CALIFORNIA PALAEOINDIANS: LACK OF EVIDENCE, OR EVIDENCE OF A LACK? Brian D. Dillon Introduction For the past decade, under the auspices of the Cali- fornia Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, I have taught archaeology to Registered Professional Foresters. This training is designed to enable these Foresters, already highly skilled at "reading" the land- scape, to recognize archaeological sites on timber har- vest plans so that such sites may be protected. The instruction includes a discussion of the nature and importance of Palaeolndian artifacts such as fluted points, and an exhortation to the students to be on the lookout for these earliest indications of human pres- ence in California. One measure of the success of this instruction has been the discovery of fluted, Palaeolndian, projectile points by such RPFs in parts of California where such artifacts have hitherto been minimally represented. In 1992 and 1993, for ex- ample, four previously undocumented California fluted points came to light directly as the result of this CDF training, including the first specimen reported for Tehama County (Dillon and Murphy 1994), the second for Shasta County (Dillon and Riddell 1994) and the second and third for Mendocino County (Dillon and Hamilton 1994). Like many archaeologists, I never used to think of California as particularly well endowed with Palaeolndian artifacts, at least by comparison with other parts of North America such as the Great Basin or Southwest. Nevertheless, after a few years spent tracking down sometimes elusive references and per- suading amateur archaeologists to "go public" with their finds, I began to realize that fluted points have been found over the length and breadth of California. The present paper attempts to inventory and geographi- cally locate all fluted points so far discovered within California's borders. An ever-growing body of evi- dence argues for a new appreciation of the Palaeolndian period in California, contrary to the still- popular notion that the time was one when very few people were present, and these living isolated from each other in very few places. The numbers and broad geographic distribution of the fluted points so far in- ventoried instead suggest most strongly that Palaeolndian people were dispersed throughout all the lands within what we know today as California, so much so that a PalaeoIndian cultural horizon can be proposed. California has the undeserved reputation of being somewhat poor in fluted points and fluted point sites in comparison with other parts of North America (cf: Wormington 1957; Haynes 1964; Willey 1966; Jennings 1968). As late as the 1980's, it was assumed by many archaeologists that fluted points and fluted point sites were more common in the Great Basin, on the High Plains, and in the Southwest, than in Cali- fornia. Unlike these other areas, no C-14 samples dating in the 10,000-12,000 years B.P. range had been directly associated with any California fluted points, and no indisputable stratigraphic associations between such California fluted points and extinct Pleistocene fauna (i.e. the projectile point penetrating the skull, pelvis, vertebra, etc.) had been documented (cf: Wallace 1978). A common archaeological presumption was that fluted point sites, if not fluted points themselves, were so rare in California as to be best explained in the context of neighboring (and better-studied) areas such as the Southwest or Great Basin where direct associa- tions between fluted points and both extinct animals and C- 14 dates have been established for decades. This perception was of course aided and abetted by the continued use of good Southwestern type names such as "Folsom" and "Clovis" as identifiers for the Cali- fornia specimens. One leading California archaeolo- gist (Heizer 1968) even went so far as to argue that fluted points in California arrived without direct hu- man agency. Heizer's scenario was that such speci- mens could have been imbedded in migratory animals by early Great Basin or Southwestern hunters whose aim was "off', the result being that the wounded ani- mals survived long enough to carry such "non-Cali- fornian" artifacts into what is now the Golden State, CALIFORNIA PALAEOINDANS introducing them into the archaeological record upon their expiration. The first archaeological evidence of fluted pro- jectile points in California was encountered in the late 1930's at a number of locations, first at Lake Mohave (Campbell et al. 1937:87, 104) and other locations in the southeastern desert portion of the state such as the Owens Valley and Pinto Basin, then shortly afterwards at Borax Lake (Harrington 1938) in the northern coast range. Similarities between these initial finds and the Folsom and Clovis fluted points earlier discovered in the Southwest were immediately recognized. The pub- lication of these first California fluted points prompted the restudy of many collections made earlier in other parts of the state, with the result that a projectile point from the Sacramento Valley, previously unappreciated for what it truly was, was newly revealed as fluted (Heizer 1938). Throughout California a growing num- ber of chipped-stone projectile points (i.e.: Rogers 1939:67-68; Plate 19) and even fluted point sites (Campbell & Campbell 1940) came to be identified with a fluted projectile point tradition of broad geo- graphic distribution that had its area of greatest con- centration in New Mexico and Arizona. Interpreta- tions of these early California fluted points stressed their obvious similarities with Clovis and Folsom ex- amples discovered the previous decade in the South- west and suggested cultural and chronological links with such earlier discoveries. During the next few decades, the inventory of fluted points from the first few discovery locations steadily increased, with new specimens appearing from Lake Mojave (Simpson 1947) and major investigations at Borax Lake producing the first stratigraphically asso- ciated examples (Harrington 1948) and the largest number of fluted points from any single California site. By the late 1960's, however, the Palaeolndian center of gravity in California began shifting as Lake Tulare (Riddell and Olsen 1969) was found to contain more fluted projectile points, and examples in a greater variety of types, than any other location within the state. New locations such as China Lake (Davis 1974 & 1978) boasting numbers of fluted projectile points, continued to be found, but, the only bona fide fluted point site subjected to rigorous excavation remained Borax Lake (Harrington 1948; Meighan and Haynes 1968 and 1970) into the 1980's, when a single, ex- tremely important site in Mono County (Basgall 1988) and a series of sites at Fort Irwin in San Bernardino County (Warren and Phagan 1988) were investigated. The perception that fluted points in California are scarce and limited in their distribution has persisted despite the efforts of a small group of scholars (Davis & Shutler 1969; Beck 1970; Glennan 1971; Moratto 1984) who have done their best to demonstrate that the artifacts have a much wider distribution than com- monly assumed. Davis & Shutler (1969) specify ten California fluted point locations on their map (Figure 1), which I reduce to nine through rejection of their M-1 75 site artifact (ibid: Figure 2a-b), as I do not believe this to constitute an intentionally fluted point. Beck (1970) also arrived at a total count of nine California locations from which fluted points had been recovered, while Glennan (1971) again specified nine California fluted point locations, the majority of which coincide with Davis and Shutler's and with Beck's locations. More recently, Moratto (1984: Figure 3.1) locates no fewer than 17 localities in California where fluted points have been found. Obviously, by the mid- 1980's, the earlier perception of California