THE STONEWARE SITE, A 16TH CENTURY SITE ON DRAKES BAY Clement W. Meighan Introduction This study began in 1949, when I was a graduate student at Berkeley, triggered by the interests of R. F. Heizer, my faculty advisor and later my boss when I worked for the Archaeological Survey. Heizer had a long-standing interest in the historical archaeology of Drakes Bay in Marin County north of San Francisco. He obtained a small grant from the California His- torical Society, which funded my student crew of four to continue sampling of the Estero Site (Mrn-232) on the shore of Limantour Estero. The site had been pre- viously dug by Treganza and others and was used by Beardsley to define a coastal variant of late Central California culture. It was also among the first of the Drakes Bay sites to yield 16' century Ming porcelain fragments, later attributed to the wreck of Cermenlo's galleon in 1595 (Heizer 1941; see Wagner 1924 for an account of the Cermenlo voyage). At that time, such porcelain had been recognized in several sites around Drakes Bay; later work was to show that there were dozens of such finds from a large number of sites (Von der Porten 1968). Archaeologically, these finds are very important; they identify some of the few clearly dated 16t century sites on the West Coast, and they allow for recognition of the archaeological re- mains of the protohistoric period. After the initial contacts between the Indians and the European voy- agers, two centuries elapsed before the Spanish dis- covery of San Francisco Bay and European settlement of this part of California. Historical Evidence The objective of the present paper is to present the evidence for the aboriginal artifacts rather than to re- view once more the historical artifacts and the argu- ments concerning early explorers in the Drakes Bay area. However, the significance of the site, and in- deed the reasons for its excavation, derive largely from its connection to historical events, and a brief back- ground discussion is necessary to provide the context of the studies and the relationship of historical to ab- original finds. The compelling interest in Drakes Bay had to do with the 1579 visit of Sir Francis Drake to northern California. This major historical figure, the second round-the-world voyager (preceded only by Magellan) spent several weeks on the coast of northern Califor- nia. Reasonably detailed accounts of his voyage were written. Regrettably, his logbook has never been found, and the existing contemporary accounts have allowed for much debate over the identification of his landing place (see Temple 1969 for original historical documents; also Heizer 1947; Wagner 1926, 1929). I do not review here this widely published and conten- tious debate nor the arguments that have been put for- ward for just about every bay and Inlet of Marin County. Everybody seems to agree at least that Drake was in Marin County, but it is possible to present more or less plausible arguments for several places along the coast, including San Francisco Bay. My own in- terpretation of the record is that Drake was in Drakes Bay. An important historical relic from Marin County is the Drake Plate, a piece of brass with a chiseled inscription. Such a plate was said in the Drake ac- count to have been placed near the landing location, on a "...great and firm post." There is an extensive literature examining the Drake Plate, with various stud- ies which conclude that it is genuine, or that it is a fake, depending on the writer and the approach taken. Fink (1938) conducted chemical and metallurgical analyses and considered the plate to be authentic. The most recent study (Anonymous 1977) declares the weight of the evidence leaning toward falsification based on such things as literary style and chemical comparison with European brass of the 16th century. I think the issue is still open, since there is no necessity for the brass to be of English origin-Drake could well have had brass from almost anywhere in the world because he had sacked numerous Spanish ships, some THE STONEWARE SITE of which returning from Asia. As for style of expres- sion and letters, the lettering is done with a hammer and chisel and the plate cannot be compared with what is done on paper or parchment. Somewhat confusing recollections state that the plate was found not too far from the sites discussed here, but it was not recovered directly from an archaeological context, and it is there- fore a side issue so far as this report is concerned. Although now largely discredited, the Drake Plate re- mains on display in the Bancroft Library at Berkeley. Our interest in archaeological investigations at Drakes Bay is apparent: we hoped to find in the 16k century Indian villages some evidence for the visit of Drake, Cermenlo, or other, as yet unidentified, early explorers, and at the same time define in greater de- tail the Indian villages and material culture of the time. It has to be remembered that most of the current ar- chaeological dating methods, including radiocarbon dating, were being developed and were unavailable for California sites at the time this work began. The so-called "direct historical approach" was therefore an important way of developing an archaeological sequence-once the artifacts of a known historical pe- riod were defined, it was possible to recognize the "Late" period, and materials that differed sharply had to be older. The exact dating of archaeological levels by association with the Cermefno shipwreck in 1595 (Heizer 1941) gave us better chronological control than we had for the protohistoric archaeology of coastal California. The Stoneware Site Excavations At the time my small crew was digging under the auspices of the California Historical Society, at the Estero Site (Mrn-232), I spent a couple of days sam- pling another quite small site which was on the shore, at the mouth of a small ravine only a couple of hun- dred yards away (Figure 1). This site was not named; its site number is Mrn-307. Since it is cumbersome to read reports with site numbers repeated in every para- graph, I have named this site the Stoneware Site, after its unique historical finds as discussed below. Pre- liminary test pits showed the site to contain some large iron bars and bits of the characteristic blue-and-white Ming porcelain assigned to a 1595 shipwreck (Figure 2) (Heizer 1941). I decided that further investigation of this site was worthwhile, and between 1949-51 managed to spend ten weekends with volunteer crews in continuing this study. On a couple of occasions, I was able to muster crews of several volunteers (as many as 18 on one weekend), but most of the time the field crews included only two to five workers. Due to the small size of the site, however, our effort resulted in excavation of 112 pits (5 by 5 ft.), totaling 230 cu- bic yards and over 95Y% of the total midden. Only very shallow margins remained unexcavated. The collections are in the Hearst Museum, University of California, Berkeley. During this period, I spent summers on various projects, including participation as a crewmember on Frank Fenenga's digs at Bodega Bay and in the Sierra foothills on the Kings River. Frank had also been one of my T.A.'s, back when I was taking my introduc- tory courses in anthropology. He was an outstanding teacher, an excellent field archaeologist, and knew all the literature (as well as background and personali- ties) related to California archaeology. In later years, he sometimes said that he taught me all I know-I never argued with this since he was an essential per- son in my early training and I consider him a model of what an archaeologist should be. Due to the transfer of my professional responsi- bilities to UCLA before I was able to complete this