3
Spatial and Cultural Units in
Central California Archaeology
David A. Fredrickson
(1973)
The Central California Taxonomic System
and the Culture-Area Concept
HE CULTURE SEQUENCE that forms the foundation
for the Central California chronology is at best a
regional sequence, rather than an areal or subareal
one. It appears that the underlying logic of assuming
that the cultural sequence of the lower Sacramento
Valley could legitimately be extended to other regions
of Central California was intimately connected with
the ethnographic concept of the culture-area. It is
worthwhile to review this concept and to point out
some of the consequences of its application to ar-
chaeological materials.
Basic to the culture-area concept is the finding
Athat particular culture traits, both material and
nonmaterial, tend to be associated with one another in
given regions, and that this association tends to be
confined to such regions. The ethnographic findings
of Wissler (1926) in regard to culture-areas were that
the various groups within a given culture-area each
possessed to a greater or lesser extent the trait ele-
ments characteristic of the area. Wissler presented the
notion that each culture-area had a center and that
culture elements diffused outward from the center,
subject to limitations of natural boundaries. Groups
situated near the center of the culture-area were found
to have all or nearly all of its characteristic traits, and
their cultures were considered to be typical, in the
normative sense, of the area. Groups situated some
distance from the center, or the "climax" region as
Kroeber(1936, 1939) referred to it, have fewer of the
characteristic traits of the area. Such groups were
often called "marginal." Groups situated at the bor-
ders of the area have traits which are derived from
more than one climax region. Ithas often been pointed
out that culture centers, or climax regions, are rela-
tively easy to determine, but that the borders of cul-
ture-areas tend to be indeterminate with sharp bound-
aries between culture-areas quite rare (Kroeber 1939;
Driver 1962).
Although several archaeologists have observed
that their coworkers rarely make explicit use of the
culture-area concept, Jennings (1968:5) pointed out
its implicit use. "When the archaeologist describes or
delineates an archeologic region on the basis of many
sites with similar technology and subsistence, he is in
effect establishing a prehistoric culture area, although
the term is rarely used by archaeologists." Chang
(1967:118) suggested a reason why:
the culture-area concept has not been used in
archaeology too explicitly or vigorously. The
archaeologist, I hink, in general terms tends to
resist the concept because in the archaeological
scale of time cultures move and macro-envi-
ronmental changes occur, and cultural types and
macro-environments do not associate stably
26      Toward a New Taxonomic Framework for Central California
with fixed ethnographic boundaries. There-
fore, archaeologists often focus their eyes on
the culture, together with the environment with
which it interacts, but not on fixed geographic
areas. The co-tradition concept, said to be
'culture areas in time depth,' is an eloquent
example (Bennett 1948; Rouse 1954).
Willey (1966:5), in his synthesis of North and
Middle American archaeology, makes explicit use
of the culture-area concept, and also discussed
circumstances prompting the resistance referred to
by Chang.
The archaeological culture areas, as em-
ployed here, are extensions of the traditional
ethnographic culture area concept. It is, how-
ever, much more difficult to delineate ar-
chaeological areas than those which are pro-
jected for a single ethnographic horizon, be-
cause archaeological culture boundaries
change through time. Occasionally, such
changes are drastic. Such phenomenausually
coincide with the inception or introduction of
a new major cultural tradition. A prime ex-
ample would be the differentiation of the
Southwest United States area from the nearby
Great Basin area which partially surrounds it
At an early period the two areas were one, with
the whole characterized by the Desert cultural
tradition. Later, with the rise of village farm-
ing patterns and the beginnings of the South-
western cultural tradition, the Southwest area
came into existence. Often, however, the
'hearts' or 'cores' of culture areas remain
relatively fixed, with only the borderlands
expanding or retracting with the passage of
time. Sometimes this is true even in spite of
major cultural traditional shifts. Thus, the
Eastern Woodlands of North America main-
tained an integrity as a culture area, as the
homeland of the earlier Archaic tradition and
of the two later traditions which succeeded
it-apparently a testimony to the powerful
conditioning factorsofnatural environment in
culture development, at least under certain
conditions. In sum, archaeological culture
areas must be compromises which will em-
brace a significant cultural unity through a
significant span of time.
Jennings's (1968:4-5) brief comment on the re-
lationship between ethnographic and archaeological
culture areas is appropriate to the present concern with
Central California archaeology:
... Kroeber does emphasize the variation in
cultural intensity from area to area and notes
that in areas of greatest intensity, climaxes
or cultural richness and complexity can be
recognized. His identification of cultural cli-
max areas is derived from ethnographic data
but tends to agree with archeologic findings,
so that some ethnographically delineated cul-
ture areas are also fairly accurate demarca-
tions of culture difference and similarity in the
prehistoric periods. For example, the cli-
maxes observed archaeologically in the South-
eastandSouthwestwereidentifiedbyKroeber
from etngraphic data
In his early summaries of California's position
in regard to culture-areas, Kroeber (1920, 1925) in-
cluded the bulk of California, the area usually referred
to as Central California, with the Great Basin to form
a single culture-area. Northwestern California was
included with the North Pacific Coast culture-area and
Southern California was included with the Southwest-
ern culture-area. In his later work, however, Kroeber
(1936, 1939:53-54) isolated a separate California cul-
ture-area:
Otis T. Mason made his California area in-
clude Oregon. Wissler makes it cotenminous
withCalifomia,exceptforexcludingthesouth-
eastern comer of the state and including west-
em Nevada. My classification gives southern
California to the Southwest, the northwestern
comer to the Northwest Coast, the northeast-
em. . . to the Great Basin, the eastern ortrans-
Sierra fringe also to the Basin. This leaves to
the California area only the region which in
earlierclassifications, made with a local rather
than continental view, I called Central Califor-
nia. Essentially, this area consists ofthe Great
(or Interior) Valley of California with the
Coast Ranges and Sierra Nevada that flank it.
Driver and Massey (1957), employing detailed
statistical analysis, also distinguished California as a
separate culture-area, but differed from Kroeber in
that Southern California and the northwestern corner
ofBaja California were included as partof the Califor-
nia area rather than the Southwest area. Willey
(1966:361ff.) utilized a demarcation of the California
area similar to that of Driver and Massey in his
summary treatment of archaeological culture-areas,
but added Northeastern California, which Driver and
Massey had placed in the Plateau area.
The changes in status of California vis-A-vis its
culture-area assignments are in large part measures of
Spatial and Cultural Units     27
the diversity of its cultures and the strength of influ-
ences from the surrounding culture-areas, both of
which factors are closely related to the physiographic
diversity of the state. Kroeber (1920:15 1), recogniz-
ing this complexity, was explicit in emphasizing that
the divisions he had made of California did not imply
identity of culture:
... any map of this nature creates an errone-
ous impression of internal uniformity and
coherence. Thus, all in all, it is true that the
'central' Yokuts are probably more similar
to the 'central' Wintun in the totality of their
life than to the 'southern' Gabrielino. But
innumerable cultural elements have reached
the Yokuts from the south, and they them-
selves have very likely developed local pe-
culiarities of which some have filtered across
the mountains to the Gabrielino. Conse-
quently, any statement which tended to cre-
atetheimpressionthatthe Yokutsand Wintun
belonged to a block of nations in which
certain traits were standard and exclusive,
would mislead.
In his later work Kroeber (1939:55) recognized three
subdivisions within Central California, including the
climax regions, which he extended from "the lower
Sacramento to the Russian River." Klimek (1935), on
the basis of his comprehensive statistical analysis,
made even more internal distinctions.
Within the Central California subarea the exist-
ing archaeological sequence was established from
excavations conducted primarily within what was the
ethnographic territory of the Plains Miwok, located in
the lower Sacramento Valley. Although it has not
been expressly stated, the assumption appears to have
been that the archaeology of this region adequately
represented the climax region of Central California.
Thus, following the implications of the culture-area
concept, marginal or border regions were not impor-
tant to the understanding of the cultural development
of the area under consideration, since their cultures
derived from traits which spread from one or more
climax regions.
It is illuminating to analyze a portion of Heizer's
(1964:126) recent review paper from this perspective.
He defined Central California as follows:
Central California, defined here as the re-
gion lying between Tehachapi (where the
Sierra Nevadas join with the Coast Range)
in the south to the head of the Sacramento
Valley in the north, and the ocean coast on
the west to the Sierra Nevada crest on the
east, may be divided into three zones: (1)
coastal (i.e., shore plus Coast Range sec-
tion), (2), interior valley (the combined Sac-
ramento and San Joaquin valleys), and (3)
Sierran (western slopes of the Sierra Ne-
vada).
Although not stated explicitly, Heizer's "zones" are
physiographic divisions, and he appears to imply that
the zones can also be treated as separate cultural units,
with each showing variation from the basic regional
sequence according to environmental influences.
"Generally speaking, allowing for local ecologic ad-
justments to tidal shore (as against valley riverine
locale), the Middle and Late sequence on the bay
conforms to that already sketched for the Interior
Valley [read: for the lower Sacramento Valley]"
(Heizer 1964:129). The idea that border or marginal
areas can be referred to climax regions is also illus-
trated in the following statement by Heizer(1964: 130):
"Just west of the head of the Sacramento Valley, in the
Coast Range section, salvage archaeology in reservoir
areas has yielded an abundance of later materials that
are basically central Californian in type [read: basi-
cally similar to the lower Sacramento Valley in type]
but are modified by influences reaching southeast
from the distinctive culture development of north-
western California."
The emphasis upon the prehistory of culture
climax regions, based upon the assumption that the
significant cultural developments of the area had their
origins in such regions, not only produces a difficulty
in the classification of marginal or border region
cultures (which could be considered simply a me-
chanical procedure), but more importantly serves to
obscure cultural processes, some of which may be
unique to marginal or border regions and some of
which may strongly influence the course of develop-
ment of climax cultures. For example, evidence of
population movement or territorial expansion may be
recovered archaeologically only in marginal orborder
regions.
Heizer's definition of Central California also
carries the implicit assumption that a cultural unit with
a predictable degree of homogeneity is contained
within the geographic space included in the defini-
tion. When data are available to demonstrate that the
28     Toward a New Taxonomic Framework for Central California
geographic space is not predictably culturally hamge-
neous, there is no corresponding change made in the
definition of the space. Thus, the culture-area model
serves as a principle from which propositions con-
cerning the nature of specific marginal cultures can be
deduced. These deductions should be tested as hy-
potheses and subjected to modification when data
warrant.