fluted points as scarce was coming to be questioned, if only to judge by the broad geographical distribution of the specimens inventoried up to that time. My own in- ventory (Table 1, Figure 5) expands upon those pre- sented by the scholars noted above, and no doubt will be out of date itself shortly after publication of the present paper. With increasing numbers of fluted points reported from all parts of the state, past impressions about the California Palaeolndian period now appear to have been formed through a lack of evidence; the numbers and distribution of California fluted points reveals no evidence of a lack. The California Palaeolndian Horizon Defined I believe that enough fluted points and fluted point discovery locations have now been inventoried for a PalaeoIndian Horizon to be proposed for California. However, because different archaeologists might at- tach different meanings to the notion of a California Palaeolndian Horizon, it seems appropriate at present to define all three terms. Firstly, the geographical coverage of this inven- tory is limited to California as defined by the state's Dillon III FENENGA VOLUME present political boundaries. These boundaries are, of course, arbitrary and artificial in the context of pre- history. Nevertheless, they have the great benefit of being clearly defined and understood as the same by all present researchers, as opposed to more nebulous and subjective cultural or natural frontiers which fluc- tuated over time and whose locations are subject to different placement by different students. Obviously, fluted points have been reported from immediately adjacent Oregon, Nevada, and Baja California, some- times just a few miles "over the line", but such finds are not considered by the present study. Similarly, many if not most archaeologists consider portions of eastern California to belong within the Great Basin cultural province, and parts of northern California to be within the Cascade province; some might argue for the deletion of these areas from the present inven- tory coverage. Such subdivisions, however, are usu- ally made on the basis of cultural differences estab- lished in the ethnographic present, or within compara- tively recent prehistoric past. The Palaeolndian pe- riod, 12,000 to 10,000 years ago, to which we pre- sume all specimens inventoried in the present study belonged, probably predates the development of such cultural distinctions, so the admittedly arbitrary mod- ern political boundaries of California are as good as any other criteria for delimiting our study zone. Secondly, Palaeolndian indicates the earliest New World peoples, recently arrived from northeast Asia via Beringia and Alaska in the terminal Pleistocene, who made and used large, heavy, but most importantly, fluted, projectile points so as to hunt Pleistocene ani- mals now extinct. The Palaeolndian name was origi- nally proposed more than half a century ago (Roberts 1940) and has been applied to newly discovered sites and isolated finds throughout western North America, including California, ever since. Whether we spell the term "Paleo-Indian" with a single "a" and a hy- phen, or "PalaeoIndian" without the hyphen but with a second "a" is of as little importance as whether we spell archaeology the academic way or in bureaucratic fashion with only one "a". What is significant is that our use of the term supports the interpretation that the ancient fluted projectile point making peoples were members of the earliest archaeological culture in Cali- fornia for which we have both acceptable dating and diagnostic artifacts. For the purposes of the present study, our consid- eration of Palaeolndian evidence in California is lim- ited to fluted projectile points alone: these artifacts and the descriptive term are inseparably linked. Fluted projectile points are not only the best diagnostic arti- facts of the Palaeolndian period, but the only ones exclusively limited to that period. Fluted points can neither be confused with accidents of nature nor with chronologically later specimens. There are, of course, other categories of archaeological evidence claimed as Palaeolndian, osteological as well as tools of stone and of bone, and, in some cases, such evidence may indeed be contemporaneous with fluted projectile points and consequently of Palaeolndian age. Yet, most such alternative forms of evidence are principally of value because of their associations with better, more diagnostic, PalaeoIndian evidence in the form of fluted points. When found unassociated with fluted points, such alternative forms of evidence can and often do predate (i.e.: paleontological finds of extinct animals) or postdate (human skeletal remains) the fluted points themselves. As such, they are not exclusively diag- nostic of the Palaeolndian period in the same way that fluted points are, and are dismissed from the present study. Our concentration upon that category of archaeo- logical evidence exclusively associated with Palaeolndian peoples, fluted projectile points, and avoids the pitfalls encountered by those who abuse the term "Palaeolndian" as indicating any archaeo- logical site, artifact, or context thought to be "early". In California, use of the "Palaeolndian" cultural identifier is improper for any and all ar- chaeological contexts lacking fluted points. Ostensi- bly "early" sites or materials have been shown again and again to also lack Palaeolndian affinities of any kind. For example, more than twenty years ago Berger (et al. 1971) identified a number of human skel- etons from California as "Palaeolndian" simply because of their putatively early dating, despite a to- tal lack of associated fluted points (and, in some cases, 112 CALIFORNIA PALAEOINDANS Table 1: California Fluted Projectile Points Location Ebbett's Pass Yuha Desert Owens Valley Owens Lake Owens Valley Death Valley Panamint Dry Lake Rose Spring/Valley Little Lake Haiwee Reservoir El Paso Mountains Tehachapi (Willow Spg.) CA-Ker-300 Lake Tulare (Witt Site) 20 Borax Lake (Lak-36) Eagle Lake Caspar Eden Valley Wolfsen Md. (Mer-215) Mammoth Springs Komodo Site CA-Napa-131 I? Big Meadows Pinto Basin Reference / Illustration Davis & Schutler 1969: Figure SB; Moratto 1984: Figure 3.1 Davis, et al. 1980: Figure VII-5 Campbell et al. 1937: Plate XLV-a Campbell & Campbell 1940:8 Davis 1963: Figure la-b Wallace 1968 Davis & Schutler 1969 Yohe 1992: Figure 2; Borden 1971 Warren & Phagan 1988: 22-123 Glennan 1987a:16 Glennan 1987b: Figure 2; Beck 1970 Zimmerman, et al. 1989 Riddell & Olsen 1969; Wallace & Riddell 1988, 1991; Hopkins 1991, Personal Communication 1993; Wilke 1991; G. Fenega 1993 Harrington 1948: Plates XIIIa-d, XIVa-d, XVa-d, XVIc-d, Figures 21, 22a, 23, 24; Meighan & Haynes 1968, 1970 Riddell, Personal Communication Simons, et al. 1985 Dillion & Hamilton 1994: Figures 2, 3 Peak & Weber 1978: 49, Figure 24a Howe 1979: Figure 12 Basgall 1988: Figure 2 Meighan 1953: Plates A, C-30 Wallace, Personal Communication Kowta 1988: Map 3 Campbell & Campbell 1935: Plate 14e; Campbell et al. 1937: Plate XLVb County Alpine Imperial Inyo 1 I I 11 2 1 1 2 6 ? 