ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS 12:2 *.I THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF CENTRAL CALIFORNIA: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF HUMAN BONE FROM NINE.-SITES BY R. F. HEIZER and S. F. COOK UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS BERKELEY AND LOS ANGELES- 1949 THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF CENTRAL CALIFORNIA A Comparative Analysis of Human Bone from Nine Sites BY R. F. HEIZER AND S. F. COOK ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS Vol. 12, No. 2 ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS EDITORS: E. W. GIFFORD, R. F. HEIZER, R. H. LOWIE, R. L. OLSON Volume I2, No. 2, PP. 85-i12, I map, 2 charts Submitted by editors January 31, I949 Issued February 28,1950 Price, 50 cents UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS BERKELEY AND LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS LONDON, ENGLAND MANUFACTURED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ii ACKNOWLEDGMENT The authors wish to express their thanks for a generous grant from the Viking Fund, Inc., of New York, by means of which the cost of these analyses was defrayed. iii CONTENTS Chemical analyses, by S. F. Cook . . . . . . . . . Archaeological comment, by R. F. Heizer. . . . . . Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 .110* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 TABLES analyst analys analys. analys analys: analys analys. analys. analys analys analys analys ,es . es of bone: summary . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 is: Site C.6, single skeleton . . . . .98 Is: Site C.138, mass burial .99 is: Site C.138, mixed burials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 is: Site C.6. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 101 is: Site S.3 ..102 is: Site S.60 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 ,is: Site C.151 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 is: Site C.56 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 is: Site C.68 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 is: Site C.107. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 ,is: Site C.142 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 MAP Archaeological settlements of the lower Sacramento Valley, California. . . . . . . .facing 85 CHARTS 1. Age index of bone on basis of chemical analysis 2. Classification of cultural and temporal relationships for Central California v 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. Chemical Chemical Chemical Chemical Chemical Chemical Chemical Chemical Chemical Chemical Chemical Chemical Age indic 87 90 C.138. l I < \(_s XCONCORD|\_ SAN FRANCISCO 0 -o1 -7I 0 0 -70. lo miles Archaeological Settlements of the Lower Sacramento Valley, California THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF CENrRAL-CALIFORNIA A Comparative Analysis of Human Bone from Nine Sites BY R. F. HEIZER AND S. F. COOK I. CHEMICAL ANALYSES BY S. F. COOK This paper continues the report of an in- vestigation begun in 1946 and discussed briefly by the writers in 1947. The preliminary re- sults indicated that certain chemical changes take place in human bone after burial in the soil and that these changes may be utilized as a criterion for an estimate of the age of the bone.l The analyses set forth in the present paper were performed in order to secure more extensive information concerning three points: (a) What is the variability of nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorous within a single skeleton? (b) Do certain portions of the skeleton vary systemat- ically with respect to others? (c) Can the relative age of a given archaeological site be placed reasonably accurately by means of the skeletal material contained within it? Table 1 (p. 95) gives the condensed results of all series of analyses. Within each series line 1 Is the mean for the item stated at the head of the column. Line 2 gives the standard deviation, line 3, the standard deviation ex- pressed as per cent of the mean, line 4 the standard error, and line 5 the standard error expressed as per cent of the mean. In series 1 are given the means, standard deviations, and standard errors of the separate quantities experimentally determined, or calcu- lated, for the 14 samples of Late period bones reported in table 1 of the 1947 paper mentioned above. In series 2A are shown the comparable data for 29 samples from a single skeleton de- rived from a Sacramento Valley Late site (C.6, or Johnson mound). Subsequent tables give the detailed analytical data for this and for se- ries from other sites. Variability. --For all items the deviations and errors are considerably less for series 2A than for series 1; actually the average for the former is Just under one-half as great as for the latter. Twice as many samples were used in series 2A as in series 1. Since the sampling error in otherwise comparable series varies in- versely as the square root of the sample number, the ratio of the standard errors should be 1:1.41 rather than 1:2.15, as found here. Series 2C of the table gives the data for 12 samples of the long bones (mid-sections of tibia, kIook and Belizr, 1947 femur, humerus, etc.); long bones were used exclusively for the original series (ser. 1) previously reported. The average standard er- ror for the same factors in series 2C is 62.7 per cent of that for the original series. It is, therefore, apparent that the variability within a single skeleton, although considerable, is not so great as that within a series of skeletons which differ in location and partic- ularly in age. Skeletal regions.--The original series of analyses ser. 1) used entirely the shafts of long bones. This obviated the presence of any blood or serum residues which might still re- main entrapped in the vesicular structure of the cranium, vertebrae, epiphyses, and the like. In series 2A 12 samples were of this type (desig- nated, merely for convenience, "long bones"). The remaining 17 samples were selected from cranium, mandible, ribs, vertebrae, scapula, pelvis, epiphyseal regions of femur and humerus, and carpals (designated for convenience "short bones"). The results of the analyses of each group of samples separately are shown in series 2B and 2C of table 1. The striking difference lies in the ignition loss and the nitrogen, both entities being significantly higher in the short bones. The cause of this difference, it may be sujgested, lies as indicated in the presence of organic blood constituents which have not been lost even in the course of hun- dreds of years. The higher values for calcium and phosphorous in the long bones cannot be ex- plained through possible blood residues, since the maximum quantity of these elements which could be derived from such a source would be much less than one milligram in samples of the size employed. Furthermore Ca and P were de- termined directly from ash and the values for whole bone calculated. Therefore these values will be affected seriously by the relative ash content; it will be noted that the values of Ca and P in ash do not differ significantly for the two types of bone. The mineral content of the bone matrix itself appears to be quite stable in all parts of the skeleton, the standard error for the entire skeleton with respect to Ca and P in the ash being less than 1 per cent of the mean. On the whole, in view of possible dis- turbance of the data by blood residues in ve- sicular bone and in marrow, it is probably pref- erable to restrict analyses of this type to the clear, solid bone of the femur, humerus, or tibia. 85 ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS Age comparison of sites.--It having been determined that the shafts of the long bones are most suitable for analytical purposes and that variation between bones from the same site are not likely to disturb systematic differences be- tween sites and between ages, the next step was to examine a series of relatively late osseous remains. For this purpose a group of femur shafts from mound C.6 was designated series 3 and taken as representative of that mound. Se- ries 4 consisted of 18 samples (femur shafts) from mound C.138 (Hotchkiss mound). These were all found in one burial pit and undoubtedly con- stituted the remains of a group the members of which died simultaneously from some severe epi- demic. This circumstance places the burial somewhere near 1800 at a period when the Spanish settlers were penetrating inland from the coast. Therefore, we may date these bones as being ap- proximately over 150 years old. Series 5 includes 25 samples from mound C.138 but all were taken from a depth of at least 36 inches from the surface. Consequently they are unquestionably older than those of se- ries 4 and may go back several centuries. In series 3, 4, and 5 we were able to am- plify and refine our analytical methods. In previous work we determined ignition loss and per cent nitrogen. The ignition loss includes two components: organic matter and carbon di- oxide driven out of carbonates. Since it was desirable to separate these, we added a simple method for carbon dioxide. This consisted of a gravimetric determination whereby the C02 was driven out of powdered bone by HC1, washed in concentrated H2SO4, and absorbed by a commercial preparation known as "Caroxite." To the avail- able indices for change in bone composition we have therefore added per cent C02 in the bone, organic matter in the bone, and the ratio of total organic matter to nitrogen content. These figures are found in the tables for the appro- priate series. Having obtained reasonably consistent fig- ures for the two Late sites we next proceeded to extend the analyses to three Middle period and four Early period sites, using approximately thirty samples from each site. The Middle period sites were S.43, s.60, and C.151. For the Early period we investigated all sites from which bones had been obtained: C.56, C.68, C.142 and C.107. The results are given in de- tail in tables 6 to 12 inclusive; in summary, with standard means and errors, in table 1, series 6 to 12. The chief procedural problem is to devise a numerical method for expressing comparisons be- tween sites, since verbal descriptions are whol- ly inadequate. Some of the criteria may be eliminated. The calcium and phosphorous of the ash merely duplicate the figures for these ele- ments in the bone, hence their inclusion serves no useful purpose. The ignition loss is better presented when broken down into its constituent parts, organic matter and carbon dioxide. The phosphorous in the