THE STATUS OF SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY ARCHAEOLOGY Francis A. Riddell The San Joaquin Valley consists of the southern half of the great Central Valley of California. The northern half of the basin, the Sacramento Valley, is drained by the Sacramento River and its tributaries, the southern half by the San Joaquin River and its tribu- taries. These two rivers flow toward one another and join in the Sacramento-San Joaquin delta to find a common outlet to the ocean through the Golden Gate on San Francisco Bay. The San Joaquin River rises at the crest of the Si- erra Nevada northeast of Fresno, flows down the west- em slope until it reaches the main valley, and then turns northwesterly down the trough of the lower San Joaquin Valley. Several main tributaries enter the val- ley from the Sierra and include the Fresno, Chowchilla, Merced, Tuolumne, and the Stanislaus rivers. The Calaveras, Mokelumne and Cosumnes rivers enter the Sacramento-San Joaquin delta directly. There are no important streams, at least ones that consistently carry a significant annual volume of water, entering the lower San Joaquin valley from the west. The upper or southern portion of the San Joaquin Valley, south of the San Joaquin River, has no surface water outlet, [the] Kings River, which carries eroded material from the Sierra Nevada, -built up a low broad ridge across the trough of the valley. Under natural condi- tions there was a lake above, or south, of this barrier ridge, maintained by inflow from [the] Kings, Kaweah, Tule, and Kern Rivers. Prior to the extensive irrigation development of the area, this lake, known as Tulare Lake, flowed over the confining ridge into [the] San Joaquin River at intervals, but the last such spill occurred in 1878 [USDI 1949:83]. The foregoing broadly delimits the San Joaquin Valley by reference to the watercourses found there. It can be further delimited by reference to elevation, for as soon as the foothills are reached on the three borders of the valley one is removed into another geo- graphic and ecologic environment. The climate of the San Joaquin Valley is classed as Mediterranean, that is, with its greatest precipitation during the winter. The summers are hot and dry, and the west side of the val- ley suffers from a rain shadow effect limiting stream flow generally to an intermittent nature. The valley floor proper is characterized by oak parklands, vast areas of tules, and sycamore groves interspersed with cottonwoods and willows. The arid west side, except for stream courses, consists of grass- lands until oaks and buckeyes take over at the higher elevations. The Indians occupying the San Joaquin Valley at contact were the diversified groups of the Yokuts. They held the entire valley except for a portion of the lower, or northern end. This region, including a por- tion of the delta area of the San Joaquin and Sacra- mento Rivers, was occupied by the Miwok. Occupa- tion of the San Joaquin Valley in aboriginal times was dense with some villages numbering their inhabitants in the hundreds. Mission recruitment and disease made heavy in- roads on the native population, and what they did not do the American occupation did. The decimation of the native population in portions of the San Joaquin Valley was so complete and done so early that many groups, especially on the west side, are almost totally unrecorded ethnographically. As a result of heavy population in the valley ar- chaeological sites are, or were, numerous. Hewes (1941:125) notes, "The densest populations clustered FENENGA VOLUME in tule marsh areas and in areas where oaks abound." The following (Table 1) is a site distributions list- ing by county of the approximate number of sites re- corded for the San Joaquin Valley (personal commu- nication, William Seidel, State Office of Historic Pres- ervation, Sacramento, 12/14/94; Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center, Bakersfield, 12/14/94; Central California Information Center, Turlock, 12/ 20/94): Table 1 County Fresno Kern Kings Madera Merced San Joaquin Stanislaus Tulare Total OHP Center Sites below 500' (OHP) 2480 2933 111 2984 4161 170 55 65 43 1833 2114 134 303 343 166 210 258 163 248 386 187 1544 2094 33 9657 12354 1007 These raw numbers, however, say nothing about the condition, size, age, cultural affinity, or likelihood of preservation of these sites. In 1965, I asked a local collector who had intimate knowledge of all archaeo- logical sites in the Tulare Lake - Porterville area of the valley what percentage of sites have been de- stroyed. His answer was 90 percent! (Witt, personal communication 1985). One can assume with reason- able certainty that this includes most of the large, sig- nificant and important village sites. Agriculture in the San Joaquin Valley has been the leading factor in the destruction of archaeological sites. One large landowner, several decades ago, had a crew engaged in land leveling operations around the clock for at least five years. An uncounted number of major sites were destroyed, with their loss noted only by a private collector who kept