Radiocarbon Dates f rom California of Archaeological Interest Robert F0 Heizer The recently developed method of dating organic remains of archaeo- logical, paleontological or geological interest by measuring the remanent radloactlvity of the C14 (radlocarbon) component is described in a number of readily avallable printed sources-for example, Libby (1955, 1956), Wise (1955), Carr and Kulp (1954), Deevey (1952), Kulp (1952, 1953), Griffin (1955), Broecker and Kulp (1956)o Levi (1955) has a valuable bibliography of radiocarbon dat'ing coverlng the period 1946 to 1954o Although the radiocarbon method is commonly represented as a " scien- tific'4 technique for determining the exact age of a sample of organic ma- terials under carefully controlled laboratory conditions, this conception is quite erroneous (Spaulding, 1958)o The age determinations are never precise, since they are always accompanied by a plus-or=rminus error which is never less than 100 years and at times as much as 1200 years. Indeed, although the halfKLife of radiocarbon is now agreed to be 5568 + 30 years, both the halftlife figure and error figure are approximations and at the same t3me averageso Actual mistakes or errors can occur in the radiocar- bon laboratory, and the possibility of this having happened must be kept always in mind0 In some instances these errors have been detected by the archaeologists who submitted the sample for dating,1 but in other cases it must be presumed that there is no way to detect such errors and the assump. tion must be made that the date is acceptableo Any single run, therefore, is hypothetically suspect as regards accuracyo When two determinations of the same sample9, or several samples from the same deposit, are assayed9 we are in a stronger positlon of judging the probably accuracy by noting the degree of consistency of the dates0 The plus-or-minus error flgure is statistleally derived, and is interpreted9 with reference to the radiocarbon date itself, as signifylng one chance in three that the true date of the sample wlll fall outside the laboratory=run date plus or minus the error, and one chance in twenty that lo To cite one example, Ro Fo HeiLzer and Eo Antevs in 1950 submitted sample C-554 to Libby and recelved a date of 2736 + 500 BoPo This was so patently iLn error that LLbby re-ran more of the same sample and secured two dates which are acceptable since they agree wlth other chronological indications0 The re-runs were 5779 + 400 and 5694 + 325 BoPo-certainly a maJor correction0 This incident is des-cribed in context in Heizer, L951 9 pa 92o For other instances, see Bird (1951) and Hunt (1955). the true date Will fall outside the laboratory date plus or minus two times the error (cf. Wauchope9 1954, pp. 19-20; Bird, 1951, pp0 46-47), For exam- ple, let us illustrate with combined sample C-440/C-522 from an Early Central Califomrla horlzon slte (SJo-68). The laboratory date is 4052 + 160 years0 There is one chance in three that the true date of this sample is outside the range 3892-4212 years old, and one chance in twenty that it falls outside the range 3732-4372 years old. The several col.umns in the accompanylng table give the laboratory date (elapsed years) with + error, the B.Po date range with'in one slgma of + error, the laboratory date converted to Christian calen- dar date, and the Christian calendar date range within one sigma of + error. Errors 'in dat'ing determinatlon can be made 'in the laboratory, as mentioned earlier. There is no way to guard against such mistakes, and the archaeologist can only hope that these are infrequent. Johnson (1956) has clearly set forth the responsibilitles of the sample collector0 The person who collects the sample must make the decision as to whether the sample is suitable or not, and further must be qualified to judge the archaeological or geological signiflcance of the sample (cf. Antevs, 1957). The sample collector has a second maln responsibility which is publication and this may be divided 'into two parts. First is the matter of description of the sample. This must be informative, complete, and accurate. Second is the requirement for careful and complete analysis and judgment of the date and its signifi- cance in the light of association or archaeological context* Such assessment oughtg properly, to cite all relevant literature in order to provide other workers with orientationo The following cormments are offered as suggestions to those readers who may wlsh to learn more of the context of the California dates. The opin- ions as to the significance of particular dates given here are those of the present author unless otherwise stated, C-186. Date for this sample refers to a large shellmound (4-Mrn-115) on thearin County shore of San Francisco Bay. The significance of the date is not clear since it has not been definitely established whether the level from which the sample was taken is of Middle Horizon or Phase I Late Horizon date. This confusion rests squarely upon the shoulders of the present author who collected the material (charcoal) and submitted it to Libby with- out being certaain at the time as to the cultural association. This sample has been discussed elsewhere by Heizer (1951a, p. 25) and Meighan (19539 ppo 5b6)0 C-440 and C-522 (combined sample). Two small lots of charcoal screened from e en mass of this Early Horizon site provide a direct date for this culture period. Of the several sites (Sac-1079 SJo-1429 SJo-569 SJo-68) known of this period, SJo-689 from which sample C-440/C-522 comes9 is be- ALeved to be the latest (Helzer, 1949, po 34). ihn 1957 the Michigan Laboratory (more correctly the University of Michigan Memorial-Phoenix Project Radiocarbon Laboratory) determined dates MAP 1 Sites in Califomia with C14 Dates Legenrd A - Archaeological sites. * - Geological or Paleontological locality. I I ~I L/^e -- 1. 2. 3* 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Thomas (Mrn-115) Blossom (SJo-68) Willow Creek (Mnt-282) Medicine Lake (general) Hotchkiss (CCo138) Newark (Ala-328) Johnson (Sac-6) University Village (SMeT77) Santa Rosa Island (various sites) Little Harbor (SCaI-46) Weat Berkeley (Ala-307) La Jolla (2 sites) K N I N '4 S I&cE e - - - I0 I - -- of three site SJo-68 samples0 These are numbered M-645, M-646, Mx64a0 One has been mentioned in print (Heizer, 1957, po 3)0 Sample M4645 consisted (like the original sample,, No0 C-440/C-522) of a screnings sampXe of small blts of wood charcoal from the midden be- tween 24 Inches and 60 inches below the surface0 Sample MQ646 was one lot of calcined human bone from a cremation9) buta as stated by Dr0 J. B0 Grilffin, "the specimen did not fill the counter, so that this date does not have quite the reliability of that from our M-646 of charcoal.t' In view of the closeness of dates from combined sample C-440/C-522, sample M1645 and sam- ple 1M647, I also believe that the date of M-646 is not reliable since it is rather younger 'in years while being stratigraphically equivalent to C-440/ C0522, 1m=6459 and m-647. Sample M1647 was a large batch of calcined human bone frmm a crema- tion, and Dr, Griff'ins opinion is that "Othls is certairnly a more reliable date than for M&646, and I think that that fnle09, 1M646] should be more or less ignored in your conlsidering the age of the Early Horizon of the Windt miller Complexo. A point of 'Interest here is the closeness of dates of two different materials==wood carbon (C0440/C-522 and M4645) and calclned anid carbonized human bone (Mk647). We conclude that there are now three reliable radiocarbon dated sam- ples for th'is silte which are 4052 + 160, 4100 + 250, and 4350 + 250 years old0 cO628, C695o Two samples of wood charcoal from the bottom of a buried she moun (Mntc282) at the mouth of Willow Creek, Monterey County, dat0 within the first century of the Christian era0 The site was excavated by the summer field classes of the Unlversity of California (Berkeley) under the direction of Ro F0 Heizer in 1951 and Ro K. Beardsley in 1.952. The filnal archaeol.ogical report has not been completed. The