bone remains remarkably con- stand throughout the entire series of sites and apparently does not alter significantly with age. The observed differences between the means perhaps may be ascribed to chemical variation in the mound matrix or soil, but since we have no soil analyses for phosphorous, no correlation of this nature can be attempted. The remaining factors are valid and usable: per cent nitro- gen, per cent calcium in the bone, per cent car- bon dioxide, calcium-phosphorous ratio, carbon- ate-phosphate ratio, per cent organic matter, and ratio of organic matter to nitrogen. The order or sequence of the sites can be determined with respect to any single factor. But this sequence, while in general consistent, varies considerably in detail from one factor to another. It is essential, therefore, to combine them all and thus derive what may be called an age index. The simplest and probably the most satis- factory mode of combination is to take the arithmetical mean of the seven factors for each site. In so doing it is necessary to alter the direction of change for some of the factors in order that the means may consistently reflect alteration in time. For this reason the direct values of per cent nitrogen and per cent organic matter have been converted into their recipro- cals. Furthermore, in order that the contribu- tion of each factor to the mean might be weight- ed as nearly equally as possible, the values for certain factors were multiplied by 10 or 0.1. These direct means are shown in table 13. It must be remembered that chemical changes are initiated in the.bone immediately after in- terment and for a while accompany the decomposi- tion of the fleshy parts. Within a very few years, depending on the climatic conditions, the bone comes to rest in a matrix of the soil it- self, and interaction with the chemical and bi- otic constituents of the soil proceeds. It is evident that at least some of these processes have a high initial velocity and therefore a bone from a site like that of the mass burial in C.138, even after no more than one hundred and fifty years, will already have undergone rather profound alteration. For this reason we are not justified in taking the mean of the analytical values for our most recent known site as a base level for computation of a relative age scale. Rather we should choose the values which repre- sent dry but recently killed bone, or, as one might say, "contemporary" bone. Another consid- eration argues likewise for such a plan. We have analyzed here bone from only a few sites and from one general region. If we ever wish to compare these results with others from sites distant in both space and time we should have a common point of reference. The data for freshly killed dry bone give us such a point (see table 13), with the mean numerical value 1505. As a final adjustment and largely for con- venience, we may change this mean value to 1.000 and then derive by simple proportion the corre- sponding figures for the various sites. This has been done in the last line of table 13, giv- ing what we may designate as the "age index." The relative order of the sites, according to this age index, conforms to predictions based upon archaelogical evidence, with the exception of site C.56. This mound is known definitely to belong to the Early culture period and hence should show a larger age index than C.151, which falls in the Middle period. The analyses for both sites have been stud- ied carefully, and no grounds can be found for questioning the essential correctness of the data. There remain but two alternatives: (1) 86 HEIZER AND COOK, CENTRAL CALIFORNIA ARCHAEOLOGY: BONE ANALYSIS (1) to assume some as yet undiscovered chemical difference between the two sites which could affect the composition of buried bone, and (2) to concede that there was such a wide overlap between the two cultures that the Early culture could persist in one locality long after the Middle culture had been established in another. The second alternative lies in the field of the archaeologist and is discussed subsequently by Dr. Heizer. With regard to the first alternative, if C.56 was really very early in time as well as in culture, all the chemical changes in the buried bones, organic as well as inorganic, must have been retarded, for our analyses show consistent- ly low values for all the criteria employed. Site C.56 lies at a few feet higher elevation than C.68 and hence may have been less subject to flooding by the Mokelumne River, yet it is difficult to see how this factor could account for the observed difference in the bone. Fur- thermore, C.56 is likewise higher than C.142, a site which appears to be much earlier than C.68. With respect to physical appearance and soil texture C.56 is closer to Middle period than to the other Early period mounds. I have not examined C.151 or C.107 but in connection with other work I have been able to make an ex- tensive study of Early sites C.142 and C.68 and the Middle site S.43 as well as two other Middle sites. The Middle sites show large quantities of fish bone, chitinous parts of crustacea, and other relatively perishable animal material. In C.68 and C.142 none of this, if it were ever present, remains. In S.66, a Middle period site not far from C.56, there is a great deal of charcoal, which still retains its original form. In C.68 and C.142 charcoal exists but it has be- come comminuted into almost colloidal state. In C.68 the animal material and the undivided char- coal is of the type found in the Middle period sites. Two other possibilities occurred to us. The bone composition might in some manner be af- fected by the depth of burial and it might be correlated with the calcium carbonate content of the immediately adjacent mound matrix. Knowing the depth of the burials, we could correlate this, in terms of inches below the existing suP- face, with the analytical results for each chem- ical factor. Unfortunately, after C.56 had been excavated some ten years ago and the skeletal material removed from the then intact site, the mound was leveled. The burial depths as record- ed in 1938 therefore do not coincide precisely with the depths of soil samples removed in 1946. For this reason a study was made of the near-by and still intact site C.68. For per cent nitro- gen, per cent phosphorous, and per cent calcium in the bones there was no significant relation with depth. The per cent carbon dioxide in the bone gave a value for r of -.525 with depth, a coefficient on the borderline of statistical significance. From another source2 the carbon- ate content of the mound was known. From these data it was possible to calculate the correla- tion between C02 content of bone and the carbon- ate of the surrounding soil. The value was +.565, again a value barely of statistical sig- nificance. Feeling that perhaps a real associa- tion existed between bone carbonate, soil carbonate, and depth of burial we employed the same procedure with respect to other sites for which data were available. The results are as follows: 2Setzer, MS, 1947. Correlation Coefficient (r for C02 content of bone against depth of burial and carbonate of soil) Site Depth of burial Carbonate in soil C.142 -0.406 +0.404 C.68 -0.525 +0.565 C.56 -0.594 (see text) S.43 ;O.024 -0.026 s.6o +0.245 C.138 +0.215 ... C.6 +0.300 2.5 - I 12 C.107 X ~~I I____ ____ 2.0 1AS+1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ __ C _6C __ Co.151 1.5 _ C5 _ I I I S. 60 S. 43 C. 6 __C.138 Mbxed _ --C.138 mass 1.0 - I a r _ Age Index of Bone on Basis of Chemical Analysis. Figures taken from table 13; fresh bone has value of 1.0. 87 ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS In the Early sites there appears to be some relation between the bone carbonate content and depth but little, if any, in the later sites. There is also apparently a similar relation, as far as the data extend, between soil carbonates and depth. Moreover, little association exists between the mean bone carbon dioxide content and the mean soil carbonate content; in site C.142 the former has a value of 9.8 and the latter 8.2, whereas in site C.68 the respective values are 6.0 and 15.5. For C.56 we can determine the value of r for bone carbon dioxide and burial depth since the depths were recorded in the in- tact mound when the skeletons were removed. However, the soil carbonate analyses were based on sample's obtained after the mound had been leveled. If we use the depths as recorded at the time the samples were taken, the value for r is 0.814. But if we increase the depths by lifteen inches in order to allow for the removal of the top of the mound, r becomes 0.088. No significant correlation can therefore be proved for this site. On the whole, in view of the very unim- pressive correlations, it cannot be stated that any of the chemical constituents of the bone are directly affected by any of the known physical or chemical characters peculiar to the site it- self. Since evidence for a final decision is still lacking, the question must remain open for the present. From our data it is possible to estimate the relative duration of the three principal cultural periods: Late, Middle, and Early. We will for this purpose disregard the interval reaching back from the present to the period of the most recent osseous remains, those in the mass burial in C.138. This is Justifiable since the bones of the mass burial were interred at or about the substantial end of purely Indian habi- tation in Central California. The age index for this site is 1.201. The beginning of the Late period is placed somewhere near the interval be- tween the occupation of C.6 and S.43, with age indices of 1.374 and 1.391 respectively. Let us use the halfway point, or 1.382. It is proper to mention in this connection that these two sites are so close together on the scale that a clear temporal distinction is difficult. From the chemical data alone it could be concluded that they were at least partially contemporane- ous. Whether or not this could be substantiated on archaeological grounds, it is clear that there was no great interval of time between the end of the Middle and the beginning of the Late period. In a similar manner the transition between the Early and the Middle periods may be placed at the index halfway between that of site C.151 and that of site C.68, that is, at 1.731. The beginning of the Early period must be located at the value for C.142, or 2.563. The ranges are, then, in terms of numerical indices, for the Late period 0.181, for the Middle period 0.349, and for the Early period 0.832. If we set the Late period equal to