For example, the southern San Joaquin Valley,
included in Central California by Heizer, was briefly
characterized as follows:
In the southern San Joaquin Valley ... .[there
is] a long sequence of cultures that go back
to the same period as the Early Horizon
culture [of the lower Sacramento Valley]
and continue into the historic period. The
Late period shows influence from the Santa
Barbara coast, as well as from the Colorado
region (Heizer 1964:128).
It is of interest that, despite placing the region within
the Central California subarea, no claim foridentity or
relatedness of southern San Joaquin Valley materials
with the lower Sacramento Valley is made, only a
temporal connection. Examination of archaeological
materials from the southern San Joaquin Valley
(Gifford and Schenck 1926; Fredrickson 1964; Wedel
1941) reveals virtually no direct relationship with
lower Sacramento Valley materials; instead, the simi-
larity with Santa Barbara coastal materials is quite
clear. It is evident that the southern San Joaquin
Valley does not belong culturally with the Central
California subarea, regardless of its physiographic
characteristics, but instead should be included with
the Southern California Coastal subarea. This sugges-
tion is compatible with Kroeber's (1959) discussion
of Yokuts geographic movements (based upon lin-
guistic relationships), wherein he suggested that the
movement of Yokuts into the northern San Joaquin
Valley is relatively recent, probably beginning no
more than 500 years ago, and that the major late
expansion of Yokuts "has almost certainly been to-
ward the delta, not from it" (Kroeber 1959:277).
Kroeber's discussion in itself is provocative in
regard to our understanding of the prehistory of the
Interior Valley. In the discussion here so far, prob-
lems of dealing with marginal and border archaeologi-
cal manifestations in terms of the lower Sacramento
Valley have been emphasized. If we move to a region
immediately adjacent to the lower Sacramento Val-
ley, namely, the northern San Joaquin Valley, which
presumably should have undergone the same devel-
opment as its neighbor region to the north, we find at
least one significant difference, which has been little
noticed until quite recently. This difference occurs in
the mortuary practices found within the northern por-
tion of the San Joaquin Valley as contrasted with the
practices reported for the three-part cultural sequence
of the lower Sacramento Valley.
Each of the three cultural units in the Central
California sequence has characteristic or modal mor-
tuary practices (Heizer 1949; Beardsley 1954). The
Early Horizon is characterized by fully extended buri-
als, face down, most frequently oriented to the west.
Flexure and cremation also occur, but rarely. During
the Middle Horizon, the prone burial position is rather
abruptly replaced by the flexed burial position along
with variable burial orientation. Occasional crema-
tion also occurs. During the Late Horizon both flexed
burial and cremation take place, with cremation be-
coming more important as the Late Horizon contin-
ues. Orientation continues to be variable.
Until quite recently occurrences of extended
burials (whether prone or supine, regardless of orien-
tation), which lacked clear-cut artifactual linkages to
defined cultural units, were often referred to the Early
Horizon simply on the basis of extension. A brief
unpublished report on Fre-373, in Fresno County,
evaluating the dating of the site on the basis of burial
position, illustrates the point "The belief that the
undisturbed burials in block 22 might be Early Hori-
zon was based on the fact that the burials were all
extended, and regularly oriented west.. ." The report
continued with an alternative temporal placement,
showing the influence of finds in nearby Merced
County (Olsen 1968; Riddell 1968): "However, re-
cent information suggested that the burials might be
from the early phases of the Late Horizon. This theory
had its origin in the fact that the Yokuts apparently
returned to extended burial during that time" (Milner
1964).
The apparent return to extension noted above
refers to findings from site Mer- 14 in Merced County
where both supine and extended burials and flexure
were recovered from a context clearly dated by arti-
factual similarities as contemporaneous with the early
Spatial and Cultural Units     29
portion of Phase I of the Late Horizon (Riddell 1968;
Olsen 1968). Additional evidence is accumulating,
however, which allows the working hypothesis that
the occurrence of extended burials in the San Joaquin
Valley during temporal periods more recent than the
Early Horizon is not necessarily a return to extension,
but possibly a continuation and modification of a
mortuary tradition which had its origins during the
period represented by the Early Horizon. Extended
burials found at Buena Vista Lake in the southern San
Joaquin Valley (Wedel 1941) are acknowledged as
being in all probability coterminous with the Early
Horizon of the lower Sacramento Valley.
Although no radiocarbon dates have been ob-
tained for the Buena Vista extended burials, the pres-
ence of milling stones and handstones links the com-
plex to the early milling stone horizon. No burials
identifiable with this horizon have yet been reported
from the San Joaquin Valley north of Buena Vista
Lake, but it seems likely that such burials may yet be
found. Extended burials representative of later time
periods have been found in the San Joaquin Valley,
however, in localities from the central to the northern
portion of the valley. Foote (1964) in a brief unpub-
lished communication reported dorsal and ventral
extension, as well as flexure, from site Sta- 133 in
Stanislaus County. Recovered with these burials were
full saddle Olivella beads (type 3b) which are middle
Middle Horizon time markers in Central California
(Bennyhoff and Heizer 1958). King (1968) also
reported dorsal and ventral extended burials, as well
as loose flexure, from site Mad- 1 17 in Madera County,
which he dated on the basis of artifactual analysis as
"roughly contemporaneous with the Brazil and Need
phases [of the Middle Horizon] in the Cosumnes
Locality ... in the 2-3000 year B.P. time slot."
In Contra Costa County, in a district adjacent to
the northern San Joaquin Valley, unexplained ven-
trally and dorsally extended burials were reported
from site CCo-141 (site C.141) from a Middle Hori-
zon context. Of this occurrence, Lillard, Heizer, and
Fenenga (1939:55) wrote:
It is impossible to account for the variety of
burial positions-the ventrally extended pos-
ture has heretofore been noted only in the
Early period; dorsal extension may occur in
Late period sites (e.g., site S. 1, S.3) though
it seems localized in its manifestations. It is
possible that the Transition horizon of site
C.141 is closely connected with the Early
period and derives the extended burial posi-
tion from it, yet the material culture speaks
against this since there are few Early artifact
types present. Probably the situation is
this-in this Delta area is a local specializa-
tion in the mortuary complex, the develop-
ment of which was more or less independent
of the Mokelumne-Cosumnes region further
north and east.
More recently, dorsally extended burials have been
recovered from site CCo-31 near Pleasant Hill in
Contra Costa County in association with type 3b2
modified saddle Olivella beads (Kemnitzer 1968),
which are late Middle Horizon time markers
(Bennyhoff and Heizer 1958).
This distribution in time and space of extended
burials, while not by any means conclusive of the
working hypothesis suggested earlier, can be taken to
support the argument that the culture history of the
San Joaquin Valley differs significantly from the
culture history of the lower Sacramento Valley and
that a priori application of the lower Sacramento
Valley three-part cultural sequence to all of Central
California is not warranted. Although evidence has
been presented here in support of the working hypoth-
esis that the peoples of the San Joaquin Valley fol-
lowed a cultural pattern different from that of the
lower Sacramento Valley, it seems quite clear that the
cultures of both regions were variants of the Archaic
pattern. It is on this higher level of generalization that
the culture-area concept seems useful. That is, during
the chronological period in question, all the cultures of
Central California appear to have been at the Archaic
stage of development.
While the classification of prehistoric California
groups as Archaic is a valid procedure, the long time
span encompassed by the Archaic stage itself ob-
scures the fundamental processes and differences be-
tween groups so classified. Significant processes and
differences expected on the basis of the large area and
great ecological diversity within the Central Califor-
nia subarea are blurred. As a step toward rectifying
this situation, the existing practice of dropping the
horizon concept as used in the Central California
system and substituting sequences of locally or region-
ally defined complexes, while perhaps satisfactory for
30      Toward a New Taxonomic Frameworkfor Central California
local interests, does not suffice for synthesizing or
integrative efforts. In the following pages modifica-
tions which have already been made in, or suggested
for, the Central CaliforniaTaxonomic System (CCTS)
are discussed, and a proposal is offered for integrative
units which seem appropriate for the current state of
knowledge in Central California.
The Central California Taxonomic System
and Recent Modifications
I have previously discussed the basic organiza-
tion of the CCTS, the definitions and concepts em-
ployed in it, and some of the reasons why it should be
at least partially abandoned. I suggested that several
factors contributed to this situation, among them the
absence of any discussion as to the minimum number
of specific features that are diagnostic of each of the
horizons and also the failure to separate the cultural
from the temporal dimensions, confounding cultural
horizon markers with temporal horizon markers. Apart
from the operational modifications which seem to
have developed without any explicit formulation,
there have been a number of changes explicitly sug-
gested for the system. Bennyhoff (1977), for ex-
ample, grouped "sites which were occupied by cultur-
ally related people into localities which have been
named after some feature of the local geography."
Bennyhoff's localities, which appear to be somewhat
but not completely concordant with the provinces of
the Central California scheme, were found to correlate
with the territories occupied by language groups-
Cosumnes locality: Plains Miwok language; Sutter
locality: Valley Nisenan language; Solano locality:
Southern Patwin language; Diablo locality: Bay Mi-
wok language; Stockton locality: Northern Yokuts
language. More recently Bennyhoff has substituted
the term district for locality. Both terms are discussed
in more detail below.
Ragir (1972), in her monograph on the Early
Horizon, did not continue Bennyhoff's usage but
retained the termprovince apparently unchanged from
its original application despite Bennyhoffs findings.
Ragir's (1972:table 1) chart on Central California
culture classification showed the Delta Province oc-
cupied by Plains Miwok, Southern Patwin, and
Nisenan, with no mention of the finer distinctions
offered by Bennyhoff. Ragir did make two significant
changes, however. First, she discarded the tenns
"Early," "Middle," and "Late," substituting for them
"Windmiller,""Cosumnes," and "Hotchkiss," respec-
tively. Second, she replaced the term "horizon" with
the term "culture."
