Cal BP. Radiocarbon 55(4):1869–1887. Riddell, Francis A. 1985 A Statement on the Significance of the Encino Village Site (Lan-43) and its Collections. Submitted to Department of Parks and Recreation, Agreement #35554. Romani, John F. 1975 Assessment of the Archaeological Impact by the Development of 8.5 Acres Located at 16808 Ventura Blvd. Encino. Project #VS-85. Northridge Archaeological Research Center, California State University of Northridge report to First Financial Group. Rust, Horatio N. 1905 The Obsidian Blades of California. American Anthropologist, New Series 7(4):688–695. Sassaman, Kenneth E. and Donald H. Holly, Jr. 2011 Transformative Hunter-Gatherer Archaeology in North America. In HunterGatherer Archaeology as Historical Process, edited by Kenneth E. Sassaman and Donald H. Holly, Jr., pp. 1–13. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Scharlotta, Ian 2014 Trade Routes and Contradictory Spheres of Influence: Movement of Rhyolite Through the Heart of the Western Mojave Desert. California Archaeology 6(2):219–246. Schiffer, Michael Brian 1972 Archaeological Context and Systemic Context. American Antiquity 37(2):156–165. 1999 Behavioral Archaeology: Some Clarifications. American Antiquity 64(1):166–168. 2004 Studying Technological Change: A Behavioral Perspective. World Archaeology 36(4):579–585. Schiffman, Paula M. 2005 The Los Angeles Prairie. In Land of Sunshine: An Environmental History of Metropolitan Los Angeles, pp. 38–51. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh. 2007 Species Composition at the Time of First European Settlement. In California Grasslands: Ecology and Management, edited by M. R. Stromberg, J. D. Corbin, and C. M. D’Antonio, pp. 52–56. University of California Press, Berkeley.
172
Schoenherr, Allan A., C. Robert Feldmeth, and Michael J. Emerson 1999 Natural History of the Islands of California. University of California Press, Berkeley. Schwitalla, Al W. and Terry L. Jones 2012 A Land of Many Seasons: Bioarchaeology and the Medieval Climatic Anomaly Hypothesis in Central California. In Contemporary Issues in California Archaeology, edited by Terry L. Jones and Jennifer E. Perry, pp. 21–35. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek. Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc. 1978 Archaeological/Historical Final Assessment on the First Financial Group Property Located in the Encino Area of the City of Los Angeles. Report submitted to the First Financial Group. Sellet, Frédéric 1993 Chaine Operatoire: The Concept and its Applications. Lithic Technology 18(1/2):106–112. Shott, Michael J. 1994 Size and Form in the Analysis of Flake Debris: Review and Recent Approaches. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 1(1):69–110. 1996 An Exegesis of the Curation Concept. Journal of Anthropological Research 52(3):259–280. 1997 Activity and Formation as Sources of Variation in Great Lakes Paleoindian Assemblages. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 22(2):197–236. 2003 Chaîne Opératoire and Reduction Sequence. Lithic Technology 28(2):95–105. Skoglund, Pontus, and David Reich 2016 A Genomic View of the Peopling of the Americas. Current Opinion in Genetics & Development 41:27–35. Smith, Geoffrey M. 2015 Modeling the influences of raw material availability and functional efficiency on obsidian projectile point curation: A Great Basin example. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 3:112–121. Soressi, Marie, and Jean-Michel Geneste 2011 The History and Efficacy of the Chaîne Opératoire Approach to Lithic Analysis: Studying Techniques to Reveal Past Societies in an Evolutionary Perspective. In Special Issue: Reduction Sequence, Chaîne Opératoire, and Other Methods: The Epistemologies of Different Approaches to Lithic Analysis, edited by Gilbert B. Tostevin, pp. 334–350. PaleoAnthropology. Sullivan, Alan P. III and Kenneth C. Rozen 1985 Debitage Analysis and Archaeological Interpretation. American Antiquity 50(4):755–779.
173
Sutton, Mark Q. 2009 People and Language: Defining the Takic Expansion in to Southern California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 41(2&3):31–93. Sutton, Mark Q., Mark E. Basgall, Jill K. Gardner, and Mark W. Allen 2007 Advances in Understanding Mojave Desert Prehistory. In California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, pp. 229–225. Alta Mira Press, Lanham. Taylor, R. E., Paul J. Ennis, Louis A. Payen, Christine A. Prior and Peter J. Slota, Jr. 1986 Encino Village (CA-LAN-43) Site Radiocarbon Determinations: Geophysical/Geochemical Considerations. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 22(3):35–48. Tejada, Barbara 2015 A “Lost” Collection Makes its Way Home: the Long Road of the Lost Village of Encino. Paper presented at the 80th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, San Francisco, California. Titmus, Gene L. and James C. Woods 1986 An Experimental Study of Projectile Point Fracture Patterns. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 8(1):37–49. Tomka, Steve A. 2013 The Adoption of the Bow and Arrow: A Model Based on Experimental Performance Characteristics. American Antiquity 78(3):553–569. Van Horn, David M. 1990 Marymount Points: A Tanged Arrowhead Series in Coastal Southern California. Journal of New World Archaeology 7:29–36. Vellanoweth, René L. 2001 AMS Radiocarbon Dating and Shell Bead Chronologies: Middle Holocene Trade and Interaction in Western North America. Journal of Archaeological Science 28:941–950. Voss, Barbara L. 2012 A Land of Ethnogenesis: Material Culture, Power, and Identity. In Contemporary Issues in California Archaeology, edited by Terry L. Jones and Jennifer E. Perry, pp. 303-318. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, CA. Wallace, William J. 1960 Archaeological Excavations at Los Encinos Historical Monument. Report to the California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento. Walsh, Michael R. 2013 The Inland Chumash Research Project (1975 –1980): Wringing Out the Old. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 33(2):167–178. Weissner, Polly 1982 Beyond Willow Smoke and Dogs’ Tails: A Comment on Binford’s Analysis of Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems. American Antiquity 47(1):171–178.
174
Weitzel, Celeste, Nora Flegenheimer, Mariano Colombo, and Jorge Martínez 2014 Breakage Patterns on Fishtail Projectile Points: Experimental and Archaeological Cases. Ethnoarchaeology 6(2):81–102. West, G. James, Wallace Woolfenden, James A. Wanket and R. Scott Anderson 2007 Late Pleistocene and Holocene Environments. In California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, pp. 11–34. AltaMira Press, Lanham, MD. Whitney, Josiah Dwight 1865 Geological Survey of California, Vol. 1, Geology. Report of Progress and Synopsis of the Field-Work, From 1860 to 1864. Sherman and Co., Philadelphia. Whitney-Desautels, Nancy A. 1986a Encino Village: The Three Faces of Cultural Resource Management. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 22(3):1‒8. 1986b The Terrain Conductivity Meter and Relevant Stratigraphy (LAN-43). Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 22(3):18‒34. Whittaker, John C. 1994 Flintknapping: Making & Understanding Stone Tools. University of Texas Press, Austin. Wilde, J. D. 1997 Madsen and Rhode: Across the West: Human Population Movement and the Expansion of the Numa. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 19(1):138–142. Wilson, L. and A.M. Pollard 2001 The Provenance Hypothesis. In Handbook of Archaeological Sciences, edited by D.R. Brothwell and A.M. Pollard, pp. 507–517. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Chichester. Yerkes, R.F. and R.H. Campbell 1979 Stratigraphic Nomenclature of the Central Santa Monica Mountains, Los Angeles County, California. United States Geological Survey Bulletin 1457-E, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 2005 Preliminary Geologic Map of the Los Angeles 30′ × 60′ Quadrangle, Southern California. Version 1.0. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report. Yohe II, Robert M. 1998 The Introduction of the Bow and Arrow and Lithic Resource Use at Rose Spring (CA-INY-372). Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 20(1):26–52.
175
APPENDIX A — NATIVE FLORA OF THE SAN FERNANDO VALLEY AND SANTA MONICA MOUNTAINS Table 45. Native Flora of the San Fernando Valley and Santa Monica Mountains. (Heath 1966; McIntyre 1979; Schiffman 2005) GENERIC NAME
COMMON NAME
Chaparral Ceanothus spp.
California Lilac
Adenostoma fasciculatum
Chamise
Quercus berberidifolia
Scrub Oak
Arctostaphylos spp.
Manzanita Buckthorn? Greasewood? California Holly?
Eriogonum fasciculatum
Buckwheat
Salvia spp.
Sages
Artemisia californica
Sagebrush
Woodlands (Canyons and Hillsides) Quercus agrifolia
Coast Live Oak
Quercus lobata
Valley Oak
Juglans californica
Walnut
Riparian Salix spp.
Willow
Alnus rhombifolia
Alder
Platanus racemosa
Sycamore
Baccharis salicifolia
Mulefat
Sambucus Mexicana
Elderberry
Rosa californica
Wild Rose
Rhus trilobata
Skunkbrush
Juncus spp.
Rushes
Opuntia littoralis
Prickly Pear
Prunus ilicifolia
Hollyleaf Cherry
Calandrinia ciliate
Red Maids
Allium
Wild Onions
Dichelostemma capitatum
Blue Dicks
Flatlands Salvia columbariae
Chia
Calandrinia ciliate
Red Maids
Lasthenia californica
Goldfields
176
GENERIC NAME
COMMON NAME
Castilleja exserta
Pink Owl’s Clover
Amsinckia menzeisii
Orange Fiddleneck
Nemophila menziesii
Baby Blue Eyes
177
APPENDIX B — NATIVE FAUNA OF THE SAN FERNANDO VALLEY AND SANTA MONICA MOUNTAINS Table 46. Native Fauna of the San Fernando Valley and Santa Monica Mountains. (McIntyre 1979:19–20; Schiffman 2005) GENERIC NAME
COMMON NAME
Mammals Odocoileus hemionus californicus
California Mule Deer
Ursus arctos*
California Grizzly Bear (broad valleys)
Ursus americanus*
Black Bear (woodlands and forest)
Ovis Canadensis nelson*
Big Sheep
Antilocapra Americana*
Pronghorn Antelope
Canis sp.
Dog
Canis lupus
Wolf
Canis latrans
Coyote
Urocyon cinereoargenteus
Fox
Felis concolor
Mountain Lion
Lynx rufus (californicus?)
Bobcat
Spilogale gracilis
Spotted Skunk
Mephitis
Striped Skunk
Procyon lotor
Racoon
Taxidea taxus
Badger
Mustela frenata
Long-Tailed Weasels
Scapanus latimanus
Broad-Footed Mole
Mustela frenata
Longtail Weasel
Spermophilus beecheyi
California Ground Squirrel
Thomomys bottae
Valley Pocket Gopher
Peromyscus californicus
California Field Mouse
Perognathus longimembris
Little Pocket Mouse
Peromyscus maniculatus
Deer Mouse
Onychomys torridus
Southern Grasshopper Mouse
Peromyscus boylei
Bush Mouse
Reithrodontomys megalotis
Western Harvest Mouse
Neotoma lepida
Desert Woodrat
Lepus californicus
Black-Tailed Hares
Sylvilagus audubonii
Desert Cottontail Rabbit
Birds Gymnogyps californianus
California Condor
Aquila chrysaetos
Golden Eagle
178
GENERIC NAME
COMMON NAME
Elanus leucurus
White-Tailed Kite
Butea regalis
Ferruginous Hawk
Buteo lagopus
Rough-Legged Hawk
Bueto jamaicensis
Redtailed Hawk
Falco mexicanus
Prairie Falcon
Falco sparverius
American Kestrel
Oreortyx picta
Mountain Quail
Callipepla californica (Lophortyx californica)
California Quail
Geococcyx californianus
Greater Roadrunner
Zenaidura macroura
Mourning Dove
Bubo virginianus
Great-Horned Owl
Asio flammeus
Short-Eared Owl
Otus asio
Owl
Athene cunicularia
Burrowing Owl
Tyrannus verticalis
Western Kingbird
Sayornis saya
Say’s Phoebe
Anas platyrhynchos
Mallard Duck
Fulica Americana
Coot (Mudhen)
Cathartes aura
Turkey Vulture
Corvus corax
Raven
Lanius ludovicianus
Loggerhead Shrike
Archilochus alexandi
Black-Chinned Hummingbird
Calypte anna
Anna’s Hummingbird
Balanosphyra formicivora
Acorn Woodpecker
Aphelocoma californica
Western Scrub-Jay
Chamaea fasciata
Wrentits
Psaltriparus minimus
Bushtits
Zenaiada macroura
Mourning Dove
Toxostoma redivivum
California Thrasher
Sturnella neglecta
Western Meadowlark
Eremophila alpestris
Horned Larks
Icterus bullockii
Bullocks Oriole
Euphagus cyanocephalus
Brewer’s Blackbird
Chondestes grammacus
Lark Sparrow
Ammodramus savannarum
Grasshopper Sparrow
Passerculus sandwichensis
Savannah Sparrow
Passerella iliaca sp.
Fox Sparrow
Melospiza lincolni
Lincoln’s Sparrow
179
GENERIC NAME
COMMON NAME
Charadrius montanus
Mountain Plover
Couris brachyrhynchos
Crow
Mimus polylottos
Mockingbirds
Carduelis psaltria
Lesser Goldfinches
Reptiles and Amphibians Sceloporus occidentalis
Western Fence Lizard
Sceloporus graciosus
Sagebrush Lizard
Petuophis canenifer
Gopher Snake
Crotalus viridis
Western Rattlesnake
Lampropeltis zonata parvirubra
California Mountain King Snake
Scaphiopus hammondi
Western Spadefoot Frog
Rana aurora
Red-Legged Frog
Thoperus agassive
Tortoise
Insects Grasshoppers Insect Larvae Superfamily Aphidoidea
Aphids
180
APPENDIX C — CHIPPED TOOL STONE MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONS Table 47. Chipped Tool Stone Material Descriptions. MATERIAL
DESCRIPTION
Andesite
Composition: extrusive rock in compositional spectrum between rhyolite and basalt Appearance: dark gray to reddish brown with white phenocrysts; very slightly grainy, mottled with small white phenocrysts visible to the naked eye; cortex can be dull, dark red Sources: Conejo Volcanics in the Santa Monica Mountains
Basalt
Composition: extrusive, igneous rock with silica content less than 52% (Hall 2007:17) Appearance: light to dark gray and nearly black in color; ranges from finegrained metabasalt to a rougher texture; cortex appears dull and weathered, vesicular basalt not observed Sources: Conejo Volcanics in the Santa Monica Mountains Note: metabasalt included in the basalt material type
Chalcedony
Composition: microcrystalline form of quartz Appearance: transparent to translucent to milky white and may be tinged with pink or yellow; fine-grained to glossy texture; cortex may be bubbly or exhibit crystals like a geode Sources: locally available in the Santa Monica Mountains
Chert
Composition: Siliceous, sedimentary rock Appearance: translucent variations range from tints of gray to tan to orange or brown, with some resembling Coca-Cola; opaque cherts are black, white, shades of gray and brown, and tan; colors may be banded or mottled; texture is silty to fine-grained, frequently of low quality in this assemblage due to nonhomogeneity, some fracturing along planes of cleavage; abundant presence of rough, chalky cortex which can be tinted orange, white, gray or brown Sources: majority of the chert is Monterey found on the western Santa Barbara coast, in Point Dume, and at Vandenburg; some resembling Santa Cruz Island chert may originate from an unknown mainland source; very minor amounts green and grey Franciscan chert Note: heat treatment transforms color and texture into a mottled or crazed white and sometimes a waxy sheen or orange color; jasper debitage occurs in minute amounts and is lumped in the chert category; modelo debitage is lumped in this category as well
Fused Shale
Composition: glassy rock formed by combustion of sedimentary rock with a high organic content (Hughes and Peterson 2009:30) Appearance: light to dark gray, black and blood red; bubbly texture, with a dull, plastic sheen; cortex is dull and opaque, rough and may have bubbly texture Sources: Grimes and Happy Camp Canyons, Lompoc, and the Santa Ynez Valley (Hughes and Peterson 2009)
181
MATERIAL
DESCRIPTION
Metasandstone
Composition: sandstone with some level of metamorphism Appearance: tan or reddish; fine-grained texture Sources: unknown, but probably local to Sjútkanga
Modelo
Composition: Modelo Formation is a sequence of shale and sandstone, including mudstone, siltstone, and interbeds of sandstone; locally siliceous (Yerkes and Campbell 1979, 2005) Appearance: chalky white or buff, sometimes a yellowish or tan tinge Sources: local in the Santa Monica Mountains and in Encino Note: chalky modelo debitage is lumped with chert, which is found bedded in modelo
Obsidian
Composition: felsic, rapidly cooled, extrusive igneous rock Appearance: black to nearly transparent; glassy, but may have minute vesicles; cortex is dull and looks weathered Sources: in the assemblage, obsidian tested with X-ray fluorescence derives from Coso Volcanic Field with a single specimen from Casa Diablo
Quartz
Composition: silicon dioxide Appearance: medium gray and white; texture is relatively grainy and exhibits rough conchoidal fracture patterns; cortex is dull gray or white and weathered Sources: precise source unknown, but material is ubiquitous
Quartz Crystal
Composition: silicon dioxide Appearance: transparent and glassy with a prismatic shape Sources: precise source unknown
Quartzite
Composition: metamorphic rock Appearance: white, gray and light to medium pink; granularity visible to the naked eye and perceptible to touch Sources: Santa Monica Mountains, Simi Hills, Calabasas Formation (Gamble and King 1997:62; Yerkes and Campbell 1979)
Rhyolite
Composition: felsic, slow-flowing/cooling extrusive volcanic rock with high silica content Appearance: gray, tan, reddish or pinkish; porphyritic with phenocrysts, visible to the naked eye, that tend to be rectangular in shape, fine-grained groundmass Sources: Rosamond Hills and Fairmont Butte in the Antelope Valley of California (Scharlotta 2014)
Mud/Siltstone
Composition: sedimentary rock Appearance: browns, tans and grays; grain is finer than sandstone but rougher than siliceous lithics; siltstone is majority silt while mudstone is majority clay Sources: local to the Santa Monica Mountains in the Modelo Formation
182
MATERIAL
DESCRIPTION
Volcanic
Composition: igneous, volcanic rock Appearance: various colors; fine-grained; cortical colors vary have dull sheen Sources: precise source(s) unknown Note: material labeled in this category is volcanic in origin but cannot be specifically identified for material type
183
APPENDIX D — SJÚTKANGA CHERT DEBITAGE TYPOLOGY Table 48. Sjútkanga Chert Debitage Typology. FLAKE TYPE
DESCRIPTION
SIGNIFICANCE
Angular Shatter
Non-diagnostic, angular waste without a discernable platform or bulb of percussion; cortex may or may not be present
Earliest reduction activity in chaîne opératoire of chert
Simple Debris Flake Cortical
Flake with one or two flake scars on the dorsal surface, platform not included in count; accompanied by any amount of cortex; created using percussive force; heat treatment and spalls not to be confused with cortex, and cortical undulations not to be confused with flake scars
Early core reduction phase
Simple Debris Flake Non-Cortical
Flake with one or two flake scars on the dorsal surface, platform not included in count; no cortex present; created using percussive force
Early reduction phase
Complex Preparatory Flake Cortical
Flake with three or more flake scars on the dorsal surface, platform not included in count; accompanied by any amount of cortex; created using percussive force; heat treatment and spalls not to be confused with cortex, cortical undulations not to be confused with flake scars
Middle core reduction phase
Complex Preparatory Flake Non-Cortical
Flake with three or more flake scars on the dorsal surface, platform not included in count; no cortex present; created using percussive force
Middle reduction stage
Alternate Flake
Flake platform is relatively large and perpendicular to the detached face, and most will stand up vertically on the platform edge; may have cortex; broken flakes with perpendicular margins breaks should not be confused with alternate flakes; created in order to prepare a thick, squared edge for biface thinning
Early stage of biface preparation
Biface Thinning Flake
Thin and relatively flattish, curving over face of the biface, at least halfway across the face; flake width expands outward from bulb of percussion and has feathered margins; platform often small; distal end has flake scars originating in the opposite direction from the bulb of percussion
Bifacial reduction, late stage of chaîne opératoire
Pressure Flake
Created using a direct, pressing force rather than percussive force; punctiform bulb of percussion; waves of compression lead to single point at bulb of percussion
Retouching, resharpening and late stage bifacial reduction
Margin Collapse Flake
Pressure flake with an extremely thin, feathered flake termination opposite a thick, acutely angled platform; platform retains retouch from opposite margin
Late stage bifacial reduction, error in manufacturing
184
FLAKE TYPE
DESCRIPTION
SIGNIFICANCE
Notching Flake
Pressure flake created for the purpose of developing a hafting element; platforms may be crescent shaped in cross-section
Late stage bifacial reduction
Bipolar Flake
Flakes resulting from percussive force atop an objective piece which is set upon an anvil; flakes may exhibit tight compression waves; compression waves observed at both the proximal and distal ends of the flake, and may be present on both dorsal and ventral sides emanating from multiple platforms; platforms are frequently crushed
Alternative lithic industry
Indeterminate Flake Fragment
Broken flake without a bulb of percussion and insufficient material mass to estimate the number of flake scars on the dorsal surface; generally found to have more than a single broken margin; split flakes included here
Not diagnostic
185
APPENDIX E — TOOL TYPOLOGIES FOR THE RESEARCH COLLECTION Table 49. Tool Typology Descriptions for Cores and Tested Cobbles. Tool Typology—Cores and Tested Cobbles Core‒Bipolar
Nodules of raw material from which flakes were removed by percussive force on both ends of the nodule; proximal and distal crushing, tight compression rings in opposite directions on opposite ends (also known as piéce esquillée)
Core‒Centripetal
Cobbles or nodules of raw material from which flakes were removed with the objective of creating flake tools or blanks for tool production; flat flakes are removed in a single direction towards the center of the mass
Core‒Multidirectional
Cobbles or nodules of raw material from which flakes were removed with the objective of creating flake tools or blanks; flakes removed in multiple directions
Core‒Tabular
Nodule of raw material with a naturally flat configuration from which flakes are removed with the objective of creating flake tools or blanks
Core‒Unidirectional
Cobbles or nodules of raw material from which flakes were removed with the objective of creating flake tools or blanks; flakes removed in a single direction; platform for these removals may be a single flake removed prior
Battered Core
A core that has been lightly used as a percussive implement
Core/Hammerstone
Cobble or nodule from which flakes have been removed, which thereafter was battered with significant percussive blows
Tested Cobble
Cobble of raw material with minimal flake detachments generated to test material quality
Table 50. Tool Typology Descriptions for Expedient Tools. Tool Typology—Expedient Tools Chopper
Minimally modified stone tool with flake removals creating an angular working edge; heavy duty and large enough to be handheld; unifacial or bifacial flaking; formed on a large flake or objective stone naturally shaped for chopping purposes; may exhibit some percussive fracturing
Cutting Tool
Minimally modified stone tool with flake removals creating a sharp, angular working edge; heavy duty and large enough to be handheld; unifacial or bifacial flaking; formed on a large flake or objective stone naturally shaped for cutting purposes
Edge-Modified Flake, Incidental
Flake which exhibits minimal, unpatterned retouch (three or fewer secondary flake removals) on its margin(s); it is not clear in all cases that retouch was enacted with the intention to make an expedient tool
186
Tool Typology—Expedient Tools Edge-Modified Flake
Flake or cobble which exhibits four to six generally unpatterned flake removals (retouch) along its margin(s); intentional tool creation for expedient purposes is clear
Microblade
A flake with a form more than twice as long as it is wide, which was intentionally detached from a prepared core
Scraper‒Denticulate
Flake tool which exhibits regular, continuous, unifacial, and uniformlypatterned flake removals along its margin, such that a serrated working edge is formed
Scraper‒Domed
Cobble tool which exhibits regular, continuous, and uniformly-patterned flake removals; rounded or ovoid circumference and a domed profile
Scraper‒Unifacial
Flake tool which exhibits a patterned, unifacially-retouched working edge with more frequent, regular, continuous, and uniform flake removals than an EdgeModified Flake
Wedge
A large tool used to open or separate another material, as in splitting wood
Table 51. Tool Typology Descriptions for Formal Tools. Tool Typology—Formal Tools Biface
Tools or fragments of tools exhibiting flake removals on both faces; may or may not have been hafted; either finished products or tools in early stages of production; may include fragments of undiagnostic projectile points where tips or hafting elements are missing
Borer
Hand tool with a pointed working surface, larger and more robust than a drill, for making holes in a material
Drill
Tool with a pointed working surface, longer than it is wide, with unifacial or bifacial retouch; may be triangular, trapezoidal, diamond shaped or roughly circular in cross section; used for making holes in a material
Foreshaft Socket Drill
T-shaped drill with a slender working point and wide, flared base; may have been hafted; used for making holes in another material
Knife
Hafted tools exhibiting bifacial flake removals, used with the purpose of cutting or sawing motion(s)
Projectile Point
Tools or fragments of tools with symmetrical flake removals on both faces; exhibits hafting elements or are sharp tips with a thin cross section
187
Table 52. Tool Typology Descriptions for Ground Stone Tools and Percussive Implements. Tool Typology—Ground Stone Tools and Percussive Implements Abrader
Material used to abrade or polish another substance
Anvil
Cobble with surface that may exhibit concavities that held a material to be crushed or pounded; function may be for nut cracking or as a base for bipolar core reduction
Basket Weaving Implement
Flat, elongated ovoid-shaped tool used to weave baskets
Bowl
Stone basin for holding perishables or other materials
Cooking Stone
Stones used for cooking, which may have a hole to be used for lifting from heat source
Cutting Board
Slab of material used as a base for cutting motions, leaving scars
Hammerstone
Cobble with pitting or battering from percussive blows on one or more surfaces; presumed use is for creation of flaked tools
Hammerstone, Beaked
Cobble with pitting or battering from percussive blows on at least one acutely angled margin; presumed use is formation and rejuvenation of ground stone
Mano
Cobble with abraded or ground surface(s); function presumed to be for processing activities, as in foods or pigments
Manuport
Unmodified lithic, not naturally occurring in the site locale, that had to be transported by a person to Sjútkanga
Metate
Large, flat stone that serves as a base for the grinding various materials
Mortar
Portable versions are bowl-like implements into which a pestle fits to pound different substances placed in the bowl-like depression
Percussive Implement
Any lithic exhibiting usewear from battering or hammering actions
Pestle
Elongate and cylindrical tool form used inside of a mortar to pound and pulverize various materials
Polishing Tool
Material used to polish another substance, such as hide, bone or lithics
188
APPENDIX F — OBSIDIAN DEBITAGE SAMPLES SELECTED FOR ENERGY DISPERSIVE X-RAY FLUORESCENCE TESTING Table 53. Obsidian Debitage Samples Selected for Energy Dispersive X-ray Fluorescence Testing. SAMPLE ID
UNIT
LEVEL (cm)
CATALOG NO.
NOTE
OBSIDIAN SOURCE
A
8
110-120
30355
Broken flake, 8 dorsal flake scars, weathered
Casa Diablo
B
8
130-140
30473
Six dorsal flake scars, crushed platform
West Sugarloaf
C
8
130-140
30473
Simple flake, may be bipolar, single facet platform
West Sugarloaf
D
8
140-150
30414
Flake fragment
West Sugarloaf
E
8
150-160
30519
Flake fragment
West Sugarloaf
F
8
150-160
30520
Shatter, striated
West Sugarloaf
West Sugarloaf
QUAD
G
8
60-70
30175
Edge sharpening flake w/many edge scars, crushed almost nonexistent platform
H
20
160-170
32063
Flake fragment, weathered
West Sugarloaf
I
20
170-180
53635
Five dorsal flake scars, platform missing, weathered
West Sugarloaf
53647
Crushed platform, two longitudinal main dorsal flake scars with another small scar
West Sugarloaf
Bipolar broken flake with crushed platform, unusual material clarity
Sugarloaf Mountain
J
20
210-220
K
38
110-120
L
48
100-110
NE
Six dorsal flake scars, crushed platform, mangled margins
West Sugarloaf
M
48
120-130
W
Shatter, striated
West Sugarloaf
N
48
130-140
Broken flake, 8 dorsal flake scars, somewhat cloudy
Joshua Ridge
189
SAMPLE ID
UNIT
LEVEL (cm)
QUAD
CATALOG NO.
NOTE
OBSIDIAN SOURCE
West Sugarloaf
O
48
150-160
Platform practically non-existent, 11 dorsal flake scars of which several are micro, broken distal margin, weathered
P
48
170-180
Shatter, weathered
West Sugarloaf
West Sugarloaf
Q
48
50-60
Broken distal margin, 3 dorsal flake scars, pretty clear material, may be pressure flake, crushed platform
R
48
60-70
Two platform facets, four dorsal flake scars
West Sugarloaf
Unknown
S
48
80-90
Multi-faceted platform, hinge termination, 8 dorsal flake scars, weathered
T
48
80-90
Seven dorsal flake scars, single facet platform
West Sugarloaf
U
48
80-90
Single facet platform, 11 dorsal flake scars
West Sugarloaf
190
APPENDIX G — ORIGINAL EXCAVATION INVENTORIES AND LEVEL SUMMARIES Unit 8 Unit 8 Introduction. Unit 8 is a 2 x 2 m unit, near the center of the site, which extended from 10 cm above the datum to 250 cm at its deepest. The unit was opened September 17, 1984 and continued through October 25, when it was halted. Work resumed December 7, 1984 with level 210+ and was complete by the 11th of the month. Excavation tools included pick, shovel, mattock, and trowel. Dirt was transferred to a wheelbarrow by shovel, dust pan or bucket for wet screening with 1/8-inch screens. Feature #29, an angular rock concentration in the NW corner of the unit, was found at a depth of 69‒84 cmbd. Unit 8: +10-0 cm. The first level of this unit was higher than the datum. It was disturbed by probable fill, overlaying asphalt. No shell or lithics were found, but four bones and ten historic pieces of material were collected. Unit 8: 0–10 cm. Disturbed with probable fill, level 0–10 cm yielded primarily historic artifacts including glass and metal. About 34 pieces of bone, three of shell, and some charcoal were present. Some lithics were present, including a possible piece of ground stone. Unit 8: 10–20 cm. Soil discoloration and straight shape of disturbance indicated possible drainage through unit at this level. Historic artifacts were present, and there was an increase in bone and lithics. Three pieces of possible ground stone and a shaped piece of slate were reported, along with one core fragment. No shell was found, but 136 pieces of bone, 32 fire-affected rocks and a small amount of charcoal were reported.
191
Unit 8: 20–30 cm. Soil continued to exhibit disturbance. Historic artifacts fell by about 75%, and bone (179 pieces) increased in quantity, but shell was not in evidence. Eight pieces of charcoal and seven fire-affected rocks were encountered. Lithic amounts remained consistent with previous level. Unit 8: 30–40 cm. Soil was virtually the same as previous. Historic material more than doubled over previous level. There was a slight increase in bone (197 pieces). Shell was not present, and only one piece of charcoal was recorded. One basalt core was noted. Debitage was present in about the same amount as the previous level. It was noted that the above levels were 3 cm too wide on the E/W axis. This error was fixed in this level. Unit 8: 40–50 cm. Soil showed an increase in gravel but was otherwise similar to previous level. There were still significant amounts of historic artifacts and bone increased dramatically (743 pieces, primarily unburnt), though shell was still absent. Bone was identified as primarily cow remains. One shaped bone was identified. Several burnt seeds and nine pieces of charcoal were also recovered. Debitage count was similar to previous level. No lithic tools appear to have been found. This was the last level with notable soil disturbance. Unit 8: 50–60 cm. Soil color was consistent with previous level, though looser. Modest amounts of glass, metal and asphalt were found. Bone was abundant, at approximately 4,000 pieces, of which most was unburnt and associated with cow remains from 40–50 cm. Burnt seeds (quantity 67), one film canister of charcoal, and fire-affected rock were present, but shell was not. The amount of historic material decreased, but a single blue glass trade bead was discovered. There was a dramatic increase in debitage,
192
more than four times the amount in the 40‒50 cm level. Two possible ground stone fragments appeared. Unit 8: 60–70 cm. Soil and gravel were the same, except for an increased presence of rocks. Cow bone was present in a decreased amount as part of a total of 500 or so fragments. Thirteen burnt seeds, 97 fire-cracked rock and one piece of ochre were found, though shell was not present. This level had half as much charcoal as the previous level. Only two historic artifacts were found and they were made of glass. The recovery of a gaming piece was reported, but the material was not recorded. Obsidian first occurred in this level. Debitage increased to 200 estimated flakes. Also included in this level were at least three tools: a projectile point tip of Monterey chert, one hammerstone, one unifacially-flaked tool, plus an unspecified number of retouched flakes. Unit 8: 70–80 cm. Soil was less compact with less clay than previous level, except in the SE corner. Amount of gravel decreased while larger rocks (5‒10 cm) increased in quantity. Historics were not present in this level. Fifteen seed fragments were noted. Shell was not found in this level. Charcoal decreased somewhat. Bone was half as much in quantity than that of 60‒70 cm and is almost all unburned. Cow remains did not seem to appear in this level. The quantity of debitage decreased, and no lithic tools are present. An angular rock concentration in the NW corner was designated as Feature #29 and included no artifacts. Thirteen fire-affected rocks were encountered that may not have been part of Feature #29. Feature #29 extended from a depth of 69 to 84 cmbd. Rocks were primarily basalt and unmodified, not being fire affected or knapped. Unit 8: 80–90 cm. Gravel and rocks about 10 cm in size increased in this level. Higher clay content remained in SE and SW corners, with decomposing bedrock and
193
loam centered in the unit running east-west and mottled in the northern portion. Pigments included two pieces of ochre and some decomposing modelo. Charcoal amount remained the same as the previous level. The quantity of bone increased to approximately 300 pieces, including one canine tooth. 62 fire-affected rocks were noted, but it is unclear whether they were part of Feature #29. One piece of tar paper was found in this level. This was the last level with historic material until the 130‒140 cm depth. Debitage increased over the previous level. One hammerstone and one basalt core were reported. Unit 8: 90–100 cm. Soil was less compact, with clay content. Disturbance in the center of the unit remained (possible rodent activity) comprised of coarse, gritty soil with decomposing modelo. Bone decreased to about 50 pieces, of which less than 5% was noted as burnt. Eleven seed fragments, two pieces daub, and 57 fire-affected rocks were recorded in the level record. Charcoal amount remained the same as the previous level. This was the first level since 0‒10 cm in which shell shows up, with one piece each of mytilus and abalone. Both are edible species. Debitage was estimated to decrease by nearly half. Tools recorded were one piece of ground stone, one chalcedony projectile point, and two chert projectile point fragments. Daub first appeared in this level. Unit 8: 100–110 cm. Soil was mostly moist with clay content and patches of sandy soil and an increase in gravel. The same east-west disturbance from the previous level occurred at this depth. There were about 200 pieces of bone, recorded as rodent and avian. Three pieces of ochre, 16 shell fragments, 22 burnt seeds, 13 fire-affected rock, and a chunk of steatite were noted. Charcoal increased to 1.5 film canisters full. This was the first level with a tarring pebble. Debitage increased more than two-fold. Lithic tools
194
included a basalt core, a projectile point fragment, a biface fragment, and one possible comal fragment. Additionally, a piece of clay was noted as incised. Unit 8: 110–120 cm. Soil was described as friable with less gravel, a dark clay/loam mixture. The disturbance from the previous two levels disappeared. Bone increased, was mostly unburned, and included the first otolith found in this unit. Twentyfour fire-affected rocks were present. For the first time, shell beads were encountered, noted as two whole Olivella and three Pismo clam beads. Fragments of Olivella, mussel, abalone, and clam were present, as well as seed fragments and one piece of ochre. Charcoal filled 2.5 film canisters, a dramatic increase over the previous level. This level included the first occurrence of obsidian since the 60‒70 cm depth. The next five levels also had obsidian debitage. Debitage increased to about 300 pieces. Tools included a basalt and a quartz core, a projectile point tip, and what may be a hammerstone spall. Unit 8: 120–130 cm. No change in soil in this level. Bone increased to 450 fragments, including six otoliths. Shell fragments nearly doubled to about 110 pieces, plus two Olivella beads and one dentalium bead. Fire-affected rock increased to 49. The quantity of seeds and charcoal decreased to 21 and 1.75 film canisters, respectively. Debitage increased, and one scraper and one piece of ground modelo were reported. Unit 8: 130–140 cm. No soil change was recorded for this level. All materials aside from fire-affected rock and ochre increased in quantity. Shell beads included three Olivella, two clam, and two dentalium. Two shaped bones were noted. A green tile was found in this level (the next historic material is encountered in the 160‒170 cm depth). Level records identified a pestle. There were approximately 500 flakes of debitage, the
195
largest quantity reported for any level in this unit. Eleven basalt cores, one quartz core, three tarring pebbles and a retouched flake made up the lithic tool assemblage. Unit 8: 140–150 cm. Sterile soil mottled this unit level. Smaller bits of modelo were present than in previous levels. Fire-affected rocks increased (48) while other materials decreased in quantity. A single piece of shaped bone and four otoliths are noted amongst about 600 other fragments of mostly unburned faunal material. Estimated debitage decreased by 40% to 300 pieces. Level records recorded two manos, one hammerstone fragment, a tarring pebble, one retouched flake and two pieces of steatite. Unit 8: 150–160 cm. Decomposing small and large pieces of modelo intruded upon this level. Bone included five otoliths. Shell detritus increased to 162 pieces. Also present were three Olivella and two clam beads, and one abalone rim. More fire-affected rocks (58) were counted in this level. One piece of pottery was collected. Debitage amount appeared to be equal to previous level. Tools found in this level were three basalt and two quartzite cores, a quartz projectile point fragment, two hammerstone fragments, four pieces of ground stone and one rock with asphaltum. Unit 8: 160–170 cm. Soil was similar to previous level, with modelo (103) ranging from 5‒40 cm. Bone amounted to about 750 fragments and five otoliths. Shell detritus was accompanied by six Olivella and one Pismo clam bead, and reportedly a single Olivella grooved rectangular bead. Seven pieces of daub and one pottery fragment were noted. Approximately one-quarter of the unit was excavated 5 cm below level bottom. A single piece of clear glass appeared in this level. Four hundred pieces of debitage, one edge-modified flake, one possible chopper/scraper, four cores, and one domed scraper were recorded. Ground stone included 3 unspecified fragments, one
196
possible fragment with ochre, and 2 hammerstone fragments. Excavators noted the presence of a metate in the north wall. Unit 8: 170–180 cm. Silt and clay content increased, and heavy rodent disturbance was in evidence. The metate mentioned in the 160‒170 cm level was removed, and rested specifically between 155 and 175 cm, upside down and on a tilt. Debitage decreased to approximately 300 pieces. 106 fragments of shell were found, plus 8 shell beads. Excavators noted about 400 bone fragments and 7 otoliths. Two hammerstones, one core/hammerstone, one edge-modified flake, and 20 pieces of fire-affected rock were indicated. Five pieces ochre and 35 seed fragments were recorded. Unit 8: 180–190 cm. Pockets of midden and approximately 60 modelo slabs were found, with possible rodent disturbance. Bone, shell detritus and fire-affected rock amounts decreased. Six bits of ochre and 25 seed pieces were uncovered. Shell beads included two whole Olivella, one lopped Olivella, one clam, and one burnt fragment of an Olivella bead. Debitage decreased by two-thirds, and the number of tools counted was three: one basalt hammerstone, one quartzite hammerstone fragment, and one hammerstone fragment of unknown material. A piece of metal was reportedly found. Unit 8: 190–200 cm. Rodent disturbance was evident throughout this level. Half the unit included soft modelo and midden, one-quarter had less than 12 slabs of hard modelo and the other quarter had pockets of midden. All cultural materials decreased from the former level. Bone included two otoliths, and the shell bead was made of a whole Olivella shell. Fire-affected rock numbered three. Debitage dropped by an estimated 40%. Tools present were one basalt hammerstone, one quartzite chopper, and one core of unknown material.