1 269 Kern Kings Lake Lassen Mendocino Merced Modoc Mono Napa Orange Plumas Riverside 2 1 2 1 1 7 1 17 1 Dillon 113 4FENENGA VOLUME # Location 1 Lake Mojave I Lake Mojave I Lake Mojave I Fossil Spring (M-57) 15 China Lake 1 Pilot Knob Valley 1 Tietfort Basin (M- 130) 2 CA-Sbr-5250 3 Bow Willow (4952-4502) 3 Henwood Site (4966) 1 San Joaquin Searles Lake Cuyamaca Mountains I Tracy Lake Santa Barbara Shasta Siskiyou Sonoma Tehama Tulare 1 1 1 1 1 1 19 CA-Sba-1951 Samuel Creek Hat Creek Sconchin Butte Hidden Valley Thomas Creek Lake Tulare (Trico Site) Reference / Illustration Campbell et al. 1937: Plate XLVc, Lie Rogers 1939: Figure 19d; Davis & Shutler 1969: Figure 3b-c Simpson 1947; Beck 1970 Rogers 1939: Plate 19e; Brott 1966:170; Davis & Shutler 1969 Davis & Panlaqui 1978:48-51, Figures 29b-c,e-g, 30b-f,h, 3 1a,d-f Campbell et al. 1937: Plate XLVc; Glennan 1987a: 14-15 Brott 1966:170; Davis & Shutler 1969: Fig. 3f; Sutton & Wilke 1984 Jenkins 1985; Warren and Phagan 1988: Figure If Skinner 1984; Warren & Phagan 1988: Figure la,c Warren & Phagan 1988:123, Figure lb,d Moratto 1984: Figure 3.1 Davis & Shutler 169: Figure 3a; Moratto 1984: Figure 3.1 Heizer 1938: Figure 1; Beck 1970; Moratto 1984: Figure 3.1 Erlandson, Cooley & Carrico 1987 Treganza 1964; Beck 1970; Kowta 1988 Dillon & Riddell 1994: Figure 2 Moratto 1984:87, Figure 3.1 Graham 1951: Figure la Dillion & Murphy 1994: Figures 2, 3 Hopkins 1993: Figure 1 Total Counties: 23 Total Specimens: 390* Total Location: 42* * Confirmed localities only. County San Bernardino San Diego 114 CALIFORNIA PALAEOINDANS diagnostic artifacts of any kind). Later, more careful chronometric reanalysis of these same skeletal speci- mens (Taylor, et al. 1985) led to their reclassification as comparatively recent in age, and revealed just how inappropriate their earlier labeling as "PalaeoIndian" was. Similarly, the recent "Palaeolndian" connection claimed for some expressions of California rock art, unassociated with any fluted projectile points and dated by still-experimental chronometric methods, also seems quite premature. The position of this writer is that if it is (fluted) "pointless", it might be Palaeolndian, but then again, if might not. Denying the existence of a Pre-projectile Point or Early Man period (cf: Graham and Heizer 1967) leaves the first, or initial, period of human occupation in California contemporaneous with the various Palaeolndian cultures called Clovis, Folsom, Llano, or the Big Game Hunting Tradition in other parts of North America (cf: Haynes 1964; Willey 1966; Jennings 1968). Most archaeologists, myself included, would probably accept a chronological position for California fluted points on the order of 10,000 to 12,000 years B.P. through cross-dating with better established sequences. Willig and Aikens (1988:9) provide the most up-to-date summary of radiocarbon age determinations for fluted projectile point sites in the far west, incorporating seven dates from Califor- nia, Oregon, Utah, Idaho, and Nevada ranging from 11,950 to 11,200 years before present. Lacking con- vincing evidence to the contrary, we accept this chro- nometric evidence as representative of the earliest cultural baseline for California and the Great Basin, if not for the Western United States as a whole. Because of incautious use of the PalaeoIndian term or, perhaps, dislike for "Clovis" and "Folsom" labels with their undeniably Southwestern geographic asso- ciations, some archaeologists (cf: Elston 1982:192; Jennings, 1986:115) prefer to instead refer to the ear- liest prehistoric period of human occupation in the western Great Basin, including California, by the clumsy and somewhat artificial term "Pre-Archaic". Moratto (1984), on the other hand, uses the much more accurate designation "Western Fluted Point Tradition", which has the happy facility of eliminating probably early but nevertheless non-fluted projectile points from being inserted into the Palaeolndian category. Wallace (personal communication) has suggested that the Folsom and Clovis labels for most fluted point finds in California are inappropriate, stressing that these names tend to suggest a southwestern cultural con- nection which is yet to be proven, and may not exist at all. Alternatively, Meighan (personal communica- tion) reminds us that both terms are so well imbedded in the literature and so well recognized as valid types, that eliminating them might cause more confusion than it would correct. Referring to the archaeological cul- ture which produced the fluted points scattered throughout California as "Palaeolndian" seems an excellent term when all the above considerations are applied to it, as it neither contradicts nor excessively modifies labels such as "Folsom", "Clovis", or even "Pre-Archaic". The third and final part of our proposed three-part label, that of the "horizon", entered the archaeologi- cal literature much earlier than the Palaeolndian ru- bric, but is a concept initially popularized in North America by California researchers. Nearly a century ago Max Uhle (1907) published a report on what is generally considered to be the first modern, scientific, archaeological project completed in California. Uhle came to the University of California after formal an- thropological training in Germany and many years of archaeological fieldwork in Peru, where he had de- veloped the interpretive notion of horizon styles. Uhle's brief stint as a California archaeologist exposed North American ant opologists such as Alfred Louis Kroeber to the horizon concept perhaps first incul- cated in Germany, then later honed through practice in South America (Rowe 1954). After many years of using the horizon style idea in his research and writ- ing, Kroeber (1944) codified Uhle's concept, suggest- ing that archaeological horizons be characterized by three irreducible elements: 1) broad geographical dis- tribution; 2) a comparatively short lifespan; and 3) diagnostic artifacts which cannot be confused with those representing other times or places separate from the horizon which they define. Kroeber's expression of the "cultural horizon", both in lectures and later in publications, stimulated a younger generation of archaeologists to make use of the horizon concept in California research (cf: Heizer and Fenenga 1939; Beardsley 1954; Wallace 1955). In recent years, however, the horizon label, always somewhat general in application, has been largely Dillon 115 116 FENENGA VOLUME replaced in California archaeology by more specific terms indicating smaller cultural and chronological units (phase, complex, focus, etc.) linked both to pre- cise chronometric dating and presumed cultural af- filiation. Despite this trend, I believe that the horizon concept fits the California PalaeoIndian evidence bet- ter than any other interpretive label, for fluted points are: 1) not just widely distributed throughout Cali- fornia (Table 1, Figure 5), but have also been found from Alaska to Patagonia; 2) they did indeed have a comparatively short period of usage, of only approxi- mately two thousand years (Haynes 1964; Willig and Aikens 1988); and they cannot easily be confused with any other artifact type. The California Palaeolndian Horizon: Geographic Distribution While isolated finds of Palaeolndian, fluted pro- jectile points in California have been made from the Oregon line to the Mexican frontier, and from cliffs literally overlooking the Pacific shoreline to the Ne- vada state line, PalaeoIndian evidence in the form of fluted points is generally divisible into three broad sub areas within the state. From north to south, these are the North Coast Range province, where the Borax Lake site is the best-known example; the southern San Joaquin Valley, where along the ancient shoreline of Lake Tulare many Palaeolndian sites once existed; and finally, that of the western Great Basin province, within the state's eastern and southeastern deserts. Perhaps the most interesting and enigmatic ar- chaeological region in the Central Valley of Califor- nia, if not the state as a whole, is Lake Tulare in the southern San Joaquin Valley. Lake Tulare offers the best evidence for a substantial Palaeolndian occupa- tion in California prior to 10,000 years ago: many more fluted projectile points have been recovered from Lake Tulare than from all other locations in Califor- nia combined (Table 1). Best known is the Witt site (Riddell and Olson 1969), which produced a broad array of fluted projectile points. In the three decades since the original recording of this site, many addi- tional examples of these typologically early points have come to light at other