CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE
A FUNCTIONAL BONE TOOL ANALYSIS
A thesis submitted in partial satisfaction of the
requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in
Anthropology
by
Ruth Breitborde
August 1983
The Thesis of Ruth Breitborde is approved:
California State University, Northridge
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT.
vi
INTRODUCTION.
Sample Location
Importance of Bone Awls to California Indians
Methodology.
Hypotheses •
Contents of Chapters •
5
5
CHUMASH CULTURE.
6
2
3
4
CHAPTER
I.
Environment.
Social Organization.
Provinces.
Rancherias •
Nuclear Family •
Class System •
Religion and Politics.
Rituals.
'Antap •
Shaman •
Economics.
Money.
Elimination of Goods .
Craft Guilds •
Exchange •
Technology •
Subsistence.
Fishing.
Hunting.
Gathering.
Food Preparation and Storage •
Baskets.
Summary.
II.
FUNCTIONS OF AWLS FOR THE CHUMASH AND OTHER NATIVE
AMERICANS.
Bone Awl Definitons and Descriptions .
Bone Awl Functions •
Functions of Bone Awls Other Than in Basketmaking.
Summary.
iii
6
8
8
9
9
9
10
11
11
12
12
12
13
13
14
15
15
15
16
16
16
17
17
20
20
21
24
25
CHAPTER
III. PAST RESEARCH.
IV.
v.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
26
Morphological Analyses
Functional Analyses.
Summary.
30
32
SITE AND SAMPLE BACKGROUND
34
Site Location.
Environment.
Importance of Muwu
Previous Excavations
Summary.
34
34
BONE AWL SAMPLE.
38
Functional Wear.
Parts of the Bone Tools.
Functional Attributes.
Variables.
Summary.
38
39
39
39
FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS RESULTS.
43
Awls
Drills
Punches.
Multi-Functional
Unidentified
Frequencies.
Variables.
Summary.
44
44
44
26
35
36
37
42
45
45
45
47
48
HYPOTHESES
49
Hypothesis 1
Hypothesis 2
Hypothesis 3
Summary.
50
51
52
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.
53
49
Chapter Summaries.
Awl.
Drill.
Punch.
Multi-Functional
Frequencies.
Variables.
Future Research.
53
54
55
55
55
58
58
59
REFERENCES CITED.
61
iv
APPENDIX
A
PLATES
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
12.
13.
Tip, shaft and head of bone. Head unmodified •
Bone displaying polish. • . • • • ••
Diagonal striations on bone tool • • • • •
Cross-hatch striations on bone tool • • •
Longitudinal striations on bone tool.
Transverse striations on bone tool.
Rotation striations on bone tool • • •
Counter-rotation striations on bone tool.
Mammal bone and bird bone tools •
Asphaltum bits on bone tool • • • •
Incised bone tool • • • • • • • • •
Head battered and ground. Multi-functional tool ••
Splintered bone tool, split bone tool, whole bone
tool. . . . . . . . . . .
14.
1 5.
16.
Burned bone tool • • • • •
Bone tools with asphaltum bulbs ••
Bone tools with asphaltum plugs •
79
80
81
82
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
1 0.
11.
B
TABLES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
C
74
75
76
77
78
Mammal bone from 1929-1932 and 1976-1978
excavations • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Bird bone from 1929-1932 excavation • • • •
Fish remains from 1929-1932 and 1976-1978
excavations • • • • • • • • • • • •
Striation types • • • • • • • • • •
Functionally classified bone tools, total sample. •
Functionally classified mammal bone tools
Functionally classified bird bone tools •
Range of 126 functional attributes indicating tool
type. . . . . . . . .
Variables • • • • • •
Chumash chronology ••
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
99
1 01
FIGURES
1.
Chumash area map. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
v
103
ABSTRACT
A FUNCTIONAL BONE TOOL ANALYSIS
by
Ruth Breitborde
Master of Arts in Anthropology
The focus of this thesis is the reclassification of a sample of
721 bone tools from the Chumash village site of Point Mugu, in Ventura
County, California.
These bone tools have previously been classified,
by morphological analysis, as bone awls.
In a morphological analysis
tools are categorized exclusively by similarities in form.
This re-
classification utilizes a functional analysis whereby the tools were
typed according to observed functional wear attributes.