197
Unit 8: 200–210 cm. This level was dominated by modelo. Pockets of midden occurred less frequently than previously and were primarily in the northern two-thirds of the unit. Rocks and gravel were absent from this level. Bone was described as mostly small mammal, of which 50% appears to be burned. Debitage increased by 50% over the previous level, and one scraper is noted. The west wall collapsed during excavation, amounting to three wheelbarrows full of soil. Contamination was a distinct possibility. Unit 8: 210+ cm. Soil was primarily comprised of decomposing modelo and midden. The northern half of this level had rodent burrowing and soft modelo, while approximately the southern quarter included hard modelo. One large pocket had darker midden. Twenty-five seed fragments were an increase from the previous level. One whole Olivella bead and one piece of incised ceramic were found. The bottom of the unit, which was not level, had its deepest point at 250 cmbd. Debitage was estimated to be one-third the amount of the previous level. No lithic tools are present. Unit 8 Summary. Twenty-two levels were excavated in unit 8, from 10 cm above to 210+ cmbd. Feature #29 was designated for this unit, lying 69‒84 cmbd. Records of Feature #29 were unclear, but it appears that it included about 75 rocks, most of which were fire affected. Two bags of soil were removed from the feature for flotation. This unit appeared to be relatively undisturbed. Notable soil disturbance occurred from +10 through 50 cmbd and again, with rodent burrowing, from 170 cm to unit bottom. A relatively thin, coarse line of soil with decomposing modelo ran east-west through the unit in the 90‒100 and 100‒110 levels. Historic material occurred from the unit top down through 70 cm. After this depth, a single historic was found in each of the
198
following levels: 80‒90, 130‒140, 160‒170, 180‒190. The west wall collapsed when the unit was at approximately 210 cm deep, possibly contaminating deeper levels. Cow remains were present starting at about 40 cm down to 70 cmbd. Throughout the whole unit, the majority of bone was unburned. The exceptions were the final two levels, from 200 cm to unit bottom. The bone was described as small or large mammal and was about 50% or 10% burned in the 200‒210 and 210+ levels, respectively. There were no bone beads reported for this unit, but excavators noticed four shaped bones. Shell first appeared at 0‒10 cm, then again starting at approximately 90 cmbd. The two fragments were from the edible genus mytilus (a mussel) and abalone. Detritus from a variety of edible and non-edible shell appeared in the remaining depths of the unit. Shell beads and otoliths were first encountered in the 110‒120 cm level. An abalone rim was found at 150‒160 cm. A single Olivella grooved rectangular bead was present in this unit, in the 160‒170 cm level. All levels included lithic material, except for the single level above datum. Amounts of estimated debitage were scant through 50 cmbd. Quantities increased thereafter, rising to approximately 500 flakes in the 130‒140 cm level, after which point the debitage decreased. From 190 cm to the bottom of the unit, debitage was minimal. Lithic tools were recorded in quite a variety—cores (or fragments of such), ground stone, and hammerstones were more prevalent than other tool types. Seven whole or fragmentary projectile points/bifaces were recorded.
199
Table 54. Unit 8 Artifact Inventory Reported Upon Excavation. Charcoal is recorded in pieces (noted with a “p”) or in the portion of a film canister(s) full of charcoal. *Feature 29 occupies these levels.
Lithic Tools
Lithic Bead/Ornament
Bone Tool
Bone Bead/Ornament
Shell
Shell Bead/Ornament
Seeds/Nut Shells
Ochre/Other Pigment
Pottery/Daub
Other
‒
‒
‒
4
4
‒
‒
‒
‒
‒
‒
‒
‒
‒
0-10
92
31
1
‒
16
34
‒
‒
3
‒
‒
.34
‒
‒
8
10-20
95
45
5
‒
32
136
‒
‒
‒
‒
‒
.125
6
‒
1
20-30
25
47
‒
‒
7
179
‒
‒
‒
‒
‒
8p
2
‒
‒
30-40
61
37
1
‒
11
197
‒
‒
‒
‒
‒
1p
‒
‒
6
40-50
47
30
‒
‒
28
743
1
‒
‒
‒
5
9p
‒
‒
3
50-60
11
132
2
‒
131
4000
‒
‒
‒
‒
67
1.00
5
‒
‒
60-70
2
200
3
‒
97
500
‒
‒
‒
‒
13
.50
5
‒
1
70-80*
‒
125
‒
‒
13
250
‒
‒
‒
‒
15
.34
3
‒
‒
80-90*
1
200
2
‒
62
300
‒
‒
‒
‒
8
.34
4
‒
‒
90-100
‒
100
4
‒
57
50
‒
‒
2
‒
11
.34
6
2
1
100-110
‒
250
5
‒
13
200
‒
‒
16
‒
22
1.50
4
1
1
110-120
‒
300
4
‒
24
300
‒
‒
59
5
54
2.50
1
‒
‒
120-130
‒
450
2
‒
49
450
‒
‒
110
3
21
1.75
2
‒
‒
130-140
1
500
16
‒
27
700
2
‒
189
7
77
3.25
‒
1
‒
140-150
‒
300
6
‒
48
600
1
‒
140
4
33
2.00
‒
‒
2
150-160
‒
300
13
‒
58
700
‒
‒
163
5
25
1.00
8
4
‒
160-170
1
400
13
‒
65
750
‒
‒
198
8
62
1.50
7
8
‒
170-180
‒
300
4
‒
20
400
‒
‒
106
8
35
2.00
5
‒
‒
180-190
1
100
3
‒
17
200
‒
‒
50
5
25
1.00
6
‒
‒
190-200
‒
60
3
‒
3
100
‒
‒
16
1
22
.67
‒
‒
‒
200-210
‒
90
1
‒
‒
300
‒
‒
19
1
2
1p
‒
‒
‒
210+
‒
30
‒
‒
‒
150
‒
‒
14
1
25
1.00
‒
1
‒
200
Charcoal
Debitage
10
Bone
Historics
+10-0
Fire-Affected Rock
Level (cm)
Unit 8 Artifact Inventory Reported Upon Excavation
Unit 19 Unit 19 Introduction. Unit 19 is a 2 x 2 m unit, in the northeast corner of the site boundary. The unit was excavated from October 8 through October 11, 1984, to a depth of 30 cm. Work on the unit resumed January 2, 1985 and was complete at 280 cmbd on January 22, 1985. Excavation tools included pick, chisel, shovel, and trowel. Dirt was transferred from the unit to a wheelbarrow for wet screening with 1/8-inch screens. Three features were designated within this unit. Unit 19: 0–10 cm. Soil in this level was compact with some gravel, and no disturbance was observed. This level included the highest quantity of historic materials. Two pieces of fire-affected rock were suspected to be boiling stones. Modest amounts of debitage were present, plus one basalt and one chert core, a leaf-shaped projectile point, and a chert projectile point tip. One rodent mandible was part of the bone collected, plus there were eight pieces of asphaltum. Unit 19: 10–20 cm. Soil was siltier and less compact. No disturbance was recorded. Historic material dropped dramatically in quantity. Records mentioned a possible foundation of brick in the north sidewall, the map illustrated two stacked concrete bricks. Some of the bone appeared burnt. Organics included one seed and twenty-two nut shell fragments. Two basalt cores were also recorded as present. Unit 19: 20–30 cm. Soil exhibited less gravel and is less compact, with flecks of charcoal throughout. The amount of historics decreased, with one possible clutch plate found. Bone reportedly included rodent and fish remains. The single shell fragment was noted as clam. Lithics debitage was present in modest amounts, one chert projectile point,
201
and possibly one pestle fragment and one ground stone fragment. Feature #35 was designated for a pocket of charred seeds in the southwest quad, at a depth of 21‒23 cmbd. Unit 19: 30–40 cm. Gravel increased in this level, and historic material decreased to a minimal amount. Small mammal may be included in the bone. Debitage was still minimal. One biface fragment was recovered. A bead was counted, but the material is not specified. Unit 19: 40–50 cm. The soil was reported to be sandier with more gravel. Excavators noticed a disturbance in the north sidewall of the northeast corner, described as a trench. The only historic material was a brick fragment. Five times the amount of bone and debitage were noted over the previous level. Some medium-sized mammal remains may have been present. Two basalt cores, two ground stone fragments and a pestle were found. A large amount of charcoal was collected from this level, plus one fragment of fired clay. This is the last level to mention a record of historic material. Unit 19: 50–60 cm. Soil was the same as previous, except for the addition of a few cobbles. The trench observed in the previous level continued but did not appear to cut across the unit. A small bag of fire-affected rock was collected. An increase in bone occurred, with small to large mammal remains noted. As debitage decreased, the number of lithic tools increased—one bifacial flake tool, one unifacially-worked flake, one projectile point tip, and four pieces of possible ground stone. This is the first level that included shell beads. There was still a large amount of charcoal. Unit 19: 60–70 cm. Soil was observed to be sandier. A large bag of fire-affected rock was collected. Debitage more than tripled, but bone decreased. A bone awl tip and
202
one possible tarring pebble were found in this level. One object of unknown material and function was noted. Unit 19: 70–80 cm. The soil did not change from the previous level. The same amount of fire-affected rock occurred in this level. Bone increased a bit and was noted to include small to large mammal bones. One rock with ochre was collected as the only lithic tool. Though charcoal decreased in quantity, it is still prevalent, comprising four film canisters full of the material. One possible piece of fired clay was collected. Unit 19: 80–90 cm. No change in soil was observed. Artifact amounts were not recorded in level records throughout the rest of the unit, except for a few materials itemized in the Original Excavation Artifact Inventory. Excavators uncovered up to 140 pebbles and cobbles and designated this as Feature #58. About 80 rocks were estimated to be fire-affected. The feature did not appear to be organized in any order, but was suspected to be a hearth, due to the presence of charcoal, burned bone and some debitage. The level records detail that a number of bags of material were collected for this level. Nine white bags of material from 1/8-inch screening and 16 baggies of material from a 1/16-inch screen were noted. This is the first and last time a 1/16-inch screen was mentioned. Unit 19: 90–100 cm. No change in soil from previous level. One bead was collected, but the material was not recorded in level records. Feature #58 continued in this level. Unit 19: 100–110 cm. A lighter color was observed in the soil. Feature #58 continued at this depth.
203
Unit 19: 110–120 cm. Soil was mottled with dark brown clay and lighter brown soil observed in the previous level and includes pebbles. The deepest recorded provenience of Feature #58 rocks was at 116 cmbd. In the northern half of this level, possibly fire-affected rock may have been related to Feature #58. Rocks observed in the southern half were described as rounded in a sandy matrix, and it was speculated that this could be a streambed. Unit 19: 120–130 cm. No change in soil, artifactual material was not recorded. Unit 19: 130–140 cm. No change in soil, artifactual material was not recorded. Unit 19: 140–150 cm. Soil became darker, moister and more clay-like. Artifacts were not recorded. Unit 19: 150–160 cm. Excavators noted that soil had a greasy texture and fewer gravels and pebbles. Unit 19: 160–170 cm. No change in soil noted, but an unspecified amount of fireaffected rock was present in the northeast quad. Unit 19: 170–180 cm. Soil was observed to be more compact. Gravel and pebbles were largely absent. Seven pieces of fire-affected rock were mapped for this level. Unit 19: 180–190 cm. The greasy texture still permeated this soil. Fire-affected rock and artifacts were not recorded. Unit 19: 190–200 cm. No change in soil. No artifacts recorded. Unit 19: 200–210 cm. Soil remained the same, but for the appearance of some modelo. Unit 19: 210–220 cm. No change from previous level.
204
Unit 19: 220–230 cm. Modelo increased in the soil matrix. Level records indicated the presence of charcoal, round stones and fire-affected rock, so a feature was designated as #79. Slabs of modelo were uncovered towards the bottom of the level. Two sample bags of soil were collected for flotation. Unit 19: 230–240 cm. Soil was the same as previous. Of 51 rocks recorded in Feature #79 at this level, some were noted as fragments of manos and metates. Unit 19: 240–250 cm. There was more modelo in this level, and soil was deeper in the northern part of the unit. Feature #79 was still present, but primarily occupied the north half at this depth. A shell fragment from the northwest quad was collected. Unit 19: 250–260 cm. More modelo was observed, to the extent that the floor was about 50% modelo. Unit 19: 260–270 cm. This level was comprised almost completely of modelo, but some rodent burrowing was observed. A flake and a hammerstone were found in the northeast quad. Unit 19: 270–280 cm. Heavy rodent burrowing was noted. At the completion of this unit, the floor was almost completely made up of modelo. Unit 19 Summary. It is unclear why this 2 x 2 unit was opened, but it may have been part of the systematic sampling of the site. However, its location as one of the farthest units to the northeast could indicate that it was placed to determine the boundaries of the archaeological site. Disturbance of soil was observed between 40‒60 cmbd, resembling a trench. Soil was recorded as somewhat greasy at 150 cm, and again in the 180–190 cm.
205
Three features occurred in this unit. Feature #35 was a pocket of charred seeds. Feature #58 comprised a probable hearth. A rock cluster with scattered charcoal and no associated artifacts was designated as Feature #79. Jim and Jill Leavitt speculate in the original unit summary that there were five stratigraphic levels coinciding with changes in soil, artifact distribution, and feature locations. The first level from 0‒50 cm included historics. Historic material was thereafter absent from the level records, and soil was dark brown sandy clay from 50‒80 cm. In the third stratigraphic level, Feature #58 appeared, generally between 50 and 110 cm. Soil was reportedly culturally sterile from 110 to 220 cm. The last stratigraphic level started at 220 cm with the appearance of Feature #79, and ended at 280 cm, unit bottom. Twenty-eight levels were excavated for unit 19. After 80 cm in depth was reached, the team ceased recording artifact detail on the level records, and therefore quantities cannot be estimated in the Original Excavation Artifact Inventory. Table 55. Unit 19 Artifact Inventory Reported Upon Excavation. Charcoal is recorded in pieces (noted with a “p”) or in the portion of a film canister(s) full of charcoal. “Y” signifies that the material is present, but in an unspecified quantity. *This level includes Feature #35. †These levels include Feature #58. ‡These levels include Feature #79.
2 ‒ 1 2 6
‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒
2 22 13 ‒ 28
18p 147p ‒ .75 4.00
206
Other
‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒
Pottery/Daub
Charcoal
‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒
Ochre/Other Pigment
Seeds/Nut Shells
1.00 2.00 3.00 60 300
Shell Bead/Ornament
2 8 ‒ Y 17
Shell
‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒
Bone Bead/Ornament
4 2 3 1 4
Bone Tool
Lithic Bead/Ornament
26 53 52 30 150
Bone
Lithic Tools
504 191 59 6 1
Fire-Affected Rock
Debitage
0-10 10-20 20-30* 30-40 40-50
Historics
Level (cm)
Unit 19 Artifact Inventory Reported Upon Excavation
‒ 2 ‒ ‒ ‒
‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ 1
8 ‒ 1 1 ‒
50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90† 90-100† 100-110† 110-120† 120-130 130-140 140-150 150-160 160-170 170-180 180-190 190-200 200-210 210-220 220-230‡ 230-240‡ 240-250‡ 250-260 260-270 270-280
Other
Pottery/Daub
Ochre/Other Pigment
Charcoal
Seeds/Nut Shells
Shell Bead/Ornament
Shell
Bone Bead/Ornament
Bone Tool
Bone
Fire-Affected Rock
Lithic Bead/Ornament
Lithic Tools
Debitage
Historics
Level (cm)
Unit 19 Artifact Inventory Reported Upon Excavation
‒ 100 7 ‒ Y 500 ‒ ‒ 16 2 37 6.00 15 ‒ ‒ ‒ 350 1 ‒ Y 400 1 ‒ 5 ‒ 48 4.50 ‒ ‒ 1 ‒ 300 1 ‒ Y 450 ‒ ‒ 14 ‒ 17 4.00 1 1 ‒ Artifacts not specified, except fire-affected rock and bone noted as present Artifacts not specified, except for one bead of unspecified material Artifacts not specified Artifacts not specified, except for one lithic tool present and possible fire-affected rock Artifacts not specified Artifacts not specified; bone bead found in the lab Artifacts not specified; bead made of a tooth found in the lab Artifacts not specified Artifacts not specified, except fire-affected rock noted as present in NE quad Artifacts not specified, except about seven pieces fire-affected rock noted as present Artifacts not specified, except for absence of fire-affected rock Artifacts not specified, except for absence of fire-affected rock Artifacts not specified Artifacts not specified Artifacts not specified, except fire-affected rock noted as present Artifacts not specified, except charcoal noted as present in unspecified amount Artifacts not specified, except for one bead noted as present Artifacts not specified Artifacts not specified, except for 1 piece of debitage and 1 lithic tool present Artifacts not specified
Unit 20 Unit 20 Introduction. Excavation of unit 20 was conducted from August 24th through September 17th of 1984. This 2 x 2 m unit was located towards the northeast corner of the site boundaries and was placed according to systematic sampling. Maximum depth was 260 cmbd. Excavation tools included pick, shovel, mattock, and trowel. Dirt was transferred from the unit to a wheelbarrow by shovel, dust pan or bucket
207
for 1/8-inch wet screening. One feature designated as #8 occupied the 90‒100 and 100‒110 cm levels. Please note that most of the lithic tools recorded for this unit in level records cannot currently be located in the collection. Unit 20: 0–10 cm. Heavily-disturbed, compact soil with substantial clay content characterized this level. Level 0–10 cm yielded primarily historic artifacts of various materials. Modest amounts of bone and shell are recorded. Three of the bones were burnt and one shell bead was present. Lithic debitage was minimal. The piece of ground stone of unknown material was unifacial and consisted of fragments that were glued together by past cataloguers. One bi-directional core and projectile point were recorded. Unit 20: 10–20 cm. Soil was virtually the same but appeared to become looser and drier at level bottom. Disturbance may have been caused by compression from grading and construction. Historics were fewer, lithics increased a nominal amount, and bone nearly tripled. Lithic tools were not found in this level. Small bits of charcoal near the north wall were noted, but do not appear to have been collected. Unit 20: 20–30 cm. High clay content pocketed the unit, and considerable disturbance was evidenced by the inclusion of asphalt. Forty pieces of historic material were recovered. The amount of bone was about the same. Excavators reported a slight decrease in lithic debitage, plus the presence of a tar pebble and a steatite bead. One Olivella bead was identified. Unit 20: 30–40 cm. Soil was softer, except in the northeast corner. Asphalt was found at level bottom. Historics more than doubled over the previous level. Shell detritus, bone and lithic debitage were virtually the same. Another Olivella bead was found. One basalt core, a quartzite core, a chert core and one obsidian flake were recorded.
208
Unit 20: 40–50 cm. Excavators reported the continuation of high clay content in the soil and a disturbance of scattered brick and asphalt. This level included the highest amount of historic material in the unit. Estimated bone increased by a little over 30%, of which charring is noted on seven pieces. Shell increased, with one bead present. A seed found was probably historic, since it looked like a pumpkin seed. One core, a utilized core and a single stone bead were noted. One piece of charcoal was mentioned. Unit 20: 50–60 cm. Soil was softer, but with high clay content. Large pieces of asphalt disturbed the level. Historics dropped to 40% of the previous level. Debitage remained as minimal as upper levels and bone decreased in quantity. One of the pieces of shell was a whole Olivella. One shell bead was present. Lithic tools were not mentioned. Unit 20: 60–70 cm. More sand and less clay appeared. Historic material dropped dramatically, but still indicated disturbance of the midden. Among the bone, which increased a little in quantity, was a fish vertebra. Three beads accompanied double the amount of shell detritus. Debitage was roughly the same as previous, though a ground stone fragment, metate fragment and two tarring pebbles were reported. Unit 20: 70–80 cm. Sandier and softer, there was much less soil disturbance than previous levels. One piece of rubber and two brick fragments were the only historics. The amount of bone and shell detritus increased, and debitage decreased slightly. One tarring pebble and one mano were recorded in the level record. This was the first level with fireaffected rock, numbering ten rocks over 10 cm in diameter. Unit 20: 80–90 cm. There was no change in the soil or disturbance. Three pieces of brick were encountered in this level. Bone was slightly less than the previous level. Of 23 pieces of shell, one whole Olivella was found. Two rounded beads, one whole Olivella
209
bead, and two dentalia beads were present. Charcoal and ochre occurred, but in an unspecified amount. One ground stone fragment and a red chert biface fragment were recorded. Fire-affected rocks doubled in quantity. Unit 20: 90–100 cm. No change in soil was noticed. All material quantities increased, except for shell beads, which numbered three. Minor amounts of historic material were still present. Debitage increased by nearly a factor of nine, and bone almost tripled. Shell increased modestly, and three beads were noted. A basalt projectile point, stone bead and eight ground stone fragments were found. Feature #8 was designated for a cluster of cobbles in the southwest quad. More than 112 fire-affected rocks were inventoried and mapped. One fragment of ground stone was part of the inventory. The cobbles were surrounded by a white material speculated to be ash. Feature records indicated that a soil sample was collected for flotation. Unit 20: 100–110 cm. Soil, disturbance and the number of historics were similar to previous. Bone and debitage dropped by over half, shell increased a bit, and seven shell beads were found. One possible ground stone fragment was noted, plus some fireaffected rock. Feature #8 extended into this level, up to at least 109 cmbd. Unit 20: 110–120 cm. Moderate rodent activity, small rocks and fire-affected rocks disturbed the soil at this level. Materials that increased were bone and debitage (both of which more than doubled), shell, charcoal and seeds. One otolith and a shaped deer antler were present. Four shell beads and a piece of shell with asphaltum were noted. Lithics included two crystal pieces, a soapstone bead, and possibly a drill, core and ground stone.
210
Unit 20: 120–130 cm. Lighter, sandier soil with pebbles and extensive rodent disturbance characterized this level. Bone, debitage and shell were about the same. Fewer seeds and ochre and less charcoal permeated the level. Fire-affected rocks numbered 31. Asphaltum was present. A hammerstone, two unifaces and two pieces of worked slate were recovered. Unit 20: 130–140 cm. Soil was sandier and coarser, with some rodent activity. This was the last level of the unit with historic material, which included an iron wire and fragments of modern asphalt. Fire-affected rock doubled. Bone increased and included two unidentified teeth and one shaped bone. Shell increased a little bit, though there are half as many shell beads as the previous level. A charm or gaming piece may have been identified. Two edge-modified flakes and one piece of ground stone were recorded. Unit 20: 140–150 cm. Clay content at the bottom of the level was the only change in soil. Fire-affected rock dropped by half. Bone decreased slightly, and debitage increased to 329 flakes. Two otoliths and two bone awls were part of the assemblage, as were five shell beads. Seed quantity increased dramatically. One edge-modified flake and three pieces of asphaltum were found, but there was no mention of charcoal. Unit 20: 150–160 cm. Clay content was higher, and there was minimal rodent disturbance. All material quantities dropped, except for the presence of more lithic tools recorded: one projectile point, a piece of steatite, a grooved stone, one hammerstone fragment, plus three fragments of ground stone. One-third the amount of fire-affected rock was found. Two shell beads and one shaped bone were noted. Unit 20: 160–170 cm. Soil included higher amount of sand. No disturbance was observed. All materials increased in quantity. Bone artifacts included one otolith and one
211
shaped bone; shell included four beads; and lithics included a hammerstone, mano, piece of ground stone, and one projectile point fragment. Unit 20: 170–180 cm. Sand was more prevalent, soil is a lighter color, and modelo slabs and fragments were present. Again, all material types increased, although in this level there were four shell beads, like the last level. Six otoliths were present. Eight lithic tools in this level included an asphaltum coated rock, a metate fragment, hammerstone, steatite bead, core, and three ground stone fragments. Unit 20: 180–190 cm. Soil was sandy and dark, with disturbance from three rodent holes, hundreds of pieces of modelo, and bedrock that was encountered in the southwest corner. There was one less shell bead in this level. Otherwise, all materials increased. This level included the highest quantities of debitage, bone fragments and shell detritus from this unit. Artifacts included three otoliths, one shaped bone, three shell beads, and one Olivella shell with asphaltum. Excavators recorded one steatite bead, five hammerstones, one hammerstone/core, five possible pieces of ground stone, and one projectile point base. Unit 20: 190–200 cm. All material amounts dropped, while modelo and rodent activity increased in this level. A film canister full of charcoal was collected. Finds included one bone bead, four shell beads, a bead of unspecified material, one piece of ceramic, a hammerstone, tarring pebble, one core tool and four ground stone fragments. Unit 20: 200–210 cm. Rodent activity was apparent in this dark clay mixed with modelo, of which there were 55 pieces between 5 to 30 cm, and one piece larger than 30 cm. Although the amount of bone dropped significantly, it was still present in large amounts. Less than half the amount of shell was found. Four shell beads and one shell
212
bead fragment were found. Seeds and fire-affected rock dropped by at least half as well. Some charcoal was collected. Lithic tools included a core and two possible pieces of ground stone. Unit 20: 210–220 cm. Disturbance was not noticed in this level, but there was an increase in decomposing modelo, and bedrock was reached in some areas. Artifact quantities were much the same as the last level. Two otoliths, a shaped bone, three shell beads and some ochre showed up. Additionally, a mano fragment was reported. Unit 20: 220–230 cm. Artifacts decreased and modelo increased in quantity in this otherwise undisturbed level. Bone included two otoliths. Shell included two fragments of beads. Some charcoal was collected. Unit 20: 230–240 cm. All artifact category amounts decreased. A midden was encountered, which was suggested to be the result of rodent disturbance. Aside from one shell bead, artifact content was detritus of lithics, bone, shell, seeds, charcoal and ochre. Unit 20: 240–250 cm. Level content was primarily modelo and bedrock with rodent disturbance in the northwest corner. There was one shell bead at this depth. All other artifact quantities dropped dramatically over the previous level. Unit 20: 250–260 cm. The entire floor of the unit was bedrock. Two pieces of bone and one object of unknown material and function were found in this level. Unit 20 Summary. Unit 20 was located through systematic sampling and placed outside of the suspected boundaries of the mortuary area. Twenty-six levels underwent excavation, to a depth of 260 cm. The original unit summary by Russell S. Dynda recorded the difficulty screening the soil with its high clay content, such that chunks were broken down with a shovel or mallet. A single feature was designated for this unit.
213
Feature #8 was a cluster of generally rounded cobbles in the southwest quad of unit 20, from 90 to 110 cmbd. Extending from the south wall into the unit, the concentration was nearly circular, running 38 cm north-south and 34 cm east-west. More than 112 rocks were inventoried and mapped. Nearly all were recorded as fire-affected. From its discovery on September 17, 1984, the feature remained pedestalled until the final level was excavated to 260 cm. The feature was left intact and the unit covered, because it was suspected to be adjacent to a burial. An adjacent unit was never opened, though. When the unit was reopened January 16, 1985, the feature was found to be contaminated due to rain and detritus that washed under the covering. The cobbles removed were speculated to be a cache of boiling stones. Historic material was prevalent through the 50‒60 cm level. The drop off in historics corresponded to changes in soil and disturbance after 60 cm. The last historic was encountered in the 130‒140 cm level. Prehistoric artifacts showed up with regularity after 60 cm in depth. Bone was present in every level of the unit. Shell beads and detritus occurred in nearly every level. Debitage was sparse until the 90‒100 cm level, in which the feature was found. These materials were abundant, peaking at the 180‒190 cm level, after which quantities dropped as bedrock and modelo encroached upon the unit. It may be that the division in historic/prehistoric deposition occurred between 60‒80 cmbd.
214
Table 56. Unit 20 Artifact Inventory Reported Upon Excavation. Charcoal, bone and shell are recorded in pieces (noted with a “p”) or in the portion of a film canister(s) full of the material. “Y” signifies that the material is present, but in an unspecified quantity. *Feature #25 occupied these levels. †Feature #60 was present in this level.
Debitage
Lithic Tools
Lithic Bead/Ornament
Fire-Affected Rock
Bone Tool
Bone Bead/Ornament
Shell
Shell Bead/Ornament
Seeds/Nut Shells
Ochre/Other Pigment
Pottery/Daub
Other
78 60 44 98 135 55
19 26 21 16 13 10
3 ‒ 2 3 2 ‒
‒ ‒ 1 ‒ 1 ‒
‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒
54 152 151 159 209 161
‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒
‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒
5 ‒ 8 6 15 16
1 ‒ 1 1 1 1
‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ 1 ‒
‒ Y Y ‒ Y ‒
‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒
‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒
‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒
60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100 100-110 110-120
6 3 3 7 7 ‒
12 7 22 193 98 201
5 3 2 9 1 7
‒ ‒ ‒ 1 ‒ 1
‒ 10 20 ‒ 10 13
188 246 229 630 281 682
‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ 1
‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒
32 53 23 38 50 78
3 ‒ 5 3 7 4
‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ 1 31
‒ ‒ Y Y 126p 1.00
‒ ‒ 1 Y 11 9
‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒
‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒
120-130 130-140 140-150 150-160 160-170 170-180
‒ 3 ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒
268 279 329 195 372 571
5 3 2 7 4 7
‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ 1
31 62 33 11 24 42
684 781 735 558 894 1350
‒ 1 1 1 1 ‒
‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒
62 78 71 59 84 96
6 3 5 2 4 4
18 4 54 17 20 33
.75 1.25 ‒ .34 ‒ .50
6 7 8 2 ‒ 8
1 ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒
13 1 3 1 2 ‒
180-190 190-200 200-210 210-220 220-230 230-240
‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒
798 464 268 287 250 132
12 7 3 1 ‒ ‒
1 ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒
44 24 12 5 5 ‒
1878 1170 709 634 452 253
1 ‒ ‒ 1 ‒ ‒
‒ 1 ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒
136 104 41 51 32 24
3 4 5 3 2 1
51 52 24 ‒ 11 5
1.00 1.00 .75 .50 .25 20p
19 ‒ 4 8 8 2
‒ 1 ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒
‒ ‒ ‒ 6 ‒ 1
240-250 250-260
‒ ‒
26 ‒
‒ ‒
‒ ‒
1 ‒
39 2
‒ ‒
‒ ‒
4 ‒
1 ‒
4 ‒
‒ ‒
‒ ‒
‒ ‒
‒ 1
215
Charcoal
Historics
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60
Bone
Level (cm)
Unit 20 Artifact Inventory Reported Upon Excavation
Unit 38 Unit 38 Introduction. Unit 38 was a 2 x 2 m unit excavated to a depth of 245 cm. It appeared to have been placed according to systematic sampling. The unit was located north of the center of the site. Excavation commenced on September 21, 1984 and continued through the 26th. For unknown reasons, there was a hiatus in work until January 2, 1985, when the crew continued digging at the 40‒50 cm level. Excavation tools included a pick, shovel, trowel and 1/8-inch wet screen. Features #25 and 60 were located within this unit. Unit 38: 0–10 cm. Soil was reported to be light brown, compact, sandy loam with some angular pebbles. The only disturbance noticed was roots. A moderate amount of historic material was encountered, and one utilized obsidian flake and three ground stone fragments were recorded. Of the bone fragments, five are possibly human and one human tooth was noted in the southeast quad, but these have not been verified as of this date. One piece of unknown material was collected. The crew observed a concentration of medium-sized, unburned cobbles flecked with charcoal in the southwest quad and designated this as Feature #25. One of the rocks may have been a mano. The feature remained pedestalled until its removal on October 9, 1984, when a soil sample was taken for future analysis. In sum, the feature comprised 15 unmodified rocks, one tar pebble, one ground stone fragment, two basalt flakes and one quartz flake. Unit 38: 10–20 cm. No change in soil or disturbance. At this level, the crew started to excavate in quads. Feature #25 ended at 20 cmbd. The south half was excavated first, down to 50 cmbd. The northern half was excavated about three months later,
216
starting on December 17, 1984. Excavation of the level at this time fell short of the 20 cm depth. It appears that when the error was noticed, the level was taken to 20 cm and this material screened and bagged as “extra.” Historic material nearly doubled. Another human tooth and seven possible human bone fragments were reported. Lithics included a chert biface fragment, quartzite utilized flake, and two ground stone fragments. One clay pot fragment was identified, but it is not clear whether it is historic or prehistoric. Unit 38: 20–30 cm. Aside from being less compact, there was no change in soil or disturbance. The level was excavated in quads. The number of historics dropped by more than half. More bone was present, including rodent, bird, fish and large mammal, but little was found in the southeast quad. A chert projectile point tip and four pieces of ground stone were identified. The amount of charcoal quadruples. A fragment of a clay figurine was also found. The southern half was excavated on September 26, and the northern half on December 19, 1984. Unit 38: 30–40 cm. The soil became darker, more compact, and more heavily concentrated with angular rocks. Rodent activity appeared and continued through every subsequent level of the unit. Quads were excavated in this level. The amount of historic material remained the same as previous. The crew began to estimate debitage by the number of bags, starting with ¾ of a bag in this level. Since the bag size is not mentioned, the Original Excavation Artifact Inventory only notes the presence of debitage in this and subsequent levels. The amount of bone and shell increased in this level. This is the first level in which shell beads occurred. Lithics include a fused shale pendant fragment, three utilized
217
basalt flakes, two ground stone fragments, and a quartzite hammerstone. Two pieces of fired clay were recorded. Excavation halted with this level on September 26. Unit 38: 40–50 cm. Excavation of this level in quads commenced on January 2, 1985. The description of soil seems to indicate larger rocks throughout, and the association of rodent activity with lighter brown silty clay. Historic material dropped by half. There was roughly the same amount of bone, shell, charcoal, and seeds. Some of the bone was burned. Records indicate that two possible bone awls, two otoliths and one phalange were collected. Shell beads included three disk, one Olivella disk, and one made of Pismo clam. Six lithic tools were found: a worked chunk of steatite, possible hammerstone, worked modelo disk, fused shale projectile point, ground stone fragment, and one tarring pebble. This is the first level with the presence of ochre. Unit 38: 50–60 cm. The unit was no longer being excavated in quads. More small river cobbles and angular gravel appeared in the soil, mottled with tan clay. Root and rodent disturbance remained the same. Two glass fragments were found, along with 80 fragments of shell, two Olivella beads, seven disk shell beads, and one triangular bead that may be Pismo clam. The crew records ¼ bag of bone, some burnt, some with butchering or gnawing marks. They recovered large deer and dog bones and two otoliths. Lithics present included three ground stone fragments, two pieces of worked modelo, a fused shale projectile point, one of chert, and two chert projectile point fragments. The highest quantities of seeds and charcoal for this unit are recorded in this level. Unit 38: 60–70 cm. Rodent activity was associated with the appearance of yellow patches of sandy loam, and soil was described as more compact. Debitage was estimated to be 50% more than the previous level, as bone collected remained the same in quantity.
218
Bone included one possible human tooth, a shark tooth, and three otoliths. A pumice stone was identified. One tarring pebble, two utilized flakes (chert and basalt), a basalt core, granite pestle tip and chert projectile point base were tools noted for this level. Unit 38: 70–80 cm. Soil seemed to be less compact, while disturbance remained about the same. Debitage dropped to the same amount present in the 50‒60 cm level. Bone fragments were reported in the same amount as the previous level, plus one otolith. Of the shell ornament, one was speculated to be a pendant fragment. Three comal fragments and one worked fragment of shale made up the lithic tools. This was the last level with historics. Unit 38: 80–90 cm. There was no change in soil, disturbance, debitage or bone quantities. Bone included nine otoliths, one modified bone that may have been a pendant, and an awl tip. Shell detritus increased by about 37%. Shell beads were four Olivella and one Pismo disk. The crew found one ground stone fragment, a piece of worked shale, one basalt projectile point, and one chalcedony projectile point tip. This level and the next two have a moderate amount of ochre. A rock concentration with associated charcoal in the northeast corner of the unit was labeled Feature #60. It was comprised of angular rock and sandstone, some fire affected. One of the rocks was identified as a fire-affected granitic mano. This was the last level to be screened concurrently with excavation of the unit. Unit 38: 90–100 cm. Excavation of this level took place on January 7, 1985, but material was wet screened on the 31st of the month. Aside from a rodent burrow in the west wall, there was no change in soil. Forty-eight fire-affected rocks were documented in this level. The amount of debitage doubled, and bone decreased a bit, but 25% of the
219
bone appeared burned. Four pieces of worked bone and two otoliths were found. One of the twenty-one beads found in this level was a bead blank. Two projectile point tips, a tarring pebble, one core, and two fragments of clay were present in this level. Additionally, some pieces of asphaltum were collected. Unit 38: 100–110 cm. This level was excavated on January 8th, and material was wet screened on February 7th of 1985. Excavators note fewer pebbles, and roots protruding from the east sidewall. Debitage quantity was the same as previous. Bone increased minimally. Seven otoliths, a polished antler tool, and four other pieces of worked bone were recorded. There was one piece of wattle and daub and twelve fragments of an unknown material. Tools included a chalcedony scraper, a chopper, projectile point, granite mano fragment, felsite core, and quartz core. Unit 38: 110–120 cm. No prominent changes in soil. Level was excavated January 8, and wet screened on February 11, 1985. One-third less debitage was present but bone, shell and seeds were roughly the same. Five otoliths and three pieces of worked bone were identified. Twenty-five percent less charcoal was present than last level. Beads included complete and fragmentary pieces. Excavators noted two ceramic fragments, one with a punctate design, and a fired clay effigy. Lithics are a projectile point fragment, three tarring pebbles, one utilized flake, one complete and one fragmented mano. Unit 38: 120–130 cm. Soil exhibited the same characteristics and disturbance, with the addition of flecks of modelo. Level was excavated January 9, but material wet screened on February 12, 1985. Debitage dropped by one-third. Bone decreased a small amount, of which 10% seemed to be burnt, and four otoliths and some fish vertebrae were noted. Shell decreases modestly, and shell beads are present in half the number as
220
the previous level. Shell detritus includes haliotis, mytilus, Olivella, pectin, Chione, clam, and more. There are quite a few lithic tools in this level: one mano/hammerstone, one burned mano fragment, a metate fragment, pestle tip fragment, two fragments of ground stone, one tar pebble, a projectile point, fused shale projectile point mid-section, and a charmstone. Unit 38: 130–140 cm. No change was observed in soil or disturbance. Excavation took place on January 9, 1985, but a screening date for the material was not recorded. Debitage remained the same. Bone decreased minimally, but some was burned, and eight otoliths and eight pieces of worked bone were recorded. This highest number of shell beads in the unit were noted for this level—three whole Olivella, three whole barrel, one tube, one keyhole limpet (burned), one disk, one disk with asphaltum, five burned Olivella fragments, and 17 other Olivella bead fragments. One tarring pebble, one felsite core, one projectile point base, and one piece of fired clay were found Unit 38: 140–150 cm. There was no change in soil or disturbance. Debitage and shell detritus increased, and bone decreased, all in modest amounts. Five otoliths and seven pieces of worked bone were present. Three whole, five fragmentary, and one halitosis disk shell bead with asphaltum were recovered. Many lithic tools were found— one granitic mano, a projectile point tip, a blade fragment, utilized flake, three ground stone fragments, one hammerstone and one core. Three pieces of unidentified material were collected. Unit 38: 150–160 cm. Soil was slightly compact with more modelo fragments and continued rodent and root disturbance.