unity, then the relative durations are as 1.00 to 1.93 to 4.6o. Whether this conforms to opinion derived from study of cultural evidence will be discussed below by Heizer. In the meantime, it must be insisted that the chemical evidence is consistent and strong that the Early period lasted a relative- ly very long time and that the interval separat- ing the two sites C.142 and C.107 from site C.68 was great. In considering absolute age in years we are in the realm of frank hypothesis and the only method of approach is that of extrapolation. For this purpose there are only two points which can be used. The first is the reasonably well established age of approximately 150 years for the mass burial in C.138. The second is the transition between the Middle and the Late cultures represented here by the age index for the mean of C.6 and S.43. Let us assume that this transition occurred 1,150 years ago (or 1,000 years before the mass burial in C.138). Then if the chemical changes in the bone were, in sum, taking place between 800 and 1800 A.D. at a linear rate, there would be a straight-line relationship. A line connecting these two points and extended intersects the ordinate representing the mean of the age indices for C.142 and C.107 at approximately 7,600 years be- fore the present. Alternatively, if we set the relative duration of the Late period, as derived from age indices in a previous paragraph, at 1,000 years, then the sum of the three periods becomes 7,530 years and the beginning of the' Early period is 7,680 years before the present. It is improbable that chemical changes which involve the progressive formation, depo- sition, or disappearance of substances are a linear function of time. It is more likely that they would follow a logarithmic or exponential course. In other words, the relationship could not be expressed by an equation in the form: v = kt (1) where v is velocity, t is time and k portionality constant, but rather in v = k log t or is a pro- the form: (2) log v = k log t (3) If equation (2) is employed, we may include "contemporary" bone, with an age index of 1.000, and assign an arbitrary age of 1 year. When plotted with the other two points as before, the best straight line, if extended, intersects the ordinate of the average of the age indices for sites C.142 and C.107 at 108 years, an utterly absurd result. Equation (3) leads to an esti- mate of similar absurdity (10o1years). It is clear therefore that we are dealing with a com- plex function, one which cannot be expressed in the form of a simple generalized equation. Certain facts furnish a possible clue. As previously noted, there appears to be a very rapid alteration of bone during the first centu- ry of its interment (as shown by the difference in the age indices for "contemporary" bone and bones of the mass burial in C.138). The appli- cation of equation (1) to the data for C.138, mass burial, and the mean of the indices for C.6 and S.43 leads to an entirely rational estimate f or the age of the earliest sites. There are hence some grounds for believing that bone, sub- sequent to interment, undergoes a rapid change chemically, a change which diminishes materially in velocity during the first few decades. There then follows a very slow, long-term alteration, which may proceed for millenia and may at least simulate a linear course. If this be so, then we need a much more precise set of analyses of bones of known age buried within the past few centuries. In the meantime, we may use a linear function for the era prior to 1800 A.D. as a purely empirical method for estimating absolute age. 88 II. ARCHAEOLOGICAL COMMENT BY R. F. HEIZER The data on excavation of the archaeologi- cal sites are presented in a separate section from Cook's chemical analyses because the two sets of facts and their interpretation are of different observational orders. An effort will be made in this section to harmonize the two by presenting the archaeologist's conclusions and testing their fit with the chemist's results. Of primary importance is the prehistoric cultural sequence for the lower Sacramento Valley established largely as a result of the exploration of several score of sites since 1934. Archaeologic time sequence was first pro- posed by W. E. Schenck and E. J. Dawson in 1929,3 and was supported by J. B. Lillard and W. K. Purves' monograph in 1936.4 Further ex- cavation led to the identification of a three- fold period sequence in 1939.5 In the past ten years additional work has served to verify and to establish more firmly the validity of the Early, Middle, Late culture succession.6 In early 1948 there were completed three archaeological monographs, one dealing with the Early horizon of the Interior Valley, one with the Middle horizon of the valley, and the last with the Central Coast region.7 These studies are intensive analyses of all excavation data on record for each region, their main result being to bring into sharper focus the inter-site time differences within each larger culture horizon. The culture classification scheme presented in chart 1 is a by-product of these analyses.8 Major temporal-cultural blocs are called "ho- rizons" and three, named Early, Middle, and Late, are identified. Within the horizons sub- divisions, based on geographical-cultural dis- tinctions, are called "provinces." Subdivisions of provinces, which comprise groups of closely related "settlements" or "communities," are called "facies." The settlement is a single cultural deposit level. Stratified settlements containing superimposed cultural deposit levels are identifiable, therefore, as being formed by the agency of at least two settlements. Sites of the Interior Valley (map 1) are ordinarily spoken of as mounds. This term is descriptively accurate, but it should be noted that the mound mass consists of occupational 3Schenck and Dawson, 1929. 4Lillard and Purves, 1936. See also Kroeber, 1936. 5HeLzer an~d Fenenga, 1939; Lillard, Heizer, and Fenepga, 1939. 6Beardsley, 1948. 7Heizer, 1949; Fenenga, MS; Beardsley, MS. 8This chart has already appeared in Cook and Heizer, 1947, chart 1, p. 216, and in Beardsley, 1948, table 1. - refuse and debris which seems to have accumulat- ed incidental to and as a result of inhabitation. The large size of sqme mounds leads one to sus- pect that earth from outside was intentionally brought into the living area in some quantity, thus increasing the elevation. Old village sites occur most commonly in the overflow basin area of the Sacramento River and its main tribu- taries. Favorable spots were selected repeated- ly for inhabitation, and this occupancy has formed numerous stratified deposits. It is not necessary to assume that large labor gangs built up these earth mounds; indeed there is no evi- dence of "loading" in the deposit. Some minor and long-continued processes, including such ac- tivities as the carrying-in of sand for acorn- leaching, clay for covering roofs, or clean earth for house floors, might go far to explain how the large and deep deposits could accumu- late.9 The most ancient remains of man and his works found in our area occur in sites of the Early horizon. These sites, which are midden deposits varying in depth from two to six feet, differ from those of the later cultures (Middle and Late horizons) in the frequency and type of artifacts, in being more compacted and consoli- dated, and-in the obviously greaten amount of chemical alteration (i.e., mineralization) of the human and animal bone contained in' the mid- den matrix. Deposits formed during the occupa- tion by the Middle horizon peoples who succeeded the Early group are compact enough to make shoveling laborious., and the pick is often em- ployed to loosen the dirt. Several stratified deposits with the Middle horizon level underly- ing the topmost Late horizon stratum are on record, and there can be no question of the ac- curacy of the sequence as now established. Late horizon deposits are soft and ashy and appear to have undergone relatively little alteration in structure or chemical composition. The human and animal remains from Late culture components are light and brittle, and can invariably be distinguished from those of the Early period. A large amount of the archaeological data recovered from sites of the lower Sacramento Valley remains in the form of field notes or has been published only in summary form.10 We shall therefore detail some of the specific informa- tion concerning the various settlements which provided the human bones analyzed and reported on by Cook. As the cultural classification outline (chart 1) shows, C.138 and C.6 settlements be- long to the Late horizon, Phases I and II.11 9See Cook and Treganza, 1947, and Treganza and Cook, 1948, for the physical determination of mounds and for citations to works which discuss or give evidence on the subject of mound-building. 10Cf. tables In Lillard, Heizer, and Fenenga, 1939. 11For discussion of phase dating see Heizer, 1941a, and Beardsley, 1948, pp. 16-20. 89 AZ 0%, . a 0 -) a V38V NI S3 8 181 D1801SIH a) 'p11% 'hI '4% i 4 "I- '4% tl V. tU). 0- '4% 4%. LI) ~o 0%, U) N 'I lb LL () *tj I.'p 10 0%I 4%. U)J '4 0 V. L. '4% '4% 4%. 'p 40 c 0%I) 0j%',. ZZ 1% 'p CU *W A) 'hi '4" N 0 taj' Q :.1 0 : Cu Q 0ZL 0: 0. K k LI) 0 O u 'p * It) '%I (I) '4%. I.4 S.4% (6 'th to e IZ~~~~~I % %P L. % V I) "p *U) I4.1 U) Q *" *i z:3 (i~ "I, 90 Oi Q.4 LAJ Q 41* Q. k Lf) 1%) t4% Q cI) Cj u :1 0%) 0 Q. to Q. 0 .. qz t t 4 c c : q q i 11 4 bo 6 1 1 I I ) I % I % I a ft. 1% I I I b I.. ?l 4 :3 i '4% '4%. '*4% to IV) i t.4 1%. zi 0 LI) C. o0 C4 O LI a4 C % tK C: t k c I' (24 I I I I I I I I 1. % 0 SI 0 Cs 0 (,, '9 :3 *1 *_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0 'p '4 0 Ct 4-~) co 0 'H Cl) H 02 O-I E- -I) 0 C1) 'H 0 0 0 'fq Cd 'H coi 0 Q. '4 N 0 I I as-04d I ssv4d NOZIIOH NOZ1WOH WHOH V INdiO~flVt >1YN3) 3.l 1 lVdLN3 D 31GYh IVI.WN3 ) Al - I -1 a a 4-. .