9 Archaeological Taxonomy in Central California Reconsidered David A. Fredrickson (1992, revised 1993) Introduction D URING THE 1960S AND early 1970s, but before the then-called New Archeology had exerted its full influence, I was one of several archaeologists who were rethinking what is now referred to as the Central Califomia Taxonomic System (CCTS) (Beardsley 1948, 1954; Lillard, Heizer and Fenenga 1939; see also Moratto 1984:181-201). This was prompted in part by the growing realization based mostly upon excavations in the larger San Francisco Bay region that the cultural sequence had greater complexity than that implied by the CCTS's Early, Middle, and Late horizons (e.g., Gerow with Force 1968; Wallace and Lathrap 1975). Other factors also contributed to the rethinking, including the tennino- logical confusion resulting from placing "earlier than early" cultures into the system. As the New Archeology gained influence, the interest quickly dissipated and archaeological tax- onomy tended to be ignored, frequently dismissed as irrelevant, or criticized for its inadequacy. Exceptions to such dismissal were on the whole restricted to doctoral dissertations that were in process during the period of "paradigmatic shift" (Fredrickson 1973; Ragir 1972). For me, completion of the dissertation brought with it a loss of interest in taxonomy based more on tedium than any rational consideration, al- though being engaged in a full-time teaching position brought other more immediate issues to the forefront of my attention. There were few occasions that prompted thought on the topic, even when the taxo- nomic concepts raised in the dissertation were criti- cized (e.g., King 1974b; Gerow 1974). Nonetheless, my dissertation was used by others as a source for concepts and tenninology. The gener- ally uncritical use of concepts and tenninology, often extracted from their taxonomic context, commonly occurred in gray literature archaeological reports, especially in Northem Califomia. I take the use of such tenninology as evidence that there are archae- ologists interested ingrouping assemblages with which they work with similar ones found elsewhere. This tendency implies on the one hand a need for system- atic organization of archaeological phenomena, as taxonomic systems attempt to do, and on the other hand, a desire to reach comparative results with the least effort (cf. Rowe 1962). A major failing is that assemblages are often too incomplete to warrant such groupings; frequently it is the occurrence of but one or two artifact forms that prompt these assignments. Having lived now for about twenty years with the implications of an essay I completed during a time when the topic-archaeological taxonomy- 92 Toward a New Taxonomic Frameworkfor Central California was obsolete, I have had many occasions to find significant flaws in the system which I described. Since by training and temperament I am historically oriented and my scientific tum of mind informs me that social factors can certainly be conceived to be as important as environmental ones in shaping history, I retain the urge to group archaeological phenomena in ways that clarify both historical and social relation- ships. While I agree that improper classification can obscure rather than enlighten, I find the effort of great heuristic worth in that it prompts questions about historical relationships that otherwise might never be raised. Nonetheless, I have found many flaws and inadequacies with the taxonomic system attributed to me; not always, however, the same flaws referenced by others. In the present essay I intend to identify specific shortcomings in the taxonomic system described in my dissertation (Fredrickson 1973). While trying to correct for retrospective falsification, I will also de- scribe some of the factors that stimulated my interest in the Central Califomia Taxonomic System (CCTS) and archaeological taxonomy in general. In so doing I hope to clarify certain concepts with which others from time to time have indicated dissatisfaction. I do not intend to provide a defense or systematic revision; I am not at all convinced that either would be worth- while. Because of the information explosion in ar- chaeology, no one individual can control the detail required to identify the variation found in the archaeo- logical record, and variation, after all, is what we are attempting to understand and what prompts us toward taxonomy. I am convinced that any attempt to create a working taxonomy would require considerable ef- fort and commitnent by regional experts who are willing to open their imaginations and keep in check their doubts as the synthetic process moves forward. Historical Context The CCTS as developed by Lillard, Heizer, and Fenenga (1939), and later formalized and geographi- cally expanded by Beardsley (1948, 1954), followed the methodological approach employed elsewhere in North America at the time (e.g., McKem 1939). Us- ing the comparative method, empirical archaeological data were grouped by site into specific assemblages. Assemblages from different sites were then grouped together with respect to similarities and differences. When similarities dominated, the composite assem- blage received its own identity marked by a distinctive name. Prior to radiocarbon dating, these composite assemblages were ordered in time by virtue of their stratigraphic relationships, following the principle of superposition. Each discrete assemblage was referred to as an archaeological culture; that is, the artifact grouping itself was the culture. Application of this procedure trughout North America over several decades resulted in a monumental achievement, defi- nition of the basic spatial and temporal structure of North American prehistory. In the 1950s, Willey and Phillips (1958), after publishing preliminary articles to stimulate comment, fonnalized the method by synthesizing its various applications into a single methodological framework, clarifying ambiguities and offering standard defini- tions and terminology. They further synthesized regional sequences into a general set of culture-his- torical periods that reflected similar changes at differ- entplaces throughoutthe New World: i.e.,Paleoindian, Archaic, Fornative, Preclassic, Classic, Postclassic. This sequence is seen by some to represent yet another version of unilineal cultural evolution. In retrospect, I do not see it as a revival of nineteenth century cultural evolution, nor do I see it as an effort to apply principles of biological or Darwinian evolu- tion to the cultural domain, as is sometimes done today. I now see it as an effort to find historic processes that reoccur under similar circumstances at different times and different places, an application of the scientific method. The historical importance of the Willey and Phillips work is that it marks the apex of the empirical culture-historical approach. Its comprehensive sum- mation of New World archaeology implied that the methods of archaeology had done their