221
Unit 38: 160–170 cm. Soil was mixed with lighter colors of silty loam and modelo bedrock was encountered. Only one tarring pebble artifact mentioned. Unit 38: 170–180 cm. Patches of lighter siltstone appear in south quarter of unit. Bedrock was reached in southeast corner of the unit floor. On tar pebble was recorded. Unit 38: 180–190 cm. Rodent burrows were noted in southern half, with modelo bedrock in 50% of the level and small sandstone slabs in the northeast quad. Another tar pebble was found. Unit 38: 190–245 cm. Heavy rodent burrowing noted in this level, which sloped from the southeast to deeper soil in the northwest corner. Unit 38 Summary. Twenty levels comprised unit 38. The last level of the unit extended from 190 to 245 cmbd. Four levels, between 10 to 50 cmbd, were excavated in quads. However, they each level was not fully excavated contemporaneously. There was also a gap of over three months between completion of the 30-40 cm level and excavation of the next level. Rodent disturbance that was first observed in the 30‒40 cm level permeated the remainder of the unit. Roots were reported in every level, though mostly in minor amounts. One feature in the unit, a concentration of rock in the southwest corner, was designated Feature #25. Another from 80‒90 cmbd was labeled Feature #60, a rock concentration in the northeast corner. The last notation of historic material for the unit was between 70 to 80 cmbd. Unit 38 had a relatively large amount of charcoal, especially between 50 to 90 cmbd—ten film canisters full of charcoal were recovered from the 50‒60 cm level. The highest amount of shell beads (31) appeared between 130‒140 cm. Shell detritus was diverse in this unit, but it may just reflect that one of the crew was an expert on shell. Most of the species
222
mentioned are edible forms of abalone, clam and mussel. Possible human remains were reported for the first two levels, but this assertion is yet to be corroborated. Wet screening and excavation of Unit 38 took place concurrently through the 7th of January 1985. Starting with the 90‒100 cm level, dirt was saved for later screening. With the 150‒160 cm level, the crew stopped itemizing artifacts in the level records. Of the levels with artifacts recorded, all have ground stone except for three: 60‒70, 90‒100 and 130‒140 cm. Table 57. Unit 38 Artifact Inventory Reported Upon Excavation. Charcoal, bone and shell are recorded in pieces (noted with a “p”) or in the portion of a film canister(s) full of the material. “Y” signifies that the material is present, but in an unspecified quantity. *Feature #25 occupied these levels. †Feature #60 was present in this level.
Lithic Tools
Lithic Bead/Ornament
Fire-Affected Rock
Bone
Shell Bead/Ornament
Seeds/Nut Shells
Charcoal
Ochre/Other Pigment
Pottery/Daub
Other
70 121
4 4
‒ ‒
‒ 2
107p 406p
‒ ‒
‒ ‒
2p 7p
‒ ‒
‒ ‒
16p .25
‒ ‒
‒ ‒
1 ‒
20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80
31 32 16 2 ‒ 2
99 Y Y Y Y Y
5 7 6 9 6 4
‒ ‒ 1 ‒ ‒ ‒
Y Y Y Y Y Y
2.75 4.00 4.00 Y Y Y
‒ ‒ 2 ‒ ‒ ‒
‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒
6p 38p 55p 80p 125p 135p
‒ 3 5 10 6 7
17 23 29 145 94 46
1.13 3.00 2.75 10.0 6.25 6.00
‒ ‒ 1 1 1 13
1 2 ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒
‒ ‒ 1 ‒ 1 ‒
‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒
Y Y Y Y Y Y
3 4 6 6 9 3
‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒
Y 48 55 42 ‒ 16
Y Y Y Y Y Y
1 4 5 3 ‒ 8
1 ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒
185p 228p 1.00 1.00 .875 .50
5 21 2 12 6 31
84 .67 .83 .67 102 11
7.50 5.00 4.00 3.00 1.50 .06
25 15 27 .2 .1 16
‒ 2 1 3 ‒ 1
‒ ‒ 12 11 1 ‒
‒ Y 9 ‒ 12 Y 7 ‒ 190p Artifacts not specified Artifacts not specified, except for 1 lithic tool
9
34
.50
14
5
3
80-90† 90-100 100-110 110-120 120-130 130-140 140-150 150-160 160-170
223
Shell
Debitage
44 81
Bone Bead/Ornament
Historics
0-10* 10-20*
Bone Tool
Level (cm)
Unit 38 Artifact Inventory Reported Upon Excavation
170-180
Artifacts not specified
180-190 190-245
Artifacts not specified Artifacts not specified
Other
Pottery/Daub
Ochre/Other Pigment
Charcoal
Seeds/Nut Shells
Shell Bead/Ornament
Shell
Bone Bead/Ornament
Bone Tool
Bone
Fire-Affected Rock
Lithic Bead/Ornament
Lithic Tools
Debitage
Historics
Level (cm)
Unit 38 Artifact Inventory Reported Upon Excavation
Unit 48 Unit 48 Introduction. Unit 48 is a 2 x 2 m unit at the south end of the site boundaries, which was excavated to a depth of about 236 cm. The unit was opened on November 12, 1984 and completed on the 27th of the same month. Excavation tools included pick, shovel, spade, sledge hammer and trowel. Feature #48, a cluster of fire-affected rock, was encountered in the northeast quad at the 80‒90 cm level. The feature was pedestaled to 100 cm. Expansion units 100, 101 and 102 (1 x 1 m) were opened at the northeast corner of unit 48 to determine the feature boundaries. The feature ranged from 86 to 98 cmbd. Two bags of soil were collected for later flotation. Soil for this unit was piled on plastic for later screening, but at 120 cm the soil was bagged for this purpose. The crew was feeling pressure to finish the unit so that construction could proceed. Heavy rain held off development but slowed the excavation process. Personnel replacements and additions were noted because of illness and the Thanksgiving holiday.
224
Unit 48: 0–38 cm. The first 38+ cm of the unit was a disturbed context. Fill was encountered up to 5cmbd, then a layer of asphalt about 5 cm thick. Under the asphalt was another layer of fill up to 22 cm thick, after which the crew ran into concrete for the next 13 cm. Midden began under the concrete. Unit 48: 38–50 cm. Soil was black/brown silty clay, mixed with fill and angular rocks. Lithic tools included a basalt core, quartzite core, fire-cracked mano fragment, scraper/chopper, and a core/hammerstone. Two otoliths were part of the recovered bone. Unit 48: 50–60 cm. Soil color is the same, but medium-sized cobbles were sparsely scattered throughout. One basalt core, a retouched flake, and an incised stone with asphaltum were recorded in level records. Shell fragments included one large oyster shell. Unit 48: 60–70 cm. No change in soil. Lithics found included a core, chopper, biface fragment, a piece of worked modelo, and three pieces of possible ground stone. An abalone ornament appeared in the southeast quad. Five otoliths were identified. 15% of the bone fragments were burned. Unit 48: 70–80 cm. No change was observed in soil color, though there was an increase in cobbles of a small size and fire-cracked rock. Roots and rodent activity were noted. Excavators noted some caliche on the rocks. Three basalt cores and one possible ground stone fragment with asphaltum were recovered. Bone included six otoliths. Flecks and chunks of charcoals were scattered throughout the level. The shell fragments included 15 pieces of abalone. Unit 48: 80–90 cm. Soil is black/brown with medium-sized cobbles. Disturbance was comprised of a few roots and some rodent activity. Lithic tools were made up of
225
three cores, biface tip, basalt biface base, four crypto-crystalline biface fragments, and an unspecified amount of ground stone. Bone included three otoliths and two pieces of worked material. Feature #48 was encountered in this level. It was described as either a cluster of rocks or a cairn. The feature was located in the northeast corner, so three 1 x 1 m units were opened to discover how far the feature extended (units 100, 101 and 102). Further information follows in the Unit 48 Summary. Unit 48: 90–100 cm. Cobbles in this level were sparse and described as small. No soil color was evident. The crew found a projectile point tip, a soapstone bowl fragment, and a piece of burned daub. Feature #48 was present in this level and was pedestaled. Unit 48: 100–110 cm. Excavators note a slight increase in cobbles and two small rodent holes, but soil was otherwise unchanged from the previous level. Lithics included the following tools: basalt core, fused shale biface fragment, chalcedony biface fragment, and a metate and a bowl fragment. Six otoliths were recovered with the bone. Charcoal flecks and chunks were scattered about the unit. Fourteen chunks of asphaltum were recorded. Unit 48: 110–120 cm. The unit was excavated in sections—the west half, and the northeast and southeast quads. Fewer cobbles showed up in this level. Some roots and rodent activity were present. A piece of historic glass occurred in this level. Beads included 3 whole and 2 fragmented shell beads, and one of bone. Two fossil shark teeth appeared, as well as a mano fragment. Unit 48: 120–130 cm. The whole unit was excavated in quads at this level. Some flecks of modelo appeared in the soil, which had very little gravel or rocks. No change in
226
disturbance occurred. The single historic was a piece of plastic. Of the beads found, a bone bead and one Olivella grooved rectangular bead are notable. Lithics included a projectile point tip, biface fragment, and a possible hammerstone. Two artifacts were recorded on a level map—a bowl fragment and a possible basalt tool. They were not in the artifact inventory list but noted in the remarks on the level record. Unit 48: 130–140 cm. The crew stopped excavating the unit in quads. There was no change in soil or disturbance. The crew found a quartz projectile point and an otolith. One of the shell ornaments was a fragment, another was an Olivella grooved rectangular bead. Unit 48: 140–150 cm. Rodent burrowing and sporadic modelo showed up at this level. Tools included a bone awl fragment; fragments of a basalt biface, quartz projectile point, and fused shale biface; two ground stone pieces; and one possible ground stone fragment. The four shell beads included one Olivella grooved rectangular style, and bone included three otoliths. Unit 48: 150–160 cm. No change in soil was evident. Lithic tools uncovered were a fragmentary fire-affected mano, another mano fragment, metate fragment, and one possible mano. Three otoliths were part of the recovered bone. Of the seven shell beads, at least one is an Olivella grooved rectangular bead, based on a level record drawing. One ceramic figurine was present. Unit 48: 160–170 cm. No change in soil occurred. A chert projectile point, fused shale projectile point base, two chert projectile point fragments, one chert biface fragment, one hammerstone, and two possible pieces of ground stone were noted. Shell pieces included one whole salt water snail shell, and three out of the four shell beads
227
were Olivella grooved rectangular. One bone bead, one shark tooth, and one antler bone were present. Unit 48: 170–180 cm. Soil color remained the same, though modelo increased in quantity. Rodent activity was observed in the south and east walls. Historics were fifteen pieces of asphalt. Bone included rodent and large mammal. The five shell beads were two whole Olivella, one Olivella disk, one clam, and one Olivella grooved rectangular bead. Unit 48: 180–190 cm. No change in soil occurred, but rodent activity was noted in the east and west walls. Eight pieces of asphalt were reported in this level. Unit 48: 190–200 cm. Soil was mottled with modelo. Historic material was comprised of eleven pieces of asphalt. Lithic tools included just one tarring pebble. Unit 48: 200–210 cm. Slab modelo appeared in the southeast quad, while other quads were about half modelo. Four chunks of asphalt were noted. The small amount of bone was recorded as mostly burned rodent. Charcoal was observed in the northeast quad. Two pieces of fired clay and one bead of either glass or porcelain were recovered. Unit 48: 210–220 cm. Bedrock started to appear in the south half of the unit, and rodent activity was observed throughout. Historic material included 26 chunks of asphalt. One fire-affected mano was found. Bone included unburned rodent and burned large mammal. Unit 48: 220–230 cm. The first six centimeters of soil speckled with modelo yielded to a larger amount of modelo. Rodent activity is recorded. The southwest corner was not excavated, apparently because rodent activity was not noted there. The bone fragments were mostly burned and unburned rodent.
228
Unit 48: 230+ cm. The unit was comprised of modelo bedrock with some rodent holes. Three of the four bone fragments were burned. Unit 48 Summary. In total, twenty levels were excavated in unit 48 that included artifactual material. That is, below fill, a layer of asphalt and one layer of concrete, midden was encountered at 38 cmbd. Rodent disturbance was observed in most levels of the unit. Soil was consistently black/brown silty clay through 120 cm. Thereafter, increasing amounts of modelo were seen as the unit was excavated. Bedrock intruded on the south half of the unit at 210 cm. Soil appeared somewhat lighter in color from 190 cm down to bedrock, which may be due to the increased amount of modelo. One feature, #48, was designated for this unit. Because it was in the unit corner, three additional units (100, 101 and 102) were opened around the corner to determine the feature’s extent. A rock cluster uncovered in these adjacent units between 60 and 90 cmbd was given feature number, #29. The unit summary noted that fire-affected rock was most prevalent in unit 48 for levels associated with Features 48 and 49. The feature #48 summary suggests that these two features were not separated by more than 5 cm of midden, and probably should have been subsumed under a single feature designation. Most bone was reportedly unburned rodent remains, although larger mammal was encountered in the 170‒180 and 210‒220 cm levels. Other bones present were bird, fish, and reptile. Charcoal and seeds were most abundant in the 90‒100 level, in which Feature #48 was also present. Shell detritus declined in general after 130 cm. An abalone ornament was found in the 60‒70 cm level. At least one Olivella grooved rectangular bead was identified as present in each level between 120 and 180 cm. Below 170 cm, any historic material recorded was reported as asphalt. A nearly complete ceramic figurine
229
was recovered from 150‒160 cm. With some exceptions, lithic debitage was recorded in level records as portions of a bag, so it is not possible to estimate exact quantities present at excavation. Table 58. Unit 48 Artifact Inventory Reported Upon Excavation. Charcoal, seeds, and bone are recorded in pieces (noted with a “p”) or in the portion of a film canister(s) full of material. “Y” signifies that the material is present, but in an unspecified quantity. *Feature #48 is present in these levels.
Shell Bead/Ornament
Seeds/Nut Shells
Charcoal
Ochre/Other Pigment
Pottery/Daub
Other
‒
‒
20 74 52 140 90 64
7 11 7 11 8 3
9p 123p 70p Y 521p 100p
0.50 2.00 1.00 1.00 6.00 4.00
‒ 2 1 11 ‒ ‒
‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ 1 ‒
‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ 14
1 1 ‒ ‒ ‒ 1 ‒
139 111 91 64 59 77 59
5 4 2 4 7 4 5
4p 1.25 47p 40p 16p 56p 19p
Y 5.00 0.50 0.25 0.13 0.50 0.06
1 ‒ 12 6 7 17 10
‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ 1 ‒ ‒
‒ 14 ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒
‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒
12 18 16 29 9 ‒
4 2 ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒
22p 38p 51p 61p 31p 2p
7p 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 ‒
2 ‒ 6 4 1 ‒
‒ ‒ 2 ‒ ‒ ‒
‒ ‒ 1 ‒ ‒ ‒
Bone Tool
‒
Bone
0.50
Fire-Affected Rock
Shell
Bone Bead/Ornament
Lithic Bead/Ornament
10p
Lithic Tools
12
Debitage
Layer of asphalt and cement; no artifacts recorded 66 100 5 ‒ 1 3.34 ‒ ‒ 21
Historics
Level (cm)
Unit 48 Artifact Inventory Reported Upon Excavation
0-38 38-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90* 90-100* 100-110
32 31 4 13 50 ‒
100 Y Y 200 Y Y
3 7 4 10 2 5
‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒
9 118 Y 100 29 24
3.50 Y Y Y 6.00 3.75
‒ ‒ ‒ 2 ‒ ‒
‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒
110-120 120-130 130-140 140-150 150-160 160-170 170-180
1 1 14 89 51 7 15
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
1 5 1 7 4 8 ‒
‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒
22 40 ‒ 12 6 14 8
Y Y 3.00 3.13 3.00 4.00 4.00
‒ ‒ ‒ 1 ‒ ‒ ‒
180-190 190-200 200-210 210-220 220-230 230+
8 11 4 26 ‒ ‒
Y Y Y Y Y 3
‒ 1 ‒ 1 ‒ ‒
‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒
‒ ‒ ‒ 1 ‒ ‒
1.25 1.00 0.50 1.5 0.25 4p
‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒
230
APPENDIX H — ENERGY DISPERSIVE X-RAY FLUORESCENCE REPORT FROM THE GEOCHEMICAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
231
232
233
234
APPENDIX I — OBSIDIAN HYDRATION REPORT FROM ORIGER’S OBSIDIAN LABORATORY
235
236
APPENDIX J — OBSIDIAN HYDRATION TEST RESULTS Table 59. Obsidian Hydration Test Results. *Years before present are in years before A.D. 2000. †Specimen I had two hydration bands, the first of which was too diffuse to measure. Colors correspond to samples from different units. DH=diffuse hydration, indicating samples for which a hydration band could not be derived. N/A indicates that radiocarbon determinations were not available.
SAMPLE ID
UNIT
LEVEL (cm)
G
8
60-70
A
8
110-120
B
8
130-140
C
8
130-140
D
8
140-150
E
8
150-160
F
8
150-160
H
20
160-170
I
20
170-180
I
20
170-180
J
20
210-220
K
38
110-120
Q
48
50-60
R
48
60-70
S
48
80-90
T
48
80-90
U
48
80-90
L
48
100-110
M
48
120-130
N
48
120-130
O
48
150-160
P
48
170-180
OBSIDIAN SOURCE
West Sugarloaf Casa Diablo West Sugarloaf West Sugarloaf West Sugarloaf West Sugarloaf West Sugarloaf West Sugarloaf West Sugarloaf West Sugarloaf West Sugarloaf Sugarloaf Mtn. West Sugarloaf West Sugarloaf Unknown West Sugarloaf West Sugarloaf West Sugarloaf West Sugarloaf Joshua Ridge West Sugarloaf West Sugarloaf
HYDRATION MEAN (μm)
YEARS B.P.*
YEARS A.D./B.C.
MEDIAN CALIBRATED RADIOCARBON DATES AD (Taylor et al. 1986)
4.2
335
AD 1665
AD 1758
4.9
470
AD 1530
AD 1041
4.2
346
AD 1654
AD 1041
6.6
856
AD 1144
AD 784
7.0
965
AD 1035
AD 897
8.8
1531
AD 469
AD 235
7.6
1148
AD 852
AD 532
11.9
4539
2539 BC
N/A
4.0
301
AD 1699
N/A
4.9
456
AD 1544
N/A
7.5
1081
AD 919
N/A
6.4
787
AD 1213
N/A
4.2
342
AD 1658
N/A
6.6
851
AD 1149
N/A
6.8
1109
AD 891
N/A
7.1
993
AD 1007
N/A
6.3
785
AD 1215
N/A
DH
DH DH DH†
DH
237
APPENDIX K — OBSIDIAN HYDRATION ANALYSIS REPORT FROM KATHLEEN L. HULL, PH.D.
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
APPENDIX L — BEAD INVENTORIES FOR THREE RESEARCH UNITS WITHOUT RADIOCARBON DETERMINATIONS (UNITS 19, 38, AND 48) Table 60. Unit 19 Bead Inventory. Level (cm) 30-40 50-60 50-60 90-100 100-110 100-110 120-130 130-140 130-140 130-140 130-140 140-150 140-150 140-150 140-150 140-150 140-150 140-150 150-160 150-160
Quad Cat. No.
Series
Diam (mm)
Perf (mm)
9.23 x 10.90 8.78 x 10.27 3.01 11.32
1.94 1.96
NW SE NW NW SW NW SW
90968 90968 90999 90972 91077 91003 90995 90971 90970 91146 91041 91146 91146 90971 91126 91000
E2a1 E1b1 K2 A1c ‒ ‒ A1b A1a A2a G1 K1a ‒ ‒ A1b A2a B4a B4a G1 ‒ A1b
150-160
SE
90969
160-170 160-170 170-180 180-190 180-190 190-200 190-200 200-210 200-210 200-210 220-230 220-230 240-250 250-260
NW SW NW NE SE
91161 90994 90964 91001 91181 90967 90967 90940 91139 91139 90963 90997 91173 90917
NE
SE SE SW SW SW
SE NE NE SW NW SE
2.03
Ht (mm)
Notes oval oval
20.12 dentalium dentalium
6.70 4.63 5.87 3.76 3.43
2.39 1.80 2.47 1.00 0.94
10.85 6.92 8.77
7.02 5.70 3.79 6.05 4.97
1.63 1.27 1.66 2.46 1.43
14.31 9.71
7.14
0.97
12.56
H?
4.58
0.76
A1a G1 A2b A1a A1a A1a A1a A B3a B4a B4a B4a ‒ A1a
2.73 4.83 7.02 4.27 6.46 3.91 5.69
1.20 1.60 2.12 1.00 1.01 0.83 1.04
3.76
4.72 5.98 5.53 3.98
1.89 2.80 2.20 2.10
5.33 4.12 3.79 2.65
4.58
1.12
8.37
small perforated haliotis ornament; fragment rock scallop?; LP phase 2 very elongated biplicata burnt, fragment thick 0.46 mm thick 1.22 mm fissurella
245
probably H, but determination not secure
11.47 7.27 11.21 6.02 9.02 too broken to derive measurements thick 1.01 mm thick 0.73 mm thick 0.75 mm thick 0.50 mm dentalium
Table 61. Unit 38 Bead Inventory. Level (cm) 30-40 30-40 40-50 40-50 40-50 40-50 40-50 50-60 50-60 50-60 50-60 50-60 50-60 50-60 50-60 50-60 50-60 60-70 60-70 60-70 60-70 60-70 60-70
Quad
Series
SW SW SE NE SE SE NW
G2a J1 ‒ E1a1 E2a1 G2 G4 ‒ A2 B3 E1a1 E1a1 G1 G1 G1 J1 K1a A1a A1a E1a1 G1 G1 G1
70-80
‒
70-80 70-80 70-80 70-80 70-80 80-90 80-90 80-90 80-90 90-100 90-100 90-100 90-100 90-100 90-100 90-100 90-100 90-100 90-100 90-100 90-100 90-100 90-100 90-100 90-100 90-100 90-100 100-110
A1a A1a A1a G1 G1 A1a A2a A2a G2a ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ A1a A1a A1a A1a A1b A1b A1b B2b B3 B3 G1 G1 G2a G2b ‒
Diam (mm)
Perf (mm)
5.33 5.59 3.67 x 4.00 5.34 7.81 x 9.32
1.38 1.61 1.78 1.83 2.14
4.52
1.21
3.70 6.16 5.57 3.63 4.46 4.29 5.42 3.65 3.36 3.49 6.34 x 7.08 4.16 4.50 4.10
2.25 1.98 1.97 1.09 1.16 1.39 1.53 1.26 0.98 1.55 1.24 1.21 1.79 1.00
Ht (mm)
Thick (mm)
Notes
(was G); LP type squarish specimen 3.02
1.87 full lipped; oval broken middle period, triangular; clam large, oblique spiral lopped
10.91 3.66
lipped; round lipped; round with flat edge on one side
(was M2a) oblong aperture; with asphaltum lipped; round; has a shelf 2.37 5.22 5.41 4.55
squared megathura crenulata fragment; Phase M4 5.66 4.60 3.63 4.10 4.51 3.64 5.00 5.34 5.68
2.23 1.75 1.43 1.12 1.00 1.82 2.84 1.53 1.26
5.01 x 6.76 4.40 x 5.35 5.78 x 7.17 3.30 3.24 4.51 4.40 6.66 8.27 8.75 6.79 5.11 4.66 4.83 4.30 5.16 7.51 3.44 x 5.50
1.77 1.26 1.36 0.78 0.88 1.23 1.24 2.83 2.29 1.93 2.65 2.64 1.95 1.46 1.10 1.63 2.01 1.92
8.20 7.66 5.92
6.36 10.08 8.08 1.06 1.25 0.95 5.35 5.58 7.41 6.69 9.53 12.69 14.81 7.53 4.31 3.85
burnt
0.82
246
burnt; irregular perforation burnt mussel with asphaltum; M5a or M5b asphaltum present; squarish specimen squarish specimen doesn't fit B&H; early/middle type
(was M); squarish specimen
Level (cm) 100-110 110-120 110-120 110-120 110-120 110-120 110-120 110-120 110-120 110-120 110-120 120-130 120-130 120-130 130-140 130-140 130-140 130-140 130-140 130-140 130-140 130-140 130-140 140-150 140-150 140-150 140-150 150-160 160-170 180-190
Quad
Series B3 ‒ A1b A1b A1b A2 B3b B4 G1 G2a K2 A1c A2 A2 ‒ ‒ ‒ A1a A1a A1a B3 B3 G1 ‒ ‒ ‒ A1a B3a A1a A1a
Diam (mm)
Perf (mm)
Ht (mm)
Thick (mm)
5.12
5.22 3.84
1.75 0.89 1.73 1.21
Notes fragment chiton fragment
8.52 7.61 6.63 7.34 5.51 2.54
medium, oblique spire-lopped fragment
burnt 2.10 13.78 6.39 6.15
3.70 5.59 6.06 4.52 4.03 4.44
1.57 1.37 2.83 2.58 2.20 1.28
6.08 8.64 8.95 4.36 3.01
4.06 4.67 5.38 6.45
1.20 2.34 1.71 1.97
5.85 3.69 7.96 11.06
1.40 small, oblique spire-lopped small, oblique spire-lopped fissurella; ground and modified haliotus tube; dentalium (pretiosum?)
with asphaltum abalone disk fragment oyster fragment conus
247
burnt
Table 62. Unit 48 Bead Inventory. OGR=Olivella grooved rectangular bead Level (cm)
Quad Series
38-50 38-50 38-50 38-50 38-50 38-50 38-50 38-50 38-50 38-50 38-50 38-50 50-60 50-60 50-60 50-60 50-60 50-60 50-60 60-70 60-70 60-70 60-70 60-70 60-70 60-70 60-70 70-80 70-80 80-90 80-90 80-90 80-90 80-90 80-90 80-90 80-90 80-90 80-90 80-90 80-90 90-100 90-100 90-100 90-100 90-100
W SE NE W W
E1b1 G G1 G1 G1 G1 G2a G2a G2a J K2 K2 G G1 G1 G1 G2a K1 K1 A1a – – G G1 G1 G1 G1 G1 G1 A1a A1a G G1 G1 G1 G2a G2a G2a G2a G5 J B2a B4a G1 G1 G1
90-100 90-100 90-100 100-110 100-110
W W NE W W
G1 G1 G2a A1a G1
Diam (mm)
Perf (mm)
6.68
1.9
3.97 3.93 4.26 3.9 5.9 5.74 5.64 4.34 3.63 3.77
1.2 2 2.1 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.5 1 1.4 1.4
3.89 4.59 4.34 5.52 6.58 6.04 4.00
1.5 1.5 1.4 1.2 2.3 2.1
Ht (mm)
Notes
broken
string wear
with asphaltum uneven circumference, broken
broken
3.05 3.24 6.73 abalone pendant, two perforations dentalium broken
4.51 3.76 3.59 3.85 3.61 4.65 5.46 3.83
1.8 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.1 1.0
4.9 4.26 4.48 6.47 x 5.79 6.62 5.8 5.24 5.80 x 4.96 4.63 4.86 4.2 4.18 4.48 4.83
1.3 1.6 1.3 1.8 2.2 1.6 1.5 1.7 0.9
4.39 4.55 6.12 x 6.30 5.56 3.87
1.6 1.4 1.38
burnt 7.56 6.34 burnt, broken
burnt
6.61 2.5 1.34 1.2 1.8
burnt
burnt, chipped edges 10.77
1.8
248
Level (cm)
100-110 110-120 110-120 110-120 110-120 110-120 120-130 120-130 120-130 130-140 130-140 140-150 140-150 140-150 140-150 150-160 150-160 150-160 150-160 150-160 150-160 150-160 160-170 160-170 170-180 170-180 170-180 170-180 180-190 180-190
Quad Series
Diam (mm)
Perf (mm)
NE W NE W W W SE W W
5.73
1.7
G2a A A1a A1a B G1 A1a B3 N2 (OGR) – N2 (OGR) B3 B4a G N2 (OGR) A1a B3a B3a B3a – – N2 (OGR) G1 – A1b B3b N2 (OGR) – B3a B3
180-190
–
180-190 190-200 190-200 200-210
G1 B3a K2 –
Ht (mm)
Notes
broken 5.08 6.44
7.61 9.19 broken
3.99 5.38
1.3 8.59 broken 5.61 disk fragment (clam?) 5.66 broken
5.86
2.63
4.85 6.09 6.58 6.15
6.21 8.23 5.47 3.87 4.27
broken
broken end
clam disk dentalium 8.04 4.59
1.3
with asphaltum limpet
6.71 7.71
10.54 7.45 5.8
5.13 5.8 10.01 x 11.71 4.98 5.14 3.77
4.12 4.09
triangular clam disk
1.6
broken clam disk
1.7 3.1 2.2
burnt turquoise glass
249
APPENDIX M — BEAD TYPES AND QUANTITIES BY LEVEL IN UNITS 19, 38, AND 48 Table 63. Unit 19 Bead Types and Quantity by Level.
A 1
A1b
1
1
A1c
1
2
250-260
240-250
2
1
1
1
A2a
1
1
A2b
1
B3a
1
B4a
2
E1b1
1
2
1 1
G1
1
1
H?
1 1
K1a K2
220-230
1
A1a
E2a1
200-210
190-200
180-190
170-180
160-170
150-160
140-150
130-140
120-130
90-100
50-60
30-40
Bead Type
100-110
Unit Level (cm)
1 1
Dentalium
2
1
Fissurella
1
Haliotis
1
Rock Scallop?
1
Table 64. Unit 38 Bead Types and Quantity by Level.
A1a
2
3
1
A1b
4
3
3
1
1
3
A1c
1
A2
1
2a
B2b
1
2
1
B3
1
2
B4
1
1b 1
E1a1
1
E2a1
1
2
1
250
2
1a
180-190
160-170
150-160
140-150
130-140
120-130
110-120
100-110
80-90
70-80
60-70
50-60
40-50
30-40
Bead Type
90-100
Unit Level (cm)
1
G1
3
G2 indeterminate size G2a
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
G4
1 1
1
K1a
1
K2 Abalone disk
1
Chiton fragment
1
Conus
1
Dentalium
1
Fissurella
1
Haliotis
1
Mussel with asphaltum
1
Oyster
1
Squared megathura crenulata
1
Triangular clam
1
Unique square/rectangle
1
2
Unknown*
1
1
1
Table 65. Unit 48 Bead Types and Quantity by Level.
A A1a
1 1
2
1
2
1
1
A1b
1
A1c B B2a B3
1 1 1
251
1
1
200-210
190-200
180-190
170-180
160-170
150-160
140-150
130-140
120-130
110-120
100-110
80-90
70-80
60-70
50-60
38-50
Bead Type
90-100
Unit Level (cm)
180-190
160-170
150-160
140-150
130-140
120-130 1
1
G2b J1
110-120
90-100
80-90
70-80
60-70
50-60
40-50
30-40
Bead Type
100-110
Unit Level (cm)
B3b 1
E1b1
1
G
1
1
1
G1
4
3
4
G2a
3
1
G5 1
1 2
200-210
1
3
5
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
2 2
1 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Clam Disk Dentalium
190-200
1
1
N2 (OGR) Abalone Pendant
1
1
K1b K2
1 1
B4a
J
170-180
160-170
3
180-190
B3a
150-160
140-150
130-140
120-130
110-120
100-110
80-90
70-80
60-70
50-60
38-50
Bead Type
90-100
Unit Level (cm)
1 1
1
1
Limpet
1
Glass
1
252
APPENDIX N — STRATIGRAPHIC PROFILES AND LITHOFACIES FOR THE FIVE RESEARCH UNITS Key to Stratigraphic Profile Lithofacies
F1 and F2 = Fill
Ic = Modelo Formation (bedrock)
IIa = Upper Slopewash Deposit
IIb = Lower Slopewash Deposit
IIIa = Slopewash/Overbank Facies
IIIb = Slopewash/Overbank Facies
IVa = Debris Flow Facies
IVb = Debris Flow Facies
V = Stream Facies
VI = Reworked Slopewash Facies
fbs = Fine, Brown Sand Beds
253
Figure 40. Unit 8 Stratigraphic Profile.
254
Figure 41. Unit 19 Stratigraphic Profile.
255
Figure 42. Unit 20 Stratigraphic Profile.
256
Figure 43. Unit 38 Stratigraphic Profile.
257
Figure 44. Unit 48 Stratigraphic Profile. The missing sections represent adjacent 1 x 1 m units (Unit 100 to the north and 102 to the east). The missing sections were excavated prior to illustration of the Unit 48 profile.
