Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly · Journal of California and Great Basin...

Pacific Coast Archaeological Society QuarterlyVolume 54, Number 1

The Buttonwillow Site

Editor Sherri GustProduction Editor Rene BracePublications Committee Bob Brace, Gail Cochlin, Scott Findlay, Megan Galway, Jane Gothold, Ardith Haworth, Stephen O’Neil, and Brian Steffensen

Pacific Coast Archaeological Society QuarterlyVolume 54, Number 1

ii

The Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly is a publication of the Pacific Coast Archaeological Society (PCAS), which was organized in 1961. PCAS is an avocational group originally founded to study and to pre-serve the anthropological and archaeological history of the original inhabitants of Orange County, California, and adjacent areas. The Publications Committee invites the submittal of original contributions dealing with regional history and prehistory. Although PCAS is especially interested in reports which shed further light on the early inhabitants of coastal southern California, it always welcomes reports on the wider Pacific Coast region.

Information about subscriptions to the Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly and the PCAS Newsletter is available online at www.pcas.org. Back issues of the Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly are available. An index to Volumes 1 through 40 is available as Volume 40, Numbers 3 & 4. This searchable index is online at www.pcas.org. Four Occasional Papers (on Catalina Island, Mexican Majolica, and the Peralta Adobe and a re-membrance of H. B. Nicholson) have also been published by PCAS. To place an order, receive information about the Pacific Coast Archaeological Society, or submit an article for publication, email [email protected] or write: Pacific Coast Archaeological Society, PO Box 10926, Costa Mesa, California, 92627. Additional informa-tion is available at www.pcas.org. PCAS is not responsible for delivery of publications to subscribers who have not furnished a timely change of address.

Recent issues of the Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly are available at www.pcas.org and can be downloaded and viewed but not printed. Articles appearing in the Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly are abstracted in Historical Abstracts and America: History and Life. This issue of the Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly is copyrighted © 2018 by the Pacific Coast Archaeological Society. ISSN 0552-7252.

This issue was published in July 2018. In the PCAS Quarterly publication sequence, this issue is Volume 54, Number 1 (subscription year 2018).

Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly

iii

Contents

Archaeological Excavations at the Buttonwillow Site (CA-KER-2720): An Intact Stratified Site in the Southern San Joaquin Valley, California ........................................... 1Mark Q. Sutton, Jill K. Gardner, and Kenneth W. Gobalet

Cover: Charmstone from the Buttonwillow site.

vi

About the Authors

Jill K. Gardner, Ph.D., received her doctorate in anthropology from the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. She is currently a departmental affiliate in the Department of Anthropology at Portland State University in Portland, Oregon. In addition, she is the managing editor for California Archaeology and editor for the Society for California Archaeology Newsletter. Dr. Gardner’s main research areas are the Mojave Desert, the Great Basin, the southern Sierra Nevada, the San Joaquin Valley, the southern California coast, and inland southern California. She has also conducted research on Late Roman/Coptic mummies in Egypt and at a Neolithic site in southern Jordan. Dr. Gardner has published in the Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology, California Archaeology, Quaternary Science Reviews, Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly, Coptica, Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology, Nevada State Museum Anthropological Papers, British Archaeological Reports, Coy-ote Press Archives of Great Basin Prehistory, University of Arizona Press, and AltaMira Press.

Kenneth W. Gobalet has recently retired from over 30 years of university-level teaching. For the last 25 years he was a Professor of Biology at California State University, Bakersfield, teaching courses including introducto-ry zoology, evolution, comparative anatomy, and human biology. Prior to working at California State University, Bakersfield, he was on the faculty at Loyola University, New Orleans, and the University of Montana, Missoula. His graduate and undergraduate coursework was at the University of California, Davis. Between his undergraduate and graduate studies, he was an American Peace Corps Volunteer in central India, working to enhance the production of a fish farm. For 35 years his primary research agenda has been the identification and interpretation of ancient fish remains recovered during the excavation of archaeological sites primarily within California. To com-plete this work, he amassed a fish skeletal collection numbering in the hundreds of specimens. He has not retired from the zoo archaeological work and prides himself on having commuted by bicycle to work for his entire career.

Mark Q. Sutton, Ph.D., began his career in 1968, working at a site with the local community college while still in high school. He went on to earn a BA (1972), an MA (1977), and a Ph.D. (1987) in anthropology. He has worked for the US Air Force, the US Bureau of Land Management, and various private consulting firms, and he taught at a number of community colleges and universities. He taught at California State University, Bakersfield, from 1987 to 2007, where he retired as Emeritus Professor of Anthropology. He now teaches at the University of San Diego and works for Statistical Research, Inc. From 1986 to 2000, Dr. Sutton served as the Editor of the Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology. Dr. Sutton has investigated hunter-gatherer adaptations to arid environments, entomophagy, prehistoric diet and technology, the prehistory of California, and Paleoindian studies. Dr. Sutton has worked at more than 120 sites in western North America, has presented some 126 papers at professional meetings, and has published more than 220 books, monographs, articles, and reviews on archaeology and anthropology, including the following textbooks: Introduction to Native North America; A Prehistory of North America; Archaeology: Science of the Human Past; Introduction to Cultural Ecology; Paleonutrition; and Labo-ratory Methods in Archaeology.

Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly, Volume 54, Number 1

Archaeological Excavations at the Buttonwillow Site (CA-KER-2720): An Intact Stratified Site in the Southern San Joaquin Valley, California

Mark Q. Sutton, Jill K. Gardner, and Kenneth W. Gobalet

Abstract

Test excavations at the Buttonwillow site (CA-KER-2720) revealed a stratified deposit with an occupation that began approximately 10,000 years ago and lasted until about the time of contact. The primary use of the site appears to have been the processing of freshwater shellfish from the nearby Buena Vista Slough, although a cache of charmstones and a human burial, both probably dating to the Emergent period, were also present.

Introduction Between 1990 and 1992, field classes from California State University, Bakersfield (CSUB), under the di-rection of the lead author, conducted test excavations at a site located along the western side of the Buena Vista Slough, west of the town of Buttonwillow in the southern San Joaquin Valley, California (Figure 1). The initial goal of the work was to explore what was initially believed to be a small site, a project that could be accomplished with one field class in one field season. As the site turned out to be much larger and deeper than imagined, considerably more effort was required to complete even very limited testing. During the testing, a cache of charmstones was discovered (Feature 1) and was reported separately (Sutton 1996). In addition, a human burial was encountered, and excavation was halted in that unit. This article serves as the final report on the project.

Site Description

When first recorded in early 1990, the Buttonwillow site consisted of a relatively low (ca. 30 cm) mound of artifacts, freshwater shell, and midden some 25 m in diameter. Thus, the site appeared to be relatively small with a shallow deposit. Excavations revealed a much larger and deeper deposit than anticipated (Figure 2). The site is on a gently sloping alluvial fan about 150 m west of the Buena Vista Slough, in a xeric setting directly adjacent to the slough and the valley floor.

Natural Environment

The Buttonwillow site is in the southeastern portion of the southern San Joaquin Valley (SSJV) of California. The valley runs northwest to southeast and is approxi-mately 650 km (400 mi) long and averages 80 km (50 mi) in width. The SSJV is bounded on the east by the central and southern Sierra Nevada, on the southeast by the Tehachapi Mountains, on the south by the San Emigdio Mountains, and on the west by the Temblor and Diablo ranges. The soils of the southern valley consist of alluvium, deposited primarily by the Kern River. Alluvial detritus deposited across the axis of the valley by the Kings River to the north and the Kern River to the south has created huge berms that gave

PCAS Quarterly 54(1)

Sutton, Gardner, and Gobalet2

Figure 1. Location of the Buttonwillow site (CA-KER-2720) in the southern San Joaquin Valley, California, and locations discussed in text.


Archaeological Excavations at the Buttonwillow Site (CA-KER-2720) 3

Figure 2. Map of the Buttonwillow site (CA-KER-2720).



rise to the formation of the Tulare and Buena Vista lake basins (Fennemen 1931:476–477). The Buena Vista Basin at the southern end of the valley contained Buena Vista and Kern lakes.

Prior to contact, the landscape of the SSJV was con-siderably different than it is today. A network of inter-connecting lakes, rivers, streams, and sloughs charged by the Sierra Nevada snowpack dominated the eastern and central portions of the valley. As a result of this water source, an otherwise xeric land became the home of biotic communities usually associated with a mesic environment. The diversion and channelization of the Kern, Tule, Kings, Kaweah, and other rivers during the past century have dramatically affected the physiography of the valley and resulted in the desic-cation of Buena Vista and Kern lakes and the Buena Vista Slough.

The climate of the SSJV is categorized as Mediter-ranean and is characterized by hot, dry summers and mild, semi-arid winters. The Sierra Nevada forms a barrier for the valley against most of the cold air that moves southward during the winter while the Coast Ranges, with an average altitude of approximately 1,220 m (4,000 ft) mitigate the marine weather pat-terns of the Pacific (Elford and McDonough 1964:1–4). The average yearly precipitation in the nearby Bakersfield area is 6.36 inches with approximately 70 percent falling between December 1 and April 1. Dense “tule” fog, caused when moist air is trapped in the valley by a high-pressure system, is common during the months of December and January. During the summer, temperatures frequently exceed 100°F, with Bakersfield reporting temperatures in excess of 90°F for about 110 days each year.

Flora

The Buttonwillow site lies in a Lower Sonoran Grassland plant community. The most common and widespread perennial shrub is the common saltbush

(Atriplex sp.), which grows throughout much of the southern valley (Twisselmann 1967; Preston 1981:24). The balance of the Lower Sonoran Grassland Commu-nity is comprised primarily of winter annuals, many of which are introduced species. During the winter months, the dense fog supplements the limited rainfall of the area.

Immediately east of the site is the Buena Vista Slough, dominated by a Freshwater Marsh plant community; the site could be considered to be within an ecotone between the two plant communities. Though few ves-tiges of this community are present today, much of the valley was comprised of marshlands in the not-too-distant past. The plants that make up the Freshwater Marsh Community were extremely important to the aboriginal inhabitants of the SSJV. The marshlands in general are often referred to as the “tules,” “tulares,” or “los tulares” (Bolton 1935:7). This is derived from the name of the common tule (Schoenoplectus acutus), one of the most utilized plants in the Fresh-water Marsh Community. Other species of tule, as well as cattail (Typha sp.), spike rush (Eleocharis sp.), and sedges (Carex sp.), were also prominent in the environment (Preston 1981:22). The exploitation and use of these and other marshland plants should not be underestimated.

Fauna

Numerous animals are found in the SSJV, although many that were important to the prehistoric inhabitants of the region have been extirpated due to environmen-tal pressures brought about by European contact (be-ginning approximately 1770), including hunting, min-ing, and farming. In addition, desiccation of the lakes, rivers, and sloughs has either eradicated or greatly reduced the numbers of mollusks, fishes, amphibians, and waterfowl that were formerly abundant in the area. Many of the vertebrate and invertebrate species discussed herein have been identified in archaeolog-ical contexts at sites in the Buena Vista Lake basin



(e.g., Demay 1942; Gayton 1948; Dillon and Porcasi 1990; Hartzell 1992; Jackson et al. 1998; Culleton et al. 2005; Sutton et al. 2012, 2016). Large mammals such as tule elk (Cervus elaphus nannodes), pronghorn (Antilocapra americana), black bears (Ursus americanus), and grizzly bears (U. arctos) were once common in the SSJV. Bears are now absent from the valley, however, and only a small herd of reintroduced elk resides there. A small population of pronghorn can be found on the Carrizo Plain, just west of the San Joaquin Valley. Numerous medium to small mammals are also present in the region, including coyotes (Canis latrans), foxes (Vul-pes spp., Urocyon cinereoargenteus) skunks (Spi-logale gracilis and Mephitis mephitis), badgers (Taxi-dea taxus), black-tailed hares (Lepus californicus), cottontail rabbits (Sylvilagus audubonii), squirrels (Sciuridae), voles (Microtus californicus), kanga-roo rats and pocket mice (Heteromyidae), gophers ((Thomomys bottae) and mice (e.g., Peromyscus maniculatus, Reithrodontomys megalotis, Onychomys torridus,) (e.g., Jameson and Peeters 1988). Various species of birds, such as geese (Branta canadensis), ducks (Anas spp.), coots (Fulica americana), and grebes (Podilymbus podiceps), were also abundant in the valley and were important resources for prehis-toric populations. Many species of fish are present in the rivers, sloughs, and lakes, and were abundant prehistorically as well. Species that were major food sources to the Native populations include Sacramento blackfish (Orthodon microlepidotus), hitch (Lavinia exilicauda), thicktail chub (Gila crassicauda), Sacramento pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus grandis), Sacramento sucker (Catosto-mus occidentalis), Sacramento perch (Archoplites interruptus), and tule perch (Hysterocarpus traskii). A variety of reptiles and amphibians also resides in the valley, many of which were utilized by prehistoric groups (Behler and King 1979; Bezy 1981). For exam-ple, Gayton (1948:14) reported the use of Pacific pond

turtles (Actinemys marmorata) by the Yokuts of the Tulare Lake area. In addition to vertebrates, several invertebrates found in the valley and were also important food sources to the prehistoric inhabitants. These include insects (see summary by Gardner [1997]), several species of freshwater bivalves (primarily Anodonta sp., Margari-tifera sp., and Gonidea sp.), and freshwater gastropods (bladder snail, cf. Physa sp.). In addition, land snails (Helminthoglypta sp.) appear in many site deposits, although their role as a culturally significant resource is unclear.

Cultural Setting

Ethnography The Native American groups that inhabited the San Joaquin Valley during ethnographic times are known collectively as the Yokuts, who have been the focus of several ethnographic studies, including Kroeber (1925), Gayton (1948), Latta (1977), and Wallace (1978a, 1978b). The following discussion of the Yokuts was synthesized from these sources (also see Osborne 1992; Sutton 1997). The reader is referred to these sources for additional details, but a brief summary (distilled largely from Osborne [1992]) is provided below. There were more than 40 Yokuts tribes, each with a distinct name, dialect, and territory. For purposes of definition, however, they have been separated into three geographical divisions, Northern, Southern Valley, and Foothill. The Tulamni, a Southern Valley Yokuts tribe, occupied the region around Buena Vista Lake. Their principal village, known as Tulamniu, was reportedly located somewhere along the western or northwestern shore of Buena Vista Lake “where the hills come close to the water” (Kroeber 1925:478). Much like other Southern Valley Yokuts groups, the Tulamni were organized into single large village



settlements or several smaller settlements that were closely associated. The availability of resources, such as fish, waterfowl, shellfish, roots, and seeds, allowed the Tulamni to occupy permanent villages and/or seasonal encampments.

The Tulamni built two types of dwellings, oval-shaped single-family huts and larger communal structures that were occupied by multiple families. Tule grass was an important commodity for the Tulamni, who used it manufacture baskets and mats for various purposes, as well as to build canoes. Tule roots were used to make a starchy flour for mush, and seeds were ground into meal. Baskets of many varieties were made with great technological skill. Knives, scraping tools, and projectile points were made from stone that was often imported from outside the area. Marine shells were obtained in their natural state from coastal peoples and were made into a variety of disks, beads, pendants, and other items for use as money and personal adornment.

Fish represented a significant food resource for the Tulamni and were generally captured by netting, either in large nets dragged in the water using a tule raft or by diving with small hand nets. Waterfowl were also preferred resources and were snared or shot with arrows. Large quantities of freshwater shellfish (cf. Anodonta sp.) were gathered for consumption. Seeds and roots also added to their dietary regime, including tule, grassnuts, clover, fiddleneck, and other flower-ing herbs. Leporids were hunted in communal drives, and elk and pronghorn were shot from blinds near the lakes or sloughs. While acorns—a staple of many Native Californian groups—were not readily available to the Tulamni, some tribes traded fish for acorns with their neighbors to the east. Latta (1977:205) humor-ously noted of the Tuhoumne (Tulamni) that:

Except for an occasional antelope surround, or a ground squirrel smoke-out on the West Side, theirs was strictly a goose, duck, mudhen, swan, blue heron, egret, pelican, lake, slough,

swamp-and-overflow culture; water and mosquitos, willows and mosquitos, tules and mosquitos everywhere; tule boats, tule bags, tule skip-rings, and other tule equipment—and mosquitos; tule houses, tule sunshades, tule windbreaks, piled-up tules for sails on tule boats; tule clothing;—caps, capes, hoods, par-kas and skirts; tule mattresses, tule mats, tule blankets, pounded tule-fibre disposable diapers for babies, tule baby cradles, tule fuel, tule blinds for hunting, tule-seed mush, tule-root bread, tule baskets, tule shrouds, tule rope, tule string, tule elk, beaver, sea and fresh-water otter, tules, tules, tules—and mosquitos; seal, raccoon; waterfowl and fish in myriads; more tules, tules, tules—and mosquitos.

Prehistory To characterize the prehistory of the San Joaquin Valley, the chronology of Rosenthal et al. (2007) is employed and summarized below. The time ranges used by Rosenthal et al. (2007) as “cal BC” denote the specific temporal periods are used herein. For less specific purposes, the term “BP” is used to indicate a very general “years ago.”

Paleoindian (ca. 11,550 to 8550 cal BC) There is evidence of human habitation in the lake country of the SSJV dating back to at least 12,000 years ago, although few sites of this age have been identified to date. A part of the reason for this lack of identified sites is probably due to geoarchaeological episodes of erosion and deposition that have destroyed or buried many ancient Holocene deposits under more recent alluvial deposits. Most of the evidence of such early occupation comes from isolated finds of fluted projectile points commonly referred to as Clovis. One of the most notable of these early sites is known as the Witt site along the shore of Tulare Lake (north of the Buena Vista Lake basin), which contained fluted



(Clovis-like) projectile points, scrapers, crescents, and Lake Mojave points (Moratto 1984:81–82; Wallace and Riddell 1988; Wallace 1991, 1993:6; also see Hopkins 1991; Fenenga 1993a, 2014; Hopkins and Garfinkel 2008).

Lower Archaic (ca. 8550 to 5550 cal BC) Similar to the Paleoindian era, occupations during the Lower Archaic are largely represented by isolated finds, in this case including stemmed points, cres-cents, and early concave-base projectile points. Many such isolates have been found along the shores of Tulare Lake. The best known Lower Archaic site in the SSJV is CA-KER-116 (Fredrickson and Gross-man 1977; also see Hartzell 1992), located on the southwestern shoreline of Buena Vista Lake. The site had a deeply buried component that contained crescents, a stemmed projectile point, and radiocar-bon dates ranging between 9175 and 8450 cal BP. In the adjacent Elk Hills, several sites have produced obsidian hydration rim micron values that indicate a Lower Archaic occupation (Jackson et al. 1998; Culleton et al. 2005).

Lower Archaic sites with stemmed and Pinto projec-tile points, as well as crescents (flaked stone lithics named for their crescent-moon shape; Tadlock 1966; Jertberg 1986; Fenenga 1992, 1993b, 2010; Hopkins 2010; Mohr and Fenenga 2010) and humpies (small flaked bipointed artifacts; Riddell and Olsen 1969; Sampson 1991a, 1991b), have also been identified in the Tulare Lake basin. The projectile points and ad-mittedly few faunal remains that have been identified suggest that the hunting of large mammals was a sub-sistence focus. Milling implements are rare to absent, so the extent of plant usage is not clear. Evidence of regional interaction spheres during the Lower Archaic is derived from marine shell beads (primarily Olivella) from the Pacific coast and obsidian from the eastern Sierra Nevada.

Middle Archaic (ca. 5550 to 550 cal BC)

The Middle Archaic witnessed a substantial change in climate in the San Joaquin Valley as conditions be-came warmer and drier, and lakes began to desiccate. Landscapes eventually became more stable after a period of deposition at about 5550 cal BC, and buried sites in alluvial landforms are fairly well represented. High residential mobility is characteristic of the foot-hills adaptation, and increasing residential stability is more typical of the valley floor adaptation. Artifacts of the Middle Archaic include Haliotis shell ornaments in various geometric shapes, Olivella and Haliotis beads, slate ornaments, spindle-shaped charmstones, mortars, pestles, and large projectile points inferring use of the atlatl. There is extensive use of bone for artifacts, such as awls, fish spear tips, fish hooks, and saws. Remains of tule elk, mule deer, and pronghorn, as well as fish, leporids, hares, water birds, raptors, and rodents, are frequent constituents in the archaeological deposits of the Middle Archaic. Baked clay objects, largely unidentified as to function, are also fairly common constituents.

Upper Archaic (ca. 550 cal BC to cal AD 1000) The Upper Archaic heralded a shift to cooler, wetter, and more stable environmental conditions, with lakes becoming significantly replenished. There was more cultural diversity, as evidenced partly by different artifact styles (e.g., Rose Spring projectile points, saddle and saucer Olivella beads, Haliotis ornaments, stone beads and cylinders, ceremonial blades). Exotic marine shell and obsidian artifacts attest to exchange and trade practices between the valley inhabitants and outside groups. In the SSJV, residential features dating to the Up-per Archaic have been identified at two sites (the later component at KER-116 and at CA-KER-39



[Hartzell 1992]), along with both aquatic and ter-restrial resources (e.g., fish, freshwater shellfish, elk, pronghorn, deer, leporids). Milling implements (manos, mortars, and pestles) proliferated during this time, indicating the grinding of particular resources, such as nuts and seeds.

Emergent Period (ca. cal AD 1000 to Historic Contact)

In various parts of the San Joaquin Valley, the Emer-gent period witnessed the disappearance of many of the Archaic traditions and technologies as Euroamer-ican contact forced changes on the Native popula-tions. The Emergent period marks the introduction of the bow and arrow between about cal AD 1000 and 700, replacing the dart and atlatl as the hunting weapon of choice. Throughout the valley, fishing and plant collecting increased in importance. Residential sites have included large quantities of fish remains as well as a variety of mammal and avian remains. Mortars and pestles continued to be used to process seeds and nuts, and perhaps small animals (see Yohe et al. 1991).

A History of Archaeological Research in the Southern San Joaquin Valley

Formal archaeological investigations have been con-ducted in the SSJV, including the Buena Vista Lake region, for more than 100 years (Table 1), beginning in 1899 with a research group from the University of California, Berkeley (Gifford and Schenck 1926:5). Led by Phillip Mills Jones, the group worked for three weeks near Buttonwillow, where they inves-tigated approximately 150 mounds and identified cultural material (including human skeletal remains [Wallace 1971:13–14]) at all of them. In the early 1900s, Nelson recovered skeletal remains and arti-facts from the western end of the Elk Hills (Gifford and Schenck 1926:41), Strong recovered two buri-als from the same vicinity (Gifford and Schenck

1926:40–41), and Kroeber excavated cremations adja-cent to Buena Vista Lake (Hartzell 1992:121). Gifford and Schenck (1926) were especially prolific with their comprehensive research project in the valley, during which they recorded sites and conducted limited test excavations at numerous locations in and around the lake region.

In the 1920s and 1930s, several projects where burials were discovered were undertaken by various individ-uals, including excavations by Gifford and Schenck (1926:41–42; also see Estep 1993) at Pelican Island (CA-KER-33) off the north shore of Buena Vista Lake, by Walker (1935, 1947) along the northwestern shore of Buena Vista Lake, and by Wedel (1941) along the southern shore of the lake. In 1959, von Werlhof (1960:1; also see Siefkin et al. 1996) excavated a number of burials at the Buena Vista Golf Club on the northwest shore of the lake.

In the 1970s, Fredrickson and Grossman (1977; also see Hartzell 1992) tested a deeply buried and very early component (~9000 cal BP) at KER-116 on the southwest shoreline of Buena Vista Lake. At about the same time, Dieckman (1969, 1977; also see Bass and Andrews 1977) conducted excavations at the Bead Hill site (CA-KER-450) on the northwest shore of the lake and concluded that it was the village of Tulamniu. Much later, Peak (1991) worked at several sites within the Elk Hills Naval Petroleum Reserve, and Hartzell (1992) completed limited excavations at several sites within the Buena Vista Lake basin in her study of lacustrine adaptations.

Beginning in 1992, studies were initiated at CSUB by the lead author with various field archaeology class-es. These include Goose Lake north of Buena Vista Lake (Sutton 1992), Lost Hills (Novickas 1992), Buttonwillow (Sutton 1996; this article), Manifold (Sutton et al. 2016), and additional work at Bead Hill (see Jones et al. 1996; Sutton 2000; Minor 2002; Barton et al. 2010). Other work in the area from the



Site No. (CA-KER-) Site Name/Area Site Type General Age Conducted by References

multiple Southern San Joaquin Valley various

“relative antiquity” to “relative recency” (Gifford and Schenck 1926:118)

UC Berkeley Gifford and Schenck 1926; Wallace 1971

various Elk Grove habitation, burials not provided UC Berkeley Gifford and Schenck 1926

33 Pelican Island habitation, burials Middle Archaic-Emergent Bakersfield College Gifford and Schenck 1926;

Estep 1993

– Elk Hills, Sites 14, 15 burials Emergent UC Berkeley Gifford and Schenck 1926; Kroeber 1951

64 Elk Hills Cemetery cemetery Emergent Smithsonian Walker 1935, 1947

39, 60 Buena Vista Lake Sites 1 and 2

habitation, burials Emergent Smithsonian, Taft

CollegeWedel 1941; Hartzell 1992; Williams 2002

116 Buena Vista Lake habitation Middle Archaic-Emergent State Parks Fredrickson and Grossman 1977; Hartzell 1992

450 Bead Hill habitation Emergent (and possibly as early as Middle Archaic) various, CSUB

Dieckman 1969, 1977; Bass and Andrews 1977; Jones et al. 1996; Sutton 2000; Minor 2002; Barton et al. 2010

240 Buena Vista Golf Course burials Upper Archaic-Emergent College of the

Sequoias, CSUBvon Werlhof 1960; Siefkin et al. 1996

180 Tule Elk Reserve (Buena Vista Slough) habitation Emergent to Postcontact UC Davis Hartzell 1992

1611 Tule Elk Reserve (Buena Vista Slough) habitation Upper Archaic-Emergent UC Davis Hartzell 1992

766 Goose Lake habitation Lower Archaic-Emergent CSUB Sutton 1992

2421 Lost Hills burials Emergent-Protohistoric CSUB Novickas 1992

various Elk Hills various Lower Archaic-Emergent Pacific Legacy Jackson et al. 1998; Culleton et al. 2005

4595 Kern Canyon habitation Middle Archaic-Emergent? CSUB Parr 1998

4395 Big Cut temporary camp Middle Archaic, Emergent CSUB Sutton et al. 2012

4220 Manifold habitation Upper Archaic-Emergent CSUB Sutton et al. 2016

2720 Buttonwillow habitation Lower Archaic-Emergent CSUB Sutton 1996, this report

Table 1. Summary of Excavation Projects in the Buena Vista Lake Region.