Tulare Lake locations (Wallace and Riddell 1988; Hopkins 1991; Wilke 1991), and new PalaeoIndian sites (Hopkins 1993) have been discovered at some distance from the area where most previous finds were concentrated. Os- teological materials collected at Lake Tulare (G. Fenenga 1991) indicate a rich and varied Pleistocene fauna including now-extinct elephants, ground sloth, bison, camels, and horses contemporaneous with the Palaeolndian lithic artifacts. Future work at locations around the margins of ancient Lake Tulare will be of the most crucial importance to our understanding of the original peopling of California and the Westem United States as a whole. In the North Coast Ranges, the Borax Lake site (Harrington 1948) was recognized early on as con- taining projectile points with morphological affinities towards the better known Folsom types, but remained undated until many years after its original excavation (Meighan and Haynes 1968; 1970). Now, the Borax Lake site is accepted as dating as early as any Folsom site from the southwest, and its previous, seeming iso- lation, has been greatly diminished by a series of iso- lated discoveries of fluted points in the North Coast ranges from Sonoma, Napa, Mendocino and Tehama Counties (Table 1), as well as the recent discovery at a second site, only a few miles from Borax Lake, of another stratigraphic deposit which may contain fluted projectile points in situ (Hamilton, personal commu- nication). The most expansive and as-of-yet poorly under- stood Palaeolndian presence within California is that which might otherwise be ascribed to the westernmost Great Basin, existing in the eastern and southeastern California deserts. San Bernardino County, as large as many eastern states, probably contains more iso- lated fluted point discovery locations than any other California county. In particular, the China Lake - Fort Irwin area (Davis 1975 & 1978; Warren & Phagan 1988) has proven to be spectacularly productive of fluted projectile points. Nevertheless, without dimin- ishing the importance of either location, their produc- tivity may be owed more to their research exposure, the result of many repeated years of militarily-spon- sored contract archaeology, greater than that devoted to any other region of comparable size, than to any inherent superiority in Palaeolndian artifacts. If this is so, we may find that other locations in the Califor- nia desert may well be equally rich, and if a similar amount of research time were to be invested in them, might be equally productive of fluted projectile points. One such promising area, obvious from a glance at Figure 5, is the Owens Valley, from which a series 116 CALIFORNIA PALAEOINDANS of isolated fluted point finds and even fluted point sites have been made over the past 50 years. Unfortunately, all the Palaeolndian artifacts so far recovered from the Owens Valley, like those from Lake Tulare, are from surface contexts, and cannot yet be absolutely dated or directly associated with extinct Pleistocene megafauna or excavatable archaeological deposits. However, to the north, in Mono County's Long Val- ley, lies the Komodo Site (CA-MNO-679) near the Casa Diablo obsidian source (Basgall 1988), possi- bly the first stratified Palaeolndian site excavated in the high country of eastern California. Despite dis- claimers to the contrary (Gerrit Fenenga, personal communication) the Komodo site may represent the first Palaeolndian hunting camp so far identified within the state. Most of the fluted points recovered from the Komodo site are snapped bases. Basgall (ibid: 115) interprets these as portions of points brought back to the site still hafted on fore shafts after use-break- age. Such specimens were discarded at the base camp during the process of re-hafting new, unbroken points as replacements. No bona fide stratified Palaeolndian site has yet been identified in the Sacramento Valley, the western Sierra Nevada north of Tulare Lake, Cascades, South Coast, or Peninsular ranges. Nevertheless, isolated finds of individual fluted points have been made in most of these areas (Table 1, Figure 5), and additional searching may very well reveal such sites. The Sierra Nevada foothills are a particularly likely location for fluted point sites, but when and if found, these will probably be only that small fraction to have escaped destruction through hydraulic mining and other recent alterations focused upon that region. An unconfirmed report of a fluted point from Or- ange County (Wallace, personal communication) is encouraging, but not too surprising in light of earlier fluted point finds in the Peninsular ranges of San Di- ego County (Davis & Shutler 1969) and adjacent mar- gins of the Imperial Valley to the east (Davis, et al. 1980). Similarly, an unconfirmed tale of a large col- lection of fluted points from Lassen County acciden- tally burned up in a fire over 30 years ago is most suggestive of an as of yet not relocated, but possibly stratified, Palaeolndian site or sites in the southern- most Cascades. From the San Francisco Peninsula to Point Con- ception, no fluted projectile points have yet been found in the South Coast Ranges. The discovery (Erlandson, et al. 1987) of a fluted point fragment in coastal Santa Barbara County, however, is suggestive that more in- tensive searching in the Southern Coastal Ranges will result in the discovery of additional specimens and, possibly, even in Palaeolndian sites. Despite the in- creasing number of very early radiocarbon dates re- cently made available for the Channel Islands, some of which approach PalaeoIndian age, intensive sur- vey and exacting excavation has yet to produce a single fluted point from this important archaeological prov- ince (C. W. Meighan, personal communication 1994; L. Mark Raab, personal communication 1999). This negative evidence has obvious implications for our understanding of the initial arrival and direc- tion of diffusion of fluted point technology in Califor- nia, unfortunately beyond the scope of the present paper. Suffice it to say, however, that if the earliest Palaeolndians to arrive in California traveled south along a now-submerged coastal route, the best loca- tion to find traces of their presence remain the Chan- nel Islands. Perhaps the most promising location for future study in the entire South Coast province is the Coalinga Valley and adjacent interior mountain area, where for some years it has been suspected that the Lake Tulare Palaeolndians obtained much of the raw materials for production of the fluted points found farther south and east (Dan Foster, personal communication). A few years ago Foster, Francis Riddell, Gerrit Fenenga and I visited an extensive site in the Jacalitos drainage (CA- FRE-2549/H) dating primarily to the Early Archaic. Much of the Early Archaic, and, potentially, even ear- lier, deposits at the site had been eroded away as a result of stream dynamics, and, once the location at which the natural re-deposition of such eroded mate- rials was identified, two very long, parallel-sided flakes of the type which would have been produced by the removal of channel flakes from fluted points were in fact discovered. Intensive searching here may reveal California's first PalaeoIndian quarry/work- shop. Moving northwards, despite isolated finds of fluted points in Sonoma, Napa, and Mendocino counties, as Dillon 117 FENENGA VOLUME well as the famous Borax Lake site in Lake County, no fluted point finds have yet been made in north- western most California, essentially, Humboldt, Trin- ity and Del Norte counties. When the first such fluted points are found in this area, it is likely that they will be derived from the interior river valleys rather than from the coastal strip itself, and searching in the Kla- math/Trinity and Eel River drainages is likely to be most rewarding of future investigation. Despite the