10 Recent Thoughts on Archaeological Taxonomy James A. Bennyhoff (1993) Introduction B Y TRAINING, I AM FIRMLY in the historical tradition of Kroeber and Heizer. An early seminar by Heizer on Petrie's Diospolis Parva, using Reissner's pre-dynastic Egyptian collection at Berke- ley, introduced me to the intricacies of seriation. This ability was further refined following a seminar by Rowe on the Mochica I-V seriation. I applied these principles in my intended dissertation. (Heizer felt that he had covered the Early Horizon in his 1949 publication [although not one table therein is accu- rate!]; Frank Fenenga was to do the Middle Horizon; and Heizer assigned the Late Horizon to me.) I was to focus on Sac-6, with the largest collection from the Delta. Unfortunately, this is the one large site for which Elmer Dawson (Schenck and Dawson 1929), the brilliant high school amateur archaeologist, failed to record individual grave lots. The material was generally so similar that he lumped his daily unit collections as "group finds", mixing material from the Sutter period cemetery with prehistoric Phase 2 and Phase 1 artifacts. I therefore turned to CCo-138 where E. N. Johnson (another amateur) and Heizer had obtained an excellent stratified sequence of burials spanning all of Phase 1 of the Late Horizon. I first serated the Olivella Thin Rectangles by depth, and found that the deepest grave lots had only centrally perforated beads (type Ml; cf. Bennyhoff and Hughes 1987:14041, figure 8), while the shallowest graves had only end-perfo- rated (type M2) beads. Graves at intermediate depths had a mixture of types M l and M2. When all the grave lots were plotted by- depth, a marvelous series of changes was evident. Abalone ornaments with scored incision were early, classic Banjo omaments were late; collared pipes were early, while flanged pipes were late (cf. Bennyhoff 1978). I was thus able to divide Beardsley's (1948, 1954) Phase 1 into three phases (designated 1aa, lb, and lc). Subsequent analy- sis of the Sac-21, Sac-6 controlled burials, Ala-309, and similar collections confinned this sequence as general throughout the Bay and Delta regions. Although I have retained Beardsley's Phase 1 and Phase 2 distinctions, I have assigned individual names to the Phase I divisions because these are phases, not subphases. The atlatl is still the dominant weapon in Phase la, not replaced by the bow and arrow in Phase lb. Differences in the effigy orna- ments must represent quite different religious con- cepts, while dance costumes were not the same dtough- out (only Phase lb dancers wore the clacking girdles of heavy abalone omaments), and significant fashion changes in shell and stone beads mark the passage of the 200 year phases. Since Phase 2b is only I 00 years long, I do regard Phase 2a and 2b as subphases and 106 Toward a New Taxonomic Frameworkfor Central California designate them as early and late Mosher (in the Cosumnes District) or Femandez (in the Alameda District). To understand the beginning of the Late Hori- zon I had to familiarize myself with the Middle Hori- zon and, again, fishspears, beads, and omaments sug- gested a temporal sequence instead of the contempo- raneous facies defined by Beardsley. By this time I had an enonnous mass of data, and needed some system with which to organize it. (Heizer was on sabbatical, and Rowe agreed to accept my first chapter on ethnogeography as my dissertation in 196 1. Heizer was not pleased and refused to publish it.) It had become very clear by this time that Beardsley's prov- inces were meaningless. David Fredrickson and I (chapter 2 herein) col- laborated on a taxonomy some years ago that has gained a certain acceptance in Califomia archaeology, and what follows are some of my current thoughts on areas where Fredrickson and I agree and disagree (cf. chapter 9). The Importance of Grave Lots and the Mortuary Complex A major difference between Fredrickson and myself from the very beginning has been over the significance of the mortuary complex (cf. chapter9, p. 101). Inlargepartthis is because hehasnothadto deal with scores of grave lots and, in later years, he was committed to honor the Indian opposition to distur- bance of the dead. I have the highest regard for his pioneering success with midden constituent analysis and obsidian hydration, but I cannot agree that this negates the value of mortuary research. One has only to compare my Bay/Delta phase contents with those of the North Coast Ranges (seldom more than a projec- tile point and ground stone sequence). I am able to place beads, omaments, bone