site report, I had to put "my" site of Mrn-307 aside, and except for occasional work with it, the report lan- guished in Filing cabinets for years. Since the report dates from the period when I was actively working with Fenenga, and since it deals with his central and lifelong interest in California archaeology, it seems an appropriate tribute to him. There is some historical interest in this project in terms of the many changes that have taken place in American archaeology since this study was begun. As mentioned above, dating of California sites was rudi- mentary and difficult, and the direct historical ap- proach was still a significant tool. In addition, con- tract archaeology was virtually nonexistent and no- body could make a living at it in California. There were no National Science Foundation grants, and such feeble grant money as could be obtained often came from individuals or private foundations. Since there was no money, archaeologists were motivated to conduct investigations based on their own enthusiasm and interest, and this included a great deal of work for which no reward was expected, of money, Meighan 63 FENENGA VOLUME college credit, or anything else. It has been many years since archaeology of this kind was done in California except by a few avocational groups. It may be of note that the excavations reported here were entirely done with volunteers who paid their own way, and the re- search budget from the University or other sources came to zero. This is "free" archaeology of a kind which used to be common. Based on what the State of California and private property owners are now expected to pay for archaeological investigations (at least $5000 a cubic yard for excavation studies), to do our Drakes Bay project today would demand a bud- get of over a million dollars by the time that over- head, salaries, employment of Indian monitors, etc. was added up. Such a budget would ensure that the site would not be studied at all, since it is small, re- mote, and not in the path of freeway or subdivision. The present report concentrates on the data per- taining to the aboriginal remains from the site, which have been only briefly discussed in print (Meighan 1966). This is to place on the aboriginal artifacts which date from the early historical period in this part of California. The historical material has been much more extensively discussed; archaeological studies surveying the historical finds include Heizer (1941); Meighan (1950); Meighan and Heizer (1952, 1953); Shangraw and Von der Porten (1981); Von der Porten (1963,1965, 1968). A good popular summary is Wil- liams (1953). Not discussed here are the numerous examinations of the historical record which do not involve archaeological evidence; particularly the in- terpretations of 161" century accounts and the debate about the exact locations visited by Drake and others. The historical archaeology is mentioned briefly in the following discussion of artifacts from the site. Site Description The Stoneware Site is a small and shallow shell midden (Map 1). The deepest pits were just over 4 feet deep, the majority less than 3 feet. The site soil is a black clay (usually damp) with numerous fragments of shell, but the shell is by no means as abundant as in other shell middens of the area, and the population of the site must have been small in number and intermit- tent in time. The real "village" in this area is the nearly adjacent Estero Site (Mrn-232) which is much more extensive and has much more evidence of habitation refuse. The site is on the north edge of a small ravine emp- tying into the ocean. Only a few feet wide and deep, in the rainy season a small stream of water flows past the south edge of the site and empties onto the beach. In recent years this has been dry except for a few days of the rainy season, but in earlier times it is possible that water was available here during much of the year, and it was apparently fed by a small spring in times past. The trickle of water emptying onto the beach forms a small waterfall a few feet high; this would have been a convenient place to fill water containers for both Indians and historical visitors. Procurement of fresh water was certainly one of the uses of the site by the people of the adjacent Estero Site. The large stoneware jar of the historic period, represented by several fragments, was also commonly used as a con- tainer for water as well as other liquids, and the evi- dence of such a jar (only at the Stoneware Site so far) may indicate a visit from early voyagers to obtain water. With the thought that aboriginal and/or historical artifacts might have been lost in the mud of the gully outlet, we conducted some excavation here and screened and washed substantial amounts of mud. Results were negative and no cultural material was found. Anything that may have been there has been washed onto the beach and lost. The entire site would have long since disappeared to agricultural machinery, except for the small ravine and the necessity of driving traitors and cultivators around the inland origin of this gully. The area sur- rounding the site has been extensively cultivated. Stratigraphy And Dating The site is in a low area which collects drainage from three sides and is somewhat boggy in the wet season. This no doubt explains the dark clay soil; somewhat distinctive compared to nearby sites. The site soil is also unusual in that it supports a dense stand of thistles, which grow nowhere else in the immedi- ate vicinity. In the summer, the dry stalks of these thistles are often over six feet in height and form a thicket visible from a distance. The site is shallow and homogeneous and there is little detail in the stratigraphic profiles. 64 THE STONEWARE SITE Figure 1: The Stoneware Site (Mm-307), Limantour Estero. Upper: J. Arthur Freed and Robert J. Squier clear- ing the site, 1950. View southwest, Limantour Estero in background. Site Mm-232, the Estero Site, is atop the small bluff at the left. Lower: Site view looking north, 1950. The site is around a dark patch of dried thistles (center) adjacent to the beach. The area immediately adjacent is dairy pasture; the generally tree- less grassland of the Point Reyes Peninsula and adjacent mainland is well shown in this view. Meighan 65 FENENGA VOLUME Figure 2: Historic artifacts from the Stoneware Site (Mm-307). Upper: Ming dynasty Chinese porcelain attrib- uted to the wreck of Cermeno's ship, the San Agustin, in 1595. Lower: Large fastenings of wrought iron, originally held in timbers by iron washers pinned on ends. Unknown origin. 66 THE STONEWARE SITE STONEWARE SITE (Mrn-307) ---- Limit of midden Mag. North / 10 Ft. C~o ntours: 12" intervals (estimated) rI I. LIMANTC ESTERO Map 1: The Stoneware Site (Mrn-307) Meighan 67 FENENGA VOLUME Standard layers of a California midden are present: A-horizon: The uppermost horizon is a "sod layer" which is friable and marked by an abundance of weed roots and diminished, weathered amounts of shell frag- ments. The soil below is dense, and the sod layer var- ies from virtually nothing to as much as 2 or 3 inches thick, averaging about an inch. Several pieces of the porcelain attributed to the 1595 shipwreck were found in this layer, virtually on the surface of the site. The sod layer is mixed with a layer of brown clay washed in from the slopes above, accumulating in the lower and more level areas of the midden to a depth of as much as 7 inches. This slopewash is no doubt the result of cultivation of the area above the site and dates from recent years. A 5 inch layer of slopewash cov- ered nearly all of the site area where porcelain frag- ments were found. B-horizon: Below the sod/slopewash layer is a dark midden with shell and bone fragments. The thickest of this