- . .. A . . . I- t 1% I I a I I Q c N HEIZER AND COOK, CENTRAL CALIFORNIA ARCHAEOLOGY: BONE ANALYSIS The analyses of human bones from burials report- ed in series 4, table 1 and in table 3 are from the "mass burial" at C.138. This large number of skeletons lay in a restricted area and prob- ably constituted contemporaneous multiple burials of persons who died in an epidemic in- troduced via the Spanish mission at San Francisco or San Jose. Most were buried within 36 inches of the surface, though a few were in deeper graves. In this series only burials 36 inches deep or less were selected. It is not possible to state the exact dating of these graves. Since none of the burials were ac- companied by objects of Caucasian manufacture, they may date from early Mission times (1780- 1800), the introduction of the disease being ef- fected by a fugitive neophyte from one of the missions. On the basis of available evidence my opinion is that the C.138 mass burial cannot be tied definitely to any specific date within the 1780-1800 range. Series 5 (table 1 aqd table 4) concerns human bones also from site C.138, but the graves from which these samples came lay in a different part of the site area. All the samples used in series 5 came from depths of 37 inches or more below the surface. There can be no doubt, therefore, that we have in the two lots, mass and mixed burials, different time levels, the mixed burials being earlier. How much older the mixed burials are the archeolo- gist cannot say, but since they yielded a rel- atively homogeneous lot of artifact types, it may be suggested that the period which produced them does not much more than cover the two or three centuries preceding the mass burials, and the date would therefore fall within the six- teenth to eighteenth centuries. Site C.6 lies about 30 miles north of C.138 along the lower reach of the Cosumnes River. The midden is a large one and forms an ovoid mound. The deposit is loose and ashy and in every way typical of Late culture settlements. This mound has long been the resort of amateur excavators, and has been badly gutted. Scien- tific materials from C.6 are contained in the Lillard Collection and the Dawson Collection,12 and have been recently augmented by the work di- rected by R. W. Newman in the summer of 1947. It is from Newman's collection that the bone samples used in the present report (table 5) were secured. The complete skeleton whose vari- ous parts were analyzed (see discussion supra by Cook and analyses in table 2) is that of burial no. 29, which, with burials nos. 5 and 29, was accompanied by glass beads of Spanish manufac- ture. The C.6 settlement was probably the main village of the Cosumnes, a Plains Miwok group which offered spirited resistance to Spanish punitive expeditions of the first half of the nineteenth century. Limited amounts of Spanish beads in the material collected from graves by Dawson, Lillard, and Newman indicate pretty clearly that this village, remote and shielded from constant and direct contact with the mis- sions, was receiving occasional fugitives who brought with them their few poor beads.13 12Reported in Schenck and Dawson, 1929, and Lillard, Heizer, and Fenenga, 1939, pp. 31-34. 13For fuller discussion see Heizer, 1941a, and Cook, 1943. Burials 5, 28, and 29 may therefore be reason- ably dated as from the first quarter of the nineteenth century. At the outside, the period 1790-1830 would certainly cover the terminal historic phase of occupation. Burials 5, 28, and 29 occurred, respectively, in graves at depths of 15, 33, and 33 inches belqw the sur- face. Nine other burials (nos. 84 13, 18A, 18C, 18D, 24, 34, 35, 36) lay in graves at depths of less than 33 inches from surface. The balance of the burials (12 in number) from which bones were analyzed came from graves whose depths were from 34 to 56 inches below surface. These last 12 are probably older than the first-mentioned 12, although no very extended time span for all of the graves is suggested by the artifacts which accompanied the burials. According to the information now at our disposal several centu- ries would probably date the full history of the C.6 village, like that of the C.138 settlement and its graves. Let us, then, equate C.6 and C.138 as roughly contemporaneous, with a termi- nal date in the first third of the nineteenth century and an Initial date which may go back as far as 1500 or even earlier. If this conclusion on the dating of the C.6 and C.138 graves be admitted, then the two lots of bones should exhibit more or less similar chemistries. This they appear to do (cf. table 13) if we except the mass burial of C.138 whose only counterpart may be burials 5, 28, and 29 at C.6. Probably earlier than or equivalent in time to the earliest recovered graves of the C.6 and C.138 settlements are several sites which can definitely be classed as belonging to Phase I of the Late culture. Analyses of bones from sites definitely known to be Phase I would be helpful in defining the degree of alteration in bones from sites which were occupied during the whole span of the Late culture. The Middle horizon culture of the Interior Province has been divided into five facies (see chart 1) designated Morse, Deterding, Brazil, Need, and Orwood. Each facies is represented by one or more settlements, and facies assignation rests upon the quantitative typological charac- ter of the artifact complex of each. Fenenga's conclusions on time differences between facies is here accepted, since he has been largely re- sponsible for both the excavation and analysis of cultural material from settlements of the Middle horizon. His conclusion is that Need facies (site C.151) is oldest, Morse (S.60) is next oldest, and in continuing sequential order, Orwood facies, Deterding facies, with Brazil facies (S.43) as the latest. Cook reports on the chemical constituents of human bones from the following Middle horizon settlements: S.43 (Brazil facies), table 6; S.60 (Morse facies), table 7; and C.151 (Need facies), table 8. Thus, one series (table 6) dates from the later and developed Middle horizon, another (table 7), is somewhat earlier, and the third table 8) dates from the oldest known Middle facies. As table 13 demonstrates, S.43 and S.60 are separated from each other and yield age in- dices significantly different from those of the two Late horizon settlements (C.6 and C.138). The index of C.151 is considerably greater than that of either S.43 or S.60, and we may conclude that the chemical analyses, insofar as they yield a measurement of the alteration of bone, bear out the conclusions of the archaeologist. As an archaeologist familiar with the sites the 91 ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS themselves and the excavation results, I am sur- prised that there is not shown a greater differ- ence between the Middle horizon S.43-S.60 pair and the Late horizon C.6-C.138 couple. It is very probable, according to the views enter- tained currently by archaeologists working in Central California, that a gap of 500 to 1,000 years may separate these two pairs of settle- ments. Between these two lies a separate cul- ture phase called Phase I, Late culture, which, as far as we now know, represents the earlier and initial form of the Late horizon. But be- cause remains of the Phase I, Late culture may be present in the C.138 mixed burial group14 and in the C.6 remains found at depths below 34 inches, it is possible that the closeness of the mean or relative indices of S.43-S.60 and C.138 (mixed)-C.6 is due to lack of segregation. This problem could be easily solved by analyzing series of human bones from one or two of the several sites known to be of the pure Phase I, Late horizon (e.g., S.66, S.3). Since the S.43 settlement may approach Phase I, Late culture settlements in point of time, the age indices (table 13) of S.43 (1.391) c.6 (1.374), and C.138 mixed burials (1.334) do not seem unduly out of line. There is a real problem, which remains un- solved, concerning the amount and nature of chemical alteration of the human bones excavated by Fenenga in 1938 from site C.56 (see table 9). The age index (table 13) is 1.511. The culture disclosed at C.56 is in every respect typical of the Early horizon, which is known from other settlements (c.142, C.107). Since the bones from site C.151, with an age index of 1.631, are undoubtedly later in time than those of C.56, with age index of 1.511, we are confronted with the paradox of an Early horizon site appearing later than a Middle horizon settlement. Cook suggests that occupancy of the two settlements overlapped in time, the two communities being contemporaneous during the later phases of one (C.56) and the earlier part of the other (C.151). Attractive and logical as this explanation is, it is completely unacceptable to the archaeolo- gist, whose whole culture sequence ia erected upon stratigraphic differences and is exempli- fied by consistent patterns or complexes of culture which come from one or another stratumL5 After considerable discussion and attempts to devise a reasonable explanation for the index of mineralization shown by the bones from site C.56 which would reconcile the divergent conclu- sions, we have given up for the present and frankly admit that some special factor, whose identity cannot now even be guessed, is here responsible. The C.56 and C.151 settlements lie within seven miles of each other, and it is dif- ficult to believe that both were occupied simul- taneously for any length of time without leaving some evidence of culture contact between the two. 14This was assumed in our earlier publieation, Cook and Heizer, 1947, table 1. 15A similar dilemma sometimes faces archaeologists in the American Southwest who receive a site dating from the dendrochronologists that does not conform to the cultural position of the site as determined by archaeological data and interpretation of the artifacts found. In this event, the archaeologist assumes that the tree-ring dating is sus- pect. See Gladwin, 1946, p. viii. The obvious alternative is to suggest that the Middle culture settlement, C.151, preceded in time the Early village at C.56. This hypothesis runs completely counter to everything we know about culture sequence in the area, where we have, at sites C.107 and C.142, clear evidence of the antecedence of the Early culture. The problem must rest here, the discrepancy either counting as a negation of the possible use of the chemical technique as applied to archaeo- logical chronology or suggesting an admitted ex- ception that cannot at present be explained but may sometime be susceptible to examination and ultimately take what the archaeologist feels is its rightful place in the nonexceptional cate- gory. Site C.68, first excavated by E. J. Dawson nearly thirty years ago,16 and by the University of California in 1938 and 1947, may be classed as an Early horizon site. It is at present ranked as a component of the Windmiller facies. However, the preliminary analysis of the cultur- al material, which comprises a majority of Early culture forms and a small but unmistakable mi- nority of Middle horizon types, and the fact that both flexed and extended (prone and supine) burials occur in the mound mass may indicate that this settlement should more properly be given separate facies