The functional
analysis shows that the sample of 721 bone tools consists of awls,
drills, punches, and multi-functional tools rather than solely awls as
was previously indicated.
vi
INTRODUCTION
The focus of this paper is a reclassification of the 721 bone
"awls" found at the Chumash village site of Point Mugu (Muwu) in Ventura County, California.
The significance of this reclassification is
that it is based on functional attributes rather than morphological
attributes.
Through an analysis of the wear patterns observed on the
tools, assumptions are made as to the specific function of each tool.
In general, most prior analyses of bone tools (Aigner 1966; Gifford
1940; Kidder 1932; Newcomer 1974) have been based on morphological differences.
The previous unpublished classification of the Muwu tools
was based on such a morphological analysis.
A functional analysis of
the Muwu tools will show that there are definite distinctions in wear
patterns found on these tools that help to establish their specific
function.
The functional analysis presented here is based on John D.
Goodings (1980) analysis of the worked bone tools from the Durango South
Project of two Late Basketmaker III sites in Colorado.
Many of the Muwu
bone tools are not awls, but are, in fact, drills, punches or multifunctional tools.
Bone awls have been described as "a single pointed perforating implement without eye or groove for attachment" (Gifford 1940:168); a
sharp pointed bone tool (Kidder 1932:203; Rozaire 1977:xiv); a sharply
pointed bone hand tool
with a natural handle on the top (Cain 1962:28);
a highly polished bone tool shaped to a fine point (Allen 1972:18); a
pointed piercing tool (Semenov 1964:18).
From these morphological
2
descriptions a bone awl can be defined as a sharp uni-pointed hand tool.
A functional definition of a bone awl will be presented in Chapter VIII
of this thesis.
The bone awl was used to punch, puncture, separate and pierce holes
through or between the fibers of a coiled basket in order to pass
stitches through in the manufacture of coiled basketry (Allen 1972:18;
Cain 1962:28; Gifford 1940:168; Kidder 1932:203; Kroeber 1926:5; Rozaire
1977:xiv; Wormington 1961:41).
Bone awls were also used in sewing and
in flaking stone tools (Bright 1978:183; Elsasser 1978a:202; LaPena
1978:334).
Still other bone awl functions were perforating, punching,
poking and stabbing (Hayes and Lancaster 1975:167).
Sample Location
The bone awls are from the Chumash village site of Point Mugu
(Muwu, site number Ventura 11) in Ventura County, California.
The site
is bounded on the north and east by the Santa Monica Mountains and on
the south and west by the Pacific Ocean and a lagoon (Figure 1 ).
The
area is ecologically diverse with sea, lagoon, and mountain resources
readily available.
There were four major excavations undertaken at this site.
The 721
bone tools observed in this study are from the excavation conducted by
A. Woodward and Van Bergen from 1929 through 1932 and the excavation
conducted by Holly Love (a graduate student at UCLA) and Rheta Resnick
(a graduate student at CSUN) from 1976 through 1978.
The bone tools are
housed at the Los Angeles Natural History Museum.
Though approximately 700 bone tools have no stratigraphic provenience, because that information was not recorded during the original
3
excavation, their large quantity still presents a unique problem in that
they are the largest number of bone awls found at a single site.
unfortunate that the time frame for these tools is not clear.
It is
This is
a synchronic rather than a diachronic study since this analysis is concerned with establishing tool types according to wear patterns rather
than by changes through time.
There have not been any diachronic stud-
ies of bone tools in California.
In the reclassification contained in
this thesis the stratigraphic provenience of the tools is not a factor
for classifying the tool types.
A generalized Chumash chronology has
been presented in the Appendix.
Importance of Bone Awls to California Indians
Bone tools have been found in almost every village site in California.
Many of these tools have been classified morphologically as bone
awls.
Bone awls were important to the Indians of Southern California
because they were the primary tools used in the manufacture of coiled
basketry (Elsasser 1978b:634; Gifford 1940:168; Kidder 1932:203; Mason
1901:121; Wallace 1978:465).
Bone awls were important to the Indians
in all of California because of their use in sewing and in the manufacture of coiled basketry.
Since basketry took the place of pottery in California, even those
groups who had pottery, such as the Luiseno and the Cahuilla, utilized
basketry for things like processing acorns (Elasser 1978b:626).