Note: Refer to Figure 1 for site locations.

late 1990s to the early 2000s included excavations in the 1980s at Buena Vista Lake by investigators from Taft College (see Williams, 2002), at Poso Creek (Shapiro and Jackson 1998) in the Elk Hills (Jackson et al. 1998; Culleton et al. 2005), and in Kern River Canyon (Parr 1998). Overall, there is a considerable data set for the region.

Research Design

On its surface, the Buttonwillow site initially appeared to be a relatively low (ca. 30 cm in height) mound some 25 m in diameter. A variety of cultural material was present on the surface, including debitage, fresh-water shell, animal bone, and formed artifacts. The



site was seen as a very small, possibly special purpose, site along the edge of the Buena Vista Slough. The site was chosen for testing because it was believed the project could be completed within the span of a single field class. We wanted to answer very basic questions, such as site age, content, function, subsistence practic-es, and mound structure.

However, excavations revealed that KER-2720 was much larger and deeper than originally thought. It was the proverbial “tip of the pyramid,” with the visible portion of the site being the top of a much larger mound buried under recent alluvium. While this revelation did not change the basic research goals, it did alter the time and effort required to complete the investigation, which was two years rather than one academic quarter.

Field Methods

Given the apparent small size of the mound, a com-plete surface collection was undertaken. A datum was established on site and a 2 x 2-m grid oriented to true north was placed over the visible midden, for a total of 224 units (Figure 3). The constituents of each of these surface units (SUs) were collected. As it turned out, this surface collection represented only the top of the mound and is likely not representative of the original site surface.

Three 1 x 2-m test units (TUs) were placed across the site, and a fourth unit (TU-4; 1 x 1 m) was placed off-site (66.7 m south of TU-3) as a control (see Figure 2). The TUs were excavated in 10-cm arbitrary levels with all soil being passed through 1/8-in mesh screen. For the most part, trowels and shovels were employed, although excavation sometimes proceeded with small tools. Upon completion of the units, a soil profile was drawn, and the units were backfilled.

The deposit was much deeper than originally antici-pated. Test Unit 1 was excavated as a 1 x 2 m unit to

190 cm, at which point it was halved to a 1 x 1 m unit, with the south half eventually encountering sterile soil at a depth of 270 cm. An auger hole was excavated in the bottom of TU-1 to a depth of 390 cm; no cultural materials were encountered. Test Unit 2 was excavated as a 1 x 2 m unit to a depth of 80 cm, where a human inhumation (Feature 2) was discovered, and excava-tion in that unit was discontinued. Test Unit 3 was ex-cavated as a 1 x 2 m unit to 170 cm where it was then halved to a 1 x 1 m unit, with the north half excavated to sterile soil at a depth of 250 cm. An auger hole was excavated in the bottom of TU-3 to a depth of 380 cm, and no cultural materials were encountered. Test Unit 4 was excavated to 40 cm and augered to 90 cm, with no cultural materials found.

A series of 16 auger holes (using a 4-in hand auger) was excavated across the site and past its visible surface manifestation (see Figure 2) to discover its horizontal subsurface extent. From those data, it appears that the site is about 45 m north/south by 35 m east/west, and that the mound had been partly buried by alluvial action since its occupation, with only the central portion remaining visible (Figure 4).

Laboratory Methods

All the materials recovered from the KER-2720 were catalogued by the laboratory analysis class at CSUB. Lot numbers were assigned to each unit, and cultural materials from each unit then received a catalog num-ber. Each artifact received a separate number, while debitage of the same material, faunal remains, and botanical remains from each level were grouped ac-cordingly and received one number. Metric attributes (length, width, thickness, and weight) were obtained on each artifact.

Stratigraphy and Soils

The soils at the site included some 14 strata (Table 2; Figures 5, 6, and 7) and illustrate a complex deposi-



Figure 3. Map of the surface collection grid at the Buttonwillow site (CA-KER-2720).



Figure 4. Profiles (A - A’ and B - B’, see Figure 2) of the cultural deposit at the Buttonwillow site (CA-KER-2720), extrapolated from unit profiles and auger hole records.

tional history at the site, a fact belied by the simplicity of the total generalized deposit shown in Figure 4. Test Unit 4 was excavated off site, primarily for comparative data on land snail distributions. The soils of that unit were completely sterile and are not described herein.

The upper portion of the deposit, to a depth of about 40 cm (in TU-3) to 100 cm (in TU-1), consisted to two major strata (E and F), a gray to dark gray loam with varying degrees of compactness. These gray soils (Strata A through G) generally comprise the Upper Archaic component of the site (see discussion below).

Below that was Stratum H, a medium brown compact loam that formed a major portion of the deposit. This stratum contained a large number of very hard concre-tions that were difficult to break, even when soaked in water. These concretions developed due to a mineral precipitation (e.g., calcium carbonate) into the soil that formed around organic nuclei, probably pieces of freshwater shell. This soil was the basis for the Middle Archaic component of the site (see discussion below).

A Lower Archaic component was identified only in TU-3, within Stratum M, a pale brown, compact

silt lacking concretions. Stratum M may have been separated from Stratum H by an approximately 10-cm thick layer of soil (ca. 160 to 170 cm), not identified by color or consistency but by the near absence of cultural materials. This was not noticed in the field. Near the bottom of Stratum M was a lens of freshwa-ter shell (Feature 3). These brown soils (Strata H and M) comprise the lower components of the site.

Cultural materials were found in all but the very bot-tom strata; caliche (Stratum I) in TU-1 and sandy clay (Stratum N) in TU-3. Some rodent disturbance was noted in the upper portion of the deposit (see Figures 5 and 7). The site was never farmed so, it had not been disturbed by plowing or ripping. Thus, the deposit appeared to be intact.

The cultural deposit at Buttonwillow likely accumulat-ed due to an aggregation of cultural activities through time, beginning some 10,000 years ago. Concurrently, the deposition of alluvium from upslope appears to have buried the edges of the site such that it is roughly pyramidal in cross section. The intensity of occupation apparently diminished through time, particularly after the Middle Archaic occupation (see Figure 4).



Stratum Soil Type Color Munsell Value Component Comments

A silt dark gray 10YR 4/1 Emergent period root zone

B silty loam very pale brown 10YR 7/3 – –

C silty loam black 10YR 2/1 – –

D silty loam light gray 10YR 7/2 – –

E loam dark gray 10YR 4/1 – –

F loam gray 10YR 6/1 Upper Archaic compact

G loam light gray 10YR 7/2 – compact

H loam medium brown 10YR 5/3 Middle Archaic compact, many concretions

I caliche white 10YR 8/1 sterile very compact

J sandy silt grayish brown 10YR 5/2 sterile –

K rodent burrow – – – possibly part of the grave pit (Feature 2)

L clay light grayish brown 10YR 6/2 – possibly a “cap” for the grave (Feature 2)

M silt very pale brown 10YR 7/4 Lower Archaic compact, no concretions

N sandy clay yellow 10YR 7/6 sterile –

Features

Three features were identified during the excavations, consisting of a cache of charmstones, a human burial, and a lens of freshwater shell. Each is described in detail below.

Feature 1

Feature 1 is a cache of ground stone artifacts (Figure 8; also see Sutton 1996) that was discovered between 20 and 30 cm in TU-2. It consisted of a fragmentary slab metate under which were three charmstones, two stone beads, six unshaped and waterworn stones, two hammerstones, three flakes, and a small quantity of freshwater shell. The descriptions and attributes of each item are provided in Table 3. No evidence of any container or pit was found.

Artifacts in Feature 1

A single fragment (Cat. No. 2-031) of a greenish sandstone slab metate (Figure 9) was found overlying

the cache. The specimen is slightly burned along its broken edge. There is some light-colored material adhering to the surface of the metate on one side. It is possible that the metate had been used to “grind” some of the other artifacts from the cache.

Three charmstones were found under the metate. Each of the specimens is essentially complete, but all exhibit wear and/or damage, indicating evidence of having been used. The first specimen (Cat. No. 2-043) (Figure 10a) is plummet-shaped (Elsasser and Rhode’s [1996] Type PT) and is made of a soft, white-banded limestone from an unknown source. It is shaped like a plumb bob, with both ends broken. A series of small grooves was cut along the base of the small knob at the proximal end (Figure 10b), presum-ably to aid in the attachment of a cord. The specimen is completely covered with a red pigment, presumably hematite.

The second charmstone (Cat. No. 2-045; Figure 10c, d) is an elongated specimen (possibly Elsasser and Rhode’s [1996] Type PH) and is made of sandstone.

Table 2. Descriptions of Soil Strata in Test Units 1, 2, and 3 at the Buttonwillow Site (CA-KER-2720).



One end tapers to a point while the other recurves into a bulbous “head.” This head appears to have been modified to resemble a phallus. Red pigment (likely hematite) is evident on the entire specimen, although in lesser quantities than on the charmstone described above.

The third charmstone (Cat. No. 2-046; Figure 10e, f) is plummet-shaped (Elsasser and Rhode’s [1996]

Type PT) and is made of a tan-colored granitic stone. The upper (widest) end of the artifact, which recurves from the maximum width of the artifact, has a small concavity. Both ends have been battered, the smaller end showing evidence of straight-on battering, as if used as a hammerstone. Red pigment (likely hema-tite) covers the piece, including in the flake scars at each end, indicating that it was applied after the battering.

Figure 5. Soil profile of the east and south walls of TU-1 at the Buttonwillow site (CA-KER-2720).



Figure 6. Soil profile of the east wall of TU-2 at the Buttonwillow site (CA-KER-2720).

Figure 7. Soil profile of the west wall of TU-3 at the Buttonwillow site (CA-KER-2720).



Figure 8. Map of the artifacts from Feature 1 at CA-KER-2720 (refer to Table 3 for attributes).

Two stone beads were discovered within the cache. The first (Cat. No. 2-034; Figure 11a) is made of a granitic stone and is uniconically drilled. No red pigment was evident on this specimen. The other bead (Cat. No. 2-035; Figure 11b) is made of a granitic stone with numerous small cavities. It is biconically drilled and has red pigment (likely hematite) on its surface.

Two hammerstones were included in the cache. The first hammerstone (Cat. No. 2-037; Figure 11c) is a spherical quartzite cobble, with battering along most of its edges. The second specimen (Cat. No. 2-041; Figure 11d) is a portion of a waterworn cobble. Sev-eral of the battered edges on this second hammerstone exhibits flake scars and smashed areas. Red pigment is evident on some surfaces of the second hammerstone.

Six small, unshaped, waterworn stones were found in direct association with the cache. Four of the speci-mens are roughly spherical and appear unmodified. The fifth (Cat. No. 2-040; Figure 12a) is a portion of

an elongated cobble and has numerous scratches (pre-sumably of cultural origin) on its surface. The sixth stone (Cat. No. 2-047; Figure 12b) is roughly cylin-drical in shape, and its smaller end is slightly battered. The geographic origin of the stones is not known. An additional spherical stone was found at the same level approximately 1 m north of the cache.

Three small chert flakes were found in presumed asso-ciation with the cache, although it is possible that their presence was incidental.

Faunal Remains in Feature 1

Three small fragments of freshwater shell were dis-covered in association with the cache. However, as with the flakes, it is unclear whether the presence of the shell was intentional or incidental.

Feature 1 Discussion

Charmstones of various forms are widely known in the SSJV (e.g., Gifford and Schenck 1926) and other parts of California (Elsasser and Rhode 1996; Sharp 2000:233; Van Bueren and Wiberg 2011), with perhaps thousands of specimens collected by private individuals (Seals 1993). Other caches of charmstones have been reported (e.g., Latta 1977:641–646; Seals 1993), some found in association with burials (e.g., Moratto 1984:203–204). To our knowledge, however, the Feature 1 cache is the only such example from the SSJV that has been excavated under controlled archae-ological conditions.

The function of charmstones is not at all clear (see Elsasser and Rhode 1996:6–9; Sharp 2000:234–236, 241). Various ideas have been advanced regarding their function, such as their use as “charms” in asso-ciation with thunder and for rain-making (Kroeber 1925:518; Gayton 1948:37; Latta 1977:640–641), to influence success in fishing and/or hunting (Latta 1931:3, 1977:646), for medical purposes (Gayton



Cat. No. Item No.a Item Material L W T Wt Figure

2-031 2 metate fragment sandstone 214.0b 141.0b 19.0 1,066.5 9

2-043 14 charmstone limestone 99.0 43.0 41.0 193.6 10a, b

2-045 16 charmstone granitic 155.0 30.0 28.0 180.6 10c, d

2-046 17 charmstone granitic 98.0 36.0 35.0 188.8 10e, f

2-034 5 stone bead steatite 22.2 18.1 9.0 12.3 11a

2-035 6 stone bead granitic 19.0 26.0 9.0 15.8 11b

2-037 8 hammerstone quartzite 40.0 42.0 34.5 98.4 11c

2-041 12 hammerstone basalt 80.0 45.0 29.0 151.5 11d

2-036 7 spherical stone quartzite 24.0 20.5 20.0 13.2 –




2-040 11 thin cobble granitic 77.0 45.0 16.0 89.2 12a

2-047 18 thin cobble granitic 113.0 27.0 27.0 96.7 12b

2-030 1 flake chert 33.0 16.0 8.5 5.2 –

2-033 4 flake chert 26.0 13.0 5.0 4.3 –

2-044 15 flake chert 28.5 23.5 12.0 10.1 –

2-032 3 shell fragments cf. Anodonta – – – 1.3 –

Table 3. Descriptions and Attributes of Items from Feature 1 (Charmstone Cache) at the Buttonwillow Site (CA-KER-2720).

a Refer to Figure 8 for item locations.b Denotes incomplete measurementNotes: Wt = weight, L = length, W = width, T = thickness. TU levels are in cm; other metric measurements are in g and mm.

1948:24), or as net weights (Henshaw 1885; Barrett and Gifford 1933:Figure 25). One ethnographic ac-count is noteworthy:

The Indian medicine man used to collect twelve or maybe twenty charm stones and arrange them in the form of a circle, with another very different stone in the center, and over these he sprinkled the seed of the wild sage, feathers and red ochre, when war, sickness, drought or famine came to the tribe. He would next thrust the stones violent-ly together … [account by Gates, in Latta (1977:646); also see Henshaw (1885:10) for a similar account].

Of further interest is the commonly reported meth-od of storage of charmstones by burial underground (Sharp 2000:236). This method coincides with the nature of Feature 1.

The dating of the cache is uncertain. Unperforated charmstones are characteristic of both the Middle and Late periods (Elsasser 1978:Figure 5; Moratto 1984:183), and the shallow depth of the feature in the deposit suggests that it dates late in time.

Interpretations of Feature 1

The Feature 1 cache contained five ground stone spec-imens (three charmstones and two beads), all of which



Figure 9. Slab sandstone metate fragment (Cat. No. 2-031) from Feature 1 at CA-KER-2720.

appear to be complete. These specimens are likely ornamental, although it is possible that the charm-stones had a functional purpose (e.g., net weights; see above). The other items in the cache (hammerstones, metate, and small spherical stones) seem to represent manufacturing/processing tools, a very different func-tional category from the ornaments.

There are several possible interpretations for the ma-terials in Feature 1. First, the feature assemblage may be the elements of a stone ornament manufacturing kit, complete with several finished items. While we do not understand the details, we do know that ground stone ornaments have to be shaped and polished and that a tool kit is involved. Perhaps this is one such kit.

Second, the cache may represent a ritual event such as described in the ethnographic literature (see above), although the items were not arranged in a circle. Similar caches have been reported as being directly associated with burials, but such is not the case with this feature (although a flexed burial of an adult was discovered nearby). The presence of red pigment (probably hematite) on each of the charmstones and several other artifacts supports the ritual hypothesis. Of course, the feature may be a ritual cache of a man-ufacturing kit.

A third possibility is that the cache represents some sort of “shaman’s kit” and that it once contained additional materials that may have been perishable.



a

Figure 10. Charmstones from Feature 1 at CA-KER-2720: (a) Cat. No. 2-043 (side); (b) Cat. No. 2-043 (top); (c) Cat. No. 2-045 (side); (d) Cat. No. 2-045 (top); (e) Cat. No. 2-046 (side); (f) Cat. No. 2-046 (top).

b

c

d

f

e



ba

dc

Figure 11. Stone beads (a, b) and hammerstones (c, d) from Feature 1 at CA-KER-2720: (a) Cat. No. 2-034; (b) Cat. No. 2-035; (c) Cat. No. 2-037; (d) Cat. No. 2-041.

There may also be other hypotheses that are yet to be explored.

Feature 2

Feature 2 consisted of a primary, flexed human inhumation discovered in TU-2 at which time exca-vation was terminated. The remains are described below (under “Human Remains”). A possible grave pit can be seen in the soil profile of TU-2 (Figure

6). Stratum K was described in the field notes as a large rodent burrow, clearly indicating evidence of disturbance. Adjacent to this was Stratum L, de-scribed as compact clay (see Figure 6). Given the paucity of clay elsewhere in the site deposit, it is possible that this soil served as a “cap” for the grave. Both of these strata appear at a depth of about 25 cm, and both are overlain by Stratum E. If this is a burial pit, it seems to have been excavated during the latter part of the site occupation, suggesting that



it probably dates to the Emergent period, after about cal AD 1000.

Feature 3

Feature 3 is an extensive layer of freshwater shell encountered in TU-3. The shell lens emerged at approximately 226 cm and was about 5 cm thick. The layer extended horizontally beyond the 1 x 1-m unit in which it was encountered, continuing into all the unit walls (Figure 7). A patch of reddened (burned?) earth was observed along the northern portion of the unit, and some additional reddened earth was also observed in the subsequent level. The cultural deposit continued below the feature for about another 10 cm (to 240 cm).

A soil sample (Cat. No. 3-249) was taken from the feature, from which 332.9 g of freshwater shell was recovered. In addition, 17.2 g of mostly burned, fleck-sized fish bone was found mixed in with the

shell. Given the presence of the associated reddened earth, the function of Feature 3 is interpreted to be for processing/cooking freshwater shellfish and perhaps fish. Interestingly, a fairly large number of fish remains (n ≈ 415) was recovered between 230 and 240 cm, the level directly below Feature 3 (see below).

A 100-g sample of the shell was submitted for radiocarbon dating, with a resultant date of 8950 ± 30 RCYBP (Beta-484926), calibrated (with three intersects) to between 10,199 and 9949 cal BP (at one sigma), with a local freshwater shell correction factor of minus 300 years (Sutton and Orfila 2003; also see Culleton 2006), indicating an age between 9899 and 9649 cal BP.

Material Culture

In total, 6,922 prehistoric artifacts, as well as fire-af-fected rock, hematite, and a few fragmentary historical

Figure 12. Two unshaped stones from Feature 1 at CA-KER-2720: (a) Cat. No. 2-040; (b) Cat. No. 2-047.

a b



items, were recovered from the site. The prehistoric artifacts include ground stone implements, flaked stone tools, and shell beads. Each of these categories is described and discussed below.

Ground Stone

Seventeen pieces of ground stone were discov-ered. One metate fragment, three charmstones, and two stone beads were found in Feature 1 (Table 3) and were described above (see Figures 9 through 12). The remaining 11 pieces included two charm-stones, one complete mano, two mano fragments, one metate fragment, one bowl fragment, and four unidentified fragments (Table 4). Of interest is the general dearth of milling equipment (manos and metates), suggesting that milling was not an import-ant activity at the site.

Charmstones

Five charmstones were recovered from the excava-tions, three in Feature 1 (described above; also see Ta-

ble 3 and Figure 10), and two from the general midden (Table 4). One of the specimens from the midden (Cat. No. 1-062; Figure 13) was complete and found in situ in the 50 to 60-cm level of TU-1. This artifact is made of granite and is plummet-shaped (Elsasser and Rhode’s [1996] Type PT). The second specimen (Cat. No. 3-075) is the tip of an unclassified type and was found in the 60 to 70-cm level of TU-3.

Manos

One complete, unburned, unifacial granitic mano (Cat. No. SU-122-001) was identified on the surface. Two other small mano fragments (Cat. Nos. 2-060 and 2-123) were found in TU-2 (see Table 4).

Metates

Two metate fragments were found, one (Cat. No. 2-031) in Feature 1 (see above). The other metate fragment (Cat. No. 1-046; see Table 4) is a very small fragment, perhaps a spall from the surface of a tool that was being resharpened.

Cat. No. Provenience Type Material L W T Wt Comments

SU-122-001 SU-122 mano granitic 110.0 72.0 53.0 568.6 complete, unifacial, unburned

2-047 TU-2, 20-30 unidentified granitic 113.0 27.0b 27.0b 96.7 fragment, cobble, battered at one end

2-060 TU-2, 30-40 mano granitic 67.0b 42.5b 28.0b 71.6 fragment, unifacial, shaped

2-052 TU-2, 30-40 unidentified granitic 35.5b 26.0b 13.0b 7.6 small fragment

1-046 TU-1, 40-50 metate granitic 37.1b 26.7b 4.7b 7.7 very small fragment

1-062 TU-1, 50-60 charmstone granitic 124.3 44.3 40.6 281.5 complete, plummet shaped (Figure 13)

3-063 TU-3, 50-60 unidentified granitic 31.0b 28.0b 15.5b 19.8 small fragment

3-075 TU-3, 60-70 charmstone granitic 31.0b 19.0 19.0b 15.0 fragment, tip

2-123 TU-2, 70-80 mano granitic 70.6b 64.1b 46.2b 242.5 fragment, missing

2-127 TU-2, 70-80 unidentified granitic 42.7b 26.7b 27.9b 27.5 fragment, missing

3-191 TU-3, 160-170 bowl granitic 65.0b 66.0b 26.0b 82.7 fragment, asphaltum on one side

a Not including ground stone artifacts found in Feature 1, see Table 3.b Denotes incomplete measurement.Notes: Wt = weight, L = length, W = width, T = thickness. TU levels are in cm; other metric measurements are in g and mm.

Table 4. Provenience and Attributes of Ground Stone Artifactsa from the Buttonwillow Site (CA-KER-2720).



Bowl Fragment

A small stone bowl fragment (Cat. No. 3-191) was recovered from the 160 to 170-cm level of TU-3. The piece was made of a granitic stone, measured 65.0 x 66.0 x 26.0 mm, and weighed 82.7 g. Some dark-col-ored material, probably asphaltum, was evident on one surface. The piece is missing from the collection.

Unidentified Ground Stone

Three fragments of unidentified ground stone were recorded (see Table 4). These pieces are very small and made of a granitic stone.

Flaked Stone

The excavations at Buttonwillow yielded 6,871 flaked stone artifacts. These include 10 projectile points, nine bifaces, 27 cores, 11 hammerstones, one scraper, one modified flake, and 6,812 pieces of

debitage. Each of these categories is described and discussed below.

Projectile Points

Ten projectile points were identified, nine of which were classified to type (Figure 14; Table 5). Three of the points are made of obsidian (each subjected to obsidian analysis), three of Temblor chert, and four of chalcedo-ny. Two of the points (the Cottonwood Triangular and a stemmed specimen) were found on the surface while the other eight points came from below 60 cm.

Concave-Base

A single complete concave-base point (see Pendleton 1979; Wilke 1991; Beck and Jones 1997; Haynes 2002; Rondeau 2006; Rondeau et al. 2007; Rondeau and Hopkins 2008) made of chalcedony was found in the 70 to 80-cm level of TU-1 (1-076; Figure 14a). In outline, this point resembles a small fluted type but lacks fluting

Figure 13. Plummet- shaped charmstone (Cat. No. 2-062) from TU-2 at CA-KER-2720: (a) side; (b) top.

a b



Figure 14. Projectile points from CA-KER-2720: (a) concave-base (Cat. No. 1-076); (b) stemmed (Cat. No. SU-177-003); (c) stemmed (Cat. No. 2-119A); (d) Pinto (Cat. No. 3-163); (e) Large Side-notched (Cat. No. 1-156); (f) large contracting stem (Cat. No. 1-107); (g) large contracting stem (Cat. No. 1-143); (h) Humboldt (Cat. No. 3-042); (i) Cottonwood Triangular (Cat. No. S-2-001).

a b c

d e f

g h i



or basal thinning. Such points are characteristic of the Lower Archaic in the San Joaquin Valley (Rosenthal et al. 2007:151) and might date to the very early Holocene.

Stemmed Series

Two small stemmed points, both essentially complete and made of chalcedony, were discovered. One (SU-177-003; Figure 14b) was on the surface while the other (2-119A; Figure 14c) was found in the 70 to 80-cm level of TU-2. In general, such points date to the Lower Archaic in the San Joaquin Valley (Rosenthal et al. 2007:151).

A similar point (called a shouldered bipoint), along with several other small stemmed points, was recovered from Locus C at CA-KER-3080 in the Elk Hills (Culleton et al. 2005:Table 6.15). Obsidian hydration data from that same site supported the idea of a relatively early compo-nent (see Culleton et al. 2005:Figure 6-17, 107).