radliocarbon date was deemed desirable because the lower midden was capped with a sterile waterlaid gravel. stratum over ten feet in thkickc ness, and these gravels were capped in turn with a superficlal shell mound layer. The lowerg buried midden is site Mnt=282; the uppermost raidden is site Mnt=281. C=673. The date of the volcanic eruption in the Medicine Lake Highlands which formed Glass Mountain provldes a "max'imum age for the huge flows of obsidian found in the vilcinity of Medicine Lake" (see Chestennan, 1955)O Glass Mountain obsidian, widely used by Indians in Northern California (Heizer and Treganzsa 1944; Smith and Weymouth, 19529 po 10) could not, therefore,, have been available before 600 A.D. This fact may prove, in future9 of interest to archaeologists0 C-689, A charcoal sample from a Late Horizon site (CCOK138) in the Sacra- meii -tSan Joaquin delta region just east of Knightsen gives a date which refers to the earlier phase of Late Culture (Phase I). The site is not fully deser'ibed 'in print, but a manuscript is deposited in UCAS files, and a brief analysis has been published (Lillard, Heizer and Fenenga, 19399 pp. 70-72)o The radiocarbon date fits reasonably well with a guess-chronology based on other evldence (Heizer, 1949, p. 39)o c-690o This sample of wood charcoal was collected from the lower levels of te Tewark site (Ala-328) which has been excavated by A. E. Treganza of San Francisco State College. For the past seven years he has returned to the site each fall semester With a weekend classo An interim analysis of data recovered has been prepared by J. Davis (nodo)o This detailed report will be published 'in the near future by the UCAS. Davis recogn izes three componentsg A, Late Horizon;Z B, later Middle Horizon; C, earlier Middle Horzon, The daFe for sample Ce690 refers to the lower-level component Bo Component C at Ala=328 is equated wlith the lowest levels at Ala-307 (cf. samples M4421 to M-l27)9 Ellis Landing site (CCo-295), and the Bodega Bay silte (Son-299)O C0691, A sample of the butt of a carbonized wooden post assoclated with a EUse floor in the Johnson mound (Sac-6) gives a radiocarbon date that is certainly in erroro The true age might be as much as 1000 years, but some- what less would be expected, The carbon sample belongs stratigraphically to late Phase 1 or Phase 2 of the Late Horizon culture. Since the date is clearly in error, and presumably the explanation lies in something which went wrong in the dating laboratory, no accounti,ng can be given. Libby planned to check the date with an alternative sample which was specially collected, buat has not done so to date, Ll87A, L-187Bo The Unilverslty Village site (SMao77) was excavated by Bo Gerow of Stanford Universlty. Gerow believes that the site probably falls in the little known transitional period between the Early and Middle Horizon cultures, Gerow has written a report (Gerow, n.d.) on the excava- tions which has not yet been publ'ished, Although our present body of fact concerning chronology of Central California cultures is pretty small, we may observe that the two University Village dates which average 2925 B.Po (972 B.Co) do fall between the Early Horizon culture dates (samples C-440/C=522, M-645, M1647) which average at 2204 B.C0 and the Newark site date (sample C-690) of 386 BoCo L=244. Of geological significance, and referring to Santa Rosa Island. fliscussed by Orr (1956, p. 7)0 La2?57. Date based on red abalone (Haliot'is rufescens) shell from midden deposit. No information given by Orr 9 9 pp -258) to permit 'inde- pendent judgment of significance of date0 Orr ascribes the date as doubt- ;iilly gl'Dune Dweller.98 Carr and Kulp (1954) d'iscuss the reliability of >tes derived from marine-shells. Jr290D. Samae comment as for L-257o Broecker and Kuip (1957, p. 1328) give flITTerent date for this samplen7050 + 300 years, L-290R0 Orr (lp56, pa 7) implies that this date, derived from chlarred maim= mot,lFone, refers to the presence of man on Santa Rosa Tsiand. Until full details of occurrence are presented judgment as to significance of this and other Santa Rosa Island dates should be avoidedo A slightly different date, perhaps based on recomputation, is glven for this sampie by Broecker and Kulp (19572 p. 1`26). L-299B, Date oased on shell (species not given) 9from an old midden."1 No Tnfohmation given on significance of the date beyond staterment that age of lime-pan type of midden and age of valley fill is inaicated0 L-299C. Date based on charcoal from a midden. N.o cultural information given on siLte. Significance of date impossible to discerno Lc299D0 Sample stated to be charcoal from Texas Street site at San Diego. Garter s opinion, not shared by many persons who have seen the localityg is that evidence o+. early man (Carter says third Interglacial) occurs here0 Wcl42, Date derived from charcoal recovered during constructiLon excavations nFEEe Scripps campus at La Jolla. The collectors (0. Hubbs and GL1 Garter) believe that the charcoal t"is probably of human origin9,V but cannot give proof that the stratum from which the charcoal came marks an occupation de- posit0 One can only conclude that this date is still another upon which judgment shouild be reserved, since its stratigraphic and situational con- texts are unclear0 1w54,9 W.l55$ Shells (sample Wl154) and charcoal (sample W155) are from the same locality as sample W-1429 but apparently derive f'rom a younger fill layer0 No significance can be attached to this date which refers to a hearth containing charcoal and Mytilus shellso In the published description of the sample (Rubin and SuessVT7Tp, 487) it is noted that saraples W15h and W-l55 "icame from the same terrace fill as sample W=1429 but the possibility of a more recent canyon cut and fill was mentioned by the collector at the time the sampl.es were submltted. The dates show that the samples are lndeed from this younger fill)' kore recently, Carter (19569 fig0 6) has treated the significance of thi.s date, and in comparing the date with his soil colorr time scheme says, t'The fsoil] color is wrong rl.e9 indicates an older date] for this fC14] date and may be due to somewhat weathered materials deposited on the hearth."l One who is uninitiated in Cartergs soils.4ime method can only suggest that if the alluvial geology only suggested the possibility of a younger canyon cut and fill, and if the soil color indications are contrary to the radiocarbon date, there is a possibility that the radiocarbon date it- self may be incorrecto If the present author were faced wi.th this situation, he would secrure a check rum on samples Wl54h and Wi5$5. M4i2l Ml27(O According to Wo Wallace who excavated the West Berkeley site d)AJi-iVfor the T-TAS, "the mound is probably the earliest one yet excavated in that [east bayshorej region." Although this may be true, the Ellis Land- ing shellmound and the Emeryylule shellmond (site Ala3099 from whose b&se the UCAS in 1957 secured charcoal for dating) may be equally old or older than Aa-307. It Will be noted that the suite of dates from Ala-307 refers to arbi- trary stratlgraphic levels in the slte3 and that thebe are not fully consis- tento The broad conclusion permitted by these dates is that site Ala=307 may have been occupied about 3500 years ago. To take each of the age figures literally involves one in attempting to explain inconsistencies which may result from sampling errors, laboratory errors3 or other factors. A report on the Ala-307 excavatlon is being prepared by Lathrap and Wallace (ms.)O M-434. Date based on Hallotis shells from bottom level (depth 24 inches) & ridden at Little Bar or3 Catalina Island. Excavation was supervised by C0 WO Meighan whose report is now ready for publication (Meighan, n.d.)o He states that the slte is "8pre-Canal.inoO." m-645, Discussed above under C-440 and C- 552. m-646, Discussed above under C-440 and C-552, 1-647. Discussed above under C-440 and C-552. M-648. Compare wlth sample C-691 which is an erroneous date for the same site7 (Sac-6)o Sample M-648 (wood charcoal) refers to Late