growing evidence for a broad geo- graphical distribution of fluted projectile points throughout California, a total inventory of just over 50 discovery locations and just over 400 specimens compares quite unfavorably with the signature arti- facts of later periods. Fluted projectile points in Cali- fornia are undeniably scarce by comparison with the Early Millingstone manos and metates, cobble pestles and bedrock mortars, or Late Archaic Elko Eared or Late Prehistoric Desert Side-Notched projectile points of more recent millennia. The scarcity of Palaeolndian points as surface finds in California may be attributable in no small way to the probability that later prehistoric people re-flaked and reused fluted points as sources of first-rate raw material for later, smaller, projectile points. In fact, evidence of such reuse is coming to be recognized on individual specimens (Dillon and Murphy 1994). The scarcity of known PalaeoIndian sites in California may also be attributable to the common situation in which many if not most early sites are deeply buried either by later cultural deposits of subsequent, non- Palaeolndian peoples, or by natural strata resulting from natural processes of erosion and deposition in the 10,000 years since abandonment by the Palaeolndians themselves (Moratto, personal commu- nication). And, fluted points probably still reside in archaeological collections unrecognized for what they are (cf: Heizer 1938; Yohe 1992) and will continue to be "discovered" as old collections are re-analyzed. Past Problems and Future Directions Having just briefly summarized our present level of knowledge regarding the geographic distribution of fluted projectile points in California, it is appropri- ate that some of the obstacles encountered in such work be noted. In the strictest sense, archaeological evi- dence can be limited to only two, inseparable, catego- ries: artifacts (or physical remains) and the geographic associations (positional relationships or discovery lo- cations) of such artifacts. Not surprisingly, most prob- lems in current California Palaeolndian studies are the result of poor description of either the fluted points themselves, or of imprecise or inaccurate accounts of their provenience. Caution must be exercised in compiling a state- wide fluted projectile point inventory if any preten- sions towards accuracy are to be hoped for. The mere existence of fluted projectile points in someone's col- lection does not constitute indisputably scientific evi- dence, for without accurate provenience data and ad- equate description, such fluted points represent no better than "hearsay" proof of early human presence. Accurate distribution analysis cannot be done, nor even that most elementary of all scientific tasks, the specimen count, be made, unless one has confidence in the provenience data associated with the artifacts inventoried. Most archaeologists would agree that the utility of what aspires to be a precise count (Table 1) and accurate distribution study (Figure 5) would be compromised by even a single erroneous entry. Un- fortunately, in the course of preparing this inventory I have found error after error in basic reporting of dis- covery locations and uncertainty as to the identity of individual specimens in the published literature. Origi- nal errors have sometimes been repeated several times by subsequent researchers; hopefully, not too many such errors have crept into the present study. The problems alluded to above are compounded by some professional researchers who conceal their discovery locations because of real or imagined fears of "poaching" by competitors, and by some amateurs who are loathe to reveal theirs because of worries about legal status. Similarly, some past researchers have been remarkably sloppy in presenting basic prove- nience data for fluted point finds, so much so, that it is not immediately possible to determine what drain- age, county or even state the finds were made in. Prob- lems with geographical accuracy can be minor ones such as when Heizer's (1938) specimen from Tracy Lake (Heizer provides range and township coordi- nates) on the Mokelumne River near Lodi in the south- ernmost Sacramento Valley is mistakenly assumed to have instead come from the town of Tracy, some 30 miles to the southwest, in the northernmost San 118 CALIFORNIA PALAEOINDANS Joaquin Valley. Or, they can be of substantially greater scale, such as when Brott (1966:150) produces a site distribution map for early finds in Southern Califor- nia in which Riverside County is inexplicably left out. The most frustrating kinds of errors, those of trans- position, can only be exposed through painstaking checking of the actual specimens themselves, or of scientific drawings of the specimens against each other. Hence, Carlson's (1983: Fig. 6.8B) illustration of a fluted projectile point base he identifies as from "Southern California (Rogers)" one would assume is derived from Malcolm J. Rogers substantial body of work in the Colorado Desert area. However, a review of Rogers' major publications for this region (1939 & 1966) reveals no such specimen. Further archival detective work, however, reveals the same artifact il- lustrated by Davis and Shutler (1969: Figure 2d), who identify it not from California at all but from south- eastern Nevada, the "southernmost lake in Dry Lakes Valley". Even more confusing is the transpositioning of not just single artifacts, but entire sites. Campbell and Campbell (1940:7) briefly described a remarkable fluted point site "on the beach of a Pleistocene lake" more than 50 years ago without locating it geographi- cally, only stating that it lay within the "Great Basin". Subsequently, Wormington (1957:60) located the Campbell's' (1940) site in "southeastern Nevada" while Davis (1963:211) a few years later stated that the same site was to be found instead in the Owens Valley of Inyo County, California. Later still, Glennan (1971:29) located this same site in southwestern Ne- vada, near Tonopah, while Beck (1970: 11), after re- jecting Wormington's location but still unable to de- termine which two out of three choices (Davis or Glennan's) were best, located the site, without expla- nation, in both places. Obviously, we cannot have the same projectile point discovered in two different places, nor the same site existing within three separate counties in two dif- ferent states. Mysteries such as the actual location of the Campbell and Campbell (1940) site can be solved only by returning to the source: Dr. Tom Wilson and Mr. George Kritzman of the Southwest Museum (per- sonal communication) at my request were kind enough to send me a copy of Elizabeth Campbell's original 1940 field notes, transcribed to typescript in the early 1970's, from their archives. While the 1940 field notes unfortunately do not describe the artifacts in the 1940 publication, and the well-illustrated 1940 publication does not describe the discovery location, by combin- ing the two documents there is no longer any doubt whatsoever that the Campbell and Campbell (1940) fluted point site lies at the north end of Owens Lake in Inyo County. A final, but related, problem relates to basic de- scription and definition. As noted earlier in this pa- per, we consider the only indisputably diagnostic Palaeolndian artifacts to be fluted projectile points, otherwise commonly referred to as either Clovis or Folsom types. But, what may constitute a "fluted" point to one archaeologist or even to two, (cf: Davis and Shutler 1969: Figure 2a) may qualify only as wish- ful thinking to others (cf: Warren and Phagan 1988:122). For our purposes, fluted points are elon- gate, bifacially flaked projectile points with basal flut- ing on both sides (Figures 1-4). This fluting cannot be mistaken either for accidental flake removal scars or the shallow kinds of flake removal resulting from light basal thinning. Such points frequently, but not always, exhibit grinding on their lowermost sides and bases, presumably as a means of facilitating lashing for hafting. Our definition immediately deletes from consideration finds with "fluting" on but a single side, as well as the much more numerous basal fragments which could "go either way" in being identified as parts of fluted points, or, alternatively, as parts of ba- sally-thinned but unfluted points. Even when there is no doubt about the status of the artifacts as fluted points, some students of the California Palaeolndian period describe their specimens so haphazardly that the actual Dillon 119 FENENGA VOLUME 0 o Figure 1: Fluted projectile points from Hat Creek, Shasta County, California. Drawing by John McCammon, 1992 (Dillon & Riddell 1994). 