job; the major prehistoric cultures had been identified, the sequence of prehistoric events determined, and the major pre- historic themes articulated. It also implied that what remained for future workers was merely to fill in data gaps for lesser known regions, to resolve discrepan- cies, and to make refinements and adjustments. These implications set the stage for so-called new perspec- tives and help us understand why an earlier statement of similar perspectives by Walter Taylor (1948) elic- Archaeological Taxonomy Reconsidered 93 ited little response for action in the profession as a whole-the stage had not yet been set for the play to be enacted. One of the major accomplishments of the 1960s New Archeology was a change in the concept of culture. For those employing the earlier empirical approach, the archaeological culture was the artifac- tual assemblage (including, of course, not only formal artifacts but other observable features such as mortu- ary attributes). The New Archeology contributed to the contrasting idea that material remains were in large part the residue of cultural behavior, while culture itself was an abstract system. In a sense the application of this view to archaeology relieved the practitioner from what I sometimes see as the "tyranny of the artifact," by transforming a tight focus on formal artifacts into a much broader panorama that included nonartifactual constituents, site formation processes, and the environmental context itself. To me, this shift made clear that archaeology was in- volved in the study of cultural behavior and variabil- ity. Rethinking Taxonomy My initial involvement in rethinking the CCTS began as a result of excavations in the San Ramon Valley of Contra Costa County between 1962 and 1964 (Fredrickson 1966, 1968; Moss and Mead 1967). These investigations involved five archaeological sites that collectively contained at least seven components spanning a time period of up to 4000 years. Although I did not use a formal hypothesis testing structure, several of my questions rested on the fact that the CCTS was derived in the main from the study of mortuary data. While examining the explication of the CCTS provided by Beardsley (1948, 1954), I was struck by the observation that different time periods not only had different frequencies of artifact types but also had different frequencies of graves with associated arti- factual materials. This observation raised method- ological questions. That is, was it really worth the effort in terms of existing procedures to excavate numerous graves that lacked associations to find that rare grave containing time sensitive artifacts? This question in tum prompted me to look for meaning in materials that occurred with greater frequency within habitation sites (Fredrickson 1969)-namely, those materials that I came to call "debrs of customary daily living," in contrast to those materials that were depen- dent upon ritual circumstance. Only later was I to understand the social implications of mortuary differ- ences (Fredrickson 1974b). In turning to nonartifactual residues, I felt the necessity to demonstrate that the CCTS was either simply a sequence of contrasting mortuary practices or an actual sequence of differing cultures. It was inherent to the logic I was following that I look at nonartifactual residues (e.g., marine and terrestrial faunal remains, debitage) as reflecting adaptive be- havior rather than simply as a list of utilized species and materials (Fredrickson 1968). The data con- vinced me that the CCTS was indeed a cultural se- quence, i.e., a behavioral sequence, rather than prima- rily a sequence of attributes and artifact types associ- ated with graves. Without being fully aware of the implications of what I had done, I had effectively freed myself from the idea that the artifact equaled the culture. I had further problems in applying the CCITS. In dealing with these problems, as well as in seeking the cultural assignments of the various site components, I sought the knowledge and guidance of my colleague Jim Bennyhoff. One problem I encountered was the unexpected 4400 year antiquity of the deepest compo- nent at CCo-308, which had attributes similar to those expected for Middle Horizon (or Berkeley Pattem) sites at a time depth equivalent to the Early Horizon (or Windmiller Pattem), the termination of which Heizer (1958b) then placed about 4000 years ago. Although later data indicated that the 4400 year age for the Contra Costa site was probably excessive, the more probable 3400 year age for the component still left it contemporaneous with Windmiller, after Sonia Ragir's (1972) reanalysis of the Windmiller radiocar- bon dates showed its tenninus was as late as 2500 years ago. On the basis of the 4400 age, I concluded that the CCo-308 deep component was contempora- neous with Windmiller. A recent re-reading of my assessment suggests to me that to some extent I doubted my findings and did not wish to rock the boat unnecessarily: That the period represented by CCo-308C may have been coexistent with the Early 93 94 Toward a New Taxonomic Frameworkfor Central California Horo proper cannt be rled oit completely as the distance between the Eaz?y Hodzon Wmdmiller Facies sedes of sites is sufficient to have allowed the existence of two different cultue types without too high a degree of mutual influence (FrEickson 1966:143). A later review of Gerow's work (1954; Gerow with Force 1968), the results from the West Berkeley shellmound (Wallace and Lathrap 1975), and the dating information on Windmiller compiled by Ragir (1972) removed doubt and convinced me that the culture in the larger San Francisco Bay region was different from the culture that existed simultaneously in the Delta. Eventually, because of efforts to address these and other questions in the San Ramon Valley (as well as in other geographic regions, especially, in my case, the North Coast Ranges), Jim Bennyhoff and I entered into a process of revising the CCTS, although at the time we aimed at developing a system that could be applied to the state as a whole. Insofar as possible we attempted to use the existing system as a startingpoint, adjusting its terminology according to the Willey and Phillips usage as described elsewhere in this volume, while conceptually attempting to integrate behavioral criteria into what was originally an artifactually de- rived chronology, an approach that later was catego- rized in the gray literature as "functionalist" (as con- trasted with "chronological" and "processual") (Fritz and Smith 1978). Several changes were made in the Willey and Phillips scheme to adapt it to the Califomia situation. One of the more important changes was the addition of the 'district ' in place of the 'locality ' as the practical spatial unit of analysis (to replace the idio- syncratic 'facies' and 'province' of the earlier CCTS) because of materal culture similarities between many adjoining localities (not to mention the practical diffi- culty of amassing a