Referring to "growing evidence of very early
cultures in Southern California," Ragir (1972:9) made
the following cogent comments:
Given the present system of naming groups
which are typologically and temporally re-
lated, one would have to call an earlierculture,
the 'Earlier Early Horizon.' Furhermore, the
tripartite system in alocal sequence invariably
causes confusion when one compares sites
from one area to those of another which has
either temporarily or permanently classified
its local sequence in a similar fashion. Thus,
one finds the Early Lovelock culture coeval
with the 'Middle Horizon' in Central Califor-
nia and the Late Phase of the Desert Archaic...
'Early', 'Middle', and 'Late' designations limit
pre-history to thee phases despite the fat that
evidence sometimes suggests four or more
changes important enough to warrant equiva-
lent classificatory recognition.
Ragir (1972:9) went on to state that "archaeological
cultures ought to be named after the type localities or,
where adequately excavated type localities do not
exist, after geographical regions where large numbers
of sites occur and there is a possibility of further
work." She chose, however, to "classify the temporal-
cultural division defined by California archaeologists
as cultures named after the type sites or regions
important in their early history." Thus, Windmiller
culture was selected for Early Horizon, Cosumnes
culture for Middle Horizon, and Hotchkiss culture for
Late Horizon.
Ragir's reasoning for substituting the term "cul-
ture" for the term "horizon" is , however, not directly
related to the criticism of the concept which I have
developed. She (Ragir 1972:8, my addition) wrote
that:
Based on considerable evidence ta several
'Early' sites represent more than just burial
complexes, this [study] introduces some modi-
fications of Central Californian archaeologi-
cal nomenclature. The combination of village
and cemetery had long been recognized in
'Late' and 'Middle' period sites in the Central
Valley. With the presence of 'Early' sites of
Spatial and Cultural Units    31
bothhabitaonmiddenandxcemetenes, arecord
of the major portion of the cultural activity
taking place would exist, and the settlements
woulddeservethe status of aculul tradition.
Although the designation of 'Culture' to ar-
chaeological materials had not yet come into
use, Heizer implied such a status in his paper
on the 'Early Horizon.'
Ragir did not define "culture," nor did she elaborate
further as to how the two terms might differ.
In the fall of 1967 the Center for Archaeological
Research at Davis, in conjunction with the Society for
California Archaeology, issued invitations to a num-
ber of archaeologists to attend an evening workshop at
the University of California, Davis to discuss current
problems in California archaeology. Individuals rep-
resenting at least fourteen institutions and organiza-
tions attended this highly successful meeting, which
turned out to be the first of six such workshops held
over the next two years (Nov. 22, 1967; Feb. 10-11,
Mar. 31, Nov. 9-10, 1968; Feb. 22, Oct. 25-26, 1969
[the October 1969 meetings were held at Sacramento
State College, the remainder at Davis]). Among many
diverse topics brought up during these meetings was
the CCTS and proposed revisions in it.
The workshops were initially quite successful.
The concept of locality (as utilized by Bennyhoff
[1977]) was tested in a series of subsequent presenta-
tions by regional specialists, with general agreement
that local assemblages could be distinguished on the
basis of stylistic differences. Evidence also was
presented regarding apparent contemporaneity of the
Middle Horizon culture-type in the Littoral Zone of
Central California with the Early Horizon culture-
type of the Interior Valley Zone. There appeared to be
general agreement that the CCTS was outmoded, and
a number of suggestions were made in regard to
terminological revision. For example, it was sug-
gested that the terms Early, Middle, and Late be
replaced by terms which do not imply temporal se-
quence. It was also suggested that the term "horizon"
be dropped and replaced by either "culture," "tradi-
tion," or "pattern." A conceptual suggestion was
made that stylistic factors not be included as diagnos-
tic criteria in the taxonomic scheme and be kept
separate from techno-economic factors. Ultimately,
however, no general agreement was reached as to
details of revision.
Throughout the discussions it was reiterated that
individual workers try utilizing some of the proposed
revisions in order to test their usefulness, but refrain
from employing them in publication until a definite
consensus had been achieved. Unfortunately, no
consensus was achieved, but publication did occur.
Following the March 1968 workshop, Gaumer(1968)
published a note in the Newsletter of the Society for
California Archaeology in which he reported that
"tradition" had been selected as a basic term to replace
"horizon" and that the following changes in terminol-
ogy had been agreed upon: Augustine Tradition for
Late Horizon; Emery Tradition for Middle Horizon;
and WindmillerTradition forEarly Horizon. Gaumer
stated that "All present agreed to use this new termi-
nological system in their own areas, and have set Fall
of 1968 as the date for another colloquium for presen-
tation of progress reports." Later workshops rendered
Gaumer's announcement premature when alternate
revisions were suggested, including substituting Ber-
keley for Emery and pattern for tradition, but with no
final agreement reached. Terminology reported by
Gaumerhas since appeared inprint. King (1968:116),
for example, employed "Emery Tradition" for "Middle
Horizon," as well as other terminology introduced in
the workshop context, and Schulz (1970:187) pub-
lished "Windmiller Tradition" for "Early Horizon,"
stating that "While this concept will undoubtedly
undergo considerable redefinition in the future, as
used here it is only a modification of the 'facies'
concept (Beardsley 1948:3)."
So it was with the CCTS: agreement that the
original framework was no longer workable, lack of
consensus on revisions, and defacto introduction of
terminology which was in the discussion phase. In the
discussion to follow I offer a revision of the CCTS,
incorporating what I believe to be some of the basic
agreements arrived atduring the Davis workshops and
taking into account the modifications already sug-
gested by such workers as Bennyhoff and Ragir. I
begin the discussion with spatial units, then move on
later to consider cultural units.
Spatial Units
The units I employ here to designate the geo-
graphic space occupied by various cultural units are
essentially those of Willey and Phillips (1958). These
32      Toward a New Taxonomic Framework for Central California
are the site, locality, region, subarea, and area. An
important additional spatial unit, midway between the
locality and the region, is the district (Lehmer and
Caldwell 1966). One of the major reasons for employ-
ing these terms, rather than those presented by
Beardsley (1948, 1954; see also Heizer 1949), is that
the Willey and Phillips terms are more generally used
throughout the New World. It should be emphasized
that the boundaries of the various spatial units may
shift through time, as the different cultural units which
occupy their geographic spaces shifttheir boundaries.
Definitions of spatial units which rest solely or prima-
rily on geographic or physiographic criteria are not
adequate for archaeological analysis. For example,
the inclusion of the southern San Joaquin Valley with
the Central California prehistoric culture area (as
defined by Heizer 1964:126) is not justified on the
basis of archaeological material so far recovered. In
regard to spatial units smaller thanthe area, Bennyhoff
(chapters 1 and 8, this volume) has demonstrated the
expansion and contraction of the Stockton District
across three physiographic provinces at the end of the
Middle Horizon in Central California.
Site, Locality, and District. An archaeological
site was described by Willey and Phillips (1958:18) as
"the smallestunitof space dealt withby the archaeolo-
gist and the most difficult to define." Without mini-
mizing the many problems involved in the uniform
definition of a site, and pointing out that the same site
may be assigned to differing larger spatial units at
different times in its history, it can be defined as "a
discrete area fairly continuously covered by remains
of former human occupation or providing evidence of
human activity" (chapter 2, p. 13).
According to Willey and Phillips (1958:18) the
locality is "generally not larger than the space that
might be occupied by a single community or local
group." They stated that "In strictly archaeological
terms, the locality is a geographical space small enough
to permit the working assumption of complete cultural
homogeneity at any given time." Evidence already
available indicates that complete cultural uniformity
was often shared by several local groups, which dur-
ing the ethnographic period in California are called
tribelets, that is, autonomous social units intermediate
in size between bands and tribes (Kroeber 1962). In
chapter 2 Bennyhoff and I suggest that the locality
usually reflects cooperative groups of tribelets. Since
differences between tribelets within the locality often
involve only percentage frequencies, the total culture
can be considered "completely uniform."
Bennyhoff (1 977) has employed the term district
to Central California materials utilizing highly de-
tailed comparisons of cultural inventory. He states
that in California, an area of reasonably stable popu-
lation, there is sufficient evidence available to allow
the equation of districts with language groups in the
Protohistoric and laterprehistoricperiods. Bennyhoffs
Diablo District, forexample, includes the Bay Miwok
tribelets of Saklan, Chupan, Wolwon, Julpun, and
Ompin. Bennyhoff divides the Diablo District into
two localities (Oakley and Walnut Creek), each with
two or three tribelets.
The district is the geographic space, normally
larger than a locality but smaller than a region, which
exhibits a significant degree of total cultural unifor-
mity among its constituent components. The district
is the basic spatial unit of analysis in the phases, the
basic temporal units which are coterminous with dis-
trict boundaries. Only one phase exists in one district
at any one time. In ethnographic terms in California
the unity exhibited within districts is possibly related
to the ease of linguistic communication plus factors
such as dance and ceremonial exchanges documented
for the Kuksu and Ghost Dance.
Ideally districts are defined in contrast to adja-
cent districts where cultural differences are readily
apparent. Most districts appear to have a distinctive
ecological core, but the peripheral boundaries often
fluctuate, sometimes radically, into adjacent physi-
ographic provinces. Various reasons can be offered
forthe fluctuation, such as climatic change, accultura-
tion of and by adjacent groups, and population expan-
sion, but such reasons often remain hypothetical un-
less a large body of analyzed data is available.
Region, Area, and Subarea. The region of
Willey and Phillips (1958:19) "is roughly equivalent
to the space that might be occupied by a social unit
larger than the community, a unit to which we may
with extreme trepidation apply the term 'tribe' or
'society."' In Central California, where tribes in the
sense conveyed by Willey and Phillips were absent,
the cultural similarities would appearto be due to both
direct and indirect interaction (including trade net-
Spatial and Cultural Units    33
works) and to tribelet environments which resembled
each otherenoughto allow the development of similar
subsistence activities. A region in Central California,
then, could include speakers of different languages,
for example, Bay Miwok, Plains Miwok, and South-
ern Patwin.
The region in some respects is similar to
Beardsley's (1954:6-7) concept of province, which
has both geographic and cultural significance, being
defined as a geographic grouping of several facies
formedonthebasisofcultural resemblances. Beardsley
recognized that the boundaries of a province can
change from one period to the next and accounted for
the possibility by naming the provinces of each suc-
cessive time period separately.