rank because of its diver- gence from the standard Windmiller facies com- ponents (C.107, C.56, C.142). The variant nature of C.68 in terms of the Early culture pattern is most easily explained by assuming that it was occupied toward the end of the Early period when the people were in contact with the newly arrived Middle culture group. The excava- tions of 1947 yielded data which fit very nicely with such a hypothesis, and we are inclined to accept this explanation as the probable one. The problem of assigning time differences to the four known Early horizon components within the Windmiller facies is a difficult one. After careful weighing of all the facts, I was able to reach only the tentative conclusion, in my Early horizon monograph,17 that C.142 and C.107 were oldest, with the probability that C.107 followed C.142, that C.68 was most recent, and that C.56 fell somewhere between C.107 and C.68. If we can admit C.56 as aberrant in physiochemical terms and suggest that the order of correction would be such as to raise its age index from its present 1.511 to about 2.100, then the archae- ologist would feel that the chemical determina- tions were consonant with the archaeological facts. All in all, the results obtained by Cook from bone chemistry do fit with the facts as de- duced by the archaeologists who have dug the sites and have been largely concerned with their interpretation. As the monographs on the Middle culture by Fenenga and on the Early horizon by myself will show, the general conclusion has been that the Early culture was quite old and probably of considerable duration. The fact that three of the four known Early horizon sites lie within the Mokelumne River bend, forming the points of a triangle not over two miles on a 16Reported in Schenck and Dawson, 1929. 17Heizer, 1949. 92 HEIZER AND COOK, CENTRAL CALIFORNIA ARCHAEOLOGY: BONE ANALYSIS side, but that each settlement exhibits its own characteristic and specialized artifact forms can only mean that these three are each exclus- ive in time, a fact which indicates a culture pattern of long duration and relative stability. Antiquity of the Early culture is obvious. In the first place, it precedes in time the hun- dreds of large interior settlements of the Middle and Late horizons, as well as those tre- mendous shellmounds of the San Francisco Bay region, which go backonly to Middle horizon date.18 In the second place, the evidence of alluvial filling, stream migration, and physical alteration of refuse deposits means only one thing -- that a long time has passed since these settlements were occupied. Finally, the Early culture has an unmistakable "archaic" stamp, which In itself must be evidence of considerable age. The Middle horizon, with its extensive settlements (which in our area nearly equal in number those of the Late horizon) and with at least five separate facies, has also come to be viewed as a culture which maintained occupancy of the Central California interior and coast for a very long period of time. Perhaps this con- clusion is somewhat subjective, but the extens- ive Bay shellmounds (e.g., Ellis Landing) and the degree of difference in the mineralization of bone and in the nature of the deposits be- tween, for example, the C.43 and C.151 settle- ments have all contributed to this opinion. The Late horizon pretty clearly represents the prehistoric manifestations of the recent Penutian tribes of Central California. Many of the Late period settlements can be named by liv- ing Indian informants as sites of villages. The impression of most workers has been that Late culture is not of equivalent duration to Middle, and that the former does not have any notable temporal depth. On the Central Coast north of San Francisco Bay, Late culture was in full op- eration before 1600, a deduction made possible by interpretation of the Cermeno and Drake records.19 If the attempts at cross-chronology of Central California culture periods with archaeological horizons in Southern California are admitted as probable2 then certain trade objects, dating from the seventh to ninth centuries A.D., found in Southern California sites82 and received there through trade from the Southwestern region (Arizona, New Mexico) attest the fact that the Late culture was in 18For details see Beardsley's unpublished doctoral dis- sertation and his recently published abstract, 1948. 19See Heizer, 1941k and 1947. 20Heizer, 1941d and 1941e. 21See Hefzer, 1941c; Walker, 1945. operation from 1,000 to 1,200 years ago.22 If we suppose, for the sake of experimenta- tion, that the Late culture was operating in 900 A.D., then this horizon would have a minimal an- tiquity of 1,000 years. The following tabula- tion gives an abstract of the data on the age index of individual sites taken from table 13. Age index range Late ........ 1.201-1.374 Middle23.... 1.391-1.831 Early ....... 1.831-2.563 Difference *173 .440 .732 It will be seen that the range of Late indices has the value of .173, which, in terms of our time estimate just presented, is equivalent to 1 000 years. Since the Middle horizon range is .440 or roughly two and a half times that of Late, the Middle culture facies may cover a period of 2,500 years. Early, with a range of .732 or roughly four times that of Late, may have a duration of about 4,000 years. Our chronology may be said to cover a total span of 7,500 years, an estimate not much greater than that suggested in my Early culture monograph (AR 12:1, 1949) and not inconsistent with the several estimates made earlier for the Middle horizon, Coastal province, Ellis Landing facies shellmounds by Nelson, Gifford and Cook.24 Such calculations may mean little, however, since Cook's concluding discussion takes up the question of a linear rate of bone alteration as against a logarithmic or exponential course of modification. Neither can be accepted as cer- tain, though we would both select the linear rate as giving us time estimates which may be called reasonable. In conclusion, we have noted a fairly high degree of correspondence between two series of data, one of these obtained in the chemistry laboratory, the other in the field and museum. The archaeologist, through long preoccupation with the excavation records and material, feels that the chemical results for site C.56 are in- consistent with the cultural data and even sug- gests that magnitude of the correction factor necessary to make the site's age index fit with 22Two shell fishhook blanks found by J. S. McGregor in Ridge Ruin (N.A.1785), a Pueblo III site in Arizona, which were undoubtedly derived in trade from the Santa Barbara Channel region, are instructive. These pieces belong to a complex called the Padre Focus and are dated in the Arizona site by means of dendrochronology within the span of 1071- 1131 A.D. R. L. Olson!s stratigraphic excavations in the Santa Barbara region show conclusively that the curved shell fishhook belongs to the Late culture, which is presumably that of the ancestors of the recent Chumash. Since there Is no question of the general temporal equivalence of the Late Santa Barbara and lower Sacramento Valley culture horizons, we have here a definite cross-date proving the latter as in existence from 817 to 847 years ago. See J. S. McGregor, 1941, p. 18 and 1943, fig. 9 and p. 297; Olson, 1930, p. 21. Further detailed information on shell beads of Californian origin found in Anasazi sites is contained in Gifford, 1947, pp. 61-62. 23Upper limit is S.43; lower limit selected as C.68 on the assumption that it shows Middle horizon influences, which would indicate the local presence of the Middle culture group. 1 For citations, methods, and results see S. F. Cook, 1946. 93 those of the other sites. But this is only a We are feeling our way and, in the present state single problem, which may be solved when more of progress, it Is far too early for optimism or analyses are made and further insight into the despair. Much work remains to be done, particu- processes of mineralization is gained. larly with bone series which can be dated. Only This joint paper is intended as a progress then can the all-important association of a time report on a technique which has no antecedents. scale with the curve of bone mineralization be made with assurance. ADDENDUM During the twelve months which have elapsed since this paper was approved for publication we have been able to extend our series of analyses to other geographical areas, particularly the coastal region of California and the southwestern states. The more recent results will be sub- mitted for publication In the near future. Meanwhile it should be noted that the correspondence between analytical data and temporal sequence of the archaeological sites which has been stressed in the present paper is partially invalidated by more recent findings. In the lower Scaramento Valley and delta the homogeneity of climate and soil conditions produced similar changes in bone, changes which do not necessarily occur in localities where environments are widely different. The conclusions offered here should therefore be interpreted as of strictly local application and, even locally, subject to future modification as more complete information is obtained. SITE CONCORDANCE The University of California, through the California Archaeological Survey, is compiling a state-wide record of archaeological sites. The Survey master file employs a system of site desig- nations based upon county names. Since all future archaeological reports will use this new termi- nology, a concordance of site designations for the sites discussed in this paper is given here. C.6 Sac-6 C.151 Sac-151 C.138 CCo-138 C.56 SJo-56 S.43 Sac-43 C.68 SJo-68 S.60 Sac-60 C.107 Sac-107 C.142 SJo-142 94 ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS HEIZER AND COOK, CENTRAL CALIFORNIA ARCHAEOLOGY: BONE ANALYSIS TABLE 1 CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF BONE: SUMMARY Ser. 1: Total Late sites* Mean ........ 23.81 1.87 31.76 13.77 ... 2.33 0.208 ... ... tS.D. ........ 8.10 1.27 3.37 2.08 ... 0.26 0.116 S.D.xlOOAM 34.00 67.9 10.60 15.10 ... 11.15 55.80 ... ... -tS.E . ........ 2.16 0.34 0.90 0.56 ... 0.07 0.031 S.E.xlOO.l 9.09 18.12 2.84 4.o4 ... 3.00 14.90 Ser. 2A: Site C.6, single skeleton, all bones analyzed Mean ........ 22.54 2.11 30.44 14.18 ... 2.16 0.106 ... S.D . ........ 6.34 0.97 2.46 1.55 ... 0.11 0.057 S.D.xlOO/M .. 28.10 46.oo 8.o8 10.93 ... 5.09 53.77 S.E. ........ 1.16 0.18 o.46 0.29 ... 0.02 0.011 S.E.xlOO//M 5.13 8.39 1.50 2.03 ... 0.93 10.35 Ser. 2B: Site C.6, same skeleton as 2A, short bones only Mean . 