sufficient database for locality analyses). Although Bennyhoff and I had hoped to produce a separate work on the revised taxonomy, the emer- gence of New Archeology advocates in Northem Califomia in the late 1960s, who were rightfully critical of the existing CCTS and its conceptual foun- dations, as well as of our formulations, prompted us to drop the idea. The New Archeology advocates, for the most part graduate students at U.C. Davis and else- where, made their pitch against the existing analytic and taxonomic approach during a series of workshops conducted mostly at U.C. Davis during 1967 and 1968. The workshops drew together regional special- ists from Northern California (although planned orgi- nally as a state-wide venture) with the aim of revising the CCTS. Small work groups from different regions brought together substantive data and constructed local sequences within districts for which they con- trolled sufficient data. Their work proved that the district concept (locality was the term employed then) was viable in that it was possible to distinguish assem- blages from adjoining districts even when the districts shared in the regional culture. Workshop participants recognized the termino- logical problem which explicitly linkedtemporalplace- ment with cultural content (i.e., Early, Middle, and Late horizons), and several tenns (tradition, culture, and pattem) were suggested to replace the term hori- zon as used in the CCTS, since the tenn was assigned a quite different meaning elsewhere in North America (Willey and Phillips 1958). Bennyhoff and Fredrick- son adopted the term pattern (see chapter 2, this volume) based upon general but not universal agree- mentofthe workshop participants. Dunrng the discus- sion phase, a premature note appeared in the Newslet- ter of the Society for Califomia Archaeology report- ing that the tenn tradition had been adopted, although the workshop group later rejected that term. An important objection to use of 'tradition' was its devia- tion from the Willey and Phillips (1958:37) definition as a "temporal continuity represented by persistent configurations in single technologies or other systems of related fonns" (see also chapter 3, this volume). New Archeology proponents essentially halted the workshops through mobilizing an effective criti- cism of the logical inconsistencies and other short- comings of the empiricallybased taxonomic approach. One of their criticisms was the failure of the empircal approach to deal with functionally based partial as- semblages, such as those found in upland locations, which, when used with the comparative empirical approach could produce archaeological cultures that differed from cultures identified in lowland sites even though both sets of sites were created by the same community. The Davis workshops came to a relatively abrupt end following this critical attack, and the hope of Archaeological Taxonomy Reconsidered 9S publishing its results evaporated. However, in consul- tation with Bennyhoff, I included my understanding of the revised taxonomy in my doctoral dissertation, which had the formal date of 1973, although the taxonomic portion had been completed several years earlier. What appears in the dissertation is unlikely to have been what would have appeared if the workshop had proved successful in its original intent or if Bennyhoff and I had continued with our plans for a joint publication. In summation, the cultural sequenceupon which the CCTS was based remains a ground-breaking achievement based upon sound analytic and compara- tive principles. However, attempts to extend that sequence to neighboring regions were premature due to the considerable but mostly unanticipated diversity encountered as archaeologists explored more locali- ties. Also the inherent but unanswered question as to the minimum number of diagnostic elements required for horizon assignment remained. The traditional CCTS proved to be too rigid. Bennyhoff and I attempted to produce a system that had greater flex- ibility and that included non-artifactual variables, including behavioral and adaptational ones. It was not our intention simply to offer different names for what had already been defined. In the following sections I comment on the Bennyhoff/Fredrickson system as it appeared in my dissertation (and somewhat modified in Fredrickson 1974a), pointing out when appropriate how new data and new understanding require that at least portions of it also be revised if its use is to be continued. Tenni- nology used here is defined elsewhere in this volume. Digression on Assumptions Before entering into this discussion, however, I believe it necessary to make explicit several ideas about culture and cultural relationships that influence my views of historcal processes and archaeological taxonomy in general. My foremost assumptions, which I adopt from the insights of Robert Murphy (1964) and Yehudi Cohen (1969, 1970), follow from the observation that every society lives in contact with other societies (chapter 5, this volume). This situation implies mutual interaction between different societies (even at the scale of Binfordian [1980] foragers and collectors) and interdependency of their social sys- tems. Such observations prompt me to assume that social factors have importance equal to technological and environmental ones in the adaptations and careers of human groups. Similarly, I assume that the Darwin-Lotka en- ergy principle, that organisms tend to optimize their energy inputs with respect to energy outputs, a process fundamental to reproductive success, applies to the social, as well as the biophysical sphere. I also assume that certain technological innovations in effect require redefinition of the niche or effective habitat to which a community adapts. Because of feedback processes, such redefinition may involve changes in social rela- tionships, community patterning, and/ordemography. Further, I assume that different processes have differing degrees of importance at different times, depending upon factors such as population density and the existence of firm territorial boundaries. As mentioned above, I draw upon a model of culture change developed from the work of Yehudi Cohen (1970, 1975); a brief statement of this perspective is provided elsewhere (chapter 5) in this volume. Archaeological evidence for interaction of pre- historic societies in Califomia consists not only of items such as standardized fonns of shell beads and omnaments occurring throughout much of the area, but also of the widespread occurrences of similar assem- blages at all time depths. Interdependency, however, is either assumed orindirectly inferred. Forexample, demographers have suggested that a population must number at least 500 persons (including children) in order for that population to contain a sufficient num- ber of both males and females of reproductive age to successfully reproduce itselfovertime. Thisbeingthe case, interdependency between different social groups is required for