The area, following Willey and Phillips (1958:20)
"corresponds roughly to the culture area of the ethnog-
rapher." The identical difficulty applies to the ar-
chaeological culture area as to the ethnographic cul-
ture area: although both may have general physi-
ographic integrity, the boundaries are not easy to
define as those of the smaller region. In each case,
examination of cultural inventories is necessary to
determine areal boundaries. California as an archaeo-
logical area would include several subareas (Willey
and Phillips 1958:20), that is, "territories of geo-
graphical extent intermediate between the region and
the area which possess qualities and degrees of cul-
turalunity." During different culturalperiods, subareas
may differ as well. For the Protohistoric period
Central California would be one such subarea, the
Southern California Coast another. As has been
mentioned, the boundaries of any one subarea may
intrude into the physiographic space of another subarea,
as in the example of the southern San Joaquin Valley
relating culturally to the Southern California Coastal
subarea, rather than to the Central California subarea,
despite physiography.
In practice, with the exception of the site, each of
the spatial units, from the locality to the area, may be
conceived in terms of an ecological core, becoming
more generalized as one proceeds from the locality to
the larger geographic units. It is at the borders of each
of the territories that the assignment of the space
occupied by a particular culture becomes dependent
upon cultural factors, rather than ecological ones. In
the final analysis, the assignment of a particular geo-
graphic space to one district or another, or to one
subarea or another, is dependent upon cultural rather
than strictly ecological or environmental factors. The
nature and extent of any particular spatial unit cannot
be assumed a pnori but must be determined by cultural
analysis and comparison. To illustrate the above
discussion, a classification of some of the spatial
divisions in California, adapted from chapter 2, ap-
pears in table 3.1.
Cultural Integrative Units in Central
California Archaeology
In general, my use of cultural units follows
Willey and Phillips (1958:2140), but two additional
concepts are introduced which appear useful for un-
derstanding the Central California materials. These
two concepts, discussed in greater detail below, are
the pattern (cf. chapter 2), used to integrate materials
from one or more regions, and the aspect, a district
integrative unit, similar but not identical in meaning to
its use in the MidwesternTaxonomic System (McKem
1939).
Component and Assemblage. The archaeo-
logical component was defined by Beardsley (1954:6)
as the "archaeological record of human occupancy at
a single locality at a specific time." Although
Beardsley's definition is essentially identical with the
Willey and Phillips (1958:21-22) definition of the
same term, the word "locality" is not used with the
precise meaning of Willey and Phillips. Concordance
can be achieved by replacing the "single locality" of
the Beardsley definition with the phrase "specific
site." Heizer (1949:2) introduced the term "settle-
ment," favoring it over the equivalent term "compo-
nent," which was already in use in the Midwestern
system. Later, however, Beardsley (1954:6) selected
component since, although components might well be
"entire settlements or communities," they "need not
necessarily be so." Although the term assemblage is
sometimes used to refer to the totality of artifacts from
a given site, in this essay the assemblage is the totality
of artifacts found in any one component. Thus a
stratified site containing three cultural components
would also contain three artifactual assemblages.
One of the first tasks of the archaeologist as
fieldworiker is the definition of the various compo-
nents represented by the site under investigation. In
34      Toward a New Taxonomic Framework for Central California
TABLE 3.1
Some Archaeological Spatial Units in California
California Area
Soutem California Coastal Subarea
Southern San Joaquin Valley Region
Central California Subarea
San Fmnisco Bay Region
Alameda District
Carquinez Locality
Oakland Locality
Newark Locality
Livermore Valley Locality
Santa Clara Valley Locality
Peninsula Locality
Manin District
Delta Region
Diablo District
Oakley Locality
Walnut Creek Locality
Cosumnes District
American Locality
Cosumnes Locality
Mokelumne Locality
Solano District
Stockton District
North Coast Ranges Region
Mendocino District
Clear Lake District
Northeastern California Region
South Coast Ranges Region
some cases, such as in a deep, physically homoge-
neous site, this cannot be achieved completely until
excavations have been completed and careful analysis
of the distribution of all recovered cultural materials
has beenmade. In many cases, however, afieldworker
can distinguish between the various cultural compo-
nents on the basis of observed physical stratigraphy in
the field and later analysis will usually confirm and
add greater detail to the initial working hypothesis.
Phase and Aspect. The concept of phase em-
ployed here is identical to that of Willey and Phillips
(1958:22ff.). Since the term "phase" is in wide usage
throughout the New World, it is preferred to the
equivalent terms focus of the Midwestern Taxonomic
System (McKern 1939) and thefacies of the existing
Central California cultural classification system
(Beardsley 1954:6). Willey and Phillips (1958:22)
described phase as, "an archaeological unit possess-
ing traits sufficiently characteristic to distinguish it
from all other units similarly conceived, whether of
the same or other cultures or civilizations, spatially
limited to the order of magnitude of a locality or
region and chronologically limited to a relatively
brief interval of time." The phase is the smallest
cultural unit recognizable in space and time in Central
California (see chapter 2). The use of the tenn
"phase" in Beardsley's Central California frame-
work, as in Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the Late Horizon,
Spatial and Cultural Units     35
includes much greater geographic space than even the
region suggested by Willey and Phillips, and in use is
more closely equivalent to the period concept, dis-
cussed below.
Although Willey and Phillips designated the
phase as "the practicable and intelligible unit of ar-
chaeological study," it must be pointed out that the
phase, as conceptualized here, can only be defined
precisely after a considerable amount of comparative
analysis of larger, more generalized units has been
carried out. Inpracticelargerprehistoric cultural units
are not "built up" out of phases, the smallest discern-
ible unit, but phases are analyzed out of the larger
units. Thus, to a large degree, phase distinctions
involve recognition of cultural differences compa-
rable to those made between two adjacent societies
within a common environmental setting. In regard to
technology, economy, social and political organiza-
tion, and ceremonial practices, such societies will
probably be quite similar, but in language and many
nuances of culture they may be quite different. Most
importantly, they experience themselves as different
peoples. The recognition of phase differences, then,
involves recognizing cultural nuances,often expressed
as stylistic differences, which distinguish two similar
societies from one another. I have employed the term
"societies" here, rather than cultures, since archaeo-
logical cultures usually are not isomorphic with dis-
crete ethnographic cultures but are comparable to
groupings of cultures such as those found in culture
areas (cf. Rouse 1965). This problem is discussed in
more detail in the section on "district markers."
The definition of phases and their temporal and
spatial relationships with one another allow the recog-
nition of many processes, ranging from those in-
volved in the interaction of two adjacent societies, to
those accompanying alterations in the environment, to
those hypothesized on the basis of systems theory
(Boulding 1956; Hall and Fagan 1956; both cited in
Hole and Heizer 1969:378ff.). For example, else-
where (Fredrickson 1974b) I have developed the work-
ing hypothesis of a growing importance of social
ranking in the Walnut Creek locality of the Diablo
District on the basis of systematic differences in burial
practices during successive phases of the Emergent
period (Late Horizon) beginning perhaps 2000 years
ago and culminating in the Protohistoric period.
In the earlier discussion of the district, it was
stated that only one phase existed in one district at any
one time, and that the cultural uniformity found within
a district during any phase was possibly related to the
ease of verbal communication plus factors such as
dance and ceremonial exchange. A sequence of
phases within a single district is referred to herein as
an aspect. Both phases (during a single time interval)
and aspects (usually covering several time intervals)
are district representatives of a pattern, a generalized
cultural configuration usually encompassing one or
more regions. These are discussed in greater detail
below.
The aspect is often discernible in the archaeo-
logical record before its constituent phases can be
isolated, but like phases the aspect is analyzed out of
a larger, more generalized unit, the pattern. Pro-
cedurally, the pattern is the most readily identified
configuration in an archaeological component. As
spatial data come under control, the pattern can be
broken up into a number of aspects. As temporal data
come under control, the aspects can be subdivided into
constituent phases. In this scheme, patterns them-
selves are not broken up into phases, but rather the
temporal dimension is subdivided on the basis of time
markers, technically artifacts or stylistic details on the
order of the horizon-style of Willey and Phillips
(1958:29ff.), which are limited in temporal distribu-
tion.
The analytic isolation of the aspect is greatly
dependent upon what are called district markers here
(cf. Bennyhoff 1977), that is distinctive artifacts,
qualities of workmanship, or stylistic details which
are limited in spatial distribution. Some district mark-
ers may persist through time for a short while, and
others may persist for a prolonged period. District
markers may also serve as time markers within the
districts in which they occur. The definition of the
phase, then, is dependent upon the intersection within
an assemblage of district markers and time markers.
District Markers and Time Markers
Archaeological workers in Central California
have placed a great emphasis upon certain artifact
forms and stylistic detail, such as the forms of shell
beads and ornaments and the ornamentation on bone
and shell artifacts, because of their proven value in
36      Toward a New Taxonomic Frameworkfor Central California
showing temporal relationships between assemblages
indifferent regions. Bennyhoff and Heizer(1958), for
instance, discussed the value of California shell beads
for the cross-dating of Great Basin archaeological
sites, while Baumhoff and Byrne (1959) and more
recently O'Connell (1967) have suggested the utility
of employing certain forms of projectile points as
temporal markers. With the exception of Bennyhoff's
(1977) study, rather little attention has been focused
upon cultural characteristics which assist the analyst
in distinguishing between one community or group of
communities and another. These characteristics, com-
bined underthe heading of district markers, may vary
from the quality of workmanship exhibited in the
manufacture of fish spears to the characteristic de-
signs incised upon bone tubes (Bennyhoff 1977).
Beardsley's (1954:76ff.) comparative discus-
sion of the Late Horizon in the Cosumnes (Delta in
Beardsley's table 1) and Colusa provinces included
itemization of traits helpful in the cultural differentia-
tion of one province from the other. His interpretation
refers to the cultural detail of a specific cultural group:
Areal differenation is brought to anon...
by the appearance of traits in an earlier facies
of one province than of another. Traits of
Hollister Facies, for example, which are ab-
sent from Sandhill Facies components but
appear well marked in Miller Facies of Phase
2 include: fully flexed burial in dug grave pits;
pre-interment burning in the grave pit; deep,
angular serrations on obsidian points; incised
bird bone tubes; single-piece, bilaterally barbed
fish spears; banjo-shaped ornaments of Hali-
otis shell . . ; general elaboration in forms and
decorative styles of abalone ornaments .. .;
and Olivella bead type 3e ... In the reverse
direction come relatively few traits: tubular
anddiscmagnesitebeads are found inSandhill
Facies (MillerB Component) as well as Miller
Facies, but do not arrive in the Cosumnes
Province until Mosher Facies develops. The
regularity with which the southern traits occur
in Phase 2 Howells Point Component in the
north, in contrast to their spasmodic appear-
ance in associated sites of the Miller Facies,
has led Heizer [1941:109] to suggest north-
ward migration of a Delta group as a cause
rather than simple spread of elements.