255.44 2.5k 29.23 13.37 * -- 2.20 0.128 S.D. . 5.87 o.88 2.00 1.28 ... 0.11 o.o48 S.D.xlOO/M . 23.07 34.65 6.84 9.56 ... 5.00 37.50 ... ... S.E. . 1.353. 0.21 o.48 0.31 ... 0.03 0.012 S.E.xlOO/0M 5.42 8.20 1.64 2.32 ... 1.36 9.40 ... ... Ser. 2C: Site C.6, same skeleton as 2A, long bones only Mean . 18.00 1.47 32.16 15.33 ... 2.10 0.075 ... S.D. . 4.27 0.73 1.99 1.15 ... o.o8 0.056 . S.D.xlOO/M .. 23.43 49.65 6.19 7.50 ... 3.81 74.70 . S.E. ........ 1.23 0.21 0.57 0.33 ... 0.02 0.016 . S.E.xlOO/M| 6.75 14.26 1.77 2.15 ... 0.95 21.35 j ..._... Ser. 3: Site C.6 Mean ........ 19.01 1.47 31.79 14.26 4.75 2.23 0.153 14.24 14.04 S.D. ...... k. 4.46 0.88 2.34 0.98 1.35 0.19 0.051 5.19 17.38 S.D.xlOO/M . 23.46 59.80 7.36 6.43 28.40 8.52 33.30 36.40 123.78 S.E . ........ 0.91 0.18 o.48 0.19 0.27 0.04 0.010 1.06 3.55 S.E.xlOO0I| 4.78 12.31 1.51 1.31 5.79 1.79 6.80 7.44 25.28 * Heizer and Cook, 1947, p. 204. t All figures for standard deviation and standard error (rows 2-5, each series) .plus or minus. are to be taken as 95 ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS Table 1 (cont. 1) Ser. 4: Site C .138, mass burial Mean ........ 24.08 2.23 29.17 12.71 4.03 2.29 0.156 20.06 9.15 S.D . ...... 3.87 0.63 1.49 0.97 0.52 0.16 0.054 4.12 0.87 S.D.xlOO/..M 16.07 28.25 5.10 7.64 12.90 6.99 34.60 20.50 0.51 S.E . ........ 0.94 0.15 0.35 0.23 0.12 0.04 0.013 0.97 0.20 S.E.xl0o0A4`M. 3.90 6.72 1.20 1.81 2.98 1.75 8.34 4.83 2.19 Ser. 5: Site C.138, mixed burials Mean ........ 25.20 2.26 30.21 12.22 4.78 2.49 0.180 20.27 10.13 S.D . ...... 7.63 1.19 4.80 1.53 0.73 0.39 0.036 8.11 3.84 S.D.x100A ...........30.25 52.70 15.88 12.51 15.27 15.66 20.00 40.00 38.00 S.E . ........ 1.53 0.24 0.96 0.31 0.15 0.08 0.007 1.62 0.77 S.E.xlOO/ . 6.07 10.62 3.18 2.53 3.14 3.21 3.89 8.oo 7.62 Ser. 6: Site C .107 Mean ........ 16.98 0.44 35.50 14.01 9.67 2.62 0.325 7.02 32.50 S.D . ...... 2.02 0.30 1.54 1.05 2.20 0.24 0.085 2.73 44.00 S .D .xlOO/.M 11.90 68.25 4.34 7.50 22.86 9.15 26.16 38.90 135.40 S.E . ........ 0.36 0.05 0.27 0.19 0.39 0.04 0.015 0.48 7.78 S.E.xlOO/4 2.15 11.36 0.76 1.36 4.05 1.53 4.28 6.80 23.90 Ser. 7: Site C.142 Mean ........ 17.46 0.54 35.80 12.88 9.56 2.80 0.344 7.97 45.11 S.D . ........ 2.24 0.28 1.71 1.21 2.28 0.33 0.112 2.22 112.00 S.D.xlOOA ... 12.83 51.85 4.77 9.39 23.85 11.78 32.55 27.86 248.20 S.E . ........ 0.40 0.05 0.31 0.22 0.42 0.03 0.020 0.40 20.11 S.E.xlOO,4? 2.29 9.25 0.87 1.69 4.39 1.07 5.82 5.02 44.55 Ser. 8: Site C.56 Mean .... 21.74 1.62 32.00 12.60 5.62 2.54 0.202 16.09 13.01 S.D. ........ 2.77 0.54 2.42 0.91 1.06 0.22 o.o66 2.98 15.60 S.D.xlOO/M .. 12.75 33.33 7.56 7.22 18.88 8.66 32.70 18.51 119.90 S.E . ........ 0.48 0.09 0.42 0.16 0.18 0.04 0.011 0.52 2.72 S.E.xlOO/ | 2.22 5.56 1.31 1.27 3.20 1.57 4.95 3.23 20.91 Ser. 9: Site C.68 Mean ........ 21.59 1.32 32.89 13.43 6.14 2.50 0.220 15.44 37.56 S.D . ...... 4.35 0.78 4.32 1.47 2.30 0.53 0.121 5.19 122.00 S.D.xlOOA .. 20.15 59.10 13.13 10.95 37.45 21.20 55.00 33.60 324.60 S.E . ........ 0.79 0.14 0.79 0.27 0.42 0.10 0.022 0.95 22.27 S.E.x1OOA4. 3.66 10.51 2.40 2.00 6.84 4.00 10.00 6.15 59.25 . 96 HEIZER AND COOK, CENTRAL CALIFORNIA ARCHAEOLOGY: BONE ANALYSIS Table 1 (cont. 2) Ser. 10: Site S.43 Mean ........ 24.34 2.04 30.22 12.79 5.33 2.37 0.192 19.14 10.07 S.D . ........ 3.39 0.67 2.14 0.79 1.42 0.17 0.058 4.67 2.85 S.D.xlOO/M .. 13.92 32.85 7.08 6.18 26.65 7.17 30.22 24.40 28.32 S.E . ........ 0.62 0.12 0.39 0.14 0.26 0.03 0.011 o.85 0.52 S.E.xlOO * | 2.55 5.88 1.29 1.09 4.88 1.26 5.73 4.44 5.15 Ser. 11: Site S.60 Mean ........ 26.34 2.11 29.61 12.17 5.50 2.44 0.210 21.02 12.28 S.D . ........ 7.26 1.15 3.73 1.10 1.71 0.23 0.074 7.80 6.46 S.D.xl0 0/ . 27.55 54.50 12.60 9.04 31.10 9.43 35.25 37.10 52.60 S.E. ........ 1.35 0.21 0.70 0.20 0.32 0.04 0.014 1.45 1.20 S.E.xlOO/m 5.13 9.96 2.36 1.64 5.83 1.64 6.67 6.90 9.78 Ser. 12: Site C.151 Mean ........ 18.55 1.15 33.47 13.24 6.18 2.53 0.213 13.01 13.67 S.D. ...... 4.67 0.66 2.76 1.02 0.77 0.16 o.o96 4.31 5.28 S.D.xlOO/ M 25.16 57.40 8.18 7.68 12.45 6.33 45.05 33.11 38.62 S.E . ........ 0.81 0.11 o.48 0.18 0.13 0.03 0.017 0.75 0.92 S.E.xlOO/ M 4.37 9.56 1.43 1.35 2.10 1.19 7.98 5.77 6.73 97 ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS TABLE 2 CHEMICAL ANALYSIS: SITE C.6, SINGLE SKELETON Per cent Ratio Bone Ign. loss N2 Ca P. Ca:P C03:P014 Long bones Humerus, middle . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.7 1.04 32.9 15.4 2.14 0.100 Humerus, middle ............. 14.5 1.04 32.7 15.0 2.18 0.119 Ulna, middle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.6 1.13 31.4 14.5 2.16 0.116 Femur, middle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.6 0.95 33.2 15.9 2.10 0.076 Femur, middle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15,7 0.87 33-9 16.4 2.06 o.o68 Fibula, middle . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.7 3.28 28.4 12.9 2.20 0.139 Tibia, middle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.4 1.45 35.5 17.3 2.06 0.058 Tibia, middle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.7 1.44 30.9 16.2 1.90 -0.076 Humerus, middle . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.5 1.34 31.6 14.3 2.20 0,107 Humerus, middle . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.2 1.58 31.5 15.2 2.08 o.o68 Femur, middle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.2 2.58 29.7 14.9 2.00 0.029 Tibia, middle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.6 0.97 34.2 16.0 2.14 o.098 Mean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . 18.20 1.47 32.16 15.33 2.10 0.075 Short bones Cranium, frontal bone . . . . . . . . . . 21.6 1.81 30.1 14.6 2.06 o.o63 Cranium, perietal . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.2 2.85 29.2 13.6 2.15 0.108 Maxilla . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.9 1.69 31.0 14.2 2.18 0.121 Mandible ................ 23.2 2.147 28.9 13.0 2.22 0.142 Vertebra, process .2.1.1.... ... . .3 2.41 29.3 12.7 2.32 0.182 Vertebra, body . . . . . . . . . 31.1 3.68 26.6 12.1 2.21 0.130 Rib. 34.7 3.86 25.7 11.0 2.34 0.197 Rib .31.2 2.97 28.0 11.8 2.38 0.218 Humerus, epiphysis . . . . . . . . . . . 29.1 3.16 27.1 13.2 2.06 0.125 Carpal ............ 30.6 3.65 .... .... .... Scapula, wing ............ 31.3 3.57 26.9 12.3 2.18 0.124 Pelvis.. .......... 21.2 1.51 30.6 14.7 2.09 0.070 Pelvis.. ... ....... 18.1 1.32 32.3 13:8 2.34 0.176 Coccyx....... ............ 23.3 2.o8 30.7 14.0 2.19 0.127 Pemur, epiphysis . . . . . . . . . . . 14.3 1.17 32.7 15.8 2.08 o.o65 Tarsal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.3 1.69 30.5 14.3 2.14 0.091 Tarsal .... 25.3 2.47 29.9 14.4 2.07 o.o67 Carpal. . ... 34.2 3.34 27.5 11.8 2.33 0.168 Mean .... 25.44 2.54 29.23 13.37 2.20 0. 8 Mean of total skeleton . . . . . . . . . 22.54 2.11 30.44 14.18 2.16 0.106 98 HEIZER AND COOK, CENTRAL CALIFORNIA ARCHAEOLOGY: BONE ANALYSIS TABLE 3 CHEMICAL ANALYSIS: SITE C. 138, MASS BURIAL Burial Per cent Ratio Organic matter No.* Ign. N2 Ca P C02 Ca:P C03:P04 Per N2 loss cent ratio 12-6100 . . . . . 25.8 2.74 27.9 12.7 3.30 2.20 0.118 22.50 8.21 12-6102 . . . . . 20.1 1.45 31.2 13.1 4.58 2.38 0.159 15.52 10.70 12-6104 . . . . . 24.6 2.03 28.8 12.0 4.38 2.20 0.166 20.22 9.96 12-6117 . . . . . 25.6 2.50 30.0 12.6 3.78 2.38 0.136 21.82 8.73 12-6118 . . . . . 25.5 2.54 27.5 13.4 3.77 2.05 0.128 21.83 8.60 12-6124 . . . . . 21.2 1.96 30.5 14.1 4.38 2.16 0.141 16.82 8.58 12-6248 . . . . . 22.3 2.01 29.4 13.8 3.60 2.13 0.119 18.70 9.31 12-6251 . . . . . 22.2 2.01 30.0 12.0 4.22 2.50 0.160 17.98 8.95 12-6252 . . . . . 22.4 2.10 30.5 13.9 4.19 2.19 0.137 18.21 8.67 12-6256 . . . . . 21.0 1.65 29.2 12.0 3.82 2.43 0.145 18.18 11.22 12-6259 . . . . . 19.9 1.53 29.9 12.9 4.22 2.32 0.149 15.68 10.25 12-6260 . . . 4.5 2.29 28.5 13.2 3.46 2.16 0.121 21.04 9.18 12-6261 . . . . . 24.8 2.23 *29.3 13.1 3.91 2.23 0.136 20.09 9.01 12-6263 . . . . . 26.7 2.86 27.7 12.3 3.76 2.25 0.139 22.94 8.03 12-6264 . 26.5 2.49 28.2 12.5 4.55 2.26 0.166 21.95 8.82 12-6266 . . . . . 22.0 1.82 30.8 11.5 5.45 2.68 0.217 16.55 9.10 12-6273 . . . . . 36.8 4.18 25.2 10.2 3.52 2.47 0.353 33.28 7.98 12-6558 21.5 1.84 30.5 13.6 3.64 2.24 0.122 17.86 9.70 Mean . . . . . 24.08 2.23 29.17 12.71 4.03 2.29 0.156 20.06 9.15 *In this and the following tables all numbers prefixed by 12- refer to the catalogue of skeletal materials in the University of California Museum of Anthropology. All other numbers (e.g., in tables 5, 8-11) refer to skeletal materials in the Museum but not yet catalogued. 99 ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS TABLE 4 CHEMICAL ANALYSIS: SITE C. 138, MIXED BURIALS Burial Per cent Ratio Organic matter No. Ign. N2 Ca P C02 Ca:P CO :PO4 Per N2 loss 3 cent ratio 12-5845 . . . . . 31.5 3.45 26.70 11.20 3.75 2.38 0.165 27.75 8.05 12-5847 . . . . . 24.0 2.22 30.05 13.34 4.30 2.26 0.151 19.70 8.96 12-5850 . . . . . 19.2 1.34 31.58 11.48 5.58 2.75 0.221 13.62 10.17 12-5851 ..... . 36.7 3.98 27.09 10.10 4.02 2.68 0.181 32.68 8.21 12-5854 ... .. . 34.9 3.88 25.22 10.79 4.26 2.34 0.180 29.64 7.65 12-5856 . . . . . 20.5 1.42 30.91 14.01 4.27 2.20 0.138 15.22 10.72 12-5859 ..... . 36.7 4.05 24.92 7.88 5.00 3.16 0.288 31.70 7.83 12-5862 . . . . . 20.2 1.78 33.34 13.84 5.44 2.42 0.179 14.76 8.29 12-5865 ..... . 31.8 2.75 28.20 11.00 3.75 2.56 0.155 28.05 10.20 12-5871 . . . . . 32.6 3.30 27.26 11.81 4.o8 2.31 0.155 28.52 8.65 12-5874 ..... . 32.9 3.49 28.32 10.35 4.35 2.74 0.191 27.55 7.89 12-6016 ..... . 20.0 1.61 31.83 13.06 5.11 2.46 0.178 14.89 9.25 12-6020 ..... . 23.7 1.87 37.38 12.34 6.08 2.96 0.224 17.62 9.42 12-6021 . . . . . 15.5 0.93 36.56 12.40 4.83 2.95 0.177 10.67 11.48 12-6022 . . . . . 21.0 1.74 32.64 12.89 4.98 2.54 o.176 16.02 9.20 12-6024 ..... .14.8 0.41 41.00 13.98 5.87 2.94 0.191 8.93 21.78 12-6087 . . . . . 25.8 2.72 30.20 13.10 4.17 2.30 0.145 21.63 7.95 12-6091 . . . . . 23.4 1.98 30.10 13.00 5.24 2.31 0.182 18.16 9.16 12-6092 . . . . . 27.5 2.95 29.94 12.42 4.33 2.41 0.159 23.17 7.85 12-6093 . . . . . 19.3 1.16 34.11 12.35 7.06 2.76 0.260 12.24 10.55 12-6127 . . . .... ..18.6 1.30 17.38 12.90 4.52 1.35 0.159 14.08 10.82 12-6128 ..... . 11.7 0.27 28.43 15.23 5.50 1.87 0.164 6.20 22.95 12-6129 . . . . . 17.6 1.24 34.29 11.73 4.94 2.91 0.191 12.66 10.21 12-6556 . . . . . 35.2 3.88 32.80 12.32 4.22 2.66 0.159 30.98 7.98 12-6557 . . . . . 34.2 3.78 24.90 11.88 3.78 2.10 0.144 30.42 8.05 Mean . . . . . 25.2 2.26 30.21 12.22 4.78 2.49 0.180 20.27 10.13 100 HEIZER AND COOK, CENTRAL CALIFORNIA ARCHAEOLOGY: BONE ANALYSIS TABLE 5 CHEMICAL ANALYSIS: SITE C.6 Burial -No. ______________________________________ 2 13. 11 . 12. A 13.. 