0- Sfp AM Figure 2: Fluted projectile point from Eden Valley, Mendocino County, California. Drawing by John McCammon, 120 CALIFORNIA PALAEOINDANS 1993 (Dillon & Hamilton 0 1co Figure 3: Fluted projectile point from Eden Valley, Menocino County, California. Drawing by John McCammon, 1993 (Dillon & Hamilton 1994). n 0 tocm Figure 4: Fluted projectile point from Thomas Creek, Tehama County, California. Drawing by John McCammon, 1993 (Dillon & Murphy 1994). Dillon 121 FENENGA VOLUME COUNTY: ALINL IMPERIAL: rNO: KERN. KINGS: LAMCE: LASSEN: MENDOCINO: IERCED: MODOC. MONO: W"AA PLUMAS: RIVERLSIDE: SAN BERNADINO: SAN DfEGO: SAW JOAQUIN: SANTA BARSARA SHASTA- SISKIYOU SONOMA TULARE: LOCATION: Ted.. Dmart o"_ Vade OwUm Lake Him..a Reaarvafr Km.a Speline Dad Vila Faainsu. DMy Lake El Fare i .m.al Teladma (Welw Spin) CA-KEt-300 Lake Tim. Beau Lake Cage d Eden Valey WeVasen macmd Kentd. Ske CA-NAFA-13 I Big me"de ChO LAk* Lake He~ye FosaMSpring (M457) Fhlec Keek Viley TIdo. Barkn (H- 130) (Set 5tso) Sew WHImw (Sl&-49S2-4S01) Hwve.d Ske. (S&R-4f6d) Seal Lake Tracy Lake CA-SSA-1S I Sad Cave War Croek ScendkAn Sueiz nIdden Valey Theniac CzeAk Lake Tuime (Trkco She) CVata Aeocpc l; 5'Ia 1. s escelas I. Seal Figure 5: Distribution of fluted projectile points in California; circled map numbers correspond to list at uppei right. Base map courtesy of the California State University, Northridge, Geography Department; location, by Dillon, 1994. 122 MAP i: I 3 4 S 14 7 a p 12 10 14 22 13 '4 is 17 2 to II ii 23 14 1S 14 17 25 2? 30 31 32 33 J4 35 3' 37 31 3t 40 41f CALIFORNIA PALAEOINDANS number of specimens encountered cannot be deter- mined. Similarly, when specimens are illustrated, they often are not shown to their best advantage, and speci- mens either poorly illustrated or described without il- lustrations are of little value for comparative purposes. Obviously, cases of duplication and/or transposition are only possible when artifacts from different con- texts are mistaken for each other: such confusion is only possible when shortcomings in basic description and illustration preclude immediate differentiation between different specimens. Unfortunately, many California examples are not yet described in anything like comprehensive detail. For example, some of the most crucial specimens, those from China Lake (Davis and Panlaqui 1978: Figures 29-31), deserve three- angle illustration at large scale as well as high-con- trast photographs, but only one face of each point is rendered at a scale so reduced that these illustrations are of little use for comparative purposes. In ideal circumstances, ancient artifacts as rare and as important as fluted projectile points should in ev- ery case be not just described with text, but illustrated with high-quality photographs (cf: Riddell and Olsen 1969; Wilke 1991) and/or three-angle line drawings of high quality (cf: Figures 1-4 of this report). Single specimens are sometimes so exhaustively described (cf: Sutton & Wilke 1984; Erlandson et al. 1987; Yohe 1992; Dillon & Riddell 1994; Dillon & Hamilton 1994; Dillon & Murphy 1994) that such attention to detail seems like overkill. Nevertheless, considering the cultural and chronological significance of the speci- mens, no amount of description and illustration can really be too much. The reverse can result in the non- recognition of fluted points as actually fluted. The situation in which fluted points are collected, misidentified, then filed and forgotten is only possible when poor documentation allows it. While such cases are recurrent in amateur archaeology in California, there have also been a few spectacular examples from the upper echelons of archaeological research as well, when "shorthand" description and slipshod illustra- tion ignored the most salient features of fluted projec- tile points, the fluting itself. Hopkins (1993b), for example, points out that Gifford and Schenck (1926) illustrated all their points from the southern San Joaquin Valley in such minimal fashion that at least two fluted Clovis points were lumped in with other non-fluted types under the "Nab3" types and therein lay camouflaged for some 70 years. The kinds of errors noted above are, of course, particularistic, and may be of little concern to those more interested in the broad theoretical implications of California's Palaeolndian occupation. But, all dis- tribution studies, including the present one, are noth- ing if not particularistic. One of the most common cliches of the "New Archaeology" for the past quar- ter-century or more has been that "archaeology should be anthropology or nothing at all." Unfortunately, dogmatic overemphasis on the ethnographic present can lead to the contributions of other disciplines such as historical geography being overlooked or downplayed. Those of us who believe that Carl Sauer has at least as much to contribute to modern archaeology as any of the self-identified "New Ar- chaeologists" sometimes feel tempted to fight one cliche with another, often seen on bumper stickers: "Without Geography, you are nowhere". Despite the brief recitation of shortcomings above, in general most reporting is excellent. The present trend is towards much greater completeness in description and illus- tration, and in accuracy in presenting provenience data, and this trend will no doubt become dominant in the future. Conclusion All archaeological thinking and writing can be cat- egorized as either archaeological evidence (essentially objective and descriptive) or archaeological interpre- tation (essentially subjective and explanatory); if it is not one, it must be the other. Archaeological interpre- tation can be, and frequently is, based upon very lim- ited archaeological evidence, and this has certainly been the case with PalaeoIndian archaeology in Cali- fornia. While even the terms we hope to promote in this study (California Palaeolndian Horizon) consti- tute an interpretive and, consequently, subjective, state- ment, we have nevertheless tried to achieve a respon- sible ratio of archaeological evidence to archaeologi- cal interpretation. We believe that a Palaeolndian cultural horizon existed throughout California some 10,000 to 12,000 years ago; as evidence there are the artifacts themselves (Table 1), and their geographical distribution (Figure 5). Fluted projectile points, indicating the presence of California PalaeoIndians, have now been found in 28 of California's 58 counties; at conservative count, over 400 fluted projectile points are presently documented from over 50 separate locations, both in actual prehis- toric sites and as isolates. This distribution of fluted, Palaeolndian projectile points across the length and 123 Dillon FENENGA VOLUME breadth of the state represents either a broad scale in- vestment by small groups of people, or an only mini- mally less extensive occupation by wide-ranging, pos- sibly more centrally-based, groups. Doubtless, dis- tinctive Palaeolndian artifacts such as fluted points survived as heirloom pieces amongst later peoples, possibly for many thousands of years, and