Phase 1 and sample C-689 (Hotchkiss site CCo-138) rqkrs to Mid4le Phase 1. Mr. James Bennyhoff, who is making an- intensive study of the Late Horizon cultur.e3 believes at this time that this culture can be subdivlded 'into the following phases- Phase 2 1600 - 1850 AoDo Late Phase 1 1100 - 1600 AoDm Middle Phase 1 700 - 1100 AoD. Early Phase 1 300 - 700 AoDo CT-38. This date3 based upon a piece of matting made of surfgrass (Phyllo- spadix), refers to Santa Rosa Island, Orr (19569 ppo 4-5) believes the a te fers to the Late Canal'no periodo The Canalino culture is described by Rogers (1929) 9 it is equivalent to the Late Mainland and Late Island ^ulture of Olson (1930). CT-4O. This date ls said by Orr (19569 p. 5) to refer to the Early Canal- tbcUiilture phase (cf. CT-38)0 Carter (1956, fig. 6) lists the 3'Late Dune Dwellers" phase on Santa R.osa Island at 2500 years old, Orr (19569 po 5) states that the Canalino 0 6 culture (which postdates Dune Dwellers) begins about 3500 years ago. It is probable that Carter is referring to sample CT-40 which Orr classes question- ably as Early Canalino. Such inconsistencies leave the uninitiated in some confusion, since Orr's publication (1956) which Carter (1956,9 fno 2) cites clearly makes CT-40 refer to Canalino, One can only conclude that the dating is primary and cultural assignation comes later so that the best fit is ar- ranged between culture phase and time. The ever-present possibility that single-run dates may be very incorrect (two examples are given above) should make the archaeologist very cautious about changing culture classifications to fit such single dates0 Discussion Of the dated samples listed in the table and briefly discussed above, some concluding observations may be offered. The Early Horizon of Central California now appears, as judged by samples C-440/C-522,4 M-645, and M-647, to have begun to either develop into, or to be replaced by, the Middle Horizon culture about 4000 years ago (cf. Heizer, 1949, p. 34)0 The culture disclosed at site Mnt-282 shows significant connections with the Santa Barbara channel between 1800 and 1900 years ago. Phase 1 of the Late Horizon culture of Central California, as judged by sample C-689, was in operation by 700 AS.o The actual beginning date of this culture phase can probably be projected back to about 300 A.D. San Francisco Bay was occupied by the Middle Horizon shellfish gatherers, if we consider samples C-690, L-187A,9 L187B9 and M-121 to 14-127, by 3500 years agoo The radiocarbon dates confirm existing conclusions on chronology which are ultimately based upon the rate-of-accumulation age computations made by Nelson, Gifford and Cook. The large number of radiocarbon dates from the Santa Barbara region (mostly from Santa Rosa Island) are unfortunately not of much utility at the moment since the content of the culture phases mentioned are not de- tailed. We urgently need a fully documented report on Santa Rosa Island archaeology which contains detailed plans and profiles of all particular find sites with illustrations of artifacts, mammoth bones exhibiting the marks of human action, burials, etc.. etc., etc. In broad terms, mpst of us will admit that the radiocarbon dating nethod has made significant contributions to the important matter of arch- aeological chronology in California, Among the factors which contribute to the necessity at this time of viewing the results of radiocarbon dating analysls for California as a mixed blessing are collectores errors (e.g. -7- samples c=186, w154, W-155) which provide dates that cannot be put into meaningful archaeological contexts; probable laboratory errors which pro- duce internal inconsistencies (eogog the sample series M--121 to M-127) or are clearly wrong (e.g., sample C-691); single-run dates whose accuracy cannot be checked, or even estimated; and finally, a number of dates for which no adequate report on the archaeological situation has been provided. Errors of collecting are unfortunate and the archaeologist should be fully aware of his responsibility in regard to collecting materials to be dated (cf. Johnson, 1956; Melghan, 1956); errors which occur in the preparation of the sample and its laboratory analysis and in the mathematical computa- tions are also unfortunate, but nothing can be done by the archaeologist to control or correct such errorso2 The inability of the archaeologist to provide the scientific public with the detailed facts required to establish cultural context for those radiocarbon dates which have been announced is the archaeologist9s responslbilityo No actlve archaeologist is ever fully up to date on his reporting, and the present author does not except himself from the stricture of failing to report the archaeology of some of the cul- tural dates--thus the report on the Willow Creek site for which there are two dates (samples C-628, C-695) has not yet been completedg although anal- ysis of the materiLals has been done. In general terms, workers at Berkeley have tried to secure dates for sites and culture phases which are already fairly well known since such dates can be more usefully employed in order- ing the larger body of archaeologlcal data, Nothing said above should be construed as anything but constructive criticism, Radiocarbon dating has been until now, and will probably con- tilnue for some time to be, done on an informal basis where individual workers make their own arrangements with dating laboratories. These ar- rangements depend either upon personal contacts or locally available funds, and the result is a body of data which in its totality is unprogramed and cannot be harmonized by any single person. In Californla it would be most constructive to hold a conference at which dates could be discussed and where arrangements for a detailed joint analysis and publication of all information could be worked outo 20 Except, of course, to request that a sample be re-run, or to submit a second sample to another laboratory in the hope of checking the suspect date. I i I I 0 14 Cs H -i r r-l iJ 0- A C I C' 0-' -. cv | t- 0, o (Y (IV (1 U cv WC\ E r ;\( 10 ECl C- N V O HH'O c\I C U Vc N n t3 co4o H Lo to PN '50 'N N CV I CY - ( n 'c0 0 HH H H H 1 see|8 8 a a et a aa ateiI 8 0 000 0 000 00 U\0 0 0 | Qi | | l iQ9 I m m mrcpml ml ml i N 0'0 CV to XLa to-rc u--oZ ONC toQ H Hr0 ' O ' 0 cV cnLr\s ON tor % ^ 0 0to CY) H 0 W H 0 -ton 0 N C t0 0 OV 0r 0 N\H H V N n G N \l H H 4 S C I +I+5+1 +0 +8 +1+ l +1 +8 ++0 +0+1+0I + 0 +I +0 I roa'o cv cv c4 O N C- C- CN V > 0 Hn 0 0' 4 C\ rto 00 _ HU\ Cfl^O CV H CVto 'O ~ )H 4tr H H Q HHH cV H 0 00 0 H c C\CV nr e rn CS | m m ml ml ml m m ml | m ml mQ p m ml mll ml m n m oo Ct o 0 o 0 0 0 0 CY,\(O CV .0 CV CV CVl 10 to-to0 N00"H ri 4 4N to'0 nN 0 1 nto 0'-CVC to 04 r- N r- (N r- N 2 \ H H H H CH CV H CVC H CV cV c O 1 3 I 1 0 RB 0 8 I 3 0 I b n C\ o N too oari\ 0 o oo 0 0 H n o' H CV 0oO CV to %H to xO CV H- to oto C H '-I'O -4 N n N'-0' o N 0 < '\ 'N 'N IN 1 1\ N \ 0N 61 'N 10 0 00 0 14 0 A9 0 0 0 4e 4-O 'Co .4., 0) Q) o 0co 0 ) '0 0 ) CO c co x -H COO ti 4)- H O 0) OC Ut O -H 0) 4H cr50 0 ) 00 bOOH Ca at o HoaQ 0 COH C O0 14 CH xi~ p m 0 o 0) 0 4 1 c Ck 13 GB Ct 0 0 c o cy -0 0 N n C ,' (Y., I I I II I 11 C Lr CQ C\ C:4 I0)0 0) U 0) 43 A co 0 CO C' K' 1 E-4 ri C. 0 0 4 C: 42 A I *8 ) F -I 0 C\l 41- L- to 01) 0 to' CV O '0 0 I I I I 0 0 c O to-4 46 +0 +0 EC\EC\N m m n oONO '%0 0 -0 4OH Cfl H'NH rHj I N I I I '0 cio 01) C cc 0 c 0 r Q CM -- CV t( 0 C 'N cc, I I 4 r- "' 0 I I I I II I 1% I 0 -H 14 C)3 0 C C\ I-C (N1 C-' co 0) l - C) 43 0 a) to cn orl I 042 to 0 0 4 1 1 CD N Lr CV C\ V +j +0 + 4 n IN (It -lQ 4-fl 4-U % o a C OC Lr\ 0 C-' 100 N Nt cii C' CV s0 0 Lj\0 0'- 0 tH CN +4 +li +j n r ef Lf\ Lr-r m 4 -m N C\l C\C CVVC I I i I 0() 4-H co 0 co 0 '0 C) Co HI4 0 u C ic CN Lr ) )~ ) I I c 0 r-H cvi 430 '0-3 C +8 C- C C%l + l cr Er PC Er 4-) 14 0) I'H c C to4 aH'- A . 9 : 10 - :h rl fri -t s-P 01) N 0) N bV 1:3 rlc to H-' A- S 0 0 c) a 9 = S Cq I 0-" %-O tco %(N t-o to ci H H I- iI 0' 0I V% Cr' ell C-) 00 ) 0 0 0 flO m 1 Q < m cm m o t 0 O L\ -+ U v @ v40 IL.