those smaller than this size, whether organized as mobile foragers or sedentary collectors. Finally, I assume that change in Califomia pre- history was often historically contingent, that is, it came about due to unforeseen conditions, even as a result of chance. For example, an event may notbe the predictable outcome of circumstances but merely one of many events that could altematively have occurred. However, once an event does occur, its implications may resound over time far beyond the event and the circumstances that prompted it. These assumptions affected my initial thinking 95 96 Toward a New Taxonomic Frameworkfor Central Calfornia on taxonomy very little, but have greatly influenced my present perceptions. I make reference to these and related assumptions and some of their implications in the following discussion. Local Sequences Although the building of a local sequence may seem a straightforward archaeological task, the fol- lowing discussion should serve as a caveat that what appears simple may not be so in practice. The empiri- cally based local sequence, although describing only a single locality, requires a considerable amount of excavation data. Importantly, however, since the locality is conceptually equivalent to the space occu- pied by the village community, or tribelet, it has potential for being the most meaningful unit of analy- sis (Hughes and Bettinger 1984). However, as pointed out elsewhere (Fredrick- son 1973:93ff.), in practice it may not be possible archaeologically to separate one locality from an- other, since assemblages may well be too similar to allow distinctions to be made between adjacentlocali- ties. This may be so because interaction (or social distance) between them is such that identity markers that distinguish one from the other (if they indeed exist) may be too subtle to be teased out by archaeo- logical means. Thus, the traditional application of the comparative method to distinguish one locality, i.e., one village community, from another on the basis of similarities and differences in artifact assemblages may not be possible. For this reason, Bennyhoff introduced me to the district, which consists of two or more closely interacting localities, as the most fea- sible spatial unit for definition of a local sequence. This does not negate the importance of the village community as an appropriate unit of analysis. In practice the development of a local sequence has been done without reference to specific physical limits; that is, historically, the locality was defined on the basis of empirical distributions of archaeological materials. Thus, localities (and districts) could be seen to expand and shrink over time congruent with the spatial distribution of the diagnostic assemblage. Although a local cultural sequence may be defined for any arbitarily defined space, it should always be left open to demonstration whether one or more of the assemblages witiin the sequence extends into other adjacent spaces. During the past twenty years, I have received a number of comments suggesting that the identifica- tion of a distrct in tenns of the spatial distribution of assemblages was somewhat confusing, since it al- lowed a district, a spatial division, to expand and contract at various times. Forexample, as the Meganos aspect expanded westward during the Upper Archaic, the Stockton District necessarily expanded as the Diablo and Alameda districts shrunk; the reverse occunred at the end of the Upper Archaic as Stockton shnmk and Diablo and Alameda expanded when Meganos retreated eastward (see chapter 1, this vol- ume). It has been suggested, and I now concur, that separation of culture and a specific space is as impor- tant as the separation of culture and a specific time. I now recommend that it would be best for control of variables if spatial units were to remain constant over time, thus cultural manifestations may be found to expand into adjoining districts (as with the Meganos aspect of the Stockton District) or contract into only a pordon of an area it once occupied. The implication here is that the spatial unit of analysis should be readily understood in geographic terms, e.g., a watershed of a major stream or an estuary system and its catchment. In practice, I commonly employ the term local- ity, defined without necessary reference to cultural content, and I find it quite useful for comparative analyses. The locality, used in this sense, has clearly described geographic limits and may be of any size, although usually no larger (and often smaller) than the geographic space likely to have been utilized by a village community. It is an analytic unit whose usefulness may be limited overtime. I have found this usage to be better operationally than usage following its classic defmiition of a geographic space that exhib- its complete cultural homogeneity at any given time (Willey and Phillips 1958:18). The confounding element here is employing the same tenn as both an operational tool and a synthetic integrative unit. One of the principles put forth in my dissertation (Fredrickson 1973:95) was that only one phase can exist in a locality or district at any one time. Recent findings in the Clear Lake Basin (White 1984) and the Archaeological Taxonomy Reconsidered Santa Rosa Plain (Wickstrom 1986) suggest that it is indeed possible fortwo phases to be present within the same locality or district at the same time (see also Basgall and Hildebrandt 1989:444ff. for a similar example on the upper Sacramento River). Ethno- graphic data show that this occurs frequently, most notably during penrods of seasonal abundance when a non-resident group makes regular use of seasonally available resources. Care must be taken to demon- strate that multiple phases are indeed such rather than representations of functional or other intracommunity differences. I submit that given proper premises and analytic procedures, it is possible to make that distinc- tion. On the most simple level if the two assemblages are in the same environmental context and the tool kit of one is functionally identical with the tool kit of the other, and if each of the assemblages exists separately elsewhere, then separate phase identity is supported. In the Clear Lake and Santa Rosa models, two phase coexistence is postulated to be seasonal, with two communitiesutilizing the same resources duringtimes of relative abundance, e.g., during fish spawning periods and when large numbers of migratory water- fowl are present. In other situations, two phases may be found contemporaneously in the same habitat when there is no agreement as to boundary location. Finally, on a more abstract level, two groups may occupy the same locality or district without significant conflict when each occupies a different niche within the habi- tat. Traditional cultural classification in archaeol- ogy, including the approach explicated in my disser- tation, has a strong village bias. The reason for this does not need much reflection. Because traditional methods