a schedule of the approach of the heavy equipment toward a doomed site (Roehr, personal communication 19 ?). This is not an iso- lated report but constitutes a portion of a dominant pattern for the loss to farming of archaeological sites in the San Joaquin Valley. Should we, as archaeologists, be concerned with this loss of a non-renewable resource? Is it possible that we have about all the data we need to reconstruct the culture history, socioeconomic, religious, and other aspects of prehistoric native life in the San Joaquin Valley? Are the losses here any greater than for the rest of California? Possibly a review of the published literature will assist in answering some of these, and other, questions on the current status of archaeology in the San Joaquin Valley. One of the most recent and encompassing efforts made to cover the written record of archaeological work in the San Joaquin Valley (as well as for all of California) has been made by Moratto (1984) some ten years ago. Since that time, however, a great deal of contract archaeology has taken place with count- less numbers of reports prepared by the archaeolo- gists for their clients, but not published. These re- ports are normally collected and filed with the Infor- mation Center, which has dominion over each of the respective projects. This does not, however, neces- sarily include reports prepared for Federal and other public agencies. Combined, these unpublished and uncounted reports number into the hundreds. For this reason it is not easy to get a firm idea of just what is known of the prehistory of the subject region of the state, or for that matter, for any portion of the state. Let's take a look at the published literature and see what sort of coverage we have for this region of Cali- fornia. One of the more significant archaeological reports was done for sites at Buena Vista Lake located at the upper (southern) end of the valley. This is the classic work by Waldo Wedel (1941) and involves fieldwork done by Works Project Administration crews during the Great Depression of the 1930's. Wedel's Buena Vista Lake data was augmented later by work done by Fredrickson and Grossman (1977), and by Hartzell (1992) in her unpublished dissertation. Ear- lier a survey was made by Gifford and Schenck (1926), which was extensive and particularly illuminating in view of the fact that little or nothing was previously known regarding the prehistory of the region. Gor- don Hewes' (1941) survey in 1939 is of major impor- tance as a survey, but encompassed no comprehen- sive site work or compilation of archaeological data. His short report on the ancient site at Tranquillity (1946) is tantalizing in its briefness. Walker's (1947) work in a Yokuts cemetery at Buena Vista Lake is, in published form, quite limited with respect to usable data. My report on Ker-74 (1951) gleaned from pri- 56 SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY ARCHAEOLOGY vate collections made at destroyed site gives another tantalizing glimpse of what was being lost to agricul- tural development. Paleo-Indian evidence at Tulare Lake was illuminated by Riddell and Olsen (1969). Moratto (1984) lists reports on work done at proto- historic and historic cemeteries in the southern San Joaquin Valley; the list includes Anonymous (1938); Estep (1933); Latta (1977); von Werlhof (in Schiffman and Garfinkel 1981). Warren and McKusick (1959) investigated prehistoric burials. In the northern San Joaquin Valley Moratto (1984) notes the archaeological work done by McAlexander and Upson (1969); McGeein (1950); Mohr (1948); Nissley (1975); Olsen and Payen (1968, 1969); Pritchard (1967, 1970); Riddell and Olsen (1965); Treganza (1960); and Wildesen (1969). With respect to the archaeology of the northern San Joaquin Valley is Napton's Seven Counties: An Ar- chaeological Overview of Alpine, Calaveras, Mari- posa, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Tuolumne Counties, California (1981). This very useful and important work was done under contract with the State Office of Historic Preservation. Although it was pre- pared before Moratto's opus (1984) it was not cited because of time lags in the preparation of both projects overlapped to such a degree that apparently it was not feasible to do so. The single most significant draw- back to Napton's work is that at this time it is about 15 years out of date. This is not a reflection on the author, but it is an appeal to the State Office of His- toric Preservation to find the funds to update this and similar efforts, and get them out in published form. I say this with the full realization that funding for such efforts are not readily available, but as funds can be found an updating of these regional overviews is, to my way of thinking, of the highest priority. In his introduction, Napton makes the following statement, which rather succinctly typifies the status of archaeological research in both the northern and southern portions of the San Joaquin Valley: This endeavor opened a Pandora's box of un- written, unpublished, or unknown site investi- gations-sites that someone