>4 U) mC to H- to to HJQ CV @Y 0 to H H H ~CVH a 8 a 0 0l 0 81 01 0l 080 0411u I mII ml m3i 11 | R %l N N r4 Oti U' H 0 H NO CO H H NOO r 0 0 0HCH 2 0 022 0 00 0 to NO0 0 0 0 0 884 S C\l r-o cv CV It cv trg(ol ?{ s> +0 +0 +0 +0 +0 +0 40 +0 +0 + +0 +0 D 4 m m m c > n r c cc 0 NO Utcu U' o NO N H CV 44 U' m to to H NO o cvc -t vi ; o- (N PCr LR0 lroo- n - NO O - U.)ntrtU U ' P P m m m mm m m m m n m m m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q0 00 0 NO C to 0 00 H Nl~ 'O toI O U) U)-4tCVI O) u4 0N a4 r NONON C0 HCNI (N r4 HO A H H o tt to NO U- NO CV C\C1 C3 H _ _ _ _ _ _r1 -ou 011 ror 43 0 a) %-. co 0) 43 Cd ci, C) 0 cri :-4 o 4,0 P4 C C to (N +0 it it C cl ,co cc a, ul, r- 0 Nr +0 U,N Is, m 0 to NO 10 0% H N Hoo C (N +0 Ic Cl% a to 0 0 'IO cc co 43 0) C o d C-) OH & o X 43 o co O Oct - O X 4- CW E- A- eH Cd 0 0Cd n: 0 H 0X 4U) H H r^ 0 oc4r~ ? n ciXHo CVOn 0 +0 NIO m 0 tos am CV C w r- + 0 w C C cc (N C C) O t C ACi PC c 0 Cr sc Ct a: 'CY 0 c0 C% ,04 0 Xd i0% cr1 V~~ 04 0 taG 0 A CO 04 Or b4 F- OC/ m 0= co x CEod C' -4 A 0 : I i + 0 -4 UI-c m C Cll ac C 0 (\l +0 -4 Ic Lr m 0 tco cc c lcX (N +0 Lr c c I C i I I I -4 n G 4 +0+0 L4"\ LC\ I-f mI CV 1~- -; 404 aA I A 0 tr > cc La- 4 CO ed it' co, C\VrA 01 I- I 005 - 0 t) 0 r (I ccc COf P4-0 S-i 40; UN @r C-1 r- r- rc .C -4 i ci C- rt C F- c Cd r C-, HW Lt' I-" 0 I I: I a* g .- 0 IC 0 H 0 4) co CVQ) ; 0 C V CC- 0H c, r- o t noJ CV r- J:A c C Cr I I-c m C (r~ i- C (r r~ Cr E - --C (9 - 10? 0 co Co If) ...O Co C- o 0 - ,-O H H-1 - v H- H H I I I . I I l %- t- 30 Ln Ul mmS - -Lr\ Lr L- cn 'IO4 \ C\ -t alCN --t -t ( w % 9 NI -t 4N o D D CY) to \-0 co D| D CN 0 HHH O O H O HO C) V \ I oc a - 1 8 r 88 N a a al O O 0 O 0 00 0 0 0 C,E " 0 2-C'U\ LC'%tLO Co ) 0 iLi10 H Y C -40 to CY) (v c\ l -1 N Cr Cd +0 ;ti + 14 -H +9 +6 -h +j cw H Al z H i + CV toOtO HO H1 C HO H\ L\ C H H-CV CV CVl CY) O 0004-I 0 0io 000 0 0 N 07 0il O OtA 0K 004 -C . ,, --, CV .- 2 i4 I Q PC m mS meC ml m m mt mS ml PQ m; xla E I+ +I +0 800+ ol ola +a 8s o +?0ii og { 0 0 4 0 OD 000 0 0C rn S LCN\ o w @iH N-N HI4] <' CV .CY,4 0 C to -4-4 gi ei , k 0fi Y r Cs C c\l (V N - L(t0fl Lr\WC o0 4 1 I 1 8 A L(\0 0 11 8 0 c i 10 a0 10 <, 101 Q 4\ l4 R C, .4 m m m mwm CT m CV o -0 - i -- o1- . -4 - '4.-)" &i O-I 0 0 C) 0 Cd 0 ,0 A 0 0 co- 0 CZ P34 0 0 C'n G 0 0. C5,, n CN. Co Co CN LCI\LAL\C LALALC 00 ) r-r CC\ ( LC iS ac 'IO Y'4 I'll I I ll? IN I 0 i 0 0 0 c O O O Lr cy' -- Cv- c\ Er LIk vi'- LJ en I. Lrl~u cyt (q n (IC 0i fi ,S 0. I ,r r-4f I 4 r-I CMat. (Q) 1A j -4 IN r Ul +0 11 + 1 4;i q~ ~~ar trt lCe lu 1 Q PQ PQ 7 PQ U 0 7 I alto ! N"1 j 4 a 11 Q r. 1I Sa c- I 3* 0 4 01 > l't iiX -Il j?hd-;t -l I 'D '7 L,, 10 i; fIX P; i W IF 11 .i II i I .4 i i I 11 J:. ;l ij i 9. 0 -4 C, k-A 'IO C '-C cIr +0 ac C-' I - I . I t to NO H '0 urll~ ,. ,32 U>u- ft S ] I I e-4 tCV 1' a 0l', r-4' I I C N C \' rJM H'j r-4'3 11- j I; ! I 11 if .1 ,r 1 5,- j -r j l I C', 0. I W - CC R I I < (0C $ co I C C l U2~~ rj C)" r q> (0i ci' c 0 - I - a m- rt co' U) 8' @ ,H 0 4 i Cl Xr- I 4 d IO ffi I 00 I E-- U itI Notes to Data in Table Samples C-186 and C-440/C-522 (two combined) were run during the eighteen months preceding February 2, 1951. For the purpose of convert- ing to the Christian calendar the year 1950 was assumed as the date of the run. Sample C-628 was run during the period September 1, 1950 to September 1, 1951. 1951.was used as the conversion date. Samples C-673 and C-695 were run during the period September 1, 1951 to September 1, 1952. 1952 was used as the conversion date. Samples C-690 and c-691 were run during the period September 1, 1952 to September 1, 1953. 1953 was used as the conversion date, Sample C-689 was run during the period September 1, 1953 to September 1, 1954. 1954 was used as the conversion date. Samples L-187A and L-187B were run in 1953. Samples L-244 and L-257 were run in 1955 (see (8)J. Samples L-290D and L-290R were run during the period September, 1955 to July 27, 1956. 1955 was used as the conversion date. Samples W-1422 W-154, and W-155 were run in 1954. Samples M-121 through M-127 were run during a period from early in 1954 to October, 1956. 1955 was used as the conversion date. Samples CT-38 and CT-4o were run during the period from 1952 to 1956. 1954 was used as the conversion date. Samples L-299BI L-299C, and L-299D were run between October, 1955 and September, 1957. Conversion date for these three is calculated at 19560 The average dates given (in parentheses) for University of Michi- gan dates did not appear in source (3), but were calculated arthmeti- cally from the dates given. The margin of error of the average date was calculated by the formula: Av. error = (E1)2 (E2)2... + (En)2 - 12 - References Cited in Table I. (1) Arnold, J. R. and Libby, W. F. 1951 Radiocarbon Dates. Science, Vol. 113, pp. 111-120, (2) Broecker, 1956 (3) Crane, H. 1956 (4) Libby, W. 1951 (5) 1952 (6) 1954 (7) 1954 (8) Orr, Phil 1956 WO SO s Jo Lo Kulp and C. So Tucek Lamont Natural Radiocarbon Measurements IIIo Science, Vol0 124., pp. 154-165. R. University of Michigan Radiocarbon Dates Io Science, Vol. 124, pp. 664-672. F, Radiocarbon Dates II. Science, Vol. 114, pp. 291-296. Chicago Radiocarbon Dates III Science, Vol. 116, pp. 6736810 Chicago Radiocarbon Dates IVo Science, Vol. 119, pp. 135-140o Chicago Radiocarbon Dates V. Science, Vol. 120, pp. 733 742* CO Radiocarbon Dates from Santa Rosa Island, I. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, Dept. of Anthro- pology Bulletin No. 2, pp. 1-10. (9) Rabin, Meyer and Hans E. Suess 1955 U. S. Geological Survey Radiocarbon Dates IIo Science, Vol. 121, pp. 481-488o (10) Meighan, C. Personal communication to R. F. Heizer, Feb. 17, 1957. (Also report in press [Meighan, nodo],) (11) Griffin, J. W. Personal communications to R. Fo Heizer, Aug. 30, Nov. 5, Nov. 15, 1957. (12) Broecker, W. S, and J. L. Kulp 1957 Lamont Natural Radiocarbon Measurements IVo Science, Volo 126, pp. 1324.1334. 13 Bibliography Antevs,9 Ea 1957 Geological Tests of the Varve and Radiocarbon Chronologieso Journal of Geology, Vol. 65, pp. 129-148o Bird, J. 1951 South American Radiocarbon Dates0 In F. Johnson (ed.) Radiocarbon Dating0 Soc0 for Amer. Arch., Mem.-To 8, pp. 37-49, Broecker, W. S. and J. L. Kulp 1956 The Radiocarbon Method of Age Determination. American Antiquity, Vol. 22, pp. l-ll. 1957 Lamont Natural Radiocarbon Measurements IVa Science, Vol. 126, pp. 1324-1334o Carr, Do R. and J. L. Kulp 1955 Dating with Natural Radioactive Carbon. Trans. N. Y. Acad, Sci., Ser. 2, Vol0 16, pp. 175-181, Carter, G. F. 1956 On Soil Color and Time. Southwestern Jour, of Anthro,, Vol. 12, pp. 295-324, Chesterman, CO WO 1955 Age of the Obsidian Flow at Glass Mountain, Siskiyou County, Califomia. Amer. Jour, of Science, Vol. 253, pp. 418-424. Davis, JO To n,d, The Patterson Mound: a Comparative Analysis of the Archaeology of Site Ala.328* MoA. Thesis, Dept. of Anthropology, Berkeley (to be published in UCAS-Reports)o Deevey, Ea SO 1952 Radiocarbon Dating. Scientific Americang Vol. 186, ppO 24-28, Ge row, Bo nodo The University Village Complex: The Archaeology of SMa-77, an Early Site On San Francisco Bayo Mso Griffin, JO B, 1955 Chronology and Dating Processes, In Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research Yearbook 5? Anthropology, 1955, pp. 133-147o Heizer, R. Fe 1949 The Archaeology of Central California, I: The Early Horizono UC-AR, Vol. 12, No0 lo - 14 c Heizers Re Fo (contgd) 1951a An Assessment of Certain Nevada, California and Oregon Radiocarbon Dateso In Fo Johnson (ed.) Radiocarbon Dating. Soc. for Amer. Archo, Mem. N6, 8, pp. 23-25* 1951b Preliminary Report on The Leonard Rockshelter Site, Pershing County, Nevada,o American Antiquity, Vol. 17, ppo 89-98o 1957 Report to Chancellor Clark Kerr for the Year Ending June 30, 1957 of UCAS activitieso Berkeley (mimeographed). Heizer, R. Fo and A. E. Treganxza 1944 Mines and Quarries of the Indians of Californiao Calif, Jour, Mines and Geolo, Vol. 40, pp. 291-359o Hmt, C. Bo 1955 Radiocarbon Dating in the Light of Stratigraphy and Weathering Process, Scientific Monthly, Vol. 81, pp. 