Pinto Series

A complete obsidian Pinto point (Cat. No. 3-163; Figure 14d) was found in the 140 to 150-cm level of

TU-3. Pinto points are characteristic of the Lower Archaic of the San Joaquin Valley and have been found in the Tulare Lake area north of Buttonwillow (Rosenthal et al. 2007:151). Interestingly, a small obsidian flake found in the same level was found to refit with the point, suggesting it had been retouched on site. The point was submitted for obsidian analysis and returned a micron measurement of 5.3 ± 0.1 µm (two cuts were made, but the first was unreadable; see further discussion under “Obsidian Studies” below). It was sourced to the West Sugarloaf subsource of the Coso Volcanic Field (CVF).

Large Side-notched

One obsidian Large Side-notched point base (Cat. No. 1-156; Figure 14e) was discovered in the 140 to 150-cm level of TU-1. Glassow (1997) proposed that this type dated between about 5,500 and 4,000 years old along the Santa Barbara coast and may be even earlier in the Great Basin, but the age in the San Joa-quin Valley is uncertain. The point was submitted for obsidian analysis and returned a micron measurement of 7.0 ± 0.1 µm. It was sourced to the West Sugarloaf subsource of the CVF.

Cat. No. Provenience Type Condition Material L W T Wt Figure

1-076 TU-1, 70–80 concave-base complete chalcedony 39.0 20.0 7.0 1.8 14a

SU-177-003 surface stemmed complete chalcedony 32.9 23.3 4.4 3.2 14b

2-119A TU-2, 70–80 stemmed complete chalcedony 31.3 18.8 5.9 3.4 14c

3-163 TU-3, 140–150 Pinto complete obsidian 32.0 20.0 10.0 23.0 14d

1-156 TU-1, 140–150 Large Side-notched base obsidian 21.0a 0.9 0.5 1.0 14e

1-107 TU-1, 90-100 large contracting stem base Monterey chert 33.0a 24.0 8.5 5.5 14f

1-143 TU-1, 130–140 large contracting stem base Monterey chert 26.0a 35.0 9.0 7.7 14g

3-042 TU-3, 40–50 Humboldt base obsidian 20.0a 23.0 10.0 6.0 14h

S-2-001 surface Cottonwood Triangular base Temblor chert 24.0a 12.0 5.0 1.6 14i

2-102 TU-2, 60–70 unclassified tip chalcedony 23.5a 15.3 8.1 2.1 –

Table 5. Provenience and Attributes of Projectile Points from the Buttonwillow Site (CA-KER-2720).

a Denotes incomplete measurement.Notes: Wt = weight, L = length, W = width, T = thickness. TU levels are in cm; other metric measurements are in g and mm.



Contracting Stem The bases of two large points, classified as contract-ing stem, were identified (see Table 5), both made of Monterey chert. These two points were found in TU-1, one (Cat. No. 1-107; Figure 14f) from the 90 to 100-cm level and the other (Cat. No. 1-143; Figure 14g) from the 130 to 140-cm level. Such points appeared along the Santa Barbara coast at about 4,000 years ago (Glassow 1997:87) and are characteristic of the Middle Archaic in the San Joaquin Valley (Rosenthal et al. 2007).

A variety of contracting stem points are known from central and southern California and have often been classified within the Gypsum series (Heizer and Hes-ter 1978:13; but see Thomas 1981:35), as Elko con-tracting stem, or as Vandenberg contracting stem (also see Justice 2002:241–275). The Gypsum and Elko series generally date between 4,000 and 1,800 years old in the Mojave Desert (Sutton et al. 2007:241). Other contracting stem forms (e.g., Vandenberg) date to about the same time. Along the coast, large contracting stem points are considered by some as markers of the Hunting Culture or Campbell Tradition (e.g., Harrison 1964; Moratto 1984:137–138). Similar points have been found on the northern Channel Islands and are thought to date to the early Holocene (Glassow et al. 2013).

Just to the south in the Buena Vista Lake basin, Hartzell (1992:230–239) reported stemmed and contracting stem dart points at KER-116 (and at other sites), which were variously identified as Buena Vista stemmed (similar to Elko and Pinto points), Old River series (bipointed and straight-based leaf-shaped dart forms), Elk Hills series (contracting stem dart points), and Buttonwillow series (large stemmed points). Hartzell (1992:295) suggested that the larger points from her study had temporal affil-iations with Martis or Elko points. Similar point forms were also recovered from several sites in the Elk Hills (Culleton et al. 2005:271–274).

Humboldt

The base of what appears to be an obsidian Hum-boldt point (although it lacks a concave base) (Cat. No. 3-042; Figure 14h) was recovered from the 40 to 50-cm level of TU-3. It is difficult to assess the age of Humboldt points because they can be found in multiple contexts (e.g., Thomas 1981:17), but they often occur sometime between the Middle and Upper Archaic. This point was submitted for obsidian analysis and returned a micron measurement of 5.7 ± 0.1 µm. It was sourced to the West Sugarloaf subsource of the CVF.

Cottonwood Triangular

One Cottonwood Triangular point base (Cat. No. S-2-001; Figure 14i) was found on the surface (see Table 5). The point is made of Temblor chert. These points have a wide geographic range within the Great Basin and much of California, including the Buena Vista Lake basin (e.g., Hartzell 1992; Culleton et al. 2005; Barton et al. 2010; Sutton et al. 2012) where they are sometimes referred to as Tulamniu Cotton-wood Triangular. The presence of this projectile point on the surface suggests that the site was occupied for some period of time during the Emergent period (see Rosenthal et al. 2007).

Bifaces

Of the nine bifaces from the site (Table 6), six are made of chert, two of chalcedony, and one of jas-per. Four of the bifaces, all chert, are complete; two were early-stage bifaces (with sinuous margins and simple surface topography), and two were late-stage bifaces (with straight margins and complex surface topography) (following Sutton and Arkush 2014). The chert is from the Temblor Range and is tabular with considerable cortex. Analysis of the debitage from TU-3 revealed few biface thinning or pressure flakes, suggesting that biface manufacture was not a major activity (see details below).



Cores

The excavations unearthed 27 cores (Table 7). Sixteen were made of Temblor chert, and 11 were made of chalcedony. No obsidian cores were found. Most of the cores are quite small and expended. The absence of obsidian cores, along with the fact that very few obsidian flakes (all very small) were found, indicates that obsidian was not a commonly used stone. Very little heat treatment is evident on these cores. Of some interest is that 11 of the cores came from TU-2, a unit excavated to only 70 cm.

Hammerstones

Eleven hammerstones were recovered (Table 8), only four of which are complete. Five were found on the surface, two in Feature 1, and four others in the test units. Five are made of quartzite, two of quartz, two of granite, and one each of chalcedony and basalt. Two of the fragments found in adjacent surface collection units refit, but the specimen is still not complete.

Scraper One artifact identified as a scraper was found. The specimen (Cat. No. 2-109) was recovered from the 60 to 70-cm level of TU-2. It is made of Temblor chert, measures 51.5 x 32.6 x 11.0 mm, and weighs 19.4 g.

Modified Flake One modified flake (Cat. No. SU-092-007) was found on the surface. It is made of Temblor chert, measures 51.4 x 24.1 x 12.3 mm, and weighs 9.7 g.

Debitage

Debitage refers to rock waste removed during stone tool production. It most often takes the shape of flakes or shatter and is usually the most common type of lithic artifact found at prehistoric sites. In total, 6,812 pieces of debitage were recovered from the site, 514 from the surface and 6,298 from the excavations (Ta-bles 9 through 12).

Cat. No. Provenience Material L W T Wt Comments

2-003 TU-2, 0–10 chert 10.7a 11.0 2.6 0.3 fragment

2-006 TU-2, 0–10 chert 47.4 29.9 8.7 14.0 complete, early-stage

3-010 TU-3, 0–10 chalcedony 27.6a 23.5 9.5 5.3 base

3-070 TU-3, 60–70 chert 15.0a 12.0 6.0 0.9 tip

3-096 TU-3, 70–80 chert 58.5 30.0 16.0 26.4 complete, late-stage

1-110 TU-1, 90–100 chalcedony 15.0a 12.0 6.0 1.0 base

1-129A TU-1, 120–130 chert 51.2 31.9 14.1 24.9 complete, early-stage

1-204 TU-1, 200–210 jasper 19.4a 22.2 9.2 4.1 tip

1-231 TU-1, 250–260 chert 48.9 32.2 13.6 22.0 complete, late-stage

Table 6. Provenience and Attributes of Bifaces from the Buttonwillow Site (CA-KER-2720).




Cat. No. Provenience Material L W T Wt Comments

SU-062-002 SU-062 chert 33.7 25.5 17.3 12.8 expended

SU-121-002 SU-121 chert 35.0 30.0 15.0 15.0 expended

SU-136-001 SU-136 chert 48.0 46.0 29.0 52.4 –

SU-144-002 SU-144 chalcedony 47.9 32.3 25.4 42.2 expended

SU-147-001 SU-147 chalcedony 25.8 25.4 24.1 14.0 –

SU-163-001 SU-163 chert 45.0 32.0 16.0 24.8 –

SU-193-005 SU-193 chalcedony 27.0 24.3 11.7 6.7 expended

1-008 TU-1, 10–20 chert 45.7 40.5 16.3 27.8 heat treated

1-039 TU-1, 30–40 chert 43.0 45.0 15.0 27.5 missing

1-059 TU-1, 50–60 chalcedony 38.0 17.0 25.0 25.3 expended

1-068A TU-1, 60–70 chert 44.2 23.7 25.9 28.5 expended

2-007 TU-2, 0–10 chert 32.0 30.6 17.0 19.0 expended




2-029A TU-2, 20–30 chalcedony 28.9 17.9 12.9 7.1 expended



2-056 TU-2, 30–40 chalcedony 38.0 29.5 24.5 27.4 –

2-080A TU-2, 40–50 chert 22.8 16.9 11.1 31.1 expended

2-080B TU-2, 40–50 chalcedony 29.1 17.5 24.0 43.0 expended

2-096 TU-2, 50–60 chert 50.2 44.9 24.7 36.7 missing

2-101 TU-2, 60–70 chert 35.3 23.2 17.8 24.6 expended, missing


2-122 TU-2, 70–80 chalcedony 49.4 32.1 34.0 62.5 –

2-128 TU-2, 70–80 chalcedony 51.0 41.3 31.3 49.7 –


Table 7. Provenience and Attributes of Cores from the Buttonwillow Site (CA-KER-2720).

Notes: Wt = weight, L = length, W = width, T = thickness. TU levels are in cm; other metric measurements are in g and mm.



Of the 6,812 flakes, 6,638 (97.4 percent) are chert, 68 (1.0 percent) are chalcedony, and 64 (0.9 percent) are obsidian, with very small numbers of quartzite (n = 19), jasper (n = 13), quartz (n = 5), basalt (n = 4), and rhyolite (n = 1). The vast majority of the chert was identified as Temblor chert, originating in the Temblor Range just west of the Buttonwillow site. The obsid-ian that was sourced (n = 7; see below) originated from the CVF. All the obsidian flakes are very small, mostly pressure and retouch flakes, and were found throughout the deposit.

Debitage Analysis

The cryptocrystalline (CCS; here just chert and chal-cedony) debitage (n = 2,591) from TU-3 was ana-lyzed. Other debitage from TU-3 include obsidian (n = 12) and rhyolite (n = 1). The obsidian flakes are all very small pressure flakes, indicative of resharpening. The chalcedony and rhyolite specimens are indicative of general reduction. The CCS flakes were sorted by type into five categories: early biface reduction, late biface reduction, pressure, shatter, and non-biface reduction (following Sutton and Arkush 2014). Under each of these categories, flakes were classified as primary, secondary, or tertiary based on the amount of cortex. The data from the analysis are presented in Ta-ble 13. A discussion of the debitage by temporal com-ponents is presented below (see “Obsidian Studies”).

Overall, the CCS debitage assemblage from TU-3 is dominated by general reduction activities, with non-biface reduction flakes and shatter accounting for some 96.3 percent of the debitage and biface thinning

Cat. No. Provenience Material L W T Wt Comments Figure

SU-034-002 SU-034 quartz 46.5a 28.9 a 20.0 21.4 fragment, fits with SU-48-006 –

SU-048-006 SU-048 quartz 50.0a 36.0a 19.0 46.3 fragment, fits with SU-34-002 –

SU-119-001 SU-119 chalcedony 52.4 41.5 36.2 116.4 complete –

SU-121-001 SU-121 quartzite 48.5a 32.0a 12.0 17.5 fragment –

SU-137-002 SU-137 quartzite 47.0a 38.0a 26.0 53.6 fragment –

3-016 TU-3, 10–20 quartzite 18.0a 15.0a 4.0 1.1 fragment –

2-037 TU-2, 20–30 quartzite 40.0 42.0 34.5 94.8 complete, possible hematite stain, from Feature 1 11c

2-041 TU-2, 20–30 basalt 80.0a 45.0a 29.0 151.5 fragment, possible hematite stain, from Feature 1 11d

3-033 TU-3, 20–30 granite 93.0 45.0 39.0 255.5 complete –

2-123 TU-2, 70–80 granite 70.6 64.1 46.2 242.5 complete –

1-144 TU-1, 130–140 quartzite 37.6a 29.4a 6.4 4.5 fragment –

Table 8. Provenience and Attributes of Hammerstones from the Buttonwillow Site (CA-KER-2720).


Material Count Weight (g)

chert 469 409.8

chalcedony 30 47.5

obsidian 1 0.2

quartz 2 0.7

quartzite 12 60.1

Totals 514 518.3

Table 9. Debitage Recovered from the Surface Collection Units at the Buttonwillow Site (CA-KER-2720).



Level (cm) Chert Chalcedony Obsidian Jasper Quartz Basalt Totals

0–10 59 (13.0)a 2 (0.1) 1 (0.1) – – – 62 (13.2)

10–20 36 (32.3) – 1 (0.1) – – – 37 (32.4)

20–30 97 (48.7) 2 (1.2) 3 (0.3) – – – 102 (50.2)

30–40 101 (42.6) 1 (1.6) – – – – 102 (44.2)

40–50 135 (95.7) 3 (1.5) – – – – 138 (97.2)

50–60 240 (100.9) – 2 (0.5) – – – 242 (101.4)

60–70 270 (152.2) 3 (0.9) 3 (0.2) – – – 276 (152.8)

70–80 216 (148.8) 3 (0.5) 1 (0.1) – – – 220 (149.4)

80–90 185 (68.8) 3 (0.2) 11 (0.8) 12 (7.4) – – 211 (86.2)

90–100 97 (75.2) – 2 (0.2) – – – 99 (75.4)

100–110 93 (50.2) 1 (1.1) 1 (0.1) – – – 95 (51.3)

110–120 60 (93.6) – – 1 (5.0) – 1 (8.9) 62 (107.5)

120–130 110 (61.1) 14 (0.9) 2 (0.1) – 1 (0.5) 127 (71.6)

130–140 55 (104.9) – 1 (0.5) – – – 56 (105.4)

140–150 13 (6.8) 1 (0.2) 1 (0.3) – – – 15 (7.3)

150–160 33 (29.2) – 1 (1.0) – – – 34 (30.2)

160–170 65 (21.4) – – – – 1 (1.1) 66 (22.5)

170–180b, c – – – – – 1 (0.1) 1 (0.1)

180–190 259 (78.1) – 1 (0.3) – 1 (0.6) 1 (4.8) 262 (83.0)

190–200 60 (39.9) – – – – – 60 (39.9)

200–210 32 (13.6) – – – – – 32 (13.6)

210–220 32 (12.0) 1 (2.2) 1 (0.1) – – – 34 (14.1)

220–230 30 (24.7) – – – – – 30 (24.7)

230–240 40 (19.4) – 1 (0.1) – – – 41 (19.5)

240–250 87 (8.9) – – – – – 87 (8.9)

250–260 92 (31.0) – 1 (0.1) – – – 93 (31.1)

260–270 3 (0.3) – – – – – 3 (0.3)

Totals 2,500 (1,373.3) 34 (10.4) 34 (4.9) 13 (12.4) 2 (1.1) 4 (14.9) 2,587 (1,417.0)

Table 10. Distribution of Debitage by Material from TU-1 at the Buttonwillow Site (CA-KER-2720).

a Count (weight in g). b The debitage (one flake) from this level is missing.c Beginning with the 170 to 180-cm level, the unit was halved to a 1 x 1-m unit.



Level (cm) Chert Chalcedony Obsidian Quartz Quartzite Totals

0–10 65 (55.1)b – – – – 65 (55.1)

10–20 63 (51.3) – – – – 63 (51.3)

20–30 145 (75.7) – 1 (0.1) – – 146 (75.8)

30–40 157 (178.4) – 4 (0.2) – – 161 (178.6)

40–50 205 (189.9) – 5 (0.2) – – 210 (190.1)

50–60 134 (107.2) – 3 (0.1) – 7 (1.1) 144 (108.4)

60–70 199 (125.2) 2 (0.1) 2 (0.1) – – 203 (125.7)

70–80 103 (113.5) – 1 (0.1) 1 (0.3) – 105 (113.9)

otherc 9 (3.1) – 1 (0.1) – – 10 (3.2)

Totals 1,080 (899.4) 2 (0.2) 17 (0.9) 1 (0.3) 7 (1.1) 1,107 (901.9)

Table 11. Distribution of Debitage by Material from TU-2a at the Buttonwillow Site (CA-KER-2720).

a Excavation was halted at 80 cm in TU-2 due to the discovery of a human burial (Feature 2).b Count (weight in g). c Wall cave-in.

(2.1 percent) and pressure (1.6 percent) flakes com-prising the remainder. Thus, it appears that very little biface reduction took place at the site.

The CCS debitage from TU-3 consists primarily of tertiary flakes (95.1 percent), followed by a few sec-ondary flakes (4.4 percent) and fewer primary flakes (0.5 percent). This suggests that prepared cores were brought to the site and subsequently reduced. The fact that the cores found at the site (see Table 7) were small and expended supports this conclusion.

Approximately 5 percent of the chert debitage from TU-3 showed signs of heat treatment in the form of small potlids, glossy surfaces, and cracking of flake surfaces. There was no evidence of heat treatment on site (e.g., hearth features with raw materials).Beads

The excavations produced two stone beads and 19 shell beads. The two stone beads found in Feature 1 were described above (see Table 3). Of the 19 shell specimens (Table 14) found in the general midden, 15

are Olivella, one is clam, one is Haliotis, and two are unidentified shell.

Olivella Beads

The 15 Olivella beads were typed following Benny-hoff and Hughes (1987). Five of the beads are Class B. These include two B2 end-ground beads (Bennyhoff and Hughes 1987:122), a type “most common in the Early period [ca. 10,000 to 7,000 BP] and Phase 1 of the Late period” (ca. 1,500 to 800 BP) (Bennyhoff and Hughes 1987:121). Three other beads are B3 barrels that have no firm temporal significance (Bennyhoff and Hughes 1987:122). All the Class B beads were found below 60 cm.

Two complete C2 split drilled specimens (Bennyhoff and Hughes 1987:123) were retrieved from the upper 20 cm of the deposit. In California, these beads gen-erally date to the Middle period and the Middle/Late transition, between about 3,000 and 1,500 BP.

Five D1 split punched (Bennyhoff and Hughes 1987:125) beads were found, four in the upper 20 cm



Level (cm) Chert Chalcedony Obsidian Rhyolite Totals

0–10 163 (55.1)a – – – 163 (55.1)

10–20 45 (20.4) – – – 45 (20.4)

20–30 72 (84.9) – – – 72 (84.9)

30–40 78 (76.0) – – – 78 (76.0)

40–50 209 (130.1) – 1 (0.1) – 210 (130.2)

50–60 151 (96.2) – 2 (0.1) – 153 (96.3)

60–70 172 (132.7) – 3 (0.2) – 175 (131.0)

70–80 153 (204.0) – – – 153 (204.0)

80–90 126 (94.1) – – – 126 (94.1)

90–100 127 (30.3) – 1 (0.1) – 128 (30.4)

100–110 258 (100.2) – – – 258 (100.2)

110–120 84 (38.1) – 1 (0.1) – 85 (39.9)

120–130 167 (39.8) – 1 (0.1) – 168 (39.9)

130–140 258 (72.4) – – – 258 (72.4)

140–150 241 (47.9) 1 (0.5) 3 (0.2) 1 (52.6) 246 (101.2)

150–160 246 (85.4) – – – 246 (85.4)

160–170b – – – – –

170–180c 14 (15.8) – – – 14 (15.8)

180–190 4 (0.9) – – – 4 (0.9)

190–200 2 (1.0) – – – 2 (1.0)

200–210 11 (6.9) – – – 11 (6.9)

210–220 6 (0.6) – – – 6 (0.6)

220–230 2 (2.9) 1 (0.1) – – 3 (3.0)

230–240 – – – – –

240–250 – – – – –

Totals 2,589 (1,335.7) 2 (0.6) 12 (0.9) 1(52.6) 2,604 (1,389.8)

Table 12. Distribution of Debitage by Material from TU-3 at the Buttonwillow Site (CA-KER-2720).

a Count (weight in g). b Very little cultural material was found in this level.c Beginning with the 170 to 180-cm level, TU-3 was halved to a 1 x 1-m unit.

of the deposit. In California, this bead type is thought to date to the Middle/Late period transition, about 1,500 BP.

One G1 tiny saucer (Bennyhoff and Hughes 1987:132) was recovered from the upper 20 cm of the deposit.

Most Class G beads date to the Middle period (ca. 3,000 to 1,500 BP), although they are known to occur in any period.

One H1b semi-ground disk (Bennyhoff and Hughes 1987:135) was found in the upper 20 cm of the



Level (cm)Early Biface

ThinningLate Biface Thinning Pressure Shatter Non-Biface

Reduction TotalsP S T P S T P S T P S T P S T

Emergent Period Levels

0–10 – – – – – – – – – – – – – 3 160 163

10–20 – – – – – – – – – – – – – 2 43 45

<Emergent Period Totals> – – – – – – – – – – – – – 5 203 <208>

Upper Archaic Levels

20–30 – – – – – – – – – – – 66 – 6 – 72

30–40 – – 1 – – – – – – – – – – 7 70 78

40–50 – – 4 – – – – – 2 – – 157 – 16 30 209

50–60 – – 3 – – – – – 5 – 8 122 – 1 8 151

<Upper Archaic Totals> – – 8 – – – – – 7 – 8 345 – 30 108 <506>

Middle Archaic Levels

60–70 – – – – 1 2 – – 9 – 9 142 – 3 6 172

70–80 – 1 2 – – 8 – – 3 4 – 113 4 10 8 153

80–90 – 1 6 – – – – – 2 – 6 101 – 3 7 126

90–100 – – 6 – – – – – 5 – 24 82 – – 10 127

100–110 – – – – – – – – 1 – – – – 1 256 258

110–120 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 84 84

120–130 – – 1 – – – – – 2 – – 160 – – 4 167

130–140 – – – – – 1 – – 2 – – – – 6 249 258

140–150 – – – – – – – – 2 – – – – 3 236 241

150–160 – 3 – – – 2 – – – – – – – 3 238 246

160–170b – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

<Middle Archaic Totals> – 5 15 – 1 13 – – 26 4 39 589 4 29 1,098 <1,823>

Lower Archaic Levels

170–180 – – (2) – – – – – – – – (4) – – (22) (28)

180–190 – – – – – – – – – – – (8) – – – (8)

190–200c – – (2) – – – – – – – – (2) – – – (4)

200–210 (2) – – – – (4) – – (6) (2) (8) – – – (22)

210–220 – – (2) – – – – – – – – (4) – – (6) (12)

220–230 – – – – – – – – (2) – – – – – (4) (6)

230–240 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

<Lower Archaic Totals> (2) (6) (4) (8) (2) (26) (32) <80>

Table 13. Analysis of Cryptocrystalline Debitage from TU-3 at the Buttonwillow Site (CA-KER-2720).



Level (cm)Early Biface

ThinningLate Biface Thinning Pressure Shatter Non-Biface

Reduction TotalsP S T P S T P S T P S T P S T

Sterile Level

240–250 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Overall Totals (2) (5) (29) – (1) (17) – – (41) (6) (47) (973) (4) (64) (1,441) (2,630)

Percent of Total 0.1 0.2 1.2 – 0.1 0.5 – – 1.6 0.2 1.7 37.0 0.2 2.4 54.8 100

Table 13. Continued.

a Very little cultural material was found in this level.b Beginning with the 190 to 200-cm level, TU-3 was halved to a 1 x 1-m unit; thus, the actual numbers from those levels were xdoubled and put into parentheses to remain comparable with the upper portion of the unit.Note: P = primary (mostly cortex); S = secondary (some cortex); T = tertiary (no cortex).