emphasized artifacts, the greater number of artifacts implied greater success in the taxonomic effort. Flake scatters generally have few artifacts and therefore contribute little to the construction of an assemblage. Villages, of course, usually contain a more diverse artifactual assemblage and thus contrib- ute more to assemblage construction. They contribute only partially, however, to the understanding of the settlement-subsistence system. In addition, traditional phase definition requires more information than is generally available except at majorvillage sites under good conditions of preserva- tion. Traditional phase criteria also implicitly defines as irrelevant archaeological sites that are character- ized by low diversity and that lack materials which significantlycontributeto artifactual assemblage defi- nidon. It should be seriously considered that some time periods in some geographic areas lack cultures that had the kind of diversity required by traditional application of the phase concept. Thus, a chronologi- cal emphasis that depends primarily upon a relatively full artifact assemblage may write off a majority of sites that represent cultures with a smaller array of nonperishable material items. Although I have no immediate solution to this problem, it is clear to me that exclusive dependence on traditional assemblage building will not address the problem. Because village assemblages do not neces- sarily measure important behaviors related to settle- ment and subsistence, some combination of methods may be required that includes not only artifact assem- blages but also site types (and environmental con- texts) in phase definition. This approach has already been foreshadowed in studies such as King (1974c) where settlementpatteming was specifically addressed in discussion of the regional chronology. Such an approach would appear feasible today with the emer- gence of Cultural Resources Management and the large body of survey data that has become available. Throughout much of Northern and Central Califomia the obsidian hydration method may be capable of providing needed temporal control. The Pattern It is ironic that the pattern (see Fredrickson 1973; chapter 3, this volume), the cultural construct about which I have had the most concem (stated in chapter 7 in this volume), is the one which has been most widely adopted (e.g., Breschini and Haversat 1980 [Monterey County]; Sundahl 1992 [northem Sacramento Valley]; Connolly 1988, 1990 [South- west Oregon/Northem Califomia]; Moratto 1984). Despite my own concems about the Pattem, I have little argument with its application by others. Moratto (1984:201-215), pointing out that the Pattem is an integrative unit without temporal inplications, em- ployedtheconceptinhis4iscussionoftheWindmiller, Berkeley, and Augustine patterns of Central Califor- 97 98 Toward a New Taxonomic Framework for Central California nia. Breschini and Haversat's (1980) formulations of their Sur and Monterey pattems appear based prima- rily upon economic adaptations with little emphasis on technological features, and may well provide a framework that will be filled out in other dimensions as more data accumulate. Sundahl (1992) incorpo- rated the 'pattem/aspect' scheme in her discussion of northem Sacranento Valley archaeology. Her units includedthe BoraxLake, Squaw Creek, Whiskeytown, Tehama, and Augustine pattems. Connolly (1988, 1990), in his discussion of Northem California and Southwestem Oregon relationships, designated the Siskiyou Pattern as encompassing Northern Califomia's Redding aspect sites as well as south- western Oregon's Rogue phase and other sites. I do not object at all to this synthetic grouping, especially considering Connolly's (1990:57) statement that the term "acknowledges the overall similarity among late prehistoric assemblages in interior southwest Oregon and northern California, but should not impinge on attempts to clarify local variants orchronologies," and the fact that Oregon assemblages played no role in earlier fonnulations of the Shasta/Redding units. A question for some future workshop is, Where in North- ern California does Siskiyou end and Augustine be- gin? I suggest that Connolly's use of the 'tradition' concept as an integrative unit (cf. Willey and Phillips 1958:37)isparticularlyiimportant. Connolly(1990:57) used the concept in his Glade Tradition to emphasize morphological continuity in certain tool forms "across an enormous span of time, from 9000 years ago to late prehistoric times," pointing out that the "persistence of the Glade technological tradition over many mil- lennia in southwest Oregon parallels the continuity observed in the Borax Lake Pattern of northem Cali- fornia." Sundahl (Clewett and Sundahl 1990) also incorporates the 'tradition' concept but apparently with more emphasis on continuities in adaptive re- sponses rather than technological attributes. Instead of assigning names to perceived traditions, Sundahl (e.g., 1992:105) uses narrative to trace continuities across pattems. I suspect that a positive addition to the 'pattern/aspect' taxonomy would be greater emphasis on tradition, in both technological and adaptive terms. As an aside I point out that while tradition implies continwty, it does not imply fixed form. My problems with the 'pattem' concept are discussed in chapter 7. My latest thoughts are these. When culture is viewed as a multivariate phenom- enon, we are committed to the position that the do- mains of technology, exchange and wealth, and cer- emony will not necessarily covary with one another. Onthe otherhand, however, such domainsmay covary. The extent of such covariance may well be a function of the extent of direct interaction between different communities. Interaction may come about in a number of different ways. For example, the interaction involved among foragers, i.e., those societies organized to travel as a group to resources as they become available (Binford 1980), may actually have a relatively high level of interaction with other similar groups over a relatively wide geographic space. The demographic requirements for human reproduction, i.e., a mini- mum population of about 500 persons, implies this type of interaction. It is not unreasonable to postulate that the nature of forager interaction fosters a high degree of cultural uniformity over a broad geographic range. Under this model, it is likely that different domains of culture would covary with one another. Cultural unifonnity would most likely be interrupted by language differences and geographic features that would interfere with access between groups. With collectors, i.e., those who consistently bring resources back to a home base (Binford 1980), other types of interaction may have precedence. For example, interaction would be fostered through means such as regularized participation in trade feasts and intergroup ceremonial occasions. Under this model, different cultural domains may also covary, but stylis- tic detail within the domains may vary