Bas-
kets were used by the California Indians to gather, carry, winnow,
leach, store, mill and cook acorns and grains, as well as for many
other purposes.
4
Methodology
The study presented in this thesis is the reclassification of the
721 bone tools found at the Chumash village site of Muwu.
The method-
ology used in reclassifying the tools is based on the analysis of functional attributes observed on the tools.
Functional attributes can be
defined as those attributes that are created by repeatedly using the
tool for the same function.
A functional analysis of these bone tools
will show that there are certain attributes that help to define specific functions.
When tool function has been established, the activities
of the people who used the tools can be inferred.
be used in interpreting site function.
This information may
The results of reclassification
contained in this thesis show that many of the tools are actually
drills, punches and multi-functional tools.
thesis is to establish tool function.
The main concern of this
Site function and activities
will not be established at this time.
Hypotheses
During the study of the sample of the 721 bone tools three hypotheses were formulated.
They are:
1•
If all the bone tools in this sample are bone awls, then
each tool should show the same type of wear.
2.
If there is a functional difference between mammal bone
and bird bone tools, then there should be a difference
in the frequency of the occurrence of the functional
attributes on mammal and bird bone tools.
3.
If there is a correlation between functional attributes
and the morphology of a bone tool, then all the bone
tools in the sample that display the same functional
attributes should look alike.
These three hypotheses should be kept in mind throughout this
thesis and shall be tested in Chapter VIII after all the data have been
5
presented.
Contents of Chapters
This thesis will focus on the classification of the 721 bone tools
from Muwu.
sented.
In Chapter I an overview of the Chumash culture is pre-
This overview provides a perspective on which to develop an
understanding of the Chumash.
The following chapter deals with the
functions of bone awls for the Chumash and other Native Americans.
Past research, site and sample background, and the bone awl sample are
presented in the next three chapters.
sented in the following chapter.
The analysis results are pre-
The hypotheses and the conclusions
are the contents of the final two chapters.
CHAPTER I
CHUMASH CULTURE
This chapter will examine the Chumash culture and is concerned
with presenting background information in order to understand the
importance of the bone tools being studied. The first section focuses
on the three environmental areas in which the Chumash lived, as well as
the resources that were available to them within each environmental
zone.
The second section examines Chumash social organization, how the
Chumash organized themselves within their environments.
politics are discussed in the third section.
Religion and
The fourth section is
that of economics.
Technology and subsistence are discussed in the
following sections.
The final section of this chapter looks at the
Chumash culture as a whole and discusses what can be determined of this
culture, if anything, by functionally analyzing bone tools.
Environment
The Chumash occupied the area along the coast from Estero Bay in
the north to Malibu in the south; the four Santa Barbara Channel Islands; and the inland valleys adjacent to the mainland coast (C. King
1976; Hudson and Underhay 1978) (Figure 1).
There are great differ-
ences in the environment between the inland valleys, the mainland coast
and the islands (C. King 1976:290).
The inland area is characterized by a mountainous landscape, with
small areas of flat bottom-lands, valley oak and many kinds of grasses.
6
7
The vegetation consists of sage, sagebrush, chapparal, toyon, and live
oak groves.
Some animal resources available in this area are the mule
deer, tule elk, pronghorn antelope, mountain sheep, rabbtts and rodents
(C. King 1976:290).
The environment of the islands is cooler than that of the mainland
coast (C. King 1976:291 ).
The island vegetation consists of grasses,
sagebrush, pine trees and oak trees (Landberg 1965:46).
Some animal
resources available include shellfish, rocky shore fish, and a single
species of fox (C. King 1976:291 ) •
The mainland coast vegetation consists of grasses, sage, sagebrush,
toyon, live oak and chapparal (C. King 1976:291; Leonard 1971:106-107).
Unique to the coast are the salt marshes and small lagoons.
The vege-
tation present in the lagoon areas consists of acquatic plants, rushes,
tules, sedges and commensals.
There is more biotic variability on the
mainland coastal shores than is found on the island shores (Leonard
1971:107).
Table 1 lists the mammal bone from the 1929-1932 and 1976-
1978 excavations from the mainland coast site of Point Mugu.
lists the bird bone from the 1929-1932 excavation.