Cat. No. Level Genus Type Length Width Thick PD Weight Comments

SU-022-003 surface clam (cf. Tivela) – 7.1 – 2.0 1.6 0.1 complete,

biconically drilled

S-001-001 surface Olivella D1 12.9 11.1 6.1 3.8 0.4 fragment

SU-107-001 surface Olivella D1 8.0 15.3 1.2 4.9 0.3 fragment

SU-161-001 surface Olivella D1 14.2 10.0 1.8 4.2 0.3 fragment

3-008 0–10 Olivella C2 10.0 0.9 1.6 0.4 complete

2-015 10–20 Olivella G1 4.2 – 1.2 1.3 0.1 complete

2-016A 10–20 Olivella H1b 7.0 – 0.5 2.1 0.1 complete

3-013 10–20 Olivella D1 18.3 11.6 0.8 5.6 0.3 complete

1-028 20–30 Olivella C2 13.8 10.9 4.9 2.4 0.4 complete

2-024 20–30 unknown shell – 4.3 4.3 0.7 – 0.1 missing

2-025 20–30 unknown shell – 6.1 6.1 0.9 1.9 0.1 missing

2-086 50–60 Olivella D1 16.0 14.6 1.1 5.4 1.0 fragment

3-069 60–70 Olivella B3 5.9 – 5.5 2.8 0.2 complete

3-076 60–70 Olivella B3 5.0 – 3.0 2.8 1.0 fragment

3-077 60–70 Olivella N1 6.0 4.0 2.0 1.2 0.1 fragment

1-074 70–80 Haliotis – 7.2 – 1.2 3.2 0.1 disk, fragment

1-100 90–100 Olivella B3 5.8 – 7.5 2.9 2.0 fragment

3-128 100–110 Olivella B2 6.1 4.9 1.2 2.8 0.1 fragment

1-139 130–140 Olivella B2 12.0 – 6.0 2.8 0.5 complete

Table 14. Provenience and Attributes of Shell Beads from the Buttonwillow Site (CA-KER-2720).

Notes: Measurements are in mm and g. Bead types are from Bennyhoff and Hughes (1987). PD = perforation diameter.



deposit. Class H beads occur primarily in southern California and date to the Mission period, between about AD 1770 and 1834.

A fragmentary N1 grooved rectangle bead (Bennyhoff and Hughes 1987:141–142) was discovered in TU-3 in the 60 to 70-cm level. This bead type generally dates to the Middle Archaic (Rosenthal et al. 2007:155; also see Kennett et al. 2007:546). Other examples have been found at several sites in the SSJV, including at CA-KER-824 (Bramlette et al. 1982), CA-KER-3079 (Culleton et al. 2005:68), CA-KER-5404 (Culleton et al. 2005:220), and CA-KER-4395 (Sutton et al. 2012). It is possible that these beads reflect some level of participation in the Western Nexus interaction sphere between southern California and the northwestern Great Basin (Sutton and Koerper 2009).

Other Beads

One fragment of a clam shell (cf. Tivela) disk bead (Cat. No. SU-022-003) was recovered on the surface (see Table 14). Such beads commonly date after ca. 1,100 BP and continued to be used into historic times (Gibson 1992:34). A fragmentary Haliotis disk bead (Cat. No. 1-074) was unearthed in the 70 to 80-cm level of TU-1. Haliotis beads have a wide distribution throughout California. Harrington (1942:16) reported that the Yokuts would string red Haliotis epidermis beads with white Olivella beads, as well as other shell bead types, for color contrast. Haliotis disk beads date gen-erally between 7,000 and 1,600 BP, and during part of the historical period (ca. AD 1650 to 1782). Graesch (2001) examined H. rufescens disk beads from Santa Cruz Island and found that perforation diameter measurements equal to or less than 1.1 mm with relatively straight bore holes were drilled using metal needles. The Haliotis bead from the Buttonwillow site had a perforation diameter of 0.3 mm, so it probably postdates AD 1650.

Finally, two small beads of an unidentified shell were found. These specimens are both missing from the collection.

Fire-Affected Rock

Fire-affected rock (FAR) was a common constituent in the site deposit (Table 15). However, most of it is highly fragmented, with few large pieces found. The majority of the FAR is granitic, with some quartzite and sandstone. The quartzite FAR is primarily in the form of small stream-worn cobbles or pebbles.

Hematite

Three small pieces of hematite were recovered, two from the 250 to 260-cm level of TU-1 and one from the 40 to 50-cm level of TU-2. It seems likely that these pieces represent pigment, particularly as a red pigment was found on a number of artifacts.

Historical Material Only a few small fragments of historical material were found. This includes two lead bullets and several fragments of plastic shotgun shell casings, all from the surface. Several very small fragments of plastic were found in the 50 to 60-cm level of TU-2, suggesting some kind of bioturbation.

Human Remains

A primary human inhumation (Feature 2; see above) was encountered in the southeast corner of TU-2 at a depth of 70 cm. Only a small portion of the indi-vidual was exposed, and relatively few data were obtained. The observable remains consisted of a proximal tibia and ulna extending some 13 cm from the south wall and protruding slightly into the east wall of the unit. These elements were underlain by another large bone, almost certainly the distal femur. No patella was detected. The lack of a corresponding



knee joint to the west suggests that this joint was from the right side.

The burial is that of an individual of unknown sex. The epiphysis of the tibia is fused, so the person must have been at least 14 years of age at the time of death (Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994:Figure 20). The legs are in a flexed position while the disposition of the remainder of the body (never exposed) is un-known. No pathologies were noted during the on-site analysis.

Upon discovery of the remains, excavation of the unit was halted, and the County Coroner was contacted. It was determined that the burial was Native American, and the Native American Heritage Commission was contacted. It was determined that Ron Wermuth was the most likely descendant; he visited the site and oversaw the backfilling of the unit.

Three additional small human bones were later iden-tified in the screened materials (all were repatriated). The first (Cat. No. 2-063) was a metatarsal measuring 68 mm in length. This bone is from an adult, and no pathologies were noted. The second (Cat. No. 2-073) was a terminal phalanx (big toe?), measuring 17.0 mm in length. This bone is also from an adult and no pathologies were observed.

The third bone (Cat. No. 2-097) is the first metatarsal on the right side and measured 57.2 mm in length. The distal articular surface appears to have been injured by a cut or fracture. A linear depression (6.8 mm) was found with an adjacent exposure of cancellous bone (6.5 x 4.9 mm). A small cyst was evident at the lateral end of the depression. The medial aspect of the proxi-mal end shows a well-developed medial facet. This is not normally an articular surface, so the explanation for this facet is unclear, although it did develop during the individual’s life. These pathologies on the meta-tarsal indicate that the individual suffered a foot injury well before death.

Unit Level (cm) Material Weight (g)

surface

breccia 1.4

granitic 148.8

quartzite 50.1

sandstone 341.6

TU-1

10–20 granite 172.2

20–30 granitic 56.9






100–110 sandstone 13.3

130–140 granitic 155.5

140–150 granitic 55.4

160–170 granitic 20.5

180–190 granitic 215.1

180–190 sandstone 34.6

200–210 granitic 137.8

TU-3







90–100 granitic 111.8

100–110 granitic 22.0

110–120 granitic 264.6

120–130 granitic 124.1

130–140 granitic 68.8

140–150 granitic 216.9

170–180, N 1/2b granitic 1.2

180–190, N 1/2b quartzite 55.2

190–200, N 1/2b granitic 38.1

Table 15. Distribution of Fire-Affected Rock from the Surface and TUs 1 and 3a at the Buttonwillow Site (CA-KER-2720).

a TU-2 is not included in this table as its excavation was halted at 80 cm.

b TU-3 was reduced to a 1 x 1-m unit so gross weight was doubled to remain comparable with the other levels.



In the ethnographic literature, interments were gener-ally bound in a tightly flexed position, and the graves excavated with digging sticks and basket scoops by anyone except the closest relatives (Latta 1937, 1976:140; Gayton 1948:46). At the time of death, the deceased was washed and left in the house for a day so that crying and wailing mourners could have access to the body (Gayton 1948:46). Upon removal of the body the following morning, the house of the deceased was burned, and any surviving family moved to a new home. The burial was performed by professional mor-ticians who were paid for their services. Parents and spouses of the dead person would abstain from eating meat for a period of one month and would trim their hair short (Kroeber 1925:499–500). In some tribelets, the mourners would blacken their faces and not wash for 30 days or more. Out of respect for the person and concern over disturbance of the spirit, the name of the deceased was not spoken for either a year (or until the next annual mourning ceremony) or permanently, depending on the tribelet (Latta 1977:609–610). Many of the individual’s personal possessions were buried or burned with the body.

Botanical Remains

Very few botanical remains were recovered from the site (Table 16). Nine burned seeds were found, one identified as juniper (Juniperus spp.) while the others were unidentified. Interestingly, charcoal was a minor constituent (see Table 16).

Faunal Remains

The analysis of zooarchaeological materials offers insight into prehistoric patterns of animal procure-ment, processing, and consumption by the inhabitants of a site and/or region. The predominance of particular species over others provides important information re-garding subsistence, dietary preferences, site function, seasonality, and resource availability. Moreover, the identification of the techniques of procurement (e.g.,

bows and arrows, traps, drives, corrals) and processing (e.g., butchering, roasting) can be informative of other aspects of human behavior (e.g., trade networks, cer-emonialism). All these factors, among others, must be considered in analyzing the faunal remains from a site.

Shortly after the excavation fieldwork at KER-2720 concluded in 1992, laboratory procedures were initi-ated, at which time the faunal remains were weighed and counted but were not identified. The vertebrate remains were identified by one of us (JKG) at two separate locations in 2017 and 2018. For the analysis of the non-fish specimens, diagnostic elements were identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible using the comparative collection located at CSUB. Fish ma-terials were identified by one of us (KWG) based on element morphology along with a consideration of his-toric distribution of the fishes. The recovered elements were compared with skeletons housed at the Ichthyol-ogy Department, California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco. Most of the fish identifications, however, were made without reference to those materials due to the extensive experience of the analyst. The common and technical nomenclature for these fishes follows the American Fisheries Society standard of Page et al. (2013).

Of the four test units that were excavated, TU-3 was deemed to be the most representative of the vertebrate remains at the site since it contained a record from all four temporal components; as such, that entire unit was chosen as the analytical sample. The quantifica-tion technique for this analysis was number of identi-fied specimens (NISP), which is used to tabulate and describe each of the individual bones (and fragments thereof) within a faunal assemblage. The remains at the site were highly fragmentary, suggesting several scenarios that are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Chemical processes may have caused the bones to be-come mineralized. Heat can accelerate chemical reac-tions, either in the form of intentional burning or sun exposure, which can greatly affect bone preservation



(e.g., Baxter 2004; Lubinski 1996). Faunal materials could also have been damaged by trampling in antiq-uity, the archaeological excavations, transport from the site, and/or laboratory handling.

Below is a description of the invertebrate and verte-brate remains from KER-2720. This description is followed by a discussion of the faunal exploitation activities at the site, the chronological implications of the remains, and a brief summary.

Invertebrates

A considerable quantity of invertebrate material was recovered from the excavations. The majority of these

remains were from freshwater bivalves, but freshwater snails, land snails, and a few insects were also found.

Freshwater Bivalves

The remains of freshwater bivalves are ubiquitous at the Buttonwillow site (1,087.8 g; Table 17). The freshwater shell was highly fragmented, burned, and lacking hinges, so the specific taxa of the shell could not be identified. It is likely that the shell is from Anodonta sp., Margaritifera falcata, and/or Gonidea angulata. However, the latter two bivalves prefer cold, clean water while Anodonta is known to inhabit the warm and sluggish lakes and sloughs of the San Joaquin Valley (Jepsen et al. 2010:1). As the source of

Cat. No. Unit Level (cm) Type N Weight (g) Comments

1-019 TU-1 20–30 seeds 6 0.1 unidentified, burned

1-047 TU-1 40–50 seed 1 0.1 juniper, burned

3-092 TU-3 70–80 seed 1 0.1 burned

3-237 TU-3 210–220, N 1/2 seed 1 0.1 unidentified, burned

1-016 TU-1 20–30 charcoal – 3.1 –

1-038 TU-1 30–40 charcoal – 0.5 –

1-058 TU-1 50–60 charcoal – 0.1 –

1-109 TU-1 90–100 charcoal – 0.1 –

2-026 TU-2 20–30 charcoal – 2.6 –

2-068 TU-2 30–40 charcoal – 0.1 –

2-129 TU-2 70–80 charcoal – 0.1 –

3-012 TU-3 10–20 charcoal – 0.1 –

3-017 TU-3 10–20 charcoal – 0.1 –

3-021 TU-3 10–20 charcoal – 1.8 –

3-031 TU-3 20–30 charcoal – 0.8 –

3-056 TU-3 50–60 charcoal – 0.3 –

3-157 TU-3 130–140 charcoal – 0.5 –

3-158 TU-3 130–140 charcoal – 0.3 –

3-169A TU-3 140–150 charcoal – 4.9 –

3-222 TU-3 190–200, N 1/2 charcoal – 0.1 –

Table 16. Description and Distribution of Botanical Remains Recovered from the Buttonwillow Site (CA-KER-2720).



Provenience(All Units)a

Freshwater Shell (cf. Anodonta sp.) (g)

Freshwater Snail (Physa sp.) (g)

Land Snail (Helminthoglypta sp.) (g)

surface 27.4 1.9 84.0

0–10 18.1 0.5 22.0

10–20 13.3 0.6 37.2

20–30 89.9 0.6 12.3

30–40 51.8 0.3 11.2

40–50 54.3 0.3 10.1

50–60 56.2 0.5 18.5

60–70 84.3 0.1 10.2

70–80a 67.1 0.5 11.6

80–90 28.0 0.2 7.5

90–100 30.1 0.1 14.0

100–110 32.8 0.6 9.9

110–120 14.3 – 6.1

120–130 22.7 3.0 4.7

130–140 89.2 – 11.7

140–150 52.2 – 7.7

150–160 108.2 – 15.8

160–170 78.5 – 11.0

170–180 37.7 0.2 16.9

180–190 28.1 0.5 26.9

190–200 11.9 0.3 18.3

200–210 14.1 0.3 5.3

210–220 5.6 0.1 0.2

220–230 23.4b – 1.7

230–240 48.8 – –

240–250 0.5 – –

250–260 0.2 – –

260–270 – – –

Totals 1,087.8 10.6 351.1

a TU-1 was excavated as a 1 x 2-m unit to 230 cm and as a 1 x 1 m unit to 270 cm; TU-2 was exca-vated as a 1 x 2-m unit to 80 cm (halted due to a burial); TU-3 was excavated as a 1 x 2-m unit to 170 and as a 1 x 1-m unit to 250 cm.

b Not including the 332.9 g of shell from Feature 3.

Table 17. Gross Quantities and Distribution of Invertebrate Taxa at the Buttonwillow Site (CA-KER-2720).



the freshwater shell is undoubtedly the nearby Buena Vista Slough, it is presumed that most, if not all, of the freshwater shell is Anodonta californiensis and/or A. nuttalliana, species that are very difficult to differenti-ate even in their intact form (Jepsen et al. 2010:1).

Freshwater Snails

A few freshwater bladder snails were recovered (10.6 g total) (Table 17). These bladder snails are air-breath-ing and quite small (approximately 1 cm long). They are easily identifiable to family because of the sinistral spiral of their shells, which places the aperture where the foot emerges on the left side. Most gastropod shells have a right spiral. Unfortunately, the shells are not readily identifiable to species (Taylor 2003). Blad-der snails live in ditches, ponds, lakes, small streams, and rivers.

The remains of bladder snails were found through-out the deposit but are likely too small to have been a significant food source for Native people and may have been introduced to the site attached to slough vegetation. The absence of this species in the off-site unit (TU-4) demonstrates that they are specifically associated with the midden and not just a normal soil constituent.

Land Snails

The remains of unburned complete and fragmentary shells of land snail (cf. Helminthoglypta sp.) were pres-ent in relatively large quantities (351.1 g total) through-out the deposit (Table 17). It is not clear whether these animals constituted a food resource. As with the freshwater snails, the absence of this species in TU-4 indicates that they are associated with the midden.

Insects

A few small fragments of insects were found. Since these specimens were not carbonized, they were

assumed to be recent in origin. As such, they are not considered further here.

Vertebrates

The number of vertebrate remains from TU-3 is ap-proximately 3,330 (some of the bones are too highly fragmented to be precisely tabulated), dominated by small to tiny unidentified fragments. Three class-es were identified—Actinopterygii, Reptilia, and Mammalia. Interestingly, no waterfowl (or any other birds) were identified in the faunal assemblage, de-spite the site being adjacent to Buena Vista Slough and between four lakes—Tulare and Goose lakes to the north, Buena Vista and Kern lakes to the south—an environment where they would be expected to be found and exploited. The following is an account of the vertebrates identified in the analytical sample from TU-3. The fish remains are tabulated in Table 18 while the other vertebrate remains are tabulated separately by taxon in Table 19 and by level in Table 20.

Class Actinopterygii

At least 852 specimens of burned fish bone (NISP is approximate for some of the remains) were recov-ered from TU-3 (see Table 18), the majority of which are vertebrae. Several of the species typically found in archaeological contexts in the SSJV are represent-ed, although some Central Valley fishes are not. One class (Actinopterygii), four families (Catostomidae, Centrarchidae, Cyprinidae, and Embiotocidae), and seven species (see below) are among the fish remains.

Since Sacramento perch are the only member of the family Centrarchidae native to the fresh waters west of the Rocky Mountains and then only in the Central Valley of California (Moyle 2002), the distinctive morphology of the bones makes identification straight forward for an experienced faunal analyst. The same



Level (cm) Taxon Elements NISP

0–10 Archoplites interruptus 34 vertebrae, basioccipital, spine? 39

Catostomus occidentalis vertebrae 13

Gila crassicauda pharyngeal 1

Cyprinidae or Catostomus. occidentalis vertebrae 8

Cyprinidae vertebrae 36

10–20 Archoplites interruptus vertebrae 5


Cyprinidae or O. occidentalis vertebrae 4


20–30 Archoplites interruptus otolith, vertebra 2

Gila crassicauda pharyngeal 2

Actinopterygii fragment 1



Cyprinidae or Catostomus occidentalis vertebra 1


Catostomus occidentalis vertebra 1

Hysterocarpus traskii vertebra 1

Cyprinidae or Catostomus occidentalis vertebrae 5


Cyprinidae? precaudal vertebra 1

60–70 Archoplites interruptus 7 vertebrae (including 1 atlas, 1 precaudal) 7


Cyprinidae 2 vertebrae, 1 basioccipital, 1 precaudal 4

70–80 Archoplites interruptus 2 vertebrae, 1 otolith in multiple pieces 3


Cyprinidae or Catostomus vertebral fragment 1

80–90 Archoplites interruptus vertebrae, including an atlas 2


Hysterocarpus traskii caudal vertebra 1

Cyprinidae or Catostomus occidentalis vertebral fragment 1


100–110 Archoplites interruptus 34 vertebrae (including 4 atlases), basioccipital, anguloarticular, spine? 37


Gila crassicauda partial pharyngeal 1

Lavinia exilicauda? caudal vertebrae 2



Table 18. Summary of Fish Remains by Level from TU-3 at CA-KER-2720.



Level (cm) Taxon Elements NISP

110–120 Archoplites interruptus otolith 1

120–130 Archoplites interruptus 34 vertebrae, 1 otolith 35


Gila crassicauda partial pharyngeals 2

Lavinia exilicauda? 2 vertebrae, partial basioccipital 3

Ptychocheilus grandis precaudal vertebra 1



Actinopterygii vertebral fragment 1

130–140 Archoplites interruptus vertebrae, 1 otolith in 3 pieces 11

Hysterocarpus traskii vertebrae 2


Cyprinidae or O. occidentalis vertebra 1

Cyprinidae or Catostomus vertebrae 3


140–150 Archoplites interruptus 7 vertebrae, 1 partial otolith 8


150–160 Archoplites interruptus 7 vertebrae, spine?, otolith in 2 pieces 9

Hysterocarpus traskii vertebra 1

Orthodon microlepidotus partial basioccipital 1



Actinopterygii vertebral fragment 1



Cyprinidae or O. occidentalis vertebra in several pieces 1

180–190 Archoplites interruptus partial otolith, vertebra 2

230–240 Archoplites interruptus 43 vertebrae (including 3 atlases), tiny premaxilla, hyomandibula, 4 spines? 48


Gila crassicauda 3 partial pharyngeals, cleithrum, 2 partial basioccipitals 6

Hysterocarpus traskii vertebrae 6

Ptychocheilus grandis? 8 small precaudal vertebrae, partial basioccipital 9


Cyprinidae 200 vertebrae, 2 partial basioccipitals 196

Actinopterygii fragments (NISP approximate) 52


Note: NISP = number of identified specimens.



Lev

el (c

m)

Prov

enie

nce

Taxo

nE

lem

ent

Con

ditio

nA

geN

ISP

Rem

arks

Rep

tilia 70–8

0sc

reen

Test

udin

esca

rapa

cefr

agm

ents

adul

t6

burn

ed

110–

120

scre

enTe

stud

ines

cara

pace

frag

men

tad

ult

1sl

ight

ly si

nged

0–10

scre

enSe

rpen

tes

verte

brae

com

plet

ead

ult

17sn

ake,

bur

ned

80–9

0sc

reen

Serp

ente

sve

rtebr

aco

mpl

ete

adul

t1

snak

e, u

nbur

ned

90–1

00sc

reen

Serp

ente

sve

rtebr

aco

mpl

ete

adul

t1

snak

e, b

urne

d

90–1

00sc

reen

Serp

ente

sve

rtebr

aeco

mpl

ete

adul

t2

snak

e, b

urne

d

100–

110

scre

enSe

rpen

tes

verte

brae

near

ly c

ompl

ete

adul

t6

snak

e, 2

are

arti

cula

ted,

bur

ned

120–

130

scre

enSe

rpen

tes

verte

brae

near

ly c

ompl

ete

adul

t27

snak

e, m

ostly

bur

ned

120–

130

scre

enSe

rpen

tes

verte

bra

frag

men

tad

ult

1sn

ake,

bur

ned

140–

150

scre

enSe

rpen

tes

verte

brae

com

plet

ead

ult

5sn

ake,

bur

ned

140–

150

scre

enSe

rpen

tes

verte

brae

near

ly c

ompl

ete

adul

t5

snak

e, b

urne

d

180–

190,

N 1

/2sc

reen

Serp

ente

sve

rtebr

aco

mpl

ete

adul

t1

snak

e, b

urne

d

Mam

mal

ia

0–10

scre

encf

. L. c

alifo

rnic

uslo

ng b

ones

shaf

t fra

gmen

tsad

ult

10bu

rned

0–10

scre

encf

. L. c

alifo

rnic

usph

alan

xfr

agm

ent

adul

t1

burn

ed

10–2

0sc

reen

cf. L

epus

cal

iforn

icus

tibia

prox

imal

suba

dult

1ep

iphy

sis,

burn

ed

40–5

0sc

reen

cf. L

epus

cal

iforn

icus

ribs

frag

men

tsad

ult

2bu

rned

90–1

00sc

reen

cf. L

epus

cal

iforn

icus

phal

anx

near

ly c

ompl

ete

suba

dult

2m

issi

ng d

ista

l epi

phys

es, b

urne

d

100–

110

scre

encf

. Lep

us c

alifo

rnic

usve

rtebr

aefr

agm

ents

adul

t2

burn

ed

100–

110

scre

encf

. Lep

us c

alifo

rnic

ustib

iapr

oxim

alsu

badu

lt1

epip

hysi

s, bu

rned

100–

110

scre

encf

. Lep

us c

alifo

rnic

usph

alan

xco

mpl

ete

suba

dult

1bu

rned

140–

150

scre

encf

. Lep

us c

alifo

rnic

ushu

mer

usdi

stal

adul

t1

burn

ed

40–5

0sc

reen

Lepu

s cal

iforn

icus

hum

erus

dist

alad

ult

1bu

rned

40–5

0sc

reen

Lepu

s cal

iforn

icus

calc

aneu

sco

mpl

ete

adul

t1

burn

ed

150–

160

scre

enLe

pus c

alifo

rnic

ushu

mer

usdi

stal

adul

t1

burn

ed

230–

240,

N 1

/2sc

reen

Lepu

s cal

iforn

icus

fem

urdi

stal

suba

dult

1ep

iphy

sis,

burn

ed

240–

250,

N 1

/2sc

reen

Lepu

s cal

iforn

icus

phal

anx

com

plet

esu

badu

lt1

burn

ed

0–10

scre

enD

ipod

omys

spp.

man

dibl

ene

arly

com

plet

ead

ult

1no

teet

h, u

nbur

ned

Tabl

e 19

. Ana

lytic

al S

umm

ary

of N

on-F

ish

Verte

brat

e R

emai

ns fr

om A

ll Le

vels

of T

U-3

at C

A-K

ER

-272

0.



Lev

el (c

m)

Prov

enie

nce

Taxo

nE

lem

ent

Con

ditio

nA

geN

ISP

Rem

arks

0–10

scre

enD

ipod

omys

spp.

fem

urpr

oxim

alad

ult

1br

oken

hea

d, u

nbur

ned

unkn

own

scre

enD

ipod

omys

nitr

atoi

des

vario

usm

ostly

inta

ctad

ult

39bu

rrow

dea

th, o

ne in

divi

dual

, inc

lude

s cra

nial

, lon

g bo

nes,

scap

ulae

, pel

vis,

verte

brae

, man

dibl

es, t

eeth

, unb

urne

d

0–10

scre

enTh

omom

ys sp

.tib

iaco

mpl

ete

adul

t1

unbu

rned

60–7

0sc

reen

Neo

tom

a fu

scip

esfe

mur

prox

imal

adul

t1

unbu

rned

0–10

scre

enR

oden

tiatib

iaco

mpl

ete

suba

dult

1ve

ry sm

all m

ouse

size

, unb

urne

d

0–10

scre

enR

oden

tiam

andi

ble

frag

men

tad

ult

1ra

t siz

e, u

nbur

ned

10–2

0sc

reen

Rod

entia

hum

erus

com

plet

ead

ult

1m

ouse

size

, unb

urne

d

10–2

0sc

reen

Rod

entia

man

dibl

eco

mpl

ete

adul

t1

mou

se si

ze, n

o te

eth,

unb

urne

d

50–6

0sc

reen

Rod

entia

man

dibl

esfr

agm

ents

adul

t2

1 m

ouse

size

, 1 ra

t siz

e, u

nbur

ned

50–6

0sc

reen

Rod

entia

fem

urs

near

ly c

ompl

ete

suba

dult

2m

ouse

size

, unb

urne

d

50–6

0sc

reen

Rod

entia

hum

erus

com

plet

esu

badu

lt1

mou

se si

ze, u

nbur

ned

50–6

0sc

reen

Rod

entia

toot

hfr

agm

ent

adul

t1

inci

sor,

unbu

rned

110–

120

scre

enR

oden

tialo

ng b

ones

near

ly c

ompl

ete

adul

t3

mou

se/ra

t siz

e, b

urne

d

110–

120

scre

enR

oden

tialo

ng b

one

near

ly c

ompl

ete

suba

dult

1ra

t siz

e, b

urne

d

110–

120

scre

enR

oden

tiahu

mer

usfr

agm

ent

adul

t1

smal

l mou

se si

ze, u

nbur

ned

110–

120

scre

enR

oden

tiape

lvis

frag

men

tad

ult

1m

ouse

size

, bur

ned

110–

120

scre

enR

oden

tiam

andi

bles

frag

men

tsad

ult

7m

ouse

/rat s

ize,

bur

ned

150–

160

scre

enR

oden

tiaun

iden

tified

frag

men

tsad

ult

10m

ouse

size

, bur

ned

110–

120

scre

enla

rge

mam

mal

long

bon

esfr

agm

ents

adul

t3

encr

uste

d w

ith c

oncr

etio

ns, p

recl

udin

g sp

ecie

s ide

ntifi

ca-

tion,

dee

r-siz

ed (O

doco

ileus

sp.?