258
APPENDIX O — ANOVA POST HOC RESULTS FOR ALL FIVE RESEARCH UNITS TO DETERMINE CHRONOLOGICAL CLUSTERING OF UNIT LEVELS Table 66. Unit 8 ANOVA Post Hoc Multiple Comparisons. *The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level. †Clusters, in yellow, were determined by comparing radiocarbon dates, stratigraphic levels, and statistical significance. §Levels between 0 and 50 cm were removed because they consist mainly of fill; the 210+ level was removed because it is not a complete 10 cm level and is therefore volumetrically inconsistent with the rest of the unit levels. Unit 8 ANOVA Post Hoc Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable: LSD
(I) Levels 50-60 cm§
60-70 cm
60-70 cm 70-80 cm 80-90 cm 90-100 cm 100-110 cm 110-120 cm 120-130 cm 130-140 cm 140-150 cm 150-160 cm 160-170 cm 170-180 cm 180-190 cm 190-200 cm 200-210 cm 50-60 cm 70-80 cm 80-90 cm 90-100 cm 100-110 cm 110-120 cm 120-130 cm 130-140 cm 140-150 cm 150-160 cm 160-170 cm 170-180 cm
Mean Difference (I-J) -4.77778 -0.11111 -13.22222 -7.77778 -13.44444 -19.55556 -28.44444 -56.88889* -38.77778 -51.44444* -56.88889* -24.22222 -7.88889 1.22222 6.66667 4.77778 4.66667 -8.44444 -3.00000 -8.66667 -14.77778 -23.66667 -52.11111* -34.00000 -46.66667 -52.11111* -19.44444
95% Confidence Interval Std. Error 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473
259
Sig.† 0.842 0.996 0.582 0.746 0.576 0.416 0.237 0.019 0.108 0.033 0.019 0.314 0.743 0.959 0.781 0.842 0.846 0.725 0.901 0.718 0.539 0.325 0.031 0.158 0.053 0.031 0.419
Lower Bound -52.1088 -47.4421 -60.5532 -55.1088 -60.7754 -66.8866 -75.7754 -104.2199 -86.1088 -98.7754 -104.2199 -71.5532 -55.2199 -46.1088 -40.6643 -42.5532 -42.6643 -55.7754 -50.3310 -55.9977 -62.1088 -70.9977 -99.4421 -81.3310 -93.9977 -99.4421 -66.7754
Upper Bound 42.5532 47.2199 34.1088 39.5532 33.8866 27.7754 18.8866 -9.5579 8.5532 -4.1134 -9.5579 23.1088 39.4421 48.5532 53.9977 52.1088 51.9977 38.8866 44.3310 38.6643 32.5532 23.6643 -4.7801 13.3310 0.6643 -4.7801 27.8866
Unit 8 ANOVA Post Hoc Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable: LSD
(I) Levels
70-80 cm
80-90 cm
90-100 cm
180-190 cm 190-200 cm 200-210 cm 50-60 cm 60-70 cm 90-100 cm 100-110 cm 110-120 cm 120-130 cm 130-140 cm 140-150 cm 150-160 cm 160-170 cm 170-180 cm 180-190 cm 190-200 cm 200-210 cm 50-60 cm 60-70 cm 70-80 cm 90-100 cm 100-110 cm 110-120 cm 120-130 cm 130-140 cm 140-150 cm 150-160 cm 160-170 cm 170-180 cm 180-190 cm 190-200 cm 200-210 cm 50-60 cm 60-70 cm 70-80 cm 80-90 cm 100-110 cm 110-120 cm
Mean Difference (I-J) -3.11111 6.00000 11.44444 0.11111 -4.66667 -7.66667 -13.33333 -19.44444 -28.33333 -56.77778* -38.66667 -51.33333* -56.77778* -24.11111 -7.77778 1.33333 6.77778 13.22222 8.44444 13.11111 5.44444 -0.22222 -6.33333 -15.22222 -43.66667 -25.55556 -38.22222 -43.66667 -11.00000 5.33333 14.44444 19.88889 7.77778 3.00000 7.66667 -5.44444 -5.66667 -11.77778
95% Confidence Interval Std. Error 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473
260
Sig.† 0.897 0.803 0.634 0.996 0.846 0.750 0.579 0.419 0.239 0.019 0.109 0.034 0.019 0.316 0.746 0.956 0.778 0.582 0.725 0.585 0.821 0.993 0.792 0.526 0.070 0.288 0.113 0.070 0.647 0.824 0.548 0.408 0.746 0.901 0.750 0.821 0.814 0.624
Lower Bound -50.4421 -41.3310 -35.8866 -47.2199 -51.9977 -54.9977 -60.6643 -66.7754 -75.6643 -104.1088 -85.9977 -98.6643 -104.1088 -71.4421 -55.1088 -45.9977 -40.5532 -34.1088 -38.8866 -34.2199 -41.8866 -47.5532 -53.6643 -62.5532 -90.9977 -72.8866 -85.5532 -90.9977 -58.3310 -41.9977 -32.8866 -27.4421 -39.5532 -44.3310 -39.6643 -52.7754 -52.9977 -59.1088
Upper Bound 44.2199 53.3310 58.7754 47.4421 42.6643 39.6643 33.9977 27.8866 18.9977 -9.4468 8.6643 -4.0023 -9.4468 23.2199 39.5532 48.6643 54.1088 60.5532 55.7754 60.4421 52.7754 47.1088 40.9977 32.1088 3.6643 21.7754 9.1088 3.6643 36.3310 52.6643 61.7754 67.2199 55.1088 50.3310 54.9977 41.8866 41.6643 35.5532
Unit 8 ANOVA Post Hoc Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable: LSD
(I) Levels
100-110 cm
110-120 cm
120-130 cm 130-140 cm 140-150 cm 150-160 cm 160-170 cm 170-180 cm 180-190 cm 190-200 cm 200-210 cm 50-60 cm 60-70 cm 70-80 cm 80-90 cm 90-100 cm 110-120 cm 120-130 cm 130-140 cm 140-150 cm 150-160 cm 160-170 cm 170-180 cm 180-190 cm 190-200 cm 200-210 cm 50-60 cm 60-70 cm 70-80 cm 80-90 cm 90-100 cm 100-110 cm 120-130 cm 130-140 cm 140-150 cm 150-160 cm 160-170 cm 170-180 cm 180-190 cm 190-200 cm
Mean Difference (I-J) -20.66667 -49.11111* -31.00000 -43.66667 -49.11111* -16.44444 -0.11111 9.00000 14.44444 13.44444 8.66667 13.33333 0.22222 5.66667 -6.11111 -15.00000 -43.44444 -25.33333 -38.00000 -43.44444 -10.77778 5.55556 14.66667 20.11111 19.55556 14.77778 19.44444 6.33333 11.77778 6.11111 -8.88889 -37.33333 -19.22222 -31.88889 -37.33333 -4.66667 11.66667 20.77778
95% Confidence Interval Std. Error 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473
261
Sig.† 0.390 0.042 0.198 0.070 0.042 0.494 0.996 0.708 0.548 0.576 0.718 0.579 0.993 0.814 0.799 0.533 0.072 0.292 0.115 0.072 0.654 0.817 0.542 0.403 0.416 0.539 0.419 0.792 0.624 0.799 0.711 0.121 0.424 0.185 0.121 0.846 0.627 0.387
Lower Bound -67.9977 -96.4421 -78.3310 -90.9977 -96.4421 -63.7754 -47.4421 -38.3310 -32.8866 -33.8866 -38.6643 -33.9977 -47.1088 -41.6643 -53.4421 -62.3310 -90.7754 -72.6643 -85.3310 -90.7754 -58.1088 -41.7754 -32.6643 -27.2199 -27.7754 -32.5532 -27.8866 -40.9977 -35.5532 -41.2199 -56.2199 -84.6643 -66.5532 -79.2199 -84.6643 -51.9977 -35.6643 -26.5532
Upper Bound 26.6643 -1.7801 16.3310 3.6643 -1.7801 30.8866 47.2199 56.3310 61.7754 60.7754 55.9977 60.6643 47.5532 52.9977 41.2199 32.3310 3.8866 21.9977 9.3310 3.8866 36.5532 52.8866 61.9977 67.4421 66.8866 62.1088 66.7754 53.6643 59.1088 53.4421 38.4421 9.9977 28.1088 15.4421 9.9977 42.6643 58.9977 68.1088
Unit 8 ANOVA Post Hoc Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable: LSD
(I) Levels 120-130 cm
130-140 cm
140-150 cm
200-210 cm 50-60 cm 60-70 cm 70-80 cm 80-90 cm 90-100 cm 100-110 cm 110-120 cm 130-140 cm 140-150 cm 150-160 cm 160-170 cm 170-180 cm 180-190 cm 190-200 cm 200-210 cm 50-60 cm 60-70 cm 70-80 cm 80-90 cm 90-100 cm 100-110 cm 110-120 cm 120-130 cm 140-150 cm 150-160 cm 160-170 cm 170-180 cm 180-190 cm 190-200 cm 200-210 cm 50-60 cm 60-70 cm 70-80 cm 80-90 cm 90-100 cm 100-110 cm 110-120 cm
Mean Difference (I-J) 26.22222 28.44444 23.66667 28.33333 15.22222 20.66667 15.00000 8.88889 -28.44444 -10.33333 -23.00000 -28.44444 4.22222 20.55556 29.66667 35.11111 56.88889* 52.11111* 56.77778* 43.66667 49.11111* 43.44444 37.33333 28.44444 18.11111 5.44444 0.00000 32.66667 49.00000* 58.11111* 63.55556* 38.77778 34.00000 38.66667 25.55556 31.00000 25.33333 19.22222
95% Confidence Interval Std. Error 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473
262
Sig.† 0.276 0.237 0.325 0.239 0.526 0.390 0.533 0.711 0.237 0.667 0.339 0.237 0.860 0.393 0.218 0.145 0.019 0.031 0.019 0.070 0.042 0.072 0.121 0.237 0.451 0.821 1.000 0.175 0.043 0.016 0.009 0.108 0.158 0.109 0.288 0.198 0.292 0.424
Lower Bound -21.1088 -18.8866 -23.6643 -18.9977 -32.1088 -26.6643 -32.3310 -38.4421 -75.7754 -57.6643 -70.3310 -75.7754 -43.1088 -26.7754 -17.6643 -12.2199 9.5579 4.7801 9.4468 -3.6643 1.7801 -3.8866 -9.9977 -18.8866 -29.2199 -41.8866 -47.3310 -14.6643 1.6690 10.7801 16.2246 -8.5532 -13.3310 -8.6643 -21.7754 -16.3310 -21.9977 -28.1088
Upper Bound 73.5532 75.7754 70.9977 75.6643 62.5532 67.9977 62.3310 56.2199 18.8866 36.9977 24.3310 18.8866 51.5532 67.8866 76.9977 82.4421 104.2199 99.4421 104.1088 90.9977 96.4421 90.7754 84.6643 75.7754 65.4421 52.7754 47.3310 79.9977 96.3310 105.4421 110.8866 86.1088 81.3310 85.9977 72.8866 78.3310 72.6643 66.5532
Unit 8 ANOVA Post Hoc Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable: LSD
(I) Levels
150-160 cm
160-170 cm
120-130 cm 130-140 cm 150-160 cm 160-170 cm 170-180 cm 180-190 cm 190-200 cm 200-210 cm 50-60 cm 60-70 cm 70-80 cm 80-90 cm 90-100 cm 100-110 cm 110-120 cm 120-130 cm 130-140 cm 140-150 cm 160-170 cm 170-180 cm 180-190 cm 190-200 cm 200-210 cm 50-60 cm 60-70 cm 70-80 cm 80-90 cm 90-100 cm 100-110 cm 110-120 cm 120-130 cm 130-140 cm 140-150 cm 150-160 cm 170-180 cm 180-190 cm 190-200 cm 200-210 cm
Mean Difference (I-J) 10.33333 -18.11111 -12.66667 -18.11111 14.55556 30.88889 40.00000 45.44444 51.44444* 46.66667 51.33333* 38.22222 43.66667 38.00000 31.88889 23.00000 -5.44444 12.66667 -5.44444 27.22222 43.55556 52.66667* 58.11111* 56.88889* 52.11111* 56.77778* 43.66667 49.11111* 43.44444 37.33333 28.44444 0.00000 18.11111 5.44444 32.66667 49.00000* 58.11111* 63.55556*
95% Confidence Interval Std. Error 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473
263
Sig.† 0.667 0.451 0.598 0.451 0.545 0.199 0.097 0.060 0.033 0.053 0.034 0.113 0.070 0.115 0.185 0.339 0.821 0.598 0.821 0.258 0.071 0.029 0.016 0.019 0.031 0.019 0.070 0.042 0.072 0.121 0.237 1.000 0.451 0.821 0.175 0.043 0.016 0.009
Lower Bound -36.9977 -65.4421 -59.9977 -65.4421 -32.7754 -16.4421 -7.3310 -1.8866 4.1134 -0.6643 4.0023 -9.1088 -3.6643 -9.3310 -15.4421 -24.3310 -52.7754 -34.6643 -52.7754 -20.1088 -3.7754 5.3357 10.7801 9.5579 4.7801 9.4468 -3.6643 1.7801 -3.8866 -9.9977 -18.8866 -47.3310 -29.2199 -41.8866 -14.6643 1.6690 10.7801 16.2246
Upper Bound 57.6643 29.2199 34.6643 29.2199 61.8866 78.2199 87.3310 92.7754 98.7754 93.9977 98.6643 85.5532 90.9977 85.3310 79.2199 70.3310 41.8866 59.9977 41.8866 74.5532 90.8866 99.9977 105.4421 104.2199 99.4421 104.1088 90.9977 96.4421 90.7754 84.6643 75.7754 47.3310 65.4421 52.7754 79.9977 96.3310 105.4421 110.8866
Unit 8 ANOVA Post Hoc Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable: LSD
(I) Levels 170-180 cm
180-190 cm
190-200 cm
50-60 cm 60-70 cm 70-80 cm 80-90 cm 90-100 cm 100-110 cm 110-120 cm 120-130 cm 130-140 cm 140-150 cm 150-160 cm 160-170 cm 180-190 cm 190-200 cm 200-210 cm 50-60 cm 60-70 cm 70-80 cm 80-90 cm 90-100 cm 100-110 cm 110-120 cm 120-130 cm 130-140 cm 140-150 cm 150-160 cm 160-170 cm 170-180 cm 190-200 cm 200-210 cm 50-60 cm 60-70 cm 70-80 cm 80-90 cm 90-100 cm 100-110 cm 110-120 cm 120-130 cm
Mean Difference (I-J) 24.22222 19.44444 24.11111 11.00000 16.44444 10.77778 4.66667 -4.22222 -32.66667 -14.55556 -27.22222 -32.66667 16.33333 25.44444 30.88889 7.88889 3.11111 7.77778 -5.33333 0.11111 -5.55556 -11.66667 -20.55556 -49.00000* -30.88889 -43.55556 -49.00000* -16.33333 9.11111 14.55556 -1.22222 -6.00000 -1.33333 -14.44444 -9.00000 -14.66667 -20.77778 -29.66667
95% Confidence Interval Std. Error 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473
264
Sig.† 0.314 0.419 0.316 0.647 0.494 0.654 0.846 0.860 0.175 0.545 0.258 0.175 0.497 0.290 0.199 0.743 0.897 0.746 0.824 0.996 0.817 0.627 0.393 0.043 0.199 0.071 0.043 0.497 0.704 0.545 0.959 0.803 0.956 0.548 0.708 0.542 0.387 0.218
Lower Bound -23.1088 -27.8866 -23.2199 -36.3310 -30.8866 -36.5532 -42.6643 -51.5532 -79.9977 -61.8866 -74.5532 -79.9977 -30.9977 -21.8866 -16.4421 -39.4421 -44.2199 -39.5532 -52.6643 -47.2199 -52.8866 -58.9977 -67.8866 -96.3310 -78.2199 -90.8866 -96.3310 -63.6643 -38.2199 -32.7754 -48.5532 -53.3310 -48.6643 -61.7754 -56.3310 -61.9977 -68.1088 -76.9977
Upper Bound 71.5532 66.7754 71.4421 58.3310 63.7754 58.1088 51.9977 43.1088 14.6643 32.7754 20.1088 14.6643 63.6643 72.7754 78.2199 55.2199 50.4421 55.1088 41.9977 47.4421 41.7754 35.6643 26.7754 -1.6690 16.4421 3.7754 -1.6690 30.9977 56.4421 61.8866 46.1088 41.3310 45.9977 32.8866 38.3310 32.6643 26.5532 17.6643
Unit 8 ANOVA Post Hoc Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable: LSD
(I) Levels
200-210 cm§
130-140 cm 140-150 cm 150-160 cm 160-170 cm 170-180 cm 180-190 cm 200-210 cm 50-60 cm 60-70 cm 70-80 cm 80-90 cm 90-100 cm 100-110 cm 110-120 cm 120-130 cm 130-140 cm 140-150 cm 150-160 cm 160-170 cm 170-180 cm 180-190 cm 190-200 cm
Mean Difference (I-J) -58.11111* -40.00000 -52.66667* -58.11111* -25.44444 -9.11111 5.44444 -6.66667 -11.44444 -6.77778 -19.88889 -14.44444 -20.11111 -26.22222 -35.11111 -63.55556* -45.44444 -58.11111* -63.55556* -30.88889 -14.55556 -5.44444
95% Confidence Interval Std. Error 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473 23.98473
265
Sig.† 0.016 0.097 0.029 0.016 0.290 0.704 0.821 0.781 0.634 0.778 0.408 0.548 0.403 0.276 0.145 0.009 0.060 0.016 0.009 0.199 0.545 0.821
Lower Bound -105.4421 -87.3310 -99.9977 -105.4421 -72.7754 -56.4421 -41.8866 -53.9977 -58.7754 -54.1088 -67.2199 -61.7754 -67.4421 -73.5532 -82.4421 -110.8866 -92.7754 -105.4421 -110.8866 -78.2199 -61.8866 -52.7754
Upper Bound -10.7801 7.3310 -5.3357 -10.7801 21.8866 38.2199 52.7754 40.6643 35.8866 40.5532 27.4421 32.8866 27.2199 21.1088 12.2199 -16.2246 1.8866 -10.7801 -16.2246 16.4421 32.7754 41.8866
Table 67. Unit 19 ANOVA Post Hoc Multiple Comparisons. *The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level. †Clusters, in yellow, were determined by comparing stratigraphic levels and statistical significance. §Levels between 0 and 40 cm were removed because they consist mainly of fill; the levels between 250 cm and the bottom of the unit were removed because they are not complete 10 cm levels and are therefore volumetrically inconsistent with the rest of the unit levels. Unit 19 ANOVA Post Hoc Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable: LSD
(I) Levels 40-50 cm§
50-60 cm
95% Confidence Interval
50-60 cm
Mean Difference (I-J) -0.77778
Std. Error 7.66869
Sig.† 0.919
Lower Bound -15.8898
Upper Bound 14.3342
60-70 cm
-0.22222
7.66869
0.977
-15.3342
14.8898
70-80 cm
2.11111
7.66869
0.783
-13.0009
17.2231
80-90 cm
-9.77778
7.66869
0.204
-24.8898
5.3342
90-100 cm
7.22222
7.66869
0.347
-7.8898
22.3342
100-110 cm
8.00000
7.66869
0.298
-7.1120
23.1120
110-120 cm
7.88889
7.66869
0.305
-7.2231
23.0009
120-130 cm
10.44444
7.66869
0.175
-4.6676
25.5565
130-140 cm
3.22222
7.66869
0.675
-11.8898
18.3342
140-150 cm
0.44444
7.66869
0.954
-14.6676
15.5565
150-160 cm
7.66667
7.66869
0.319
-7.4453
22.7787
160-170 cm
-2.22222
7.66869
0.772
-17.3342
12.8898
170-180 cm
1.22222
7.66869
0.874
-13.8898
16.3342
180-190 cm
-3.44444
7.66869
0.654
-18.5565
11.6676
190-200 cm
-5.66667
7.66869
0.461
-20.7787
9.4453
200-210 cm
-9.55556
7.66869
0.214
-24.6676
5.5565
210-220 cm
-11.66667
7.66869
0.130
-26.7787
3.4453
220-230 cm
-4.33333
7.66869
0.573
-19.4453
10.7787
230-240 cm
-4.88889
7.66869
0.524
-20.0009
10.2231
240-250 cm
-5.88889
7.66869
0.443
-21.0009
9.2231
40-50 cm
0.77778
7.66869
0.919
-14.3342
15.8898
60-70 cm
0.55556
7.66869
0.942
-14.5565
15.6676
70-80 cm
2.88889
7.66869
0.707
-12.2231
18.0009
80-90 cm
-9.00000
7.66869
0.242
-24.1120
6.1120
90-100 cm
8.00000
7.66869
0.298
-7.1120
23.1120
100-110 cm
8.77778
7.66869
0.254
-6.3342
23.8898
110-120 cm
8.66667
7.66869
0.260
-6.4453
23.7787
120-130 cm
11.22222
7.66869
0.145
-3.8898
26.3342
130-140 cm
4.00000
7.66869
0.602
-11.1120
19.1120
140-150 cm
1.22222
7.66869
0.874
-13.8898
16.3342
266
Unit 19 ANOVA Post Hoc Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable: LSD
150-160 cm
Std. Error 7.66869
Sig.† 0.272
Lower Bound -6.6676
Upper Bound 23.5565
160-170 cm
-1.44444
7.66869
0.851
-16.5565
13.6676
170-180 cm
2.00000
7.66869
0.794
-13.1120
17.1120
180-190 cm
-2.66667
7.66869
0.728
-17.7787
12.4453
190-200 cm
-4.88889
7.66869
0.524
-20.0009
10.2231
200-210 cm
-8.77778
7.66869
0.254
-23.8898
6.3342
210-220 cm
-10.88889
7.66869
0.157
-26.0009
4.2231
220-230 cm
-3.55556
7.66869
0.643
-18.6676
11.5565
230-240 cm
-4.11111
7.66869
0.592
-19.2231
11.0009
240-250 cm
-5.11111
7.66869
0.506
-20.2231
10.0009
40-50 cm
0.22222
7.66869
0.977
-14.8898
15.3342
50-60 cm
-0.55556
7.66869
0.942
-15.6676
14.5565
70-80 cm
2.33333
7.66869
0.761
-12.7787
17.4453
80-90 cm
-9.55556
7.66869
0.214
-24.6676
5.5565
90-100 cm
7.44444
7.66869
0.333
-7.6676
22.5565
100-110 cm
8.22222
7.66869
0.285
-6.8898
23.3342
110-120 cm
8.11111
7.66869
0.291
-7.0009
23.2231
120-130 cm
10.66667
7.66869
0.166
-4.4453
25.7787
130-140 cm
3.44444
7.66869
0.654
-11.6676
18.5565
140-150 cm
0.66667
7.66869
0.931
-14.4453
15.7787
150-160 cm
7.88889
7.66869
0.305
-7.2231
23.0009
160-170 cm
-2.00000
7.66869
0.794
-17.1120
13.1120
170-180 cm
1.44444
7.66869
0.851
-13.6676
16.5565
180-190 cm
-3.22222
7.66869
0.675
-18.3342
11.8898
190-200 cm
-5.44444
7.66869
0.478
-20.5565
9.6676
200-210 cm
-9.33333
7.66869
0.225
-24.4453
5.7787
210-220 cm
-11.44444
7.66869
0.137
-26.5565
3.6676
220-230 cm
-4.11111
7.66869
0.592
-19.2231
11.0009
230-240 cm
-4.66667
7.66869
0.543
-19.7787
10.4453
240-250 cm
-5.66667
7.66869
0.461
-20.7787
9.4453
40-50 cm
-2.11111
7.66869
0.783
-17.2231
13.0009
50-60 cm
-2.88889
7.66869
0.707
-18.0009
12.2231
60-70 cm
-2.33333
7.66869
0.761
-17.4453
12.7787
80-90 cm
-11.88889
7.66869
0.122
-27.0009
3.2231
90-100 cm
5.11111
7.66869
0.506
-10.0009
20.2231
(I) Levels
60-70 cm
70-80 cm
95% Confidence Interval
Mean Difference (I-J) 8.44444
267
Unit 19 ANOVA Post Hoc Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable: LSD
100-110 cm
Std. Error 7.66869
Sig.† 0.443
Lower Bound -9.2231
Upper Bound 21.0009
110-120 cm
5.77778
7.66869
0.452
-9.3342
20.8898
120-130 cm
8.33333
7.66869
0.278
-6.7787
23.4453
130-140 cm
1.11111
7.66869
0.885
-14.0009
16.2231
140-150 cm
-1.66667
7.66869
0.828
-16.7787
13.4453
150-160 cm
5.55556
7.66869
0.470
-9.5565
20.6676
160-170 cm
-4.33333
7.66869
0.573
-19.4453
10.7787
170-180 cm
-0.88889
7.66869
0.908
-16.0009
14.2231
180-190 cm
-5.55556
7.66869
0.470
-20.6676
9.5565
190-200 cm
-7.77778
7.66869
0.312
-22.8898
7.3342
200-210 cm
-11.66667
7.66869
0.130
-26.7787
3.4453
210-220 cm
-13.77778
7.66869
0.074
-28.8898
1.3342
220-230 cm
-6.44444
7.66869
0.402
-21.5565
8.6676
230-240 cm
-7.00000
7.66869
0.362
-22.1120
8.1120
240-250 cm
-8.00000
7.66869
0.298
-23.1120
7.1120
40-50 cm
9.77778
7.66869
0.204
-5.3342
24.8898
50-60 cm
9.00000
7.66869
0.242
-6.1120
24.1120
60-70 cm
9.55556
7.66869
0.214
-5.5565
24.6676
70-80 cm
11.88889
(I) Levels
80-90 cm
95% Confidence Interval
Mean Difference (I-J) 5.88889
7.66869
0.122
-3.2231
27.0009
17.00000
*
7.66869
0.028
1.8880
32.1120
17.77778
*
7.66869
0.021
2.6658
32.8898
110-120 cm
17.66667
*
7.66869
0.022
2.5547
32.7787
120-130 cm
20.22222*
7.66869
0.009
5.1102
35.3342
130-140 cm
13.00000
7.66869
0.091
-2.1120
28.1120
140-150 cm
10.22222
7.66869
0.184
-4.8898
25.3342
7.66869
0.024
2.3324
32.5565
90-100 cm 100-110 cm
*
150-160 cm
17.44444
160-170 cm
7.55556
7.66869
0.326
-7.5565
22.6676
170-180 cm
11.00000
7.66869
0.153
-4.1120
26.1120
180-190 cm
6.33333
7.66869
0.410
-8.7787
21.4453
190-200 cm
4.11111
7.66869
0.592
-11.0009
19.2231
200-210 cm
0.22222
7.66869
0.977
-14.8898
15.3342
210-220 cm
-1.88889
7.66869
0.806
-17.0009
13.2231
220-230 cm
5.44444
7.66869
0.478
-9.6676
20.5565
230-240 cm
4.88889
7.66869
0.524
-10.2231
20.0009
240-250 cm
3.88889
7.66869
0.613
-11.2231
19.0009
268
Unit 19 ANOVA Post Hoc Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable: LSD
(I) Levels 90-100 cm
40-50 cm
Std. Error 7.66869
Sig.† 0.347
Lower Bound -22.3342
Upper Bound 7.8898
50-60 cm
-8.00000
7.66869
0.298
-23.1120
7.1120
60-70 cm
-7.44444
7.66869
0.333
-22.5565
7.6676
70-80 cm
-5.11111
7.66869
0.506
-20.2231
10.0009
7.66869
0.028
-32.1120
-1.8880
*
80-90 cm
-17.00000
100-110 cm
0.77778
7.66869
0.919
-14.3342
15.8898
110-120 cm
0.66667
7.66869
0.931
-14.4453
15.7787
120-130 cm
3.22222
7.66869
0.675
-11.8898
18.3342
130-140 cm
-4.00000
7.66869
0.602
-19.1120
11.1120
140-150 cm
-6.77778
7.66869
0.378
-21.8898
8.3342
150-160 cm
0.44444
7.66869
0.954
-14.6676
15.5565
160-170 cm
-9.44444
7.66869
0.219
-24.5565
5.6676
170-180 cm
-6.00000
7.66869
0.435
-21.1120
9.1120
180-190 cm
-10.66667
7.66869
0.166
-25.7787
4.4453
190-200 cm
-12.88889
7.66869
0.094
-28.0009
2.2231
-16.77778
*
7.66869
0.030
-31.8898
-1.6658
210-220 cm
-18.88889
*
7.66869
0.015
-34.0009
-3.7769
220-230 cm
-11.55556
7.66869
0.133
-26.6676
3.5565
230-240 cm
-12.11111
7.66869
0.116
-27.2231
3.0009
240-250 cm
-13.11111
7.66869
0.089
-28.2231
2.0009
40-50 cm
-8.00000
7.66869
0.298
-23.1120
7.1120
50-60 cm
-8.77778
7.66869
0.254
-23.8898
6.3342
60-70 cm
-8.22222
7.66869
0.285
-23.3342
6.8898
70-80 cm
-5.88889
7.66869
0.443
-21.0009
9.2231
7.66869
0.021
-32.8898
-2.6658
200-210 cm
100-110 cm
95% Confidence Interval
Mean Difference (I-J) -7.22222
*
80-90 cm
-17.77778
90-100 cm
-0.77778
7.66869
0.919
-15.8898
14.3342
110-120 cm
-0.11111
7.66869
0.988
-15.2231
15.0009
120-130 cm
2.44444
7.66869
0.750
-12.6676
17.5565
130-140 cm
-4.77778
7.66869
0.534
-19.8898
10.3342
140-150 cm
-7.55556
7.66869
0.326
-22.6676
7.5565
150-160 cm
-0.33333
7.66869
0.965
-15.4453
14.7787
160-170 cm
-10.22222
7.66869
0.184
-25.3342
4.8898
170-180 cm
-6.77778
7.66869
0.378
-21.8898
8.3342
180-190 cm
-11.44444
7.66869
0.137
-26.5565
3.6676
190-200 cm
-13.66667
7.66869
0.076
-28.7787
1.4453
269
Unit 19 ANOVA Post Hoc Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable: LSD
200-210 cm
Std. Error 7.66869
Sig.† 0.023
Lower Bound -32.6676
Upper Bound -2.4435
210-220 cm
-19.66667*
7.66869
0.011
-34.7787
-4.5547
220-230 cm
-12.33333
7.66869
0.109
-27.4453
2.7787
230-240 cm
-12.88889
7.66869
0.094
-28.0009
2.2231
240-250 cm
-13.88889
7.66869
0.071
-29.0009
1.2231
40-50 cm
-7.88889
7.66869
0.305
-23.0009
7.2231
50-60 cm
-8.66667
7.66869
0.260
-23.7787
6.4453
60-70 cm
-8.11111
7.66869
0.291
-23.2231
7.0009
70-80 cm
-5.77778
7.66869
0.452
-20.8898
9.3342
7.66869
0.022
-32.7787
-2.5547
(I) Levels
110-120 cm
*
80-90 cm
-17.66667
90-100 cm
-0.66667
7.66869
0.931
-15.7787
14.4453
100-110 cm
0.11111
7.66869
0.988
-15.0009
15.2231
120-130 cm
2.55556
7.66869
0.739
-12.5565
17.6676
130-140 cm
-4.66667
7.66869
0.543
-19.7787
10.4453
140-150 cm
-7.44444
7.66869
0.333
-22.5565
7.6676
150-160 cm
-0.22222
7.66869
0.977
-15.3342
14.8898
160-170 cm
-10.11111
7.66869
0.189
-25.2231
5.0009
170-180 cm
-6.66667
7.66869
0.386
-21.7787
8.4453
180-190 cm
-11.33333
7.66869
0.141
-26.4453
3.7787
190-200 cm
-13.55556
7.66869
0.078
-28.6676
1.5565
-17.44444
*
7.66869
0.024
-32.5565
-2.3324
210-220 cm
-19.55556
*
7.66869
0.011
-34.6676
-4.4435
220-230 cm
-12.22222
7.66869
0.112
-27.3342
2.8898
230-240 cm
-12.77778
7.66869
0.097
-27.8898
2.3342
240-250 cm
-13.77778
7.66869
0.074
-28.8898
1.3342
40-50 cm
-10.44444
7.66869
0.175
-25.5565
4.6676
50-60 cm
-11.22222
7.66869
0.145
-26.3342
3.8898
60-70 cm
-10.66667
7.66869
0.166
-25.7787
4.4453
70-80 cm
-8.33333
7.66869
0.278
-23.4453
6.7787
200-210 cm
120-130 cm
95% Confidence Interval
Mean Difference (I-J) -17.55556*
*
80-90 cm
-20.22222
7.66869
0.009
-35.3342
-5.1102
90-100 cm
-3.22222
7.66869
0.675
-18.3342
11.8898
100-110 cm
-2.44444
7.66869
0.750
-17.5565
12.6676
110-120 cm
-2.55556
7.66869
0.739
-17.6676
12.5565
130-140 cm
-7.22222
7.66869
0.347
-22.3342
7.8898
140-150 cm
-10.00000
7.66869
0.194
-25.1120
5.1120
270
Unit 19 ANOVA Post Hoc Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable: LSD
150-160 cm
Std. Error 7.66869
Sig.† 0.718
Lower Bound -17.8898
Upper Bound 12.3342
160-170 cm
-12.66667
7.66869
0.100
-27.7787
2.4453
170-180 cm
-9.22222
7.66869
0.230
-24.3342
5.8898
180-190 cm
-13.88889
(I) Levels
7.66869
0.071
-29.0009
1.2231
-16.11111
*
7.66869
0.037
-31.2231
-0.9991
200-210 cm
-20.00000
*
7.66869
0.010
-35.1120
-4.8880
210-220 cm
-22.11111*
7.66869
0.004
-37.2231
-6.9991
220-230 cm
-14.77778
190-200 cm
7.66869
0.055
-29.8898
0.3342
-15.33333
*
7.66869
0.047
-30.4453
-0.2213
240-250 cm
-16.33333
*
7.66869
0.034
-31.4453
-1.2213
40-50 cm
-3.22222
7.66869
0.675
-18.3342
11.8898
50-60 cm
-4.00000
7.66869
0.602
-19.1120
11.1120
60-70 cm
-3.44444
7.66869
0.654
-18.5565
11.6676
70-80 cm
-1.11111
7.66869
0.885
-16.2231
14.0009
80-90 cm
-13.00000
7.66869
0.091
-28.1120
2.1120
90-100 cm
4.00000
7.66869
0.602
-11.1120
19.1120
100-110 cm
4.77778
7.66869
0.534
-10.3342
19.8898
110-120 cm
4.66667
7.66869
0.543
-10.4453
19.7787
120-130 cm
7.22222
7.66869
0.347
-7.8898
22.3342
140-150 cm
-2.77778
7.66869
0.718
-17.8898
12.3342
150-160 cm
4.44444
7.66869
0.563
-10.6676
19.5565
160-170 cm
-5.44444
7.66869
0.478
-20.5565
9.6676
170-180 cm
-2.00000
7.66869
0.794
-17.1120
13.1120
180-190 cm
-6.66667
7.66869
0.386
-21.7787
8.4453
190-200 cm
-8.88889
7.66869
0.248
-24.0009
6.2231
200-210 cm
-12.77778
7.66869
0.097
-27.8898
2.3342
210-220 cm
-14.88889
7.66869
0.053
-30.0009
0.2231
220-230 cm
-7.55556
7.66869
0.326
-22.6676
7.5565
230-240 cm
-8.11111
7.66869
0.291
-23.2231
7.0009
240-250 cm
-9.11111
7.66869
0.236
-24.2231
6.0009
40-50 cm
-0.44444
7.66869
0.954
-15.5565
14.6676
50-60 cm
-1.22222
7.66869
0.874
-16.3342
13.8898
60-70 cm
-0.66667
7.66869
0.931
-15.7787
14.4453
70-80 cm
1.66667
7.66869
0.828
-13.4453
16.7787
80-90 cm
-10.22222
7.66869
0.184
-25.3342
4.8898
230-240 cm 130-140 cm
140-150 cm
95% Confidence Interval
Mean Difference (I-J) -2.77778
271
Unit 19 ANOVA Post Hoc Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable: LSD
90-100 cm
Std. Error 7.66869
Sig.† 0.378
Lower Bound -8.3342
Upper Bound 21.8898
100-110 cm
7.55556
7.66869
0.326
-7.5565
22.6676
110-120 cm
7.44444
7.66869
0.333
-7.6676
22.5565
120-130 cm
10.00000
7.66869
0.194
-5.1120
25.1120
130-140 cm
2.77778
7.66869
0.718
-12.3342
17.8898
150-160 cm
7.22222
7.66869
0.347
-7.8898
22.3342
160-170 cm
-2.66667
7.66869
0.728
-17.7787
12.4453
170-180 cm
0.77778
7.66869
0.919
-14.3342
15.8898
180-190 cm
-3.88889
7.66869
0.613
-19.0009
11.2231
190-200 cm
-6.11111
7.66869
0.426
-21.2231
9.0009
200-210 cm
-10.00000
7.66869
0.194
-25.1120
5.1120
210-220 cm
-12.11111
7.66869
0.116
-27.2231
3.0009
220-230 cm
-4.77778
7.66869
0.534
-19.8898
10.3342
230-240 cm
-5.33333
7.66869
0.487
-20.4453
9.7787
240-250 cm
-6.33333
7.66869
0.410
-21.4453
8.7787
40-50 cm
-7.66667
7.66869
0.319
-22.7787
7.4453
50-60 cm
-8.44444
7.66869
0.272
-23.5565
6.6676
60-70 cm
-7.88889
7.66869
0.305
-23.0009
7.2231
70-80 cm
-5.55556
7.66869
0.470
-20.6676
9.5565
7.66869
0.024
-32.5565
-2.3324
(I) Levels
150-160 cm
95% Confidence Interval
Mean Difference (I-J) 6.77778
*
80-90 cm
-17.44444
90-100 cm
-0.44444
7.66869
0.954
-15.5565
14.6676
100-110 cm
0.33333
7.66869
0.965
-14.7787
15.4453
110-120 cm
0.22222
7.66869
0.977
-14.8898
15.3342
120-130 cm
2.77778
7.66869
0.718
-12.3342
17.8898
130-140 cm
-4.44444
7.66869
0.563
-19.5565
10.6676
140-150 cm
-7.22222
7.66869
0.347
-22.3342
7.8898
160-170 cm
-9.88889
7.66869
0.199
-25.0009
5.2231
170-180 cm
-6.44444
7.66869
0.402
-21.5565
8.6676
180-190 cm
-11.11111
7.66869
0.149
-26.2231
4.0009
190-200 cm
-13.33333
7.66869
0.083
-28.4453
1.7787
200-210 cm
-17.22222*
7.66869
0.026
-32.3342
-2.1102
210-220 cm
-19.33333
*
7.66869
0.012
-34.4453
-4.2213
220-230 cm
-12.00000
7.66869
0.119
-27.1120
3.1120
230-240 cm
-12.55556
7.66869
0.103
-27.6676
2.5565
240-250 cm
-13.55556
7.66869
0.078
-28.6676
1.5565
272
Unit 19 ANOVA Post Hoc Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable: LSD
(I) Levels 160-170 cm
170-180 cm
95% Confidence Interval
40-50 cm
Mean Difference (I-J) 2.22222
Std. Error 7.66869
Sig.† 0.772
Lower Bound -12.8898
Upper Bound 17.3342
50-60 cm
1.44444
7.66869
0.851
-13.6676
16.5565
60-70 cm
2.00000
7.66869
0.794
-13.1120
17.1120
70-80 cm
4.33333
7.66869
0.573
-10.7787
19.4453
80-90 cm
-7.55556
7.66869
0.326
-22.6676
7.5565
90-100 cm
9.44444
7.66869
0.219
-5.6676
24.5565
100-110 cm
10.22222
7.66869
0.184
-4.8898
25.3342
110-120 cm
10.11111
7.66869
0.189
-5.0009
25.2231
120-130 cm
12.66667
7.66869
0.100
-2.4453
27.7787
130-140 cm
5.44444
7.66869
0.478
-9.6676
20.5565
140-150 cm
2.66667
7.66869
0.728
-12.4453
17.7787
150-160 cm
9.88889
7.66869
0.199
-5.2231
25.0009
170-180 cm
3.44444
7.66869
0.654
-11.6676
18.5565
180-190 cm
-1.22222
7.66869
0.874
-16.3342
13.8898
190-200 cm
-3.44444
7.66869
0.654
-18.5565
11.6676
200-210 cm
-7.33333
7.66869
0.340
-22.4453
7.7787
210-220 cm
-9.44444
7.66869
0.219
-24.5565
5.6676
220-230 cm
-2.11111
7.66869
0.783
-17.2231
13.0009
230-240 cm
-2.66667
7.66869
0.728
-17.7787
12.4453
240-250 cm
-3.66667
7.66869
0.633
-18.7787
11.4453
40-50 cm
-1.22222
7.66869
0.874
-16.3342
13.8898
50-60 cm
-2.00000
7.66869
0.794
-17.1120
13.1120
60-70 cm
-1.44444
7.66869
0.851
-16.5565
13.6676
70-80 cm
0.88889
7.66869
0.908
-14.2231
16.0009
80-90 cm
-11.00000
7.66869
0.153
-26.1120
4.1120
90-100 cm
6.00000
7.66869
0.435
-9.1120
21.1120
100-110 cm
6.77778
7.66869
0.378
-8.3342
21.8898
110-120 cm
6.66667
7.66869
0.386
-8.4453
21.7787
120-130 cm
9.22222
7.66869
0.230
-5.8898
24.3342
130-140 cm
2.00000
7.66869
0.794
-13.1120
17.1120
140-150 cm
-0.77778
7.66869
0.919
-15.8898
14.3342
150-160 cm
6.44444
7.66869
0.402
-8.6676
21.5565
160-170 cm
-3.44444
7.66869
0.654
-18.5565
11.6676
180-190 cm
-4.66667
7.66869
0.543
-19.7787
10.4453
190-200 cm
-6.88889
7.66869
0.370
-22.0009
8.2231
273
Unit 19 ANOVA Post Hoc Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable: LSD
200-210 cm
Std. Error 7.66869
Sig.† 0.161
Lower Bound -25.8898
Upper Bound 4.3342
210-220 cm
-12.88889
7.66869
0.094
-28.0009
2.2231
220-230 cm
-5.55556
7.66869
0.470
-20.6676
9.5565
230-240 cm
-6.11111
7.66869
0.426
-21.2231
9.0009
240-250 cm
-7.11111
7.66869
0.355
-22.2231
8.0009
40-50 cm
3.44444
7.66869
0.654
-11.6676
18.5565
50-60 cm
2.66667
7.66869
0.728
-12.4453
17.7787
60-70 cm
3.22222
7.66869
0.675
-11.8898
18.3342
70-80 cm
5.55556
7.66869
0.470
-9.5565
20.6676
80-90 cm
-6.33333
7.66869
0.410
-21.4453
8.7787
90-100 cm
10.66667
7.66869
0.166
-4.4453
25.7787
100-110 cm
11.44444
7.66869
0.137
-3.6676
26.5565
110-120 cm
11.33333
7.66869
0.141
-3.7787
26.4453
120-130 cm
13.88889
7.66869
0.071
-1.2231
29.0009
130-140 cm
6.66667
7.66869
0.386
-8.4453
21.7787
140-150 cm
3.88889
7.66869
0.613
-11.2231
19.0009
150-160 cm
11.11111
7.66869
0.149
-4.0009
26.2231
160-170 cm
1.22222
7.66869
0.874
-13.8898
16.3342
170-180 cm
4.66667
7.66869
0.543
-10.4453
19.7787
190-200 cm
-2.22222
7.66869
0.772
-17.3342
12.8898
200-210 cm
-6.11111
7.66869
0.426
-21.2231
9.0009
210-220 cm
-8.22222
7.66869
0.285
-23.3342
6.8898
220-230 cm
-0.88889
7.66869
0.908
-16.0009
14.2231
230-240 cm
-1.44444
7.66869
0.851
-16.5565
13.6676
240-250 cm
-2.44444
7.66869
0.750
-17.5565
12.6676
40-50 cm
5.66667
7.66869
0.461
-9.4453
20.7787
50-60 cm
4.88889
7.66869
0.524
-10.2231
20.0009
60-70 cm
5.44444
7.66869
0.478
-9.6676
20.5565
70-80 cm
7.77778
7.66869
0.312
-7.3342
22.8898
80-90 cm
-4.11111
7.66869
0.592
-19.2231
11.0009
90-100 cm
12.88889
7.66869
0.094
-2.2231
28.0009
100-110 cm
13.66667
7.66869
0.076
-1.4453
28.7787
110-120 cm
13.55556
7.66869
0.078
-1.5565
28.6676
7.66869
0.037
0.9991
31.2231
7.66869
0.248
-6.2231
24.0009
(I) Levels
180-190 cm
190-200 cm
95% Confidence Interval
Mean Difference (I-J) -10.77778
120-130 cm
16.11111
130-140 cm
8.88889
*
274
Unit 19 ANOVA Post Hoc Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable: LSD