tested on a forgot- ten Saturday many springs ago, reports that were to be written during some distant winter which came and went to wherever old winters and good intentions go to die, this dig or that test which was going to be written up "one of these days"-or have we heard that one before? At any rate, a great deal of what has been ac- complished in Central California archeology has yet to be written. It is true that many sites have been destroyed, but it is also true that a very considerable amount of work has been completed, but has never been written or pub- lished. Particularly vexing, of course, is the Xeroxed manuscript or thesis, a few copies of which seem to be "around" somewhere but are difficult to acquire. And when a project report or thesis is available it may contain descriptions of excavations or tests of numerous sites, and to achieve a reasonable job of review we should extract the information and present it in a stan- dard, organized format. Time, the enemy of all human endeavor, precludes doing anything like a comprehensive job for the first edition, or approximation, of the seven-county over-view (Napton 1981:2). Napton's effort, of course, covers an area beyond the valley floor as it also addresses the Sierran por- tion of each county as applicable. In 1965, I presented a paper titled "Urgent Prob- lems in San Joaquin Valley Archeology" to the Kroeber Anthropological Society annual meeting in Berkeley. This present effort is designed to see if any of the ur- gent problems facing the archaeology of the San Joaquin Valley have been met (Riddell 1965). In my paper I warn of the great loss to the archaeological database through agricultural and urban development, and by all those land-modifying activities associated. I state that One of the most urgent problems facing the ar- cheology of the San Joaquin Valley is one, which is basic. It is concerned with the neces- sity for a series of surveys of the order made by Hewes twenty-five years ago. Such work is imperative and must be of a detailed nature to discover what has been lost, as well as what remains. Excavation, however, should not be held up for such a definitive survey but should be carried out as soon as possible in order to get useful samples from those sites that remain. As surveys progress, however, a greater lati- tude in the choice of sites for excavation can be gotten (Riddell 1965). Riddell 57 FENENGA VOLUME In a roundabout way my appeal has been heeded, not just because I gave it, but because of environmen- tal reviews required of most land development projects. As I noted above, a vast amount of data has been gathered as a consequence of meeting state and federal requirements. Unfortunately, however, much of these data are not readily available in published form. In fact, there seem to be few sources where bibliographic references to this great volume of infor- mation can be found without excessive searching. This multitude of reports includes surveys, testing, and excavations made for both private and public agen- cies, which then become the proprietor. In many cases these reports are of the highest importance to the ar- chaeologist doing research in the San Joaquin Valley, but obtaining them presents a serious problem of time, money and logistics. One cannot know what has been done without canvassing the various public and pri- vate agencies for which the work was done. This oner- ous task could be alleviated if each entity for which the work was done would, on an annual basis, update its list of reports. Each entry should be annotated, and each report turned in should have an abstract. The compilation and maintenance of a listing of reports for California is an immense job, but as each agency undertakes this task for itself a central clear- inghouse can bring the data together. The Informa- tion Centers have such a task in mind, and some have met this challenge successfully. The results of their efforts, when brought together by the central agency, presumably OHP, and made available to those need- ing such information will be a monumental step. It will be possible then to determine where work has been done and the scope of each investigation. In short, we do not fully know what has been done in the San Joaquin Valley with regard to its prehistory. All we know is that much significant work has been done since 1965 when I made my appeal, but much of this information is not readily available. Another aspect of the problem of the current sta- tus of the archaeology of the San Joaquin Valley is knowing the condition and the possibility of immi- nent destruction of the remaining sites. In fact, how many sites still exist-in any condition? Much of the data needed for such an illumination are available in the files and computers in the agencies and at the Information Centers, as well as at the Office of His- toric Preservation. Is there a mechanism that can be put into play, which will present them in a manner useful to the researcher? Ideally each of the numer- ous cultural resource consulting companies have (or should), as noted above, make available to a central