15 i6. Per cent Ign. loss 18.00 19.42 23.20 13.34 13.57 16.26 23.90 28.35 24.39 17.51 12.34 13.98 18.71 19.93 18.56 19.09 25.52 14.82 24.46 20.96 21.70 13.21 14.68 20.28 N2 1.367 1.328 2.247 0.809 0.479 0.964 2.980 2.830 2.020 1.500 0.448 0.573 1.130 0.174 1.030 1.720 2.980 1.382 2.870 1.965 1.865 0.491 0.548 1.730 Ca P 2 33.00 28.00 30.54 27.85 34.25 33.22 29;30 28.26 30.30 32-95 34.38 36.50 31.18 32.61 35.18 32.25 30.00 33.65 31.76 30.15 29.96 33.24 34.01 30.46 14.00 13.80 12.96 15.80 11.00 13.70 15.48 13.64 13.68 15.39 16.36 13.50 14.17 14.93 14.90 14.66 13.14 15.02 13.76 13.67 13.63 14.84 13.70 13.22 5.66 5.87 5-37 3.88 7.48 8.26 2.47 4.38 5.24 4.30 4.69 4.67 6.16 3.85 5.56 4.28 3.64 2.014 3.74 4.27 5.21 5.70 4.41 Ratio Ca: P 2.36 2.03 2.36 1.76 2.44 2.42 1.89 2.07 2.21 2.14 2.10 2.64 2.20 2.19 2.36 2.20 2.28 2.24 2.31 2'.21 2.20 2.24 2.48 2.30 C03:P0O4 0.202 0.193 0.2014 0.110 0.243 0.274 0.073 0.146 0.174 0.127 0.130 0.154 0.198 0.117 0.170 0.128 0.087 0.110 0.067 0.124 0. 142 0.160 0.189 0.152 Organic matter Per cent 12.34 13.55 17.83 9.46 6.09 8.oo 21.43 23.97 19.15 13.21 7.65 9.31 12.55 16.08 13.00 14.96 22.18 11.18 22.42 17.22 17.43 8.oo 8.98 15.87 N ratio 9.02 9.80 7.96 11.70 12.98 8.29 7.22 8.47 9.48 8.80 17.08 16.25 11.11 94.20 12.62 8.70 7.44 8.09 7.81 8.77 9.35 16.29 16.40 9.17 . Cf.. table 2. I ean . . j _ . 19.01 1.470 31.79 14.26 4.75 2.23 0.153_J 14.24 14.04 Wt;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I I I m i I T - _ _ 101 A:: W. ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS TABLE 6 CHEMICAL ANALYSIS: SITE S.43 Burial Per cent Ratio Organic matter No. Ign. N2 Ca P Co2 Ca:P CO3:PO4 Per N2 loss cent ratio 12-6694 ..... 27.3 2.47 28.6 11.9 4.41 2.41 0.169 22.89 9.26 12-6695 ..... 30.4 3.08 26.2 12.7 4.46 2.07 0.160 29.94 9.73 12-6696 ..... 25.4 2.26 30.3 12.7 4.46 2.39 0.160 21.94 9.26 12-6697 ..... 24.3 2.35 31.8 12.0 4.78 2.64 0.181 19.52 8.52 12-6698 ..... 25.3 2.22 27.1 12.8 4.90 2.11 0.174 20.4o 9.19 12-6700 . . . . . 22.5 1.86 31.1 12.9 6.36 2.4o 0.224 16.14 8.68 12-6701 . . . . . 22.6 1.70 30.4 13.9 4.88 2.19 0.160 17.72 10.43 12-6702 ..... 20.2 1.41 32.5 12.8 5.67 2.54 0.202 14.53 10.30 12-6703 . . . . . 23.7 2.28 30.1 12.9 4.81 2.33 0.170 18.89 8.28 12-6706 ..... 22.6 1.81 31.0 12.4 5.32 2.50 0.195 17.28 9.55 12-6708. . 24.2 1.88 30.8 13.6 6.00 2.26 0.201 18.20 9.68 12-6713. . 19.4 2.50 33.1 14.o 6.01 2.37 0.195 13.39 5.36 12-6714 . . . . . 24.1 1.73 30.8 12.2 6.13 2.53 0.229 17.97 10.38 12-6715 ..... 26.0 2.52 29.4 12.2 4.44 2.40 0.166 21.56 8.56 12-6716 ..... 24.9 1.64 29.9 12.5 5.00 2.39 0.182 19.90 12.1k 12-6717 ..... 21.7 o.48 33.3 11.6 12.14 2.89 0.476 9.56 19.92 12-6722 . . . . . 27.7 2.76 28.7 13.3 5.21 2.16 0.178 22.49 8.15 12-6725 ..... 26.9 2.44 26.7 12.0 5.37 2.22 0.204 21.53 8.82 12-6728 . . . . . 26.1 2.23 29.0 12.7 4.90 2.29 0.1-75 21.20 9.51 12-6734 ..... 25.1 2.05 30.2 12.9 5.05 2.35 0.178 20.05 9.78 12-6738 . . . . . 23.3 1.71 30.9 13.9 5.35 2.22 0.175 17.95 10.50 12-6739 . . . . . 23.4 1.89 31.3 13.0 4.78 2.41 0.179 18.62 9.85 12-6740 . . . . . 22.2 1.74 32.0 12.8 4.37 2.51 0.171 17.83 10.25 12-6741 ..... . 14.9 0.53 33.6 14.4 4.73 2.34 0.164 10.17 19.20 12-6743 . . . .... ..37.6 4.03 24.4 10.9 4.41 2.23 0.184 33.19 8.23 12-6744 ..... . 23.3 2.09 30.8 12.9 6.25 2.39 0.220 17.05 8.16 12-6745 ... . . 20.8 1.41 32.9 14.2 4.38 2.33 o.14o 16.42 11.65 12-6747 . . . . . 26.3 2.12 29.1 12.8 4.87 2.27 0.173 21.43 10.10 12-6749 . . . . . 22.8 1.79 30.7 12.1 6.03 2.54 0.223 16.77 9.38 12-6752 . ... . 25.2 2.23 30.0 12.8 4.36 2.35 0.155 20.84 9.35 Mean . . . . . | 24.34 2.04 30.22 12.79 5.33 2.37 0.192 19.14 10.07 102 HEIZER AND COOK, CENTRAL CALIFORNIA ARCHAEOLOGY: BONE ANALYSIS TABLE 7 CHEMICAL ANALYSIS: SITE s.60 Burial Per cent Ratio Organic matter No. Ign. N2 Ca P C02 Ca:P Co3:P04 Per N2 loss cent ratio 12-6773 . . . . 25.1 1.97 36.0 12.5 5.72 2.87 0.218 19.38 9.85 12-6774 . . . . 33.5 1.03 27.1 10.9 4.38 2.48 0.183 29.12 28.28 12-6776 . . . . 39.3 2.60 22.5 10.3 4.47 2.19 0.197 34.83 13.40 12-6779 . . . . 21.6 1.56 31.2 12.7 4.03 2.45 0.144 17.57 11.26 12-6781 . . . . 28.0 2.53 28.7 12.1 5.14 2.38 0.193 22.86 9.04 12-6785 . . . . 19.4 1.16 32.4 13.5 5.13 2.41 0.173 14.27 12.30 12-6788 . . . . 12.0 o.68 34.2 13.7 4.64 2.50 0.154 7.36 10.67 12-6789 . . . . 26.3 2.o6 30.2 12.5 4.90 2.42 0.179 21.40 10.38 12-6790 . . . . 19.6 0.52 34.1 10.8 12.66 3.17 0.534 6.94 13.35 12-6791 . . . . 26.0 2.34 29.8 12.8 5.14 2.33 0.183 20.86 8.92 12-6792 . . . . 21.8 1.51 31.7 13.6 4.99 2.33 0.167 20.81 13.78 12-6793 . . . . 23.9 1.81 32.2 12.5 7.22 2.57 0.267 16.68 9.21 12-6796 . . . . 37.2 1.43 25.6 10.5 5.76 2.43 0.250 31.44 21.98 12-6799 . . . . 33.5 3.18 26.7 10.9 4.66 2.46 0.195 28.84 9.07 12-6800 . . . . 29.3 2.74 28.1 11.7 5.64 2.40 0.219 23.66 8.65 12-6801 . . . . 36.6 3.81 25.7 10.8 7.26 2.37 0.306 29.34 7.71 12-6805 . . . . 24.3 1.90 29.8 13.0 7.68 2.29 0.269 17.62 9.28 12-6807 . . . . 16.7 0.51 .... 13.4 5.14 .... 0.175 11.56 22.66 12-6809 . . . . 27.7 2.69 31.0 12.0 5.28 2.58 0.220 22.42 8.35 12-6811 . . . . 36.5 3.82 25.8 10.7 4.72 2.41 0.200 31.78 8.32 12-6812 . . . . 36.6 3.72 25.1 10.9 4.46 2.31 0.186 32.14 8.64 12-6814 . . . . 28.7 2.90 29.6 11.9 4.18 2.48 0.160 24.62 8.49 12-6815 . . . . 27.0 2.44 28.7 12.8 3.44 2.23 0.122 23.56 9.66 12-6823 . . . . 24.8 3.20 31.4 12.1 5.52 2.59 0.208 19.28 6.03 12-6824 . . . . 25.0 2.25 30.4 13.0 4.63 2.34 0.178 20.37 9.04 12-6826 . . . . 15.8 0.50 35.2 13.5 7.33 2.60 0.247 8.47 16.92 12-6827 .... .. 19.3 1.15 34.2 13.3 5.66 2.58 0.194 13.64 11.86 12-6828 . . . . 16.1 0.34 28.0 13.1 4.87 2.13 0.169 11.23 33.02 12-6831 . . . . 32.4 4.78 23.6 11.3 4.76 2.09 0.192 27.64 5.78 Mean . . . . 26.34 2.11 29.61 12.17 5.50 2.44 0.210 21.02 12.28 103 ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS TABLE 8 CHEMICAL ANALYSIS: SITE C.151 Burial Per cent Ratio Organic matter No. Ign. N2 Ca P c02 Ca:P Co P0 Per N2 loss 3 cent ratio 151-Xl. . . 12.8 0.21 34.5 14.0 6.31 2.40 0.205 6.49 30.90 151-X2 . . . 14.1 0.26 35.9 13.6 8.22 2.63 0.275 5.88 22.61 151-33 * * * 23.3 1.70 31.4 12.4 6.30 2.54 0.231 17.00 10.00 151-34 . . . 23.0 1.78 31.7 12.3 5.03 2.57 0.186 17.97 10.10 151-36 . . . 18.3 1.09 32.8 12.9 6.49 2.54 0.229 11.81 10.82 151-38 . . . 14.0 0.61 34.5 14.3 5.38 2.41 0.171 8.62 14.13 151-39 * * . 16.9 0.72 34.2 13.5 6.02 2.53 0.203 10.88 15.12 151-40 . . . 25.0 1.59 30.4 12.4 6.65 2.45 0.244 18.35 11.54 151-41 . . . 21.5 2.06 33.3 12.3 8.oo 2.71 0.296 13.50 6.55 151-42 . . . 21.6 1.34 31.5 12.8 5.36 2.47 0.190 16.24 12.12 151-44 . . . 15.5 0.53 35.4 13.7 7.25 2.59 0.244 8.25 15.55 151-47 . . . 17.2 0.59 32.9 13.8 5.33 2.38 0.163 11.87 20.12 151-52 . . . 7.6 0.17 37.6 15.1 5.69 2.49 0.171 1.91 11.24 151-55 . . . 19.0 0.85 29.6' 12.3 6.37 2.41 0.236 12.63 14.86 151-56 . . . 19.9 1.20 32.4 12.6 6.58 2.58 0.238 13.32 11.10 151-57 . . . 21.1 1.48 32.6 12.9 5.61 2.53 0.198 15.49 10.63 151-67B . . 20.8 1.78 32.2 12.6 5.96 2.56 0.215 14.84 8.34 151-68 . . . 16.3 0.74 34.7 13.5 5.75 2.58 0.194 10.55 14.26 151-69B . . 24.0 1.91 27.0 12.5 5.88 2.16 0.214 18.12 9.48 151-71 . . . 23.7 1.85 36.6 12.1 5.69 3.03 0.214 18.01 9.74 151-72 . . . 15.9 0.64 33.6 14.0 5.73 2.40 0.186 10.18 15.90 151-87 . . . 19.3 0.71 40.2 16.7 6.05 2.41 0.165 13.25 18.68 151-91 . . . 26.3 1.33 39.1 14.9 5.97 2.64 0.182 20.33 15.30 12-6874 . 18.4 1.06 33.1 13.6 4.90 2.44 o.164 13.50 12.74 12-6881 . . . . 16.6 0.77 33.5 14.1 5.92 2.38 0.191 10.68 13.86 12-6884 . 15.3 0.47 34.8 13.5 5.80 2.57 0.195 9.50 20.20 12-6886 21.2 1.36 32.4 12.3 5.71 2.63 0.211 15.49 11.39 12-6888 . . . . 23.0 2.94 27.4 12.3 6.27 2.23 0.232 16.73 5.69 12-6893 . . . . 20.5 1.28 32.5 12.9 6.75 2.52 0.238 13.75 10.74 12-6894 . . . . 14.2 0.29 36.5 13.4 7.20 2.72 0.244 7.00 24.12 12-6895 . . . . 18.1 0.99 34.1 12.9 6.04 2.65 0.213 12.06 12.18 12-6899 .... 22.2 1.23 32.6 11.9 7.44 2.74 0.284 15.16 12.32 12-6900 .... 26.2 2.26 33.8 12.8 6.15 2.65 0.219 20.05 8.88 Mean . . . . 18.55 1.15 33.47 13.24 6.18 2.53 0.213 13.01 13.67 HEIZER AND COOK CENTRAL CALIFORNIA ARCHAEOLOGY: BONE ANALYSIS TABLE 9 CHEMICAL ANALYSIS: SITE C. 56 Burial Per cent Ratio Organic matter Nlo. Ign. N2 Ca P Co2 Ca:P c03:PO4 Per N2 loss cent ratio f56-A . .21.7 1.97 36.9 13.2 4.33 2.79 0.149 17.37 8.82 56-. . 21.7 1.67 32.4 12.6 6.58 2.58 0.237 15.12 9.06 -56-0. . . . . . 22.7 1.61 32.3 12.7 7.37 2.54 0.264 14.33 9.10 56-D . . . . . . 17.3 0.92 34.4 14.0 4.47 2.44 0.145 12.83 13.95 56-E . . . . . . 24.1 2.14 30.5 12.6 4.56 2.42 0.164 19.54 9.12 56-1 . . . . . . 21.0 1.33 32.4 13.3 5.79 2.43 0.198 15.21 11.43 56-2 . . . . 20.7 1.35 31.8 12.9 5.94 2.48 0.209 14.76 10.93 56-4A . . 25.4 0.83 33.6 10.5 13.50 3.20 0.578 11.90 14.35 56-4B . . . . . 22.3 1.16 34.1 11.8 8.72 2.88 0.336 13.58 11.70 [56- * . ~ . . .^. 21.3 1.68 33.3 13.5 5.15 2.47 0.173 16.05 9.56 56-6 . . . . . . 28.1 2.94 31.6 13.0 4.49 2.44 0.157 23.61 8.03 .56-7 . . . . . . 22.4 1.61 28.7 13.2 7.19 2.17 0.248 15.21 9.45 ~56-8. . . . . . 18.7 1.94 32.3 13.4 5.00 2.41 0.170 13.70 7.06 . . . . . . 22.4 2.07 30.9 12.4 4.45 2.49 0.163 17.95 8.68 856-14 . . . . . 16.8 0.89 34.1 13.6 4.88 2.51 0.163 11.92 13.40 56-18 . . 16.5 0.72 33.8 13.3 5.89 2.53 0.202 10.61 14.75 g56-21 . . 21.0 1.80 30.8 13.6 4.42 2.27 0.148 16.58 9.21 6-24 . . . . . 22.7 1.89 30.8 12.1 4.73 2.55 0.176 17.97 9.50 56-29 . . . . . 22.1 1.57 31.7 13.0 4.55 2.43 0.159 17.55 11.18 56-32 . . 23.7 2.19 31.1 12.7 4.19 2.45 0.151 19.51 8.90 -45 . . 20.8 1.43 32.6 13.2 5.41 2.43 0.187 15-39 10.75 56-48 . . . 22.7 1.72 31.2 12.8 5.35 2.45 0.186 17.35 10.08 :56-50 . . . . . 24.5 1.60 29.8 12.2 4.68 2.43 0.175 19.82 12.32 56-52 . . . . . 25.1 2.43 25.8 9.8 5.60 2.64 0.260 19.50 8.03 ff6-53A . . 21.8 1.37 38.2 12.6 5.06 3.03 0.183 16.74 12.22 6-53B . . . . . 24.2 1.18 30.3 12.3 5.58 2.46 0.207 18.62 15.78 56-56 . . . . . 25.4 2.30 30.5 11.5 5.39 2.65 0.213 20.01 8.70 :6-57 . . . . . 21.7 1.97 28.1 12.4 6.13 2.26 0.225 15.57 7.91 -60 . . 22.5 1.73 35.4 12.0 4.38 2.95 0.166 18.12 10.47 5-63 . . . . . 20.2 1.71 30.7 12.7 4.40 2.42 0.158 15.80 9.24 -64 . . . . . 15.0 0.10 33.9 14.3 5.08 2.37 o.162 9.92 99.20 -70 . . . . 19.1 1.99 30.3 12.1 5.54 2.50 0.208 13.56 6.82 56-73 . . . . 22.0 1.57 32.4 11.8 6.78 2.74 0.267 15.22 9.70 -Mean ...... 21.74 1.62 32.00 12.60 5.62 2.54 0.202 16.09 13.01 t i I., I i ii t? i 105 ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS TABLE 10 CHEMICAL ANALYSIS: SITE C.68 Burial Per cent Ratio Organic matter No. Ign. N2 Ca P Co2 Ca:P Co3:P04 Per N2 loss cent ratio Nl . . . . . . 15.9 0.17 31.1 14.2 8.80 2.20 0.282 7.10 42.75 N2 . . . . . . 16.8 0.73 33.8 14.5 6.13 2.33 0.192 10.67 14.61 N3 ...... 22.3 1.05 33.8 12.5 8.02 2.70 0.292 14.28 13.60 N4 . . . . . . 27.9 2.61 29.0 13.0 4.90 2.24 0.156 23.00 8.81 N5 ...... 