between groups according to wealth and status differences or other markers of community identity. If covariancebetweendifferentcultural domains is a function of the extent of interaction, we can hypothesize that the least covariance will occur when there are barriers to interaction, either physical or social. For example, we would predict that two or more groups that shared similar technologies would be more likely to differ with respect to other spheres of activity if each of the groups spoke a different Archaeological Taxonomy Reconsidered 99 language. The level of cerainty in this prediction could be affected by any number of intervening vari- ables, including demographics, that prompt intennar- riage or economic arrangements reinforced by cer- emonial obligations. Although I now conceive of the pattern as being more or less equivalent to Binford's (1965:208-209) adaptive sphere, definable first in tenns of the technomic dimension, different spheres of activity may covary so commonly that my concem is mis- placed. Variation in spheres of activity other than the techno-environmental may constitute sufficient grounds for distinguishing between aspects rather than requiring the fonnulation of a different pattem. I have an additional thought on the pattem, that can be phrased rather simply: "'One artifact type does nota pattem make." Inchapter7, I have suggested that use of the concept of 'style-area' could facilitate communication prior to definition of specific phases and aspects. I suspect that it would also be useful applied to certain kinds of material culture distribu- tions that cut across pattem lines. One example would be the "Gunther point style area." This would imply a geographic area extending from northwestern Cali- fomia into the Sacramento Valley and northward into southem Oregon. The term would refer to the geo- graphic dispersal ofthe artifact style; although histori- cal connectedness may be implied in the usage, cul- tural connections would not. Periods in Prehistory Most archaeologists are accustomed to the use of chronological periods with reference to discrete assemblages, such as those defined for local or re- gional cultural sequences. However, there is little use of the chronological period as an integrative concept, that serves to identify temporal relationships between different but contemporaneous assemblages. In our fonnulation of the period as an integrative concept, Bennyhoff and I (Fredrickson 1973:112ff) drew heavily upon the insight of Willey and Phillips (1958:61ff), whopointed outthatAmericanistarchae- ology of thirty-five years ago was willing to treat localities, regions, and areas as unified systems, but appeared reluctant to extend these systems further. Today, for the most part, the conduct of day-to-day archaeology in Northeem and Central Califomia seems little different. The emphasis upon the empirical predisposes archaeologists to divide archaeological space into a series of closed systems, the nature of each system dependent upon the extent to which cultural forms are shared. Although there are notable exceptions (e.g., Bouey and Basgall 1984; Moratto et al. 1978), archae- ologists seem disinclined to posit relationships be- tween events in different regions, whether contempo- raneous or temporally displaced. I continue to believe that there is both communicative and heuristic value in the division of prehistoric Central Califomia into periods independent of specific cultural assemblages. Classification, by its nature, simplifies reality; in return for this simplification, communication should be facilitated. The taxonomic process should not foster a view of uniformity, but should in effect create a base line or model, reasonably based upon empircal data; deviation from the base line would have interest. In our early work Bennyhoff and I divided prehistoric Califomia into four periods, based for the most part on the "stages" discussed by Wiley and Phillips (1958). These periods (Early Lithic, Paleo- indian, Archaic, Emergent) are discussed briefly else- where (Fredrickson 1973). Originally, the Archaic was divided into Lower and Upper periods. Later, however, after reviewing the archaeological literature of the time and completing a forty-page-manuscript review of California prehistory, I further divided the Archaic into Lower, Middle, and Upper periods (Fredrickson 1974a). Figure 9.1 presents an adapta- tion of the "hypothesized characteristics" for each of these periods as Iconceived of them in 1974 (Fredrick- son 1974a:figure 3). Some critics have stated to me theirobjections to this framework. To them it implies the iconic shibbo- leth, cultural evolution. This prods one to believe that Willey and Phillips (1958:64) were correct in their assessment that a persistent reaction against "nine- teenth-century evolutionism" may have inhibited de- velopmental classifications in American archaeol- ogy. I do not share the view that the evolutionary implications of the period terminology is a fatal flaw, and find it of interest today that a number of Northem and Central California archaeologists are interested in 99 100 Toward a New Taxonomic Frameworkfor Central California FIGURE 9.1 HYPOTESIZED CHARACTERISTICS OF CULTURAL PERIODS IN CALIFORNIA 180W EMERGENT PERIOD 1500 1000 ARCHAC PEOD AD. B.C. Ism E K MiI ~~6000 PALEOINDLAN PERIOD 8000 U p p e r Clam diskbead money economyappears. Moreandmoregoods moving fartherand farther. Growti of local specializaionsre: production and exchange. Inteqpenetra- tion of soutfi and central exchange systems. I I.-- L 0 w e r U p p S r M ., d d I e L 0 w r r U p p 0 r Bow and arrow inboduced, replace dart and at; south coast maritie tion flowers. Territxial boundaries weli established. Evidence of distinctions in social status linked to wealth increasingly common. Regularized exchanges between groups continue with more matial put into the network of exchanges. Growth of sociopolitical complexity; development of status distinctions based on wealth. Shell beads gain importance, possibly indicatos of both exchange and staus. Emergence of grup-oriented religious orpnizations; possible oriipns of Kuksu religious system at end of peod. Greater complexity of exchange systems; evidence ofregular, stained exchanges between groups; territorial boundaries not firmly established. Climate more benign during this interval. Mortars and pestles and inferred acorn economy intoduced. Hunting importanL Diversification of economy; sedenfsm begins to develop, accompanied by pulation growth and expansion. Technologi- cal and environmental factors provide dominant themes. Changes in exchange or in social relations appear to have little impacL Ancient lakes dry up as a result of climatic changes; milling stones found in abundance; plantfoodemphasis, littlehunting. Mostartifacts manufacturedof local materials; exchange similar to previous period. Little emphasis on wealth. Social unit remains the extended family. First demonstrated entry and spread of humans into