140-150 cm
Std. Error 7.66869
Sig.† 0.426
Lower Bound -9.0009
Upper Bound 21.2231
150-160 cm
13.33333
7.66869
0.083
-1.7787
28.4453
160-170 cm
3.44444
7.66869
0.654
-11.6676
18.5565
170-180 cm
6.88889
7.66869
0.370
-8.2231
22.0009
180-190 cm
2.22222
7.66869
0.772
-12.8898
17.3342
200-210 cm
-3.88889
7.66869
0.613
-19.0009
11.2231
210-220 cm
-6.00000
7.66869
0.435
-21.1120
9.1120
220-230 cm
1.33333
7.66869
0.862
-13.7787
16.4453
230-240 cm
0.77778
7.66869
0.919
-14.3342
15.8898
240-250 cm
-0.22222
7.66869
0.977
-15.3342
14.8898
40-50 cm
9.55556
7.66869
0.214
-5.5565
24.6676
50-60 cm
8.77778
7.66869
0.254
-6.3342
23.8898
60-70 cm
9.33333
7.66869
0.225
-5.7787
24.4453
70-80 cm
11.66667
7.66869
0.130
-3.4453
26.7787
80-90 cm
-0.22222
7.66869
0.977
-15.3342
14.8898
16.77778
*
7.66869
0.030
1.6658
31.8898
17.55556
*
7.66869
0.023
2.4435
32.6676
17.44444
*
7.66869
0.024
2.3324
32.5565
120-130 cm
20.00000
*
7.66869
0.010
4.8880
35.1120
130-140 cm
12.77778
7.66869
0.097
-2.3342
27.8898
140-150 cm
10.00000
7.66869
0.194
-5.1120
25.1120
(I) Levels
200-210 cm
90-100 cm 100-110 cm 110-120 cm
210-220 cm
95% Confidence Interval
Mean Difference (I-J) 6.11111
*
150-160 cm
17.22222
7.66869
0.026
2.1102
32.3342
160-170 cm
7.33333
7.66869
0.340
-7.7787
22.4453
170-180 cm
10.77778
7.66869
0.161
-4.3342
25.8898
180-190 cm
6.11111
7.66869
0.426
-9.0009
21.2231
190-200 cm
3.88889
7.66869
0.613
-11.2231
19.0009
210-220 cm
-2.11111
7.66869
0.783
-17.2231
13.0009
220-230 cm
5.22222
7.66869
0.497
-9.8898
20.3342
230-240 cm
4.66667
7.66869
0.543
-10.4453
19.7787
240-250 cm
3.66667
7.66869
0.633
-11.4453
18.7787
40-50 cm
11.66667
7.66869
0.130
-3.4453
26.7787
50-60 cm
10.88889
7.66869
0.157
-4.2231
26.0009
60-70 cm
11.44444
7.66869
0.137
-3.6676
26.5565
70-80 cm
13.77778
7.66869
0.074
-1.3342
28.8898
80-90 cm
1.88889
7.66869
0.806
-13.2231
17.0009
275
Unit 19 ANOVA Post Hoc Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable: LSD
90-100 cm
Std. Error 7.66869
Sig.† 0.015
Lower Bound 3.7769
Upper Bound 34.0009
100-110 cm
19.66667*
7.66869
0.011
4.5547
34.7787
110-120 cm
19.55556
*
7.66869
0.011
4.4435
34.6676
120-130 cm
22.11111
*
7.66869
0.004
6.9991
37.2231
130-140 cm
14.88889
7.66869
0.053
-0.2231
30.0009
140-150 cm
12.11111
7.66869
0.116
-3.0009
27.2231
150-160 cm
19.33333*
7.66869
0.012
4.2213
34.4453
160-170 cm
9.44444
7.66869
0.219
-5.6676
24.5565
170-180 cm
12.88889
7.66869
0.094
-2.2231
28.0009
180-190 cm
8.22222
7.66869
0.285
-6.8898
23.3342
190-200 cm
6.00000
7.66869
0.435
-9.1120
21.1120
200-210 cm
2.11111
7.66869
0.783
-13.0009
17.2231
220-230 cm
7.33333
7.66869
0.340
-7.7787
22.4453
230-240 cm
6.77778
7.66869
0.378
-8.3342
21.8898
240-250 cm
5.77778
7.66869
0.452
-9.3342
20.8898
40-50 cm
4.33333
7.66869
0.573
-10.7787
19.4453
50-60 cm
3.55556
7.66869
0.643
-11.5565
18.6676
60-70 cm
4.11111
7.66869
0.592
-11.0009
19.2231
70-80 cm
6.44444
7.66869
0.402
-8.6676
21.5565
80-90 cm
-5.44444
7.66869
0.478
-20.5565
9.6676
90-100 cm
11.55556
7.66869
0.133
-3.5565
26.6676
100-110 cm
12.33333
7.66869
0.109
-2.7787
27.4453
110-120 cm
12.22222
7.66869
0.112
-2.8898
27.3342
120-130 cm
14.77778
7.66869
0.055
-0.3342
29.8898
130-140 cm
7.55556
7.66869
0.326
-7.5565
22.6676
140-150 cm
4.77778
7.66869
0.534
-10.3342
19.8898
150-160 cm
12.00000
7.66869
0.119
-3.1120
27.1120
160-170 cm
2.11111
7.66869
0.783
-13.0009
17.2231
170-180 cm
5.55556
7.66869
0.470
-9.5565
20.6676
180-190 cm
0.88889
7.66869
0.908
-14.2231
16.0009
190-200 cm
-1.33333
7.66869
0.862
-16.4453
13.7787
200-210 cm
-5.22222
7.66869
0.497
-20.3342
9.8898
210-220 cm
-7.33333
7.66869
0.340
-22.4453
7.7787
230-240 cm
-0.55556
7.66869
0.942
-15.6676
14.5565
240-250 cm
-1.55556
7.66869
0.839
-16.6676
13.5565
(I) Levels
220-230 cm
95% Confidence Interval
Mean Difference (I-J) 18.88889*
276
Unit 19 ANOVA Post Hoc Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable: LSD
(I) Levels 230-240 cm
§
240-250 cm
95% Confidence Interval
40-50 cm
Mean Difference (I-J) 4.88889
Std. Error 7.66869
Sig.† 0.524
Lower Bound -10.2231
Upper Bound 20.0009
50-60 cm
4.11111
7.66869
0.592
-11.0009
19.2231
60-70 cm
4.66667
7.66869
0.543
-10.4453
19.7787
70-80 cm
7.00000
7.66869
0.362
-8.1120
22.1120
80-90 cm
-4.88889
7.66869
0.524
-20.0009
10.2231
90-100 cm
12.11111
7.66869
0.116
-3.0009
27.2231
100-110 cm
12.88889
7.66869
0.094
-2.2231
28.0009
110-120 cm
12.77778
7.66869
0.097
-2.3342
27.8898
7.66869
0.047
0.2213
30.4453
*
120-130 cm
15.33333
130-140 cm
8.11111
7.66869
0.291
-7.0009
23.2231
140-150 cm
5.33333
7.66869
0.487
-9.7787
20.4453
150-160 cm
12.55556
7.66869
0.103
-2.5565
27.6676
160-170 cm
2.66667
7.66869
0.728
-12.4453
17.7787
170-180 cm
6.11111
7.66869
0.426
-9.0009
21.2231
180-190 cm
1.44444
7.66869
0.851
-13.6676
16.5565
190-200 cm
-0.77778
7.66869
0.919
-15.8898
14.3342
200-210 cm
-4.66667
7.66869
0.543
-19.7787
10.4453
210-220 cm
-6.77778
7.66869
0.378
-21.8898
8.3342
220-230 cm
0.55556
7.66869
0.942
-14.5565
15.6676
240-250 cm
-1.00000
7.66869
0.896
-16.1120
14.1120
40-50 cm
5.88889
7.66869
0.443
-9.2231
21.0009
50-60 cm
5.11111
7.66869
0.506
-10.0009
20.2231
60-70 cm
5.66667
7.66869
0.461
-9.4453
20.7787
70-80 cm
8.00000
7.66869
0.298
-7.1120
23.1120
80-90 cm
-3.88889
7.66869
0.613
-19.0009
11.2231
90-100 cm
13.11111
7.66869
0.089
-2.0009
28.2231
100-110 cm
13.88889
7.66869
0.071
-1.2231
29.0009
110-120 cm
13.77778
7.66869
0.074
-1.3342
28.8898
7.66869
0.034
1.2213
31.4453
*
120-130 cm
16.33333
130-140 cm
9.11111
7.66869
0.236
-6.0009
24.2231
140-150 cm
6.33333
7.66869
0.410
-8.7787
21.4453
150-160 cm
13.55556
7.66869
0.078
-1.5565
28.6676
160-170 cm
3.66667
7.66869
0.633
-11.4453
18.7787
170-180 cm
7.11111
7.66869
0.355
-8.0009
22.2231
180-190 cm
2.44444
7.66869
0.750
-12.6676
17.5565
277
Unit 19 ANOVA Post Hoc Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable: LSD 95% Confidence Interval
190-200 cm
Mean Difference (I-J) 0.22222
Std. Error 7.66869
Sig.† 0.977
Lower Bound -14.8898
Upper Bound 15.3342
200-210 cm
-3.66667
7.66869
0.633
-18.7787
11.4453
210-220 cm
-5.77778
7.66869
0.452
-20.8898
9.3342
220-230 cm
1.55556
7.66869
0.839
-13.5565
16.6676
230-240 cm
1.00000
7.66869
0.896
-14.1120
16.1120
(I) Levels
278
Table 68. Unit 20 ANOVA Multiple Comparisons. *The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level. †Clusters, in yellow, were determined by comparing radiocarbon dates, stratigraphic levels, and statistical significance. §Levels between 0 and 40 cm were removed because they consist mainly of fill; the levels between 230 cm and the bottom of the unit were removed because they are not complete 10 cm levels and are therefore volumetrically inconsistent with the rest of the unit levels. Unit 20 ANOVA Post Hoc Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable: LSD
(I) Levels 40-50 cm§
50-60 cm
50-60 cm 60-70 cm 70-80 cm 80-90 cm 90-100 cm 100-110 cm 110-120 cm 120-130 cm 130-140 cm 140-150 cm 150-160 cm 160-170 cm 170-180 cm 180-190 cm 190-200 cm 200-210 cm 210-220 cm 220-230 cm 40-50 cm 60-70 cm 70-80 cm 80-90 cm 90-100 cm 100-110 cm 110-120 cm 120-130 cm 130-140 cm 140-150 cm 150-160 cm 160-170 cm 170-180 cm 180-190 cm
Mean Difference (I-J) 0.44444 0.55556 0.88889 -0.66667 -15.11111 -8.88889 -20.22222 -23.11111 -31.77778 -36.00000 -23.22222 -41.66667* -59.11111* -87.33333* -47.66667* -26.44444 -22.55556 -21.77778 -0.44444 0.11111 0.44444 -1.11111 -15.55556 -9.33333 -20.66667 -23.55556 -32.22222 -36.44444 -23.66667 -42.11111* -59.55556* -87.77778*
95% Confidence Interval Std. Error 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523
279
Sig.† 0.982 0.978 0.964 0.973 0.447 0.655 0.309 0.246 0.111 0.071 0.243 0.037 0.003 0.000 0.017 0.184 0.257 0.274 0.982 0.996 0.982 0.955 0.434 0.639 0.299 0.237 0.106 0.068 0.234 0.035 0.003 0.000
Lower Bound -38.6883 -38.5772 -38.2439 -39.7994 -54.2439 -48.0216 -59.3550 -62.2439 -70.9105 -75.1327 -62.3550 -80.7994 -98.2439 -126.4661 -86.7994 -65.5772 -61.6883 -60.9105 -39.5772 -39.0216 -38.6883 -40.2439 -54.6883 -48.4661 -59.7994 -62.6883 -71.3550 -75.5772 -62.7994 -81.2439 -98.6883 -126.9105
Upper Bound 39.5772 39.6883 40.0216 38.4661 24.0216 30.2439 18.9105 16.0216 7.3550 3.1327 15.9105 -2.5339 -19.9784 -48.2006 -8.5339 12.6883 16.5772 17.3550 38.6883 39.2439 39.5772 38.0216 23.5772 29.7994 18.4661 15.5772 6.9105 2.6883 15.4661 -2.9784 -20.4228 -48.6450
Unit 20 ANOVA Post Hoc Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable: LSD
(I) Levels
60-70 cm
70-80 cm
190-200 cm 200-210 cm 210-220 cm 220-230 cm 40-50 cm 50-60 cm 70-80 cm 80-90 cm 90-100 cm 100-110 cm 110-120 cm 120-130 cm 130-140 cm 140-150 cm 150-160 cm 160-170 cm 170-180 cm 180-190 cm 190-200 cm 200-210 cm 210-220 cm 220-230 cm 40-50 cm 50-60 cm 60-70 cm 80-90 cm 90-100 cm 100-110 cm 110-120 cm 120-130 cm 130-140 cm 140-150 cm 150-160 cm 160-170 cm 170-180 cm 180-190 cm 190-200 cm 200-210 cm
Mean Difference (I-J) -48.11111* -26.88889 -23.00000 -22.22222 -0.55556 -0.11111 0.33333 -1.22222 -15.66667 -9.44444 -20.77778 -23.66667 -32.33333 -36.55556 -23.77778 -42.22222* -59.66667* -87.88889* -48.22222* -27.00000 -23.11111 -22.33333 -0.88889 -0.44444 -0.33333 -1.55556 -16.00000 -9.77778 -21.11111 -24.00000 -32.66667 -36.88889 -24.11111 -42.55556* -60.00000* -88.22222* -48.55556* -27.33333
95% Confidence Interval Std. Error 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523
280
Sig.† 0.016 0.177 0.248 0.264 0.978 0.996 0.987 0.951 0.431 0.635 0.296 0.234 0.105 0.067 0.232 0.035 0.003 0.000 0.016 0.175 0.246 0.262 0.964 0.982 0.987 0.938 0.421 0.623 0.289 0.228 0.101 0.065 0.226 0.033 0.003 0.000 0.015 0.170
Lower Bound -87.2439 -66.0216 -62.1327 -61.3550 -39.6883 -39.2439 -38.7994 -40.3550 -54.7994 -48.5772 -59.9105 -62.7994 -71.4661 -75.6883 -62.9105 -81.3550 -98.7994 -127.0216 -87.3550 -66.1327 -62.2439 -61.4661 -40.0216 -39.5772 -39.4661 -40.6883 -55.1327 -48.9105 -60.2439 -63.1327 -71.7994 -76.0216 -63.2439 -81.6883 -99.1327 -127.3550 -87.6883 -66.4661
Upper Bound -8.9784 12.2439 16.1327 16.9105 38.5772 39.0216 39.4661 37.9105 23.4661 29.6883 18.3550 15.4661 6.7994 2.5772 15.3550 -3.0895 -20.5339 -48.7561 -9.0895 12.1327 16.0216 16.7994 38.2439 38.6883 38.7994 37.5772 23.1327 29.3550 18.0216 15.1327 6.4661 2.2439 15.0216 -3.4228 -20.8673 -49.0895 -9.4228 11.7994
Unit 20 ANOVA Post Hoc Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable: LSD
(I) Levels
80-90 cm
90-100 cm
210-220 cm 220-230 cm 40-50 cm 50-60 cm 60-70 cm 70-80 cm 90-100 cm 100-110 cm 110-120 cm 120-130 cm 130-140 cm 140-150 cm 150-160 cm 160-170 cm 170-180 cm 180-190 cm 190-200 cm 200-210 cm 210-220 cm 220-230 cm 40-50 cm 50-60 cm 60-70 cm 70-80 cm 80-90 cm 100-110 cm 110-120 cm 120-130 cm 130-140 cm 140-150 cm 150-160 cm 160-170 cm 170-180 cm 180-190 cm 190-200 cm 200-210 cm 210-220 cm 220-230 cm
Mean Difference (I-J) -23.44444 -22.66667 0.66667 1.11111 1.22222 1.55556 -14.44444 -8.22222 -19.55556 -22.44444 -31.11111 -35.33333 -22.55556 -41.00000* -58.44444* -86.66667* -47.00000* -25.77778 -21.88889 -21.11111 15.11111 15.55556 15.66667 16.00000 14.44444 6.22222 -5.11111 -8.00000 -16.66667 -20.88889 -8.11111 -26.55556 -44.00000* -72.22222* -32.55556 -11.33333 -7.44444 -6.66667
95% Confidence Interval Std. Error 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523
281
Sig.† 0.239 0.255 0.973 0.955 0.951 0.938 0.468 0.679 0.326 0.259 0.119 0.077 0.257 0.040 0.004 0.000 0.019 0.195 0.271 0.289 0.447 0.434 0.431 0.421 0.468 0.754 0.797 0.687 0.402 0.294 0.683 0.182 0.028 0.000 0.102 0.569 0.708 0.737
Lower Bound -62.5772 -61.7994 -38.4661 -38.0216 -37.9105 -37.5772 -53.5772 -47.3550 -58.6883 -61.5772 -70.2439 -74.4661 -61.6883 -80.1327 -97.5772 -125.7994 -86.1327 -64.9105 -61.0216 -60.2439 -24.0216 -23.5772 -23.4661 -23.1327 -24.6883 -32.9105 -44.2439 -47.1327 -55.7994 -60.0216 -47.2439 -65.6883 -83.1327 -111.3550 -71.6883 -50.4661 -46.5772 -45.7994
Upper Bound 15.6883 16.4661 39.7994 40.2439 40.3550 40.6883 24.6883 30.9105 19.5772 16.6883 8.0216 3.7994 16.5772 -1.8673 -19.3117 -47.5339 -7.8673 13.3550 17.2439 18.0216 54.2439 54.6883 54.7994 55.1327 53.5772 45.3550 34.0216 31.1327 22.4661 18.2439 31.0216 12.5772 -4.8673 -33.0895 6.5772 27.7994 31.6883 32.4661
Unit 20 ANOVA Post Hoc Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable: LSD
(I) Levels 100-110 cm
110-120 cm
120-130 cm
40-50 cm 50-60 cm 60-70 cm 70-80 cm 80-90 cm 90-100 cm 110-120 cm 120-130 cm 130-140 cm 140-150 cm 150-160 cm 160-170 cm 170-180 cm 180-190 cm 190-200 cm 200-210 cm 210-220 cm 220-230 cm 40-50 cm 50-60 cm 60-70 cm 70-80 cm 80-90 cm 90-100 cm 100-110 cm 120-130 cm 130-140 cm 140-150 cm 150-160 cm 160-170 cm 170-180 cm 180-190 cm 190-200 cm 200-210 cm 210-220 cm 220-230 cm 40-50 cm 50-60 cm
Mean Difference (I-J) 8.88889 9.33333 9.44444 9.77778 8.22222 -6.22222 -11.33333 -14.22222 -22.88889 -27.11111 -14.33333 -32.77778 -50.22222* -78.44444* -38.77778 -17.55556 -13.66667 -12.88889 20.22222 20.66667 20.77778 21.11111 19.55556 5.11111 11.33333 -2.88889 -11.55556 -15.77778 -3.00000 -21.44444 -38.88889 -67.11111* -27.44444 -6.22222 -2.33333 -1.55556 23.11111 23.55556
95% Confidence Interval Std. Error 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523
282
Sig.† 0.655 0.639 0.635 0.623 0.679 0.754 0.569 0.474 0.250 0.173 0.471 0.100 0.012 0.000 0.052 0.377 0.492 0.517 0.309 0.299 0.296 0.289 0.326 0.797 0.569 0.884 0.561 0.428 0.880 0.281 0.051 0.001 0.168 0.754 0.907 0.938 0.246 0.237
Lower Bound -30.2439 -29.7994 -29.6883 -29.3550 -30.9105 -45.3550 -50.4661 -53.3550 -62.0216 -66.2439 -53.4661 -71.9105 -89.3550 -117.5772 -77.9105 -56.6883 -52.7994 -52.0216 -18.9105 -18.4661 -18.3550 -18.0216 -19.5772 -34.0216 -27.7994 -42.0216 -50.6883 -54.9105 -42.1327 -60.5772 -78.0216 -106.2439 -66.5772 -45.3550 -41.4661 -40.6883 -16.0216 -15.5772
Upper Bound 48.0216 48.4661 48.5772 48.9105 47.3550 32.9105 27.7994 24.9105 16.2439 12.0216 24.7994 6.3550 -11.0895 -39.3117 0.3550 21.5772 25.4661 26.2439 59.3550 59.7994 59.9105 60.2439 58.6883 44.2439 50.4661 36.2439 27.5772 23.3550 36.1327 17.6883 0.2439 -27.9784 11.6883 32.9105 36.7994 37.5772 62.2439 62.6883
Unit 20 ANOVA Post Hoc Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable: LSD
(I) Levels
130-140 cm
140-150 cm
60-70 cm 70-80 cm 80-90 cm 90-100 cm 100-110 cm 110-120 cm 130-140 cm 140-150 cm 150-160 cm 160-170 cm 170-180 cm 180-190 cm 190-200 cm 200-210 cm 210-220 cm 220-230 cm 40-50 cm 50-60 cm 60-70 cm 70-80 cm 80-90 cm 90-100 cm 100-110 cm 110-120 cm 120-130 cm 140-150 cm 150-160 cm 160-170 cm 170-180 cm 180-190 cm 190-200 cm 200-210 cm 210-220 cm 220-230 cm 40-50 cm 50-60 cm 60-70 cm 70-80 cm
Mean Difference (I-J) 23.66667 24.00000 22.44444 8.00000 14.22222 2.88889 -8.66667 -12.88889 -0.11111 -18.55556 -36.00000 -64.22222* -24.55556 -3.33333 0.55556 1.33333 31.77778 32.22222 32.33333 32.66667 31.11111 16.66667 22.88889 11.55556 8.66667 -4.22222 8.55556 -9.88889 -27.33333 -55.55556* -15.88889 5.33333 9.22222 10.00000 36.00000 36.44444 36.55556 36.88889
95% Confidence Interval Std. Error 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523
283
Sig.† 0.234 0.228 0.259 0.687 0.474 0.884 0.663 0.517 0.996 0.351 0.071 0.001 0.217 0.867 0.978 0.947 0.111 0.106 0.105 0.101 0.119 0.402 0.250 0.561 0.663 0.832 0.667 0.619 0.170 0.006 0.424 0.788 0.643 0.615 0.071 0.068 0.067 0.065
Lower Bound -15.4661 -15.1327 -16.6883 -31.1327 -24.9105 -36.2439 -47.7994 -52.0216 -39.2439 -57.6883 -75.1327 -103.3550 -63.6883 -42.4661 -38.5772 -37.7994 -7.3550 -6.9105 -6.7994 -6.4661 -8.0216 -22.4661 -16.2439 -27.5772 -30.4661 -43.3550 -30.5772 -49.0216 -66.4661 -94.6883 -55.0216 -33.7994 -29.9105 -29.1327 -3.1327 -2.6883 -2.5772 -2.2439
Upper Bound 62.7994 63.1327 61.5772 47.1327 53.3550 42.0216 30.4661 26.2439 39.0216 20.5772 3.1327 -25.0895 14.5772 35.7994 39.6883 40.4661 70.9105 71.3550 71.4661 71.7994 70.2439 55.7994 62.0216 50.6883 47.7994 34.9105 47.6883 29.2439 11.7994 -16.4228 23.2439 44.4661 48.3550 49.1327 75.1327 75.5772 75.6883 76.0216
Unit 20 ANOVA Post Hoc Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable: LSD
(I) Levels
150-160 cm
160-170 cm
80-90 cm 90-100 cm 100-110 cm 110-120 cm 120-130 cm 130-140 cm 150-160 cm 160-170 cm 170-180 cm 180-190 cm 190-200 cm 200-210 cm 210-220 cm 220-230 cm 40-50 cm 50-60 cm 60-70 cm 70-80 cm 80-90 cm 90-100 cm 100-110 cm 110-120 cm 120-130 cm 130-140 cm 140-150 cm 160-170 cm 170-180 cm 180-190 cm 190-200 cm 200-210 cm 210-220 cm 220-230 cm 40-50 cm 50-60 cm 60-70 cm 70-80 cm 80-90 cm 90-100 cm
Mean Difference (I-J) 35.33333 20.88889 27.11111 15.77778 12.88889 4.22222 12.77778 -5.66667 -23.11111 -51.33333* -11.66667 9.55556 13.44444 14.22222 23.22222 23.66667 23.77778 24.11111 22.55556 8.11111 14.33333 3.00000 0.11111 -8.55556 -12.77778 -18.44444 -35.88889 -64.11111* -24.44444 -3.22222 0.66667 1.44444 41.66667* 42.11111* 42.22222* 42.55556* 41.00000* 26.55556
95% Confidence Interval Std. Error 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523
284
Sig.† 0.077 0.294 0.173 0.428 0.517 0.832 0.520 0.776 0.246 0.010 0.557 0.631 0.499 0.474 0.243 0.234 0.232 0.226 0.257 0.683 0.471 0.880 0.996 0.667 0.520 0.354 0.072 0.001 0.219 0.871 0.973 0.942 0.037 0.035 0.035 0.033 0.040 0.182
Lower Bound -3.7994 -18.2439 -12.0216 -23.3550 -26.2439 -34.9105 -26.3550 -44.7994 -62.2439 -90.4661 -50.7994 -29.5772 -25.6883 -24.9105 -15.9105 -15.4661 -15.3550 -15.0216 -16.5772 -31.0216 -24.7994 -36.1327 -39.0216 -47.6883 -51.9105 -57.5772 -75.0216 -103.2439 -63.5772 -42.3550 -38.4661 -37.6883 2.5339 2.9784 3.0895 3.4228 1.8673 -12.5772
Upper Bound 74.4661 60.0216 66.2439 54.9105 52.0216 43.3550 51.9105 33.4661 16.0216 -12.2006 27.4661 48.6883 52.5772 53.3550 62.3550 62.7994 62.9105 63.2439 61.6883 47.2439 53.4661 42.1327 39.2439 30.5772 26.3550 20.6883 3.2439 -24.9784 14.6883 35.9105 39.7994 40.5772 80.7994 81.2439 81.3550 81.6883 80.1327 65.6883
Unit 20 ANOVA Post Hoc Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable: LSD
(I) Levels
170-180 cm
180-190 cm
100-110 cm 110-120 cm 120-130 cm 130-140 cm 140-150 cm 150-160 cm 170-180 cm 180-190 cm 190-200 cm 200-210 cm 210-220 cm 220-230 cm 40-50 cm 50-60 cm 60-70 cm 70-80 cm 80-90 cm 90-100 cm 100-110 cm 110-120 cm 120-130 cm 130-140 cm 140-150 cm 150-160 cm 160-170 cm 180-190 cm 190-200 cm 200-210 cm 210-220 cm 220-230 cm 40-50 cm 50-60 cm 60-70 cm 70-80 cm 80-90 cm 90-100 cm 100-110 cm 110-120 cm
Mean Difference (I-J) 32.77778 21.44444 18.55556 9.88889 5.66667 18.44444 -17.44444 -45.66667* -6.00000 15.22222 19.11111 19.88889 59.11111* 59.55556* 59.66667* 60.00000* 58.44444* 44.00000* 50.22222* 38.88889 36.00000 27.33333 23.11111 35.88889 17.44444 -28.22222 11.44444 32.66667 36.55556 37.33333 87.33333* 87.77778* 87.88889* 88.22222* 86.66667* 72.22222* 78.44444* 67.11111*
95% Confidence Interval Std. Error 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523
285
Sig.† 0.100 0.281 0.351 0.619 0.776 0.354 0.380 0.022 0.763 0.444 0.337 0.317 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.004 0.028 0.012 0.051 0.071 0.170 0.246 0.072 0.380 0.157 0.565 0.101 0.067 0.061 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001
Lower Bound -6.3550 -17.6883 -20.5772 -29.2439 -33.4661 -20.6883 -56.5772 -84.7994 -45.1327 -23.9105 -20.0216 -19.2439 19.9784 20.4228 20.5339 20.8673 19.3117 4.8673 11.0895 -0.2439 -3.1327 -11.7994 -16.0216 -3.2439 -21.6883 -67.3550 -27.6883 -6.4661 -2.5772 -1.7994 48.2006 48.6450 48.7561 49.0895 47.5339 33.0895 39.3117 27.9784
Upper Bound 71.9105 60.5772 57.6883 49.0216 44.7994 57.5772 21.6883 -6.5339 33.1327 54.3550 58.2439 59.0216 98.2439 98.6883 98.7994 99.1327 97.5772 83.1327 89.3550 78.0216 75.1327 66.4661 62.2439 75.0216 56.5772 10.9105 50.5772 71.7994 75.6883 76.4661 126.4661 126.9105 127.0216 127.3550 125.7994 111.3550 117.5772 106.2439
Unit 20 ANOVA Post Hoc Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable: LSD
(I) Levels
190-200 cm
200-210 cm
120-130 cm 130-140 cm 140-150 cm 150-160 cm 160-170 cm 170-180 cm 190-200 cm 200-210 cm 210-220 cm 220-230 cm 40-50 cm 50-60 cm 60-70 cm 70-80 cm 80-90 cm 90-100 cm 100-110 cm 110-120 cm 120-130 cm 130-140 cm 140-150 cm 150-160 cm 160-170 cm 170-180 cm 180-190 cm 200-210 cm 210-220 cm 220-230 cm 40-50 cm 50-60 cm 60-70 cm 70-80 cm 80-90 cm 90-100 cm 100-110 cm 110-120 cm 120-130 cm 130-140 cm
Mean Difference (I-J) 64.22222* 55.55556* 51.33333* 64.11111* 45.66667* 28.22222 39.66667* 60.88889* 64.77778* 65.55556* 47.66667* 48.11111* 48.22222* 48.55556* 47.00000* 32.55556 38.77778 27.44444 24.55556 15.88889 11.66667 24.44444 6.00000 -11.44444 -39.66667* 21.22222 25.11111 25.88889 26.44444 26.88889 27.00000 27.33333 25.77778 11.33333 17.55556 6.22222 3.33333 -5.33333
95% Confidence Interval Std. Error 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523
286
Sig.† 0.001 0.006 0.010 0.001 0.022 0.157 0.047 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.017 0.016 0.016 0.015 0.019 0.102 0.052 0.168 0.217 0.424 0.557 0.219 0.763 0.565 0.047 0.286 0.207 0.194 0.184 0.177 0.175 0.170 0.195 0.569 0.377 0.754 0.867 0.788
Lower Bound 25.0895 16.4228 12.2006 24.9784 6.5339 -10.9105 0.5339 21.7561 25.6450 26.4228 8.5339 8.9784 9.0895 9.4228 7.8673 -6.5772 -0.3550 -11.6883 -14.5772 -23.2439 -27.4661 -14.6883 -33.1327 -50.5772 -78.7994 -17.9105 -14.0216 -13.2439 -12.6883 -12.2439 -12.1327 -11.7994 -13.3550 -27.7994 -21.5772 -32.9105 -35.7994 -44.4661
Upper Bound 103.3550 94.6883 90.4661 103.2439 84.7994 67.3550 78.7994 100.0216 103.9105 104.6883 86.7994 87.2439 87.3550 87.6883 86.1327 71.6883 77.9105 66.5772 63.6883 55.0216 50.7994 63.5772 45.1327 27.6883 -0.5339 60.3550 64.2439 65.0216 65.5772 66.0216 66.1327 66.4661 64.9105 50.4661 56.6883 45.3550 42.4661 33.7994
Unit 20 ANOVA Post Hoc Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable: LSD
(I) Levels
210-220 cm
220-230 cm§
140-150 cm 150-160 cm 160-170 cm 170-180 cm 180-190 cm 190-200 cm 210-220 cm 220-230 cm 40-50 cm 50-60 cm 60-70 cm 70-80 cm 80-90 cm 90-100 cm 100-110 cm 110-120 cm 120-130 cm 130-140 cm 140-150 cm 150-160 cm 160-170 cm 170-180 cm 180-190 cm 190-200 cm 200-210 cm 220-230 cm 40-50 cm 50-60 cm 60-70 cm 70-80 cm 80-90 cm 90-100 cm 100-110 cm 110-120 cm 120-130 cm 130-140 cm 140-150 cm 150-160 cm
Mean Difference (I-J) -9.55556 3.22222 -15.22222 -32.66667 -60.88889* -21.22222 3.88889 4.66667 22.55556 23.00000 23.11111 23.44444 21.88889 7.44444 13.66667 2.33333 -0.55556 -9.22222 -13.44444 -0.66667 -19.11111 -36.55556 -64.77778* -25.11111 -3.88889 0.77778 21.77778 22.22222 22.33333 22.66667 21.11111 6.66667 12.88889 1.55556 -1.33333 -10.00000 -14.22222 -1.44444
95% Confidence Interval Std. Error 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523
287
Sig.† 0.631 0.871 0.444 0.101 0.002 0.286 0.845 0.814 0.257 0.248 0.246 0.239 0.271 0.708 0.492 0.907 0.978 0.643 0.499 0.973 0.337 0.067 0.001 0.207 0.845 0.969 0.274 0.264 0.262 0.255 0.289 0.737 0.517 0.938 0.947 0.615 0.474 0.942
Lower Bound -48.6883 -35.9105 -54.3550 -71.7994 -100.0216 -60.3550 -35.2439 -34.4661 -16.5772 -16.1327 -16.0216 -15.6883 -17.2439 -31.6883 -25.4661 -36.7994 -39.6883 -48.3550 -52.5772 -39.7994 -58.2439 -75.6883 -103.9105 -64.2439 -43.0216 -38.3550 -17.3550 -16.9105 -16.7994 -16.4661 -18.0216 -32.4661 -26.2439 -37.5772 -40.4661 -49.1327 -53.3550 -40.5772
Upper Bound 29.5772 42.3550 23.9105 6.4661 -21.7561 17.9105 43.0216 43.7994 61.6883 62.1327 62.2439 62.5772 61.0216 46.5772 52.7994 41.4661 38.5772 29.9105 25.6883 38.4661 20.0216 2.5772 -25.6450 14.0216 35.2439 39.9105 60.9105 61.3550 61.4661 61.7994 60.2439 45.7994 52.0216 40.6883 37.7994 29.1327 24.9105 37.6883
Unit 20 ANOVA Post Hoc Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable: LSD
(I) Levels 160-170 cm 170-180 cm 180-190 cm 190-200 cm 200-210 cm 210-220 cm
Mean Difference (I-J) -19.88889 -37.33333 -65.55556* -25.88889 -4.66667 -0.77778
95% Confidence Interval Std. Error 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523 19.84523
288
Sig.† 0.317 0.061 0.001 0.194 0.814 0.969
Lower Bound -59.0216 -76.4661 -104.6883 -65.0216 -43.7994 -39.9105
Upper Bound 19.2439 1.7994 -26.4228 13.2439 34.4661 38.3550
Table 69. Unit 38 ANOVA Post Hoc Multiple Comparisons. *The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level. †Clusters, in yellow, were determined by comparing stratigraphic levels and statistical significance. §Levels between 0 and 50 cm were removed because they consist mainly of fill; the 180–190 cm level is missing from the collection; the 190–245 cm level was removed because it is not a 10 cm level and is therefore volumetrically inconsistent with the rest of the unit levels. Unit 38 ANOVA Post Hoc Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable: LSD
(I) Levels 50-60 cm§
60-70 cm
70-80 cm
60-70 cm 70-80 cm 80-90 cm 90-100 cm 100-110 cm 110-120 cm 120-130 cm 130-140 cm 140-150 cm 150-160 cm 160-170 cm 170-180 cm 50-60 cm 70-80 cm 80-90 cm 90-100 cm 100-110 cm 110-120 cm 120-130 cm 130-140 cm 140-150 cm 150-160 cm 160-170 cm 170-180 cm 50-60 cm 60-70 cm 80-90 cm 90-100 cm 100-110 cm 110-120 cm 120-130 cm 130-140 cm 140-150 cm
Mean Difference (I-J) -8.22222 -11.44444 -43.88889 -31.77778 -115.66667* -103.44444* -73.88889 -106.11111* -70.11111 25.44444 23.55556 26.66667 8.22222 -3.22222 -35.66667 -23.55556 -107.44444* -95.22222* -65.66667 -97.88889* -61.88889 33.66667 31.77778 34.88889 11.44444 3.22222 -32.44444 -20.33333 -104.22222* -92.00000* -62.44444 -94.66667* -58.66667
95% Confidence Interval Std. Error 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026
289
Sig.† 0.859 0.805 0.344 0.493 0.014 0.027 0.112 0.023 0.132 0.583 0.611 0.565 0.859 0.945 0.442 0.611 0.022 0.041 0.158 0.036 0.183 0.468 0.493 0.452 0.805 0.945 0.484 0.661 0.026 0.049 0.179 0.043 0.207
Lower Bound -99.6591 -102.8813 -135.3258 -123.2147 -207.1036 -194.8813 -165.3258 -197.5480 -161.5480 -65.9924 -67.8813 -64.7702 -83.2147 -94.6591 -127.1036 -114.9924 -198.8813 -186.6591 -157.1036 -189.3258 -153.3258 -57.7702 -59.6591 -56.5480 -79.9924 -88.2147 -123.8813 -111.7702 -195.6591 -183.4369 -153.8813 -186.1036 -150.1036
Upper Bound 83.2147 79.9924 47.5480 59.6591 -24.2298 -12.0076 17.5480 -14.6742 21.3258 116.8813 114.9924 118.1036 99.6591 88.2147 55.7702 67.8813 -16.0076 -3.7853 25.7702 -6.4520 29.5480 125.1036 123.2147 126.3258 102.8813 94.6591 58.9924 71.1036 -12.7853 -0.5631 28.9924 -3.2298 32.7702
Unit 38 ANOVA Post Hoc Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable: LSD
(I) Levels
80-90 cm
90-100 cm
100-110 cm
150-160 cm 160-170 cm 170-180 cm 50-60 cm 60-70 cm 70-80 cm 90-100 cm 100-110 cm 110-120 cm 120-130 cm 130-140 cm 140-150 cm 150-160 cm 160-170 cm 170-180 cm 50-60 cm 60-70 cm 70-80 cm 80-90 cm 100-110 cm 110-120 cm 120-130 cm 130-140 cm 140-150 cm 150-160 cm 160-170 cm 170-180 cm 50-60 cm 60-70 cm 70-80 cm 80-90 cm 90-100 cm 110-120 cm 120-130 cm 130-140 cm 140-150 cm 150-160 cm 160-170 cm
Mean Difference (I-J) 36.88889 35.00000 38.11111 43.88889 35.66667 32.44444 12.11111 -71.77778 -59.55556 -30.00000 -62.22222 -26.22222 69.33333 67.44444 70.55556 31.77778 23.55556 20.33333 -12.11111 -83.88889 -71.66667 -42.11111 -74.33333 -38.33333 57.22222 55.33333 58.44444 115.66667* 107.44444* 104.22222* 71.77778 83.88889 12.22222 41.77778 9.55556 45.55556 141.11111* 139.22222*
95% Confidence Interval Std. Error 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026
290
Sig.† 0.427 0.451 0.411 0.344 0.442 0.484 0.794 0.123 0.200 0.518 0.181 0.572 0.136 0.147 0.129 0.493 0.611 0.661 0.794 0.072 0.124 0.364 0.110 0.409 0.218 0.234 0.208 0.014 0.022 0.026 0.123 0.072 0.792 0.368 0.837 0.326 0.003 0.003
Lower Bound -54.5480 -56.4369 -53.3258 -47.5480 -55.7702 -58.9924 -79.3258 -163.2147 -150.9924 -121.4369 -153.6591 -117.6591 -22.1036 -23.9924 -20.8813 -59.6591 -67.8813 -71.1036 -103.5480 -175.3258 -163.1036 -133.5480 -165.7702 -129.7702 -34.2147 -36.1036 -32.9924 24.2298 16.0076 12.7853 -19.6591 -7.5480 -79.2147 -49.6591 -81.8813 -45.8813 49.6742 47.7853
Upper Bound 128.3258 126.4369 129.5480 135.3258 127.1036 123.8813 103.5480 19.6591 31.8813 61.4369 29.2147 65.2147 160.7702 158.8813 161.9924 123.2147 114.9924 111.7702 79.3258 7.5480 19.7702 49.3258 17.1036 53.1036 148.6591 146.7702 149.8813 207.1036 198.8813 195.6591 163.2147 175.3258 103.6591 133.2147 100.9924 136.9924 232.5480 230.6591
Unit 38 ANOVA Post Hoc Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable: LSD
(I) Levels 110-120 cm
120-130 cm
130-140 cm
140-150 cm
170-180 cm 50-60 cm 60-70 cm 70-80 cm 80-90 cm 90-100 cm 100-110 cm 120-130 cm 130-140 cm 140-150 cm 150-160 cm 160-170 cm 170-180 cm 50-60 cm 60-70 cm 70-80 cm 80-90 cm 90-100 cm 100-110 cm 110-120 cm 130-140 cm 140-150 cm 150-160 cm 160-170 cm 170-180 cm 50-60 cm 60-70 cm 70-80 cm 80-90 cm 90-100 cm 100-110 cm 110-120 cm 120-130 cm 140-150 cm 150-160 cm 160-170 cm 170-180 cm 50-60 cm
Mean Difference (I-J) 142.33333* 103.44444* 95.22222* 92.00000* 59.55556 71.66667 -12.22222 29.55556 -2.66667 33.33333 128.88889* 127.00000* 130.11111* 73.88889 65.66667 62.44444 30.00000 42.11111 -41.77778 -29.55556 -32.22222 3.77778 99.33333* 97.44444* 100.55556* 106.11111* 97.88889* 94.66667* 62.22222 74.33333 -9.55556 2.66667 32.22222 36.00000 131.55556* 129.66667* 132.77778* 70.11111
95% Confidence Interval Std. Error 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026
291
Sig.† 0.003 0.027 0.041 0.049 0.200 0.124 0.792 0.524 0.954 0.472 0.006 0.007 0.006 0.112 0.158 0.179 0.518 0.364 0.368 0.524 0.487 0.935 0.033 0.037 0.031 0.023 0.036 0.043 0.181 0.110 0.837 0.954 0.487 0.438 0.005 0.006 0.005 0.132
Lower Bound 50.8964 12.0076 3.7853 0.5631 -31.8813 -19.7702 -103.6591 -61.8813 -94.1036 -58.1036 37.4520 35.5631 38.6742 -17.5480 -25.7702 -28.9924 -61.4369 -49.3258 -133.2147 -120.9924 -123.6591 -87.6591 7.8964 6.0076 9.1187 14.6742 6.4520 3.2298 -29.2147 -17.1036 -100.9924 -88.7702 -59.2147 -55.4369 40.1187 38.2298 41.3409 -21.3258
Upper Bound 233.7702 194.8813 186.6591 183.4369 150.9924 163.1036 79.2147 120.9924 88.7702 124.7702 220.3258 218.4369 221.5480 165.3258 157.1036 153.8813 121.4369 133.5480 49.6591 61.8813 59.2147 95.2147 190.7702 188.8813 191.9924 197.5480 189.3258 186.1036 153.6591 165.7702 81.8813 94.1036 123.6591 127.4369 222.9924 221.1036 224.2147 161.5480
Unit 38 ANOVA Post Hoc Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable: LSD
(I) Levels
150-160 cm
160-170 cm
170-180 cm§
60-70 cm 70-80 cm 80-90 cm 90-100 cm 100-110 cm 110-120 cm 120-130 cm 130-140 cm 150-160 cm 160-170 cm 170-180 cm 50-60 cm 60-70 cm 70-80 cm 80-90 cm 90-100 cm 100-110 cm 110-120 cm 120-130 cm 130-140 cm 140-150 cm 160-170 cm 170-180 cm 50-60 cm 60-70 cm 70-80 cm 80-90 cm 90-100 cm 100-110 cm 110-120 cm 120-130 cm 130-140 cm 140-150 cm 150-160 cm 170-180 cm 50-60 cm 60-70 cm 70-80 cm