midden layer is just over 4 feet in a few pits; most of the site is shallower, and marginal pits at the edges of the site have only a few inches of midden. Only a few artifacts were found below 30 inches in depth; the majority of the artifacts come from the top 18 inches. C-horizon: Most midden sites have a "zone of mix- ture" between midden and sterile sub-soil, where the original inhabitants mixed together the native soil with their accumulating midden, largely by digging fire pits and other disturbances of the base soil. This layer is only a few inches thick over most of the Stoneware Site and it is virtually absent in some pits. D-horizon: The base soil is a black clay, very sticky when wet. The site is elevated only a few feet above the adjacent beach. Chronological Considerations The end date for occupation can be derived from the near-surface occurrence of porcelain attributed to the shipwreck of 1595. The apparent abrupt termina- tion of the village coinciding with this visit by Euro- peans suggests strongly the possibility that Old World diseases may have been introduced which sharply re- duced the local population; in any event, there is no evidence of Indian occupation after A.D. 1600. The beginning date for the site is harder to esti- mate. We have no radiocarbon dates; they would not be too useful for such a recent deposit. There is no cultural stratigraphy of artifacts indicating occupation by other than late peoples. While some historic arti- facts are "surface," others are found to a depth of a couple of feet, which is effectively the whole midden. The few pits which were excavated to deeper lev- els went into zones C and D above and were largely sterile of cultural remains in the lower levels. While casual Indian visitors may have passed this way for thousands of years, the evidence is that residential occupation of the site was confined to no more than a few centuries prior to A.D. 1600, and it may have been less. Aboriginal Population The site is seen as a satellite of the Estero Site a couple of hundred yards distant. The latter is on a terrace overlooking Drakes Bay. The small site area and limited midden remains suggest that the Stone- ware Site never sustained a fixed population, but was inhabited seasonally by a small band of people, prob- ably no more than one or two families at a time. In aboriginal times, the population of Marin County was quite sparse. Kroeber (1925) estimated the in- habitants, Coast Miwok, to number only about 1500 persons. Cook (1943:182) examined mission records and estimates that about 2000 Coast Miwok were missionized and that this represents nearly all of the Indians of Marin County. Of these converts, almost half came from San Rafael on San Francisco Bay. The Coast Miwok had all of Marin County, including the best areas for hunters and gatherers along Bodega, Tomales, and San Francisco Bays. The rather barren Pt. Reyes and Drakes Bay region probably supported no more than a couple of hundred people. Kroeber (1925:273) even suggests that the Pt. Reyes Penin- sula "...seems to have been uninhabited," and none of the known Coast Miwok villages are shown for Pt. Reyes, the closest being Olema, several miles inland from Drakes Bay. The archaeology shows clearly that the Pt. Reyes peninsula and the area around Drakes Bay were not unused in the past, but sites in this area are smaller and more widely dispersed than in other parts of Coast Miwok territory, and most of these sites were apparently seasonal settlements. None of them approach the size of the Coast Miwok archaeological sites on Bodega Bay or San Francisco Bay. The en- counters of the early explorers were initially with only a few people, and it took some days before people 68 THE STONEWARE SITE came from all directions to form an assembly of per- haps 100 persons to see the English (and later Span- ish) explorers who were the first Europeans to land in this part of California. Subsistence The Stoneware Site yielded an abundance of fau- nal remains of which only a sample was identified. As usual in sites with no plant material preserved, the amount of plant foods cannot be quantified, although seeds, roots, and bulbs no doubt formed a significant component of the diet. Acorns, the staple of central California Indian economy, are not available in the Drakes Bay area because there are no oak trees. Such foods would have been collected a few miles inland, however, and were no doubt used by the Indians at Drakes Bay. Both the Drake and Cermefic, parties took plant foods (seeds) from the coastal Indians dur- ing their sojourns in Marin County. Indirect evidence for plant foods is seen in the artifact collection, which includes 16 pestles and 42 mortar fragments. These attest to considerable, but not quantifiable, seed-grind- ing activity. Animal foods are abundantly represented at the Stoneware Site. For bird and mammal bones, the iden- tified sample was taken from the 53 cubic yards of trenches C and D. This sample contains 192 mammal bones and a little over 500 bird bones. Because fish bones were comparatively rare, all fish bones from the entire site were saved and identified. Assuming a constant density of faunal remains in the midden, ex- trapolation of the sample indicates the total site con- tained 3875 bones, the distribution being: bird, 79.4%; mammal 18.6% and fish 1.8%. Stated another way, each cubic yard of midden con- tains 15 bird bones, 3.6 mammal bones, and 0.3 fish bones. These figures show a heavy dependence upon birds and a surprising scarcity of fish, considering the location of the site on a shallow estuary. Note that shellfish, discussed below, may have been even more important meat resources. The distribution of bones does not reflect flesh weight, so the actual food re- sources were somewhat higher for fish and mammals than the percentage of bones indicates. Identified birds are listed in Table 1, mammals in Table 2, and fish species in Table 3. Although fishing was of minor importance, two very important resources were derived from the estu- ary: crabs, which make up a large amount of shell re- mains in the site, and shellfish (principally clams). Column samples from this site have been analyzed and published by Greengo (1953). The general picture is of a littoral-dwelling popu- lation which relied on estuarine and inland resources but did no significant ocean fishing. The absence of adaptation to ocean resources supports the idea that the sites were seasonal camps occupied by inland peoples who came to the Drakes Bay region to collect grass seeds and estuarine foods. The crabs and shell- fish were obtainable with minimal or no technology- the estuary becomes a vast mud flat at low tide and resources can be collected by hand. The only tools needed would be basketry or net containers and per- haps digging sticks for some shellfish. Shellfish Identification and analysis of shellfish was done with column samples taken of the midden (Greengo 1953). The common food resource was the large clam Saxidomus numalli, an excellent food still found in the estuary today (and on occasion consumed by the archaeological crew). There is very little shell of rock- dwelling species, such as chitons, showing the major foraging area to be the mud flats when the tide was low. Greengo noted that this site contained the high- est amount of crab shell of any site he had studied, and the collecting of crabs in the shallow water of Limantour Estero must have been an important sub- sistence activity. There is no evidence of how the crabs were caught, but baited basketry traps are a logical suggestion. Since shellfish have a high ratio of shell weight to flesh weight, and since they produce a large amount of obvious midden debris, they are often assumed to be