clearing house (Information Center) an annotated list of reports prepared by each company/consultant. With these data in hand it would be possible to determine the status of the archaeology of a region, in this case, the San Joaquin Valley. In my recent contacts with those Information Centers involved with the San Joaquin Valley I have been encouraged by the stated aim of each to bring these data into a computerized system for ready availability. This will require much time and money to accomplish, but it is a basic neces- sity. It was with despair I viewed the future of the ar- chaeological record of the San Joaquin Valley in 1965, a despair also shared at that time by William Wallace. Our despair continued until after many years of hand wringing we decided to shed a bit of light on the prob- lem by establishing an agglomeration of people hav- ing an interest in the area. As co-directors of the Tulare Lake Archaeological Research Group (TULARG) we started a newsletter and began visiting sites and re- cording private collections, and urging others to do the same. This interest resulted in several symposia at annual meetings of the Society of California Ar- chaeology and the publication of Contributions to Tulare Lake Archaeology I and Contributions to Tulare Lake Archaeology 11 (Wallace and Riddell 1991 and 1993). The spin-off has been quite rewarding in that a number of large collections have been seen and re- corded, the small newsletter is widely disseminated, and several similar groups were started-the Coalinga Archaeological Research Group (COALARG) and the Fresno Archaeological Research Group (FRESNARG); the former, under the direction of Dan Foster (California Department of Forestry) has pre- pared a newsletter on work done; and the latter as an adjunct of the Fresno County Archaeological Society. TULARG has had its main focus on the Tulare Lake Basin, and in particular, the extensive evidence of Clovis-period remains found along its ancient shore- line. COLARG has been concerned with the sites and collections from the Coalinga area, and has de- termined the quarry source for the chert materials used by the Paleo-Indians at Tulare Lake. A local collector, Lou Deford, brought the site to the pro- 58 SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY ARCHAEOLOGY fessionals' attention. TULARG has found that the many local collectors to be an outstanding asset in gaining knowledge about the sites of the region, and their collections, often with good provenience data, of inestimable value. FRESNARG, too, has gotten a lot of data from private collectors and their collec- tions; data that might well have been lost forever had they not been reviewed by members of the research group. In recent discussions with colleagues some opti- mism has crept in regarding the status and future of archaeological research in the San Joaquin Valley. It has been pointed out to me that the valley receives an accretion of from one to 1.5 m of alluvium each mil- lennium (Moratto personal communication, 1994). Under these circumstances it is reasonable to expect numerous archaeological sites to be buried sufficiently to avoid being leveled through agricultural activities. Preparing a model for the discovery of these sites through new and improved technological means seems feasible and productive. It would seem prudent, there- fore, to initiate a plan by which these site locations can be determined and tested. We must, therefore, be alert to the probability that important archaeological sites lie buried at depth only to be revealed in the pro- cess of deep excavation for construction, or by care- fully planned and executed test excavations by pro- fessional archaeologists. So much of the San Joaquin Valley's past has been squandered and lost by agri- cultural and urban development that we cannot waste what remains, must remain vigilant in our discovery and protection of these finite values. In addition to the research groups noted above it is particularly heartening to see that programs of regional research are being pursued at the State University, Bakersfield, by Mark Sutton and Gerrit Fenenga, fac- ulty members in the Department of Anthropology. The California State University, Stanislaus, also, is in a prime position to be a monumental contributor to the collection of critical archaeological data for the San Joaquin Valley (Napton and Greathouse, in press). It is through such institutions as the state universities- Fresno, Stanislaus, and Bakersfield-we can pin our hopes for a continuation of research, which will de- termine if the archaeological story for the San Joaquin Valley will ever be adequately told. In a sense, Bill Wallace and I are passing the baton on to a younger and fortuitously located sets of pro- fessional investigators. It is to be hoped, also, that Leslie Hartzell will be in a position to continue her research at Buena Vista Lake. With these and other younger archaeologists, especially those having insti- tutional support, the future of archaeological research looks far rosier than it did when I presented my warn- ing in 1965 regarding