), bu

rned

0–10

scre

ensm

all m

amm

alcf

. cra

nial

frag

men

tad

ult

1bu

rned

10–2

0sc

reen

smal

l mam

mal

phal

anx

frag

men

tad

ult

1un

burn

ed

10–2

0sc

reen

smal

l mam

mal

unid

entifi

edfr

agm

ents

unkn

own

34tin

y, u

nbur

ned

20–3

0sc

reen

smal

l mam

mal

hum

erus

com

plet

esu

badu

lt1

epip

hysi

s, la

gom

orph

size

, bur

ned

20–3

0sc

reen

smal

l mam

mal

cf. t

ibia

frag

men

tsu

badu

lt1

epip

hysi

s, la

gom

orph

size

, bur

ned

20–3

0sc

reen

smal

l mam

mal

unid

entifi

edfr

agm

ents

unkn

own

55sm

all t

o tin

y, b

urne

d

30–4

0sc

reen

smal

l mam

mal

unid

entifi

edfr

agm

ents

unkn

own

42sm

all t

o tin

y, b

urne

d

40–5

0sc

reen

smal

l mam

mal

long

bon

essh

afts

adul

t7

lago

mor

ph si

ze, b

urne

d

Tabl

e 19

. Con

tinue

d.



Lev

el (c

m)

Prov

enie

nce

Taxo

nE

lem

ent

Con

ditio

nA

geN

ISP

Rem

arks

40–5

0sc

reen

smal

l mam

mal

man

dibl

efr

agm

ent

adul

t1

burn

ed

40–5

0sc

reen

smal

l mam

mal

unid

entifi

edfr

agm

ents

adul

t69

smal

l fra

gmen

ts, b

urne

d

50–6

0sc

reen

smal

l mam

mal

long

bon

essh

afts

adul

t6

lago

mor

ph si

ze, b

urne

d

50–6

0sc

reen

smal

l mam

mal

unid

entifi

edfr

agm

ents

adul

t2

lago

mor

ph si

ze, b

urne

d

50–6

0sc

reen

smal

l mam

mal

unid

entifi

edfr

agm

ents

unkn

own

106

smal

l to

tiny,

mos

tly b

urne

d

60–7

0sc

reen

smal

l mam

mal

unid

entifi

edfr

agm

ents

unkn

own

2tin

y, b

urne

d

60–7

0sc

reen

smal

l mam

mal

man

dibl

efr

agm

ent

unkn

own

1m

ouse

size

, unb

urne

d

60–7

0sc

reen

smal

l mam

mal

hum

erus

dist

alad

ult

1m

ouse

size

, unb

urne

d

60–7

0sc

reen

smal

l mam

mal

long

bon

essh

afts

adul

t7

burn

ed

60–7

0sc

reen

smal

l mam

mal

unid

entifi

edfr

agm

ents

unkn

own

113

smal

l to

tiny,

bur

ned

70–8

0sc

reen

smal

l mam

mal

man

dibl

eco

mpl

ete

adul

t1

with

teet

h, u

nbur

ned

70–8

0sc

reen

smal

l mam

mal

long

bon

essh

afts

adul

t2

lago

mor

ph si

ze, b

urne

d

70–8

0sc

reen

smal

l mam

mal

unid

entifi

edfr

agm

ents

unkn

own

70sm

all,

burn

ed

70–8

0sc

reen

smal

l mam

mal

unid

entifi

edfr

agm

ent

adul

t1

cf. c

rani

al, b

urne

d

80–9

0sc

reen

smal

l mam

mal

tibia

prox

imal

suba

dult

1ep

iphy

sis,

burn

ed

80–9

0sc

reen

smal

l mam

mal

fem

urpr

oxim

alad

ult

1m

ouse

size

, unb

urne

d

80–9

0sc

reen

smal

l mam

mal

man

dibl

efr

agm

ents

adul

t2

1 w

ith in

ciso

r, 1

with

out t

eeth

, rat

size

, bur

ned

80–9

0sc

reen

smal

l mam

mal

teet

hne

arly

com

plet

ead

ult

2in

ciso

rs, 1

w/s

mal

l bon

e fr

ag, b

urne

d

80–9

0sc

reen

smal

l mam

mal

long

bon

essh

afts

adul

t5

lago

mor

ph si

ze, b

urne

d

80–9

0sc

reen

smal

l mam

mal

unid

entifi

edfr

agm

ents

unkn

own

256

smal

l to

tiny,

bur

ned

80–9

0sc

reen

smal

l mam

mal

unid

entifi

edfr

agm

ent

adul

t1

burn

ed

80–9

0in

situ

unid

entifi

edcl

aws

near

ly c

ompl

ete

adul

t2

foun

d at

88

cm, u

nbur

ned

90–1

00sc

reen

smal

l mam

mal

unid

entifi

edfr

agm

ents

adul

t13

burn

ed

90–1

00sc

reen

smal

l mam

mal

verte

bra

frag

men

tad

ult

1bu

rned

90–1

00sc

reen

smal

l mam

mal

unid

entifi

edfr

agm

ents

unkn

own

32sm

all t

o tin

y, c

alci

ned

90–1

00sc

reen

smal

l mam

mal

caud

al

verte

bra

com

plet

ead

ult

1bu

rned

90–1

00sc

reen

smal

l mam

mal

unid

entifi

edfr

agm

ents

unkn

own

149

tiny,

mos

tly b

urne

d

Tabl

e 19

. Con

tinue

d.



Tabl

e 19

. Con

tinue

d.

Lev

el (c

m)

Prov

enie

nce

Taxo

nE

lem

ent

Con

ditio

nA

geN

ISP

Rem

arks

100–

110

scre

ensm

all m

amm

alca

udal

ve

rtebr

aene

arly

com

plet

ead

ult

3~l

agom

orph

size

, unb

urne

d

100–

110

scre

ensm

all m

amm

alpe

lvis

frag

men

tad

ult

1m

ouse

size

, bur

ned

100–

110

scre

ensm

all m

amm

alm

andi

ble

frag

men

tad

ult

1m

ouse

size

, bur

ned

100–

110

scre

ensm

all m

amm

alhu

mer

usdi

stal

adul

t2

mou

se si

ze, u

nbur

ned

100–

110

scre

ensm

all m

amm

alun

iden

tified

frag

men

tsun

know

n27

7sm

all t

o tin

y, m

ostly

bur

ned

110–

120

scre

ensm

all m

amm

allo

ng b

one

shaf

tad

ult

1la

gom

orph

size

, unb

urne

d

110–

120

scre

ensm

all m

amm

alun

iden

tified

frag

men

tsun

know

n16

9sm

all t

o tin

y, m

ostly

bur

ned

120–

130

scre

ensm

all m

amm

alun

iden

tified

frag

men

tsun

know

n2

smal

l, bu

rned

120–

130

scre

ensm

all m

amm

alhu

mer

usdi

stal

adul

t1

mou

se si

ze, b

urne

d

120–

130

scre

ensm

all m

amm

alph

alan

xfr

agm

ent

adul

t1

unbu

rned

120–

130

scre

ensm

all m

amm

alfe

mur

spr

oxim

alad

ult

3m

ouse

size

, bur

ned

120–

130

scre

ensm

all m

amm

alun

iden

tified

frag

men

tsun

know

n15

6sm

all t

o tin

y, m

ostly

bur

ned

130–

140

scre

ensm

all m

amm

alm

andi

ble

frag

men

tad

ult

1m

ouse

size

, unb

urne

d

130–

140

scre

ensm

all m

amm

alun

iden

tified

frag

men

tsun

know

n24

9sm

all t

o tin

y, m

ostly

bur

ned

140–

150

scre

ensm

all m

amm

alpe

lvis

frag

men

tad

ult

1~l

agom

orph

size

, bur

ned

140–

150

scre

ensm

all m

amm

alm

andi

ble

near

ly c

ompl

ete

adul

t1

mou

se si

ze, b

urne

d

140–

150

scre

ensm

all m

amm

allo

ng b

one

shaf

tad

ult

1la

gom

orph

size

, bur

ned

140–

150

scre

ensm

all m

amm

alun

iden

tified

frag

men

tsun

know

n22

2sm

all t

o tin

y, m

ostly

bur

ned

150–

160

scre

ensm

all m

amm

alun

iden

tified

frag

men

tsun

know

n13

6sm

all t

o tin

y, m

ostly

bur

ned

150–

160

scre

ensm

all m

amm

alun

iden

tified

frag

men

tsun

know

n4

tiny,

bur

ned

170–

180,

N 1

/2sc

reen

smal

l mam

mal

unid

entifi

edfr

agm

ents

unkn

own

35sm

all t

o tin

y, b

urne

d

180–

190,

N 1

/2sc

reen

smal

l mam

mal

unid

entifi

edfr

agm

ents

unkn

own

56ra

t/mou

se si

ze, c

alci

ned

190–

200,

N 1

/2sc

reen

smal

l mam

mal

unid

entifi

edfr

agm

ents

unkn

own

33bu

rned

200–

210,

N 1

/2sc

reen

smal

l mam

mal

unid

entifi

edfr

agm

ents

unkn

own

32sm

all t

o tin

y, c

alci

ned

210–

220,

N 1

/2sc

reen

smal

l mam

mal

unid

entifi

edfr

agm

ents

adul

t10

unbu

rned

220–

230,

N 1

/2sc

reen

smal

l mam

mal

unid

entifi

edfr

agm

ents

adul

t13

smal

l, bu

rned



Lev

el (c

m)

Prov

enie

nce

Taxo

nE

lem

ent

Con

ditio

nA

geN

ISP

Rem

arks

100–

110

scre

ensm

all m

amm

alca

udal

ve

rtebr

aene

arly

com

plet

ead

ult

3~l

agom

orph

size

, unb

urne

d

100–

110

scre

ensm

all m

amm

alpe

lvis

frag

men

tad

ult

1m

ouse

size

, bur

ned

100–

110

scre

ensm

all m

amm

alm

andi

ble

frag

men

tad

ult

1m

ouse

size

, bur

ned

100–

110

scre

ensm

all m

amm

alhu

mer

usdi

stal

adul

t2

mou

se si

ze, u

nbur

ned

100–

110

scre

ensm

all m

amm

alun

iden

tified

frag

men

tsun

know

n27

7sm

all t

o tin

y, m

ostly

bur

ned

110–

120

scre

ensm

all m

amm

allo

ng b

one

shaf

tad

ult

1la

gom

orph

size

, unb

urne

d

110–

120

scre

ensm

all m

amm

alun

iden

tified

frag

men

tsun

know

n16

9sm

all t

o tin

y, m

ostly

bur

ned

120–

130

scre

ensm

all m

amm

alun

iden

tified

frag

men

tsun

know

n2

smal

l, bu

rned

120–

130

scre

ensm

all m

amm

alhu

mer

usdi

stal

adul

t1

mou

se si

ze, b

urne

d

120–

130

scre

ensm

all m

amm

alph

alan

xfr

agm

ent

adul

t1

unbu

rned

120–

130

scre

ensm

all m

amm

alfe

mur

spr

oxim

alad

ult

3m

ouse

size

, bur

ned

120–

130

scre

ensm

all m

amm

alun

iden

tified

frag

men

tsun

know

n15

6sm

all t

o tin

y, m

ostly

bur

ned

130–

140

scre

ensm

all m

amm

alm

andi

ble

frag

men

tad

ult

1m

ouse

size

, unb

urne

d

130–

140

scre

ensm

all m

amm

alun

iden

tified

frag

men

tsun

know

n24

9sm

all t

o tin

y, m

ostly

bur

ned

140–

150

scre

ensm

all m

amm

alpe

lvis

frag

men

tad

ult

1~l

agom

orph

size

, bur

ned

140–

150

scre

ensm

all m

amm

alm

andi

ble

near

ly c

ompl

ete

adul

t1

mou

se si

ze, b

urne

d

140–

150

scre

ensm

all m

amm

allo

ng b

one

shaf

tad

ult

1la

gom

orph

size

, bur

ned

140–

150

scre

ensm

all m

amm

alun

iden

tified

frag

men

tsun

know

n22

2sm

all t

o tin

y, m

ostly

bur

ned

150–

160

scre

ensm

all m

amm

alun

iden

tified

frag

men

tsun

know

n13

6sm

all t

o tin

y, m

ostly

bur

ned

150–

160

scre

ensm

all m

amm

alun

iden

tified

frag

men

tsun

know

n4

tiny,

bur

ned

170–

180,

N 1

/2sc

reen

smal

l mam

mal

unid

entifi

edfr

agm

ents

unkn

own

35sm

all t

o tin

y, b

urne

d

180–

190,

N 1

/2sc

reen

smal

l mam

mal

unid

entifi

edfr

agm

ents

unkn

own

56ra

t/mou

se si

ze, c

alci

ned

190–

200,

N 1

/2sc

reen

smal

l mam

mal

unid

entifi

edfr

agm

ents

unkn

own

33bu

rned

200–

210,

N 1

/2sc

reen

smal

l mam

mal

unid

entifi

edfr

agm

ents

unkn

own

32sm

all t

o tin

y, c

alci

ned

210–

220,

N 1

/2sc

reen

smal

l mam

mal

unid

entifi

edfr

agm

ents

adul

t10

unbu

rned

220–

230,

N 1

/2sc

reen

smal

l mam

mal

unid

entifi

edfr

agm

ents

adul

t13

smal

l, bu

rned

Level (cm) Taxon Element Condition NISP

0–10 cf. L. californicus long bones shaft fragments 10

0–10 cf. L. californicus phalanx fragment 1

0–10 Dipodomys sp. mandible nearly complete 1

0–10 Dipodomys sp. femur proximal 1

0–10 Thomomys sp. tibia complete 1

0–10 Rodentia tibia complete 1

0–10 Rodentia mandible fragment 1

0–10 Serpentes vertebrae complete 17

0–10 small mammal cf. cranial fragment 1

10–20 cf. Lepus californicus tibia proximal 1

10–20 Rodentia humerus complete 1

10–20 Rodentia mandible complete 1

10–20 small mammal phalanx fragment 1

10–20 small mammal unidentified fragments 34

20–30 small mammal humerus complete 1

20–30 small mammal cf. tibia fragment 1



40–50 Lepus californicus humerus distal 1

40–50 Lepus californicus calcaneus complete 1

40–50 cf. Lepus californicus ribs fragments 2

40–50 small mammal long bones shafts 7

40–50 small mammal mandible fragment 1


50–60 Rodentia mandibles fragments 2

50–60 Rodentia femurs nearly complete 2

50–60 Rodentia humerus complete 1

50–60 Rodentia tooth fragment 1



60–70 Neotoma fuscipes femur proximal 1


60–70 small mammal humerus distal 1



70–80 Testudines carapace fragments 6

70–80 small mammal mandible complete 1



80–90 Serpentes vertebra complete 1

Table 20. Summary of Vertebrate Remains (Excluding Fish) by Level in TU-3 at CA-KER-27




80–90 small mammal tibia proximal 1

80–90 small mammal femur proximal 1

80–90 small mammal mandible fragments 2

80–90 small mammal teeth nearly complete 2



80–90 unidentified claws nearly complete 2

90–100 cf. Lepus californicus phalanx nearly complete 2

90–100 Serpentes vertebra complete 3

90–100 small mammal vertebra fragment 1

90–100 small mammal caudal vertebra complete 1


100–110 cf. Lepus californicus vertebrae fragments 2

100–110 cf. Lepus californicus tibia proximal 1

100–110 cf. Lepus californicus phalanx complete 1

100–110 Serpentes vertebrae nearly complete 6

100–110 small mammal caudal vertebrae nearly complete 3

100–110 small mammal pelvis fragment 1




110–120 Testudines carapace fragment 1

110–120 Rodentia long bones nearly complete 4

110–120 Rodentia humerus fragment 1

110–120 Rodentia pelvis fragment 1

110–120 Rodentia mandibles fragments 7

110–120 large mammal long bones fragments 3

110–120 small mammal long bone shaft 1




120–130 small mammal phalanx fragment 1

120–130 small mammal femurs proximal 3




140–150 cf. Lepus californicus humerus distal 1

140–150 Serpentes vertebrae complete 5






140–150 small mammal pelvis fragment 1

140–150 small mammal mandible nearly complete 1

140–150 small mammal long bone shaft 1


150–160 Lepus californicus humerus distal 1

150–160 Rodentia unidentified fragments 10


170–180, N 1/2 small mammal unidentified fragments 35

180–190, N 1/2 Serpentes vertebra complete 1





230–240, N 1/2 Lepus californicus femur distal 1

240–250, N 1/2 Lepus californicus phalanx complete 1

Notes: NISP = number of identified specimens. Table does not include the intact Dipodomys nitratoides be-cause the depth is not known.


distributional exclusivity exists for tule perch), the only member of the family Embiotocidae that lives in fresh water (Moyle 2002; Love 2011).

Distinguishing minnow (Cyprinidae) vertebrae from sucker (Catostomidae) vertebrae is accomplished uti-lizing the features described by Gobalet et al. (2005). The only sucker documented in the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers is Sacramento sucker (Ca-tostomus occidentalis), simplifying its designation when cyprinid vertebrae have been excluded from consideration. On the other hand, it is challenging to distinguish cyprinids on the basis of their vertebrae. The task is time-consuming and, except for select vertebrae of splittail, Sacramento pikeminnow, and blackfish (Orthodon microlepidotus), not accom-plished with great confidence. Because there are six large native cyprinids in the Central Valley (Moyle 2002) and vertebrae are the predictable elements recovered, Cyprinidae is by default the appropriate designation.

There are also numerous fish remains that are very small or fleck-sized that could only be classified as Actinopterygii (see Table 18). These remains were scattered throughout TU-3 in most of the levels. Seven species were identified, including Sacramento perch ( n = 229), Sacramento sucker (n = 62), tule perch ( n = 11), hitch (n = 5), Sacramento pikemin-now (n = 10), Sacramento blackfish (n = 1), and thicktail chub (n = 12). The remaining specimens were identified as Cyprinidae or Catostomus occi-dentalis (minnows, carps, or Sacramento sucker; n = 112),Cyprinidae (minnows and carps; n = 355), and Actinopterygii (ray-finned fishes; n = ~55). Of these fish remains, nearly 50 percent (n = 417) was recovered between 230 and 240 cm, the level directly below Feature 3 (see above).

Class Reptilia

Two reptilian orders were identified in the faunal assemblage, Testudines and Squamata. These animals



appear to have played an important role in the diets of prehistoric peoples of the SSJV at times when other sources of protein, such as leporid sand deer, were unavailable or in short supply. Many southern Cali-fornia groups consumed tortoises, lizards, and snakes (Drucker 1937).

Order Testudines, Family Emydidae (Turtles)

Seven turtle carapace fragments, most likely Pacific pond turtle, are present in the sample from TU-3. Six came from 70 to 80 cm and one from 110 to 120 cm. All appear to be adult in age, and all are burned to some degree. Gayton (1948:14) reported the use of turtles for food by the Yokuts of the Tulare Lake area north of Buttonwillow.

Order Squamata (Snakes and Lizards), Suborder Serpentes (Snakes)

Sixty-six complete or nearly complete vertebrae iden-tified as Serpentes are in the faunal assemblage, all of which are adult in size. Most of them are burned. Two-thirds of these specimens were recovered from the 0–10 and 120–130 cm levels (17 and 28 elements, respective-ly), the remaining one-third appearing in multiple other levels (see Tables 19 and 20). A few of the vertebrae are articulated. It is likely that at least some of these Serpentes remains are from rattlesnakes (Crotalus spp.), which are commonly found in the SSJV.

Class Mammalia

Mammalian remains represent the preponderance of the classified faunal specimens from the site, although the vast majority are too highly fragmented to iden-tify to genus/species (see Tables 19 and 20). There are surprisingly few lagomorph remains, given that these are typically the most common animals identi-fied from archaeological contexts in the SSJV. This is most likely the result of sample bias (only four units were excavated, with TU-3 being the faunal

analysis unit) as well as the large number of uniden-tified small mammal remains that may well represent lagomorphs. Alternatively, the site could have served a primary purpose other than domestic activities, such as ritual or ceremonial as suggested by the presence of charmstones (see above). This posited site function is reinforced by the paucity of ground stone tools for processing food.

Two Mammalian orders were identified in the faunal assemblage, Lagomorpha and Rodentia, representing at least four species. However, the vast majority of the mammal remains could only be classified to size (small and large mammal).

Order Lagomorpha (Pikas, Rabbits, and Hares), Family Leporidae (Rabbits and Hares)

Hares (or jackrabbits) and rabbits were a major faunal resource for many prehistoric populations of western North America. They often constitute the most dom-inant faunal remains from sites in California and the Great Basin (e.g., Basgall 1982; McGuire et al. 1982; Langenwalter et al. 1983; Yohe and Goodman 1991; Goodman 2009; Sutton 2016). The lagomorph remains from Buttonwillow are jackrabbits (n = 26; see Tables 19 and 20), all of them burned. It is likely that many of the remains identified only as small mammal are also jackrabbit. The identified elements include 10 long bone shafts, five phalanges, three humeri, two tibiae, two vertebrae, two ribs, one femur, and one calcaneus. Six of these bones are complete or nearly complete, and the rest are fragments. While not all the levels contained lagomorph remains, 10 were recovered from the first level (0 to 10 cm), while the remaining levels contained one or two elements each. Nineteen speci-mens are adult in age, and seven are subadult.

Order Rodentia

Numerous rodent remains were recovered from the Buttonwillow site. Ethnographic data demonstrate



that rodents played a significant role in the diets of the prehistoric peoples of southern California, albeit likely sporadic depending on the availability of higher- ranked resources such as jackrabbits (e.g., Bean 1972; Luomala 1978; Zigmond 1986).

Thirty-three remains were identified only as Rodentia (mouse/rat size; see Tables 19 and 20), partly due to a lack of sufficient comparative skeletons during the analysis to differentiate species and partly due to ex-treme fragmentation. These specimens were scattered throughout most of TU-3. Of these 33 elements, there were 11 mandibles (one complete and 10 fragments), four long bone fragments, three humeri (two com-plete and one fragment), two nearly complete femurs, one complete tibia, one pelvis fragment, one tooth fragment, and 10 fragments that could not be identi-fied to element. Twenty-eight of these specimens are adult, and five are subadult; 22 are burned, and 11 are unburned. While some of the Rodentia fragments are burned, this was likely incidental to the cooking of other resources, such as jackrabbits. Three species of Rodentia were identified.

Family Cricetidae, Neotoma fuscipes (Dusky-Foot-ed Woodrat). One proximal adult femur fragment of a woodrat was identified in the sample, which was found in the 60 to 70-cm level of TU-3 and is un-burned. This species builds large nests constructed of twigs, sticks, excrement, and other available debris that can contain important information for archaeolo-gists, such as evidence of climate change (Betancourt et al. 2016).

Family Geomyidae, Thomomys sp. (Pocket Gopher). One complete adult tibia of a pocket gopher is in the faunal sample. It was derived from the 0 to 10-cm level of TU-3 and is unburned. Digging by pocket gophers can aerate the soil to a depth of about 20 cm and can create mounds up to six feet tall (sometimes referred to as Mima mounds; e.g., Cox 1990).

Family Heteromyidae, Dipodomys sp. (Kangaroo Rat). A virtually intact Kangaroos rat individual and two fragments were identified. The 39 remains of the intact individual consist of mostly complete elements, including the cranium, long bones, scapulae, pelvis, vertebrae, mandibles, and teeth (all unburned). The two Dipodomys fragments include a nearly complete mandible and a proximal femur, both adult in age and unburned. Kangaroo rats prefer areas of sparse vegeta-tion and “frequently constitute a substantial part of the total small rodent population” (Jameson and Peeters 1988:264).

Unidentified Mammals. As is typical of sites in the SSJV, unidentified and highly fragmentary speci-mens of small (n = 2,398) and large (n = 3) mammals greatly dominated the analytical faunal assemblage at KER-2720 (see Tables 19 and 20). The small mammal remains could not be classified to genus, but they are all either mouse, rat, or lagomorph in size. The large mam-mal remains are encrusted with concretions, making it impossible to identify the elements, but they appear to be deer-sized (most likely Odocoileus sp.). There are also two claws of an unknown animal that were found in situ at 88 cm. These unidentified mammal specimens were recovered from multiple levels in TU-3.

Faunal Exploitation Activities at CA-KER-2720

The following is a discussion of the potential signif-icance of the faunal remains to interpretations of the Buttonwillow site. The discussion offers characteriza-tions of and/or evidence for the animals from the site as well as processing techniques and bone fragmentation.