a major food resource. It is difficult to evaluate the relative importance of shellfish com- pared to other resources at this site, particularly in the absence of quantitative information on plant foods, but in my opinion shellfish were not more than 25% of the food consumed at the site and may have been considerably less. Crabs may well have been more important as food, but at present there is no method for evaluating the food represented by a given weight of crab shell versus the same weight of mollusks. Meighan 69 FENENGA VOLUME Table I: Bird Bones from the Stoneware Site, Mrn-307 (identified by Joan Malloy, 1953)* Scientific Name Mergus serrator Buteo borealis Limosafedoa Larus occidentalis Larus argentatus smitbsonianus Larus philadelphia Gavia immer Gavia immer elasson Gavia stellata Colymbus auritus Aechmorphus occidentalis Pelecanus occidentalis Phalocrocorax auritus albociliatus Phatocrocorax penicillatus Branta canadensis Branta canadensis minima Anser albifrons a. Anser albifrons gambeli Cken hyperboreus H. Anas platyrhynchos Chaulelasmus streperus Dafila acuta tzitzihoa Common Name Red-Breasted Merganser Red-Tailed Hawk Marbelled Godwit** Northern-western Gull American Herring Gull Bonaparte Gull Common Loon** Lesser Loon Red-Throated Loon Homed Grebe Western Grebe California Brown Pelican Farallon Cormorant** Brandt Cormorant** Canada Goose Cackling Canada Goose White-Fronted Goose Tule Goose Lesser Snow Goose Common Mallard Gadwall American Pintail Column Key Column 3 Column 4 Column 5 Right Tarso-Metatarsal Left Tarso-Metatarsal Right Humerous Column 6 Column 7 Left Humerous Skull *The entire collection from the site was reviewed, ca. 2500 bone fragments, most too small for identification. Emphasis was placed on identification of the bones from trenches C and D. The table identifies 223 bones; at least that many more appear to be of the same species but are not tallied because of uncertainties in the identification. The collection is 80% anserine (ducks and geese). The remainders are all shore or estuarine species except for a few open water birds and a red- tailed hawk. The number of individual fragments should be considered more important than the minimum number of birds, since the bones were so scattered it is doubtful that more than one or two bones from a bird would occur in the same pit and level. Cormorant bones were sorted by pit and level; only once out of 56 bones did two bones from the same species occur in the same pit and level. All identified species occur in this area today, and the species of low frequency in the site are also rare in the bay area today. This indicates no significant environmental change so far as bird life is concerned-not surprising since the time period is less than 500 years since abandonment of the site and the Drakes Bay area is little impacted by modern settlement. All identified species could have been obtained in the immediate vicinity of the Stoneware Site. **These species were also noted in the Emeryville Shellmound on San Francisco Bay (Howard, 1929). The Emeryville report does not identify ducks, geese, and gulls to species, but it was found that Anatidae and Laridae could be identified to species when compared to modem identified bird bones. 3 4 1 1 5 1 7 6 2 1 3 1 1 3 2 2 1 2 1 1 I 1 1 1 11 1 9 1 2 1 1 2 6 6 3 3 15 1 5 8 11 1 3 9 2 7 9 13 2 4 2 2 2 70 THE STONEWARE SITE Table 2: Mammal Bones from Mrn-307 (identified by Arthur Freed)* Scientific Name Common Name Odocoileus columbianus Deer Enhydra lutris Sea Otter Phoca richardii Harbor Seal Sylvilagus sp. Rabbit Lepus sp. (?) Rabbit Elk California Sea Lion Gopher Number % 43 63.2 8 11.8 4 5.9 4 5.9 1 1.5 4 5.9 3 1 4.4 1.5 *The examined collection included all mammal bones from trenches C and D, a sample of 53 cubic yards or slightly over 25% of the total excavation. Total mammal bone fragments in the sample are 192, of which 68 (35.4%) could be identified. The remainder lack articular surfaces (all bone was saved, even chips). Of the mammalian resources utilized by the Indians, 78% were land animals, 22% sea mammals. All of the sea mam- mals could be obtained on the beaches or in die estuaries; all but the sea otter are present today. Deer were by far the most important land animal resource. Rabbits are less common than would be expected, and the absence of ocher small mam- mals (foxes, raccoons, badgers, skunks) is noteworthy. Although the smaller mammals arc somewhat more difficult to identify and may more often deteriorate in the ground, the absence in this case is real, and we are confident that small mammals were simply nor of importance to the Indians of this site. The obvious explanation for this is the concentration of hunting effort on birds such as ducks and geese. Pursuit of mammals was limited to the larger animals, which would supply enough meat to make the effort worthwhile. Table 3: Fish Remains from Mrn-307 (by W. L. Follett)* Scientific Name Triakis semifasciata Platichthys stellatus rugosus Holconotus rhodoterus Embiotoca jacksoni Damalichthys vacra Rbacochilus toxotes Common Name Leopard Shark Southern Starry Flounder Redtail Surf Perch Bay Black Perch Pile Perch Rubberlip Sea Perch *Follett's detailed report on these fish bones is published (Follett 1964). The collection includes all of the fish bones from the site. All of these are considered fair to good food fish, all occur in the area today, and all but one (Holconotus) are available all year in Limantour Estero adjacent to the site. Holconotus is found in the Estero during late winter and early spring. Except for one large leopard shark approximately 5 feet long, all of the fish bones represent specimens from 10 to 26 inches in length. All of these species are characteristic of shallow estuaries and are readily captured by hook and line. It is likely that some of these fish were obtained using nets or basketry fish traps (or even fish spears), for the Limantour Estero is quite shallow even at high tide, and at a low tide much of it is a mud flat. Virtually all of it is shallow enough for a fisherman to wade much of the time. Fishing from boats must have been minimal. There is nothing in this collection to indicate fishing outside the Limanrour Estero, let alone on the open ocean outside Drakes Bay. The small amount of fish bones compared with other food resources indicate that fish were eaten when they could be easily got, but no there was no emphasis on fishing. Follett notes the absence of stingray material from this collection. This is puzzling since rays are common in the Limanrour Estero, are edible, and are commonly found in archaeological sites around San Francisco Bay, and indeed in sites from Bodega Bay down to southern California. Absence of rays from this site cannot be attributed to sampling problems, since virtually the whole site was dug and all of the fish bones were retained and examined. It might be sug- gested that there was some sort of food taboo concerning stingrays, but if so it was strictly local and did not apply to other coastal areas. Cervus sp. Zalophus californainus Thomomys sp. Number 4 3 1 22 28 8 6.1 4.5 1.5 33.3 42.4 12.1 Meighan 71 FENENGA VOLUME The predominant mollusk, Saxidomus nuttalli, is a clam with a large and thick shell, not only important for food but also for the manufacture of clamshell disk beads, a universal ornament and medium of exchange in Central California (and still produced to the present day). There was an extensive trade in these shells from Bodega Bay and other coastal locations, but we do not know if the area of the Stoneware Site was involved in this trade. Total number of clamshell disk beads in the Stoneware Site is very few, and it can be concluded that these beads were not manufactured in any significant