240-247. Johnson, F. 1956 Radiocarbon Dating Lists and Their Use. American Antiquity, Vol. 21, ppo 312-3133 KuIp, JO Lo 1952 The Carbon-14 Method of Age Determination* Scientific Monthly, Volo 759 pp. 259-2670 1953 Dating with Radioactive Carbon, Jour. Chemical Education, Vol. 309 ppo 432-435o Lathrap, D. and WO Wallace nodo Archaeology of West Berkeley Site (Ala-307). Mso in preparation. Levi, Hilde 1955 Bibliography of Radiocarbon Dating. Quaternaria, Vol. 2, pp. 1-7, Rome, Libby, WO F. 1955 Radiocarbon Dating. Univ. Chicago Press, 2d ed. 1956 Radiocarbon Dating. American Scientist, Vol. 449 pp. 98-112, Lillard, J. Bo, Ro Fo Helzer and Fo. Fenenga 1939 An Introduction to the Archaeology of Central California, Sacramento Jr. College Depto Anthropology, Bull. 2. Meighan, C. W. 1953 Preliminary Excavation at the Thomas Site, Marnn County, Californiao UCAS-R 19, Paper No. 19, pp. 1c140 15 - Meighan, C. W. (contgd) 1956 Responsibilities of the Archaeologist in Using the Radiocarbon Method. Papers of the Third Great Basin Archeological Conference, Univ. Utah Anthropo Papers, No. 26, pp. 48-53. n.d. Excavations at Little Harbor, Catalina Island. American Antiquity, in press. Olson, R. Lo 1930 Chumash Prehistory. Univ. Calif. Publ. Amer. Arch. and Ethnol,, Vol. 28, No0 19 ppo 1-21* Orr, P. C. 1952 Review of Santa Barbara Channel Archaeology, Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, Vol. 8,, pp. 211-226o 1956 Dwarf Mammoths and Man on Santa Rosa Island. Papers of the Third Great Basin Archeological Conference, Univ. Utah Anthropo Papers, No0 26,9 pp. 74-81o Rogers, Do Bo 1929 Prehistoric Man of the Santa Barbara Coast. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History. Smith, C. E. and WO Do Weymouth 1952 Archaeology of the Shasta Dam Area, Califomniao UCAS-R 18. Spaulding, Ao CO 1958 The Significance of Differences Between Radiocarbon Dates, American Antiquity, Vol. 23, pp. 309-311. Wauchope, R. 1954 Implications of Radiocarbon Dates from Middle and South America, Middle America Research Records, Vol. 2, pp. 19-39. Tulane Univ.9 New Orleans. Wise, Eo No 1955 The C-14 Age Determination Method, In Geochronology, Univ.' Arizona Bull. Series, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 170-176. _ 16 - Radiocarbon Dates from Nevada of Archaeological Interest Gordon Lo Grosscup Since the publication of the first Nevada C14 dates in 1951, a total of twenty-two archaeological and thirty geological samples have been tested and the results published in over a dozen different issues of "Science" or other journals. These dates are here gathered together and briefly analyzed in the belief that they will be more available and useful in this form. While Danger Cave is indicated on the accompanying map because of its obvious pertinence to Nevada archaeology, the numerous radiQcarbon dates from that site are not discussed herein. Instead, the reader is referred to Jennings' (1957) extensive analysis published in his report on the cave. The accompanying table lists only the archaeological dates. ("BPW' in the headings of the table means "Before Present,"1 or years ago. Since the year in which the sample's age was determined marks the P dateg we have adopted the system of using the last two digits of the P date to indicate more exactly the computed age. Thus, B50 means "before 1950."1 This innova- tion is made for the sake of clarity, not accuracyo) Inasmuch as the actual dates of the test runs are not always published, the P date used herein is often a compromise' between the date of submission of the sample and its date of publicatlon, or, where it is stated that the published list was accumulated over a period of several years, a more or less arbitrary date within that span was selectedo Leonard Rockshelter (26-Pe14) All samples from Leonard Rockshelter were collected under the direc- tion of R. Fo Heizer and dated by the chicago Laboratory (Arnold and Libby, 1951; Libby, 1951; Heizer, 1951b). Sample C-599, with a date of 9248 BoC. + 570 years, consisted of guano from 'immediately next to the Plelstocene gravels in Leonard Rockshelter. The sample dates the first occupancy of the shelter by bats and gives a minimum age for the recession of Lake Lahontan below 4175 feet elevation. Several obsidian chips were recovered which probably date from this time period, and presumably indicate man0s presence in the areao The sample was collected in 1950. e 17 = Sample C-281, which is dated at 6710 BoCo + 300 years, consisted of guano from near the artifacts dated by sample C-2789 Sample C-298, which is dated at 5088 BoCo + 350 years, consisted of atlatl foreshafts from the matrix of guano dated Ey sample C-281. The sample dates the "Humboldt Culture.'8 The sanples, which were collected in 1937, indicate the importance of dating cultural material whenever possible rather than associated non-cultural material0 Sample C-554 consists of carboni1zed twined basketry associated with an infant burial, Three runs were made on- this sample, The first run, which yielded an age of 2736 + 300 years, was in error0 Two subsequent runs gave an average date of 3'787 B.C0 + 250 years0 The sample dates the infant burial (attributed to the "Leonard Culture"e) found in wind blown silts which Mntevs interprets as deriving from the time of the middle- postglacial "Long Drought." The sample was collected in 1950 For a description of the silte and for interpretations of the dates see Cressman, 1951; Heizer, 1951b; Heizer and Kr.eger, l956Q and John, 1951, Lovelock Cave (26-Ch-18) Sample C-276, dating at 531 B.C. + 260, consisted of basketry frag- mentso It was recovered from under a large rock toward the front of the cave, and was believed at the time to represent the earliest occupation of the caveo Other dated samples indicate that older deposits occur in the rear of the cave. Sample C-735, from Harrington's original stratipit, Level. V (count- ing from the top down), Yielded a date of 1218 Bo.C + 260, and combined samples C-728, C-729,9 and C-730, from Level II,9 yielded a date of 268 A.D) + 220, A minimal time range for the cave's occupation of 1218 B.C* to 268 A.oDo is suggested. O The remaining two samples consisted of bat guano underlying the cultural deposits. Sample C-277 (burned bat guano) yielded a date of 2498 Bo.C + 250;' sample 0-278 (unburned bat guano) yielded a date of 4054 B.C. + 2507 Both dates suggest a long interval of time when the cave was unoc- cupled by man and when Lake Lahontan had receded below the level of the mouth of the cave (roughly 4240 feet)o The dates also suggest at least a small bat population durlng the "gLong Droughto" Samples C-276, 0-277, and C-278 were collected by R. F. Heizer in 1949. Samples 0-728, C-729, C-7309 and C-735 were collected by M. R. Harrington in 1924 and dated under the instigation of L. S. Cressmano All samples were dated at the Chicago Laboratory (Arnold and Libby, 1951; Libby, 1951, 1954) 0 - 18 T -- __- -- - - - - - rF I I I i I Ist 1^ I . ei t II II I I I I k N11 N Map 2 Sites A= in Nevada with C14 Dates Archaeological Sites "4 8 A I. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Fishbone Cave (Pe-49) Leonard Rockshelter (Pe14) Lovelock Cave (Ch-18) Humboldt Lakebed (Ch-15) Humboldt Cave (Ch-35) Hidden Cave (Ch-16) Gypsum Cave (Cl-10) Tule Springs (C1-21) Danger Cave (Utah) K> k I - . For a description of the site and for interpretations of the dates see Loud and Harrington, 1929; Cressman, 1951, 1956; Heizer, 1956; Heizer and Krieger, 1956; and Johnson, 1951. Humboldt Cave (26ECh-35) The sample was collected by R. F. Heizer and A. Krieger in 1936 and dated by the Chicago Laboratory (Libby9 1951). Sample C-587, which yielded a date of 2 B.C. + 175 years, consisted of basketry from a pit considered to be the oldest rn the caveo The occupation of the cave is believed, on typological grounds, to represent Lovelock Culture remains of the Transi- tional and Late periods0 For a description of the site and an interpretation of the date see Heizer and Krieger, 19560 Humboldt Lakebed (26eCh15) The sample was collected by Ro Fo Heizer, Ao Bo Elsasser, and N. A. Baumhoff in 1956, and dated by the University of Michigan Laboratory (personal communication, Jo Griffin to Ro F. Heizer). Sample M649h9 which yielded a date of 733 B.Co + 250, consists of carbonized twined (?) bas- ketry and other vegetal material from under a partially cremated skeleton lying in a pit dug into the lake bottom siltso Arti'facts from the surface of the site and from other siMilar pits are typologlcally similar to those of the Lovelock Culture, as well as to possibly more recent materialo The date is entirely consistent with those from Lovelock, Humboldt, and Hidden Caves, all of which are components of the Lovelock Culture. Since the slte must have been above the level of the l.ake when it was occupied, the lake level about 733 B.C. must have approximated that of the historic lake (the site was covered, at least seasonally, as late as about 1915). The site may have been occupied in the dry season only and there is no necessary reason for assuming an extens'ive drought at that time, particularly not the "lLong Droughtl"; however, it also seems unreasonable to assume a wet season lake much higher than the historic one. For a description of the slte and the artifacts recovered there see Harrington, l927 Heizer and Grosscup9 ms.; and Loud and Harrington, 1929. Hidden Cave (26&Ch-16) There are two dated samples from Hidden Cave which were collected by Phil C. Orr in 1955,, and dated by the Lamont Laboratory (Broecker and Kulp, 1957).o Sample L=.289AA is from a tufa dlaphragm and is included in the dis- cussion of tufa dates in a later sectilon of this paper0 Sample L-289BB, which dated at 1094 BoCo + 200 years, consisted of partially decomposed 19 1 organic matter from the ?Q32 inch midden't layer in the cave. Artifacts from this layer equate typologlcally with Lovelock Cave material, and the date 'is entirely consilstent with the dates from Lovelock Cave and other Lovelock Culture sites0 For a brlef sumary of the materials from this site and its strati graphy see Grosscup, 1956. Fishbone Cave (26-Pe-49) The samples from Fishbone Cave were collected by Phil C. Orr and dated by the Lamont Laboratory (Broecker., Kuip and Tucek, 1956; Orr, 1956; Broecker and Kulp, 1957). The date published for L-245 by Broeckerg Kulp and Tueek (1956) i.s 9245 BoCo + 250 years0 The date for the same sample (L-245) published by Orr is 891j5 BoC. + 300 yearsO AMother date, without sample number, published by Orr, is 960) BoCo + 500 years. Presumably all three dates are runs on the same sampled whichTconsists of juniper bark from the lowest occupation level in the cave2 or perhaps one may be an average of several runs. The sample dates the beginning of occupation of the cave by man or other anlimals and gives a mi.mmum date for the fall of Lake Lahontan below the level of the cave (ca. 4050 feet). Sample L-289KK consisted of netting fragments 1ufrom the topmost portilon of the lowest habltation level in Fishbone Cave,'2 The date yielded is 5874 BoCo + 350 years0 This date suggests a rough contemporaneity with the Humboldt Culture in Leonard Rockshelter. Nettingg made with sheetbend knots2 is one of the oimited number of known ltems of the Humboldt Culture* Presumably this sample ls the netting described as made with square knots reported by Orr (19562 pp. 79) as occurring in level 4 in associa- tlon with a human burial, a pelican skin, three pieces of "Wickerware,2' three fragments of Catlow Twined basketry, and several pieces of cordage. The burial was apparently wrapped wi'lth netting (a common Lovelock trait)o Lovelock Culture nets are made with sheetbend knots. Wicker basketry is one of the primary crlteria of the Lovelock Cultureo The Fishbone Cave specimens are not illustrated9 so their .dentification cannot be checked. Orr describes "tthree short pieces of wickerware . . . recovered with the burial; these are counter-clockwise tw'ist and appear to be willow bark." Sxince the weft ribbons 'in Lovelock wicker are laid flat and are never twisted, it is clear that Orr is not describing true wicker basketry but is probably referring to stiff-twirned basketryo If the Catlow Twined basketry from Fishbone Cave is dated by sample 289KK9 this would make the occurrence the earliest yet knowno Catlow Twined is late in the Oregon Caves, at Lovelock, Hunboldt, and Danger Caves, and in the Sacramento Valley (Baumhoff, 1957)o Under the circumstances of the obviously inade- quate description of Fislhbone Cave art'ifacts and the idealized stratigraphy presented, any decision as to the significance of the radiocarbon dates nfVY-om the site should be withheld. In the same level in Fishbone Cave, but not necessarily associated withn the burial9 were a piece of matting, a bone awl said to be made of 20 the metapodial bone of an extinct species of Equus, a scraper, and a scraper plane. For further information on this site sTUrr, 19529 1956. Guano Cave (26-Pe-42) Guano Cave is situated near Fishbone Cave on the northeastern shore of Winnemucca Lakeo Its elevation is about 4050 feeto Orr reports (1952, p. 8) that the inner portilon of the cave has been mi-ned for guano and that it o o D some arows with feathers at-tached are said to have been found, while the outer portion rof the cave] has been badly destroyed by excava- tion for 2relic's0 The relic collector0s collection, seen in 1952, con- tained Lovelock Culture materlal as well as several glass trade beads and a gorge fishhook made of ireno The dated sample (L-356) is described as twigs coming from a habltation level 22 to 28 inches deep, but is not speci fied as to inner or outer portion of the cave. The date, 1244 B.C. + 130 years, equates with Early Lovelock dates from Lovelock and Hidden Caveso A description of the artifacts and stratlgraphy will make the date much more neaningfulo Crypt Cave (26-Pe-46) Crypt Cave is in the same area as Guano Cave, but is higher up the slope (elevatlon ca. 4170 feet). Four cultural layers are reported by Orr (1952, pp. 14-20)7 The dated sample (L-289II consisted of basketry from the upper portion of the deposits and dated at 444 BoCo + 200 years. This date would suggest contemporaneity with Transitional Lovielock. The mater- ial associated with the dated sample has not been described9 but presumably is of the Lovelock type. Cow Bone Cave (26-Pe-60) Cow Bone Cave is mentioned brlefly by Orr (1956, ppo 9-11)o It occurs in the Dendrltic terrace slightly be'low the level of Guano Cave at an elevation of 4020 feet, Its cultural content 'is not described. The sample (L-289FF) conslsted of matting associated with a human burial and dated at 4014 + 150 years0 This date would place the occupation as occur- ring during the Altithera-1, roughly at the same time as the Leonard Cu1- ture at Leonard Rocksheltero Stuart Rockshelter The site is located in Clark County several miles norfthwest of Moapa (northeast of Gypsum Cave.) A four-fold cultural stratilgraphy was revealed which 'included Southerm Paiute, Pueblo, Basketmaker III9 and an earlier period presumably to be equated with O'Pinto.10 Two samples from the 11Pinto'l level were dated by the Arizona Laboratory in 1955, The site was test excavated and the samples collected by Dick Shutlerq Jro c 21 c Samnple No. 1 is carbon from a fIre hearth (Feature Noo 2) found at a depth of 78 Inches0 It yielded a date of 4050 + 300 years (2095 B.C. + 300 years)0 Sample Noo 2 is carbon from a fire hearth (Feature No0 1) found at a depth of 54 incheso It yielded a date of 3870 + 250 years (1915 BoCo + 250 years)0 ,= These dates cannot be properly evaluated until the cultural mater- lals with which they are associated are describedo They are internally consistent, however, and fall within the expectable time range of the "'Pinto Culture0o The dates are published by Harrington (1957, p. 72)0 Gypsum Cave (26-Cl<10) Gypsum Cave was excavated by Mo Ro Harrington in 1930 and 19319 for the Southwest Museum and other institutions, and was reported upon in 1933. Artifacts from the cave were classified as Paiute, Puebloan, Basket Maker, and "Sloth