California; lakeside sites with a probable but not clearly demonstrated hunting emphasis. No evidence for a developed milling technology although cultures with such technology may exist in state at this time depth. Exchange probably ad hoc on one-to-one basis. Social unit (the extended family) not heavily dependent on exchange; resources acquired by changing habitat Adapted from Fredrickson 1974a:figure 3. implicitly evolutionary occurrences associated with the development of social complexity in California, e.g., the shift from a forager to a collector lifeway and, related to this, processes of cultural intensificaton. To me today the processes of change implicit in the 'period' scheme are largely a matter of historical contingencies and feedback processes. In chapter 5, I present a model of such processes leading to sociopo- litical complexity during the Emergent period. King (1974a, 1978) has elaborated on feedback processes involved in the development of sedentary lifetstyle among foragers and the development of cultural com- plexity orincreased political differentiation. I have no objection to the tenorof King's arguments and, in fact, several have influenced my own thinking. In retrospect, I find myself agreeing with much i I i I d Archaeological Taxonomy Reconsidered of the commentary of King (1974b), in his well- argued critique of my period fornulations. King (1974b:233ff), while remarking that he had "no argu- ment with the overall picture of directional change presented by the typology," thought that it was neither demonstrated in fact nor of hypothetical value. I accept King's criticism that I did not provide the data required to support the divisions as outlined. In retrospect, it would have been more appropriate had I introduced the period divisions with proper documen- tation in a paper separate from my review of the North Coast Ranges (Fredrickson 1974a). I still appreciate King's analysis of figure 7.1 (as it originally appeared in Fredrickson 1974a), identifying the dimensions of change that contributed to the typology: procurement system, exchange system, social organization, cli- mate, and population movements. However, because culture is multivariate (ratherthan univariate), I fail to understandwhyKingdemandedthatconcurrentchange in procurement, exchange, and social organization occur from one period to the next. I also owe King thanks for apparently suspending disbelief and filling in other of my omissions while discussing implica- tions of the period typology, albeit criticizing the paper for not pointing them out. Other critics appear not to understand the con- ceptofthe Emergentperiod, which has historical roots in the debate (e.g., Baumhoff 1963; Heizer 1958a; Meighan 1959; Willey and Phillips 1958:134) as to the complexity level of California's cultures at the time of initial European contact. At the heart of the debate was whether Califomia's ethnographic cul- tures were Archaic or Formative under the Willey and Phillips (1958) classificatory scheme. The choice between one or the other was dependent upon whether emphasis was placed upon (a) technological features or (b) social features, population density, and other nonmaterial elements of culture (Meighan 1959:305). Heizer (1958a), who emphasized social features, clas- sified as Formative those Californian cultures located within Kroeber's (1936) culture climax regions. Meighan (1959), who emphasized technological fea- tures, characterized the Califomia archaeological area as Archaic for a proposed period of 7000 years. Baumhoff (1963:229-30) also gave priority to techno- logical over social features, arguing that, although Central Califomia had a social situation comparable to tiatof Formative cultures, its cultures were ""blocked from 'forming' a subsequent stage" because of the absence of agriculture. Because of my emphasis upon social features and processes, I proposed the Emergent period as the nonagricultural equivalent to the Fornative of Willey and Phillips (1958). I believed that the term Emergent avoided the predictive connotation of "forming"" the basis for subsequent development and "emphasizes the direction of developmentfrom which the society derived, rather than the direction toward which it is going"' (Fredrickson 1973:38-39). I still hold that viewpoint. One common misunderstanding I have encoun- tered is the view that unifornity of cultural develop- ment is expected within each cultural period. This view has been expressed for the most part with respect to the Emergent period. The view holds that when one finds a culture dating to the Emergent period but confonning to criteria for an Archaic culture, the typology is refuted (cf. Farber 1985). The reverse would also occur when a culture that meets Emergent criteria occurs during the Archaic period. This viewpoint is based on the mistaken idea that a period implies cultural uniformity. As stated earlier in this essay, one of the more important as- sumptions underlying the taxonomy is that all cultures of a given period are part of an interaction system and thus must be viewed in relationship to one another. An earlier paragraph described the occurrence of what we believe to be two contemporaneous phases in the same locality (White 1984; Wickstrom 1986; Basgall and Hildebrandt 1989). As a result of such occurrences, the issue of interaction of societies at different levels of sociocultural integration has emerged in the North Coast Ranges as an important research domain with respect to questions of terntorial expansion of villag- ers at the expense of bands and shared resource use by villagers and bands. To reiterate, cultural uniformity is not implied by division of prehistory into a series of periods. On another level completely, mostly because of my work with both upland and lowland lithic scatters, I have found use of the period in its temporal sense quite workable for communication purposes, apart from its connotative meaning. This is particularly true in districts where our ability to place archaeological 101 102 Toward a New Taxonomic Frameworkfor Central California sitesintime(becauseoftheobsidianhydrationmethod) overshadows our understanding of artifactual assem- blages and their historical relationships with one an- other. For example, obsidian hydration data from more than twenty sites in the Napa Valley suggest that village sites are located along the Napa River and at the base of the hills. Most of the sites on the valley floorbetween these two zones consist of flake scatters which rarely contain temporally diagnostic artifacts. We can observe, however, despite our ignorance of arfifactual assemblages, that different activities were carnied out within this environmental zone during the Middle and Upper Archaic periods (when obsidian site residues were the heaviest) than during the Emer- gent period (when obsidian residues showed a dra- matic decrease). Because there is evidence that this zone was also used during the Emergent period, we can ask the question whether the