Mean Difference (I-J) 61.88889 58.66667 26.22222 38.33333 -45.55556 -33.33333 -3.77778 -36.00000 95.55556* 93.66667* 96.77778* -25.44444 -33.66667 -36.88889 -69.33333 -57.22222 -141.11111* -128.88889* -99.33333* -131.55556* -95.55556* -1.88889 1.22222 -23.55556 -31.77778 -35.00000 -67.44444 -55.33333 -139.22222* -127.00000* -97.44444* -129.66667* -93.66667* 1.88889 3.11111 -26.66667 -34.88889 -38.11111
95% Confidence Interval Std. Error 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026
292
Sig.† 0.183 0.207 0.572 0.409 0.326 0.472 0.935 0.438 0.041 0.045 0.038 0.583 0.468 0.427 0.136 0.218 0.003 0.006 0.033 0.005 0.041 0.967 0.979 0.611 0.493 0.451 0.147 0.234 0.003 0.007 0.037 0.006 0.045 0.967 0.946 0.565 0.452 0.411
Lower Bound -29.5480 -32.7702 -65.2147 -53.1036 -136.9924 -124.7702 -95.2147 -127.4369 4.1187 2.2298 5.3409 -116.8813 -125.1036 -128.3258 -160.7702 -148.6591 -232.5480 -220.3258 -190.7702 -222.9924 -186.9924 -93.3258 -90.2147 -114.9924 -123.2147 -126.4369 -158.8813 -146.7702 -230.6591 -218.4369 -188.8813 -221.1036 -185.1036 -89.5480 -88.3258 -118.1036 -126.3258 -129.5480
Upper Bound 153.3258 150.1036 117.6591 129.7702 45.8813 58.1036 87.6591 55.4369 186.9924 185.1036 188.2147 65.9924 57.7702 54.5480 22.1036 34.2147 -49.6742 -37.4520 -7.8964 -40.1187 -4.1187 89.5480 92.6591 67.8813 59.6591 56.4369 23.9924 36.1036 -47.7853 -35.5631 -6.0076 -38.2298 -2.2298 93.3258 94.5480 64.7702 56.5480 53.3258
Unit 38 ANOVA Post Hoc Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable: LSD
(I) Levels 80-90 cm 90-100 cm 100-110 cm 110-120 cm 120-130 cm 130-140 cm 140-150 cm 150-160 cm 160-170 cm
Mean Difference (I-J) -70.55556 -58.44444 -142.33333* -130.11111* -100.55556* -132.77778* -96.77778* -1.22222 -3.11111
95% Confidence Interval Std. Error 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026 46.26026
293
Sig.† 0.129 0.208 0.003 0.006 0.031 0.005 0.038 0.979 0.946
Lower Bound -161.9924 -149.8813 -233.7702 -221.5480 -191.9924 -224.2147 -188.2147 -92.6591 -94.5480
Upper Bound 20.8813 32.9924 -50.8964 -38.6742 -9.1187 -41.3409 -5.3409 90.2147 88.3258
Table 70. Unit 48 ANOVA Multiple Comparisons. *The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level. †Clusters, in yellow, were determined by comparing stratigraphic levels and statistical significance. §Levels between 0 and 38 cm consist mainly of fill and were not screened; the levels between 220 cm and the bottom of the unit were removed because they are not complete 10 cm levels and are therefore volumetrically inconsistent with the rest of the unit levels. Unit 48 ANOVA Post Hoc Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable: LSD
(I) Levels 38-50 cm§
50-60 cm
60-70 cm
50-60 cm 60-70 cm 70-80 cm 80-90 cm 90-100 cm 100-110 cm 110-120 cm 120-130 cm 130-140 cm 140-150 cm 150-160 cm 160-170 cm 170-180 cm 180-190 cm 190-200 cm 200-210 cm 210-220 cm 38-50 cm 60-70 cm 70-80 cm 80-90 cm 90-100 cm 100-110 cm 110-120 cm 120-130 cm 130-140 cm 140-150 cm 150-160 cm 160-170 cm 170-180 cm 180-190 cm 190-200 cm 200-210 cm 210-220 cm 38-50 cm
Mean Difference (I-J) -9.55556 -35.44444 -6.88889 -62.00000* -28.00000 -14.44444 -30.00000 -33.00000 -11.11111 -25.55556 -12.88889 -30.33333 -12.66667 -1.55556 -0.77778 -0.77778 -6.00000 9.55556 -25.88889 2.66667 -52.44444* -18.44444 -4.88889 -20.44444 -23.44444 -1.55556 -16.00000 -3.33333 -20.77778 -3.11111 8.00000 8.77778 8.77778 3.55556 35.44444
95% Confidence Interval Std. Error 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899
294
Sig.† 0.618 0.066 0.719 0.001 0.145 0.451 0.119 0.086 0.562 0.183 0.501 0.115 0.508 0.935 0.968 0.968 0.754 0.618 0.177 0.889 0.007 0.336 0.798 0.286 0.222 0.935 0.404 0.862 0.279 0.871 0.676 0.647 0.647 0.853 0.066
Lower Bound -47.3091 -73.1980 -44.6424 -99.7535 -65.7535 -52.1980 -67.7535 -70.7535 -48.8646 -63.3091 -50.6424 -68.0869 -50.4202 -39.3091 -38.5313 -38.5313 -43.7535 -28.1980 -63.6424 -35.0869 -90.1980 -56.1980 -42.6424 -58.1980 -61.1980 -39.3091 -53.7535 -41.0869 -58.5313 -40.8646 -29.7535 -28.9757 -28.9757 -34.1980 -2.3091
Upper Bound 28.1980 2.3091 30.8646 -24.2465 9.7535 23.3091 7.7535 4.7535 26.6424 12.1980 24.8646 7.4202 25.0869 36.1980 36.9757 36.9757 31.7535 47.3091 11.8646 40.4202 -14.6909 19.3091 32.8646 17.3091 14.3091 36.1980 21.7535 34.4202 16.9757 34.6424 45.7535 46.5313 46.5313 41.3091 73.1980
Unit 48 ANOVA Post Hoc Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable: LSD
(I) Levels
70-80 cm
80-90 cm
50-60 cm 70-80 cm 80-90 cm 90-100 cm 100-110 cm 110-120 cm 120-130 cm 130-140 cm 140-150 cm 150-160 cm 160-170 cm 170-180 cm 180-190 cm 190-200 cm 200-210 cm 210-220 cm 38-50 cm 50-60 cm 60-70 cm 80-90 cm 90-100 cm 100-110 cm 110-120 cm 120-130 cm 130-140 cm 140-150 cm 150-160 cm 160-170 cm 170-180 cm 180-190 cm 190-200 cm 200-210 cm 210-220 cm 38-50 cm 50-60 cm 60-70 cm 70-80 cm 90-100 cm 100-110 cm 110-120 cm 120-130 cm
Mean Difference (I-J) 25.88889 28.55556 -26.55556 7.44444 21.00000 5.44444 2.44444 24.33333 9.88889 22.55556 5.11111 22.77778 33.88889 34.66667 34.66667 29.44444 6.88889 -2.66667 -28.55556 -55.11111* -21.11111 -7.55556 -23.11111 -26.11111 -4.22222 -18.66667 -6.00000 -23.44444 -5.77778 5.33333 6.11111 6.11111 0.88889 62.00000* 52.44444* 26.55556 55.11111* 34.00000 47.55556* 32.00000 29.00000
95% Confidence Interval Std. Error 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899
295
Sig.† 0.177 0.137 0.167 0.697 0.274 0.776 0.898 0.205 0.606 0.240 0.789 0.235 0.078 0.072 0.072 0.125 0.719 0.889 0.137 0.004 0.271 0.693 0.228 0.174 0.825 0.330 0.754 0.222 0.763 0.781 0.750 0.750 0.963 0.001 0.007 0.167 0.004 0.077 0.014 0.096 0.131
Lower Bound -11.8646 -9.1980 -64.3091 -30.3091 -16.7535 -32.3091 -35.3091 -13.4202 -27.8646 -15.1980 -32.6424 -14.9757 -3.8646 -3.0869 -3.0869 -8.3091 -30.8646 -40.4202 -66.3091 -92.8646 -58.8646 -45.3091 -60.8646 -63.8646 -41.9757 -56.4202 -43.7535 -61.1980 -43.5313 -32.4202 -31.6424 -31.6424 -36.8646 24.2465 14.6909 -11.1980 17.3576 -3.7535 9.8020 -5.7535 -8.7535
Upper Bound 63.6424 66.3091 11.1980 45.1980 58.7535 43.1980 40.1980 62.0869 47.6424 60.3091 42.8646 60.5313 71.6424 72.4202 72.4202 67.1980 44.6424 35.0869 9.1980 -17.3576 16.6424 30.1980 14.6424 11.6424 33.5313 19.0869 31.7535 14.3091 31.9757 43.0869 43.8646 43.8646 38.6424 99.7535 90.1980 64.3091 92.8646 71.7535 85.3091 69.7535 66.7535
Unit 48 ANOVA Post Hoc Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable: LSD
(I) Levels
90-100 cm
100-110 cm
130-140 cm 140-150 cm 150-160 cm 160-170 cm 170-180 cm 180-190 cm 190-200 cm 200-210 cm 210-220 cm 38-50 cm 50-60 cm 60-70 cm 70-80 cm 80-90 cm 100-110 cm 110-120 cm 120-130 cm 130-140 cm 140-150 cm 150-160 cm 160-170 cm 170-180 cm 180-190 cm 190-200 cm 200-210 cm 210-220 cm 38-50 cm 50-60 cm 60-70 cm 70-80 cm 80-90 cm 90-100 cm 110-120 cm 120-130 cm 130-140 cm 140-150 cm 150-160 cm 160-170 cm 170-180 cm 180-190 cm 190-200 cm
Mean Difference (I-J) 50.88889* 36.44444 49.11111* 31.66667 49.33333* 60.44444* 61.22222* 61.22222* 56.00000* 28.00000 18.44444 -7.44444 21.11111 -34.00000 13.55556 -2.00000 -5.00000 16.88889 2.44444 15.11111 -2.33333 15.33333 26.44444 27.22222 27.22222 22.00000 14.44444 4.88889 -21.00000 7.55556 -47.55556* -13.55556 -15.55556 -18.55556 3.33333 -11.11111 1.55556 -15.88889 1.77778 12.88889 13.66667
95% Confidence Interval Std. Error 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899
296
Sig.† 0.009 0.058 0.011 0.100 0.011 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.004 0.145 0.336 0.697 0.271 0.077 0.479 0.917 0.794 0.378 0.898 0.430 0.903 0.424 0.168 0.156 0.156 0.251 0.451 0.798 0.274 0.693 0.014 0.479 0.417 0.333 0.862 0.562 0.935 0.407 0.926 0.501 0.476
Lower Bound 13.1354 -1.3091 11.3576 -6.0869 11.5798 22.6909 23.4687 23.4687 18.2465 -9.7535 -19.3091 -45.1980 -16.6424 -71.7535 -24.1980 -39.7535 -42.7535 -20.8646 -35.3091 -22.6424 -40.0869 -22.4202 -11.3091 -10.5313 -10.5313 -15.7535 -23.3091 -32.8646 -58.7535 -30.1980 -85.3091 -51.3091 -53.3091 -56.3091 -34.4202 -48.8646 -36.1980 -53.6424 -35.9757 -24.8646 -24.0869
Upper Bound 88.6424 74.1980 86.8646 69.4202 87.0869 98.1980 98.9757 98.9757 93.7535 65.7535 56.1980 30.3091 58.8646 3.7535 51.3091 35.7535 32.7535 54.6424 40.1980 52.8646 35.4202 53.0869 64.1980 64.9757 64.9757 59.7535 52.1980 42.6424 16.7535 45.3091 -9.8020 24.1980 22.1980 19.1980 41.0869 26.6424 39.3091 21.8646 39.5313 50.6424 51.4202
Unit 48 ANOVA Post Hoc Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable: LSD
(I) Levels
110-120 cm
120-130 cm
130-140 cm
200-210 cm 210-220 cm 38-50 cm 50-60 cm 60-70 cm 70-80 cm 80-90 cm 90-100 cm 100-110 cm 120-130 cm 130-140 cm 140-150 cm 150-160 cm 160-170 cm 170-180 cm 180-190 cm 190-200 cm 200-210 cm 210-220 cm 38-50 cm 50-60 cm 60-70 cm 70-80 cm 80-90 cm 90-100 cm 100-110 cm 110-120 cm 130-140 cm 140-150 cm 150-160 cm 160-170 cm 170-180 cm 180-190 cm 190-200 cm 200-210 cm 210-220 cm 38-50 cm 50-60 cm 60-70 cm 70-80 cm 80-90 cm
Mean Difference (I-J) 13.66667 8.44444 30.00000 20.44444 -5.44444 23.11111 -32.00000 2.00000 15.55556 -3.00000 18.88889 4.44444 17.11111 -0.33333 17.33333 28.44444 29.22222 29.22222 24.00000 33.00000 23.44444 -2.44444 26.11111 -29.00000 5.00000 18.55556 3.00000 21.88889 7.44444 20.11111 2.66667 20.33333 31.44444 32.22222 32.22222 27.00000 11.11111 1.55556 -24.33333 4.22222 -50.88889*
95% Confidence Interval Std. Error 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899
297
Sig.† 0.476 0.659 0.119 0.286 0.776 0.228 0.096 0.917 0.417 0.875 0.324 0.816 0.372 0.986 0.366 0.139 0.128 0.128 0.211 0.086 0.222 0.898 0.174 0.131 0.794 0.333 0.875 0.254 0.697 0.294 0.889 0.289 0.102 0.094 0.094 0.160 0.562 0.935 0.205 0.825 0.009
Lower Bound -24.0869 -29.3091 -7.7535 -17.3091 -43.1980 -14.6424 -69.7535 -35.7535 -22.1980 -40.7535 -18.8646 -33.3091 -20.6424 -38.0869 -20.4202 -9.3091 -8.5313 -8.5313 -13.7535 -4.7535 -14.3091 -40.1980 -11.6424 -66.7535 -32.7535 -19.1980 -34.7535 -15.8646 -30.3091 -17.6424 -35.0869 -17.4202 -6.3091 -5.5313 -5.5313 -10.7535 -26.6424 -36.1980 -62.0869 -33.5313 -88.6424
Upper Bound 51.4202 46.1980 67.7535 58.1980 32.3091 60.8646 5.7535 39.7535 53.3091 34.7535 56.6424 42.1980 54.8646 37.4202 55.0869 66.1980 66.9757 66.9757 61.7535 70.7535 61.1980 35.3091 63.8646 8.7535 42.7535 56.3091 40.7535 59.6424 45.1980 57.8646 40.4202 58.0869 69.1980 69.9757 69.9757 64.7535 48.8646 39.3091 13.4202 41.9757 -13.1354
Unit 48 ANOVA Post Hoc Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable: LSD
(I) Levels
140-150 cm
150-160 cm
90-100 cm 100-110 cm 110-120 cm 120-130 cm 140-150 cm 150-160 cm 160-170 cm 170-180 cm 180-190 cm 190-200 cm 200-210 cm 210-220 cm 38-50 cm 50-60 cm 60-70 cm 70-80 cm 80-90 cm 90-100 cm 100-110 cm 110-120 cm 120-130 cm 130-140 cm 150-160 cm 160-170 cm 170-180 cm 180-190 cm 190-200 cm 200-210 cm 210-220 cm 38-50 cm 50-60 cm 60-70 cm 70-80 cm 80-90 cm 90-100 cm 100-110 cm 110-120 cm 120-130 cm 130-140 cm 140-150 cm 160-170 cm
Mean Difference (I-J) -16.88889 -3.33333 -18.88889 -21.88889 -14.44444 -1.77778 -19.22222 -1.55556 9.55556 10.33333 10.33333 5.11111 25.55556 16.00000 -9.88889 18.66667 -36.44444 -2.44444 11.11111 -4.44444 -7.44444 14.44444 12.66667 -4.77778 12.88889 24.00000 24.77778 24.77778 19.55556 12.88889 3.33333 -22.55556 6.00000 -49.11111* -15.11111 -1.55556 -17.11111 -20.11111 1.77778 -12.66667 -17.44444
95% Confidence Interval Std. Error 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899
298
Sig.† 0.378 0.862 0.324 0.254 0.451 0.926 0.316 0.935 0.618 0.589 0.589 0.789 0.183 0.404 0.606 0.330 0.058 0.898 0.562 0.816 0.697 0.451 0.508 0.803 0.501 0.211 0.197 0.197 0.308 0.501 0.862 0.240 0.754 0.011 0.430 0.935 0.372 0.294 0.926 0.508 0.363
Lower Bound -54.6424 -41.0869 -56.6424 -59.6424 -52.1980 -39.5313 -56.9757 -39.3091 -28.1980 -27.4202 -27.4202 -32.6424 -12.1980 -21.7535 -47.6424 -19.0869 -74.1980 -40.1980 -26.6424 -42.1980 -45.1980 -23.3091 -25.0869 -42.5313 -24.8646 -13.7535 -12.9757 -12.9757 -18.1980 -24.8646 -34.4202 -60.3091 -31.7535 -86.8646 -52.8646 -39.3091 -54.8646 -57.8646 -35.9757 -50.4202 -55.1980
Upper Bound 20.8646 34.4202 18.8646 15.8646 23.3091 35.9757 18.5313 36.1980 47.3091 48.0869 48.0869 42.8646 63.3091 53.7535 27.8646 56.4202 1.3091 35.3091 48.8646 33.3091 30.3091 52.1980 50.4202 32.9757 50.6424 61.7535 62.5313 62.5313 57.3091 50.6424 41.0869 15.1980 43.7535 -11.3576 22.6424 36.1980 20.6424 17.6424 39.5313 25.0869 20.3091
Unit 48 ANOVA Post Hoc Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable: LSD
(I) Levels
160-170 cm
170-180 cm
180-190 cm
170-180 cm 180-190 cm 190-200 cm 200-210 cm 210-220 cm 38-50 cm 50-60 cm 60-70 cm 70-80 cm 80-90 cm 90-100 cm 100-110 cm 110-120 cm 120-130 cm 130-140 cm 140-150 cm 150-160 cm 170-180 cm 180-190 cm 190-200 cm 200-210 cm 210-220 cm 38-50 cm 50-60 cm 60-70 cm 70-80 cm 80-90 cm 90-100 cm 100-110 cm 110-120 cm 120-130 cm 130-140 cm 140-150 cm 150-160 cm 160-170 cm 180-190 cm 190-200 cm 200-210 cm 210-220 cm 38-50 cm 50-60 cm
Mean Difference (I-J) 0.22222 11.33333 12.11111 12.11111 6.88889 30.33333 20.77778 -5.11111 23.44444 -31.66667 2.33333 15.88889 0.33333 -2.66667 19.22222 4.77778 17.44444 17.66667 28.77778 29.55556 29.55556 24.33333 12.66667 3.11111 -22.77778 5.77778 -49.33333* -15.33333 -1.77778 -17.33333 -20.33333 1.55556 -12.88889 -0.22222 -17.66667 11.11111 11.88889 11.88889 6.66667 1.55556 -8.00000
95% Confidence Interval Std. Error 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899
299
Sig.† 0.991 0.554 0.527 0.527 0.719 0.115 0.279 0.789 0.222 0.100 0.903 0.407 0.986 0.889 0.316 0.803 0.363 0.357 0.134 0.124 0.124 0.205 0.508 0.871 0.235 0.763 0.011 0.424 0.926 0.366 0.289 0.935 0.501 0.991 0.357 0.562 0.535 0.535 0.728 0.935 0.676
Lower Bound -37.5313 -26.4202 -25.6424 -25.6424 -30.8646 -7.4202 -16.9757 -42.8646 -14.3091 -69.4202 -35.4202 -21.8646 -37.4202 -40.4202 -18.5313 -32.9757 -20.3091 -20.0869 -8.9757 -8.1980 -8.1980 -13.4202 -25.0869 -34.6424 -60.5313 -31.9757 -87.0869 -53.0869 -39.5313 -55.0869 -58.0869 -36.1980 -50.6424 -37.9757 -55.4202 -26.6424 -25.8646 -25.8646 -31.0869 -36.1980 -45.7535
Upper Bound 37.9757 49.0869 49.8646 49.8646 44.6424 68.0869 58.5313 32.6424 61.1980 6.0869 40.0869 53.6424 38.0869 35.0869 56.9757 42.5313 55.1980 55.4202 66.5313 67.3091 67.3091 62.0869 50.4202 40.8646 14.9757 43.5313 -11.5798 22.4202 35.9757 20.4202 17.4202 39.3091 24.8646 37.5313 20.0869 48.8646 49.6424 49.6424 44.4202 39.3091 29.7535
Unit 48 ANOVA Post Hoc Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable: LSD
(I) Levels
190-200 cm
200-210 cm
60-70 cm 70-80 cm 80-90 cm 90-100 cm 100-110 cm 110-120 cm 120-130 cm 130-140 cm 140-150 cm 150-160 cm 160-170 cm 170-180 cm 190-200 cm 200-210 cm 210-220 cm 38-50 cm 50-60 cm 60-70 cm 70-80 cm 80-90 cm 90-100 cm 100-110 cm 110-120 cm 120-130 cm 130-140 cm 140-150 cm 150-160 cm 160-170 cm 170-180 cm 180-190 cm 200-210 cm 210-220 cm 38-50 cm 50-60 cm 60-70 cm 70-80 cm 80-90 cm 90-100 cm 100-110 cm 110-120 cm 120-130 cm
Mean Difference (I-J) -33.88889 -5.33333 -60.44444* -26.44444 -12.88889 -28.44444 -31.44444 -9.55556 -24.00000 -11.33333 -28.77778 -11.11111 0.77778 0.77778 -4.44444 0.77778 -8.77778 -34.66667 -6.11111 -61.22222* -27.22222 -13.66667 -29.22222 -32.22222 -10.33333 -24.77778 -12.11111 -29.55556 -11.88889 -0.77778 0.00000 -5.22222 0.77778 -8.77778 -34.66667 -6.11111 -61.22222* -27.22222 -13.66667 -29.22222 -32.22222
95% Confidence Interval Std. Error 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899
300
Sig.† 0.078 0.781 0.002 0.168 0.501 0.139 0.102 0.618 0.211 0.554 0.134 0.562 0.968 0.968 0.816 0.968 0.647 0.072 0.750 0.002 0.156 0.476 0.128 0.094 0.589 0.197 0.527 0.124 0.535 0.968 1.000 0.785 0.968 0.647 0.072 0.750 0.002 0.156 0.476 0.128 0.094
Lower Bound -71.6424 -43.0869 -98.1980 -64.1980 -50.6424 -66.1980 -69.1980 -47.3091 -61.7535 -49.0869 -66.5313 -48.8646 -36.9757 -36.9757 -42.1980 -36.9757 -46.5313 -72.4202 -43.8646 -98.9757 -64.9757 -51.4202 -66.9757 -69.9757 -48.0869 -62.5313 -49.8646 -67.3091 -49.6424 -38.5313 -37.7535 -42.9757 -36.9757 -46.5313 -72.4202 -43.8646 -98.9757 -64.9757 -51.4202 -66.9757 -69.9757
Upper Bound 3.8646 32.4202 -22.6909 11.3091 24.8646 9.3091 6.3091 28.1980 13.7535 26.4202 8.9757 26.6424 38.5313 38.5313 33.3091 38.5313 28.9757 3.0869 31.6424 -23.4687 10.5313 24.0869 8.5313 5.5313 27.4202 12.9757 25.6424 8.1980 25.8646 36.9757 37.7535 32.5313 38.5313 28.9757 3.0869 31.6424 -23.4687 10.5313 24.0869 8.5313 5.5313
Unit 48 ANOVA Post Hoc Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable: LSD
(I) Levels
210-220 cm§
130-140 cm 140-150 cm 150-160 cm 160-170 cm 170-180 cm 180-190 cm 190-200 cm 210-220 cm 38-50 cm 50-60 cm 60-70 cm 70-80 cm 80-90 cm 90-100 cm 100-110 cm 110-120 cm 120-130 cm 130-140 cm 140-150 cm 150-160 cm 160-170 cm 170-180 cm 180-190 cm 190-200 cm 200-210 cm
Mean Difference (I-J) -10.33333 -24.77778 -12.11111 -29.55556 -11.88889 -0.77778 0.00000 -5.22222 6.00000 -3.55556 -29.44444 -0.88889 -56.00000* -22.00000 -8.44444 -24.00000 -27.00000 -5.11111 -19.55556 -6.88889 -24.33333 -6.66667 4.44444 5.22222 5.22222
95% Confidence Interval Std. Error 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899 19.10899
301
Sig.† 0.589 0.197 0.527 0.124 0.535 0.968 1.000 0.785 0.754 0.853 0.125 0.963 0.004 0.251 0.659 0.211 0.160 0.789 0.308 0.719 0.205 0.728 0.816 0.785 0.785
Lower Bound -48.0869 -62.5313 -49.8646 -67.3091 -49.6424 -38.5313 -37.7535 -42.9757 -31.7535 -41.3091 -67.1980 -38.6424 -93.7535 -59.7535 -46.1980 -61.7535 -64.7535 -42.8646 -57.3091 -44.6424 -62.0869 -44.4202 -33.3091 -32.5313 -32.5313
Upper Bound 27.4202 12.9757 25.6424 8.1980 25.8646 36.9757 37.7535 32.5313 43.7535 34.1980 8.3091 36.8646 -18.2465 15.7535 29.3091 13.7535 10.7535 32.6424 18.1980 30.8646 13.4202 31.0869 42.1980 42.9757 42.9757
APPENDIX P — CHI-SQUARE TESTS TO COMPARE PROPORTIONS OF ROCK TYPES BETWEEN TEMPORAL PERIODS Table 71. Chi-square Tests to Compare Proportions Between Temporal Periods. TP1 Proportions Compared to TP2
TP1 Proportions Compared to TP3
Chi-square (Observed value)
8.124
Chi-square (Critical value) DF p-value alpha
16.919 9 0.522 0.05
TP1 Proportions Compared to U8TP4 Chi-square (Observed value) Chi-square (Critical value) DF p-value alpha
Chi-square (Observed value) Chi-square (Critical value) DF p-value alpha
31.726 16.919 9 0.000 0.05
TP1 Proportions Compared to U20TP4 84.297 16.919 9 < 0.0001 0.05
Chi-square (Observed value) Chi-square (Critical value) DF p-value alpha
121.022 16.919 9 < 0.0001 0.05
TP1 Proportions Compared to All TP4
TP1 Proportions Compared to TP5
Chi-square (Observed value)
108.641
Chi-square (Observed value)
74.857
Chi-square (Critical value) DF p-value alpha
16.919 9 < 0.0001 0.05
Chi-square (Critical value) DF* p-value alpha
15.507 8 < 0.0001 0.05
TP1 Proportions Compared to TP6
TP2 Proportions Compared to TP3
Chi-square (Observed value) Chi-square (Critical value)
124.183 15.507
Chi-square (Observed value) Chi-square (Critical value)
33.740 16.919
DF* p-value alpha
8 < 0.0001 0.05
DF p-value alpha
9 < 0.0001 0.05
TP2 Proportions Compared to U8 TP4
TP2 Proportions Compared to U20 TP4
Chi-square (Observed value) Chi-square (Critical value) DF
77.006 16.919 9
Chi-square (Observed value) Chi-square (Critical value) DF†
102.563 15.507 8
p-value alpha
< 0.0001 0.05
p-value alpha
< 0.0001 0.05
TP2 Proportions Compared to All TP4
TP2 Proportions Compared to TP5
Chi-square (Observed value) Chi-square (Critical value) DF p-value
94.424 16.919 9 < 0.0001
Chi-square (Observed value) Chi-square (Critical value) DF† p-value
78.597 15.507 8 < 0.0001
alpha
0.05
alpha
0.05
302
TP2 Proportions Compared to TP6
TP3 Proportions Compared to U8 TP4
Chi-square (Observed value) Chi-square (Critical value) DF p-value
114.073 16.919 9 < 0.0001
Chi-square (Observed value) Chi-square (Critical value) DF p-value
36.943 16.919 9 < 0.0001
alpha
0.05
alpha
0.05
TP3 Proportions Compared to U20 TP4
TP3 Proportions Compared to TP4
Chi-square (Observed value) Chi-square (Critical value) DF p-value alpha
Chi-square (Observed value) Chi-square (Critical value) DF p-value alpha
68.003 16.919 9 < 0.0001 0.05
TP3 Proportions Compared to TP5 Chi-square (Observed value) Chi-square (Critical value) DF p-value alpha
41.123 16.919 9 < 0.0001 0.05
TP3 Proportions Compared to TP6 34.562 16.919 9 < 0.0001 0.05
Chi-square (Observed value) Chi-square (Critical value) DF p-value alpha
88.276 16.919 9 < 0.0001 0.05
U8 TP4 Proportions Compared to U20 TP4
U8 TP4 Proportions Compared to All TP4
Chi-square (Observed value)
100.189
Chi-square (Observed value)
23.406
Chi-square (Critical value) DF p-value alpha
16.919 9 < 0.0001 0.05
Chi-square (Critical value) DF p-value alpha
16.919 9 0.005 0.05
U8 TP4 Proportions Compared to TP5
U8 TP4 Proportions Compared to TP6
Chi-square (Observed value) Chi-square (Critical value)
36.482 16.919
Chi-square (Observed value) Chi-square (Critical value)
87.451 16.919
DF p-value alpha
9 < 0.0001 0.05
DF p-value alpha
9 < 0.0001 0.05
U20 TP4 Proportions Compared to All TP4
U20 TP4 Proportions Compared to TP5
Chi-square (Observed value) Chi-square (Critical value) DF
44.112 16.919 9
Chi-square (Observed value) Chi-square (Critical value) DF†
52.280 15.507 8
p-value alpha
< 0.0001 0.05
p-value alpha
< 0.0001 0.05
303
U20 TP4 Proportions Compared to TP6
All TP4 Proportions Compared to TP5
Chi-square (Observed value) Chi-square (Critical value) DF p-value
28.614 16.919 9 0.001
Chi-square (Observed value) Chi-square (Critical value) DF p-value
37.321 16.919 9 < 0.0001
alpha
0.05
alpha
0.05
All TP4 Proportions Compared to TP6
TP5 Proportions Compared to TP6
Chi-square (Observed value) Chi-square (Critical value) DF p-value alpha
Chi-square (Observed value) Chi-square (Critical value) DF* p-value alpha
45.390 16.919 9 < 0.0001 0.05
304
66.771 15.507 8 < 0.0001 0.05
APPENDIX Q — UNIT SUMMARIES AND FEATURE DESCRIPTIONS FOR MATERIAL PRESENT IN THE RESEARCH ASSEMBLAGE This appendix documents debitage and tools that are currently present in the research assemblage. Some discrepancies exist between lithics identified in the original level records and those found in the lab. Appendix C summarize records from the original excavation. The dimension of all units chosen for the research sample is 2 x 2 meters. In the following tables, Table 73 through Table 82, this key (Table 72) represents the Temporal Periods determined in the previous chapter: Table 72. Color Key for Temporal Periods and their Respective Time Frames. Temporal Period 1
Post A.D. 1500
Temporal Period 2
A.D. 1300-1500
Temporal Period 3
A.D. 1100-1300
Temporal Period 4
A.D. 800-1100
Temporal Period 5
A.D. 600-800
Temporal Period 6
A.D. 200-600
Unit 8: Summary of Data and Results Unit 8 is located near the center of the Sjútkanga archaeological site. From 0 to 50 cm the quantity of debitage in Unit 8 is low and the diversity of materials is relatively low, with six or seven types per level (Table 73). From 50 cm until a depth of 80 cm, there is a small quantity of debitage, but diversity of material increases to eight to ten types per level. From 80 to 130 cm, the average quantity of debitage per level is at least twice the quantity present from 50 to 80 cm. The largest quantities of debitage per level occur starting at 130 cm in depth, with a high of 724 flakes between 160 and 170 cm. Thereafter, quantities gradually fall until the unit base is reached. The last level with a full, 10 cm volume of dirt is 200–210 cm.
305
The most prevalent material types in Unit 8 are chert (n=2263, 41.4%), basalt (n=1409, 25.8%), fused shale (n=801, 14.6%), and quartzite (n=483, 8.8%). Quartz crystal starts to appear in the unit with the 80‒90 cm level and shows up continuously in very small quantities through 160 cm in depth. The presence of rhyolite in the unit is nearly continuous between 20 and 200 cm in depth. One flake of obsidian occurs in the 60‒70 cm level, but then there is a gap. Obsidian is present continuously between 110 and 170 cm but does not account for more than four flakes in any one level. Unit 8 includes 148 lithic tools (Table 74). Expedient tools dominate the unit assemblage with 53 artifacts. One piece of weathered fused shale in the category of other chipped stone, function unknown, has been included with the count of expedient tools. Thirty formal tools were identified. Thirty-three cores and tested cobbles and 25 pieces of ground stone (with 10 percussive tools) were found in the unit. Other lithic implements include one manuport (100–110 cm), 5 tarring pebbles (one each in the 100–110 and 140–150 cm levels, the remainder between 130 and 140 cm), and one rock with ochre (160–170 cm). The first percussive implement appears below 30 cm in depth, and ground stone first appears with the 50‒60 cm level. Ground stone shows up primarily between 140 and 200 cm. A whole metate, in the north wall, and an indeterminate fragment of schist were discovered in the 170–180 cm level. The metate was positioned with the working face down. Feature #29 is present in the 70‒80 and 80‒90 cm levels of Unit 8. It is comprised of a cluster of unmodified, angular basalt rocks. Artifacts are not noted as present within
306
Feature #29 in either level or feature records. Although they are recorded as collected, the feature rocks cannot be located in the collection at this time. Table 73. Unit 8 Debitage by Material Type. *Feature 29 occupies these levels.
1 3
2 2
20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80*
1 1
2 1 3 7 8 3
14 8 11 51 67 45
4 4 5 22 49 47
3 3
3 1 2
10 14 6 35 35 22
80-90* 90-100 100-110 110-120 120-130 130-140
1 1 4 7 10 15
43 47 70 92 115 218
16 7 12 20 32 36
109 83 98 125 156 273
67 50 55 48 59 82
140-150 150-160 160-170 170-180 180-190 190-200
12 12 14 9 5
142 152 151 88 57 53
26 32 29 20 11 1
212 304 365 166 89 36
79 73 66 45 22 12
29 14
2 1
21 14
6 2
200-210 210+
2
1
2 1 4 2
1
4 4 1
1 2 4 2 6 3
1
5 13 6 1 1 1 1 2 3
17 9 14 25 38 56
6 3 11 3 5 7
1 1
43 62 82 51 22 18
2 7 12 11 4 3
8 4
307
0 24 25
1 2 2 3
1
TOTAL
8 8
Volcanic (Other)
3 4
Rhyolite
Fused Shale
9 7
Quartzite
Chert
Quartz Crystal
Chalcedony
1 1
Quartz
Basalt
+10-0 0-10 10-20
Obsidian
Andesite
Mud/Siltstone
Level (cm)
Metasandstone
Unit 8 Debitage By Material Type (n=5,472)
1
1
35 31 28 126 176 128
1
262 201 265 323 419 697
2
513 651 724 398 215 130 66 35
Table 74. Tools in the Unit 8 Assemblage. *Feature 29 occupies these levels. Tools in the Unit 8 Assemblage (n=148)
+10-0 0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80* 80-90* 90-100 100-110 110-120 120-130 130-140 140-150 150-160 160-170 170-180 180-190 190-200 200-210 210+
2 1 2 2
2 1
1 1 1
1 1 2 2 1 4 5
1
3 1 2 1
1 3 2 9 5 3 1 2
1 1
1 2
1
2
2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 4 2 1 1 3 3 3 3 3
TOTAL
Other Lithic Implement
Other Ground Stone
Indeterminate Fragment
Pestle + Fragments
Metate + Fragments
Mano + Fragments
Hammerstone/Percussive
Cooking Stone
Bowl
Basket Weaving Tool
Other Chipped Lithic
PPT + Fragments
EMFs Incidental
Ground Stone Tools
EMFs
Drills
Cores/Tested Cobbles
Chopper/Scraper/Uniface
Bifaces + Fragments
Level (cm)
Chipped Stone Tools
1 1 1 1 1
1
1 2
1 1 1 1 2
1 2 1 2 2
2
3 1
2 2 3
2 1 1
1
1
0 2 4 1 3 2 7 5 1 6 4 10 8 5 18 12 17 21 9 8 4 1 0
Unit 19: Summary of Data and Results The depth of the last level of Unit 19 reaches 297 cm at its lowest spot. A bag sorted in the lab for this unit is labeled as an unknown level and another is noted for
308
230‒260 cm in depth. The excavation records are unclear regarding the reason for designating some debitage as being derived from the unknown and 230–260 cm levels. Debitage in Unit 19 is present in moderate quantities, compared to the other research units, and is primarily composed of chert (1138 pieces, 44.0%), basalt (642, 24.9%), and fused shale (236, 9.1%) (Table 75). Quantities are highest between 80 and 90 cm (at the top of Feature #58) and between 200 and 220 cm in depth. Level 210‒220 has the greatest quantity of debitage, 203 flakes, and is just above Feature #79. Lithic tools number 107 for this unit, including artifacts collected with the features (Table 76). The quantity of chipped lithic tools present is 17 cores/tested cobbles, 25 expedient tools, and 20 formal tools. A chert knife base and chert microblade are part of the formal tool category but are listed as other chipped lithics in Table 76. Other lithic implements in Unit 19 are comprised of three boiling rocks, a pebble with blue residue, two tarring pebbles, a rock with ochre, and a schist manuport. Of 36 pieces of ground stone in this unit (which includes three hammerstone/percussive implements), 17 items are part of Feature #79 and three are from Feature #58. Seven of the 37 ground stone artifacts listed as other ground stone are a modelo ornament, modelo abrader, and five lithic beads. All lithic beads in the research assemblage are from Unit 19—one steatite, one igneous, one modelo, and two soapstone beads. Three features are recorded within Unit 19. Feature #35, a concentration of charred seeds, was present in the 20‒30 cm level. Feature #58, a dense scatter of rock interpreted by excavators as a hearth, was found between 80 and 110 cm in depth. Some charcoal and burnt bone were recorded as present in this feature. According to records,
309
there should be about 311 lithics in Feature #58, but only 242 items could be counted in the lab. By my visual examination, at least 80% is fire affected. The 242 lithics in this feature include five flakes of debitage, 1 basalt core, 1 quartz core, 1 tarring pebble, 3 fire-affected unspecified ground stone fragments, and 1 modelo abrader. Feature #79 occurred in Unit 19 between 220 and 250 cm in depth. Modelo slabs, rounded granitic rock, fire-affected rock, a broken biface, a piece of shell, and scattered charcoal made up the feature, as recorded in feature records. Excavators did not collect all lithics from this feature, but 65 items from are present in the lab, none of which is modelo. Two quartzite cores, one incidentally edge-modified flake, one edge-modified flake, two beaked hammerstones, 12 manos and fragments thereof, three metate fragments, one unifacial scraper, and one schist manuport were observed in the lab from Feature #79 and are included in the above tool totals. Table 75. Unit 19 Debitage by Material Type. *Feature 35 occupies this level. †Feature 58 occupies these levels. §Feature 79 occupies these levels.
0-10
7
10-20
11
TOTAL
Unknown
Volcanic (Other)
Rhyolite
Quartzite
Quartz Crystal
Quartz
Obsidian
Mud/Siltstone
Metasandstone
Fused Shale
Chert
Chalcedony
Basalt
Andesite
Level (cm)
Unit 19 Debitage By Material Type (n=2,582)
15
1
1
3
2
12
3
3
6
3
40
19
1
10
4
3
5
2
46
14
4
20
6
2
2
31
3
30
23
7
3
2
3
103
50-60
23
4
44
26
7
1
3
5
113
60-70
18
4
48
20
6
3
1
2
103
20-30*
1
30-40 40-50
1
1
310
1
27
48
90-100
100-110†
1
11
4
10
2
2
3
2
11
4
12
1
110-120
12
120-130
1
1
1
TOTAL
1
Unknown
31
Volcanic (Other)
86
Rhyolite
2
Quartzite
46
Quartz Crystal
1
Obsidian
16
Quartz
Mud/Siltstone
Metasandstone
30
80-90† †
Fused Shale
Chalcedony 8
70-80
Chert
Basalt 23
Andesite
Level (cm)
Unit 19 Debitage By Material Type (n=2,582)
79
1
15
4
1
187
3
1
1
1
34
1
1
2
1
27
1
1
1
28
1
1
4
130-140
23
5
26
9
1
1
2
2
2
71
140-150
33
6
37
3
3
1
10
1
94
150-160
5
4
11
1
1
2
4
1
29
2
9
6
118
160-170
5
36
9
45
3
3
170-180
3
25
7
35
5
1
180-190
5
33
7
46
9
5
2
12
10
190-200
4
33
7
73
8
3
2
14
5
2
200-210
4
48
7
79
15
3
21
7
1
210-220
4
29
14
109
22
13
4
204
220-230§
1
38
11
60
8
10
8
138
230-240§
4
37
6
70
7
4
11
2
142
32
6
95
10
1
4
3
12
163
24
4
48
1
7
1
5
94
7
4
27
2
2
2
2
7
53
2
2
240-250§ 250-260
4
260-270 270+
2
6
2
10
unknown
1
14
1
21
230-260
1
1
7 1
11
1
1
1
17
1
87 129 151 1
186
24 2
2
42 18
311
Table 76. Tools Present in the Unit 19 Research Assemblage. *Feature 35 occupies this level. †Feature 58 occupies these levels. §Feature 79 occupies these levels. Tools in the Unit 19 Assemblage (n=107)
0-10
1
1
10-20
1
1
20-30*
1
1
1
60-70
3
70-80
1
80-90†
2
90-100†
1 1
1
1
1
2
1
5 2
6
1
1
1
3
1
1
6
1
5
1
9
1
100-110†
1
110-120
1
1 1
1 1
1
1
1
1 1
1
1
1
5 3
1
120-130 130-140
3 1
1
1
6 2
1 2
TOTAL
Other Lithic Implement
Other Ground Stone
Indeterminate Fragment
2
1
40-50
140-150
Pestle + Fragments
Metate + Fragments
Mano + Fragments
Hammerstone/Percussive
Cooking Stone
Bowl
Basket Weaving Tool
2
30-40
50-60
Other Chipped Lithic
PPT + Fragments
EMFs Incidental
Ground Stone Tools
EMFs
Drills
Cores/Tested Cobbles
Chopper/Scraper/Uniface
Bifaces + Fragments
Level (cm)
Chipped Stone Tools
2
1
3 0
150-160
2
160-170
2
4
2
170-180
1
180-190
1
3
1
2
1
190-200 200-210
1
210-220
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
2
220-230§
1
230-240§
1
1
240-250§
1
1
2
1
1
1
1 12
2
1
312
3
22 1
6
Tools in the Unit 19 Assemblage (n=107)
1
250-260
TOTAL
Other Lithic Implement
Other Ground Stone
Indeterminate Fragment
Pestle + Fragments
Metate + Fragments
Mano + Fragments
Hammerstone/Percussive
Cooking Stone
Bowl
Basket Weaving Tool
Other Chipped Lithic
PPT + Fragments
EMFs Incidental
Ground Stone Tools
EMFs
Drills
Cores/Tested Cobbles
Chopper/Scraper/Uniface
Level (cm)
Bifaces + Fragments
Chipped Stone Tools
1
2 1
260-270
1 0
270+
1
unknown
1 0
230-260
Unit 20: Summary of Data and Results Unit 20 was excavated to a depth of 250 cm. A comparison of this unit’s level records with a count of what is present in the collection reveals that almost all tools observed during excavation are missing. The debitage (n=4,674) appears to be complete. It is comprised primarily of chert (n=2186, 46.8%), basalt (n=1061, 22.7%), and fused shale (n=412, 8.8%), with lesser quantities of other materials (Table 77). Debitage occurs minimally through 90 cm in depth, amounting to 134 pieces in these first nine levels. Between 90 and 110 cm, the levels occupied by Feature #8, 241 pieces of debitage are present. Between 110 and 170 cm, each level has between about 200–400 flakes. The largest quantities of debitage for 10 cm levels occurs between 170 and 200 cm—550 pieces in the 170–180 cm level, 800 from 180–190 cm, and 446 between 190 and 200 cm. Thereafter, quantities drop gradually to the unit base. Obsidian is sparse in Unit 20, and only occurs in deeper levels, starting at 160 cm in depth.
313
About 80% of the 67 tools present in the lab for Unit 20 were derived from Feature #8 between 90 and 110 cm in depth (Table 78). The feature is a circular concentration of rocks, thought by excavators to be a cache of boiling stones. In the lab 126 lithics from this feature were examined—49 rounded rocks (under the category of other lithic implements) appear to be boiling stones. Other notable lithics from Feature #8 are six indeterminate ground stone fragments and three manos or fragments thereof, two of which are fire-affected. One of the six ground stone fragments was pedestalled. Apparently, it was removed during excavation of the 140–150 cm level (where it is itemized in Table 78), although records indicate that the feature only occupies depths between 90 and 110 cm. Tools present from Unit 20 that are not associated with Feature #8 include one core, five expedient tools, and three formal lithic tools. Table 77. Unit 20 Debitage by Material Type. *Feature 8 occupies these levels.
Volcanic (Other)
Quartz Crystal
Mud/Siltstone
4
20-30
7
2
4
30-40
12
3
3
4
1
5
1
2
14
50-60
3
3
1
2
1
10
60-70
3
4
1
70-80
2
4
80-90
4
7
9
36
15
67
40-50
90-100*
1
3
1 2
TOTAL
1
Rhyolite
16
Quartzite
10-20
Quartz
1
Obsidian
4
Chert
Chalcedony
8
Andesite
0-10
Level (cm)
Basalt
Fused Shale
Unit 20 Debitage By Material Type (n=4,674)
4
17
2
24
1
16 18
1
9 6 20
10
1
314
13
5
150
Volcanic (Other)
4
11
4
94
15
10
196
19
7
222
32
21
29
16
13
5
1
224
34
17
1
390
110-120
4
36
17
92
22
120-130
5
44
19
104
21
130-140
4
84
22
121
16
140-150
3
71
34
146
37
150-160
1
34
25
114
31
160-170
7
78
36
176
40
170-180
15
132
33
257
43
180-190
7
177
38
398
60
190-200
4
75
22
228
200-210
3
60
9
210-220
3
51
220-230
1
3
2
2
1 4
TOTAL
Rhyolite
31
Quartz
16
Obsidian
Quartzite
Quartz Crystal
Mud/Siltstone
Fused Shale
28
Chert
Chalcedony
100-110*
Basalt
Andesite
Level (cm)
Unit 20 Debitage By Material Type (n=4,674)
1
301 340
3
3
31
29
550
4
4
86
26
800
49
1
38
26
3
446
131
28
1
8
12
4
256
19
108
21
2
8
4
217
58
8
104
21
1
16
1
210
230-240
28
2
73
4
2
9
2
121
240-250
10
8
1
1
3
23
1
1
Table 78. Tools Present in the Unit 20 Research Assemblage. *Feature 8 occupies these levels. Tools in the Unit 20 Assemblage (n=67)
0-10
1
1
TOTAL
Other Lithic Implement
Other Ground Stone
Indeterminate Fragment
Pestle + Fragments
Metate + Fragments
Mano + Fragments
Hammerstone/Percussive
1
3 0
10-20 20-30
Cooking Stone
Bowl
Basket Weaving Tool
Other Chipped Lithic
PPT + Fragments
EMFs Incidental
Ground Stone Tools
EMFs
Drills
Cores/Tested Cobbles
Chopper/Scraper/Uniface
Bifaces + Fragments
Level (cm)
Chipped Stone Tools
1
1
315
Tools in the Unit 20 Assemblage (n=67)
TOTAL
Other Lithic Implement
Other Ground Stone
Indeterminate Fragment
Pestle + Fragments
Metate + Fragments
Mano + Fragments
Hammerstone/Percussive
Cooking Stone
Bowl
Basket Weaving Tool
Other Chipped Lithic
PPT + Fragments
EMFs Incidental
Ground Stone Tools
EMFs
Drills
Cores/Tested Cobbles
Chopper/Scraper/Uniface
Level (cm)
Bifaces + Fragments
Chipped Stone Tools
1
30-40
1
40-50
0
50-60
0 1
60-70
1
70-80
0
80-90
0
90-100*
2
100-110*
5
2
2
47
54
1
110-120
1
120-130
0
130-140
0 1
140-150
1
150-160
1 0
160-170 170-180
1
1
1
180-190
0
190-200
0
200-210
0
210-220
1
1
220-230
0
230-240
0
240-250
0
Unit 38: Summary of Data and Results Arbitrary 10 cm levels were excavated for Unit 38 through 190 cm, plus a final level from 190 to 245 cm in depth. Debitage from the 180‒190 cm level is currently
316
missing from the collection—lab investigation failed to identify any tools for this level, and they are also presumed to be missing. With over 10,000 pieces of debitage and 156 tools or tool fragments, Unit 38 represents a significant portion of the research assemblage—37.3% of the debitage and approximately 28.0% of the tools. The highest proportion of debitage in this unit is chert (n=3844, 37.3%), followed by basalt (n=3134, 30.4%), fused shale (n=943, 9.2%), and various other material types (Table 79). The count of obsidian flakes is 121, which amounts to 1.2% of the Unit 38 debitage. From 0 to 50 cm in depth, debitage quantity is moderate, reaching a maximum of 277 flakes in the 30–40 cm level. Between 50 and 80 cm, debitage increases from 355 to 465 pieces. Quantities of debitage are very high between 80 and 150 cm, thereafter dramatically dropping in quantity between 150 and 180 cm in depth. Flakes uncovered from 190 cm to the bottom of the unit number 480. Although this appears to be a significant increase in debitage, this is misleading because excavation took place between 190 and 245 cm as a single level. Thirty-seven cores are present—17 basalt, 11 quartzite, five chert, and one each of andesite, chalcedony, fused shale, and quartz (Table 80). Formal chipped tools (n=42) outnumber expedient ones (n=30) in Unit 38. Expedient chipped tools (listed as other chipped lithics) include a borer (50–60 cm), a cutting tool (100–110 cm), and a wedge (150–160 cm). Ground stone/percussive implements total 32 artifacts. Two of these items are hammerstones, three are abraders, and two are refit fragments of a modelo ornament. Other lithic implements are inventoried as a soapstone manuport and a rock with ochre
317
between 40 and 50 cm, 10 tarring pebbles; several pieces of asphaltum from 90–100 cm counted as one artifact; and a limestone polisher from 150–160 cm. Two features were designated for Unit 38. Feature #25 is a cluster of rocks extending between 0 and 20 cm in depth. Feature excavation records describe the cluster as five medium-sized cobbles, one of which may be a mano, with interspersed charcoal and a single tarring pebble. The tarring pebble is in the lab, but the mano is not present and may have been misidentified as an artifact. Feature #60 consists of a concentration of 15 small to medium angular rocks, most of them fire affected, in the 80–90 cm level. A mano fragment was part of this arrangement. Table 79. Unit 38 Debitage by Material Type. *Feature 25 occupies these levels. †Feature 60 occupies this level.
1
35
5
25
12
20-30
1
35
15
47
20
30-40
2
85
15
90
40-50
4
53
12
50-60
1
79
60-70
7
70-80
1
5
1
1
55
13
7
1
102
TOTAL
3
10-20*
Volcanic (Other)
2
Rhyolite
Quartz Crystal
6
Quartzite
Quartz
5
Obsidian
17
Mud/Siltstone
5
Fused Shale
13
Chert
Chalcedony
0-10*
Basalt
Andesite
Level (cm)
Unit 38 Debitage By Material Type (n=10,309)
7
1
21
1
2
151
38
6
1
32
7
2
278
58
35
1
17
1
25
127
92
6
9
2
8
5
1
355
105
38
152
64
6
6
4
33
15
1
431
6
139
37
149
64
5
4
4
43
7
7
465
80-90†
12
254
62
255
68
8
8
1
66
14
5
753
90-100
8
143
52
279
73
18
1
45
20
4
643
100-110
34
457
119
505
101
15
13
7
118
31
11
1411
110-120
22
433
100
492
90
13
14
2
81
38
120-130
7
325
80
385
67
17
9
93
34
318
181
1285 5
1022
Quartz
Quartz Crystal
74
7
6
4
140-150
20
302
94
363
68
7
8
51
8
41
5
6
150-160 160-170
3
32
7
69
10
3
170-180
3
46
5
42
6
3
180-190 190-245
2
TOTAL
Obsidian
505
Volcanic (Other)
Fused Shale
91
Rhyolite
Chert
439
Quartzite
Chalcedony
30
Mud/Siltstone
Basalt
130-140
Level (cm)
Andesite
Unit 38 Debitage By Material Type (n=10,309)
124
31
13
1324
88
33
10
993
9
3
2
125
11
3
140
6
1
112
22
9
480
Material is missing from the archaeological collection 12
109
27
242
51
6
1
1
Table 80. Tools Present in the Unit 38 Research Assemblage. *Feature 25 occupies these levels. †Feature 60 occupies this level. Tools in the Unit 38 Assemblage (n=156)
10-20*
1
1
3
30-40
1
2
2
1
1
40-50
1
2
1
1
1
50-60
2
1
60-70
1
2
5
70-80
1
2
2
80-90†
2
1
3
90-100
2
1
4
100-110
1
3
5
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
TOTAL
1
5
1
7 7
3
2 1 1
1
1 1
13 2
1
319
14 10
1 1
9 9
2
2
2 2
Other Lithic Implement
Other Ground Stone
Indeterminate Fragment
Pestle + Fragments
Metate + Fragments
Mano + Fragments
Hammerstone/Percussive
Cooking Stone
Bowl
6
1
2
20-30
Basket Weaving Tool
1
Other Chipped Lithic
3
PPT + Fragments
Drills
Cores/Tested Cobbles
2
EMFs Incidental
2
Ground Stone Tools
EMFs
0-10*
Chopper/Scraper/Uniface
Bifaces + Fragments
Level (cm)
Chipped Stone Tools
12 10
Tools in the Unit 38 Assemblage (n=156)
120-130
2
130-140
3
140-150
1
1 4
150-160
2
160-170
1
170-180
1
1
1 1
TOTAL
Other Lithic Implement
Other Ground Stone
Indeterminate Fragment
Pestle + Fragments
Metate + Fragments
3
1
Mano + Fragments
1
Hammerstone/Percussive
2
Cooking Stone
1
Bowl
2
Basket Weaving Tool
1
Other Chipped Lithic
EMFs
Drills
Cores/Tested Cobbles
2
PPT + Fragments
1
Ground Stone Tools
EMFs Incidental
110-120
Chopper/Scraper/Uniface
Bifaces + Fragments
Level (cm)
Chipped Stone Tools
1
1
3
11
2
2
1
11
1
9
3 1
1
10 4
1
10
1
2 1
180-190
0
190-245
0
Unit 48: Summary of Data and Results The deepest point in Unit 48 was 236 cm in depth. The top of the unit was covered with asphalt and cement, so excavation records and artifact collection began with the first level between 38 and 50 cm in depth. Debitage in Unit 48 does not appear to follow a pattern with depth (Table 81). The primary debitage material types in this unit are chert (n=1749, 37.9%), basalt (n=1225, 26.5%), and fused shale (n=854, 18.5%). Quantities of chalcedony and quartzite are less than half that of fused shale, and other material types are sparsely represented. The single level with the highest quantity of debitage, 80‒90 cm, includes the top of Feature #48. Tool counts in Unit 48 total 83 (Table 82). Cores and tested cobbles in Unit 48 amount to 20 artifacts. Ground stone/percussive implements are represented by 21 items.
320
All three ground stone bowl fragments in the research assemblage are from Unit 48, and all are made of sandstone. Expedient tools number 17, and formal tools number 23. One expedient tool listed in Table 6.11 as other chipped lithic is a heavy-duty, basalt cutting tool, almost like a cleaver. Under the category of other ground stone/percussive implements are a modelo cutting board and a modelo abrader with grooves on its side. A tarring pebble and one sandstone rock with asphaltum make up the category of other lithic implements in Table 82. Feature #48 is a cluster of 12 rocks in the northeast corner between 80 and 100 cm in depth, presumed by excavators to be a hearth. Nearly all of the feature rocks are fire affected. The feature extended into adjacent unit #102 as Feature #49, although feature records indicate that #48 and #49 were determined later to be the same hearth. Scattered near the cluster within Unit 48 were 19 rocks, an abalone fragment, and a flake of debitage recorded by excavators.
321
Table 81. Unit 48 Debitage by Material Type. *Feature 48 occupies these levels.
Volcanic (Other)
7
1
94 179
TOTAL
Rhyolite
1
Quartzite
19
Quartz Crystal
25
Quartz
Mud/Siltstone
2
Obsidian
Fused Shale
39
Chert
Chalcedony
38-50
Basalt
Andesite
Level (cm)
Unit 48 Debitage By Material Type (n=4,624)
50-60
1
47
13
50
50
1
1
14
2
60-70
2
95
33
134
126
1
8
10
3
70-80
46
5
52
41
3
4
4
155
80-90*
122
39
230
221
5
2
24
8
651
90-100*
91
22
124
85
1
3
17
2
345
2
12
3
1
225
2
21
6
5
368
414
100-110
3
53
13
79
58
110-120
1
106
28
138
61
120-130
8
94
31
161
67
2
7
18
2
1
391
56
27
69
20
1
5
14
1
1
194
106
31
122
25
2
30
6
323
150-160
64
28
88
12
9
7
209
160-170
92
40
157
33
6
28
10
366
1
15
7
207
130-140 140-150
1
1
2
1
170-180
2
45
17
107
12
180-190
1
38
11
45
5
7
23
16
49
6
5
1
100
11
2
100
9
1
147
2
1
41
190-200 200-210
1
29
9
41
7
210-220
1
61
11
60
3
17
1
17
3
220-230 230+
1
1
1
1
1
322
1
108
3
Table 82. Tools Present in the Unit 48 Research Assemblage *Feature 48 occupies these levels. Tools in the Unit 48 Assemblage (n=83)
1
2
1
2
3 3
2
3
1
1
2
1
9
1
6
3 1
9
1
1
1
4
1
1
5
1 1
1
1
1
130-140
1
1
2
1
3
150-160
1
4
1
160-170
3
2
1
1
1
1
140-150
TOTAL
Other Lithic Implement
Other Ground Stone
Indeterminate Fragment
Pestle + Fragments
Metate + Fragments
1
110-120 120-130
Mano + Fragments
Hammerstone/Percussive
Cooking Stone
Bowl
Basket Weaving Tool
Other Chipped Lithic
1 1
1
90-100* 100-110
5
1
70-80 80-90*
PPT + Fragments
1
50-60 60-70
EMFs Incidental
2
Ground Stone Tools
EMFs
2
Drills
Cores/Tested Cobbles
38-50
Chopper/Scraper/Uniface
Bifaces + Fragments
Level (cm)
Chipped Stone Tools
5 1
1
1
2
3 1
1
1
12
2
1
9
1
1
10
170-180
0
180-190
0 1
190-200
0
200-210 210-220
1
1
1
2
220-230
0
230+
0
323
APPENDIX R — DATA TABLES FOR EXPLORATION OF LITHIC DATA PATTERNS Table 83. Debitage Counts for Material Types Quantified in Each Temporal Period. TP6
TP5
Andesite
TP4
TP3
TP2
TP1
39
34
219
39
17
10
Basalt
603
356
3670
1052
448
582
Chalcedony
177
54
942
342
123
131
1398
464
5081
1454
715
892
248
106
1034
501
394
691
Metasandstone
0
0
1
0
0
0
Mud/Siltstone
5
1
2
0
0
1
14
12
120
30
6
10
Quartz
9
5
86
38
16
16
Quartz Crystal
0
0
22
14
3
0
Quartzite
227
125
1089
277
96
119
Rhyolite
116
25
328
83
25
36
Unknown
0
0
1
0
0
10
Volcanic
17
4
54
13
10
10
TOTAL
2853
1186
12649
3843
1853
2508
Chert Fused Shale
Obsidian
Table 84. Density-Time Indices for Most Common Lithic Material Types in Each Temporal Period. TP6
TP5
TP4
TP3
TP2
TP1
Basalt
0.63
0.42
1.13
0.42
0.47
0.37
Chalcedony
0.28
0.10
0.44
0.20
0.19
0.13
Chert
2.18
0.83
2.35
0.87
1.12
0.86
Fused Shale
0.26
0.13
0.32
0.20
0.41
0.44
Quartzite
0.35
0.22
0.50
0.16
0.15
0.11
Other
0.16
0.07
0.19
0.06
0.06
0.04
Table 85. Percentages of Most Common Lithic Material Types in Each Temporal Period. TP6 Basalt
TP5
TP4
TP3
TP2
TP1
16.3
23.9
22.9
21.8
19.5
19.0
7.2
5.4
8.8
10.6
8.0
6.4
56.6
46.8
47.6
45.2
46.6
43.8
Fused Shale
6.7
7.1
6.5
10.4
17.1
22.6
Quartzite
9.2
12.6
10.2
8.6
6.3
5.8
Other
4.0
4.1
3.9
3.4
2.5
2.3
Chalcedony Chert
324
Table 86. Density-Time Index of Fused Shale in Each Temporal Period as a Basis for Linear Regression Tests. Frequency TP1 TP2 TP3
Total Vol. in TP
691
Frequency Per m3 132.8
0.443
3
123.1
0.616
3
59.6
0.298
3
95.7
0.319
5.2 m
394
3.2 m
501
Density-Time Index
3
8.4 m
TP4
1034
10.8 m
TP5
106
2.8 m3
37.9
0.189
TP6
248
3.2 m3
77.5
0.194
Table 87. Density-Time Index of Obsidian in Each Temporal Period as a Basis for Linear Regression Tests. Obsidian TP1
10
TP2
0.006
1.9
0.009
3
3.6
0.018
3
11.1
0.037
3
4.3
0.021
3
4.4
0.011
÷ 10.8 m
12
TP6
1.9
3
÷ 8.4 m
120
÷ 2.8 m
14
Density-Time Index
3
÷ 3.2 m
30
TP5
Frequency Per m3
÷ 5.2 m
6
TP3 TP4
Total Vol. in TP
÷ 3.2 m
Table 88. Density-Time Index of Rhyolite in Each Temporal Period as a Basis for Linear Regression Tests. Rhyolite
Total Vol. in TP
Frequency Per m3
Density-Time Index
TP1
36
÷ 5.2 m3
6.9
0.023
TP2
25
÷ 3.2 m3
7.8
0.039
83
3
9.9
0.049
3
30.4
0.101
3
8.9
0.045
3
36.3
0.091
TP3 TP4 TP5 TP6
328
÷ 8.4 m ÷ 10.8 m
25 116
÷ 2.8 m ÷ 3.2 m
Table 89. Model Summary for Obsidian to Fused Shale Regression. Model Summary and Parameter Estimates: Fused Shale to Obsidian Dependent Variable: Obsidian Independent Variable: Fused Shale Model Summary Equation Linear
R Square .147
F
df1 .689
Parameter Estimates df2
1
325
4
Sig. .453
Constant .026
b1 -.027
Table 90. Model Summary for Obsidian to Fused Shale Regression, Outlier Removed. Model Summary and Parameter Estimates: Fused Shale to Obsidian Dependent Variable: Obsidian Independent Variable: Fused Shale Model Summary Equation Linear
R Square .416
F 2.141
df1
Parameter Estimates df2
1
Sig. .240
3
Constant .021
b1 -.022
Table 91. Model Summary for Rhyolite to Obsidian Regression. Model Summary and Parameter Estimates: Obsidian to Rhyolite Dependent Variable: Rhyolite Independent Variable: Obsidian Model Summary Equation Linear
R Square .425
F 2.959
df1
Parameter Estimates df2
1
Sig. .161
4
Constant .028
b1 1.784
Table 92. Model Summary for Rhyolite to Obsidian Regression, Outlier Removed. Model Summary and Parameter Estimates: Obsidian to Rhyolite Dependent Variable: Rhyolite Independent Variable: Obsidian Model Summary Equation Linear
R Square .918
F 33.390
df1
Parameter Estimates df2
1
Sig. .010
3
Constant .009
b1 2.313
Table 93. Sjútkanga Chert Debitage Counts by Type and Temporal Period. AS TP1 TP2 TP3 TP4 TP5 TP6 TOTAL
SC 39 40 73 326 59 150 687
11 11 33 158 35 122 370
SNC 31 28 52 328 67 201 707
CC 1 9 22 54 22 69 177
CNC 46 42 131 552 87 440 1298
326
BPF 10 16 33 101 18 83 261
Bi
TOTAL
In 1 0 4 3 1 7 16
23 46 51 189 23 101 433
162 192 399 1711 312 1173 3949
Table 94. Density Time Indices for Sjútkanga Chert Debitage.
AS
SC
SNC
CC
CNC
BPF
Bi
In
TP6
0.117
0.095
0.157
0.054
0.344
0.065
0.005
0.079
TP5
0.105
0.063
0.120
0.039
0.155
0.032
0.002
0.041
TP4
0.101
0.049
0.101
0.017
0.170
0.031
0.001
0.058
TP3
0.043
0.020
0.031
0.013
0.078
0.020
0.002
0.030
TP2
0.063
0.017
0.044
0.014
0.066
0.025
0.000
0.072
TP1
0.025
0.007
0.020
0.001
0.029
0.006
0.001
0.015
327
APPENDIX S — ARTIFACT INVENTORY FROM THE RESEARCH ASSEMBLAGE Artifacts marked in orange are pictured in the Appendix T. Artifacts marked in green are multifunctional tools. Table 95. Artifact Inventory from the Research Assemblage. Unit
Level (cm)
Material
Tool Type
8
0-10
Chert
Edge-Modified Flake (Incidental)
8 8
0-10 10-20
Chert Basalt
Edge-Modified Flake (Incidental) Core Multidirectional
8
10-20
Rhyolite
Core (Battered)
8 8 8 8 8 8
10-20 10-20 20-30 30-40 30-40 30-40
Andesite Basalt Quartzite Chert Chert Basalt
Edge-Modified Flake (Incidental) Edge-Modified Flake (Incidental) Edge-Modified Flake (Incidental) Core Bipolar Edge-Modified Flake (Incidental) Hammerstone Fragment
8
40-50
Chert
Edge-Modified Flake (Incidental)
Santa Cruz Island Chert; catalog #: 53303
8
40-50
Fused Shale
Unknown
Weathered chunk of fused shale; catalog #: 53312
8
50-60
Chert
Biface
Mid-Section
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
50-60 50-60 50-60 50-60 50-60 50-60 60-70 60-70 60-70 60-70
Fused Shale Chert Quartzite Fused Shale Chert Granite Chert Chalcedony Chert Basalt
Biface Core Core Edge-Modified Flake Edge-Modified Flake (Incidental) Mano Core Edge-Modified Flake (Incidental) Projectile Point Scraper
Mid-Section Multidirectional Multidirectional
8
60-70
Chert
Scraper
Unifacial
8 8 8 8 8 8 8
70-80 69-84 80-90 80-90 80-90 80-90 80-90
Fused Shale Sandstone Basalt Fused Shale Chert Chert Andesite
Edge-Modified Flake Ground Stone Fragment Core Multidirectional Edge-Modified Flake Edge-Modified Flake (Incidental) Edge-Modified Flake (Incidental) Hammerstone Beaked
Catalog #: 30223 Burnt; catalog #: 30690 Fragment; catalog #: 30255 Catalog #: 30252 Catalog #: 30253 Catalog #: 30254 Porphyritic; catalog #: 30250
8
90-100
Fused Shale
Biface
Perverse fracture manufacturing break; catalog #: 30278
8 8 8
90-100 90-100 90-100
Rhyolite Chert Chalcedony
Drill General Edge-Modified Flake (Incidental) Projectile Point Base
Asphaltum present; catalog #: 30277 Catalog #: 30280 Impact fracture; catalog #: 30279
8
100-110 Fused Shale
Biface
Base
Split through bipolar force, possible repurposing; catalog #: 30319
8
100-110 Chert
Biface
Tip
Perverse fracture manufacturing break; catalog #: 30314
Tool Portion
Multidirectional
Fragment Bipolar Tip Denticulate
Base
328
Note Debitage chunk with some modification; catalog #: 53248 Catalog #: 53247 Catalog #: 53249 Battered, burned and fractured; catalog #: 53263 Catalog #: 53262 Catalog #: 53249 Catalog #: 53281 Catalog #: 53292 Catalog #: 53289
Burnt; longitudinally heat spalled, ventral face intact; catalog #: 30169 Two bending breaks; catalog #: 30165 Fragment; catalog #: 30171 Catalog #: 30167 Has a notch; catalog #30166 Shatter; catalog #: 30170 Catalog #: 30164 Heat treated; catalog #: 30198 Catalog #: 30197 Heat treated; catalog #: 30200 Unifacial; catalog #: 30196 Catalog #: 30199; possible basketry tool?