Anodonta

The large quantity of Anodonta at the site, high-lighted by the shell lens in Feature 3, indicates the significance of this resource to the site inhabitants. Archaeological and ethnographic data also attest



to the frequent use of Anodonta by the prehistoric Yokuts (e.g., Gifford and Schenck 1926; Wedel 1941; Wallace 1978a, 1978b; Jackson et al. 1992; Culleton et al. 2005; Sutton et al. 2012). At Buena Vista Lake south of Buttonwillow, Wedel (1941:10) encountered abundant Anodonta remains at KER-39 and CA-KER-60 (also see Hartzell 1992). At the Manifold site (CA-KER-4220) (Sutton et al. 2016), along the northwest shoreline of Buena Vista Lake, Anodon-ta in varying quantities was recovered from all of the surface shell features, all the test units, and the column sample.

Turtles

Seven carapace fragments of Pacific pond turtle were identified in the analytical sample from TU-3. Turtles are believed to have been an important resource for many prehistoric populations in the SSJV, particu-larly in the Tulare Lake region (Dillon and Porcasi 1990). There are ethnographic data for their use as a food source by the Yokuts (Gayton 1948:14; Wallace 1978a:450). The few turtle specimens from KER-2720 provide little information about their exploitation at the site, although the fragments are all burned. This indicates that they may have been cooked. Gayton (1948:154) reported that turtles were “stabbed under the throat with a sharp stick, put on hot coals, and roasted.”

Snakes

At least some (if not most) of the 66 Serpentes remains from the site are likely from rattlesnakes. Groups in the Great Basin and southern California are reported to have eaten snakes (e.g., Drucker 1937; d’Azevedo 1986:passim). The Southern Valley Yokuts conducted rituals and ceremonies related to rattle-snakes, particularly for curing snake bites (Gayton 1948:47), but it is not clear whether parts of the snake were used for such purposes. Nevertheless, it is not unreasonable to suggest that snake vertebrae may have

been used as noisemakers for ceremonial or ritual rattles.

Fish

The techniques practiced by the Southern Valley Yo-kuts to hunt and recover fish were diverse. Nets, weirs, baskets, and corrals were used to gather fish in large quantities. In streams, a weir and trap might have been set up and anchored on each bank. A line of driftwood would then have been assembled across the stream and dragged toward the weir, driving fish into the trap (Powers 1877:376–377). Latta (1976:89) described a Tulare Lake fish drive during which a weir of woven willow was set out from the shore to a distance of about 50 or 60 yards. A large contingent of people would wade out beyond the weir and then head back to shore yelling and slapping the water, driving the fish in front of them. Individuals would use baskets to catch them as they neared the beach. Another procedure for garnering large quantities of fish was to poison them (Ebeling 1986:176). At least two different types of poisons, one from California buckeye (Aesculus californica) and the other from soap plant (Chlorogalum sp.), were available to the valley dwellers. Estudillo witnessed a style of fishing that involved the use of hand nets, noting that this was done “before my very eyes, with great agility, diving quickly and staying under the water so long that I prayed. Some remained under five credos [during five “Lord’s prayers”], others no less than three. After having caught sufficient large fish, salmon and others very palatable, I return with all to camp” (Gayton 1936:78).

In a different example of the use of small nets, an indi-vidual who was buoyed up by a log would float down-stream with a hand-held net that would then snare the fish (Powers 1877:376–377). Another strategy was to construct a small booth directly over the water.



The fisherman would remain on his stomach peering through a hole in the floor, and passing fish would be speared. Fish were also speared through a hole that was cut into the center of the vessel. Long-term (four or five days) fishing expeditions would be carried out using tule rafts or balsas (Latta 1977:507–508). A vari-ety of spears, gigs, and harpoons (some with detach-able tips) were employed in the pursuit of fish.

Jackrabbits

While few jackrabbit remains were identified in the analytical sample from TU-3, archaeological and ethno-graphic data indicate that jackrabbits were an important food source to prehistoric groups living in the SSJV and the Great Basin (e.g., Kroeber 1925; Gifford 1931; Steward 1938; Bean 1972; Basgall 1982; Langenwalter et al. 1983; Yohe 1984; Kent 1985; Sutton et al. 2009; Sutton 2016). The most common jackrabbit in the valley is Lepus californicus. They measure between about 49 and 55 cm in total length, and adults typically weigh between 1,500 and 2,000 grams (Jameson and Peeters 1988:337). They are “especially sensitive to the quality and amount of plant food available [and] their reproduction is clearly enhanced by a rich food supply” (Jameson and Peeters 1988:333). This trait offers the potential for paleoenvironmental reconstruction, such as determining when and how much water was available at KER-2720 during site occupation.

Seasonality based on the jackrabbit remains at KER-2720 is difficult to determine because they can breed at various times of the year, depending on the quality and availability of food (Jameson and Peeters 1988:338; also see Dunn et al. 1982). Moreover, breeding in warmer climates can continue virtually year-round (Jameson and Peeters 1988:338). As such, the presence of subadult jackrabbit remains at a site does little to clarify the primary season of occupation in the absence of supporting evidence. Such complementary evidence can be gleaned from ethnographic accounts, which sug-gest that fall was the optimal time of the year to capture

them because of their desired winter fur for rabbit skin blankets and robes (Steward 1938:38). Such evidence does not preclude occupation at KER-2720 during other seasons, but it does support a fall/winter residency at the site to some degree.

Jackrabbits “afforded considerable meat when taken in communal hunts” (Steward 1938:38). In addi-tion, their “speed and ability to hide made it difficult to hunt with the bow and arrow, but the large and rapidly multiplying herds rewarded communal hunts” (Steward 1938:38). Gifford (1931) reported that jack-rabbits were apprehended by driving them along dry waterways and setting fire to the vegetation, at which point they were typically killed using throwing sticks. Driving them into nets was a common technique that was used extensively in southern California and the Great Basin (Kroeber 1925; Steward 1938). Rabbit drives were sometimes conducted in concert with other communal activities, such as the harvesting of other resources, for social purposes, and for ceremo-nial events (e.g., White 1932; Steward 1938; Kennard 1979; Shaffer and Gardner 1995).

Rodents

While there is some archaeological and ethnographic evidence that rodents may have played a relatively sig-nificant role in the dietary regime of Native peoples in the SSJV, they are often difficult to adequately quanti-fy due to their typically high degree of fragmentation, often precluding differentiation to species. It may be that rodents were so highly processed that their dietary contribution is obfuscated. There may have even been a preference for certain rodents over others, although the problem of species identification conceals any potential preference (e.g., Gardner 2007:201–202).

Processing Techniques and Bone Fragmentation

The extreme fragmentation of the faunal remains at Buttonwillow could be due to cultural and/or natural



factors, such as processing technique (e.g., Yohe 1995, 1996), site formation processes (e.g., Schiffer 1987), and differential breakage (e.g., Grayson 1991). All these factors, among others, can introduce significant bias into faunal analyses.

Yohe (1995:69) suggested that bone fragmentation could be the result of pulverizing the long bones, skull elements, and pelves in order to “maximize extraction of bone grease and protein.” Breaking the bones into small pieces would have facilitated the extraction pro-cess (Yohe 1996:62). Such fragmentation could also be the result of grinding small (and possibly large) animals with milling equipment (e.g., Yohe et al. 1991; Yohe 1996). However, the small amount of such equipment at Buttonwillow suggests that the milling of plants and/or animals was not a subsistence focus at the site. The dif-ference in the degree of processing may also be related to site function, duration of site occupation, nutritional requirements, and/or other factors (Gardner 2007:200).

Chronological Implications of the Faunal Remains

The site was dated using multiple lines of evidence, including obsidian hydration, temporally sensitive artifact types, and radiocarbon assay. The radiocarbon date from Feature 3 at 220 to 230 cm (between 9900 and 9650 cal BP), indicates that the Lower Archaic site residents made extensive use of shellfish and fish. In addition, the significant number of burned and calcined bones recovered between 200 and 230 cm in TU-3 suggests that hunting was also important early in the occupation of the site. The temporal significance of the other faunal remains is more speculative in terms of constraining the age of the site.

Summary of the Faunal Analysis

The analysis of the faunal remains from TU-3 indi-cates that fish and shellfish were the preferred re-sources at the Buttonwillow site. Lagomorphs were surprisingly scarce given their relative abundance

from archaeological contexts in the SSJV and adjacent regions. Once again, it is unfortunate that the vast majority of the faunal remains are so highly fragmen-tary, precluding precise identification. However, it is assumed from the known archaeological evidence in the valley that at least some of those fragmented bones were lagomorphs.

The site-wide distribution of Anodonta (by weight) is multimodal (Figure 15), although it is virtually absent in the deepest three levels. The strongest peaks of Anodonta appear at 20 to 80 cm, 130 to 170 cm, and 230 to 240 cm (where Feature 3 was discovered). This distribution indicates that Anodonta was an important resource for the site inhabitants throughout much of the occupation span.

The distribution of non-fish vertebrates in TU-3 is also multimodal (Figure 16), with the greatest peak at 80 to 160 cm and dropping off to near absence after 160 cm. This distribution does not appear to correlate with the distribution of fish (Figure 17), which appear in very small quantities (or are absent) throughout the deposit until the 230 to 240-cm level, just below Feature 3. It is difficult to assess any correlation between the non-fish vertebrates and Anodonta since the shell was quantified by weight and the vertebrates by NISP, although both show staggered peaks in the middle of the deposit. It is not clear what the signifi-cance of this distribution is, particularly given the fact that the fish remains were so predominant at the 230 to 240-cm level. In view of the fact that the Anodonta was quantified site-wide and the vertebrate remains were quantified only in TU-3, this could simply be a function of sample bias rather than having any cultural significance.

Obsidian Studies

Eight obsidian specimens were submitted for sourcing and hydration studies (Table 21). Three of the submit-ted specimens were projectile points, and five were



Figure 15. Anodonta remains by weight and level from all units at CA-KER-2720 (the surface Anodonta is combined with the 0 to10-cm level).

Figure 16. Non-fish vertebrate remains (NISP) from TU-3, by level, at CA-KER-2720.



Figure 17. Remains of fishes (NISP) from TU-3, by level, at CA-KER-2720. No fish elements were recovered from the 40 to 50-cm level or between 190 and 230 cm. The peak at the 230 to 240-cm level is significant in that it is the level directly below the Anodonta shell lens in Feature 3.

Cat. No. Provenience Lab No. Artifact HydrationRim Source Comments

3-042 TU-3, 40–50 WA-16-23-7 Humboldt point 5.7 ± 0.1 West Sugarloaf, CVF –

1-141 TU-1, 130–140 WA-16-23-1 flake 6.0 ± 0.1 West Sugarloaf, CVF –

1-156 TU-1, 140–150 WA-16-23-3 large Side-notched point 7.0 ± 0.1 West Sugarloaf, CVF –

3-163 TU-3, 140–150 WA-16-23-8 Pinto point 5.3 ± 0.1 West Sugarloaf, CVF REC, DFV


1-185 TU-1, 180–190 WA-16-23-4 flake 9.0 ± 0.1 Sugarloaf Mtn., CVF –

1-210 TU-1, 210–220 WA-16-23-5 flake 12.6 ± 0.1 too small to source visually similar to CVF


Table 21. Results of Obsidian Studies at the Buttonwillow Site (CA-KER-2720).

Notes: Key: CVF = Coso Volcanic Field; REC = recut; DFV = diffusion front vague. Rim measurements are in microns. The X-ray fluorescence results were provided by Alex Nyers at the Northwest Research

Obsidian Studies Laboratory in Corvallis, Oregon, and the obsidian hydration results were provided by Jennifer Thatcher at Willamette Analytics in Corvallis, Oregon



flakes. Most of the obsidian flakes recovered from the excavations were very small; as such, only five were large enough to be suitable samples. The hydration readings ranged between 5.3 and 12.6 µm, and seven of the specimens were sourced to the CVF, six from West Sugarloaf, and one from Sugarloaf Mountain. One of the eight specimens (Cat. No. 1-210) could not be sourced, although it is visually similar to CVF.

The obsidian hydration results from KER-2720 generally correspond to site use spanning the Lower and Middle Archaic. Six of the readings fall into the Middle Archaic (values ranging between 5.3 and 9.0 µm), while two (10.9 and 12.6 µm) are Lower Archaic in age (e.g., Jackson et al. 1998; Culleton et al. 2005; see Table 21).

At other sites in and around the Buena Vista Lake basin, the obsidian hydration rim measurements (Table 22) indicate site occupations between the Lower Ar-chaic and the Emergent period. For example, of the 32 specimens from Goose Lake that were submitted for obsidian studies, 15 produced rim measurements, with eight readings corresponding to the Upper Archaic, six to the Middle Archaic, and one to the Lower Archaic (Moreland 1992:Table 1). Chemical characterization of these specimens indicated that all but seven were from the CVF (five were from Casa Diablo, one was from Truman Meadows, and one was unknown). All six rim measurements from the Big Cut site (KER-4395; Sutton et al. 2012:24–25) correspond to an Up-per Archaic occupation, and all but one were sourced to the CVF (one was unknown).

At KER-116, the hydration rim measurements on 70 specimens ranged between 2.8 and 10.0 microns, although most fell between about 4.0 and 8.0 microns (Hartzell 1992:Table 6.14). This indicates occupa-tions spanning the Holocene with more intense use between the Middle and Upper Archaic. Five sources were identified for the obsidian at KER-116, includ-ing the CVF (87 percent), Casa Diablo, Fish Springs,

Obsidian Butte, and Mt. Hicks (Hartzell 1992:219). Obsidian studies at CA-KER-180 demonstrated rim values between 2.3 and 3.0 microns (n = 14), with one larger value of 4.7 microns (Hartzell 1992:276). This provides a fairly circumscribed time frame of occu-pation for this site during the Emergent period. All the specimens from KER-180 were from the CVF. At CA-KER-1611 (a short distance north of KER-180), Hartzell (1992:287-288) reported four rim measure-ment readings ranging between 4.9 and 6.5 microns, with one larger value of 9.3 microns and one specimen with two values of 5.5 and 17.0 microns (three speci-mens could not be measured). Of the nine specimens from KER-1611, five were from the CVF, and two were from Casa Diablo.

The obsidian results from the Manifold site (KER-4220; Sutton et al. 2016) generally correspond to site use between the Middle Archaic and the Emergent period, with all but three readings (on debitage) show-ing the most intense occupation roughly between the Upper Archaic and the Emergent period. Two of the three readings that fall outside that range (8.4 and 10.0 microns) generally correspond to the Middle Archaic, while the third reading of 13.7 microns is consistent with a Lower Archaic time frame.

At the Grasse site1 (just south of Manifold), eight rim measurements correspond to the Upper Archaic and six to the Emergent period. It is interesting to note that of the 14 specimens from the Grasse site (CA-KER-5408) that were submitted for obsidia n studies, four different sources were identified; CVF (more than half), Casa Diablo, Queen, and Obsidian Butte.

Turning to the Elk Hills sites reported by Culleton et al. (2005), of the hundreds of obsidian specimens submitted for analysis, the vast majority came from one site (CA-KER-5373/H; Culleton et al. 2005:229). The rim measurement readings ranged between about 1.5 and 18.5, with one significant peak of about 12.0 to 14.0 microns and a smaller peak between about 5.0



Site/Area Range of Hydration Rims (in microns) Geologic Source References

CA-KER-116(Buena Vista Lake) 10.0 –2.8 (n = 70)

Coso (87%)Casa Diablo (8%)Fish Spring (2%)Others (3%)

Hartzell 1992:218-229, Table 6.14

CA-KER-180(Tule Elk Preserve) 4.7–2.3 (n = 15) Coso (100%) Hartzell 1992:274-275, Table 7.2

CA-KER-766(Goose Lake) 4.4–11.5 (n = 15)

Coso (81%)Casa Diablo (16%)Truman Meadows (3%)

Moreland 1992:44, Table 1

CA-KER-1611(Tule Elk Preserve) 17.0 to 4.9 (n = 8) Coso (78%)

Casa Diablo (22%) Hartzell 1992:287-288, Table 7.7

CA-KER-3077(Elk Hills) 6.05–13.19 (n = 5) Coso (100%) Culleton et al. 2005

CA-KER-3080(Elk Hills) 2.18–18.07 (n = 31) Coso (97%)

Casa Diablo (3%) Culleton et al. 2005

CA-KER-5373/H(Elk Hills) 1.82–15.59 (n = 65) Coso (98%)

Unknown (2%) Culleton et al. 2005

CA-KER-5392(Elk Hills) 4.53–13.79 (n = 16) Coso (94%)

Casa Diablo (6%) Culleton et al. 2005

CA-KER-5404(Elk Hills) 5.9–14.31 (n = 5) Coso (100%) Culleton et al. 2005

CA-KER-4395(Big Cut site) 4.82–8.34 (n = 6) Coso (83%)

Unidentified (17%) Sutton et al. 2012

CA-KER-4220(Manifold site) 1.3–13.7 (n = 18) Coso (89%)

Casa Diablo (11%) Sutton et al. 2016

CA-KER-5408(Grasse site) 2.09–8.66 (n = 14)

Coso (57%)Casa Diablo (14%)Queen (14%)Obsidian Butte (7%)Unidentified (7%)

Unpublished data, report in preparation

Table 22. Obsidian Data from Other Sites in the Southern San Joaquin Valley.

Note: Table data derived from Sutton and Des Lauriers (2002:Table 1).

and 6.0 microns. Once again, the obsidian evidence suggests that occupations at the Elk Hills sites spanned the Holocene. All the specimens were chemically characterized to the CVF (Culleton et al. 2005:229).

In their study of obsidian patterns in the SSJV, Sutton and Des Lauriers (2002:5) pointed out that the average hydration rim values for the Elk Hills sites are signifi-cantly higher than those from the valley floor sites. They suggested that this evidence demonstrates at least two possibilities. The first possibility is that there was “some differential pattern of obsidian use between

valley floor and margins” (Sutton and Des Lauriers 2002:5). One scenario would be that perhaps “vil-lages” were on the valley floor, and “special purpose sites” were along the margins (i.e., Elk Hills). In that case, obsidian tools may have been used for different purposes. The second possibility is that the obsidian pattern reflects “a shift in the settlement pattern from the valley margins to the valley floor” (Sutton and Des Lauriers 2002:5).

The identification of several obsidian sources in far eastern California (CVF, Fish Springs, Casa



Diablo), far southern California (Obsidian Butte near the Salton Sea), and far western Nevada (Mt. Hicks) indicates an extensive trading network and/or long-distance travel for direct access (perhaps via middlemen) through the major passes of the Sierra Nevada and from southern California (see Sutton and Des Lauriers 2002). The distance to the source of the obsidian, as well as the possibility of territorial conflicts, would likely dictate the method—by trade or by direct access—of obsidian acquisition (e.g., Gardner 2007:193).

Dating

The site was dated using a variety of indicators, including obsidian hydration, temporally sensitive artifact types, and radiocarbon assay. The obsidian data (see Table 21) suggest that the site was occupied during the Middle and Lower Archaic, with most (n = 6) of the hydration readings falling within the Middle Archaic and two within the Lower Archaic.

The projectile points (one concave-base, two stemmed, one Pinto, one Large Side-notched, two large contracting stem, and one Humboldt) are in gen-eral agreement with the obsidian hydration data in that they suggest a similar time frame of primary occupa-tion: Lower to Middle Archaic. However, the Cotton-wood Triangular point and virtually all the Olivella beads fall into the Emergent period, indicating more than just a passing occupation during that time.

Of the greatest interest is the radiocarbon date for Feature 3 in the Lower Archaic component near the bottom of the deposit. That feature, a distinct shell lens, dated to 8950 ± 30 RCYBP (Beta-484926), calibrated and corrected to between 9900 and 9650 cal BP. Apparently similar early shell lens features were also present in the deeply buried cultural deposit at KER-116 along Buena Vista Lake (Fredrickson and Grossman 1977). Feature 3 is the earliest dated feature in the SSJV.

Site Components

Four temporal components were identified at the Buttonwillow site; the Emergent period and the Upper, Middle, and Lower Archaic, each of varying depth (Table 23). The descriptions and contents of the four components are detailed below and in Table 24. The materials recovered from the surface are not included in the upper component (Emergent period) figures. The metric of cubic meter of deposit is used to compare component contents. It is recognized that this metric may not fully represent the duration and/or intensity of a component occupation and that there would have been variability in rates of sediment depo-sition and/or postdepositional mixing.

The Emergent Period Component

The Emergent period (ca. cal AD 1000 to contact) component at KER-2720 is reflected by the presence of some late artifacts and loosely compacted soils in the upper portion of the deposit. It is possible that the human inhumation also relates to the Emergent period component, judging from its placement at the top of the midden. The Emergent period component is interpreted as a minor one, perhaps limited to the very upper portion of the site (Strata A through E, see Fig-ures 5, 6, and 7), possibly as deep as 60 cm in TU-1. A total of 2.2 m3 of the soil from this component was excavated.

ComponentUnit and Depth (cm)

TU-1 TU-2 TU-3

Emergent ~0–60 ~0–30 ~0–20

Upper Archaic ~60–90 – ~20–50

Middle Archaic ~90–270 – ~50–170

Lower Archaic – – ~180–240

Table 23. Generalized Vertical Extent of Components by Unit at the Buttonwillow Site (CA-KER-2720).



ComponentTU-1 TU-2a TU-3 Cumulative Totals

m3 N/gb N/g/m3 m3 N/g N/g/m3 m3 N/g/NISP N/g/m3 m3 N/g N/g/m3

Formed Artifactsc

Emergent Period 1.2 6 0.5 0.6 15d 25 0.4 3 7.5 2.2 24 10.9

Upper Archaic 0.6 2 3.3

unexcavated

0.6 2 3.3 1.2 4 3.3

Middle Archaic 2.9 10 3.4 2.4 9 3.7 5.3 19 3.6

Lower Archaic – – – 0.6 0 0.0 0.6 0 0.0

Debitage

Emergent Period 1.2 683 569 0.6 274 456 0.4 208 520 2.2 1,165 529

Upper Archaic 0.6 707 1,178

unexcavated

0.6 513 855 1.2 1,220 1,016

Middle Archaic 2.9 554 191 2.4 1,843 910 5.3 2,397 461

Lower Archaic – – – 0.6 40 66 0.6 40 66

Fish Remains

Emergent Period

unanalyzed

0.4 116 290 0.4 116 290

Upper Archaic

unexcavated

0.6 15 25 0.6 15 25

Middle Archaic 2.4 253 105 2.4 253 105

Lower Archaic 0.6 417 695 0.6 417 695

Other Vertebrate Faunal Remains

Emergent Period

unanalyzed

0.4 72 180 0.4 72 180

Upper Archaic

unexcavated

0.6 180 300 0.6 180 300

Middle Archaic 2.4 2,259 941 2.4 2,259 941

Lower Archaic 0.6 147 245 0.6 147 245

Freshwater Shellfish

Emergent Period 1.2 66.0 55.0 0.6 52.1 86.8 0.4 26.6 66.5 2.2 144.7 65.8

Upper Archaic 0.6 53.6 89.3

unexcavated

0.6 56.7 94.5 1.2 110.3 91.9

Middle Archaic 2.9 316.0 108.9 2.4 195.5 81.5 5.3 511.5 96.5

Lower Archaic – – – 0.6 61.7e 111.8 0.6 61.7e 111.8

Fire-Affected Rocks (FAR)

Emergent Period 1.2 252.8 210.7 0.6 58.9 70.7 0.4 29.0 72.5 2.2 340.7 154.9

Upper Archaic 0.6 35.1 58.5

unexcavated

0.6 91.2 152.0 1.2 126.3 181.2

Middle Archaic 2.9 723.3 249.4 2.4 1,033.2 430.3 5.3 1,756.5 331.4

Lower Archaic – – – 0.6 94.5 157.5 0.6 94.5 157.5

Table 24. Distribution of Excavated Formed Artifacts, Debitage (All Materials), Vertebrate Fauna, Freshwater Shellfish (cf. Anodonta sp.), Fire-Affected Rocks, and Excavated Volume (m3) by Component at the Buttonwillow Site (CA-KER-2720).

a Only the 0 to 30-cm levels of TU-2 were included here due to the disturbance of the deposit from the human inhumation below that level.

b N = number of formed tools and flakes, g = weight of freshwater shell and FAR; NISP (number of identified specimens) for faunal remains; N/g/m3 = quantity per cubic meter.

c Ground stone, flaked stone artifacts (not including debitage), and beads. Artifacts from below the 30-cm level of TU-2 were not included due to probable disturbance.

d Not including artifacts from Feature 1.e Not including the shell sample from Feature 3 (332.9 g).



The Emergent period component averaged 10.9 artifacts per cubic meter (see Table 24). In addition, a Cottonwood Triangular point and a stemmed point were recovered from the surface. This component also contained Feature 1, a cache of three charmstones and eight other artifacts (see discussion above and Table 3). In addition, three other ground stone artifacts (a metate fragment (1-046), one charmstone fragment (1-062), and an unidentified fragment [2-047]) were also recovered in the Emergent component. The gen-eral paucity of milling tools suggests that milling was not an important activity during the Emergent period occupation. Of the total artifacts recovered from the excavations, three of the nine bifaces (33 percent), 10 of the 12 cores (83.3 percent), nine of the 11 ham-merstones (81.8 percent), and seven of the 14 shell beads (50 percent) came from the Emergent period component. This component contained 154.9 g of FAR per cubic meter (see Table 24). This is about half the quantity of FAR in the Middle Archaic component, but similar to the Upper Archaic and Lower Archaic components.