Period,9" the latter term being replaced by the term "Gypsum" in later literatureo Physical stratigraphy was confused, but Harrington con- cluded there was contemporaneity indicated by the association of composite darts, torches, oval scraper knive.s two-ply right twist cordage, and a type of lozenge-shaped stone dart poilnt (UGypsum Cave"t type) with sloth remains or between layers of sloth dungo In parts of the cave, sloth debr'is was exposed on the surface0 The cave deposits were steeply sloping and con- talned numerous large rocks which had fallen from the roof. Both CL4 dates were rurn on samples of sloth dung. Sample C-2219 dating at 8505 BoCo + 340 years,, is from Room 1, 6 feetg 4h inches deep, and sample C-2229 dating at 6577 B.Co + 250 years, is from a smal.l room south- west of Room 1, 2 feet9 6 rinches deepo The samples were collected by Mo R. Harrington in 19319 and were dated by the Chicago Laboratory (Arnold and Libbyv 1951)o While these samples presumably date the presence of sloth in the cave, they only date the Gypsum artifacts if the association of the latter with t..')he dung is valid It would be valuable to know the radiocar- bon date of the wooden artifacts from the sloth layer of the cave. The sloth dizng also yelds evidence of a milder cllmat^e in the form of vegetal remains. The two samples suggest, therefore, that between 8505 and 6577 B.C. the cliomate was milder in southern Nevada than it is at the present timeo For further information on this site see Cressman, 1951; Harrington, 1933; Laudermilk and Munz, 1935. Tule Springs (26-C-l21) Tule Springs was first noted as a paleontologlcal site. Durilng .-xcavations for extinct mammalian remains, a deposilt of charcoal, burned and splintered bones and an obsidian flake, was d'iscovered. Slnce the = '22 cl first discovery, archaeologlcal 'investigation has revealed more of the same sort of material9 except flakes. A possible scraper has apparently been recovered, however. The sample (C.9l4) was collected by MN R. Harri3ngton in 1934, and was dated by the Chicago Laboratory (Libby, 1954). It yielded a date of greater than 23,9800 years before the present. New samples need to be tested with the more accurate methods now avallable and a geologlcal study of the area should be made, The date glven indicates an occupatlon before the Mankato period of the Wisconsin glaciation and is one of the oldest dates for human occupatlon in the New World. Until more cultural material or less questionable materlal is recovered, the find must remair. an enigma. For further data on this site see Simpson, 1933; and the many refer- ences clted in Grosscup, 1957, p. 25. Lahontan Basin Tufa Phil C. Orr and Wo S. Broecker collected a series of tufa samples from the Lahontan Basin,9 and these have been tested by the Lamont Labora- tory (Broecker and Kulp, 1957). The dates thus obtained cannaot be properly evaluated until Broecker and Orr s article on the dateability of tufa is published, but several observations can be made and problems suggested from the data now at hando There are three major forms of tufa in the Lahonton Basino These are called Lithoid, Thinolite, and Dendritic tufta Russell (1885) equated Lith- oid tufa with the highest and earliest Lahontan lake. Dendritic tufa 'is equated with the second lake stage and Thinolite tufa is equated with the lower lake stage between the two high riseso Russell found. the three forms of tufa in stratigraphic posltion in the order suggested above, Recent geological investigators have found more tharn two fluctuations in Lahontan lam levels but have not changed the relative Chronological position of the three tufa formsJ, Tufa is still forming at the present time9 but i1t is apparently not known if it takes the form of any or all of the three types menutioned above. Tufa forms under water., presumrably near the surface, but ;he depth at which it may still form is not knowno It i.s assumed that tufa may be formed through the agency of algae, but may also be precipitated directly from the water (Howe, 19329 ppo 57-64), Diaphragms of tufa-like lime were deposited in caves which would have been relatively dark, i.e., the lack of light may preclude the agency of algae in the format'ion of the diaphragmso Morris (personal cormunication) believes the dlaphragm 'in Hidden Cave Ls coetane- ous with the depos:.t of Dendriltic tuf a outsilde of the caveo A later review of the radiLoactive carbon content of materials from hardwater lakes by Deevey et al, (1954) concludes wlth the statement, 'vCt seems probable that in alkatfnrlakes in closed basins in semiarid regions not umderlain by limestones, all the carbon 'in the carbonate and bicarbonate in the water iS = 23 - of atmospheric origin0 Samples from such lakes are likely to be free from the fcontamination] error here discussed,tt A fragment of Lithoid tufa was found between two layers of Lahontan clays in Hidden Cave which were overlain by the tufa diaphragmo If tufa formed continuously as the lake in which it was forming dried up, the tufa at lower elevations should be younger than that at higher elevations, Turning to the dated samples, it is noted that the ten Lithoid tufa dates range from 9,500 to 11,800 years ago, and average about 10,800 years ago. The dated samples suggest that Lithoid tufa is younger than the other two varieties, rather than older, as Russell believed. Clearly all evidence suggests that the date for Lithoid tufa is too young. Half of the Lithoid tufa dates, as well as the average date, are in direct conflict with dates from Leonard Rockshelter and Fishbone Cave on dry, organic mater- ials which cannot have been covered with water since deposition. All but one of the dated Lithoid samples came from an elevation higher than the two archaeological sites. In Hidden Cave, as pointed out above, Lithoid tuf a is stratigraphi- cally older than the tufa diaphragm which has been dated at 15,670 years old. Elther one or both dates must be wrongo Lithoid samples were collected from elevations varying from 4380 to 4050 feet, Two samples from the highest elevation yielded dates of 9,500 and 11,800 years ago, and the one date from the lowest elevation yielded a date 11,700 years ago, thus revealing no appreciably younger date for the lower sample. Dates on Dendritic tufa, and shell and marl associated with such tufas, present a range of dates from 8,500 to 19,750 years ago (average 154100 years ago). In general the higher deposits are older than the low- er ones. No confllct with known data is apparent, except for the Lithold tufa dates as mentioned above. Similarly the date for the Thinolite tufa (28X900 years ago) shows no conflict with other evidence and is older than Dendritic tufa, as was expected from Russel.1?s evidence0 Tin summary, not all of the tufa dates can be correct; some may be correct. Further evidence is needed. L'ithold and Dendritic samples should be tested from the Humboldt, Carson, and Walker Lake basinso They should date the same, provided elevation and mineralogical controls are accurate2 as those already tested from the Pyramld and Winnemucca Lake basins0 Similarly, Thinolite from the Humboldt and Carson Lake basins shou?d be tested. Russell did not report Thinolite from the Walker Lake basiin,O Russell reports all three tufas in stratlgraphic superposition, especially 'in the tufa towers or domes, A series of samples from such 24 a dome should help clarify thie dating of Lithoid tufa0 Orr and Broecker did collect and test an inner, and an outer sample from one dome, but apparently both samples are Dendritic tufa (outer date,, 8$500 years ago, inner date, 14h500 years ago). Fresh water snail she-ls occur inL some deposits of Dendritic tufa (at Leonard Rockshelter, fcr instance>. If these shells vcould be isolated and tested, it would produce an additional check on the Dendritic tuf4a dates, Orr and Broecker have apparently tested modemn tufa, but the resultan.t dates have not been published0 They should prove critical in evaluating the older tufa dates0 Sources Refevred to in TabL?, e I l Arnold and Lbby, 19cJl 2 . Broecker,, Kuip and Tucek, 1956. 