number at this location. The artifact collection from the Stoneware Site gives little information on subsistence activities. Mortars and pestles attest to grinding of plant foods, and projectile points obviously indicate hunting. How- ever, many of the food resources discussed above are not reflected in the artifact assemblage. Many foods could be collected by hand, and many more appar- ently involved the use of implements of wood or fiber which have not survived in the archaeological site. For example, there are no fish-hooks or gorges, har- poons or fish-spears, snares, nets or basketry fish traps, although all of these were no doubt known and used in food-getting. It is interesting that there are no historic artifacts representing tools that might have been traded to the Indians by early explorers. In 18k" and 191 century California sites, knives and other metal tools are found, and there is frequent use of fragments of glass to make tools. At the Stoneware Site, the many historic arti- facts seem to have been merely curiosities salvaged from wrecks. There are a couple of pieces of Ming porcelain which show some efforts at chipping-one (from the Estero Site) appears to be an unfinished point and one piece of porcelain in the collection described here has some chipping along one edge. However, porcelain is a poor material for pressure flaking and beyond a couple of tentative experiments it was not used. A considerable amount of iron found its way the sites, again mostly salvaged (and probably left behind when wood from the wrecks was used for fire- wood); there is no indication that any of these objects was used or turned into implements. As for European goods deliberately traded to the Indians, there are none -no glass beads, buttons, or other trinkets so com- monly traded to Indians are present in this 16k cen- tury site. The 16t century visitors were of course tran- sient, very far from their homes, hard pressed for sup- plies and not giving much of anything away, and nei- ther Spanish nor English of the period had come to trade with the Indians. It is nonetheless somewhat surprising that considerable numbers of Europeans could be in the Drakes Bay area for several weeks without some traded or pilfered European artifacts turning up in the site. Social Features There is almost no archaeological evidence about the society of the Stoneware Site's inhabitants, al- though a generally simple picture can be drawn from the small population of hunters and gatherers repre- sented at the site. From-ethnohistoric information, band chiefs and shamans were the only people of dis- tinct importance compared to the rest of the popula- tion. No physical remains of houses were found, but four "hearth" or fireplace features were uncovered. These universal finds in California sites, consisting of accu- mulations of burned stones, were from 15 to 28 inches in maximum dimensions. Three were in the bottom of the shallow midden, from 29 to 39 inches deep, and may have originally been located on the floor of excavated pit houses, although no direct evidence of such houses were found. The fourth was at a depth of a foot. If these hearths are indicators of domestic struc- tures, they would indicate no more than three houses at one time at the site, and there may never have been more than one house at a time. Although direct ar- chaeological evidence for the construction features of houses is lacking, we know from the 16* century ac- counts and from recent ethnography that the houses were semi-subterranean huts made of brush and what- ever driftwood was available. Like most of the Cen- tral California hunters and gatherers, "house" may be a misleading term for these structures, because most of the activities of everyday life were outdoors (in- cluding cooking) and the houses served primarily as storage places and protection from severe weather. The economic picture shows very little in the way of trade or external connections. All of the food re- sources in the archaeological collection were obtained in the immediate vicinity of the site, and most of the artifacts are also made of materials obtainable within a few miles. An exception is the occurrence of some obsidian artifacts, the nearest source of obsidian be- 72 THE STONEWARE SITE ing in Napa Valley, some 40 miles to the east. There is also a pipe fragment of steatite, another material which had to be imported from somewhere to the east. There is no debitage from either obsidian or steatite; these exotic materials had to come to the Stoneware Site in finished form. Religious Beliefs Indications of religious beliefs are found at the Stoneware Site only in the presence of seven of the ubiquitous charmstones or power objects characteris- tic of Central California. Ethnographic accounts are our source of information about these objects in the protohistoric period. There was one flexed burial in very poor condition, unaccompanied by any offerings. Absent were other common items of ritual import in California, such as quartz crystals. The site clearly had no particular importance to ceremony, religion, or mortuary ritual, and as all evidence indicates, was merely a small camp of hunters and gatherers prima- rily engaged in subsistence activities. Historic Artifacts Historic artifacts include 17 fragments of Chinese porcelain of the late Ming dynasty, all attributed by Heizer (1941) to the wreck of Cermenlo's ship in 1595. As previously mentioned, some of these were virtu- ally on the surface and most were within the top few inches of the site; subtracting the layer of slopewash over the surface of the area where the porcelain was found, the midden depth for the porcelain was only 3.8 inches. A reexamination of 466 porcelain average sherds from the Drakes Bay archaeological sites (Shangraw and Von der Porten, 1981) indicates that there are two distinct sets of pottery represented: one is a group of sherds showing abrasion, from minimal to severe, representing sherds which must derive from the Cermefio wreck, which were waterworn as they were washed to the beaches where they were found. This group of sherds is not from the primary Ching Te Chen area, but from nearby Chinese kilns. It is also noted to be some somewhat less artistic refinement than the second group of sherds. The second lot, finer in artistic conception, shows no evidence of water wear and is said to originate at Ching Te Chen, a major pot- tery source in the Ming Dynasty. Shangraw and Von der Porten argue that the distinctions in source, style, and evidence of wear argue for two separate intro- ductions of porcelain fragments to the Drakes Bay area, one being the shipwreck of Cermenlo (1595) and the other being the visit of Drake (1579). Of the sherds assigned to the Drake visit, one is identified as com- ing from the Stoneware Site discussed here. At a deeper level (averaging 17 inches depth), and also separated horizontally from the main distribution of porcelain, were found 9 fragments of a large brown stoneware jar of Asian origin, representing only a small part of the complete vessel. Several experts exam- ined these pieces and all agreed that they were of early age, some specifying a 16'h century date. Jars of this type have been common utilitarian wares for centu- ries, and indeed are still in use. They were widely used throughout Southeast Asia, China, Japan, and (most significantly) the Philippines, where the Trans- Pacific galleons regularly visited. It is impossible to say who brought the stoneware jar to the archaeologi- cal site; it could have been on any Spanish ship of the period, or on Drake's ship which had taken several Spanish ships before arriving off the coast of Califor- nia. It could also derive from a voyager of which we have no record. Since the