The Emergent period component also contained an av-erage of 529 flakes per cubic meter (see Table 24). No biface reduction or pressure flakes were found in the analysis of the TU-3 debitage from this component. Nevertheless, the presence of some 80 percent of the cores and hammerstones from the site suggests that flaked stone tool production was an important activity during the Emergent period occupation.

The faunal data from this component included both freshwater shell and vertebrate remains. The amount of freshwater shell, 65.8 g per m3 (see Table 24), is the lowest of all the components, suggesting the possibil-ity that shellfish procurement and processing was less important during this time. The Emergent period com-ponent contained 290 fish bones per cubic meter (see Table 18), mostly Sacramento perch and cyprinids, the second highest concentration of the four components.

In addition, there were some 180 bones per cubic meter of other vertebrate fauna (see Table 24), including some leporids but dominated by unidentified small mammals, suggesting that the faunal remains were highly pro-cessed. No large mammals were identified.

No radiocarbon or obsidian data are available from the Emergent period component, so it is dated using temporally sensitive artifacts. The presence of the Cot-tonwood Triangular point is conforming, but the pres-ence of the stemmed point is a puzzle. Perhaps it was brought to the surface due to bioturbation, or maybe it was an heirloom object. Seven beads associated with this component, including an Olivella H1b, generally date to the Contact period. The other beads, all whose terminal date is about 1,500 BP (the Olivella types C2, D1, G1, and the clam specimen) were found in the upper 20 cm of the deposit (see Table 14). This could be due to bioturbation but suggests the possibility that either the ending dates of these bead types should be changed to at least 1,000 BP or that the beginning of the Emergent period needs to be extended back to about 1,500 BP.

In sum, the Emergent period component appears to reflect a relatively minor occupation, judging from the shallow depth of the deposit. The charmstone cache and inhumation likely are associated with the Emergent period, and the density of freshwater shell-fish is the lowest of any of the components. Some leporids were apparently hunted. Milling appears not to have been very important, while the production of flaked stone tools was relatively common. Inter-estingly, however, Culleton (2005:13; Jackson, et al. 1998:154–155) argued that the sites in the Elk Hills reflected an increase in the use of freshwater shellfish after about 1,100 BP “as part of a resource intensifi-cation and diet-breadth expansion” in response to the effects of the Medieval Climatic Anomaly (also see Jones et al. 1999). This pattern is not apparent at the KER-2720 site.



The Upper Archaic Component

The Upper Archaic (ca. 550 cal BC to cal AD 1000 BP) component of the Buttonwillow site was marked by the compact “gray” soils of Strata F and G. In TU-1, these soils extended from about 60 to 90 cm (see Figure 5), in TU-2 they extended from about 30 cm to below 80 cm (excavation stopped at 80 cm; see Figure 6), and in TU-3 they extended from about 10 to 40 cm (see Figure 7). Approximately 1.2 m3 of the soil from this component was excavated.

Artifacts recovered from the Upper Archaic com-ponent averaged 3.3 artifacts per cubic meter (see Table 24), considerably less than in the Emergent period component. Recovered artifacts included one fragment of unidentified ground stone, one projectile point (a Humboldt base), one hammerstone, one core, and 181.2 g of FAR per cubic meter (Table 24). No bifaces or beads were found. The quantity of FAR in the Upper Archaic component is generally similar to that of the Emergent and Lower Archaic components, but much lower than that of the Middle Archaic com-ponent. As with the Emergent period component, the paucity of milling equipment in the Upper Archaic component suggests that milling was not an import-ant activity.

The Upper Archaic component contained an average of 1,016 flakes per cubic meter (see Table 24). The analysis of the CCS debitage from TU-3 revealed a small number of biface thinning and pressure flakes (3.0 percent) in this component, suggesting that at least some biface production was conducted. How-ever, the majority of the debitage (97.0 percent) was either shatter or non-biface reduction. Although the percentages of cores and hammerstones in the Upper Archaic component is much lower than they were in the Emergent period component, they still suggest that flaked stone tool production was an important activity during the Upper Archaic occupation.

The faunal data from this component include both freshwater shell and vertebrate remains. The amount of freshwater shell (91.9 g per cubic meter; see Table 24) appears to be greater than that of the Emergent pe-riod component, suggesting the possibility that shell-fish procurement and processing were more important during that time. The Upper Archaic component contained very few fish, only 25 bones per cubic meter (see Table 18). There were also 300 bones per cubic meter of other vertebrate fauna (see Table 24), includ-ing some leporids but dominated by unidentified small mammals, suggesting that the faunal remains were highly processed. No large mammals were identified. This is a similar pattern of vertebrate remains as that found in the Emergent period component, although fish appear to have been much less important.

No radiocarbon data are available from the Upper Archaic component. The five projectile points all generally date before the Emergent period, and all but the stemmed point comfortably fit within the general time frame thought to include the Upper Archaic. As with the Emergent period component, the presence of the stemmed point is a puzzle. It may have been in-troduced into this component by way of bioturbation, or it may be an heirloom object. Five of the six shell beads found within the Emergent period component typically date to the Upper Archaic, again suggesting some form of bioturbation. Only one obsidian hy-dration reading is available for this component, that of the Humboldt point (5.7 ± 0.1 µm; see Table 21), a reading that is consistent with an Upper Archaic assignment.

In sum, the Upper Archaic component appears to reflect a relatively minor occupation (once again judging from the shallow depth of the deposit). The use of freshwater shellfish is higher than it was in the Emergent period component but less than in the Middle Archaic component. Milling does not seem to have been very important, but the production of flaked



stone tools appears to have been important. The pres-ence of leporid remains indicates that these animals were likely exploited.

The Middle Archaic Component

The Middle Archaic (ca. 5550 to 550 cal BC) compo-nent at KER-2720 was identified by the brown soils of Stratum H (see Figures 5 and 7). In TU-1, this soil emerged between 35 and 80 cm (about 40 cm in TU-3) and extended between 130 and 270 cm (130 cm in TU-3). Approximately 5.3 m3 of soil from this compo-nent was excavated.

The Middle Archaic component averaged 3.6 artifacts per cubic meter (see Table 24), similar to the Upper Archaic but much less than the Emergent period com-ponents. Recovered artifacts included four projectile points (two large contracting stems, one Large Side-notched, and one Pinto), two pieces of ground stone (one bowl fragment and one charmstone fragment), six of the nine total bifaces, one core, one hammerstone, seven beads, and 331.4 g of FAR per cubic meter (see Table 24). This quantity of FAR is considerably more than in any of the other components.

The Middle Archaic component debitage averaged 461 flakes per cubic meter, less than half the concen-tration of debitage as in the Upper Archaic component (see Table 24). However, like the Upper Archaic com-ponent, the analyzed CCS debitage from TU-3 in the Middle Archaic component is primarily (96.7 percent) shatter and non-biface production. Thus, it seems that the same tool production activities were taking place in both components, but less intensively in the Middle Archaic component. However, the general absence of cores and hammerstones suggests that such tools may not have been left at the site.

The faunal data from this component included both freshwater shell and vertebrate remains. The quantity of freshwater shell, 96.5 g per cubic meter (see Table

24), is only slightly higher than the Upper Archaic component, but continues to suggest that shellfish pro-curement and processing were important during that time. The Middle Archaic component contained 105 fish bones per cubic meter (see Table 18), mostly Sac-ramento perch and Cyprinidae. In addition, there were some 941 bones per cubic meter of other vertebrate fauna (see Table 24), triple that of the two upper com-ponents. The non-fish fauna contained some leporids and a few large mammal elements but was dominated by unidentified small mammals, suggesting that the faunal remains were highly processed. The character of the faunal remains from the Middle Archaic compo-nent was the same as the two upper components, but much more intensive with greater use of fish.

Temporal data suggest that the Middle Archaic com-ponent could date to the early Holocene. The Pinto point from the lower portion of the component indi-cates a date as early as the Lower Archaic (Rosenthal et al. 2007). However, this point had a surprisingly small obsidian hydration rim measurement (5.3 ± 0.1 µm), as did the Large Side-notched point (7.0 ± 0.1 µm). The early bead types also support an early date. All the recovered beads that date roughly before 5,000 BP (Olivella types B2 and N1) were found in the Mid-dle Archaic component (see Table 14). Other obsidian hydration data, all on flakes (6.0, 6.9, 9.0, 10.9, and 12.6 µm), suggest that this occupation level began during the early Holocene.

In sum, judging from the depth of the deposit, the Middle Archaic component reflects a somewhat lengthy occupation. The use of freshwater shellfish is higher than it was in the Upper Archaic component. A relatively intensive use of small to medium mammals is apparent (see Table 18). Neither milling nor the production of flaked stone tools appears to have been important subsistence activities, although tool rejuve-nation may have been important. The Middle Archaic occupation appears to have had a focus on the ex-ploitation of small mammals and freshwater shellfish.



A Hiatus?

Interestingly, the 160 to 170-cm level of TU-3 con-tained very little cultural material, suggesting the pres-ence of a shallow “sterile” layer between the Middle and Lower Archaic components. This could suggest the possibility that the site had been abandoned for a period of time, perhaps a very short period of time. It may also reflect some sort of sudden depositional event, such as a flash flood.

A Lower Archaic Component

A Lower Archaic (ca. 8550 to 5550 cal BC; Rosenthal et al. 2007) component was identified only in TU-3, marked by Stratum M (see Figure 7). It began at a depth of about 150 to 160 cm and extended to sterile soil at about 240 cm. A total of 0.6 m3 of the soil in this component was excavated. A lens of freshwater shell (Feature 3) was found near the bottom of the deposit.

No formed artifacts were recovered from this compo-nent, but it did contain some debitage (all CCS) and FAR (157.5 g m3) (see Table 24). The FAR numbers are similar to the Emergent period and Upper Archaic components but much less than the Middle Archaic component.

The Lower Archaic component contained an aver-age of 66 flakes per cubic meter (see Table 24). Of the CCS debitage analyzed from the component, 75 percent was shatter and non-biface production flakes, meaning that 25 percent were biface thinning and pressure flakes. Although the actual numbers are low, this indicates that biface production may have been a bit more important during the Lower Archaic.

The faunal data from this component included both freshwater shell and vertebrate remains. The quantity of freshwater shell is greater (111.8 g per cubic meter) than in any other component (see Table 24). Thus, it appears that shellfish procurement and processing

was of considerable importance at that time. The component also contained a large quantity of fish (695 bones per cubic meter; see Table 18), dominated by Sacramento perch and cyprinids. Of the total fish bone assemblage from TU-3, 49 percent was recovered from the Lower Archaic component, a considerable portion of which was recovered from the 10 cm level just below the Feature 3 shell lens.

In addition, there were some 245 bones per cubic meter of other vertebrate fauna (see Table 24), roughly similar to the upper two components. The non-fish fauna was almost exclusively unidentified small mammal, suggest-ing that the faunal remains were highly processed.

As noted above, the lower portion of the Lower Ar-chaic deposit contained a large lens of freshwater shell (Feature 3). Shell from this feature was radiocarbon dated to 8950 ± 30 RCYBP (Beta-484926), calibrat-ed and corrected to between 9900 and 9650 cal BP. No temporally sensitive artifacts were found nor was any obsidian large enough to submit for analysis, not surprising since obsidian is uncommon in early Lower Archaic components (Rosenthal et al. 2007:152).

An Interpretation of the Buttonwillow Site

The Buttonwillow site (KER-2720) is interpreted as a relatively small site that appears to have been occu-pied more or less continuously since the beginning of the early Holocene, ca. 10,000 cal BP. There is no in-dication of an Early Paleoindian occupation at the site. The function and intensity of site use varied through time, seemingly beginning as a fish and shellfish processing facility to a more intensely occupied locale with burials. A full interpretation of the site occupation and use is presented below.

Lower Archaic Times

Sometime around 10,000 cal BP people first occupied the Buttonwillow site, resulting in the formation of a



small Lower Archaic component, detected only in TU-3. The surface of the fan upon which the site sits was some 3 m lower than today, meaning that the Buena Vista slough was likely much closer than today as it has been continually pushed east by the formation of the fan.

The initial Lower Archaic occupation was focused on the capture and processing of fish, mostly Sacramento perch. About half of all the fish remains identified in TU-3 came from the bottom of the Lower Archaic component (230 to 240 cm) (see Table 18), and noth-ing else was found in that level, indicating a focus on fish processing. Very soon afterward, people began to process large quantities of freshwater shellfish (refer to Feature 3). Fish were still procured and processed, but the shift to shellfish is conspicuous. This intense focus on shellfish rapidly changed to a generalized subsis-tence strategy, with the procurement and use of limited quantities of fish, shellfish, and small mammals. This adaptation persisted throughout the Lower Archaic. The material culture of the Lower Archaic component is of interest in that there was very little found—no stemmed points, no crescents, and very little debitage.

Lower Archaic components are known at only a few other sites in the SSJV. The Witt site locality (CA-KIN-32), along the southwestern shore of Tulare Lake to the north, contains both Paleoindian and Lower Archaic components (e.g., Riddell and Olsen 1969; Wallace 1991, 1993; Fenenga 1993a). Unfortunately, little is known about the Lower Archaic component of the Witt site because it has been severely impacted by agriculture and collecting.

In the Elk Hills to the south, early radiocarbon dates of Tivela disk beads (ca. 8200 cal BP; Culleton et al. 2005:159) suggest the presence of an Early Archaic component at CA-KER-3168. However, no other materials could be attributed to such an early date, leaving open the possibility that these early beads had been scavenged and deposited at a later time (Culleton et al. 2005:277).

The KER-116 site, located on the southwestern shore-line of Buena Vista Lake, contains a “basal deposit” that was dated between 9175 and 8450 cal BP, just a bit later than Buttonwillow (Fredrickson and Gross-man 1977; Fredrickson 1986; also see Hartzell 1992). The basal deposit at KER-116 yielded three chert crescents, a stemmed point base, an atlatl spur, several leaf-shaped projectile point fragments, and CCS cores and debitage, but no obsidian or milling equipment (Fredrickson and Grossman 1977:181, Table 3; Fred-rickson 1986:77). A human parietal fragment was also found (Fredrickson and Grossman 1977:181). No evi-dence for hearths or house structures was encountered; the only features were lenses of shell several meters in diameter, similar to Feature 3 at Buttonwillow. A small but diverse faunal assemblage was also identified, including freshwater shell, birds, fishes (mostly Sac-ramento perch), turtle, deer, and artiodactyls (Hartzell 1992:Table 6.28). The faunal assemblage at KER-116 was more diverse than that of KER-2720.

Middle Archaic Times

The Middle Archaic occupation at KER-2720 was defined based on the appearance of formed tools, a considerable increase in the debitage concentration, a marked increase in the use of shellfish and terrestrial animals, a decrease in the use of fish, and a substantial increase in FAR (see Table 24). The Middle Archaic component was also the largest in vertical extent. This component may date to the early Holocene, as suggested by the presence of a Pinto point in the lower portion of the component, a type usually associated with Lower Archaic components (Rosenthal et al. 2007). The presence of early bead types and the obsid-ian hydration data support this suggestion.

The Middle Archaic component is interpreted to reflect a lengthy but not particularly intensive occupa-tion. Artifacts recovered from the component included projectile points (two large contracting stems, one Large Side-notched, and one Pinto), fragments of a



bowl and a charmstone, bifaces, cores, hammerstones, debitage, beads, and FAR (see Table 24). Interestingly, milling tools are absent. A relatively intensive use of small to medium mammals is apparent (see Tables 19 and 20). Thus, the Middle Archaic component is thought to represent a small resource procurement locale focused on the exploitation of small mammals and freshwater shellfish.

There are several other sites containing Middle Archa-ic components in the Buena Vista Lake area (see Table 1). Most of these components have been functionally classified as habitation locations, with the exception of one temporary camp (CA-KER-4395) which best fits the Middle Archaic component at KER-2720.

Upper Archaic Times The Upper Archaic component was the smallest of the four components in vertical depth (ca. 30 cm). When compared to the Middle Archaic component, the material culture of this component exhibited a slight decline in tools but a dramatic increase in debitage. Faunal exploitation declined from the Middle Archaic with drops in each category (see Table 24), although it appears that leporids were an important prey. Milling does not appear to have been a significant activity but the production of flaked stone tools was important. The Upper Archaic component is thought to reflect a relatively minor occupation focused on hunting small mammals.

Some 150 m east of KER-2720 is another small site, CA-KER-2721, located directly adjacent to the Buena Vista Slough. This site was investigated by a field class from CSUB (Baxter et al. 1994). A variety of artifact types were recovered from KER-2721, includ-ing ground stone, projectile points (Cottonwood and Elko), cores, debitage, and Olivella beads. Inverte-brate faunal remains included freshwater shellfish, freshwater snail, and land snails. Vertebrate faunal remains included fishes, turtles, and small mammals

(rodents and leporids). The site was interpreted as a small seasonal camp, probably associated with the exploitation of marsh resources (Baxter et al. 1994). It was not chronometrically dated but the presence of Cottonwood and Elko points suggests that it was occupied sometime during the late Holocene, perhaps during the Upper Archaic and Emergent period. It is possible that KER-2721 was a work place associated with the Buttonwillow site sometime after about 4,000 years ago.

A number of sites in the Buena Vista area have con-tained Upper Archaic remains indicating the impor-tance of both aquatic and terrestrial resources and reflecting at least seasonal (if not year-round) occu-pations (e.g., Wedel 1941; Hartzell 1992; Rosenthal et al. 2007; Sutton et al. 2016). However, the Upper Archaic component at KER-2720 may represent a more specialized hunting camp rather than a general-ized adaptation.

Emergent Times

The character of the site changed dramatically late in time, assumed here to have been at the beginning of the Emergent period, ca. cal AD 1000. The mid-den in this component was darker with considerable material culture and faunal remains suggestive of a more intensive occupation, perhaps as a habitation site rather than a resource processing locale. Sever-al features, including a cache of charmstones and a human inhumation, were associated with the Emergent period component, contributing to the idea of a more intensive occupation. The Emergent period compo-nent is generally shallow, however, suggesting that its use as a habitation site was relatively short lived. The absence of any early historical artifacts indicates that the site was abandoned prior to contact. Many of the sites so far investigated in the Buena Vista Lake area contain Emergent period components (see Table 1), most functionally classified as habitation



locations. The extensive use of lacustrine resources is a hallmark of Emergent times, and this adaptation can be seen at each of these sites. There seems little doubt that the Emergent period represents the prehistoric Yokuts.

In sum, the Buttonwillow site contains a more or less continuous occupation beginning about 10,000 cal BP. That the site contains an intact stratified deposit of that age makes it unique in the SSJV.

Endnote

1. The report on the excavations at the Grasse site is in preparation, and the authors had access to the collec-tion in preparing this article.

Acknowledgments

Many thanks to Mrs. Aurora Loukonen and Mrs. Selma Steen, the owners of the property, for their permission to work on the site. The field crew includ-ed N. Amin, Wyleen Anderson, Adele Baldwin, Scott Baxter, Rae Ann Boston, (first name missing) Brinkly, Steve Brewer, David Bringle, Greg Clift, Bon Du-rant, Dorothy Fleagle, Juanita Garcia, Jay Hinshaw, Scott Jackson, Beth Kulas, Greg W. Laframboise, Loreen Lomax, (first name missing) McMann, Melissa McNinch, Ruth Miller, (first name missing) Muñoz, Robin Novickas, John O’Donnell, Richard Osborne, Robert E. Parr, Kathy Ptomey (Moskowitz), Steve Ptomey, (first name missing) Remington, Kerry Rob-erson, (first name missing) Rubio, Jack Scott, Cheryl Sinopoli, Raymond Tolle, Sharynn-Marie Valdez, Wendy Stevens, Lori Wear, Jess Wilson, and Kelly Zimmerman.

Cataloguing of the collection was accomplished by students during the laboratory methods classes at CSUB. These students included Stuart Ahlf, N. Amin, Wyleen Anderson, (first name missing) Arevalo, Tim Baker, David Bringle, Jim Cassidy, J. Cavillo, Greg Clift, Dawn Collins, D. Davis, Matthew des Lauriers,

(first name missing) Dull, Aaron Dutcher, Michele Fambrough, Dorothy Fleagle, Juanita Garcia, Vernice Heredia, Jay Hinshaw, Darlena Heintz, Marion Iriart, Scott Jackson, Wendy Jennings, Robyn Johnson, Dawn Jordan, Jan Lawson, Becky Lewis, Loreen Lo-max, John Lovell, Doug Manifold, Pat Manifold, (first name missing) Maxwell, Melissa McNinch, Christine McQueen (Fleagle), K. Morse, A. Mitchell, Richard Osborne, Missy Peterson, J. Pritchard, Greg Reza, Susan Rubin, Kimberly Pinney, Alan Salazar, David Schuldies, Jack Scott, (first name missing) Shields, Cheryl Sinopoli, Kimberly Smith, Summer Spohn, Wendy Stevens, K. Tarantino, Stacy Tisler, Solveig Thompson, Robin Tidmore, Milutin Veljkovic, Lori Wear, Susan Wolfe, and Brian Woods.

We appreciate the assistance of Sherri Gust and Robert M. Yohe II and the comments of the anonymous re-viewers. We very much appreciate the support of Kris-tin Moran, Associate Dean of Arts and Sciences at the University of San Diego, who provided the funding for the radiocarbon date. Luke Wisner produced the figures.

Upon the discovery of the human remains (Feature 2), Kenneth M. Noack of the Kern County Coroner’s office was immediately contacted (on May 30, 1992). Mr. Noack visited the site on May 31, 1992, and deter-mined the remains to be Native American. The Native American Heritage Commission was then contacted and determined that Ron Wermuth was the most likely descendant. Ron visited the site on June 13, 1992, and performed a ceremony as the unit was backfilled over the unexcavated inhumation. Three additional human elements were discovered during the laboratory analy-sis and were repatriated in 2006.

In 2003, Hanna Ballard of Pacific Legacy borrowed the KER-2720 collection for comparative material for a study of sites in the Elk Hills (Culleton et al. 2005). We appreciate the help of Tom Jackson in obtaining that report. The collection from the site is stored at the Kern County Museum in Bakersfield, California.



References Cited

Barrett, Samuel A., and Edward W. Gifford1933 Miwok Material Culture. Bulletin of the Mil-

waukee Public Museum 2(4).Barton, Amber, Maria Del Carmen Guzman, and

Breeann Romo2010 The Preliminary Results of the 2008 Archae-

ological Investigations at the Bead Hill Site (KER-450), Buena Vista Lake, California. In Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology 24:1–12. Society for California Archaeology, Chico.

Basgall, Mark E.1982 Faunal Analysis of an Open-Air Site in the El

Paso Mountains. In Archaeological Inves-tigations in the El Paso Mountains of the Mojave Desert: The Bickel and Last Chance Sites, edited by Kelly R. McGuire, Alan P. Garfinkel, and Mark E. Basgall, pp. 123–140. Report on file at the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center, California State University, Bakersfield.

Bass, Stephen T., and Stephen B. Andrews1977 Using a New Classification System on Kern

County Indian Beads. Kern County Archaeo-logical Society Journal 1:9–24.

Baxter, Kyle2004 Extrinsic Factors that Affect the Preservation

of Bone. Nebraska Anthropologist 19:38–45.Baxter, Scott, Alan Salazar, and Gretchen Maxwell1994 Archaeological Investigations at CA-

KER-2721, Buttonwillow. Kern County Archaeological Society Journal 5:2–14.

Bean, Lowell J.1972 Mukat’s People: The Cahuilla Indians of

Southern California. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Beck, Charlotte, and George T. Jones1997 The Terminal Pleistocene/Early Holocene

Archaeology of the Great Basin. Journal of World Prehistory 11:161–236.

Behler, John L., and F. Wayne King1979 National Audubon Society Field Guide to

North American Reptiles and Amphibians. Knopf Doubleday, New York.

Bennyhoff, James A., and Richard E. Hughes1987 Shell Bead and Ornament Exchange Net-

works Between California and the Western Great Basin. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History 64(2), New York.

Betancourt, Julio L., Thomas R. Van Devender, and Paul S. Martin (editors)

2016 Packrat Middens: The Last 40,000 Years of Biotic Change (reprint). University of Arizo-na Press, Tucson.

Bezy, R. L. (editor)1981 Reptiles. In Complete Field Guide to North

American Wildlife (Western Edition), pp. 391–462. Harper and Row, New York.

Bolton, Herbert E.1935 In the South San Joaquin Ahead of Garcés.

Kern County Historical Society, Bakersfield, California.

Bramlette, Allan G., John F. Hayes, and Suzanne B. Stewart

1982 Archaeological Investigations at CA-KER-824 Near McKittrick, California. Report on file at the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center, California State University, Bakersfield.

Buikstra, Jane E., and Douglas H. Ubelaker1994 Standards for Data Collection from Human

Skeletal Remains. Arkansas Archaeological Survey Research Series No. 44, Fayetteville, Arkansas.

Cox, George W. 1990 Soil Mining by Pocket Gophers Along Topo-

graphic Gradients in a Mima Moundfield. Ecology 71:837–843.

Culleton, Brendan J.2006 Implications of a Freshwater Radiocarbon

Reservoir Correction for the Timing of Late



Holocene Settlement of the Elk Hills, Kern County, California. Journal of Archaeologi-cal Science 33(9):1331–1339.

Culleton, Brendan J., Thomas L. Jackson, and Sarah Brewer

2005 Cultural Response to Environmental Change in the Buena Vista Basin: Archaeological Data Recovery at Eight Sites on the Former Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 1 (Elk Hills), Kern County, California. Report on file at the Southern San Joaquin Valley Informa-tion Center, California State University, Bakersfield.

d’Azevedo, Warren L. (editor)1986 Great Basin, Vol. 11, Handbook of North

American Indians. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Demay, Ida1942 An Avifauna from Indian Kitchen Middens

at Buena Vista Lake, California. The Condor 44(5):228–230.

Dieckman, John J.1969 Manuscript and Field Notes on the Excava-

tion at the Bead Hill Site. On file at the Kern County Museum, Bakersfield.

1977 Buena Vista Village: Tulamniu? Kern County Archaeological Society Journal 1:49–53.

Dillon, Brian D., and Judy Porcasi1990 Turtling at Ancient Lake Tulare. Tulare Lake

Archaeological Group Report 3(6):1–9.Drucker, Philip1937 Culture Element Distributions, V: Southern

California. University of California Anthro-pological Records 1(1):1–52. Berkeley.

Dunn, J. P., J. A. Chapman, and R. E. Marsh1982 Jackrabbits. In Wild Mammals of North

America: Biology, Management, and Eco-nomics, edited by Joseph A. Chapman and George A. Feldhamer, pp. 124–145. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.

Ebeling, Walter1986 Handbook of Indian Fibers of Arid America.

University of California Press, Berkeley.Elford, C. Robert, and Max R. McDonough1964 The Climate of Kern County. Kern County

Board of Trade, Bakersfield, California.Elsasser, Albert B.1978 Development of Regional Prehistoric

Cultures. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 37–57. Handbook of North Amer-ican Indians, Vol. 8, William G. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Wash-ington, D.C.

Elsasser, Albert B., and Peter T. Rhode1996 Further Notes on California Charmstones.

Coyote Press Archives of California Prehisto-ry No. 38. Salinas, California.

Estep, Harold A.1993 The Indians of Pelican Island. Kern County

Archaeological Society Journal 4:2–30.Fenenga, Gerrit L.1992 Regional Variability in the Early Prehistory

of the American Far West. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley.

1993a Test Excavations at the Witt Site (CA-KIN-32). In Finding the Evidence: The Quest for Tulare Lake’s Archaeological Past, edited by William J. Wallace and Fran-cis A. Riddell, pp. 25–38. Tulare Lake Ar-chaeological Research Group, Contributions to Tulare Lake Archaeology II, Redondo Beach, California.

1993b The Eccentric Crescent. In The Scotts Valley Site: CA-SCr-177, edited by Robert Cartier, pp. 94–109. Santa Cruz Archaeological Soci-ety, Santa Cruz, California.

2010 A Typological Analysis of the Temporal and Geographic Distribution of the Eccentric Crescent in Western North America (1984).



In A Riddle Wrapped in a Mystery Inside an Enigma: Three Studies of Chipped Stone Crescents from California, edited by Gerrit L. Fenenga and Jerry N. Hopkins, pp. 3–46. Tulare Lake Archaeological Research Group, Contributions to Tulare Lake Archaeology V, Redondo Beach, California.

2014 Clovis Blade Technology at Pleistocene Lake Tulare. Paper presented at the Annual Meet-ings of the Society for California Archaeolo-gy, Visalia, California.

Fenneman, Nevin M.1931 Physiography of the Western United States.

McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York.

Fredrickson, David A.1986 Buena Vista Lake Revisited. In Symposium:

A New Look at Some Old Sites, edited by Gary S. Breschini and Trudy Haversat, pp. 75–81. Coyote Press Archives of California Prehistory No. 6. Salinas, California.

Fredrickson, David A., and Joel W. Grossman1977 A San Dieguito Component at Buena Vista

Lake, California. The Journal of California Anthropology 4(2):173–195.

Gardner, Jill K.1997 Insect Use by the Yokuts. Kern County Ar-

chaeological Society Journal 8:44–55.2007 The Potential Impact of the Medieval Cli-

matic Anomaly on Human Populations in the Western Mojave Desert. Coyote Press Archives of Great Basin Prehistory No. 7. Salinas, California.

Gayton, Anna H.1936 Estudillo Among the Yokuts: 1819. In Essays

in Anthropology Presented to A. L. Kroeber, edited by R. H. Lowie, pp. 67–86. University of California Press, Berkeley.

1948 Yokuts and Western Mono Ethnography I: Tulare Lake, Southern Valley, and Central Foothill Yokuts. University of California Anthropological Records 10(1).

Gibson, Robert O.1992 An Introduction to the Study of Beads from

California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 28(3):1–46.

Gifford, Edward W.1931 The Kamia of Imperial Valley. Bureau of

American Ethnology Bulletin 97, Washing-ton, D.C.

Gifford, Edward W., and W. Egbert Schenck1926 Archaeology of the Southern San Joaquin

Valley, California. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 23(1). University of California Press, Berkeley.

Glassow, Michael A.1997 Middle Holocene Cultural Development in

the Central Santa Barbara Channel Region. In Archaeology of the California Coast During the Middle Holocene, edited by Jon M. Erlandson and Michael A. Glassow, pp. 73–90. University of California Los Ange-les, Institute of Archaeology, Perspectives in California Archaeology, Vol. 4.

Glassow, Michael A., Jon M. Erlandson, and Todd J. Braje

2013 A Typology of Channel Islands Barbed Points. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 33(2):185–195.

Gobalet, Kenneth W., Thomas A. Wake, and Kalie L. Hardin

2005 Archaeological Record of Native Fishes of the Lower Colorado River: How to Identify Their Remains. Western North American Naturalist 65(3):335–344.

Goodman, John D., II2009 The Vertebrate Faunal Remains from Red

Rock Canyon Rockshelter (CA-KER-147). Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quar-terly 42(2&3):91–115.

Graesch, Anthony P.2001 Culture Contact on the Channel Islands: His-

toric-Era Production and Exchange Systems.



In The Origins of a Pacific Coast Chiefdom: The Chumash of the Channel Islands, edited by Jeanne E. Arnold, pp. 261–285. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Grayson, Donald K.1991 Alpine Faunas from the White Mountains,

California: Adaptive Change in the Late Prehistoric Great Basin? Journal of Archaeo-logical Science 18(4):483–506.

Harrington, John P.1942 Culture Element Distributions: 19, Central

California Coast. University of California Anthropological Records 7:1–146.

Harrison, William M.1964 Prehistory of the Santa Barbara Coast,

California. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of. Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson.

Hartzell, Leslie L.1992 Hunter-Gatherer Adaptive Strategies and

Lacustrine Environments in the Buena Vista Lake Basin, Kern County California. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis.

Haynes, Gary2002 The Early Settlement of America: The Clovis

Era. Cambridge University Press, Cam-bridge.

Heizer, Robert F., and Thomas R. Hester1978 Great Basin Projectile Points: Forms and

Chronology. Ballena Press Publications in Archaeology, Ethnology and History No. 10, Socorro, New Mexico.

Henshaw, W. H.1885 The Aboriginal Relics Called “Sinkers” or

“Plummets.” American Journal of Archaeolo-gy 1(2):105–115.

Hopkins, Jerry N.1991 Tulare Lake Fluted Points. In Background to

a Study of Tulare Lake’s Archaeological Past, edited by William J. Wallace and Francis A. Riddell, pp. 34–40. Tulare Lake Archae-

ological Research Group, Contributions to Tulare Lake Archaeology I, Redondo Beach, California.

2010 A Typological Survey and Statistical Com-parison of Chipped Stone Crescents from Tulare Lake, California with Great Basin Crescents. In A Riddle Wrapped in a Mystery Inside an Enigma: Three Studies of Chipped Stone Crescents from California, edited by Gerrit L. Fenenga and Jerry N. Hopkins, pp. 47–91. Tulare Lake Archaeological Research Group, Contributions to Tulare Lake Archae-ology V, Redondo Beach, California.

Hopkins, Jerry N., and Alan P. Garfinkel (editors)2008 Ice-Age Stone Tools from the San Joaquin

Valley. Tulare Lake Archaeological Research Group, Contributions to Tulare Lake Archae-ology IV, Redondo Beach, California.

Jackson, Thomas L., Lisa A. Shapiro, and Jerome H. King

1998 Prehistoric Archaeological Resources In-ventory and Evaluation at Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 1 (Elk Hills), Kern County, Cal-ifornia. Prepared by Pacific Legacy, Aptos. Report on file at the Southern San Joaquin Valley Archaeological Information Center, California State University, Bakersfield.

Jackson, Scott R., Mark Q. Sutton, and Kenneth W. Gobalet

1992 The Faunal Remains from the Goose Lake Site (CA-KER-766). In Archaeological Stud-ies in the Goose Lake Area, Southern San Joaquin Valley, California, edited by Mark Q. Sutton, pp. 54–66. Occasional Papers in Anthropology No. 2, Museum of Anthropolo-gy, California State University, Bakersfield.

Jameson, E. W., Jr., and Hans J. Peeters1988 California Mammals. University of Califor-

nia Press, Berkeley.Jepsen, Sarina, Caitlin LaBar, and Jennifer Zarnoch2010 Anodonta californiensis (Lea, 1852)/Anodonta

nuttalliana (Lea, 1838), California Floater/



Winged Floater, Bivalvia: Unionidae. Electron-ic document, http://www.xerces.org/wp-con-tent/uploads/2010/12/xerces-status-review-an-odonta-californiensis-and-nuttalliana.pdf.

Jertberg, Patricia1986 The Eccentric Crescent: Summary and Anal-

ysis. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 22(4):35–64.

Jones, Janel, Verenice Y. Heredia, and Julie McDonald1996 Archaeological Investigations at the Bead

Hill Site (CA-KER-450). Paper presented at the 30th Annual Meeting of the Society for California Archaeology, Bakersfield.

Jones, Terry L., Gary M. Brown, L. Mark Raab, Janet L. McVickar, W. Geoffrey Spaulding, Doug-las J. Kennett, Andrew L. York, and Phillip L. Walker

1999 Environmental Imperatives Reconsidered: Demographic Crises in Western North Ameri-ca During the Medieval Climatic Anomaly. Current Anthropology 40(2):137–170.

Justice, Noel D. 2002 Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of Cali-

fornia and the Great Basin. Indiana Universi-ty Press, Bloomington.

Kennard, Edward A.1979 Hopi Economy and Subsistence. In Hand-

book of North American Indians, Vol. 9, Southwest, edited by Alfonso Ortiz, pp. 554–563. Smithsonian Institution, Washing-ton, D.C.

Kennett, Douglas J., James P. Kennett, Jon M. Erland-son, and Kevin G. Cannariatoc

2007 Human Responses to Middle Holocene Cli-mate Change on California’s Channel Islands. Quaternary Science Reviews 26:351–367.

Kent, Jonathan D.1985 Faunal Remains from 10 Archaeological

Sites in Tiefort Basin, Central Mojave Desert, California. In Flood, Sweat, and Spears in the Valley of Death: Site Survey and Evaluation in Tiefort Basin, Fort Irwin, California,

edited by Dennis L. Jenkins, pp. E1–E44. Report on file at the Interagency Archeologi-cal Services, National Park Service, Western Region, San Francisco.

Kroeber, Alfred L.1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau

of American Ethnology Bulletin 78. Govern-ment Printing Office, Washington D.C.

Langenwalter, Paul E., II, Rebecca E. Langenwalter, and Jennifer G. Strand

1983 Analysis of Vertebrate Animal Remains and Implications for Aboriginal Subsistence. In Archaeological Studies at Oro Grande, Mojave Desert, California, edited by Carol H. Rector, James D. Swenson, and Philip J. Wilke, pp. 109–138. San Bernardino County Museum Association, Redlands, California.

Latta, Frank F.1931 San Joaquin Primeval: Archaeology. The

Tulare Times (newspaper), May 19–July 15.1937 A San Joaquin Valley Pioneer’s Account of

the Tulare Lake Indians. Hanford Morning Journal, August 1. Hanford, California.

1976 Tailholt Tales. Bear State Books, Santa Cruz, California.

1977 Handbook of Yokuts Indians (2nd ed.). Bear State Books, Santa Cruz, California.

Love, Milton S.2011 Certainly More Than You Want to Know About

the Fishes of the Pacific Coast: A Postmodern Experience. Really Big Press, Santa Barbara.

Lubinski, Patrick M.1996 Fish Heads, Fish Heads: An Experiment on

Differential Bone Preservation in a Salmo-nid Fish. Journal of Archaeological Science 23(2):175–181.

Luomala, Katharine1978 Tipai and Ipai. In California, edited by

Robert F. Heizer, pp. 592–609. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, William G. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.



McGuire, Kelly R., Alan P. Garfinkel, and Mark E. Basgall

1982 Archaeological Investigations in the El Paso Mountains of the Western Mojave Desert: The Bickel and Last Chance Sites (CA-Ker-250 and -261). Report on file at the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center, California State University, Bakersfield.

Minor, Julie2002 Additional Information on the Content and

Value of the Vandalized Bead Hill Site (CA-KER-450), Buena Vista Lake, California. Paper presented at the 35th Annual Meeting of the Society for California Archaeology, San Diego.

Mohr, Albert D., and Gerrit L. Fenenga 2010 Chipped Crescentic Stones in California. In

A Riddle Wrapped in a Mystery Inside an Enigma: Three Studies of Chipped Stone Crescents from California, edited by Gerrit L. Fenenga and Jerry N. Hopkins, pp. 93–149. Tulare Lake Archaeological Research Group, Contributions to Tulare Lake Archaeology V, Redondo Beach, California.

Moratto, Michael J.1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press,

Orlando, Florida.Moreland, Krista1992 Obsidian Studies at the Goose Lake Site

(CA-KER-766). In Archaeological Studies in the Goose Lake Area, Southern San Joaquin Valley, California, edited by Mark Q. Sutton, pp. 44–47. Occasional Papers in Anthropolo-gy No. 2, Museum of Anthropology, Califor-nia State University, Bakersfield.

Moyle, Peter B.2002 Inland Fishes of California. University of

California Press, Berkeley.Novickas, Robin1992 Human Remains from CA-KER-2421, Lost

Hills, Southern San Joaquin Valley, Califor-nia. In Archaeological Studies in the Goose

Lake Area, Southern San Joaquin Valley, California, edited by Mark Q. Sutton, pp. 110–117. Occasional Papers in Anthropology No. 2, Museum of Anthropology, California State University, Bakersfield.

Osborne, Richard H.1992 An Ethnographic Overview of the Southern

Valley Yokuts. Kern County Archaeological Society Journal 3:36–65.

Page, Lawrence M., Héctor Espinosa-Pérez, Lloyd T. Findley, Carter R. Gilbert, Robert N. Lea, Nicholas E. Mandrak, Richard L. Mayden, and Joseph S. Nelson

2013 Common and Scientific Names of Fishes from the United States, Canada, and Mexico (7th ed.). American Fisheries Society Special Publication 34. Bethesda, Maryland.

Parr, Robert E.1998 Test Excavation of Prehistoric Site CA-

KER-4595, Kern County, California. Report on file at the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center, California State Univer-sity, Bakersfield.

Peak, Ann1991 Cultural Resource Assessment of Sample

Areas of Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 1, Kern County, California. Report on file at the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Cen-ter, California State University, Bakersfield.

Pendleton, Lorann S. A.1979 Lithic Technology in Early Nevada Assem-

blages. Master’s thesis, Department of An-thropology, California State University, Long Beach.

Powers, Stephen1877 Tribes of California. Contributions to North

American Ethnology 3. U. S. Geographical and Geological Survey of the Rocky Moun-tain Region, Washington D.C.

Preston, William L.1981 Vanishing Landscapes. University of Califor-

nia Press, Berkeley.



Riddell, Francis A., and William H. Olsen1969 An Early Man Site in the San Joaquin Valley.

American Antiquity 34(2):121–130.Rondeau, Michael F.2006 Revising the Number of Reported Clovis

Points from Tulare Lake, California. Current Research in the Pleistocene 23:140–142.

Rondeau, Michael F., and Jerry N. Hopkins2008 A Reevaluation of Reported Clovis Points

from Tulare Lake, California. In Ice Age Stone Tools from the San Joaquin Valley, edited by Jerry N. Hopkins and Alan P. Garf-inkel, pp. 99–108. Tulare Lake Archaeologi-cal Research Group, Contributions to Tulare Lake Archaeology IV, Redondo Beach, California.

Rondeau, Michael F., Jim Cassidy, and Terry L. Jones2007 Colonization Technologies: Fluted Projectile

Points and the San Clemente Island Wood-working/Microblade Complex. In California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Com-plexity, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, pp 63–70. AltaMira Press, Lanham, Maryland.

Rosenthal, Jeffrey S., Gregory G. White, and Mark Q. Sutton

2007 The Central Valley: A View from the Catbird’s Seat. In California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, pp. 147–163. AltaMira Press, Lanham, Maryland.

Sampson, Michael1991a A Distinctive Flaked-Stone Tool Type from

Tulare Lake Basin. In Background to a Study of Tulare Lake’s Archaeological Past, edited by William J. Wallace and Francis A. Riddell, pp. 53–60. Tulare Lake Archae-ological Research Group, Contributions to Tulare Lake Archaeology I, Redondo Beach, California.

1991b Humpies, an Unusual Flaked-Stone Tool Type from the Tulare Lake Basin. In

Proceedings of the Society for California Ar-chaeology, Vol. 4, edited by Martin D. Rosen, Lynne E. Christenson, and G. Timothy Gross, pp. 193–203. Society for California Archae-ology, San Diego, California.

Schiffer, Michael B.1987 Formation Processes of the Archaeological

Record. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Seals, Ken1993 Charmstones and Charmstone Caches of

the Tulare Lake Region. In Finding the Evidence: The Quest for Tulare Lake’s Archaeological Past, edited by William J. Wallace and Francis A. Riddell, pp. 65–72. Tulare Lake Archaeological Research Group, Contributions to Tulare Lake Archaeology II, Redondo Beach, California.

Shaffer, Brian S., and Karen M. Gardner1995 The Rabbit Drive Through Time: Analysis

of the North American Ethnographic and Prehistoric Evidence. Utah Archaeology 8(1):13–25.

Shapiro, Lisa A., and Robert J. Jackson1998 Phase II Archaeological Investigations at CA-

KER-4732, Near Poso Creek, Kern County, California. Report on file at the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center, California State University, Bakersfield.

Sharp, John2000 Charmstones: A Summary of the Ethnograph-

ic Record. Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology 13:233–243. Chico.

Siefkin, Nelson, Gerrit L. Fenenga, and Jay C. von Werlhof

1996 Early Salvage Archaeology in Kern County: Investigations at the Buena Vista Golf Course Site (CA-KER-240), California. Kern County Archaeological Society Journal 7:15–35.

Steward, Julian1938 Basin Plateau Aboriginal Socio-Political

Groups. Bureau of American Ethnology



Bulletin 120. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.

Sutton, Mark Q.1992 Archaeological Studies in the Goose Lake

Area, Southern San Joaquin Valley, Califor-nia. Occasional Papers in Anthropology No. 2, Museum of Anthropology, California State University, Bakersfield.

1996 A Charmstone Cache from the Southern San Joaquin Valley. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 32(4):41–54.

1997 A Background for Archaeological Investi-gations at Buena Vista Lake, Southern San Joaquin Valley, California. Kern County Archaeological Society Journal 8:3–21.

2000 Research Potential of the Buena Vista Lake Sites, California. Paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the Society for American Archaeology, Philadelphia.

2016 Archaeological Investigations at the Koehn Lake Site (CA-KER-875), Fremont Valley, Western Mojave Desert, California. Coyote Press Archives of California Prehistory No. 59. Salinas, California.

Sutton, Mark Q., and Brooke S. Arkush2014 Archaeological Laboratory Methods: An In-

troduction (6th ed.). Kendall/Hunt, Dubuque, Iowa.

Sutton, Mark Q., and Matthew R. Des Lauriers2002 Emerging Patterns in Obsidian Usage in the

Southern San Joaquin Valley, California. Pa-cific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 38(2&3):1–18.

Sutton, Mark Q., and Henry C. Koerper2009 The Middle Holocene Western Nexus: An In-

teraction Sphere between Southern California and the Northwestern Great Basin. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 41(2&3):1–29.

Sutton, Mark Q., and Rebecca S. Orfila2003 A Radiocarbon Correction Factor for Freshwa-

ter Shell for the Lower Kern River/Northern

Buena Vista Lake Area, Southern San Joaquin Valley, California. Society for California Archaeology Newsletter 37(2):23–24.

Sutton, Mark Q., Jill K. Gardner, and Kenneth W. Gobalet

2012 Archaeological Investigations at the Big Cut Site (CA-KER-4395), Buena Vista Lake, Cal-ifornia. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 46(1&2):1–33.

Sutton, Mark Q., Roger W. Robinson, and Jill K. Gardner

2009 Excavations at the Red Rock Canyon Rock-shelter (CA-KER-147), Western Mojave Des-ert, California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Journal 42(2&3):17–90.

Sutton, Mark Q., Mark E. Basgall, Jill K. Gardner, and Mark W. Allen

2007 Advances in Understanding Mojave Desert Prehistory. In California Prehistory: Col-onization, Culture, and Complexity, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, pp. 229–246. AltaMira Press, Lanham, Maryland.

Sutton, Mark Q., Jill K. Gardner, Kenneth W. Gobalet, and Nancy Valente

2016 Archaeological Investigations at the Mani-fold Site (CA-KER-4220), Buena Vista Lake, Southern San Joaquin Valley, California. Pa-cific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 52(4):15–82.

Taylor, Dwight W.2003 Introduction to Physidae (Gastropoda:

Hygrophila); Biogeography, Classification, Morphology. Revista Biologia Tropical 51 (Supplement 1):1–287.

Tadlock, W. Lewis1966 Certain Crescentic Stone Objects as a Time

Marker in the Western United States. Ameri-can Antiquity 31(5):662–675.

Thomas, David Hurst1981 How to Classify the Projectile Points from

Monitor Valley, Nevada. Journal of Califor-nia and Great Basin Anthropology 3(1):7–43.



Twisselmann, Ernest C.1967 A Flora of Kern County. The Wasmann Jour-

nal of Biology 25(1 and 2).Van Bueren, Thad M., and Randy S. Wiberg2011 Putting Central California Charmstones in

Context. California Archaeology 3(2):199–248.

von Werlhof, Jay1960 Notes on Various Tulare and Kern County

Sites. MS on file at the Department of An-thropology Archaeological Survey, Universi-ty of California, Berkeley.

Walker, Edwin F.1935 A Yokuts Cemetery at Elk Hills. The Master-

key 9(5):145–150.1947 Excavation of a Yokuts Indian Cemetery.

Kern County Historical Society, Bakersfield, California.

Wallace, William J.1971 Archaeological Investigations at the Button-

willow Water Management District Project, Kern County, California. Report on file at the Southern San Joaquin Valley Informa-tion Center, California State University, Bakersfield.

1978a Southern Valley Yokuts. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 448–461. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, William G. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

1978b Northern Valley Yokuts. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 462–470. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, William G. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

1991 Tulare Lake’s Archaeological Past. In Background to a Study of Tulare Lake’s Archaeological Past, edited by William J. Wallace and Francis A. Riddell, pp. 23–33. Tulare Lake Archaeological Research Group, Contributions to Tulare Lake Archaeology I, Redondo Beach, California.

1993 A Lost Opportunity? A Brief History of Archaeological Research in the Tulare Lake Basin. In Finding the Evidence: The Quest for Tulare Lake’s Archaeological Past, edited by William J. Wallace and Francis A. Riddell, pp. 1–11. Tulare Lake Archaeological Re-search Group, Contributions to Tulare Lake Archaeology II, Redondo Beach, California.

Wallace, William J., and Francis A. Riddell1988 Archaeological Background of Tulare Lake,

California. In Early Human Occupation in Far Western North America: The Clovis-Ar-chaic Interface, edited by Judith A. Willig, C. Melvin Aikens, and John L. Fagan, pp. 87–101. Nevada State Museum Anthropolog-ical Papers No. 21, Carson City.

Wedel, Waldo R.1941 Archaeological Investigations at Buena Vista

Lake, Kern County, California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 130. Govern-ment Printing Office, Washington D.C.

White, Leslie A.1932 The Acoma Indians. Forty-Seventh Annual

Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Wilke, Phillip J.1991 Lanceolate Projectile Points from Tulare

Lake, California. In Background to a Study of Tulare Lake’s Archaeological Past, edited by William J. Wallace and Francis A. Riddell, pp. 41–52. Tulare Lake Archaeological Re-search Group, Contributions to Tulare Lake Archaeology I, Redondo Beach, California.

Williams, Audry2002 The Archaeology of CA-KER-60: The Taft

College Excavations, Buena Vista Lake, Cal-ifornia. Paper presented at the 35th Annual Meeting of the Society for California Archae-ology, San Diego.

Yohe, Robert M., II1984 A Report on Faunal Remains from a Special

Purpose Site in the Western Mojave Desert.



Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quar-terly 20(4):56–72.

1995 Vertebrate Faunal Remains from CA-MNO-2122. In The Archaeology of CA-MNO-2122: A Study of Pre-Contact and Post-Contact Lifeways Among the Mono Ba-sin Paiute, by Brooke S. Arkush, pp. 65–70. University of California Press, Berkeley.

1996 An Analysis of the Vertebrate Faunal Remains from CA-SBR-1913. In Archae-ological Investigations at Guapiabit, CA-SBR-1913, pp. 59–63. San Bernardino County Museum Association Quarterly 43(4).

Yohe, Robert M., II, and John D. Goodman II1991 An Analysis of Faunal Remains from CA-

KER-2211. In Archaeological Investigations at Cantil, Fremont Valley, Western Mojave Desert, California, by Mark Q. Sutton, pp. 202–219. Occasional Papers in Anthropology No. 1, Museum of Anthropology, California State University, Bakersfield.

Yohe, Robert M. II, Margaret E. Newman, and Joan S. Schneider

1991 Immunological Identification of Small-Mam-mal Proteins on Aboriginal Milling Equip-ment. American Antiquity 56(4):659–666.

Zigmond, Maurice1986 Kawaiisu. In Great Basin, edited by Warren

L. d’Azevedo, pp. 398–411. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 11, William G. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly · Journal of California and Great Basin...

Documents

Transcript of Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly · Journal of California and Great Basin...