Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-b4m5d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-21T10:52:53.276Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Central California Chronological Sequence Re-Examined*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2017

Russell E. Belous
Russell E. Belous*
Affiliation:
University of California, Los Angeles, California
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

For a number of years the subject of California archaeology has undergone a great deal of discussion. A large measure of this discussion has been concerned with the problem of chronology. Heizer (1949) has postulated a classification of cultural and temporal relationships for central California. His chronology is based primarily on stratigraphic sequences together with intrasite comparisons and geological-chemical soil and bone analysis.

This paper is an attempt to examine a part of his sequences using a new method for the chronological ordering of archaeological deposits (Brainerd 1951; Robinson 1951). The material to follow will be divided into three categories: 1) theory and method; 2) a discussion of the sequences resulting from the application of the method used here; and 3) the nature of the conclusions which one may safely draw in the light of 1) and 2) above.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 18 , Issue 4 , April 1953 , pp. 341 - 353
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1953

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

The author is indebted to George W. Brainerd and W. S. Robinson for valuable assistance and advice.

References

Beals, R. L., W. Brainerd, George, and Smith, Watson 1945. Archaeological Studies in Northeast Arizona. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 44, No. 1. Berkeley.Google Scholar
Beardsley, Richard K. 1948. Culture Sequences in Central California Archaeology. American Antiquity, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 1–28. Menasha.Google Scholar
Belous, Russell E. n.d. A Re-examination of Olson's Santa Barbara Sequence in the Light of a New Method for the Chronological Ordering of Archaeological Deposits. Manuscript, 1951, filed at Department of Anthropology, University of California at Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Brainerd, George W. 1951. The Place of Chronological Ordering in Archaeological Analysis. American Antiquity, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 301–13. Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Driver, H. E. and Kroeber, A. L. 1932. Quantitative Expression of Cultural Relationships. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 31, pp. 211–56. Berkeley.Google Scholar
Hagood, Margaret J. 1941. Statistics for Sociologists. New York.Google Scholar
Heizer, Robert F. 1939. Some Sacramento Valley-Santa Barbara Archeological Relationships. Southwest Museum Masterkey, No. 13, pp. 31–5. Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Heizer, Robert F. 1941. The Direct-Historical Approach in California Archaeology. American Antiquity, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 98–122. Menasha.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heizer, Robert F. 1949. The Archeology of Central California 1: The “Early Horizon. University of California Anthropological Records, Vol. 12, No. 1. University of California Press. Berkeley and Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Heizer, Robert F. and Fenenga, F. 1939. Archeological Horizons in Central California. American Anthropologist, Vol. 41, pp. 378–99. Menasha.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kluckhohn, Clyde 1939. On Certain Recent Applications of Association Co-efficients to Ethnological Data. American Anthropologist, Vol. 41, pp. 345–75. Menasha.Google Scholar
Krieger, Alex D. 1944. The Typological Concept. American Antiquity, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 271–88. Menasha.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroeber, A. L. 1936. Prospects in California Pre-history. American Antiquity, Vol. .2, pp. 108–16. Menasha.Google Scholar
Kroeber, A. L. 1940. Statistical Classification. American Antiquity, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 29–44. Menasha.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmer, Donald J. 1951. Robinson's Coefficient of Agreement — A Critique. American Antiquity, Vol. 17, No. 2, p. 151. Salt Lake City.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lillard, J. B., Heizer, R. F., and Fenenga, F. 1939. An Introduction to the Archeology of Central California. Sacramento Junior College, Department of Anthropology, Bulletin 2. Sacramento.Google Scholar
Robinson, W. S. 1951. A Method for Chronologically Ordering Archaeological Deposits. American Antiquity, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 293–301. Salt Lake City.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, W. S. and W. Brainerd, George 1952. Robinson's Coefficient of Agreement — A Rejoinder. American Antiquity, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 60–61. Salt Lake City.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rozaire, Charles n.d. A Tentative Cultural Chronology for Los Angeles and Orange Counties, California, Through a Statistical Analysis of Artifacts from Excavated Sites in the Area. Manuscript, 1951, filed at Department of Anthropology, University of California at Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Wallis, E. A. and Moore, G. H. 1941. A Significance Test for Time Series Analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 36, pp. 401–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar