Editor's Introduction F OR TWENTY-FIVE YEARS, James Bennyhoff and California archaeology which attended the acknowl- David Fredrickson have been at the forefront of edged shortcomings of the tripartite Bulletin 2 se- cooperative attempts to forge a new taxonomy for quence of Early, Transitional (later Middle), and Late California archaeology that would be more sensitive horizons (Lillard, Heizer and Fenenga 1939; Heizer than previous classification systems to local prehis- and Fenenga 1939; Beardsley 1948, 1954). toric cultural continuity and change. Despite this, the Until the early 1930s Califomia archaeology formal documentation of their efforts has, until now, was noteworthy primarily as an example of what existed largely in their class lecture notes and unpub- Kroeber (1936:115) described as "conservative sta- lished papers. As a consequence, a generation of bility" and at that time there seemed no reason to archaeologistsexiststodaywhoknowaboutBennyhoff dispute the appraisal that: ". . . the upshot of the and Fredrickson's work only from secondary sources. correlation of the findings of archaeology and ethnol- Never having read the original papers, students and ogy is that not only the general Californian culture many professionals are uninformed about the histori- area, but even its subdivisions or provinces, were cal developments that shape contemporary archaeo- determined a long time ago and have ever since logical thought in California-particularly views on maintained themselves with relatively little change" archaeological taxonomy. Why was a new taxonomy (Kroeber 1925:926). needed? What was wrong with the existing one? The essays in this volume address these questions in detail, but to fully appreciate the answers and proposed solutions it is appropriate to provide a background context for the developments of the taxonomic system Although ahaologists routnly attribute formal naming which Bennyhoff and Fredrickson refined and re- t alClornaaxonomic S ystem o lard, of ffie Central Califomia Taxoorznic System (CCTS) to Lillard, vised. Heiw, and Fenenga (1939), Heizer and Fenenga (1939), and/or Backgoundon the Central Beardsley (1948, 1954),1I can find no evidence that any of these Background ~~~~~~~~~~~archaeologists ever used this term (CCTS)- they employed the California Taxonomic System1 modifiers cadtu,re, period, culture sequence, omr cukture horizon. Gerow appears to have been the first to refer explicitly to the Bennyhoff andFredrickson'scollaborative work threefold culture/periodhorizon scheme as thieCCrS (Gerow with was precipitated by thie widespread dissatisfactions in Force 1968:5). 2 Toward a New Taxonomic Frameworkfor Central California Based on excavations conducted between 1933- ally stratified sites to buttress the changes in "culture 1935 at sites near Deer Creek and on the Cosumnes type" recognized only in dim outline by Lillard and River about 20 miles southeast of Sacramento, J. B. Purves (1936). From a taxonomic standpoint their Lillard and William Purves (1936) of the Sacramento monograph(Lillard,HeizerandFenenga 1939:79-81) Junior College announced that they had recognized was considerably more sophisticated and self-con- three successive cultural levels-Early, Transitional, scious than the 1936 work, and introduced a newly and Recent-distinguished from one another prima- defined Late period with three sequential phases. rily on the basis of burial mode and typological con- (Phases 1 and 2 were purely prehistoric, while Phase trasts among associated grave goods. Although 3 represented the post-contact period.)4 Perhaps Kreber (1936:115) at first gave this report a luke- equally important, they specified which artifact types warm reception because Lillard "appears to have and burial complex were characteristic of each period derived them [conclusions about significant culture (i.e., "culture type"), which meant that when such change] from valid evidence but has not yet set this configurations of artifacts and burials were encoun- forth so that it can be controlled" he subsequently tered at sites elsewhere in Califomia, they could be appraisedtheworkmorepositively,stating thatLillard placed in time by appeal to the stratigraphic and and Purves's "differentiation between the two older cultural successions documented in the Sacramento- levels is, as always in Califomia, not -particularly San Joaquin Delta. Richard Beardsley (1948, 1954) striking, but seems definite" and that "the Sacramento added further refinements to the three-horizon se- College findings are important. The work on which quence, formally substituting Middle Horizon for they rest appears competent and sound" (Kroeber Transitional "to avoid unwafranted implications" 1937:144). (Beardsley 1948:3). Just three years later2 two separate publications However, as sites outside the Sacramento-San appeared which elaborated, in much greater detail Joaquin Delta were found that contained either non- than Lillard and Purves (1936), the three-part se- cemetery assemblages (lacking diagnostic Horizon- quence of Early, Transitional, and Late "culture hori- specific artifacts) or burial complexes different from zons."3 Although brief by contemporary standards, those considered typical of the Early, Middle, and Lillard, Heizer and Fenenga's (1939) monograph pre- Late horizons in the Lower Sacramento Valley, inter- sented a relative wealth of detailed infonnation on pretive and taxonomic problems quickly arose (see changes in burial mode and in shell, stone, and bone chapters 2, 3, 8, and 9 herein for discussion; also artifact types from a number of physically and cultur- Bennyhoff[1986:67]; Bickel [1981:8-11]; Gerow with 2 The first announcement of the Early-Transitional-Late Bulletin 2. Nonetheless, Heizer and Fenenga (1939) freely cultural horizon sequence appears to have been made by Heizer alternated between the use ofperiod and horizon when describing (1939a), who sketched the contrasts presented in greater detail the threefold culture sequence. later that year by Lillard, Heizer and Fenenga (1939) and Heizer 4 Heizer and Fenenga(1939:379-80),refering to Lillard and and Fenenga (1939). Purves's (1936) monograph, wrote that: '"eir [Lillard and 3 Although published in the same calendar year, in-text Purves] conclusion was that an Early and Late cultureperiod were citations (Lillard, Heizer, and Fenenga 1939:74, 85) indicate that distinguishable, the Post-contact or historic period forming the Bulletin 2 a before Heizer and Fenenga (1939). This is of fmal phase of the Late." There is noreference anywhereinLillard interest because, although the term horizon appears occasionally and Purves to a Late period, only to Early, Intermediate, and in their monograph, the final, summary section ("Analysis of Recent culture levels (Lillard and Purves 1936:9, 19-20). The Cultures") of their work (Lillard, Heizer and Fenenga 1939:74- confusion is unfortunate, though largely terminological; on the 82) is organized byperiod, not htorizon. The transposition of the basisofsimilaritiesinassemblagecomposition,HeizerandFenenga three-part (Early, Transitional, Late) sequence from period to (1939:23) equated Lillard and Purves's Intermediate level with horizon thus appears largely to have been the work of Heizer and thieir newly defined Late culture, which would later come to be Fe:nenga, not Lillard, since Heizer (1937:39) remnarked on "the known formally as the Late Horizon (Heizer and Fenenga 1939; existence of two mutually distinctive cultural horizons, the so- Beardaley 1948). called Early and Late" two years before the publication of Editor's Introduction 3 Force [1968:1-14, 124-26]; Meighan [1987:34-35]). Berkeley, in the years following World WarlI, events Because the original threefold Bulletin 2 se- transpired which made it difficult for them to collabo- quence was derived largely from Lower Sacramento rate immediately to propose a solution. After com- Valley grave lot assemblages it was perhaps inevi- pleting graduate course work, Bennyhoff joined the table that difficulties would arise when it was pro- anthropology faculty at Yale University for two years jected into areas where some of the same artifact types (1958-1960), then spent most of the next six (from were shared (eithermanufactured orobtained thrugh 1960-66) in Mesoamerica working with Rend Millon exchange), but burial pracdces varied. For example, on the Teotihuacan Mapping Project. He retumed to by extrapolation of the Bulledn 2 sequence it was California in 1967 to accept a post at the Department believed that sites along San Francisco Bay were of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley, occupied later in time than Early Horizon sites of the during which time (1967-1970) he and Frdrickson Lower Sacramento Valley (Heizer 1949:39) because, were able to return to joint discussion of taxonomic despite acknowledged similarities in cerain artifact issues. These discussion continued during the years types, the Bay sites contained flexed burials, a hall- (1973-1986) Bennyhoff held faculty appointments at mark of the Middle Horizon in the Valley. As Heizer Sonoma State University (see Hughes [nd] for more (1949:39, footnote 126) observed: "no Bay site has detail on Bennyhoffs career). produced evidence of occupation by the distinctive Afterleaving graduate school in 1952, Fredrick- Early culture horizon group. A few of the specific son spent the next ten years outside academia and Early culture elements occur, but not as a well-knit archaeology, but was enticed back to archaeology in complex." Since the Bulletin 2 system combined 1959 when his wife, Vera-Mae, went back to school at burial mode and artifact types in a single "package" U.C. Berkeley. From 1961-1965, Dave completed any variability observed, for example, in burial mode, and wrote up the results of major excavation projects could not be easily reconciled with the Lower Sacra- he had undertaken in Lake, Napa, Kem, and interior mento Valley sequence (e.g. Heizer 1939b: 55). Contra Costa counties. Then, in 1967 he accepted a To a certain extent, problems of this sort were position on the anthropology faculty at Sonoma State anticipated by Beardsley (1954:6); in evaluating the College (later, Sonoma State University) where he culture classification scheme he helped to create he remained until his retirement from teaching in 1992 wrote that: (see White [1993] for more detail on Fredrickson's We [Beardsley, Heizer and Fenenga] are career). agreed that this is neither the final classifica- tion nor the only one possible even now. It The Structure of this Volume should be profitable to devise classifications of several sorts, each stssingoneoranoter To capture as faithfully as possible the unfold- of the three significant factors, time, space, ing and development of the ideas and taxonomic and culture content. We have not yet been refinements proposed by Bennyhoff and Fredrickson, able to be equally solicitous of all three the essays have been arranged chronologically, pro- factors in a single scheme. ceeding from the early trial fonnulations and applica- It was recognition of the importance of keeping sepa- tions of the late 1960s through the more recent re- rate the dimensions of time, space and culture that thinking and modifications proposed at the end of the inspired Bennyhoff and Fredrickson to propose the 1970s - early 1980s up to the present. The date each taxonomic refinements and modifications detailed in essay was originally drafted and, if applicable, revised the essays in this volume. appears in parentheses below the authors name at the The Intervening Years ~~~beginning of each chapter. Thse authors were asked specifically not to rewrite or extensively revise any Despite a shared dissatisfaction wit the Bulle- sections of thieir papers in the belief that the reader will tin 2 taxonomic system, which can be traced back to gain a clearer appreciatio.n and understanding of de- their student days at the University of California, velopments by reading the essays largely as they were 4 Toward a New Tawonomic Frameworkfor Central California originally wrintten. In this spirit, I have kept my own California archaeology. editorial intrusion to a bare minimum and have at- Chapter 4, Bennyhoff's "Napa District . . tempted to increase clarity- not to effect content. paper was first presented in 1977 at a symposium on Several of these essays have achieved almost the archaeology of the North Coast Ranges, Califor- mythical status in California archaeology, and infor- nia, sponsored by the Center for Archaeological Re- mation from them is featured prominently in several search at Davis. This papercontinues to be influential sections (especially chapters5, 6, and 10) of Moratto's in North Coast Ranges archaeology but carries par- (1984) California Archaeology. ticular significance here because it provides an em- Chapter 1, Benny-hoff's "Delta Intusion to the pirical example of how archaeological districts are Bay ... .," was first delivered in April 1968 at the joint actually identified and defined employing the taxo- annual meetings of the Southwestem Anthropologi- nomic framework advocated by Bennyhoff and cal Association and the Society for California Archae- Fredrickson. ology. During this time he and Fredrickson were Fredrickson's"ChangesinPrehistoricExchange meeting on taxonomic issues. Fredrickson's notes Systems in the Alamo Locality... ." appears as chapter document that he and Bennyhoff met at least six times 5 and was first presented in outline fonn at a sympo- between August 19 and November 1, 1968 in inten- sium on the archaeology of the Central Valley, held at sive discussions which laid the groundwork for the Cosumnes River College in 1977; the version that paper that follows- chapter 2, "A Proposed Integra- appears here was revised and expanded in late 1980. tive Taxonomy for Central California Archaeology." Chapter 6, Bennyhoff's "Central Califomia Augus- This paper was begun by Bennyhoff and Fredrickson tine ... .," was first delivered in December 1982, at a at the very end of 1968 and completed in 1969. The symposium on current research in northem Califomia reader will notice that Bennyhoff's "Delta Intrusion archaeology held atCaliforniaState University, Chico. .." paper was written slightly earlier during this same The slightly revised and expanded version of this period, and that it introduces taxonomic issues elabo- paper includes a previously uncirculated codification ratedmore fully inBennyhoff and Fredrickson's "Pro- (figure 6.4 herein) of Bennyhoff's revision of the posed Integrative Taxonomy. . ." essay. CCTS. Just after Bennyhoff delivered his "Delta Intru- Chapter 7, Fredrickson's "Central California sion .. ." paper in early 1969, he drafted a paper Archaeology . . ." was first presented in 1982 (with entitled "The Need for a New Taxonomic System in slight revision in 1984) at the same symposium as Central California Archaeology." This paper was, in Bennyhoff's in the preceding chapter. Chapter 8, effect, the position paper from which Bennyhoff and Bennyhoff's"Variation within the Meganos Culture," Fredrickson's "A Proposed Integrative Taxonomy ..." was delivered in 1987 at the annual meeting of the essay was elaborated. Bennyhoff's "TheNeed for. . ." Society for California Archaeology in Fresno. manuscript is not reproduced here because the major Finally, Bennyhoff and Fredrickson were asked pointsaddefinitions,withoneexception(seechapter2, to write a closing retrospective essay on their earlier p. 23, note 1. Ed.), were discussed at greater length papers which would provide a forum for them to jointly with Fredrickson in "A Proposed Integrative correct the errors and/or shortcomings they might Taxonomy ..." perceive today in their original work, and to comment Chapter 3, Fredrickson's "Cultural and Spatial on recent abuses (or misunderstandings) of their taxo- ." paper, is excerpted, with revision, from chapters nomic scheme. Chapter 9, "Archaeological Tax- five and six of his 1973 doctoral dissertation "Early onomy in Central Califomia Reconsidered," written Cultures of the North CoastRanges, California." The by Fredrickson in 1992, and chapter 10 "Recent taxonomic scheme advanced in this paper is clearly Thloughts on Archaeological Taxonomy," written by elaborated from the groundworklaid by his collabora- Bennyhoff in 1993, resulted from that request. tion withi Bennyhoff, and it has had-and continues to The taxonomic modifications proposed formally have-a profound influence in Northern and Central by Bennyhoff and Fredrickson were important be- Editor's Introduction 5 cause they allowed researchers to keep separate the 1939b Archeology of Site C.141. In An Introduction dimensions of time and culture which had been inex- to the Archeology of Central Caliornia by tricably wed in the Bulletin 2 system. But perhaps of Jeremiah B. Lilard, R. F. Heizer, and Franklin equal importance, the criticisms they made of the Fenenga. Sacmento Junior College, Dept of Bulletin 2 system prompted in their classification an Anthropology, Bulletin 2:54-56. s1949 The Archaeology of Central Caliornia, 1: The explicit awareness of why time, adaptive mode, burial Early Horizon. University of Califonia mode, and exchange media must be treated as inde- Anthropological Records 12 (1). pendent variables in any comprehensive taxonomy. Heizer, R. F., and Franklin Fenenga In this respect, the taxonomic system they proposed is 1939 Archaeological Horizons in Cental California. clearly better suited than its predecessors to the aims American Anthro pologist 41 (3):378-99. of contemporary archwology. ~~~Heizer, R. F., and J. B. Lillard of contemporaiy archaeology. 1939 Archeology of Site C.107. In An Introduction In my view, the essays in this collection not only to the Archeology of Central California by exemplify scholarship and careful attention to detail Jeremiah B. Lillard, R. F. Heizer and Frnklin but, taken as a whole, they aptly illustrate two Fenenga. Sacramento Junior College, Depart- longstanding concerns in Califomia archaeology- ment of Antuhopology, Bulletin 2:23-31. linking archaeology and ethnography though applica- Hughes, Richard E. tionof he iret hitorcalappoach an deisig a nd Memoria to James Allan Bennyhoff (1926- tion of the direct historical approach, and devising a 1993). Journal of California and Great Basin flexible taxonomic framework capable of integrating Anthropology. In press. the concems of both culture historical and processual Kroeber, A. L. archaeology. 1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78. References to Introduction 1936 Prospects in California Prehistory. American Antiquity 2 (2):108-116. Beardsbly, Richard K. 1937 Review of: "The Archaeology of the Deer 1948 Cultural Sequences in Central California Creek - Cosumnes Area, Sacramento Co., Archaeology. American Antiquity 14 (1):l-28. California." American Anthropologist 39:144. 1954 Temporal and Areal Relationships in Central Lillard, Jeremiah Beverly, and William K. Purves California Archaeology. University of 1936 The Archaeology of the Deer Creek - California Archaeological Survey Reports 24 Cosumnes gyea SarmnoC.,Clfr and 25. Berkeley. Cones Area, Sacramento Co., California. Bennyhoff, James A. Sacramento Junior College, Department of 1986 The Emeryville Site, Viewed 93 Years Later. Lillard, Anthropology, Bulletin 1. In S)Wsium A Nw Loo at Sme Od Lilard,Jeremiah B., R. F. Heizer and Franklin Fenenga In Symposium: A Ncw Look at Some Old 1939 An Introduction to the Archeology of Central Sites organized by Francis A. Riddell. Coyote California. Sacramento Junior College, Press Archives of California Prehistory 6:65- Deparunent of Anthropology, Bulletin 2. 74. Coyote Press, Salinas. Meighan, Clement W. Bickel, Potty McW. 1987 Reexamination of the Early Cental California 1981 San FranciscoBayArchaeology: SitesAla- Culture. American Antiquity 52 (1):28-36. 328, Ala-13 and Ala-12. Contributions of the Moratto, Michael J. University of California Archaeological 1984 CaliforniaArchaeology. Academic Press, Research Facility 43. Berkeley. Orlando. Gerow, Bert A., with Roland W. Force White, Greg 1968 An Analysis of the University Village Complex 1993 The Accidental Scholar. Notes on an with a Reappraisal of Central California Ar- Archaeologist's Career. In There Grows a chaeolgy. Stanford UniversityPress, Stanford Green Tree: Papers in Honor of DavidA. Heizer, Robert F. Fredrickson (G. White, P. Mikkcelsen, W. R. 1937 Baked-Clay Objects of the Lower Sacramento Hildebrandt, and M. E. Basgall, eds.), Center Valley, California. Aneian Aniqut 3:34-50. for Archaeological Research at Davis Publica- 1939a Some Sacramento -Santa Barbara Archeologi- tion 11:1-18. cal Relationships. Masterkey 13 (1):31-35.