Hole and Heizer (1969:43) expressed a common
archaeological view when they stated that:
We expect that people who occupy a common
territory and share a common material culture
will also share such things as language, ideas
about right and wrong, preference in art, reli-
gion, and other intangible traits. These ele-
ments of nonmaterial culture are not recov-
ered by prehistoric archaeologists, but every
effort is made to make inferences about the
social and nonmaterial aspects of the remains
they examine.
We may add to this that data are also available which
inform us that material products themselves often are
invested with nonmaterial meaning related to cultural
identity. Dawson(1963), forexample,haspointed out
that cultural standardization in mush boiling baskets
(and presumably other basketry forms as well) is
accomplished through mutual criticism of the makers,
that is, by ridiculing deviations from the nonn. Thus,
Whilkut mush boiling baskets can be consistently
differentiated from the mush boiling baskets of the
neighboring Yurok, who exhibit and reinforce a dif-
ferent standardization: "the shape was different and
the weave of the lateral reinforcement was different."
Dawson added that in the teaching of the young,
instructions include "not only technical manipula-
tions but also the tribal ethos and style precepts about
baskets."
Food preferences show that cultural identity may
have at least partially an ecological basis. DuBois
(1935:6-7) reported that various subgroups of the
Wintu ridicule one another in regard to food prefer-
ences: 'The Upper Sacramento Wintu were called
derisively 'mussel eaters' and ridiculed by the McCloud
Wintu for grinding deer bones into flour, to which the
Upper Sacramento people responded that the McCloud
people ate salmon-bone flour and 'besides they stank
of salmon and bear."' If we can expect actual food
preferences to parallel the food prejudices, we can
hypothesize that an abundance of "mussel" shells in
archaeological sites in one Wintu district as contrasted
with another would reflect not only local availability
but also the identity of the specific Wintu subgroup.
Further, we could hypothesize that there would be a
relative abundance of mussel debris in Upper Sacra-
mento Wintu sites where local availability would not
support this prediction. In this regard, I (Fredrickson
1969) have inferred movement or expansion of a
bayshore-oriented society into the interior Walnut
Spatial and Cultural Units     37
Creek locality partly on the basis of changes in dietary
practices, including a change marked by an abun-
dance of marine molluscan remains where previously
such remains were virtually absent.
DuBois's data are particularly interesting in that
she "lays stress upon behavior and attitudes of minds"
rather than simply "presenting what may be called the
type culture" (DuBois 1935:1). Unfortunately, most
of the existing ethnographic accounts of California
Indian groups do not contain the wealth of attitudinal
information that DuBois's work on the Wintu con-
tains. There are occasional references, devoid of the
affective implications, that cultural traits, including
decorative elements, are related to cultural identity.
Gifford (1965:56) for instance, stated:
The tattooing on the women's faces was dif-
ferent among each tribe or group in this gen-
eral region, and the Coast Yuki show that they
form no exception to this rule. They used fine
marks in considerable quantities onthe cheeks
and chin, but did not employ heavy wide chin-
tattooing as did some other tribes.
On the basis of these kinds of data, it can be
postulated that when two cultures are closely related
to one another in total organization and content, the
identity of each group may be projected into what
might appear to be minor cultural detail. This detail
may be invested with emotional significance not nec-
essarily corresponding to its seemingly minor signifi-
cance to the culture generally. It can be further
postulated that at least a portion of the concept of
district markers themselves may be the equivalent of
material symbols of cultural identity.
Earlier in this essay the concept of horizon as
used in Central Cali fornia was criticized on the grounds
that the binding of time and culture into a single
concept was unduly limiting. The Central California
usage can also be contrasted with widespread New
World usage of the term horizon. Willey and Phillips
(1958:29ff.) defined horizon as "a primarily spatial
continuity represented by cultural traits and assem-
blages whose nature and mode of occurrence permit
the assumption of a broad and rapid spread." They
emphasized that:
The archaeological units linked by a horizon
are thus assumed to be approximately contem-
poraneous. The word is italicized because it is
recognized that horizons based on cultural
criteria unsupported by independent dating
may have considerable temporal depth and
that the assumed conelation is not necessarily
horizontal but may, and probably does, have a
'slope' depending on the amount of time re-
quired for the spread of the elements used as
horizon markers.
This definition is similar to the use of horizon in
the Central California cultural sequence except that in
the Willey and Phillips concept the horizon would
occupy a very short time span (cf. Deetz 1967:59ff.)
rather than the thousand years or more of each of the
California horizons. The example given above,
wherein certain traits occur initially in the Cosumnes
Province during Phase I of the Late Horizon and then
later in the Colusa Province during Phase 2 of the Late
Horizon, would seem to fit the Willey and Phillips
definition but for several shortcomings. The criterion
of "broad and rapid spread" is not clearly met; the two
facies concerned here are not approximately contem-
poraneous; and in chronometric terms, Phase I lasted
perhaps 1000 years and can now be divided into a
number of smaller temporal units while Phase 2 lasted
close to 300 years and can also be divided into smaller
temporal units.
The above example highlights the difficulty of
applying even the Willey and Phillips concept of
horizon in Central California archaeology. The more
valuable concept for Central California is not the
horizon,butthehorizon-style,which, accordingtoWilley
and Phillips (1958:32),
may be roughly defined as a specialized cul-
tural continuum represented by a wide distri-
bution of a recognizable art style. On the
assumption of historical uniqueness of stylis-
tic pattern, coupled with the further assump-
tion that styles normally change with consid-
erable rapidity, the temporal dimension is
theoretically reduced to a point where the
horizon-style becomes useful in equating
phases orlargerunits ofculture thatare widely
separated in space.
It is apparent that the horizon-style of Willey and
Phillips is simply another formulation of the well-
known concept of cross-dating on the basis of artifact
similarities, but with emphasis upon art styles rather
than upon just artifacts in general and with the implicit
assumption that the horizon-style is representative of
the horizon assemblage.
38     Toward a New Taxonomic Framework for Central California
Because of the emphasis upon formal art style,
Willey and Phillips (1958:32) state that the "horizon-
style concept has limited application, since it presup-
poses, a level of aesthetic development that many
archaeological cultures in the New World failed to
reach." Rowe (1959) has introduced analytic con-
cepts which make the horizon-style concept broadly
applicable, including within Central California, the
cultures of which are not noted for elaborate artistic
development, as contrasted, for example, with the
Andean cultures of Peru. Rowe's contribution shows
that the great importance of the horizon-style is not so
much its potential for demonstrating culture contact,
as emphasized by Willey and Phillips, but its potential
for allowing precise relative dating of phases. Rowe
(1959:317) aptly stated:
Patterns of cultural change begin to appear in
the archaeological record as soon as the evi-
dence can be arranged in any kind of chrono-
logical order. With increasingly precise rela-
tive dating it becomes possible to study the
cirumstancesunderwhichtheknownchanges
took place and to observe others. Any devel-
opment in archaeology which makes possible
more precise relative dating, therefore, in-
creases the opportunities for studying cultural
process.
Rowe was concerned with changes that occur
within a tradition as defined by Willey and Phillips
[1958:37]-"a temporal continuity represented by
persistent configurations in single technologies or
other systems of related forms." He focuses in par-
ticular upon ceramic traditions in Peru. The fine
distinctions possible employing the method suggested
by Rowe can form the basis of horizon-style traits in
synchronic interpretation. Rowe (1959:318) observed
one of the handicaps of the typological concept in
general use among both American and European
archaeologists (cf. Willey and Phillips 1958:12-13):
Since cultural change is normally a gradual
process, it takes relatively long periods for
enough change to accumulate in the appear-
ance of a given kind of object so that it no
longer qualifies as descriptively similar to the
type specimen. Consequently, types set up in
this way have relatively long spans of exist-
ence in time, rarely less than 200 years.
In Central California the time span of recognized
artifact types may extend for literally thousands of
years. Rowe (1959:320) recommended that short-
comings of typological dating can be avoided "by
using significant features as the unit of study instead
of types." A feature is "any characteristic or detail of
an object which can be observed and isolated, whether
of material or workmanship or decoration." With
respect to relative dating, Rowe (1959:320) pointed
out:
The most useful features for dating purposes
are those which occur frequently during a
relatively short span of time and are not found
earlier or later. Features which occur at the
beginning of the record being analyzed, have
a continuous existence, and go out before the
endof the record are alsouseful, as are features
which come in after the beginning of the
record and last until the end. Features which
do not occur in one of these patterns are of no
use in making chronological distinctions, no
matter how prominent they may be or how
useful they may become in the study of other
problems. They arenotsignificantfeatures for
relative dating.
In Central California, Bennyhoff (chapter 1, 1977;
Bennyhoff and Heizer 1958) has employed Rowe's
method of feature analysis to define horizon-styles
which have been utilized both for extensional dating
and for more precise division of the existing Central
Califomiahorizonsintonumerousphases. Bennyhoff
has examined fluctuations in various features, or at-
tributes, of shell beads, for instance, and has found that
the location of the perforation in small, rectangular
Olivella beads is an important temporal indicator
during the Late Horizon. Similarly, during the Middle
Horizon, the size of the central perforation in shell
beads is a feature with temporal significance.
Thus, morphological feature analysis of various
traditions, which by definition are presumed to have
temporal continuity, allows the recognition of signifi-
cant attributes, often attributes that appearto be minor
stylistic details. This recognition allows more precise
division of the aspects into phases to which the tradi-
tions belong than otherwise would be possible. Fur-
ther analysis and comparison can identify those ele-
ments of the tradition which are spatially restricted to
the district under consideration, (thus making them
district markers) and those which are widely spread
through space, presumably by means of trade or other
similar means of transport (thus serving as time
Spatial and Cultural Units    39
markers, orhorizon-styles). The horizon-style should
receive the name of the style which characterizes it in
order to emphasize the distributional and synchronic
nature of the cultural relationship and to avoid unwar-
ranted implications of cultural identity.