artifacts, chipped and ground stone in a detailed sequence based on firm stratigraphy (in contrast to the chaodc mixture of unassociated midden finds). Even ifgraves contain no artifacts, they provide evidence for significant changes in position, orientation, wealth, sex differences, dis- ease, and life span. The grave lot provides our closest view of a moment in time, far more reliable than a muld-used house floor or an arbitrary level. The mixture of diagnostic Middle and Late period artifacts in the same grave indicates that we are dealing with a transition phase in which new traits are being diffused to a resident population. Absence of such mixing, along with site abandonments and new settlements, can indicate population movement (especially if skel- etal differences can be detected). In the historic period, for example, I can identify Foothill Nisenan intrusion into Plains Miwok territory. Regrettably, the poor quality of the early excavation notes (and an overloaded teaching commitment) has delayed my publication-along with anextreme perfectionistbent. Nonetheless, future enlightened Native Califomia chil- dren and grandchildren will rue the day that burial repatriation destroyed their ancestral heritage. Pattern and Tradition Fredrickson has covered this topic adequately. It is encouraging to see that others are attempting to deal with the need for traditions in addition to pat- terns. However, I cannot accept Borax Lake Tradi- tion-this pattern at present is little more than a widespread assemblage of projectile points, ground stone, and burial away from the village. Numerous traditions will someday be defined which include Borax Lake aspect as the earliest manifestation. I earlier proposed the Micos Tradition in the Alameda District (see chapter 6 herein). Jerald Johnson has a Dry Creek/Yana Tradition and, if grave lots can ever be found, I feel that a Martis/Kings Beach/Washo Tradition will be validated. This does not negate the need for 'pattems' which cut across these traditions, marking the spread of new traits. The Locality and District Our data from the Bay/Delta region is so de- tailed that we are able to distinguish different locali- ties within the same district, and equate them with tribelets in the Historic and Late periods. The abalone omament percentage frequencies by type are not the same at Sac-6A and Sac-56A or at Sac-21. SJo43 reveals influence from the Stockton District which is not found on the Cosumnes or American rivers. Middle Period components are more of a problem, because our data are often sparse and we cannot apply the direct historical approach. However, at present, I am Recent Thoughts on Archaeological Taxonomy 107 impressed by the significant number of artifact types found only at single sites: the double-lined facial incision on abalone omnaments found only at Ala-309 (Bennyhoff 1978:figure 2); the shield omaments lim- ited to Ala-328 (Bennyhoff 1978:figure 3); and a host of unusual bone artifacts limited to these two sites. I am certain that we are dealing with different localities/ tribelets, while the phase differences and proximity will support the hypothesis that Ala-12, Ala-13, Ala- 328, and Ala-329 represent a single tribelet through time. These minor differences prompted the addition ofthe districtto the Willey and Phillips (1958) scheme. It is with regret that I see that Fredrickson (chapter 9 p. 96) wishes to make the district a mere geographic unit. As documented in my dissertation (Bennyhoff 1977:41-5 1), I found a definite correla- tion between a culturally defined district and a lan- guage group. The Delta is a classic example. Using Fredrickson's ecological boundaries, CCo-138 (Bay Miwok), Sac-6 (Plains Miwok), and SJo-82 (Yokuts) are in one district, yet three very different adaptations to this stoneless environment are represented-hence the Diablo, Cosumnes, and Stockton districts. Mis- sion registers and ethnographic data prove that, de- spite bilingualism and intermarriage, most Moquelumne spoke Plains Miwok, and the Chilamne Yokuts claimed to be different from the Moquelumne. The closest cultural and linguistic relationships of CCo-138 are with the Walnut Creek/San Ramon lo- cality-not with their Delta neighbors. As docu- mented earlier, my inductive analysis of the differ- ences between CCo-138 and Sac-21, between Sac43 and Sac-29, and between CCo-138 and SJo-141 led to the cultural district; the linguistic correspondence emerged later. Beardsley's (1948, 1954) "province" and Willey and Phillips's (1958) "locality" also combined culture and geography in their definition.