Stoneware Site is the only known California site to have such historic remains, and since all the fragments are from the same vessel, it is logical to assume that the jar was broken while collecting water at the site. There is a clear stratigraphy between the Chinese porcelain attributed to Cermenlo and the group of sherds from the brown stoneware (Meighan and Heizer 1953). These indicate a 16th century visitor prior to Cermenlo. The only earlier recorded visit was that of Drake, but it is possible that the stoneware derives from some other early explorer of whom we have no record. Cabrillo traveled this far north in 1542, but there is no statement that he landed in northern California. The stoneware might also conceivably have come from a wrecked Japanese junk, many of which reached the West Coast after losing mast and rudder in storms and drifting across the Pacific on the prevailing currents. Most of the unfortunate crewmembers died before reaching land, but a few survived (Weber 1994). An Asian voyager as the source of the stoneware is a pos- sibility, but in the absence of any other-evidence it remains speculative and it appears more likely that the stoneware is from a European vessel, and in the Meighan 73 FENENGA VOLUME historical record Drake's is the most likely ship. Al- though this is a significant find, the site has been al- most entirely excavated, and it will not yield any fur- ther information on 16th century remains. If the mys- tery of the Drake landing site is to be finally resolved by archaeological evidence, it will have to come from some other location. Also found (with a metal-detector) was a cache of seven large iron rods, the largest just over 3 feet in length and an inch in diameter. These were buried several inches deep at the edge of the site. They ap- pear to have been used for securing large ship's tim- bers. Originally they all had metal washers on the ends which were held in place by flattening the ends of the rods with a heavy hammer. The metallurgists who originally looked at the smaller iron spikes from the Drakes Bay sites examined the iron rods; their find- ings were that the rods are of wrought iron but the age was uncertain and they could be more recent than the 16k" century. These rods remain a puzzle. Recent ranchers and hunters have certainly visited the site area, and the upper marginal boundary of the site produced some late debris including rim-fire car- tridges and pieces of glass. On the other hand, it seems unlikely that recent visitors would collect and bury these rusted iron rods, which have no apparent use or value, in an archaeological site. It is conceivable, al- though not provable, that these large pieces of iron were part of the construction material of Cermenlo's wrecked ship, and that they were thrown aside by the Indians after using the ship's timbers for firewood. The site also produced four of the smaller iron spikes which are much more numerous at other loca- tions including the adjacent Estero Site. Metallurgists as very probably of the 16th century have identified spikes of this kind. It is significant that the only spikes of this kind recovered from the Stoneware Site were associated with the large iron rods discussed above. These spikes are most likely from the planks of Cermenlo's ship, collected by the Indians and used for house construction (and no doubt firewood). Cermenlo's men had a skirmish with the Indians over their taking of ship's planks, since they needed these planks themselves to construct a boat and make their way down the coast. There is no evidence that any of the historic arti- facts at the Stoneware Site were utilized by the Indi- ans, with the exception of a single piece of Ming por- celain which bears some flaking along one edge. It is like the flake scrapers from the site, but in this case the chipping may have been merely an experimental effort to work the porcelain. The blue-and-white por- celain pieces were probably picked up on the beach and brought to the sites as a curiosity. The stoneware jar is believed to have broken at the site and been dis- carded, and the metal objects are simply residue of construction and fires. Aboriginal Artifacts The aboriginal artifacts collected from the site are listed (Tables 4-8). These are clearly of Phase 2 of the Late Central California Horizon, specifically the Estero facies of the Marin Province as defined by Beardsley (1954). There is no evidence of earlier oc- cupation at the Stoneware Site. Every artifact type which was identified by Beardsley as diagnostic of the Estero facies was found at the Stoneware Site, as well as a few additional types of relatively rare occur- rence. This is not surprising since the facies was de- fined largely from the Estero Site, and the Stoneware Site is clearly a minor satellite settlement of that site Discussion of Aboriginal Artifacts Most of the simple artifacts are adequately defined in the tables and illustrations. The more varied classes are discussed briefly here: Hunting Projectile points are the most common hunting in- struments (Table 4, Figure 3). Small points with side or corner notching are most common; there is a com- plete intergradation of forms from side-notched to corner-notched, with some types intermediate in form; division of this collection into types is arbitrary and probably has little cultural meaning. All of the notched points with rounded or straight bases are classified as Type I (Figure 3A-C, H-V). A sub-type (IA, Figure 3D-G) includes four small points with notched edges, a form long recognized as diagnostic of Late Central California. Other point forms (types 2-6 here, Figure 3X-BB) may well have been hafted and used as knives since they are larger than the projectile points and most lack the notches. 74 THE STONEWARE SITE Table 4. Chipped Stone Artifacts from the Stoneware Site (Mrn-307) Artifact Depth in Inches from Surface Size in cm Total 0-6 6-12 12-18 18-24 Points and Knives 24-30 30-36 36+ Type I Type la Type 2 Type 3 Type 3-4 Type 4 Type 5 Type 6 Unclassifiable 1.3-4.1 1.4-4.3 3.4 4.4 3.9 3.5-6.5 5.1-6.4 6.0 34 8 1 1 1 8 4 1 9 14 3 10 4 4 1 1 3 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 3 2 1 1 2 1 2 Scrapers Type 1 Type la Type 2 Type 3 Drills (Reamers) Hammerstones Crescent Core Choppers 2.8-6.7 3.2-5.5 3.5-8.5 1.7-3.6 4.4-5.6 5.7-15.0 5.0 4-10.4 16 7 S 3 5 6 1 2 3 1 3 3 1 1 1 5 3 1 2 1 1 4 3 2 1 2 1 I Table 5: Ground Stone Artifacts from the Stoneware Site (Mrn-307) Artifacts Depth in Inches from Surface Size in cm Total 0-6 6-12 12-18 18-24 Charmstones Type 1 Type la Type 2 Type 3 Type 4 Type 5 Pestles Type I Type la Type 2 Unclassifiable Mortars Type I Type 2 Type 3 Unclassifiable Sinkers Type 1 Type 2 Tubular Pipe Sandstone Disk Pumice Sphere Abrader 24-30 30-36 36+ 1 10.9 9.7 7.3 7.2-8.3 10.4 4.5 14.5-17.3 5.4 4-6 (frag.) 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 3 6 2 2 13 25 10.4 3.5 (frag.) 3.4 (frag.) 3.0 3.0 6.0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 I 1 3 1 2 2 4 3 7 1 1 8 2 1 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 I Meighan 75 76 FENENGA VOLUME Table 6: Bone Artifacts from the Stoneware Site (Mrn-307) Artifacts Depth in Inches from Surface Size in cm Total 0-6 6-12 12-18 18-24 24-30 30-36 36+ Awls I Type 1 5-11.5 26 3 5 7 2 4 1 Type2 to 12.0 21 1 6 3 3 5 2 1 Type3 to7.0 2 1 1 Type 4 frags. 2 1 1 Unclassifiable 5.3 1 1 Bird Bone Whistles 9.0-9.9 2 1 1 Bird Bone Tubes 3.0-10.4 6 1 3 1 1 Flakers 9.0-17.5 10 2 3 1 1 1 2 Beamers 5-15.0 6 2 2 1 1 Antler Wrench 20.0 1 1 Scapula Saws 7-9.3 2 1 1 Scraper 10.4 1 1 Whalebone Club 35.0 1 1 Whalebone Wedges 7-21.5 10 1 3 4 1 1 Antler Wedges 7-18.5 7 1 1 2 1 1 1 Pointed Bone 9.5 1 1 Cut Bird Bone 1 1 CutMammal Bone 6 1 1 2 1 1 Table 7: Shell Artifacts from the Stoneware Site (Mrn-307) Artifacts Depth in Inches from Surface Size in cm Total 0-6 6-12 12-18 18-24 24-30 30-36 36+ Clamshell Disk Beads 0.8-1.2 4 1 3 Olivella Disk Bead 1.7 1 1 Spire-Lopped Olivella 1.4 1 1 Haliotis Ornaments* 2.3-3.1 3 2 1 Clamshell Cylinders* 2.2-4.1 2 1 1 Cardium Container** 9.3 1 1 *There are no perforations. **This is an unworked, large and deep whole shell. 