Unit
Level (cm)
Material
Tool Type
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
100-110 100-110 100-110 100-110 100-110 100-110 100-110 100-110
Steatite Basalt Basalt Fused Shale Fused Shale Quartzite Soapstone Unknown
Cooking Stone Core Centripetal Edge-Modified Flake (Incidental) Edge-Modified Flake (Incidental) Edge-Modified Flake (Incidental) Edge-Modified Flake (Incidental) Manuport Tarring Pebble
8
110-120 Chert
Biface
Margin
8
110-120 Fused Shale
Biface
Tip
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
110-120 110-120 110-120 110-120 110-120 110-120 120-130 120-130 120-130 120-130
Core Core Core Drill Edge-Modified Flake (Incidental) Edge-Modified Flake (Incidental) Core Core Edge-Modified Flake Edge-Modified Flake (Incidental)
Bipolar Multidirectional Multidirectional Foreshaft Socket
8
120-130 Modelo
Pestle
Fragment
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
130-140 130-140 130-140 130-140 130-140 130-140 130-140 130-140 130-140 130-140 130-140
Biface Core Core Core Core Core Core Core Core/Chopper Core/Hammerstone Edge-Modified Flake (Incidental)
Margin Multidirectional Multidirectional Multidirectional Multidirectional Unidirectional Unidirectional Unidirectional Centripetal Multidirectional
8
130-140 Chert
Projectile Point
Tip
8
130-140 Basalt
Scraper
Domed
8
130-140 Basalt
Scraper
Domed
8 8 8 8 8
130-140 130-140 130-140 130-140 140-150
Scraper Tarring Pebble Tarring Pebble Tarring Pebble Biface
Unifacial
8
140-150 Chert
Biface
Margin
8
140-150 Obsidian
Biface
Margin
8
140-150 Obsidian
Biface
Tip
8 8 8 8 8 8
140-150 140-150 140-150 140-150 140-150 140-150
Edge-Modified Flake (Incidental) Edge-Modified Flake (Incidental) Edge-Modified Flake (Incidental) Hammerstone Beaked Mano Bifacial Mano Unifacial
Chert Basalt Chert Chalcedony Basalt Basalt Basalt Basalt Chert Basalt
Chalcedony Basalt Basalt Basalt Basalt Basalt Basalt Basalt Basalt Basalt Basalt
Fused Shale Granite Unknown Unknown Chert
Basalt Basalt Chert Basalt Granite Andesite
Tool Portion
Centripetal Unidirectional
Fragment
329
Note Catalog #: 30321 Catalog #: 30320 Catalog #: 30302 Catalog #: 30317 Catalog #: 30318 Catalog #: 30298 Catalog #: 30322 Catalog #: 30323 Bending break manufacturing error; catalog #: 30362 Bending break, not perverse fracture; catalog #: 30366 Catalog #: 30363 Catalog #: 30358 Catalog #: 30365 Base; catalog #: 30364 Catalog #: 30359 Catalog #: 30361 Catalog #: 30407 Fragment; catalog #: 30408 Catalog #: 30405 Catalog #: 30409 Pecked to be broken in section; used as a percussor; catalog #: 30402 Catalog #: 30510 Catalog #: 30497 Catalog #: 30499 Catalog #: 30500 Fragment; catalog #: 30505 Catalog #: 30490 Catalog #: 30501 Catalog #: 30502 Catalog #: 30503 Catalog #: 30498 Heat spall; catalog #: 30507 Perverse fracture manufacturing error; catalog #: 30511 Catalog #: 30504 Planing tool with usewear gloss; catalog #: 30506 Catalog #: 30509; with usewear Catalog #: 30513 Catalog #: 30512 Catalog #: 30514 Heat spalled; catalog #: 30447 Heat treated; perverse fracture manufacturing break; catalog #: 30454 From a margin collapse; catalog #: 30451 Unintentional tranchet; catalog #: 30452 Catalog #: 30449 Catalog #: 30458 Catalog #: 30446 Catalog #: 30462; metabasalt Catalog #: 53507 Catalog #: 30463
Unit
Level (cm)
8
Material
Tool Type
Tool Portion
140-150 Chert
Projectile Point
Stem
8 8 8 8 8 8
140-150 150-160 150-160 150-160 150-160 150-160
Tarring Pebble Core Core Core Core/Hammerstone Core/Hammerstone
Bipolar Multidirectional Unidirectional Centripetal Multidirectional
8
150-160 Chalcedony
Drill
Triangular
8 8 8 8 8
150-160 150-160 150-160 150-160 150-160
Edge-Modified Flake Edge-Modified Flake (Incidental) Edge-Modified Flake (Incidental) Edge-Modified Flake (Incidental) Ground Stone Fragment
8
150-160 Quartzite
Ground Stone
Fragment
8 8
150-160 Granite 150-160 Granite
Mano Mano
Fragment Fragment
8
150-160 Chalcedony
Projectile Point
Base
8
150-160 Fused Shale
Projectile Point
Base
8
150-160 Basalt
Scraper
Domed
8
160-170 Chert
Biface
Base
8
160-170 Chalcedony
Biface
Fragment
8 8 8
160-170 Chert 160-170 Fused Shale 160-170 Chert
Biface Biface Biface
Margin Margin Tip
8
160-170 Basalt
Chopper
8 8 8
160-170 Basalt 160-170 Chert 160-170 Basalt
Core Core Core
Multidirectional Multidirectional Unidirectional
8
160-170 Chert
Drill
Rotary
8
160-170 Chert
Drill
Trapezoidal
8 8 8
160-170 Chert 160-170 Fused Shale 160-170 Rhyolite
Edge-Modified Flake (Incidental) Edge-Modified Flake (Incidental) Edge-Modified Flake (Incidental)
8
160-170 Basalt
Hammerstone
Beaked
8
160-170 Quartzite
Hammerstone
Beaked
8 8 8
160-170 Sandstone 160-170 Unknown 160-170 Granite
Mano Mano Mano
Bifacial Fragment Unifacial
8
160-170 Granite
Mano
Unifacial
8 8 8 8 8 8
160-170 160-170 170-180 170-180 170-180 170-180
Rock with Ochre Scraper Domed Edge-Modified Flake (Incidental) Edge-Modified Flake (Incidental) Edge-Modified Flake (Incidental) Ground Stone Fragment
Unknown Chert Basalt Quartzite Basalt Basalt
Quartzite Chert Chert Fused Shale Quartz Monzonite
Unknown Basalt Basalt Chalcedony Chalcedony Schist
330
Note Impact fracture; silty, waxy chert probably heat treated; catalog #: 30453 Catalog #: 30460 Catalog #: 30571 Catalog #: 30574 Catalog #: 30572 Catalog #: 30575 Catalog #: 30573 Triangular cross section; catalog #: 30569 Catalog #: 30561 Catalog #: 30540 Catalog #: 30566 Catalog #: 30564 Burnt; catalog #: 30558 Intentionally fractured; catalog #: 30567 Catalog #: 30559 Burnt; catalog #: 30560 Impact fracture; Vand. or Topanga contracting stem; catalog #: 53506 Perverse fracture manuf. break; Elko or Gypsum; catalog #: 30568 Catalog #: 30576 Perverse manufacturing error; catalog #: 30618 Has cortex; thick, low quality chert; probably a base; catalog #: 30616 Heat treated; catalog #: 30620 Has cortex; catalog #: 30611 Perverse fracture; catalog #: 30617 Resharpening shows tool curation; catalog #: 30609 Failed core; catalog #: 30610 5 of 5 Catalog #: 30595 Catalog #: 30612 Used in a rotary fashion; resharpened biface; catalog #: 30614 Trapezoidal cross section; catalog #: 30619 Catalog #: 30615 Catalog #: 30583 Catalog #: 30621 Beaked, light battering; catalog #: 30613 Beaked; stepping and crushing; catalog #: 30622 Catalog #: 30608 #1 on map; NE quad Complete mano; catalog #: 27054 Was glued together as two-piece refit; catalog #: 30607 Catalog #: 10347 Catalog #: 30601 Catalog #: 30662 Catalog #: 30658 Catalog #: 30659 Catalog #: 91753
Unit
Level (cm)
8
Material
Tool Type
Tool Portion
170-180 Quartzite
Hammerstone
Beaked
8
170-180 Unknown
Metate
Complete
8
170-180 Chert
Projectile Point
Barb
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
170-180 170-180 180-190 180-190 180-190 180-190 180-190 180-190 180-190 180-190 190-200 190-200
Projectile Point Scraper Core Edge-Modified Flake Edge-Modified Flake Edge-Modified Flake (Incidental) Edge-Modified Flake (Incidental) Edge-Modified Flake (Incidental) Hammerstone Hammerstone Core Core
Base Unifacial Multidirectional
8
190-200 Basalt
Hammerstone
Beaked
8
190-200 Quartzite
Hammerstone
Beaked
8 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19
200-210 0-10 0-10 0-10 0-10 0-10 0-10 10-20 10-20 20-30 20-30 20-30 30-40 40-50 40-50 40-50 40-50
Rhyolite Unknown Unknown Basalt Chert Chert Chert Basalt Basalt Chalcedony Fused Shale Unknown Chert Basalt Basalt Basalt Granite
Edge-Modified Flake (Incidental) Boiling Rock Boiling Rock Core Edge-Modified Flake Projectile Point Projectile Point Core Edge-Modified Flake Biface Edge-Modified Flake (Incidental) Pebble with Blue Residue Knife Core Core Edge-Modified Flake Mano
19
40-50
Unknown
Pestle
Complete
19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19
50-60 50-60 50-60 50-60 50-60 50-60 60-70 60-70 60-70
Chert Quartzite Basalt Diorite Unknown Chert Basalt Basalt Chert
Biface Chopper/Percussive Implement Edge-Modified Flake (Incidental) Ground Stone Ground Stone Projectile Point Core Core Edge-Modified Flake (Incidental)
Tip
19
60-70
Chert
Projectile Point
Base
19 19 19 19 19
60-70 60-70 70-80 70-80 70-80
Unknown Basalt Quartzite Chert Chert
Tarring Pebble Tested Cobble Core Edge-Modified Flake Edge-Modified Flake
Multidirectional
Chert Basalt Basalt Chert Rhyolite Chert Fused Shale Quartzite Basalt Quartzite Modelo Rhyolite
Beaked Beaked Multidirectional Multidirectional
Note Every angle battered; some shiny parts; catalog #: 30657 Catalog #: 91753 Stem or barb; manufacturing fracture; catalog #: 30660 Impact fracture; catalog #: 30661 Catalog #: 30664 Catalog #: 53421 Catalog #: 53420 Four flake removals; catalog #: 53425 Catalog #: 53419 Catalog #: 53423 Catalog #: 53426 Catalog #: 53422 Catalog #: 53424 Catalog #: 30689 Burnt; catalog #: 30688 Beaked and shaped; extensive use on acute edge; catalog #: 30686 Also termed a chisel-tipped hammer; catalog #: 30687 Catalog #: 53446
Unidirectional Base Tip Multidirectional
Willow leaf shape; impact fracture Silty chert; with heat spall
Base
Bending break; NE quad
Base Unidirectional Unidirectional
Burnt; split-stemmed
Fragment
Burnt Wrapped in foil; good for residue analysis; flanged Fairly thick but not a dart fragment Some battering; bifacial Looks like fresh breaks Burnt Burnt
Fragment Fragment Tip Fragment Multidirectional
Heat spalled Metabasalt Bending break from high point, manufacturing error Metabasalt
331
Unit
Level (cm)
Material
Tool Type
19
70-80
Chert
Microblade
19 19 19
70-80 80-90 80-90
Unknown Modelo Basalt
Rock with Ochre Abrader Core
Multidirectional
19
80-90
Chalcedony
Drill
Triangular
19 19 19 19 19
80-90 80-90 80-90 80-90 80-90
Unknown Unknown Unknown Chert Unknown
Ground stone Ground stone Ground stone Projectile Point Tarring Pebble
Fragment Fragment Fragment Base
19
80-90
Quartz
Tested Cobble
19 19
90-100 Basalt 100-110 Steatite
Edge-Modified Flake Bead
19
100-110 Chert
Biface
19 19 19
100-110 Volcanic 100-110 Granite 100-110 Unknown
Edge-Modified Flake (Incidental) Ground Stone Fragment Tarring Pebble
19
110-120 Igneous
Bead Blank
19
110-120 Chert
Biface
Complete
19
110-120 Chert
Projectile Point
Mid-Section
19 19
120-130 Granite 130-140 Basalt
Ground Stone Core
Fragment Centripetal
19
130-140 Andesite
Hammerstone
Beaked
19 19
140-150 Chert 140-150 Basalt
Biface Core
Fragment Multidirectional
19
140-150 Chert
Edge-Modified Flake (Incidental)
19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19
160-170 160-170 160-170 160-170 170-180 170-180 170-180 180-190
Core Core Mano Mano Bead Edge-Modified Flake (Incidental) Edge-Modified Flake (Incidental) Core
Multidirectional Unidirectional Fragment Fragment Fragment
19
180-190 Chert
Projectile Point
Base
19 19
190-200 Chert 200-210 Soapstone
Edge-Modified Flake (Incidental) Bead
19
200-210 Chert
Biface
19 19
200-210 Fused Shale 200-210 Basalt
Edge-Modified Flake (Incidental) Scraper Denticulate
19
210-220 Chert
Biface
19
210-220 Rhyolite
Edge-Modified Flake
19
220-230 Chert
Projectile Point
Ear or Barb
19
230-240 Chert
Biface
Tip
19
230-240 Quartzite
Core
Multidirectional
Basalt Basalt Quartzite Unknown Soapstone Quartzite Siltstone Chert
Tool Portion
Note Probably incidental and not from microblade industry
Base
Bipolar
Mid-Section
Tip
332
Grooved fragment; NW quad #84 on map; SE quad; feature #58 Triangular cross section; tip; feature #58 Fire affected; feature #58; SW quad Fire affected; feature #58; NE quad Fire affected; feature #58; NE quad Stemmed; Monterey chert; feature #58 Feature #58 #229 on map; fire affected; NW quad; feature #58 Catalog #: 91134; metabasalt Complete; SE quad; catalog #: 90973 Low quality chert; heat treated; NE quad; catalog #: 91013 NW quad; catalog #: 90976 Unifacial; SE quad; catalog #: 90986 NW quad; catalog #: 91154 Drilled rock, possible bead blank; catalog #: 90980 Low quality black chert; quite thick; NW quad; catalog #: 90996 Impact fracture, accordion break; NE quad; catalog #: 91022 NW quad; catalog #: 90982 SW quad; catalog #: 91079 Burnt; fragment; SE quad; catalog #: 91076 Burnt; NW quad; catalog #: 91034 SE quad; catalog #: 91039 Heat treated; SW quad; catalog #: 90998 NE quad; catalog #: 91056 Catalog #: 90984 NE quad; catalog #: 91056 #1 on map; burnt; NE quad SW quad NE quad; catalog #: 90988 NW quad; catalog #: 90920 NE quad; catalog #: 92764 NW quad; missing ear; burnt; sidenotched dart point; catalog #: 91159 SE quad; catalog #: 90911 Complete; SE quad; catalog #: 91054 SE quad; 2 manufacturing breaks; Franciscan chert; catalog #: 91051 NE quad; catalog #: 91138 Unifacial; SW quad; catalog #: 90924 SW quad; top half; silty chert; perverse fracture; catalog #: 90978 NW quad; catalog #: 90981 Heat treated; SW quad; catalog #: 90905 NW quad; catalog #: 91114 #31 on map; fragment; SW quad; feature #79
Unit
Level (cm)
19
Tool Type
Tool Portion
230-240 Quartzite
Core
Multidirectional
19 19
230-240 Chalcedony 230-240 Quartzite
Edge-Modified Flake Edge-Modified Flake (Incidental)
19
230-240 Quartzite
Hammerstone
Beaked
19
230-240 Granite
Mano
Unifacial
19
230-240 Sandstone
Mano
Bifacial
19
230-240 Quartzite
Mano
Unifacial
19
230-240 Granite
Mano
Fragment
19
230-240 Granite
Mano
Bifacial
19
230-240 Basalt
Mano
Unifacial
19
230-240 Granite
Mano
Unifacial
19
230-240 Quartzite
Mano
Fragment
19 19
230-240 Granite 230-240 Granite
Mano Mano
Fragment Fragment
19
230-240 Sandstone
Mano
Fragment
19
230-240 Unknown
Mano
Unifacial
19
230-240 Sandstone
Metate
Fragment
19
230-240 Sandstone
Metate
Fragment
19
230-240 Unknown
Metate
Fragment
19
230-240 Quartzite
Scraper
Unifacial
19
240-250 Quartz
Biface
Margin
19
240-250 Quartzite
Edge-Modified Flake
19
240-250 Quartzite
Edge-Modified Flake
19
240-250 Andesite
Hammerstone
19
240-250 Schist
Manuport
19
240-250 Quartzite
Scraper
19
250-260 Fused Shale Level Material (cm)
Edge-Modified Flake (Incidental) Tool Type
Tool Portion
19
250-260 Modelo
Ornament
Fragment
19 19 20 20
260-270 ? 0-10 0-10
Unknown Modelo Quartzite Basalt
Boiling Rock Bead Biface Complete Edge-Modified Flake (Incidental)
20
0-10
Unknown
Mano
Fragment
20
20-30
Chert
Biface
Complete
20
30-40
Quartzite
Tested Cobble
20
60-70
Fused Shale
Projectile Point
20 20 20 20
90-100 90-100 100-110 100-110
Quartzite Unknown Andesite Granite
Boiling Rock Boiling Rock Boiling Rock Boiling Rock
Unit
Material
Beaked
Domed
Complete
333
Note #47 on map; fragment; SE quad; feature #79 SW quad; catalog #: 90915 #21 on map; NE quad; feature #79 #32 on map; SW quad; Possible; appears battered; feature #79 #8 on map; fire-affected; NW quad; feature #79 #10 on map; NE quad; feature #79 #13 on map; fire affected; NE quad; feature #79 #20 on map; NE quad; feature #79 #22 on map; lots of biotite mica in groundmass; NE quad; feature #79 #26 on map; metabasalt; NE quad; feature #79 #34 on map; SW quad; feature #79 #14 on map; fire affected; NE quad; feature #79 #37 on map; SW quad; feature #79 #38 on map; SW quad; feature #79 #48 on map; fire affected; SE quad; feature #79 #36; unifacial with pecked end; SW quad; feature #79 #6 on map; reddish; NW quad; feature #79 #4 on map; large; fire affected; tan color; NW quad; feature #79 #24 on map; medium sized; NE quad; feature #79 #33 on map; SW quad; feature #79 Burinated in attempt to make drill; NE quad #12 on map; also used as a beaked hammerstone; SW quad; feature #79 NE quad; catalog #: 90960 No number on map; NE quad; feature #79 #5 on map; NE quad; feature #79 Some rounding; SW quad; catalog #: 91099 SE quad; catalog #: 90933 Note Drilled unifacially; SW quad; catalog #: 90983 NE quad Complete Catalog #: 53480 Catalog #: 31675 Burnt; large; glued together; catalog #: 31684 Silty chert; manufacturing error; catalog #: 53481 Catalog #: 31707 Rose Spring Contracting Stem Point?; catalog #: 53482 Map #19; catalog #: 53526; feature #8 Map #9; catalog #: 53516; feature #8 Map #62; catalog #: 53570; feature #8 Map #35; catalog #: 53542; feature #8
Unit
Level (cm)
Material
Tool Type
20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
100-110 100-110 100-110 100-110 100-110 100-110 100-110 100-110 100-110 100-110 100-110 100-110 100-110
Granite Granite Granite Granite Quartzite Quartzite Quartzite Quartzite Quartzite Quartzite Quartzite Quartzite Quartzite
Boiling Rock Boiling Rock Boiling Rock Boiling Rock Boiling Rock Boiling Rock Boiling Rock Boiling Rock Boiling Rock Boiling Rock Boiling Rock Boiling Rock Boiling Rock
20
100-110 Quartzite
Boiling Rock
20
100-110 Quartzite
Boiling Rock
20
100-110 Quartzite
Boiling Rock
20
100-110 Quartzite
Boiling Rock
20
100-110 Quartzite
Boiling Rock
20 20 20 20 20 20
100-110 100-110 100-110 100-110 100-110 100-110
Quartzite Quartzite Quartzite Quartzite Quartzite Quartzite
Boiling Rock Boiling Rock Boiling Rock Boiling Rock Boiling Rock Boiling Rock
20
100-110 Quartzite
Boiling Rock
20
100-110 Quartzite
Boiling Rock
20 20 20 20 20
100-110 100-110 100-110 100-110 100-110
Quartzite Quartzite Quartzite Quartzite Quartzite
Boiling Rock Boiling Rock Boiling Rock Boiling Rock Boiling Rock
20
100-110 Quartzite
Boiling Rock
20
100-110 Sandstone
Boiling Rock
20 20 20 20 20 20
100-110 100-110 100-110 100-110 100-110 100-110
Boiling Rock Boiling Rock Boiling Rock Boiling Rock Boiling Rock Boiling Rock
20
100-110 Slate
Boiling Rock
20 20 20 20 20 20
100-110 100-110 100-110 100-110 100-110 100-110
Boiling Rock Boiling Rock Boiling Rock Boiling Rock Boiling Rock Ground Stone
Fragment
20
100-110 Igneous
Ground Stone
Fragment
Sandstone Slate Slate Slate Slate Slate
Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Granite
Tool Portion
334
Note Map #66; catalog #: 53574; feature #8 Map #30; catalog #: 53537; feature #8 Map #2; catalog #: 53509; feature #8 Map #78; catalog #: 53586; feature #8 Map #34; catalog #: 53541; feature #8 Map #4; catalog #: 53511; feature #8 Map #21; catalog #: 53528; feature #8 Map #5; catalog #: 53512; feature #8 Map #72; catalog #: 53580; feature #8 Map #20; catalog #: 53527; feature #8 Map #73; catalog #: 53581; feature #8 Map #7; catalog #: 53514; feature #8 Map #43; catalog #: 53550; feature #8 Map #80; fragment; catalog #: 53588; feature #8 Map #68; fragment; catalog #: 53576; feature #8 Map #75; catalog #: 53583; feature #8 Map #108; catalog #: 53616; feature #8 Map #112; fragment; catalog #: 53620; feature #8 Map #27; catalog #: 53534; feature #8 Map #17; catalog #: 53524; feature #8 Map #38; catalog #: 53545; feature #8 Map #42; catalog #: 53549; feature #8 Map #31; catalog #: 53538; feature #8 Map #33; catalog #: 53540; feature #8 Map #103; catalog #: 53611; feature #8 Map #111; catalog #: 53619; feature #8 Map #63; catalog #: 53571; feature #8 Map #57; catalog #: 53564; feature #8 Map #1; catalog #: 53508; feature #8 Map #52; catalog #: 53559; feature #8 Map #96; catalog #: 53604; feature #8 Map #102; catalog #: 53610; feature #8 Map #87B; catalog #: 53595; feature #8 Map #93; catalog #: 53601; feature #8 Map #8; catalog #: 53515; feature #8 Map #28; catalog #: 53535; feature #8 Map #36; catalog #: 53543; feature #8 Map #22; catalog #: 53529; feature #8 Map #89; catalog #: 53597; feature #8 Map #101; catalog #: 53609; feature #8 Map #18; catalog #: 53525; feature #8 Map #40; catalog #: 53547; feature #8 Map #37; catalog #: 53544; feature #8 Map #55; catalog #: 53562; feature #8 Map #11; catalog #: 53518; feature #8 Map #69; catalog #: 53577; feature #8 Map #104; catalog #: 53612; feature #8
Unit
Level (cm)
20
100-110 Quartz Monzonite Ground Stone
Fragment
20
100-110 Sandstone
Ground Stone
Fragment
20
100-110 Unknown
Ground Stone
Fragment
20
100-110 Unknown
Mano
Bifacial
20
100-110 Quartz Monzonite Mano
20
110-120 Rhyolite
Edge-Modified Flake (Incidental)
20
140-150 Unknown
Ground Stone
20 20 20
150-160 Chert 170-180 Fused Shale 210-220 Chert
Edge-Modified Flake (Incidental) Edge-Modified Flake Edge-Modified Flake (Incidental)
38
0-10
Chert
Biface
Complete
38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38
0-10 0-10 0-10 0-10 0-10 0-20 10-20 10-20 10-20 10-20 20-30 20-30 20-30 20-30
Obsidian Basalt Chalcedony Fused Shale Basalt Unknown Chert Fused Shale Basalt Fused Shale Basalt Chert Quartzite Sandstone
Biface Edge-Modified Flake Edge-Modified Flake Edge-Modified Flake Edge-Modified Flake (Incidental) Tarring Pebble Biface Core Core Edge-Modified Flake Core Core Ground Stone Ground Stone
Fragment
38
20-30
Sandstone
Ground Stone
Fragment
38 38 38 38 38 38 38
20-30 20-30 30-40 30-40 30-40 30-40 30-40
Chert Unknown Sandstone Fused Shale Basalt Quartzite Basalt
Projectile Point Tarring Pebble Abrader Biface Core/Hammerstone Core/Hammerstone Edge-Modified Flake
Tip
38
30-40
Chert
Edge-Modified Flake
38 38 38 38 38 38 38
30-40 40-50 40-50 40-50 40-50 40-50 40-50
Basalt Fused Shale Chert Quartz Chert Basalt Soapstone
Edge-Modified Flake (Incidental) Biface Complete Core Multidirectional Core Multidirectional Edge-Modified Flake Edge-Modified Flake (Incidental) Manuport
38
40-50
Modelo
Ornament
38 38
40-50 40-50
Unknown Unknown
Rock with Ochre Tarring Pebble
38
50-60
Modelo
Abrader
38 38
50-60 50-60
Chert Chert
Biface Biface
Material
Tool Type
Tool Portion
Unifacial
Fragment
Map #58; fire affected; catalog #: 53566; feature #8 Map #86; ground pebble; catalog #: 53594; feature #8 Map #50; large fire affected pebble; catalog #: 53557; feature #8 Map #10; fire affected; catalog #: 53517; feature #8 Map #60; fragment; catalog #: 53568; feature #8 Catalog #: 31389 Burnt; may be andesite; feature 8 pedestalled; feature #8 Edge seems crushed; catalog #: 53629 Catalog #: 32088 Catalog #: 53646 Heat treated; has cortex; low quality chert Probably a manufacturing error; thick
Unifacial; fragment
Base Bipolar Multidirectional Multidirectional Multidirectional Fragment Fragment
Complete Multidirectional Multidirectional
Fragment
Base Margin
335
Note
Feature #25 Low quality chert; perverse fracture NE quad N half of unit SE quad; with cortex SW quad; exhausted core NW quad; probably a mano fragment NE quad NW quad; two refit pieces; not sure if it's pestle or mano frag. NW quad; silty chert; perverse fracture SW quad NE quad NE quad NW quad; resharpened; metabasalt NW quad SW quad; two refit pieces NW quad; probably for working plant fibers; Franciscan chert NW quad NE quad; just missing very tip NW quad; with cortex NE quad SE quad; low quality chert NW quad NE quad NE quad; disc fragment; refit with item from 50-60 NW quad; has red ochre NW quad Worked modelo; grooved; tool for polishing something Low quality chert; most likely a base
Unit
Level (cm)
Material
Tool Type
38
50-60
Quartzite
Borer
38
50-60
Modelo
Ornament
Fragment
38 38 38 38
50-60 50-60 50-60 50-60
Chert Chert Chert Basalt
Projectile Point Projectile Point Projectile Point Scraper
Complete Ear or Barb Fragment Domed
38
60-70
Chert
Biface
Fragment
38 38 38 38 38 38
60-70 60-70 60-70 60-70 60-70 60-70
Chert Basalt Basalt Basalt Quartzite Basalt
Core Core Core Core Core Edge-Modified Flake (Incidental)
Bipolar Multidirectional Multidirectional Multidirectional Multidirectional
38
60-70
Basalt
Hammerstone
Fragment
38
60-70
Pumice
Manuport
38
60-70
Granite (?)
Pestle
Fragment
38
60-70
Chert
Projectile Point
Base
38
60-70
Chert
Scraper
Denticulate
38 38 38 38
60-70 60-70 70-80 70-80
Basalt Unknown Modelo Chert
Scraper Tarring Pebble Basket Weaving Implement Biface
Domed
38
70-80
Steatite
Cooking Stone
38 38
Basalt Basalt
Core Core
Multidirectional Unidirectional
Material
Tool Type
Tool Portion
Note
38 38 38 38 38 38 38
70-80 70-80 Level (cm) 70-80 70-80 70-80 70-80 70-80 80-90 80-90
Chert Chert Fused Shale Andesite Basalt Modelo Fused Shale
Drill Edge-Modified Flake (Incidental) Projectile Point Scraper Scraper Abrader Biface
General
Longitudinally broken during use
38
80-90
Rhyolite
Biface
Fragment
38 38 38 38 38 38 38
80-90 80-90 80-90 80-90 80-90 80-90 80-90
Andesite Basalt Quartzite Basalt Chert Unknown Unknown
Core Core Core Edge-Modified Flake (Incidental) Edge-Modified Flake (Incidental) Mano Mano
Multidirectional Multidirectional Multidirectional
38
80-90
Basalt
Projectile Point
Stem
38 38 38 38 38 38
80-90 80-90 90-100 90-100 90-100 90-100
Chalcedony Basalt Asphaltum Fused Shale Chert Basalt
Projectile Point Scraper Asphaltum Biface Biface Core
Tip Domed
Unit
Tool Portion
Fragment Margin
Disc fragment; burnt; refit with item from 40-50 Low quality chert; burnt finished tool Silty chert; base or tip Lateral burination from impact fracture
Hammer fragment with some flake removal Similar to pestle Unit 28 SE 65bottom; flanged; polish; burnt Burinated plus bending break, manufacturing error Worked unifacially on opposite margins on opposing faces Small, 5.3 cm in length
White chert; tiny fragment Biconically-drilled disc hole can be seen
Tip Domed Unifacial Fragment
Fragment Fragment
Fragment Margin Multidirectional
336
Note
Grooved and worked fragment Longitudinal fracture by bipolar force Burinated from impact fracture; dart point; catalog #: 91399 Catalog #: 91399
#14 on map; feature #60 Two bending breaks from manufacture
Perverse fracture manufacturing break White chert
Unit
Level (cm)
Material
Tool Type
Tool Portion
38 38 38 38
90-100 90-100 90-100 90-100
Basalt Basalt Quartzite Andesite
Core Core Core Metate
Multidirectional Multidirectional Multidirectional Fragment
38
90-100
Chert
Projectile Point
Barb
38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38
90-100 90-100 90-100 100-110 100-110 100-110 100-110 100-110 100-110 100-110 100-110 100-110 100-110
Obsidian Andesite Unknown Chert Chert Basalt Quartzite Quartzite Chalcedony Basalt Chert Chert Granite
Projectile Point Scraper Tarring Pebble Biface Core Core Core Core Core Cutting Tool Drill Drill Ground Stone
Tip Unifacial
38
110-120 Fused Shale
Biface
Fragment
38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38
110-120 110-120 110-120 110-120 110-120 110-120 110-120 110-120 110-120 110-120 120-130 120-130 120-130 120-130 120-130 120-130
Core Core Edge-Modified Flake (Incidental) Ground Stone Mano Projectile Point Projectile Point Tarring Pebble Tarring Pebble Tarring Pebble Basket Weaving Implement Biface Biface Edge-Modified Flake (Incidental) Ground Stone Ground Stone
Multidirectional Unidirectional
38
120-130 Unknown
Mano
Complete
38
120-130 Sandstone
Mano
Fragment
38
120-130 Fused Shale
Projectile Point
Barb
38 38 38 38 38 38
120-130 120-130 130-140 130-140 130-140 130-140
Projectile Point Tarring Pebble Biface Biface Biface Edge-Modified Flake (Incidental)
Base
Possibly a Vandenburg contracting stem Side-notched point; impact fracture
Base Base Fragment
White, almost silty chert Perverse fracture Heat spalled
38
130-140 Chert
Projectile Point
Base
38
130-140 Fused Shale
Projectile Point
Base
38 38 38 38 38
130-140 130-140 130-140 140-150 140-150
Projectile Point Scraper Tarring Pebble Biface Core
Ear Domed
Chert Quartzite Chert Diorite Granite Obsidian Chert Unknown Unknown Unknown Slate Chert Basalt Quartzite Granite Quartzite
Fused Shale Unknown Chert Fused Shale Chert Fused Shale
Fused Shale Basalt Unknown Chert Basalt
Base Bipolar Multidirectional Multidirectional Multidirectional Tabular Foreshaft Socket Foreshaft Socket Fragment
Fragment Unifacial Ear or Barb Tip
Complete Base Complete Fragment Fragment
Margin Centripetal
337
Note
Bending break; some heat modification Perverse fracture
Manufacturing break Fragment
Multidirectional tabular core Cutting tool with acute edge Base Tip Manufacturing error in trying to remove squared margin Fragment
Severely burned
Bending break during manufacture May also have been a cooking stone May also have been a cooking stone May also have been a cooking stone Low quality chert; has cortex Fine-grained With asphaltum Probably a mano fragment Wrapped in foil for future residue testing
Stemmed; Franciscan chert; perverse fracture Rose Spring; impact fracture; 500-900 AD; resharpened
Margin from a fairly large biface
Unit
Level (cm)
Material
Tool Type
Tool Portion
Note
38 38 38 38 38
140-150 140-150 140-150 140-150 140-150
Quartzite Quartzite Basalt Rhyolite Andesite
Core Core Core (Battered) Edge-Modified Flake Mano
Multidirectional Unidirectional Multidirectional
Fragment
38
140-150 Unknown
Mano
Bifacial
38
140-150 Quartz Monzonite Mano
Unifacial
38
140-150 Chert
Projectile Point
Ear or Barb
38 38 38 38
150-160 150-160 150-160 150-160
Core Multidirectional Core Multidirectional Edge-Modified Flake (Incidental) Ground Stone Fragment
38
150-160 Quartz Monzonite Ground Stone
Fragment
38
150-160 Sandstone
Ground Stone
Fragment
38
150-160 Unknown
Ground Stone
Fragment
38
150-160 Unknown
Mano
Bifacial
38
150-160 Limestone
Polishing Implement
38 38
150-160 Basalt 160-170 Basalt
Wedge Core
Multidirectional
38
160-170 Quartzite
Hammerstone
Beaked
38 48 48 48 48 48 48 48
170-180 38-50 38-50 38-50 38-50 38-50 50-60 50-60
Basalt Basalt Basalt Sandstone Basalt Basalt Modelo Basalt
Core Core Core (Battered) Mano Scraper Scraper Cutting Board Edge-Modified Flake (Incidental)
Multidirectional Multidirectional Multidirectional Bifacial Domed Unifacial
48
60-70
Modelo
Abrader
48
60-70
Fused Shale
Biface
48
60-70
Andesite
Chopper
48
60-70
Basalt
Core
48
60-70
Basalt
Edge-Modified Flake
48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48
60-70 60-70 60-70 60-70 70-80 70-80 70-80 70-80
Basalt Basalt Sandstone Basalt Basalt Basalt Chert Basalt
Edge-Modified Flake Edge-Modified Flake (Incidental) Metate Scraper Core Core Core (Battered) Edge-Modified Spall (Incidental)
48
70-80
Granite
Mano
48
70-80
Basalt
Percussive Implement
48 48 48 48
80-90 80-90 80-90 80-90
Modelo Chert Basalt Basalt
Biface Biface Biface Core
Quartzite Quartzite Basalt Granite
Bifacial
Fragment; burnt Metabasalt Burnt; "cutting board" fragment
Fragment
Multidirectional
Fragment Unifacial Multidirectional Unidirectional Multidirectional Unifacial
Base Fragment Mid-Section Multidirectional
338
Fragment Wrapped in foil for residue analysis; profile appears bifacial Fragment; probable mano Broken when removed from impacted material Catalog #: 91405 Catalog #: 91405 Catalog #: 91405 Catalog #: 91410 Possible mano fragment; catalog #: 91411 Catalog #: 91412 Reddish, may be rhyolite or andesite; catalog #: 91418 Fragment; catalog #: 91407 Ground Stone; hide polisher; catalog #: 91406 Catalog #: 91405 Catalog #: 91402 More of a pick like tool; catalog #: 91402 Catalog #: 91383
Worked modelo fragment; grooves on the side Manufacturing error in trying to remove squared margin Hand polish from heavy use; used in a mashing/rocking motion Metabasalt Flake tool with gloss, but without repeating edge flake removals
Metabasalt Battered; heat treated Burnt; with asphaltum or some other substance Lightly battered; heat spalled, burned; metabasalt
Perverse fracture
Unit
Level (cm)
Material
Tool Type
Tool Portion
48 48
80-90 80-90
Chert Chert
Core Core
Multidirectional Multidirectional
48
80-90
Fused Shale
Projectile Point
Base
48
80-90
Chert
Projectile Point
Mid-Section
48 48 48 48
80-90 90-100 90-100 90-100
Chert Soapstone Fused Shale Chert
Projectile Point Tip Bowl Fragment Core Multidirectional Edge-Modified Flake (Incidental)
48
90-100
Chert
Projectile Point
Tip
48 48 48 48 48
100-110 100-110 100-110 100-110 100-110
Chert Fused Shale Sandstone Basalt Diorite
Biface Biface Bowl Core Metate
Base Base Fragment Multidirectional Fragment
48
110-120 Granite
Mano
Fragment
48 48
120-130 Chert 120-130 Sandstone
Biface Bowl
Tip Fragment
48
120-130 Chert
Edge-Modified Flake
48 48 48
120-130 Basalt 120-130 Chert 130-140 Quartzite
Edge-Modified Flake (Incidental) Projectile Point Tip Core (Battered) Multidirectional
48
130-140 Basalt
Percussive Implement
48
130-140 Chalcedony
Projectile Point
Complete
48 48
140-150 Fused Shale 140-150 Chert
Biface Core (Battered)
Base Multidirectional
48
140-150 Basalt
Cutting Tool
48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48
140-150 140-150 140-150 140-150 140-150 140-150 140-150 140-150 140-150 150-160 150-160 150-160 150-160 150-160 150-160 150-160
Edge-Modified Flake Ground Stone Hammerstone Spall Mano Projectile Point Projectile Point Projectile Point Tarring Pebble Tested Cobble Biface Core Core Core Core Edge-Modified Flake (Incidental) Mano
48
150-160 Quartzite
Mano
Unifacial
48
150-160 Schist
Metate
Fragment
48
160-170 Chert
Biface
Base
48 48 48
160-170 Fused Shale 160-170 Chert 160-170 Basalt
Biface Biface Core
Base or Tip Complete Multidirectional
Quartzite Sandstone Quartzite Granite Chert Chalcedony Chert Unknown Basalt Chert Basalt Basalt Quartzite Rhyolite Quartz Andesite
339
Note
Exhausted Side-notched; perverse fracture manufacturing error One perverse and one bending break manufacturing error Manufacturing error SE quad SE quad; exhausted core NE quad W half of unit; serrated; impact fracture NE quad; broken from heat fracturing W half of unit SE quad; wrapped in foil NE quad SE quad; wrapped in foil SE quad; margins gone; highly polished and smooth NE quad; broken because it's burnt #1 on level map; W half of unit Very small but unifacially worked; SE quad #3 on map; W half of unit Perverse fracture; NE quad Burnt; lightly battered Metabasalt; big flake with evidence of percussive force Cottonwood Triangular Point; may be made of Mojave chert Exhausted, light battering Heavy-duty flake tool, like a cleaver; impact wear Fire affected
Fragment Bifacial Ear or Base Tip Tip Fragment Base Multidirectional Multidirectional Multidirectional Tabular
Fragment Manufacturing fracture Manufacturing fracture; arrow point Bending break manufacturing error Metabasalt Bending break manufacturing error Metabasalt
Fragment Fragment; burnt; may have hand polish on top Bending break manufacturing error; has cortex and caliche Impact fracture Covered with caliche; metabasalt
Unit
Level (cm)
Material
Tool Type
Tool Portion
48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48
160-170 160-170 160-170 160-170 160-170 160-170 190-200 210-220
Quartzite Basalt Sandstone Sandstone Fused Shale Chert Sandstone Chert
Core/Hammerstone Edge-Modified Flake (Incidental) Mano Metate Projectile Point Projectile Point Rock with Asphaltum Edge-Modified Flake
Multidirectional
48
210-220 Granite
Mano
Fragment
340
Bifacial Fragment Base Tip
Note
Refit fragments Dart point Very tip broken off; white chert
Also an anvil (pitted stone); burnt; fragment
APPENDIX T — SAMPLE ARTIFACT PHOTOGRAPHS
Figure 45. Cores and Tested Cobbles—Various Basalt Cores. A=Unit 8, 150‒160 cm, Catalog #30574, multidirectional, TP4; B=Unit 8, 150‒160 cm, Catalog #30575, centripetal core/hammerstone, TP4; C=Unit 19, 40‒50 cm, unidirectional, TP1; D=Unit 19, 140‒150 cm, Catalog #91039, multidirectional, TP3; E=Unit 38, 140‒150 cm, centripetal, TP4; F=Unit 8, 130‒140 cm, Catalog #30503, centripetal core/chopper, TP4.
341
Figure 46. Cores and Tested Cobbles—Chert, Quartz, and Chalcedony Cores. A=Unit 8, 30‒40 cm, Catalog #53292, chert bipolar, TP1; B=Unit 8, 110‒120 cm, Catalog #30363, chert bipolar, TP3; C=Unit 38, 20‒30 cm, chert multidirectional, TP3; D=Unit 38, 40‒50 cm, quartz multidirectional, TP3; E=Unit 38, 100–110, chalcedony tabular, TP4.
342
Figure 47. Expedient Tools—Scrapers, an Edge-Modified Flake, and a Chopper/Percussive Implement. A=Unit 38, 130–140 cm, basalt domed scraper, TP4; B=Unit 19, 50–60 cm, quartzite chopper/percussive implement, TP1; C=Unit 19, 10–20, basalt edge-modified flake, TP1; D=Unit 38, 60–70 cm, basalt domed scraper, TP3; E=Unit 8, 170–180 cm, basalt unifacial scraper, TP5.
343
Figure 48. Expedient Tools—Scrapers, a Borer, and Edge-Modified Flakes. A=Unit 38, 50–60 cm, quartzite borer, TP3; B=Unit 38, 60–70 cm, chert denticulate scraper, TP3; C=Unit 19, 200–210 cm, basalt denticulate scraper, TP4; D=Unit 19, 240–250 cm, quartzite edge-modified flake, TP6; E=Unit 8, 60–70 cm, Catalog #30199, chert unifacial scraper, TP1; F=Unit 48, 210–220 cm, chert edge-modified flake, TP4.
344
Figure 49. Expedient Tool—Wedge. Unit 38, 150‒160 cm, Catalog #91405, basalt, TP5.
345
Figure 50. Formal Tools—Bifaces. A=Unit 38, 50–60 cm, burnt chert, TP3; B=Unit 19, 100–110, Catalog #91013, chert base, TP2; C=Unit 19, 210–220, Catalog #90978, chert, TP4; D=Unit 38, 0–10, chert with cortex, TP3; E=Unit 20, 0–10 cm, Catalog #53480, quartzite, TP3; F=Unit 48, 160–170 cm, chert biface, TP3; G=Unit 20, 20–30 cm, Catalog #53481, silty chert, TP3.
346
Figure 51. Formal Tools—Drills. A=Unit 8, 90‒100 cm, Catalog #30277, rhyolite with asphaltum, TP2; B=Unit 8, 110‒120 cm, Catalog #30364, chalcedony foreshaft socket base, TP3; C=Unit 8, 150‒160 cm, Catalog #30569, chalcedony with triangular cross section, TP4; D=Unit 8, 160‒170 cm, Catalog #30614, chert “rotary” drill, TP4; E=Unit 38, 100‒110 cm, chert foreshaft socket base, TP4.
347
Figure 52. Formal Tools—Projectile Points and a Knife. A=Unit 38, 130–140 cm, fused shale Rose Spring, TP4; B=Unit 48, 90–100 cm, serrated chert, TP2; C=Unit 8, 150–160 cm, Catalog #30568, fused shale Elko base, TP4; D=Unit 8, 170–180 cm, Catalog #30661, chert side-notched, TP5; E=Unit 38, 120–130, fused shale side-notched, TP4; F=Unit 38, 80–90, Catalog #91399, burinated side-notched rhyolite, TP4; G=Unit 8, 150–160 cm, Catalog #53506, Vandenburg contracting stem chalcedony, TP4; H=Unit 48, 130–140 cm, chalcedony Cottonwood triangular, TP3; I=Unit 48, 160–170 cm, fused shale side-notched, TP3; J=Unit 19, 180–190 cm, Catalog # 91159, burnt chert side-notched, TP4; K=Unit 19, 60–70 cm, chert side-notched, TP1; L=Unit 48, 140–150 cm, chalcedony arrow tip, TP3; M=Unit 20, 60–70 cm, Catalog #53482, fused shale Rose Spring contracting stem, TP3; N=Unit 19, 80–90 cm, chert stemmed, TP1; O=Unit 19, 30–40 cm, burnt chert knife, TP1.
348
Figure 53. Ground Stone and Percussive Tools—Hammerstones. A=Unit 8, 80‒90 cm, Catalog #30250, andesite beaked, TP2; B=Unit 38, 160‒170 cm, Catalog #91402, quartzite pick-like beaked, TP5; C=Unit 8, 190‒200 cm, Catalog #30687, quartzite beaked, TP5.
349
Figure 54. Ground Stone and Percussive Tools—Manos. A=Unit 8, 160‒170 cm, Catalog #27054, unifacial granite, TP4; B=Unit 8, 140‒150 cm, Catalog #53507, bifacial granite, TP4.
350
Figure 55. Ground Stone and Percussive Tools—Pestles. A=Unit 8, 120‒130, Catalog #30402, modelo pestle/hammerstone, TP3; B=Unit 19, 40‒50 cm, unknown material conical, unwashed, TP1; C=Unit 38, 60–70 cm, granite polished, TP3.
351
Figure 56. Ground Stone and Percussive Tools—Metate. Unit 8, 170–180 cm, Catalog #91753, TP5.
352
Figure 57. Ground Stone and Percussive Tools—Various Ground Stone Implements. A=Unit 38, 120‒130 cm, slate basket weaving implement, TP4; B=Unit 38, 70-80 cm, modelo basket weaving implement, TP3; C=Unit 38, 80–90 cm, modelo abrader, TP4; D=Unit 38, 40‒50 cm, NE quad, modelo ornament fragment refit with “E”; E=Unit 38, 50‒60 cm, modelo ornament fragment refit with “D”; F=Unit 38, 150–160 cm, Catalog #91406, limestone polishing implement, TP5.
353
Figure 58. Ground Stone and Percussive Tools—Bowl and Cooking Stone Fragments. A=Unit 48, 120‒130 cm, west half of unit, sandstone bowl fragment, TP2; B=Unit 38, 70-80 cm, biconically-drilled steatite cooking stone, arrows point to the perforation, TP3.
354
Figure 59. Ground Stone and Percussive Tools—Modelo “Cutting” Board. A=Unit 48, 50–60 cm, modelo “cutting board,” TP1.
355