In field investigations known horizon-styles can
be employed as aids in the assessment of the temporal
standing of a given site or cluster of sites. No impli-
cation of cultural identity then need be present when
a site component is temporally identified by horizon-
style. Horizon-styles may also be employed by field
workers as aids in the assessment of direction and
intensity of cultural influences which derive from
outside the locality of the site or sites under investiga-
tion.
Period and Pattern
Period and Stage. Willey and Phillips (1958:
65) have pointed out that it is only recently that formal
acknowledgment has been given to the distinction
between an archaeological stage and an archaeologi-
cal period, citing Krieger (1953) as presenting the
"first adequate developmental scheme for North
America as a whole. .. [containing] the clearest
discrimination between the concepts of stage and
period that we have yet seen in print." It is relevant
here to repeat Krieger's (1953:24748) formulation:
For present purposes, I will consider a 'stage'
to be a segment of a historical sequence in a
given area, characterized by a dominating
pattern of economic existence. The general
economic life and outlines of social structure
of past peoples can often be infened from
archaeological remains and can be related to
similar phenomena, whether the dates are
known or not. The term 'period', on the other
hand, might be considered to depend upon
chronology. Thus a stage may be recognized
by content alone, and, in the event that accu-
rate dates can be obtained forit in a given area,
it could be said that the stage here existed
during such-and-such a period. Further, the
same stage may be said to appear at different
times orperiods in different areas and also end
at different times. A stage may also include
several locally distinctive culture complexes
and minor time divisions. A great deal of
discussion is needed on these points.
Periods in California Prehistory
I suggest that California's prehistory be divided
into four major chronological periods, with each pe-
riod being named for the dominant stage. We would
thus have a hypothetical "Early Lithic period," a little-
investigated "Paleo-Indian period," and the firmly
established "Archaic" and "Emergent" periods. Fur-
ther, I suggest that the current status of substantive
knowledge allows us to place the periods within a
chronological framework specific for the California
area. Although precise time boundaries between the
periods will be subject to change, it seems less likely
that radical change in the overall chronology will be
necessary. I have tentatively divided the Archaic into
Lower and Upper periods. The Lower Archaic is
dominated by the Early Milling Stone cultures with a
relatively simple and uniform culture-type, although
subareal variations occur. The Upper Archaic, the
beginning of which I have made more or less coter-
minous with the beginning of the Medithermal, would
include the Middle Horizon of the traditional Central
California cultural sequence and the "Intermediate"
cultures of southern California (Wallace 1955). I have
suggested earlier in this essay that this period should
be characterized by considerable diversity and irregu-
larity of pattern.
I have also divided the Emergent into a Lower
and an Upper. In Central California the Lower Emer-
gent period would be represented by Phase I of the
Late Horizon and the Upper Emergent representative
would be Phase 2. During the ethnographic period,
which would be coterminous with the Upper Emer-
gent period, geographically and culturally marginal
groups, such as the Yana, Atsugewi, and Coast Yuki,
would have cultures of the Archaic Stage of cultural
developmental but would be assigned to the Emergent
period on the basis of chronology. The proposed
periods, provisional dating, and examples of archaeo-
logical sites and units assigned to each period appear
in table 3.2.
Two additional terms, the use of which is already
established in California, are protohistoric and his-
toric. The original use of protohistoric, a tenn coined
by the French (Hole and Heizer 1969:37), was in
relation to the study of peoples who were without
writing themselves, but who must be studied with
40     Toward a New Taxonomic Frameworkfor Central California
reference to the history ofa literate society. Following
this meaning, the 1542 voyage of Cabrillo along the
California coast can be taken as marking the beginning
of the Protohistoric period in California. The 1492
contact of Columbus with the West Indies could also
be taken as marking the beginning of the Protohistoric
period, taking into consideration that diseases brought
by the Columbus voyages conceivably could have
spread widely and quickly throughout the New World
(S. T. Brooks, personal communication).
The more commonly applied meaning for
protohistoric as applied to Californian materials, and
the one recommended here, is for the designation of
the cultural period immediately prior to historic con-
tact. In this sense the terms seems best applied to local
and regional sequences. In the lower Sacramento
Valley and San Francisco Bay regions the Protohistoric
period is equivalent to the Upper Emergent period
(Phase 2 of the Late Horizon). Different dating for the
Protohistoric period is found in some other regions.
For example, King (1968:115) assigned the upper
component at Mad-I 17 in the San Joaquin Valley to
"an entirely protohistoric date, suggesting a time
depth probably not exceeding 700 years."
Bennyhoff (1977) placed the beginning of the
historic period in California concurrent with the ar-
rival of the Spanish on the California coast in 1769. It
is obvious that many groups were not affected by
European contact until considerably later, thus it may
be more useful to cite local or regional dates for the
commencement of the historic period. Use of the
terms should be specified.
Employing the above framework fieldworkers,
on the basis ofhorizon-styles and otherknown, widely
spread cultural characteristics, would have a substan-
tial likelihood of accurately assigning a given site to a
specific period, but, once again, without necessarily
identifying the culture under investigation with some
reference point culture, such as one of those located in
the lower Sacramento Valley.
Pattern. The division of California prehistory
into major periods functions much the same as the
traditional horizon framework, except for the crucial
difference that the temporal dimension is kept sepa-
rate from the cultural one. It follows, then, that the
assigning of a particular phase or aspect to a particular
period indicates little about the actual cultural content
of the units or their relationship with comparable
units. What must be introduced now is an integrative
concept that fulfills the cultural function of the hori-
zon concept, but without the temporal implications. I
have chosen to refer to the concept by the term pattern
and will discuss the choice of this term below.
The pattern is the archaeological unit out of
which different phases and aspects are abstracted.
The concept is similarto the concept of "culture" in its
"culture-area" usage. That is, inherent in the concept
are a number of separate, coexisting societies, each of
which possesses to a greater or lesser extent similar
characteristics. The pattern, then, is a way of life
shared by a number of different peoples residing in a
particular geographic space. The pattern differs deci-
sively from the culture-area concept in that the terri-
tory in which it is manifested is considerably smaller
in extent than the territory included in the spatial unit
of the area, and is also smaller than the unit of the
subarea, at least as these units are found in California.
The closest parallel in respect to cultural groupings are
the "cultural provinces" of Klimek (1935), which
were arrived at inductively through statistical analy-
sis. Thus, a number of separate, but inter-related
archaeological patterns exist within the Central Cali-
fornia subarea. A single pattern may be restricted
spatially to a single region, although several regions
may be included. A sequence of patterns in one region
may not be identical with the sequence of patterns in
another region, even though both regions may be
included within the same subarea. There is no neces-
sary temporal sequence implied by terminology.
An archaeological pattern, as defined here, rep-
resents an adaptive mode shared in general outline by
a number of analytically separable cultures over a
particular period of time within a comparatively large
geographic space. Following Kroeber (1936, 1939),
the pattern of a climax region is likely to differ from
the pattern of adjacent marginal regions, despite the
probability of shared historic origins of the cultures of
the two kinds of regions. Cultures that share a pattern
can be assumed to interact more with one another,
both directly and indirectly, than with cultures exhib-
iting different patterns. Relationships which can be
discerned between different patterns can be indicated
by descriptive commentaries, since inclusion in the
same culture-area implies fundamental relationships.
Spatial and Cultural Units      41
TABLE 32
Archaeological Periods in Central California
Period and Dating
Upper Emergent
A.D. 1500
Lower Emergent
A.D. 300
Upper Archaic
2000 B.C.
Lower Archaic
6000 B.C.
Paleo-Indian
10,000 B.C.?
Early Lithic ?
Phase 2, Late Horizon
Phase 1, Late Horizon
Middle Horizon
Intermediate Cultures
Early Horizon
Early San Francisco Bay
Early Milling Stone Cultures
San Dieguito
Western Clovis
Farmington ?
Santa Rosa Island ?
Note: The temporal boundaries of any one archaeological culture may not correspond precisely with the dates given, e.g.,
Early Horizon (Windmiller Pattern) perhaps begins as late as 3000 B.C. and may persist until 500 B.C. (Ragir 1972).
A pattern is characterized by (a) similar techno-
logical skills and devices (specific cultural items); (b)
similar economic modes (production, distribution,
consumption), including especially participation in
trade networks and practices surrounding wealth (of-
ten inferential); and (c) similar mortuary and ceremo-
nial practices.
A single pattern will not be specifically uniform
throughout the entire geographic space which it occu-
pies. Regional and local variation, sometimes ex-
treme, will occur, depending upon factors such as (a)
abundance and nature of specific environmental re-
sources; (b) regional specializations and elaborations,
sometimes resulting from unique historic events; (c)
degree of cultural and geographic marginality; and (d)
influences of neighboring patterns. It is hypothesized
that some patterns may have specific linguistic corre-
lates in regard to origins, but such correlates must be
demonstrated rather than assumed. During any one
style-horizon, representatives of diverse language fami-
lies may share the identical pattern.
A specific pattern should be defined in such a
way as to make the identifying characteristics as
generalized as possible, yet any two patterns should
clearly contrast with one another. It should be empha-
sized that the definition of a particular pattern is based
upon a configuration of trait elements. Individual
characteristics may be shared mutually between two
or more patterns, but the overall configuration of
each pattern should be distinctive. Within a single
culture-area or subarea, several patterns should be
distinguishable. Although sharp boundaries between
42      Toward a New Taxonomic Framework for Central California
patterns may not be discernible, the units themselves
should be more easily manageable than larger units
encompassing the entire area. It can be expected that
during any given period in Central California there
will probably exist a climax region pattern border
region patterns which are strongly influenced by more
than one climax culture, marginal region patterns
where influence from two or more culture-areas is
manifest, and coalescent patterns where characteris-
tics from an earlier period strongly influence newer
patterns. (See chapter 2, pp. 20-21, for further discus-
sion of pattern variability, Ed.)
Within Archaic and Emergent cultures in Cen-
tral California, the milling complex will always be
present The dominant or exclusive use of the mortar
and pestle can usually be contrasted with the dominant
or exclusive use of the handstone and milling stone.