76 THE STONEWARE SITE Table 8: Miscellaneous Finds from the Stoneware Site (Mrn-307) Artifacts Depth in Inches from Surface Size in cm Total 0-6 6-12 12-18 18-24 24-30 30-36 Retouched Porcelain Fragment 3.1 1 1 Bone with Asphaltum 5.5 Asphaltum Lump 1.5 Red Ochre Lumps 6.5 Rock with Red Ochre Paint 1 1 1 8.5 1 1 1 1 I Problematic Stone Objects 10.4 4 1 Obsidian was the material of choice for points; only four of the illustrated examples are of other materials (Figure 3AA, black flint; 3Q, green chert; 3L, 3Z, gray chert). The obsidian presumably came from the in- land sources near Napa, and most of the points must have come to the site in finished form since only a couple of dozen pieces of chipping waste were found in the excavation. However, these latter indicate some working and re-working of stone artifacts, and flakers are present in the site. Late Central California sites from the interior are marked by a profusion of points similar to these but often characterized by extremely fine workmanship, regular form, and delicate chipping. In comparison, the assemblage from the Stoneware Site is, on the whole, rather crude and shows little refinement. There is a hint here of a marginal and impoverished group compared to the more prosperous centers of Late Cen- tral California culture. Other artifacts related to hunting include a whale bone club (Figure 8G) and a variety of simple scrap- ers (Figure 9N-S) presumably used in the preparation of animal skins (a number of bone beamers were also used in this activity (Figure 6C-E). A perforated shaft wrench (Figure 7Q) of antler is an artifact type not previously recorded from this region, although widely known in California. Some ten flaking tools of bone and antler (Figure 6G; Figure 7N-P) attest to stone chipping, although the points of obsidian apparently came to the site in finished form. However, points and other artifacts of chert may have been produced at the site from locally available stone. 36+ I 3 Meighan 77 FENENGA VOLUME Fishing Little artifactual evidence of fishing is present. There are three sinkers, one a grooved stone and the others small notched beach cobbles. There is no arti- fact evidence for the relative abundance of crabs, and I do not know how these were obtained. Some sort of basketry crab trap seems likely. It may also be sug- gested that the Limantour Estero is an ideal location for a fishing weir, for virtually the whole estuary be- comes a mud flat at low tide. However, we have no evidence that such a fishing method was used and the early explorers make no mention of it. Besides, if weirs were used it would be expected that the site would contain much more evidence of fish. Houses and Domestic Furnishings Direct archaeological evidence of houses was lim- ited to the fire hearths previously discussed. We must rely on the statements of the early explorers for house descriptions, which indicate that the basic plt house of Central California was used. Domestic implements presumably used by the women include grinding tools (mortars and pestles, Table 5, Figure 9M), and many bone awls primarily used for basket making (Table 6, Figure 5, Figure 6). As a group, the awls are relatively small and finely pointed suggesting finely woven kinds of baskets-typi- cal of Central California. Fragments of carbonized basketry have been recovered elsewhere in Marin and Contra Costa Counties, but none was found at the Stoneware Site. Two scapula saws, made of notched deer scapu- lae, were also found (Table 6). Although these arti- facts are common in late and protohistoric sites in Central California, they are not described in the eth- nographic record. Several speculations have been made about their function, but their use remains un- certain. Tools probably used for woodworking include fist- sized hammerstones (Table 4), and a number of wedges of elk antler and whalebone (Table 6, Figure 8). There is no timber in the vicinity of the site, and these tools were presumably used on driftwood, including red- wood logs and other wood washed up on the beach. A few nondescript drills or reamers may also have been used in manufacture of wooden objects (Table 6), although no wooden objects survive in the site. Nonutilitarian Objects Few ornaments were found at the Stoneware Site but there is a considerable variety (Table 7, Figure 9). The presence of shell and bone beads is characteristic of the region, particularly the clamshell disk beads, still manufactured and used by the Porno to the north, and important both as ornaments and a medium of exchange in the ethnohistory of Central California. The paucity of such items in a near-total excavation of the site is a reflection of the small population and relative poverty of the inhabitants of the site. Two birdbone whistles were also found (Figure 7A, B). These are universal artifacts in later sites in Cen- tral California. These, along with drums and rattles, are the only musical instruments used aboriginally. The whistles have been used down to contemporary times in ritual dances and ceremonies. A most important Central California artifact is the charmstone, known from ethnohistoric formation to have served a variety of religious and magical pur- poses. The Stoneware Site yielded seven examples (Table 5, Figure 4). No two are alike, although they fall within the generally known pattern of Late Cen- tral California charmstones. Most of these charmstone forms have been collected in recent times from the Pomo. While there is no cultural stratigraphy at the Stone- ware Site, and its occupation was all in protohistoric times, a couple of the artifacts may be items of older age that were collected and used by the Indians. These include half of a brown flint crescent, completely out of the pattern for the site in both material and work- manship. Such artifacts are associated with Paleolndian occupations in the West, and they are most common in the Great Basin. There is also a large con- cave-based point or Icnive (Figure 3BB), much like specimens associated with Middle Central California sites. Points like this have been found on the beach adjacent to the nearby Estero Site, and they may well be older artifact forms which were picked up by re- cent Indians, in the same way that they scavenged the beaches for the Chinese porcelain fragments. Conclusion The total collection from the Stoneware Site is one of simplicity, if not poverty, compared to many con- temporaneous sites of Central California. In part, this is because the site is not a major village but a satellite 78 THE STONEWARE SITE A n B C E F G K L M N P ^ ^#:*^s R S T U V W . v l v ^2 _- | I | v w I l F^_ sY l Z wA sBB Figure 3: Stone points from the Stoneware Site (Mm-307). Length of P is 1.3 cm; all others to same scale. Type 1: A-C, H-V. Type la: D-G. Type 2: W. Type 3: Z. Type 4: Y. Type 5: X. Type 6: BB. Meighan 79 X FENENGA VOLUME D B A C E F G Figure 4: Ground stone artifacts from the Stoneware Site (Mm-307). Charmstones: A-F. Grooved Sinker: G. Length of D is 4.5cm; all others to same scale. Sinker: Type 1 (phal- lic): C, Type 2: A, Type 3: B, Type 4: E (F may be unfinished example of the same type), Type 5: D (this may be a fragment of a larger specimen, but it is ground flat on the bottom and appears complete). 