the losses being sustained by the archaeological sites in the San Joaquin Valley. Perhaps Wallace and I have played a significant part in continuing to sound the alarm and to keep the door open to opportunities in archaeological research in the San Joaquin Valley. References Cited Anonymous 1938 Where the Vanished Yokuts Buried Their Dead. Standard Oil Bulletin. February. Estep, H. A. 1933 The Indians of Pelican Island: Sites CA- Ker-59, CA-Ker-66, and CA-Ker-67. Univer- sity of California Archaeological Survey Manu- scripts 30. Berekely. Fredrickson, D. A., and J. Grossman 1977 A San Dieguito Component at Buena Vista Lake, California. The Journal of Cali- fornia Anthropology 4(2):173-190. Gifford, E. W., and W. E. Schenck 1926 Archaeology of the Southern San Joaquin Valley. American Archaeology and Ethnology 23:1-122. University of California Publication, Berkeley. Hartzell, L. L. 1992 Hunter-Gatherer Adaptive Strategies and Lacustrine Environments in the Buena Vista Lake Basin, Kern County, California. Ph.D. Dissertation. Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis. Hewes, Gordon 1941 Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Central San Joaquin Valley. American Anti- quity 47 (2): 123-133. 1946 Early Man in California and the Tran- quillity Site. American Antiquity 11 (4): 209- 215. McAlexander, M., and W. Upson 1969 Gewachieu (Fre-398). San Francisco 59 Riddell FENENGA VOLUME State College Anthropology Museum Occa- sional Papers 5(8): 313-321. San Francisco. McGeein D. F. 1950 Archaeological Notes on the Deniz Site, CA-Mer-3. University of California Archaeo- logical Survey Manuscripts 81. Berkely. Mohr, A. 1948 The Excavation of Site CA-Sta-6. Uni- versity of California Archaeological Survey Manuscripts 44. Berkely. Moratto, M. J. 1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, New York. 1994 Personal Communication. Napton, L. Kyle 1981 Seven Counties; An Archeological Over- view of Alpine, Calaveras, Mariposa, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Tuolumne Coun- ties, California. A report prepared for the Of- fice of Historic Preservation, Sacramento. Napton, L. K., and E. A. Greathouse [in press] The Current Status of Central Valley Archaeology: Stanislaus, Merced and San Joaquin Counties, California. Nissley, Claudia 1975 Archaeological Investigations at CA- Mer-27: Phase II. Report to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Sacramento. Olsen, W. H., and L. A. Payen 1968 Archaeology of the Little Panoche Res- ervoir, Fresno County, California. California Department of Parks and Recreation Archaeo- logical Reports 11. Sacramento. 1969 Archaeology of the Grayson Site, Merced County, California. California Department of Parks and Recreation Archaeological Reports 12. Sacramento. Riddell, F. A. 1951 The Archaeology of Site Ker-74. Uni- versity of California Archaeological Survey Reports 10:1-28. Berkeley. 1965 Urgent Problems in San Joaquin Valley Archaeology. Paper read to the Kroeber An- thropological Society, Berkeley. Riddell, F. A., and W. H. Olsen 1969 An Early Man Site in the San Joaquin Valley, California. American Antiquity 4(2): 121-130. Pritchard, W. E. 1967 The Archaeology of Lower Los Banos Creek, M.A. Thesis. Department of Anthro- pology, California State University, Sacra- mento. 1970 Archaeology of the Menjoulet Site, Merced County, California. California Depart- ment of Parks and Recreation Archaeological Reports 13. Sacramento. Schiffman, R. A., and A. P. Garfinkel 1981 Prehistory of Kern County: An overview. Bakersfield College Publications in Archaeol- ogy 1. Bakersfield. Treganza, Adan 1960 Archaeological Investigations in the San Luis Reservoir Area, Merced County, Califor- nia. Report to the California Department of Parks and Recreation. Sacramento. United States Government, Department of the Inte- rior 1949 Central Valley Basin. Senate Document 113, Eighty-first Congress, First Session. Wash- ington D.C. Walker, Edwin F., and A. Woodward 1947 Excavation of a Yokuts Indian Cemetery. Kern County Historical Society Publication. Bakersfield. Wallace, William J., and Francis A. Riddell (editors) 1991 Contribution to Tulare Lake Archaeol- ogy 1: Background to a Study of Lake Tulare Lake's Archaeological Past. The Tulare Lake Archaeological Research Group, Redondo Beach, CA. 1993 Contributions to Tulare Lake Archaeol- ogy 1I. Finding the Evidence: The Quest for Tulare Lake's Archaeological Past. The Tulare Lake Archaeological Research Group, Redondo Beach, CA. Warren, Claude N., and M. B. McKusick 1959 A Burial Complex from the Southern San Joaquin Valley. University of California, Los Angeles, Archaeological Survey Annual Report 1959: 17-26. Los Angeles. Wedel, Waldo R. 1941 Archaeological Investigations at Buena Vista Lake, Kern County, California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 130. Wash- ington D.C. 60 SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY ARCHAEOLOGY Wildesen, Leslie 1969 Dos Palos (Mer-66). San Francisco: Treganza Anthropology Museum Papers 5(7): 266-278. San Fransico. Witt, Don 1965 Personal Communication. Riddell 61