some may have even been transported short distances, leaving "false trails" which can confuse our distribution analy- sis. Nevertheless, regardless of the final form our in- terpretations take, the fluted point evidence now in hand demands that California no longer be consid- ered peripheral to other parts of Palaeolndian North America. California had its own unique Palaeolndian pattern, its own Palaeolndian Horizon. Acknowledgments My thanks to all the Registered Professional For- esters who have sat through our CDF Archaeological Training Courses and to those amongst this large body who have made the important fluted point discover- ies and shared them with the author. Bob Begole, Dan Foster, Jeffrey Hamilton, Richard Jenkins, Keith Johnson, Mark Kowta, Thomas Layton, Mike Moratto, Dennis Murphy, Lew Napton, L. Mark Raab, Linda Sandelin, and David Van Horn all took the trouble of reading earlier versions of this paper, and made nu- merous perceptive suggestions which I have incorpo- rated into its text. Jerry Hopkins, probably the great- est living authority on Lake Tulare fluted points, has taken pains to keep me current on discoveries at what surely was the central focus of Palaeolndian Califor- nia. Tom Wilson and George Kritzman helped me solve some 60-year old mysteries relating to the ac- tual locations of fluted points sites first discovered by Southwest Museum archaeologists. John Rowe pounded the horizon concept firmly into my head many years ago: I have found it useful ever since. Marillyn Holmes chased hard-to-find references for me and kindly proofread earlier drafts of the present paper, and her editorial comments have greatly im- proved it. William J. Wallace, Francis A. Riddell, and the late Clement W. Meighan not only reviewed ear- lier drafts of the present paper, but since my intellec- tual infancy encouraged my interest in Palaeolndian California. If the present offering is of any utility, such benefit derives from the guidance given me by these Olympian figures of California archaeology. I accept all blame for inaccuracies and omissions of coverage in the present inventory, and welcome any and all corrections and emendations. The idea for this paper germinated during conversations with the late Frank Fenenga, which were an ongoing highlight of our association throughout the 1980's and early 1990's. It is therefore most appropriate that I dedicate this study to the memory of Franklin Fenenga; scholar, teacher, and friend. References Cited Basgall, Mark E. 1988 Archaeology of the Komodo Site, an Early Holocene Occupation in Central-Eastern California. In Early Human Occupation in Far Western North America: The Clovis-Archaic Interface, pp. 21:103-119. Willig, Aikens, & Fagan, eds. Nevada State Museum, Anthropo- logical Papers. Beardsley, Richard K. 1954 Temporal and Areal Relationships in Central California Archaeology. In University of California Archaeological Survey Reports 24-25. Berkeley. Beck, John 1970 The Fluted Point Tradition in the Far West. Paper presented at the SW Anthropo- logical Assoc., Society for California Archae- ology. Asilomar Conference, March 25-28, 1970. Berger, Rainer, R. Protsch, R. Reynolds, C. Rozaire, and J. Sackett 1971 New Radiocarbon Dates Based Upon Bone Collagen on California Palaeolndians. In University of California Archaeological Re- search Facility, Contribution 12: 4349. Ber- keley. Borden, Ferris W. 1971 The Use of Surface Erosion Obser- vations to Determine Chronological Sequence of Artifacts from a Mojave Desert Site. In Ar- chaeological Survey Association of Southern California, Paper 7. Brott, Clark W. 1966 How Stones Became Tools and Weapons. In Ancient Hunters of the Far West, pp. 139-193. R. F. Pourade, ed. San Diego Museaum of Man / Union Tribune Publishing Company. San Diego. 124 CALIFORNIA PALAEOINDANS Campbell, E. W. C., and W. H. Campbell 1935 The Pinto Basin Site. Southwest Museum Papers 9. 1940 A Folsom Complex in the Great Ba- sin. In Southwestern Museum Masterkey, Vol- ume 14, pp. 7-11. Campbell, E. W. C., W. H. Campbell, E. Antevs, C. A. Amsden, J. A. Barbieri, and F. D. Bode 1937 The Archaeology of Pleistocene Lake Mohave. Southwest Museum Papers 11. Carlson, Roy L. 1983 The Far West. In Early Man in the New World, pp. 73-96. Shutler, ed. Sage Pub- lications. Beverly Hills. Davis, Emma Lou 1963 The Desert Culture of the Western Great Basin: A Lifeway of Seasonal Transhu- mance. American Antiquity 29:202-212. 1974 Palaeo-Indian Land Use Patterns at China Lake, California. Pacific CoastArchaeo- logical Society Quarterly 10:2. 1975 The "Exposed Archaeology" of China Lake, California. American Antiquity 40(1):39-53. 1978 The Ancient Californians: Rancholabrean Hunters of the Mojave Lakes Country. Natural History Museum of Los An- geles County, Science Series 29. Davis, Emma Lou, Kathryn H. Brown, and Jacqueline Nichols 1980 Evaluation of Early Human Activities and Remains in the California Desert. Bureau of Land Management, Cultural Resources Pub- lications, Anthropology-History. Davis, Emma Lou, and Carol Panlaqui 1978 Stone Tools: The Action Units. In The Ancient Californians: Rancholabrean Hunters of the Mojave Lakes Country, pp. 30- 75. E.L. Davis, ed. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Science Series 29. Davis, Emma Lou, and Richard Shutler, Jr. 1969 Recent Discoveries of Fluted Points in California and Nevada. Miscellaneous Pa- pers on Nevada Archaeology, Nevada State Museum, Anthropological Papers 14. Carson City, NV. Dillon, Brian D., and Jeffrey A. Hamilton 1994 Fluted Projectile Points from Eden Valley, Mendocino County, California. Tularg Newsletter 7(4):2-9. Dillon, Brian D., and Dennis W. Murphy 1994 A Fluted Projectile Point from Thomes Creek, Tehama County, California. Tularg Newsletter 7(3):2-6. Dillon, Brian D., and Francis A. Riddell 1994 A Fluted Point from Hat Creek, Shasta County, California. Tularg Newsletter 7(2):2-6. Elston, Robert G. 1982 Good Times, Hard Times: Prehistoric Culture Change in the Western Great Basin. In Man and Environment in the Great Basin. Madsen and O'Connell, eds., Society for American Archaeology Papers 2. Erlandson, Jon M., Theodore G. Cooley, and Richard L. Carrico 1987 A Fluted Projectile Point Fragment from the Southern California Coast: Chronol- ogy and Context at CA-SBA- 1951. California & Great Basin Anthropology 9(1): 120-28. Fenenga, Gerrit 1991 A Preliminary Examination of Fau- nal Remains from Early Sites in the Tulare Lake Basin. In Contributions to Tulare Lake Archae- ology, I: Background to a Study of Tulare Lake's Archaeological Past, pp. 11-22. Wallace & Riddell, eds. 1993 Test Excavations at the Witt Site (CA- KIN-32). In Contributions to Tulare Lake Ar- chaeology II: Finding the Evidence: The Quest for Lake Tulare's Archaeological Past, pp. 25- 38. Wallace & Riddell, eds. Foster, Daniel, and John Betts 1995 A Fluted Point from Sierra Valley. Unpublished paper in Dillon's posession. Gifford, Edward W., and W. Egbert Schenck 1926 Archaeology of the Southern San Joaquin Valley, California. University of Cali- fornia Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, Volume 23 (1). Berkeley. Glennan, W. S. 1971 Concave-Based Lanceolate Fluted Projectile Points from California. Southwest Museum Masterkey, 45(1):27-32. 1987a Evidence for Paleoeastern Culture Type in the Southwestern Great Basin. In Pre- Dillon 125 FENENGA VOLUME history of the Antelope Valley, California: An Overview, pp. 11-20. Robinson, ed. Antelope Valley Archaeological Society. Lancaster, CA. 1987b Concave-Based Lanceolate Fluted Projectile Points from California. In Prehis- tory of the Antelope Valley, California:An Over- view, pp. 11-20. Robinson, ed. Antelope Val- ley Archaeological Society. Lancaster, CA. Graham, G. M. 1951 Ancient Man in Hidden Valley, Cali- fornia. Southwest Museum Masterkey 25(3):79- 82. Graham, John A., and Robert F. Heizer 1967 Man's Antiquity in North America: Views and Facts. Quaternaria IX: 225-235. Harrington, M. R. 1938 Folsom Man in California. Southwest Museum Masterkey 12(4): 133-137. 