80 THE STONEWARE SITE F IDC D A ~~~~G Figure 5: Bone awls from the Stoneware Site (Mm-307). Length of A is 12 cm; all others to same scale. Type 1: A-F (quartered deer cannon bones), Type 4: G-H (mammal bone splinters). of larger communities nearby. It is also because a protohistoric Coast Miwok of the Stoneware Site major part of the culture history of Central California shared the major features of the cultures of their area. has depended upon mortuary offerings, of which there Isolated and marginal as Drakes Bay was, and with are none at the Stoneware Site, the collections all be- no knowledge of any humans other than those adja- ing derived from objects lost or discarded in midden cent to them, it must have been a shattering experi- refuse. Even so, the Drakes Bay region does not show ence for these simple people when the European ships the relative security and prosperity of other hunter- of the 16' century suddenly appeared, bearing people gatherers seen in the archaeological record, and it must who were as alien as men from Mars so far as the be concluded that Drakes Bay was marginal and pe- aboriginal world view was concerned. These contacts ripheral to the centers of cultural development of the and their implications are discussed elsewhere time (as indeed it is today). On the other hand, the (Meighan, 1981). The Drake voyagers were clearly Meighan 8l FENENGA VOLUME A D E C F H Figure 6: Bone artifacts from the Stoneware Site (Mm-307). Length of C is 15 cm; all others to same scale. Awls, Type 2: B (split deer cannon bones); Type 3: A (deer cannon bone). Beamers: C-E (mammal bones with polished ends, believed to be used in softening animal skins). Bone scraper: F. Flakers: G-H. 82 8 THE STONEWARE SITE jA G s~~~~ Figure 7: Bone and antler artifacts from the Stoneware Site (Mm-307). Length of B is 9.9 cm; A-M to same scale. Length of Q is 20 cm; N-Q to same scale. Bird bone whistles: A-B. Bone tubes: C-G (g has incised decoration). Cut-off articular ends of bird bones: K-M. Deer antler flakes: N-P. Antler Shaft Wrench: Q. Meighan FENENGA VOLUME D Figure 8: Antler and whalebone artifacts from the Stoneware Site (Mm-307). Length of A is 18.5 cm; A-F to same scale. Length of G is 35.0 cm. Deer antler wedges: A-C. Whalebone wedges: E-F. Whalebone club: G 84 THE STONEWARE SITE M N r Q K s Figure 9: Miscellaneous artifacts from the Stoneware Site (Mmr-307). Upper left: shell artifacts. Length of D is 4.1 cm; all others to same scale. Shell artifacts: A-L, cut pieces of Haliotis: A-B, pendant shaped piece of Haliotis: C (may have had a perforation, but upper portion is missing), cylinders of clamshell: D-E (no perforations), Olivella spire-lopped bead: F, Olivella disk bead: G, clamshell disk beads: H-L. Upper right: conical stone pestle: M (length is 17.3cm). Bottom: Stone scrapers: Type 1: P, Type la: Q, Type 2:R-S, Type 3:N. Meighan 8s FENENGA VOLUME seen by the Indians as people returned from the dead, but this cataclysmic experience was not apparent when Cermeho appeared 16 years later, by which time the all-too-human qualities of Europeans had been rec- ognized by the natives. There are no museum treasures in the Stoneware Site, and little that would be of interest to collectors. The site is relatively unimportant compared to the larger and more informative sites reported for the West Coast. However, the site is of great value to the his- tory and ethnohistory of California, and it typifies the value of careful and complete analysis of small sites to regional and temporal understanding. Very few accurately dated historic sites of the 16k century are known on the West Coast of the United States, and the association of this site with famous explorers, both Spanish and English, gives it a particular interest. The direct evidence recovered in our archaeological study amplifies the accounts of the 16th century voyagers. The evidence is also of value adding an early perspec- tive on the little known Coast Miwok, who had largely disappeared by the time California became part of the United States. Acknowledgements My opportunity for work at Drakes Bay came through a project generated by R. F. Heizer and sup- ported by the California Historical Society. A large number of people contributed their time and labor in both field and laboratory. I am particularly indebted to Robert Squier, Don McGeein, and J. Arthur Freed for their many days of volunteer field time and for much assistance with illustrations, photos, and pre- liminary analysis of the collections. Illustrations were prepared by Joan Meighan. References Cited Bancroft Library 1977 The Plate of Brass Re-examined. Uni- versity of California. Berkeley. Cook, S. F. 1943 The Conflict between the California In- dians and White Civilization: 1. Ibero-Ameri- cana, 21. University of California Press. Berkeley. Fink, Colin G. 1938 Drake's Plate of Brass Authenticated. California Historical Society, Special Publica- tion 14. San Francisco. Greengo, Robert E. 1951 Molluscan Species in California Shell Middens. University ofCaliforniaArchaeologi- cal Survey Reports 13:1-29. Berkeley. Follett, W. L. 1964 Fish Remains from a Sixteenth Century Site on Drakes Bay, California. Archaeologi- cal Survey Annual Report 6:27-43. University of California. Los Angeles. Heizer, R. F. 1941 Archaeological Evidence of Sebastian Rodriguez Cermefio's California Visit in 1595. California Historical Society Quarterly 20. San Francisco. 1947 Francis Drake and the California Indi- ans, 1579. University of California Press. Berkeley. Kroeber, A. L. 1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 78. Washington D.C. Meighan, Clement W. 1950 Excavations In Sixteenth-Century Shellmounds at Drake's Bay, Marin County. University of California Archaeological Survey Reports 9:27-33. Berkeley. 1966 Archaeology, an Introduction. Chandler Publishing Co. San Francisco. 1981 This is the Way the World Ends: Native Responses to the Age of Exploration in Cali- fornia. In: Early California, Perceptions and Reality. William Andrews Clark Memorial Li- brary. Los Angeles. Meighan, Clement W., and R. F. Heizer 1952 Archaeological Exploration of Sixteenth Century Indian Mounds at Drake's Bay. Cali- fornia Historical Society Quarterly 31(98). San Francisco. 1953 Archaeological Exploration of Sixteenth Century Indian Mounds at Drake's Bay, "The Plate of Brass", California Historical Society Special Publication 25:73-80. San Francisco. 86 THE STONEWARE SITE [This is a somewhat revised version of the 1952 article above, with new illustrations and appen- dix material. "The Plate of Brass" also reprints key articles on the Drake Plate]. Shangraw, Clarence, and Edward P. Von der Porten 1981 The Drake and Cermefio expeditions' Chinese porcelains. Santa Rosa Junior College and Drake Navigators Guild. Santa Rosa and Palo Alto. Temple, Richard Carnac 1969 The World Encompassed and Contem- porary Documents Concerning Sir Francis Drake's Circumnavigation of the World. Coo- per Square Publishers. New York. [This vol- ume includes one of numerous re-printings of "The World Encompassed, "The Story of the Drake Voyage," first printed in 1628.] Von der Porten, Edward P. 1963 Drakes Bay Shell Mound Archaeology. Drake Navigators Guild. 1965 Drake-Cermefio: An Analysis of Arti- facts. Drake Navigators Guild. 1968 The Porcelains and Terra Cottas of Drakes Bay. Drake Navigators Guild. Wagner, H. R. 1924 The Voyage to California of Sebastian Rodriguez Cermenlo in 1595. California His- torical Society Quarterly, April 1924. 1926 Sir Francis Drake's Voyage Around the World. San Francisco. 1929 Spanish voyages to the Northwest Coast of America in the 16'h Century. San Francisco. Weber, Bert 1994 Wrecked Japanese 'Links adrift in the North Pacific Ocean. Ye Galleon Press. Fairfield, WA. Williams, Lawrence A. 1953 Digging for History at Drakes Bay. Pa- cific Discovery pp. 9-17. 87 Meighan