20.2 0.79 52.9 13.5 8.55 3.92 0.288 11.65 14.75 23 . . . . . . 19.2 1.20 34.6 14.6 4.84 2.37 0.151 14.36 11.96 24 . . . . . . 24.3 1.98 35.3 14.0 3.64 2.52 0.118 20.46 10.33 25 ...... 21.5 1.96 27.9 14.6 3.58 1.91 0.112 17.92 9.14 26 . . . . . . 18.9 1.37 31.9 14.7 2.96 2.17 0.090 15.94 10.51 27 ...... 17.9 1.34 32.8 14.5 4.45 2.27 0.139 13.45 10.03 29 ...... 16.7 1.07 33.4 14.8 4.35 2.26 0.134 12.35 11.54 31 . . . . . . 26.1 2.06 30.5 13.2 5.30 2.31 0.183 20.80 10.10 33 . . . . . . 19.0 1.o6 33.1 14.1 5.30 2.34 0.171 13.70 12.93 34 . . . . . . 18.5 0.82 34.2 14.3 7.07 2.42 0.225 11.43 13.95 38 . . . . . . 22.6 1.04 31.3 13.2 4.30 2.37 0.160 18.30 17.54 48 . . . . . . 18.0 0.10 36.o 13.2 10.00 2.74 0.373 8.oo 80.00 51 . . . . . . 30.9 3.15 28.4 12.6 4.47 2.26 0.161 26.43 8.40 53 ...... 30.5 2.34 28.8 12.0 5.08 2.40 0.194 25.42 10.86 55 . . . . . . 16.4 0.87 33.3 15.4 4.60 2.16 0.136 11.80 13.60 65 . . . . . . 23.5 0.81 33.3 12.1 12.30 2.75 o.463 11.20 13.83 66 . . . . . . 18.9 1.o8 32.4 13.3 8.17 2.43 0.279 10.73 9.94 68 . . . . . . 24.5 0.03 32.7 13.2 4.o8 2.48 0.140 20.42 681.00 74B .17.2 0.74 33.0 14.1 5.29 2.33 0.171 11.91 16.10 82 ...... 28.4 2.48 31.9 12.4 7.27 2.58 0.267 21.13 8.52 83 . . . . . . 17.6 0.56 34.1 13.6 7.11 2.51 0.238 10.49 18.75 85 . . . . . . 24.9 2.11 30.2 12.6 5.38 2.39 0.194 19.52 9.25 86 . . . . . . 22.3 1.48 31.3 13.2 6.79 2.37 0.234 15.51 1o.48 91 ...... 19.5 o.60 34.2 7.2 11.13 4.74 o.693 8.37 13.96 96 ...... 20.2 1.53 31.7 14.2 4.10 2.24 0.131 16.10 10.52 97 ..... 27.1 2.32 29.9 13.3 6.33 2.25 0.217 20.77 8.95 Mean ... .. . 21.59 1.32 32.89 13.43 6.14 2.50 0.220 15.44 37.56 106 HEIZER AND COOK CENTRAL CALIFORNIA ARCHAEOLOGY: BONE ANALYSIS TABLE 11 CHEMICAL ANALYSIS: SITE C.107 Burial Per cent Ratio Organic matter No. Ign. N Ca P C02 Ca:P C03:PO4 Per N2 loss 2 cent ratio 107-51 . . . 13.5 0.09 37.4 12.2 8.63 3.07 0.322 4.82 53.60 107-52 . . . 17.7 0.79 34.7 13.7 7.33 2.45 0.243 10.37 13.12 107-53 . . . 15.8 0.31 37.4 13.1 8.92 3.08 0.336 6.88 22.18 107-54 . . . 15.6 0.04 37.9 11.7 10.83 3.05 0.421 4.77 119.20 107-55 . . . 13.5 0.12 36.8 14.5 7.90 2.54 0.248 5.60 46.60 107-56 . . . 15.6 0.39 38.9 13.3 9.11 2.92 0.311 6.49 16.64 107-57 . . . 14.5 0.03 37.1 13.9 7.74 2.67 0.254 6.76 228.50 107-58 . . . 14.2 0.15 36.4 14.3 15.57 2.55 0.493 -1.37 -9.13 107-59 . . . 13.7 0.03 36.4 15.4 10.0f 2.36 0.296 2.66 88.60 - 12-5589 . . . . 19.0 1.15 33.0 14.2 7.56 2.32 0.242 11.44 9.94 12-5595 . . . . 16.3 0.62 38.0 14.3 6.84 2.66 0.217 9.66 15.57 12-5596 . . . . 20.0 1.03 34.7 12.9 8.48 2.69 0.299 11.52 11.48 12-5598A . . . . 16.6 0.23 35.3 14.0 8.17 2.52 0.265 8.43 36.68 12-5598B . . . . 16.8 0.38 37.1 14.7 9.35 2.52 0.288 7.45 19.58 12-5598C . . . . 17.3 0.62 34.2 14.0 8.43 2.44 0.274 8.87 14.31 12-5598D . . . . 15.5 0.78 34.3 15.3 9.46 2.24 0.281 6.o4 7.74 12-5599 . . . . 16.9 0.78 34.1 13.7 7.30 2.49 0.242 9.60 12.32 12-5608 . . . . 20.1 0.68 34.7 13.0 13.53 2.67 0.468 6.57 9.66 12-5610 . . . . 16.8 0.68 34.0 12.7 8.47 2.68 0.304 8.33 12.24 12-5614 . . . . 18.4 0.67 34.6 15.1 8.80 2.29 0.265 9.60 14.32 12 -5616 . . . . 18.7 0.62 34.0 14.5 8.92 2.35 0.280 9.78 15.78 ;12-5621 . . . . 18.1 0.41 36.1 12.8 12.36 2.82 0.439 5.74 14.00 [12-5633 * - - - 16.6 0.33 34.5 13.7 10.37 2.52 0.345 6.23 18.88 412-5634 . . . . 18.6 0.68 34.1 14.2 9.27 2.40 0.297 9.33 13.74 12-5639 . . . . 13.2 0.06 36.2 15.2 9.11 2.38 0.272 4.09 68.20 k12-5648 . . . . 14.8 0.46 34.1 12.7 10.50 2.69 0.376 4.30 9.35 42-5650 . . . . 16.2 0.08 36.5 12.4 13.63 2.95 0.500 2.57 32.10 42-5652 . . . . 16.7 0.27 36.9 13.4 8.33 2.75 0.284 8.37 31.00 -12-5653A . . . . 15.9 0.47 36.3 14.9 7.73 2.44 0.236 8.17 17.38 i. 12-5653B. . . . 18.7 0.46 35.2 13.3 10.91 2.65 0.373 8.19 17.80 ,12-5653C . . . . 18.8 0.22 38.1 13.3 1o.46 2.86 0.355 8.34 37.94 ,12-5653D . . . . 19.2 0.38 35.1 11.9 14.64 2.95 0.560 4.56 12.00 Mean . . . . 16.98 0.44 35.50 14.01 9.67 2.62 0.325 7.02 32.50 I I I 4 107 ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS TABLE 12 CHEMICAL ANALYSIS: SITE C.142 Burial Per cent Ratio Organic matter No. Ign. N2 Ca P Co2 Ca:P C03:Po4 Per N2 loss cent ratio 12-5661 . . . . 16.2 0.72 37.4 13.1 7.51 2.86 0.263 8.69 12.06 12-5662 . . . . 20.8 0.87 36.4 12.9 10.50 2.82 0.370 10.30 11.84 12-5664 . . . . 16.3 0.63 37.3 14.1 10.01 2.65 0.323 6.29 9.98 12-5665 . . . . 17.4 0.42 36.2 12.8 10.05 2.83 0.356 7.35 17.50 12-5666 . . . . 15.5 0.35 37.3 12.9 7.02 2.89 0.248 .48 24.22 12-5667 . . . . 14.3 0.06 34.1 13.8 8.79 2.47 0.290 5.51 91.80 12-5668 . . . . 16.8 0.48 35.4 11.9 9.18 2.97 0.348 7.32 15.86 12-5669 . . . . 16.4 0.84 34.4 13.8 6.07 2.49 0.200 10.33 12.30 12-5670 . . . . 14.3 0.02 36.7 14.4 8.37 2.55 0.265 5.93 296.50 12-5674 . . . . 16.4 0.01 36.6 14.8 10.58 2.47 0.352 5.82 582.00 12-5675 . . . . 16.0 0.45 35.3 13.2 8.78 2.68 0.302 7.22 16.05 12-5676 . . . . 16.2 0.33 36.4 12.7 13.64 2.87 0.488 2.56 7.76 12-5678 . . . . 19.8 0.99 39.1 12.4 9.78 3.15 0.358 10.02 10.12 12-5792 . . . . 21.7 0.68 34.4 9.7 13.23 3.55 0.620 8.47 12.45 12-5798 . . . . 18.4 0.67 35.8 13.0 11.68 2.75 0.405 6.72 10.03 12-5799 * * * * 12.7 0.65 35.9 13.2 6.13 2.72 0.212 6.57 10.11 12-5801 . . . . 17.6 0.29 30.9 13.9 9.66 2.22 0.302 7.94 27.36 12-5802 . . . . 16.4 0.50 37.5 13.0 6.86 2.88 0.241 9.54 19.08 12-5803 . . . . 20.3. 1.09 33.8 12.9 9.02 2.62 0.318 11.08 10.18 12-5805 . . . . 19.6 0.19 36.4 11.5 14.51 3.12 0.574 5.09 26.80 12-5806 . . . . 18.3 0.44 35.2 14.9 9.49 2.36 0.289 8.81 20.02 12-5808 . . . . 20.0 1.09 38.4 13.0 7.25 2.95 0.254 12.75 11.70 12-5809 . . . . 19.0 0.58 35.4 12.0 9.23 2.95 0.350 9.77 16.85 12-5811 . . . . 19.8 0.69 36.9 11.8 10.48 3.12 0.404 9.32 13.51 12-5813 . . . . 17.2 0.52 34.5 13.7 6.18 2.52 0.205 11.02 21.18 12-5814 . . . . 20.4 0.81 33.0 11.2 10.41 2.95 0.422 10.00 12.35 12-5815 . . . . 19.5 0.57 35.8 11.2 12.71 3.20 0.536 6.79 11.92 12-5817 . . . . 18.2 0.51 38.0 10.4 12.67 3.65 0.554 5.53 10.84 12-5819 . . . . 16.0 0.28 36.2 13.8 10.08 2.62 0.332 5.92 21.14 12-5821 . . . . 16.7 0.79 33.4 13.9 7.02 2.40 0.230 9.68 12.25 12-5829 . . . . 13.6 0.27 36.1 13.5 7.50 2.67 0.253 6.10 22.60 Mean . . . . 17.46 0.54 35.80 12.88 9.56 2.80 0.344 7.97 45.11 108 0 0 0 Ln tl- C01 ) I'D ?0 Cy 0o CU 0 LC CM 0 Cu 14 Cu 0 0 0 0 0 0n a, 'N0 0 4t '- H n a' cu Co H 0 0 0 00 4- 0 01 H L( Co k-0 0 o 0 0 o 01 4 01 'kD LC * LC\ 01 t- 0 0 4 * Co Co Ho CY Co '-0 01 H 0 0 'M 0 4 oM ( o 01 LA\ Cu 01 0 0 01 n C Y- o o Co a'I 0 0 H - Cu Co 4 Cu H 0 0 o - 4 t~- 0 0 H (Yt N H CO O~ U\ 0 Cu Cu -4 Cu o o 0 o O 0 Cu A CU 0 0 CU Cu 0 CM 0 Cu 0 Co H CU 0 0 Cu 0 Cuj a\ H 0 UY) o H 0 0 co H 0 Cu Cu H- H4 -4 0 H Cu ~0 0 0 10 4 0 Cu Cu . U'o 0; 0 Co 0 H A 0 ro 0 0 Co Co co .0 0 0 HY Cu 4 o 0 *- 4 O H Co aD -4 08 Cu CM 0 Co 0 Lf) H a 0 0 0 a' 0 i i * * * * 4 * H * * * * 4) 0 O 02 C) H 4)* . . , 4-) ~~~~i0 H) 02 _1 * 4 * H * CO * 4) o * c.) O cd C < H h ~0 'HO **4- VA Q4 H. a 4-) c.) 0. h 00 o 00 :E t ?O U H P44 @ h 'H 4)0 Cu * Cn- q-4 bO Cb Cii0. 0 Ci 0C4-) F-0- I ;-4C o V ) C) 0 0 CY CU Cu 109 CQ a, Lr 01 Cu Co H 0 H C) H 00 C.) Lf) V H Ln H C.) 0 Cl) Co 4 C') V . H 00 a, od Coi 02 H 02 *cii 4) 0 02 aL) h- Cu CU -4 Cu H O. H EN p 0 H 0 a, 0 0 a' 4 0 0 a, 0 01 4 m 0 0 4 101 0 m t 8 ~o ~0 H r4 CU 0 Cu 00 '0 CM 40 0 0 Cu 0 H U-i 0 H) 0 H 4. 4 Co r4 Co Co- HY' H 0 0 0 H Cii 4-) C0) 0 .L 04) 4) " _Ih ;- 8 * 4) 'H 4 a) bo w: 4 BIBLIOGRAPHY ABBREVIATIONS AA American Anthropologist A Ant American Antiquity AJPA American Journal of Physical Anthropology SM-M Southwest Museum, Masterkey UC University of California Publications -AR Anthropological Records -IA Ibero-Americana -PAAE American Archaeology and Ethnology Heizer, R. F. 1948. Culture Sequences in Central Cali- fornia Archaeology. A Ant, 14: 1-28. 1947. Temporal and Areal Relationships in Central California Archaeology. Ph. D. dissertation, University of California. MS. Cook, S. F. 1943. The Conflict between the Cali- fornia Indian and White Civiliza- tion, I: The Indian versus the Spanish Mission. UC-IA, 21. 1946. A Reconsideration of Shellmounds with respect to Population and Nutrition, A Ant, 12:51-53. and R. F. Heizer 1947. The Quantitative Investigation of Aboriginal Sites: Analyses of Human Bone. AJPA, n.s., 5:202-220. and A. E. Treganza 1947. The Quantitative Investigation of Aboriginal Sites: Comparative Physical and Chemical Analysis of Two California Indian Mounds. A Ant, 13:135-141. Fenenga, Franklin MS. The Archaeology of Central Cali- fornia: The Middle Horizon. Gifford, E. W. 1947. Californian Shell Artifacts. UC-AR, 9:1. Gladwin, H. S. 1946. Tree Ring Analysis, Problems of Dating, II: The Tusayan Ruin. Gila Pueblo Medallion Papers, no. 36. 1941a. The Direct Historical Approach in Central California Archae- ology, A Ant, 7:98-122. 1941b. Archaeological Evidence of Sebastian Rodriguez Cermenio's California Visit in 1595. Calif. Hist. Soc. Quarterly, Vol. 20, no 1. Reprinted as separate work, 1942. 1941c. Aboriginal Trade between the South- west and California, SM-M, 15:185-188. 1941d. Review of D. B. Rogers, "Prehistor- ic Man of the Santa Barbara Coast," A Ant, 6:372-375. 1941e. Some Sacramento Valley - Santa Bar- bara Archaeological Relation- ships, SM-M, 13:31-36. 1947. Francis Drake and the California Indians, 1579. UC-PAAE, 42:251-302. 1949. The Archaeology of Central Cali- fornia, I: The Early Horizon, UC-AR, 12:1. and F. Fenenga 1939. Archaeological Horizons in Central California. AA,41:378-399. Kroeber, A. L. 1936. Prospects in California Prehistory, A Ant, 2:108-116. Lillard, J. B., and W. K. Purves 1936. Archaeology of the Deer Creek- Cosumnes Area, Sacramento County, California, Sacramento Junior College, Department of Anthro- pology, Bull. 1. 110 Beardsley, R. K. HEIZER AND COOK, CENTRAL CALIFORNIA ARCHAEOLOGY: BONE ANALYSIS Lillard, J. B., R. F. Heizer, and F. Fenenga 1939. An Introduction to the Archaeology of Central California, Sacramento Junior College, Dept. of Anthro- pology, Bull. 2. McGregor, J. S. 1941. Winona and Ridge Ruin, Pt. I. Mu- seum of Northern Arizona, Bull. 18. 1943. Burial of an Early American Magi- cian. Proc. Amer. Philos. Soc., 86:270-298. Olson, R. L. 1930. Chumash Prehistory. UC-PAAE, 28:1-21. Setzer, Jose' 1947. Chemical Analysis of Indian Mounds. Master's thesis, Division of Soil Science, University of California. MS. Treganza, A. E., and S. F. Cook 1948. The Quantitative Investigation of Aboriginal Sites: Complete Exca- vation with Physical, and Archaeo- logical Analysis of a Single Mound. A Ant, 13:287-297. Walker, E. F. 1945. The Dig at Big Tujunga Wash. SM-M, 19:188-193. Schenck, W. E., and E. J. Dawson 1929. Archaeology of the Northern San Joaquin Valley. UC-PAAE, 25:289-413. ill