1948 An Ancient Site at Borax Lake. Southwest Museum Papers 16. Haynes, C. Vance 1964 Fluted Projectile Points: Their Age and Dispersion. Science 145(3639):1408-1413. Heizer, Robert F. 1938 A Folsom-type Point from the Sacra- mento Valley. Southwest Museum Masterkey 12(5): 180-182. 1968 Migratory Animals as Dispersal Agents of Cultural Material. Science 161(3844):914-915. Heizer, Robert F., and Franklin Fenenga 1939 Archaeological Horizons in Central California. American Anthropologist 41(3):378-399. Heizer, Robert F., and Thomas R. Hester 1978 Great Basin Projectile Points: Forms and Chronology. Publications in Archaeology Ethnology, & History, No. 10. Hopkins, Jerry 1991 Tulare Lake Fluted Points. In Con- tributions to Tulare Lake Archaeology, I: Back- ground to a Study of Tulare Lake's Archaeo- logical Past, pp. 34-40. W. J. Wallace and F. A. Riddell, eds. 1993 A Preliminary Report on Another Early Man Site in the Tulare Lake Region of Central California. Unpublished research pa- per, Reno, NV. Howe, Carrol B. 1979 Ancient Modocs of California and Oregon. Binford &Mort, Publishers. Portland. Jenkins, Dennis L. 1985 Rogers Ridge: (4-SBa-5250): A Fos- sil Spring Site of the Lake Mojave and Pinto Periods-Phase 2 Test Excavations and Site Evaluation. Fort Irwin Archaeological Project Research Report, No. 18. Coyote Press. Sali- nas, CA. Jenkins, Richard 1999 A Fluted Point from Siskiyou County, California. Unpublished paper in Dillon's posession. Jennings, Jesse D. 1968 Prehistory of North America. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York. 1986 Prehistory: Introduction. In Hand- book of North American Indians, Volume 11: Great Basin. D'Azevedo, ed. Smithsonian In- stitution. Washington D.C. Kowta, Makoto 1988 The Archaeology and Prehistory of Plumas and Butte Counties, California: An In- troduction and Interpretive Model. Northeast Information Center. Chico, CA. Kroeber, Alfred Louis 1944 Peruvian Archaeology in 1942. Vi- king Fund Publications. New York. Meighan, Clement W. 1953 Archaeology of Sites NAP-129, NAP- 131. The Archaeology of the Napa Re- gion. UC Anthropological Records 12(6):315- 317. Meighan, Clement W., and C. Vance Haynes 1968 New Studies on The Age of the Bo- rax Lake Site. Southwest Museum Masterkey 42(1): 4-9. 1970 The Borax Lake Site Revisited. Sci- ence 167:1213-1221. Moratto, Michael J. 1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, Inc. Orlando. Peak, Ann S., and Tony F. Weber 1978 Archaeological Investigations at the Wolfsen Mound, CA-MER-215, EIR for the City of Newman, CA. Merced County, CA. Riddell, Francis A., and William H. Olsen 1969 An Early Site in the San Joaquin Val- ley, California. American Antiquity 34(2):121- 130. 126 CALIFORNIA PALAEOINDANS Roberts, Frank H. H., Jr. 1940 Developments in the Problem of the North American Paleo-Indian. In Essays in Historical Anthropology of North America, pp. 51-116. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collec- tions. Rogers, Malcolm J. 1939 Early Lithic Industries of the Lower Basin of the Colorado River and Adjacent Desert Areas. San Diego Museum Papers 3. 1966 Ancient Hunters of the Far West. San Diego Museum of Man/Union Tribune Publish- ing Co. San Diego. Rondeau, Michael F. 1998a Technological Analysis of the Bartle Ranch Fluted Point, Siskiyou County, Califor- nia. Ms. in Dillon's Posession. 1998b A Technological Study of the Fluted Point and Obsidian Debitageffrom the lone Site, Calaveras [sic] County, California. Caltrans. Sacramento. 1998c A Technological Study of the Sky- rocket Site Fluted Point, Calaveras County, California. Rondeau Archaeological. Sacra- mento. 1998d An Analysis of the Reported Bear's Mouth Site Fluted Point, Sierra County, Cali- fornia. Rondeau Archaeological. Sacramento. Rowe, John Howland 1954 Max Uhle, 1856-1944: A Memoir of the Father of Peruvian Archaeology. Univer- sity of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 46(1). Shutler, Richard, Jr., ed 1983 Early Man in the New World. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA. Simons, Dwight, Thomas N. Layton, and Ruthann Knudson 1985 A Fluted Point from the Mendocino County Coast, California. California & Great Basin Anthropology 7(2):260-269. Simpson, Ruth Dee 1947 A Classic Folsom from Lake Mohave. Southwest Museum Masterkey 21(1):24-25. Skinner, Elizabeth 1984 Data Recovery of a Portion of Bow Willow Wash North, Fort Irwin, San Bernar- dino County, California. Ft Irwin Arch. Proj. Res. Rpt, No. 18. Coyote Press. Salinas, CA. Sutton, Mark Q., and Philip Wilke 1984 New Observations on a Clovis Point from the Central Mojave Desert, California. California and Great Basin Anthropology 6(1)1:113-115. Taylor, R. E., L. A. Payen, C. A. Prior, P. J. Slota, Jr., R. Gillespie, J. A. J. Growlett, R. E. M. Hedges, A. J. T. Jull, T. H. Zabel, D. J. Donohue, and R. Berger 1985 Major Revisions in the Pleistocene Age Assignments for North American Human Skeletons by C- 14 Accelerator Mass Spectrom- etry: None Older Than 11,000 C-14 years B.P. American Antiquity 50(1): 136-140. Treganza, Adan E. 1964 An Ethno-Archaeological Examination of Samwell Cave. Cave Studies 12:1-29. Uhle, Max 1907 The Emeryville Shellmound. UC Pubs in American Archaeology and Ethnology 7(1). Wallace, William J. 1955 A Suggested Chronology for South- ern California Coastal Archaeology. Southwest- ern Journal of Anthropology 11 (3):214-230. 1968 Archaeological Explorations in the Northern Section of Death Valley National Monument. M.S., Western Archaeological Center, Tucson. 1978 Post-Pleistocene Archaeology, 9,000 to 2,000 B.C. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8, pp. 25-36. R. F. Heizer, ed. Smithsonian Institution. Washington D.C. Wallace, William J., and Francis A. Riddell 1988 Prehistoric Background of Tulare Lake, California. Nevada State Museum, Anth. Papers 21:87-101. 1991 Contributions to Tulare Lake Archae- ology, I: Background to a Study of Tulare Lake's Archaeological Past. Tulare LakeArchaeologi- cal Research Group. Redondo Beach, CA 1993 Contributions to Tulare Lake Archae- ology, II: Finding the Evidence: The Questfor Tulare Lake's Archaeological Past. Tulare Lake Archaeological Research Group. Redondo Beach, CA. Dillon 127 FENENGA VOLUME Warren, Claude N., and R. H. Crabtree 1986 The Prehistory of the Southwestern Great Basin. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 11: Great Basin, pp. 183-192. Smithsonian Institution. Warren, Claude N., and Carl Phagan 1988 Fluted Points in the Mojave Desert: Their Technology and Cultural Context. Ne- vada State Museum, Anthropological Papers 21:121-130. Warren, Claude N., and Anthony J. Ranere 1968 Outside Danger Cave: A View of Early Man in the Great Basin. Eastern New Mexico University Contributions in Anthropol- ogy 1(4): 6-18. Wilke, Philip 1991 Lanceolate Projectile Points from Tulare Lake, California. In Contributions to Tulare Lake Archaeology, pp. 41-52. W. J. Wallace and F. A. Riddell, eds. Willey, Gordon R. 1966 An Introduction to American Archae- ology, Volume 1: North & Middle America. Prentice-Hall Publishing Co. Englewood Cliffs, N.J. Willig, Judith A., and C. Melvin Aikens 1988 The Clovis-Archaic Interface in Far Western North America. Nevada State Museaum Anthropology Papers 21:1-40. Wormington, H. Marie 1957 Ancient Man in North America. Fourth edition. Denver Museum of Natural History, Popular Series 4. Yohe, Robert M., II 1992 A Clovis-Like Point from the Rose Spring Site 9(CA-INY-372). California & Great Basin Anthropology 14(2):234-237. Zimmerman, Kelly, Catharine Lewis-Pruett, and Mark Q. Sutton 1989 A Clovis-Like Point from the South- ern Sierra Nevada, California. California & Great Basin Anthropology 11(1):89-9 1. 128