Projectile points will always be present, with forms
being more conservative in marginal localities and the
quantity of points in any single locality closely related
to the economic adaptation. Marginal localities will
have fewer trade items and will thus have smaller
numbers of imported objects, such as beads, orna-
ments, stone pipes, and charmstones. Climax regions
and tribelet centers will generally be richest in regard
to artifact inventory and will show a greater variety of
artifacts, more types of any given artifact, and more
complex ceremonial indications than sites in marginal
or subsidiary regions.
The term pattern was selected from several which
have been suggested in recent years for this level of
integration: horizon, culture, tradition, and pattern.
The continued use of the term horizon (Beardsley
1954; Heizer 1949), without the temporal dimension,
is not satisfactory for several reasons. Not only would
continued usage imply the traditional Central Califor-
nia meaning, linking time with culture when only
culture is desired, but this linkage would be reinforced
by the general New World denotation of the temporal
dimension ofthe term. There is also a conflict with the
use of horizon-style as defined earlier in this essay.
Ragir (1972) has substituted the term culture for
horizon in her recent modification of the Central
California Taxonomic System. Although she did not
define heruse of the tern, the context implied compat-
ibility with definitions such as that of Childe (1950:2):
an assemblage of artifacts that recur repeat-
edly associated together in dwellings of the
same kind and with burials by the same rite.
The arbitrary peculiarities of implements,
weapons, ornaments, houses, burial rites and
ritual objects are assumed to be the concrete
expression of common social traditions that
bind together a people.
This usage would seem more appropriately applied to
the concept of phase than to that of pattern as dis-
cussed above, since it is the phase (in this essay) which
comes closest to approximating a discrete ethno-
graphic culture. Krieger (1964:26) proposed a much
broader use for the term culture, suggesting it be
applied to "similar material that is found over great
regions." The primary objection to the use of the term
culture for the present context is that the word is
thoroughly entrenched in anthropological vocabulary
with a broad spectrum of meanings, and it does not
seem advisable to restrict this range. Culture ranges in
meaning from the ways of life practiced by members
of a particular society, through the ways of life com-
monto broadergroupings of particular societies (such
as those found withinculture-areas), to the ways of life
common to all humankind.
As noted earlier, the term tradition was one ofthe
alternatives to horizon discussed during the Davis
workshops. The fact that the term has already
appeared in print several times (Gaumer 1968; King
1968; Schulz 1970) argues in favor of its adoption,
since to intduce yet another term would seem to
add even more complexity to the literature. The
term has much to recommend it, especially in the
senseemployedbyGoggin (1949: 17,citedinWiley
and Phillips 1958:36ff.), which closely approxi-
mates the concept now being explicated:
My concept of Florida cultural traditions is
similar in theory but more inclusive in content
thanaceramictradition. A cultural tradition is
a distinctive way of life, reflected in various
aspects of the culture; perhaps extending
through some period of time and exhibiting
normal internal cultural changes, but never-
theless throughout this period showing a basic
consistent unity. In the whole history of a
tradition certain persistent themes dominate
the life of the people. These give distinctive-
ness to the configurations.
Willey and Phillips, while recognizing the virtue of
Spatial and Cultural Units     43
this usage, reject this use of tradition, preferring to
restrict it to "single technologies or other systems of
related forms." Willey (1966:4), in his synthesis of
North and South American prehistory, employed the
term to refer to:
major cultural groupings as these can be dis-
cerned in geographical space and in chrono-
logical time. In every instance these dimen-
sions of space and time are appreciable. Each
major cultural tradition also probably had a
definite ideological pattern or world view.
This can be demonstrated for some of them in
their thematic arts, evidences of religious prac-
tices, and intellectual pursuits. For others,
however, particularly the eariest of the New
World traditions, the data are inadequate to
allow such reconstructions.
Thus, just as the term culture had a broad series of
meanings, so does tradition. I consider it advisable to
retain the flexibility of both terms rather than to
restrict their meaning to a single dimension.
The term pattern can be similarly-cnticized in
that it has a range of increasingly broader meanings. I
have selected it primarily because it is not widely
employed in the archaeological literature in any of its
meanings (but see Warren 1968:26-27, Ed.), contrast-
ing in this respect with both culture and tradition.
As a general principle, I suggest that a pattern be
given the name of the first site at which it is recog-
nized. This does not imply any archaeological priority
for the site thus employed. The priority relates only to
the recognition by archaeologists, not to elaborateness
of culture content or to temporal priority forthe site in
a chronological sequence. If such a label proves to be
ambiguous, for instance, if it is already in use in some
other context, an alternate label should be chosen.
With respect to the archaeologist in the field, I
suggest that the pattern is the unit, along with the
period, which is most generally recognized. I empha-
size once again that in practice the pattern is not built
up of aspects, but that aspects and their constituent
phases are analyzed out of the more general pattern.
Thus, a pattern is defined in terms of generalized
forms and types, whereas aspects and phases are
defined in terms of certain distinctive features which
characterize these general forms and types.
Criteria for Several Patterns in
Central California1
Windniiller Pattern. The Windmiller Pattern,
which appears to have its origin in the Lower Archaic
period and to have persisted into the Upper Archaic
period (Ragir 1972), includes the components previ-
ously included with the Early Horizon of the lower
Sacramento Valley. It has recently been renamed by
Ragir (1972) as the Windmiller culture. Windmiller
components are restricted to the Cosumnes District of
the Delta region. Criteria for the Windmiller Pattern
are as follows:
a. Technological skills and devices. Mano and
metate, although rare, are accompanied by small mor-
tars (possibly meat or paint grinding implements).
The dart and atlatl, as well as the spear occur. Atlatl
spurs are rare and are of polished stone. Non-obsid-
ian, stemmed projectile points are dominant and nu-
merous flaked points have basal edges smoothed by
grinding. While the bone industry is not elaborate, the
polished stone industry is, including the biconical
drilling of stone tubes and shell bead applique, but no
true inlay occurs. Impressions on baked clay docu-
ment close twined basketry.
b. Economic modes. The relative number of
projectile points as contrasted with the small number
of grinding implements suggests a hunting emphasis.
Inferentially, neither the acorn nor other seeds are too
important Trade appears to be focused primarily
upon acquisition of ceremonial and ornamental ob-
jects, which appear to have been obtained as finished
specimens rather than as raw material.
c. Burial and ceremonial practices. Intennent
occurs both in intravillage grave plots and in non-
midden, off-village cemeteries. The mortuary com-
plex has a ceremonial emphasis, with abundant, delib-
erate grave furnishings relatively common. The most
frequent burial posture is westerly oriented ventral
1 Compare the additional detail in this section, pp. 43-47,
with the outline developed by Bennyhoff and Fredrickson
(chapter 2, pp. 22-24) six years earlier, Ed.
44     Toward a New Taxonomic Frameworkfor Central California
extension, although westerly oriented dorsal exten-
sion also occurs. One site yields rare flexure and
secondary cremation. There is some work in human
bone and evidence of head-taking. The use of red
pigment and the paint palette is documented.
d. Variations in the Windmiller Pattern. The
cluster of sites, predominantly on the Mokelumne
River, involved in the definition of the original Early
culture or Early Horizon, forms the nucleus of the
present definition of the Windmiller Pattern. The
elaborateness of the mortuary practices suggest that
these practices may be a regional specialization due to
favorable economic resources. The culture repre-
sented appears to have been at a climax point, possibly
related to the favored environment. If this is assumed,
then it can be hypothesized that the areas geographi-
cally marginal to the Mokelumne cluster of sites will
present an abbreviated version of the ceremonial com-
plex. The BearCreek site (SJo-l 12; Olsen and Wilson
1964), believed to be a Windmiller Pattern site, lo-
catedmorethantenmilestothe southoftheMokelumne
site cluster, shows a significantly smaller number of
charmstones and chipped stone tools as grave furni-
ture. Although this is not necessarily indicative of a
significant difference in the ceremonial complex, it is
suggestive of such a difference.
Berkeley Pattern. The Berkeley Pattern, pre-
dominantly of the Upper Archaic period but with
possible Lower Archaic antecedents, includes those
components previously included within the Middle
Horizon, renamed by Ragir (1972) as the Cosumnes
culture and referred to by Gaumer (1968) as the Emery
Tradition. The earliest phases of the Berkeley Pattern
appear to be contemporaneous with the late phases of
the Windmiller Pattern (Fredrickson 1966; Gerow
with Force 1968; Ragir 1972). The name Berkeley
rather than Emery (for Emeryville where this pattern
was first recognized) has been selected in order to
avoid ambiguity, since Beardsley (1954) already used
Emeryville as the name for a basic Late Horizon
facies. Cosumnes is also unacceptable since Bennyhoff
(1977) used the word to refer to a district of the Delta
region. Berkeley Pattern components are more nu-
merous than Windmiller Pattern components and are
found in the Delta and San Francisco B ay regions. The
criteria for the Berkeley Pattern are as follows:
a. Technological skills and devices. The mini-
mally shaped cobble mortar and cobble pestle are
employed almost exclusively as the milling imple-
ments. Manos and metates, while sometimes present,
are rare. The dart and atlad are present, the atlatl being
represented by rare engaging hooks usually of bone or
antler. Chipped stone projectile points are less fre-
quent than in-the WindmillerPattern, and nonstemmed
forms predominate. There is a growing emphasis
upon the bone industry during the temporal span of
this pattern. Mammal bone is more commonly em-
ployed than bird bone. The polished stone industry
does not appear to be as highly developed as it is with
the Windmiller Pattern.
b. Economic modes. As indicated by a high
proportion of grinding implements in relation to pro-
jectile points and by the regional accumulation of
large shell heaps, the Berkeley Pattern has a collecting
emphasis. The acorn is probably the dominant staple.
The large number of sites and great depths of deposit
suggest a larger population than that supported by the
Windmiller Pattern. There is no apparent emphasis
upon either trade or wealth. The use of local material
predominates. Trade goods, when they appear, are
finished specimens, rather than raw material.
c. Burial and ceremonial practices. The mortu-
ary complex is rarely elaborated. Flexed burial with
variable orientation occurs in village sites. Burial
goods are mostly restricted to a few utilitarian items or
to ornamental objects which are compatible with an
interpretation of being part of a relatively unelaborate
burial costume. Ceremonialism is indicated predomi-
nantly by shamanism, that is, by the presence of single
graves with objects compatible with known ethno-
graphic "shaman's kits," e.g., quartz crystals,
charmstones, bone whistles. Graves are sometimes
accompanied by bird and animal bone, occasionally
by articulated portions of skeletons. Birds and ani-
mals sometime are found as ceremonial burials.
d. Variations in the Berkeley Pattern. Regional
specializations reflect at times differing environmen-
tal resources. For example, along the San Francisco
Bay shoreline and the Marin-Sonoma coast, Berkeley
Pattern sites emphasize the collection of shellfish.