3. Libby, 1951. 4, Libby, 1954, 5. Orr, 1956, 6o Broecker and Ki,a-'..P 1957G 7. Heizer, 19`la-, bt 8. Libby3 195'2, p, 86. 9, PersonaL-1 crnmwatcation., J, Grilffin to RH F. Hei a-er. L 10. Harrington, 157, p.4 72, 2 ?. 1I i 4 81 'a c c c c I I c I \ r c 4 c r_ r- q-- I r- la C C- I I I I C. C C 12 t C 13 7 a 4- ci cci I i L C 1) ?Aj -t 1? I -1 3 C 4 4 ; I ! Ii I i I I 81)I I 8-4 H 0 000 ?i m mQ m V inLX ;3H 0%'- 9% o~ & C R -H to tXcoi -. I lIi '4 0 0 com\ o ~o to +1 +1 +9 iCI CN 0) CV ico iso 0 0, 0 to to t N omm C (Vi C0\'D C- Lr\ L o\ dr O O O *1 HOO 000 +1 +8+8 b000 CVW O.tt .- O O0 HHHr I (NC') I CV'm' Jm 0 I C-'N H I OC U u m mO m m (VHt io C-- 9% 9% 'N i a I 9 (V H to V- 4iH CV o o o ol O 1S\ CY Lri +1 +8 +1 +.q m mC mq ml mN to 40to ol o- 'co- 9% C% 9% " mQ mq m ml co mm 'co H'- 0 4o0 i 11 A qr t o& to tot 8o 8 1 b ON H ao 10-I 0 08 03 0 Lr nC d tL\ -zt -2 o +848 +f +l + C HO O 0 U' Lf Lrl\W mQ m m m '.0100 3 0% JN MC 100 10 to tos ii p tog C 0I 8taO a IC 0 1 I I I i I I t I I I -l I mmm IH 'IO r- V -t i-- N N VC I i 0 0 m m H '-0 tXO t0 %- to 0 co --. to oV' V m m 0 Lfo C' r-c - (N A r m ' N\Q Cml I > I -O 1 I m I io c-t N (V I (V ml 0 to 4t, 0N1 I m tog ico 4 0 co -1 to- ON- I 10 I I I 0-- ( I - V C -) I mmm 1- Ch) Cy-0 9% 0 I mmm ' s0 Ht - I n4c I 444 000 +1 +8 +1 C-) O 0000 I mm { ONH in 000 Lr 4-t-N r1 m% 9% m 40 -- mmmj o '.H t I N, I t ,I N I I I A i V O Vt) m m mt CN- noo (DN 44. i 0 (D 88 O m m -I o Cox 0 0 0H C% 'IO9 t- C - oodi H 001 00 01 c m 0 0 N o %-H! 403 0%-d nco fi( c' 00 in (V--0 O'-( C014 'N >601 t I . t- Lr to C- -4U cc in co to 14T 0 to1 ic 81 m mm t iO NH81 44mmmml )? out)o I' to '0 0% \4 00 N 40 C1 - - -- co mmm n - \?-'1 1 0O n. n n C- H to N r4 0 ( 9%I 9% 9%'0 m '0 NU) Lf, --t "Y\ N (V in LA if 0 t szo 08- C-4 H(1) -pi 4%- O c oo in (Vo U C-) mm '-4 I 41 I3 6 . .. . . - .. I- -1 r- to (D C.0 (Cn (N +Ci +8 +8 m m m U- r-i to Inn iC- C2 .N C\ 91) i> :z C) C.) 0 - H 4-4 IQ) 1 I O+: 0 0 3 '.0 '- '-( I) 1 >1 0 1.f W] 1 0 8 (V I I) 0 t IHGfl Ocvd2 tot HO)N I C 04 l F -4 0 1 n 4t (V +1 +9 +0 m m mS +8+8 + o a'.oS 'J u) ?N 4 Ln 4 tcn +1 +i +9Ij +8+8 0 m m L No 01 .ht (N" 3% 9% a1 to 'co to] 21 j . . . - . - - - J - ------ 0 in +0 0 m to3 c0 CY') 02) I ) Cld 0 -z 0 0 I cO --> 0 to - 0 8 V. I :j tco '-.0 .-' 0-( > CV 0N iD i I I IX tI )14 a A 0I 1i 0 .1 ) 4 ,1.S ') -J 14 I 1k 'a 1? 8) Dl Di 44 0 S H 'a fri I 0 0 4) 0 C 0 W 4 S, 0 la H O- H- I p 0 H 4 '-0 42b m0 N I 00) 1 -0 0 p Cd 4- I 84Cd 1 Q -- 8 6 0-4 $- i S <^ -+- 4 u) al - rl\l l N t-, ! IJ I I. v , = 26 c O I u-rN '-S I... C,' 4 C,' - N u- I "- e-IN I'D "D %..D %0 %-Cl I 0 Ug 0 0 Co < m m m m m m Cl( ic o 1 to 0 4 - 4 - 1 00 0 ON 'I 0 m) H 0' '0 H ca c m too10 to C' b 0 0lg 0 8 8 8t 8 9 l C. 0 0 0^ O 0 O O O V O U O O H1 H tco (\ H NJ H 10 N CY H 0 HAi '0 H o 0 0 0 Q 0 0 0 0 L N I'D 0 0 c` n 0 H CV N N4 H- N\ H- c ~ 4 9 +9 +8 +8 +0 + + + 8 + 0 +0 8 -90 0 0 C) 0 C) 0. 0 V Co -zm Cl m m a I I \ to o to Q A -' -) E-l ,- H ?- , - HO HC 44 '- -,C) LO ' U t- to N OJ H N7 0 0 r4 NN r- CV m0 m0 ml m | m n a m (NOOCYN,0r- cclZ o ol - oj o ol o o H 0 0 0 , u-f (t 0 t r4 ON N01iJ l 5 t cS - _ _ _" _ _q _ _ ] _ _ 3| ,| 8 rIH4 ___ H __-1 __ _'_ C H H H H! N4 N c c1 Z e - - - - - -- S - - WS S -SE gr- ---- #4- - Id 0 0 U 02 43 0 0 ,0 co 0 2 m 3 6 4 4 1 F I u-c C-. +9 H C-D Vo M-l aI-N H1 u-I- PCI ONi C ON ON + 8 u-cZ ,co 'IO H-- 0 'IO (N +80 -4 Co N H m u-c Cr ICC -C\ rci C 0)9 8 CgOO cr o$ - 3 404 (P o Xco P4 Q) CO0N a,", (N SN V ai) Cd ' (P o C-) c ) 00 u 4o N (P o 0 cwu NH C\ 04 0) C)~ 5:C to '--- N O N N'--- 01A (P) O -X C.) 0 r-z 0 H (P to-P HO) aZX 'ci U) 40) Lrl\ \ - o ( N N'--S 0 a) q-H f Q co (12 (P 0--" Ct NC r- 0 cslq \- 8 S4 ' C. H-iN 0 I )I 81 '4 4' Ii 0 u-f o so 0 0M (P CO C-" oo 02! 0 co 4-P 4C lcd eI 02 ; I Hr Li 0 4NN N-- A Lr -o- CO 0 0 -r 01)4 W442 p4c L\O- 4N4 N-- A (1) tu a4 (1 ~- c C +80 Lr 2s -- Ic C C01 C C~ 1' II 4 I I I I + 0 + 0 e W) LfE Le X 0 -c4 r Co 0 C- 0 0 Co C's 0 0 0 '-s u-c C3 0 tco 0) 4) CO 0 -- o 'H Z4( C7'- CO () w 0.0 %O --. '-4 NW C?-C N 3 () I I - C I O r4 1 _4 Coo 4oo rAI r I co Z s S r- lza {i?--5 'E,I C u-c m o C\ CY' CO (P 0 0 0i I '-0k) QNf 8 8 8-P toN CtotN toN C A" lit-Qs-Cv 4) CO 0 0 Cd 9 0 CN-' 4 0 (D -H ' L-0 C~ (%- 0 u-CNN cn S- - 27 - 0 C) Co a rs .10 e-iN 0 H- 0 H- 0 -t CI- 'I o 0 0 m3 m m to o o 8 00 1 I H H CY) N N- o0 0 ... 40 + cil oo 0\ 0 Hj C\0 0 Id aD -H 4) 0 0 C) co 0 la .A coj 0) 14 0 P-I Lr C +If (I, 'IC C\ 43 r 1- H r t ct I H or 'O 0 F-- oCd a 9 ,-- r~ R 4) M vl -O PQ It ( N \, ' .. 0 4 1 I N 4 ll? 0 0 4' U' LO 0 0 0 UIN C\j 40 LO PIn 0 N to HO@ 00 43 C l ) O -H iH 0 0 ph 4 H'a) a H3 f4C Co 0 cf t- CN 43 H H 0 Cd QO ' a ?4 Co 0 Z;4 o 28 - Bibliography Arnold, Jo R. and W. F. Libby 1951 Radiocarbon Dates. Science, Volo 113, pp. 111-120. Baunhoff M O A. 1957 Catlow Twine from Central California. UCAS-R No, 38, ppo 1-5. Broecker, W. S. and J. L. Kulp 1957 Lamont Natural Radiocarbon Measurements IV, Science, Volo 126,9 pp. 1324-1334. Broecker, Wo So Jo L, Kuip and C. S. Tucek 1956 Lamont Natural Radiocarbon Measurements III. Science, Vol. 124, ppo 154-165o Cressman, L. S. 1951 Western Prehistory in the Light of Carbon 14 Datingo South- western Journal of Anthropology, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 289-313o 1956 Additional Radlocarbon Dates, Lovelock Cave, Nevada. American Anrtiquity, Vol. 21, Noo 39 pp. 311-312, Deevey, Eo So. Jro. Mo S. Gross, G0 E. Hutchinson and H. L. Kraybill 1954 The Natural C14 Contents of Materials from Hard-Water Lakes. Proc. Nat, Acado of Sciences, Volo 40, pp. 285-288. Grosscup, Go L. 1956 The Archaeology of the Carson Sink Area* UCAS-R No* 339 Paper Noo 43, ppO 58-64, 1957 A Bibliography of Nevada Archaeology. UCAS-R Noo 36, pp. 1-550 Harringtong Mo Ro 1927 Some Lake-Bed Camp-Sites in Nevadao Indian Notes, Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation, Vol. 4, No. l,pp. 40-470 1933 Gypsum Cave, Nevadao Southwest Museum Papers, Noo 8, pp. ix-197, 1.957 A Pinto Site at Little Lake, Californiao Southwest Museum Papers, Noo 179 91 pp. e 29 - Heizer, Ro Fo 1951a Preliminary Report on the Leonard Rockshelter Site9 Pershing County, Nevadao American Antiquity, Vol. 17, No* 2, ppo 89-980 1951b An Assessment of Certain Nevada, California and Oregon Radio- carbon Dateso In Radiocarbon Datingo American Antiquity Memoir 8, Volo 17, Noo 1, Pt, 2, ppo 23-25. 1956 Recent Cave Explorations in the Lower Humboldt Valley, Nevada. UCAS-R Noo 33, Paper Noo 42, ppo 50-57. Heizer, Ro F. and G. L. Grosscup Mso Archaeology of Site Ch-15, Churchill County, Nevadao Heizer, Ro F. and Ao Do Krieger 1956 The Archaeology of Humboldt Cave, Churchill County, Nevada, UC-PAAE Volo 47, Noo 1, ppo 1-190. Howe, Mo A. 1932 The Geologic Importance of the Lime-Secreting Algae. U, S. Geological Survey, Professional Paper 170, ppo 57-64o Jennings, J. Do 1957 Danger Cave. American Antiquity, Memoir 14, Volo 23, No, 2, Pto 2, pp. xii-328o Johnson, F. 1951 Radiocarbon Dating. American Antiquity, Memoir 8, Vol. 17, No,' 1, Pt, 2, ppo 5-19o Laudermilk, J. D. and P. Ao Munz 1935 Plants in the Dung of Nothrotherium from Gypsum Cave, Nevadao Carnegie Institution or Washington, Publ. No. 453, ppo 29-37. Libby, Wo F. 1951 Radiocarbon Dates IIo Science, Volo 114, pp. 291-296. 1952 Radiocarbon Datingo Univ. Chicago Press. 1954 Chicago Radiocarbon Dates V. Science, Volo 120, ppo 733-742. Loud, L. L. and M. R. Harrington 1929 Lovelock Cave. UC-PAAE Volo 25, Noo l pp. viii-183. Orr, Phil C. 1952 Preliminarz Excavations of Pershing County Caves, The Nevada State Museum, Dept. of Archaeology, Bull. No. 1, pp. 1-21. o 30 - Orr, Phil 1956 C. (cont'd) Pleistocene Man in Fishbone Cave, Pershing County-, Nevada, Nevada State i''useum, Dept. of Archaeology, Bulib5 No. 2, pp.. 1>20* Russell, I, C, 1885 Geological History of Lake Lahontan, a Quaternary Lake of Northwestern Nevada. U. S. Geological Survey MIonograph, Vol. 11, pp. xiv-288. Simpson, G. G, 1933 A Nevada Fauna of Pleistocene Type and Its Probable Associ- ation with Man, American Museum Novitate, No* 667, pp. 1-10l - 31 -