differences between Archaic and Emergent uses of this environmental zone are due to differences in mobility and social organization or simply a change in the role of obsidian in the region (e.g., the use of obsidian to tip arrows during the Emergent period resulted in significantly less debitage than its use to tip darts during the Archaic). As Willey and Phillips (1958:105) pointed out, archaeologists throughout North America recognize differences within the Archaic period, often breaking the Archaic into two or three subperiods. The timing of the divisions between subperiods and the critera for differentiation appear to be specific to each ar- chaeological area. I have found it useful to divide California's Archaic into three periods. From my perspective today, these periods were ultimately gov- erned by climatic and environmental varables, begin- ning with the drying of pluvial lakes at the transition between the Paleoindian and Lower Archaic periods. Responses to environmental shifts (which probably did not occur synchronously throughout the state) together with historic contingencies make it possible to distinguish the dominant culture trends. Although the objective reality of the various periods may be questioned, it may be a matter of perspective rather than "objectivity." I have found the divisions work- able for my own research purposes; for others, the divisions may not be useful. I take this opportunity to clarify several other concepts related to taxonomy and definitions (or their absence). For example, it is generally understood that the common occurrence of known Paleoindian period sites on old lake shores may reflect the relatively high productivity of this setting during different portions of the annual cycle. Such use has at times contributed to the accumulation of relatively substantial archaeo- logical deposits. Whether it is correct to label such a society as "semi-sedentary" is a matter of definition. If semi-sedentary does not connote regularized ex- change relationships or sustained cooperative work efforts beyond the extended family, I see no a priori reason to reject the tenn. This applies to later periods as well; the fact that a social unit may reside for an extended period of time at a single location does not necessarily imply complex social arrangements. From my perspective (see also Wallace 1954), there is considerable (but not total) cultural uniformity during the Lower Archaic, with most of the few cultures known at this time depth tending to meet the criteria of Wallace's Early Milling Stone culture. The abundance of projectile points and bifaces, however, suggests amore important role forhunting in Northeem Califomia than that demonstrated in Southem Cali- fomia. Possibly associated with climatic shifts, the Middle Archaic may be associated with more depend- able resources as local specializations (e.g., riverine, upland, marine) developed and tool kits became more diversified. Although climatic and environmental variables still govemed society, the Middle Archaic is marked by the filling of diverse habitats/niches, im- plying population growth. I suggest that the forager adaptation, based upon the wide ranging extended family, together with ad hoc exchange, was dominant from the Paleoindian through the Middle Archaic periods; relatively rare, localized collector societies did coexist within some resource rich localities. Another environmental shift, with climate be- coming generally cooler, marked the shift from Middle to Upper Archaic. Local specializations continued with more population aggregation which probably led to budding off of new sedentary communities that expanded into territories previously utilized by more mobile foragers, thus defining the study of their inter- action as a significant research domain. From my perspective, despite the period's domination by the Archaeological Taxonomy Reconsidered forager adaptation and ad hoc exchange, it is marked by local beginnings in environmentally productive regions of a collector adaptation with population ag- gregation, semi-regularized exchange, sedentary vil- lages, sociopolitical complexity, and the firming up of territorial boundaries foreshadowing later develop- ments during the Lower Emergent. During the Lower Emergent, feedback processes associated with social factors appear to play a large role in cultural activities. Sedentary villages based upon a collector adaptation appear to have dominated the environmentally productive regions, in some cases having displaced or assimilated foragers who earlier had utilized these regions. In general, foragers contin- ued their lifeways in marginal regions, such as the more remote uplands, at least seasonally interacting with collector neighbors. Exchange became more regularized as the ethnographic tribelet system with relatively firm territorial boundaries became en- trenched; social differentiation based upon wealth, relatively rare during the Archaic, became increas- ingly important over time (see chapter 5, this volume). During the Upper Emergent, although foragers continued to coexist with collectors, their social and sacred dimensions, as well as the values associated with wealth, are postulated to have been affected by the values of now fully entrenched collectors. Social differentiation based upon wealth increased in impor- tance as community leadership roles became more clearly defined. Although regularized exchange domi- nated all exchange systems, it was added to an under- story of ad hoc exchange. The influx of Europeans and Euroamericans ended the cultural systems of California's indigenous peoples. As I have stated in chapter 5, it is likely that information on the organizational complexity infer- able from the archaeological record had been lost or was not elicited or recognized as important by Califomia's early ethnographers. Conclusion The preparation of this essay has been both troublesome and illuminating. As I reviewed my earlier woir on taxonomy, I realized that I could never recreate my frame of mind when I was so involved in its formulations. I continue to see a need for a viable taxonomic system, and although I continue to find the scheme useful formy study of California's past, I have no illusions about its usefulness to others. On the other hand, I enjoyed the effort to recall, with as little retrospective falsification as I am capable of, my thought processes and leaming processes as I worked with Jim Bennyhoff, who was both my educational cohort and mentor, trying to solve the vexing issues surrounding taxonomy for Califomia. As a result of preparing this essay, and of the conversations with others I've had in the process, I have come to doubt very much that the need for such a taxonomy will disappear in the foreseeable future, although not too long ago I thought it had. Perhaps success, or at least a satisfactory modicum of success, could better be achieved by those who do not feel so deeply embed- ded as I in the history of California archaeology. 103