Notched stones, presumably net weights, are common
in these localities, while absent in interior sites. Ar-
chaeological components in the northern San Joaquin
Valley show a blending of the Windmiller with the
Spatial and Cultural Units     45
Berkeley Pattern, although it appears that the
Windmiller Pattern has historical priority in the re-
gion. With additional information it may prove nec-
essary to distinguish the components in this region as
part of a separate pattern.
Augustine Pattern. The Augustine Pattern of
the Emergent period includes those cultures previ-
ously included within the Late Horizon (named the
Hotchkiss culture by Ragir [1972]). The Augustine
Pattern appears to be a coalescent pattern merging the
previous Berkeley Pattem with many new traits and
involving a change in the general economic complex.
Augustine Pattern components occur in many regions
of the Central California subarea, although further
analysis is necessary before its precise distribution
can be determined. Augustine Pattem criteria are as
follows:
a. Technologicalskillsanddevices. Well-shaped
mortars and pestles are common. The bow and arrow
are present, as evidenced by a growing increase in the
number of small projectile points beginning in the
earlierphases of the pattern. The dart and atlatl appear
to drop out of use early during the pattern. Fishing
implements, while rare in absolute terms, occur more
commonly and in different types than in the Berkeley
or Windmiller Patterns. The harpoon is introduced
during early phases of the pattern. Bone work is not
as extensive as with the Berkeley Pattern, but bone
awls, probably indicative of a coiled basketry indus-
try, are common. Polished stone now includes tubular
pipes as well as charmstones, which often are not as
well made as those of the Berkeley and Windmiller
Patterns. Use of and work in shell is common.
b. Economic modes. Fishing appears to be
added to a strong collecting emphasis, while hunting
(inferred by greaternumbers of projectile points found
in middens) may be more important than during the
period of the Berkeley Pattern. The acorn is the
dominant staple, as judged in part by charred speci-
mens found inmiddens. There is high development of
trade, beginning initially with finished specimens
serving as trade items, and developing by the addition
of raw materials involved in trade. Gradually, more
trade items appear that can be identified as coming
from relatively great distances. During the Upper
Emergent period the Augustine Pattem appears
strongly influenced by trade and wealth items deriv-
ing from the North Coast Ranges, a region which in
earlier periods did not appear to participate to any
great extent in the patterns so far discussed. Social
differentiation in regard to wealth in the Augustine
Pattern is evidenced by considerable variation in grave
furnishings.
c. Mortuary and ceremonial practices. Crema-
tion and preinterment grave pit burning of burial
furnishings co-occur with flexed burial, with crema-
tion apparently reserved for relatively wealthy and
prestigious individuals, judging from the differential
distribution of grave gods often found with the two
burial modes. Grave orientation is variable. Ceremo-
nialism, possibly indicative of widespread secret soci-
eties documented during the ethnographic period, is
evidenced in the artifactual complexes, markedly
emphasizing shell beads and ornaments, found with
graves.
d. Variations in the Augustine Pattern. Due to
the developing elaborateness of the trade networks,
localities which were unfavorably situated with re-
spect to trade routes show considerably less embel-
lishmentofthe Augustine Pattern than localities which
are more favorably situated. Nonetheless, more trade
objects are evident in the marginal localities than in
comparable localities which follow the Berkeley Pat-
tem. The importance of fishing in the Augustine
Pattern implies that localities favorably situated with
respect to fish resources will have a more elaborate
cultural development than those in mountainous re-
gions. In the northern San Joaquin Valley the pres-
ence of extended burials in components which tenta-
tively can be classified as participating in the Augus-
tine Pattern may reflect a continuing influence from
earlier Windmiller Pattern cultures.
Borax Lake Pattern. What is here referred to as
the Borax Lake Pattern was first identified as a distinc-
tive cultural manifestation at the Borax Lake site
(Harrington 1948) in the vicinity of Clear Lake. The
pattern, which includes sites subsumed by Meighan
(1955) as belonging to the Borax Lake and Mendocino
complexes, is characteristic of the Lower Archaic
period and has regional representatives persisting into
the Upper Archaic period. It has been suggested
(Baumhoff 1957; Baumhoff and Olmsted 1963,1964;
Wallace 1954) that what is here referred to as the
Borax Lake Pattern is historically related to the Early
46      Toward a New Taxonomic Framework for Central California
Milling Stone cultures of the Southern California
subarea as well as to the Windmiller Pattern of the
Delta region. The spatial distribution of Borax Lake
Pattern components is not compatible with these pos-
sibilities. Borax Lake components are found through-
out the North Coast Ranges, with strong indication
that the same or a related pattern may also occur in the
South Coast Ranges (Pilling 1955). Despite the pos-
sibility of a direct historical relationship between the
Borax Lake and Windmiller Patterns, the extent of
difference in economic mode and ceremonial behav-
ior gives sufficient justification for establishing two
distinct patterns. Criteria for the Borax Lake Pattern
are as follows:
a. Technological skills and devices. Mano and
metate occur with greater frequency than in the
Windmiller Pattern. Mortar and pestle commonly
occur along with mano and metate in later phases.
Atlatl (inferred) and dart occur, as well as the spear.
Stemmed, nonstemmed, and concave base projectile
points, predominantly of local materials (either obsid-
ian or chert), are present. There is some evidence of
a burin technology. Polished stone items are found,
but are quite rare. No evidence of a significant bone
industry has yet turned up, although this may be due
to differential preservation resulting from soil condi-
tions. Similarly, no evidence of a shell industry has
been found.
b. Economic modes. The relatively large num-
ber of milling implements as contrasted with the
relatively small number of stone projectile points
suggests a generalized hunting-collecting economy,
with collecting given an edge over hunting in impor-
tance. No evidence for fishing has been preserved.
The use of local materials predominates; trade does
not appear to have been particularly well developed,
although in later phases contact with other patterns
appears to increase. There is no evidence of any
wealth emphasis.
c. Mortuary and ceremonial practices. No inter-
ments have been found in habitation sites in earlier
phases, although in one late phase site burials do occur
in the midden. No non-midden burials have yet been
identified. Utilitarian objects, mainly pestles and
projectile points, were found with the late phase
burials. Polished stone items suggestive of ceremo-
nial purposes include rare ovoid perforated charm-
stones and a single occurrence of a small, tabular,
centrally side-notched, ground stone object, possibly
representing a form ancestral to the "painted tablets"
of the Napa and Berryessa valleys.
d. Variations in the Borax Lake Pattern. At
present two aspects of the Borax Lake Pattern have
been identified, distinguished by the stone materials
employed and the forms of the projectile points uti-
lized. There is a northern aspect focused in Mendo-
cino County and extending to the east side of the Coast
Ranges, and a southern aspect, focused inLake County
and extending southward into Sonoma, Napa, and
Solano counties. No regional specializations have yet
been found, unless the "inscribed stones" of the
Redding District (Edwards 1969) can be so consid-
ered. If the Borax Lake Pattem were related to the
Windmiller Pattern, it would represent both a cultur-
ally and geographically marginal variant.
Houx Pattern. The cultural assemblage which
makes up what is referred to here as the Houx Pattern
has not been previously described. The pattern is
described at this time on the basis of materials obtained
through stratigraphic excavations at a single site, Lak-
261 (the Houx site), supplemented with comparative
materials from neighboring localities. The Houx
Pattern, found at this time only in the North Coast
Ranges, is assigned to the Upper Archaic period, but
it appears significantly different from the Berkeley
Pattern which dominates this period in the Delta,
SanFranciscoBay,andMadin-SonamCountycoastal
site& Criteria for the Houx Pattern are as follows:
a. Technological skills and devices. The mortar
and pestle dominate the milling industry. The atlad
(inferred) and dart occur, but the bow and arrow are
absent. Nonstemmed projectile points predominate,
but broad, triangular, stemmed projectile points also
occur. Well-flaked scrapers of various shapes and
sizes are common. Locally available obsidian and
basalt are the raw materials for virtually all chipped
stone tools. Technical and possibly functional burins
are relatively common. No polished stone objects
have yet been recovered. The bone industry does not
appear to be particularly well developed, but this may
be due to soil conditions which act against preserva-
tion of bone. Work in shell is present in the form of
beads, probably obtained by trade.
b. Economic modes. Projectile points are ex-
Spatial and Cultural Units     47
tremely numerous, both in absolute number and in
relation tonumberof milling implements. Although
this would strongly support a hunting emphasis,
relatively little bone debris was recovered from the
single stratigraphically excavated Houx compo-
nent. Charred acorns were recovered fiom the site
matrix. Poor preservation of bone may be respon-
sible for this anomaly. Local materials predominate
with little development of trade except as suggested
by the presence of shell beads. There is no evidence
of any wealth emphasis.
c. Mortuaryandceremonialpractices. Flexed
and semi-flexed intennents occur within the habita-
tion site. Although fewburials have been recovered,
those which were found show an undeveloped cer-
emonial complex with few associations. They are
suggestive neither of a ceremonial nor of a utilitarian
emphasis to the mortuary complex.
d. Variations in the Houx Pattern. While the
Houx Pattern may prove to be a specialized adaptation
based upon the Berkeley Pattern, at this time it appears
significantly different from the latter to wanrant clas-
sification as a separate pattern. So far, Houx Pattern
sites appear to be focused in Lake and Sonoma coun-
ties, but similarities in projectile point types provoca-
tively suggest connection with Berkeley Pattern com-
ponents on the Marin-Sonoma coast and with compo-
nents assigned to the Berkeley Pattern in Napa County.
Projectile point types and the burn technology also
suggest connections with Borax Lake Pattern sites of
the earlierLowerArchaic period and with one ormore
as yet undefined patterns (Martis Complex) of the
Sierras. Further excavation must be carried out to
determine in more detail relationships of the Houx
Pattern to other patterns in both space and time.