Table 2
Table 3 lists the
fish remains from the 1929-1932 and 1976-1978 excavations.
These three
tables reflect some of the subsistence resources used by the Chumash.
Table 1 and Table 2 also show the raw materials that were used to make
the bone tools in this sample.
These three tables are located in
Appendix B.
Social Organization
The Chumash had a complex hierarchial socio-political organization.
The elements that are discussed in this section are 1) political and
8
religious provinces, 2) rancherias, 3) the nuclear family and 4) the
class system.
Provinces
Beside the natural geographic boundaries the Chumash had distinct
political and religious boundaries or territories (Hudson and Underhay
1978:27).
As will be seen in this section the village of Muwu was the
capital of both a political and a religious province.
Chumash territory
was made up of a number of provinces; each province consisted of a
defined area including towns and villages.
Each village was under the
political control of a chief (wot) with some of the larger villages
having two or more chiefs (Hudson and Underhay 1978:27; L. King 1969:
41 ).
Each chief and his family were also required to join the polit-
ical and religious cult called 'antap.
ual and ceremonial events.
'Antap members controlled rit-
These chiefs were further organized into
a larger governing council for the entire province, with one chief as
the big chief.
The town of the big chief served as the capital for the
entire province, and it was there that all ceremonial, political, and
economic activities were conducted.
There were probably many Chumash
political provinces, but the only known ones are those of the mainland
coast area and the island area.
It may be important to note that there
was a Point Mugu province, the capital of which was the village of
Muwu.
All of the village capitals were located on major trade routes.
These routes connected island seaports used by Chumash canoes with inland and mainland coast trails (Hudson and Underhay 1978:28-29).
A number of political provinces were sometimes included within a
larger religious province.
the village of Muwu.
One such religious province was centered at
These religious territories had their own leaders
9
and rituals (Hudson and Underhay 1978:28).
Every five years all the
chiefs gathered at Muwu to settle civil, legal or other matters, as
well as to coordinate ritual, political and economic matters (C. King
1976:302).
Rancherias
Chumash villages were grouped into rancherias (L. King 1969:41;
Landberg 1965:28).
A rancheria consisted of a main settlement with one
or more outlying seasonally occupied camps (Landberg 1965:28).
Several
individual villages would form what was called a rancberia, with one
village being the central or principal village.
The central village
was usually the political, ritual, and economic center for the rancheria, with council meetings and legal debates being held there.
Food,
goods and treasures were stored at the central village (Bean 1976:102).
Nuclear Family
The nuclear family was the smallest unit within the village, and
it was grouped into non-localized clans, with lineages normally being
patrilocal.
Each family had their own house, with an average of six
people living in it (L. King 1969:41).
pseudo-moiety
The Chumash seemed to have a
structure that functioned in social and ritual activ-
ities but did not control economic exchange.
Pseudo-moieties were not
based strictly on descent, though they sometimes did regulate the area
of a village in which a person lived and his place in the ceremonial
house (Bean 1976:106).
Class System
The Chumash had a four class system with the elite, the craft specialists, the commoners, and the lower class.
Class distinctions were
expressed in behavior, and there were native terms for different
10
statuses.
The elite tended to inherit rank and resources, controlled
distribution systems by controlling political and ritual privileges as
well as through control of resources and surpluses.
The craft special-
ists stood as a class between the elite and the commoners.
protected by their membership in their craft guild.
the ruled class, the ordinary people.
They were
The commoners were
They supported the elite class.
The lower class was characterized by the drifters and people who were
associated with irresponsibility and theft.
These class distinctions
were not closed systems; a higher rank could be obtained by manipulating economic affairs and acquiring more money (Bean 1976:109).
Gwen
Romani (1982:40) feels that differentially ranked social statuses were
based on ascription.
At this time it is not known whether the Chumash
actually had classes or if they were a ranked society.
Bean (1976) uses
the terms class and rank interchangably as can be seen in the above discussion.
Religion and Politics
The reason that religion and politics have been combined is that
they seem to have been one and the same for the Chumash.
It is almost
impossible to tell where one stops and the other begins.
Religion and
politics have inter-acting roles (Gayton 1976:175).
Rituals and cere-
monies, both religious and political, were controlled by 'antap (Hudson
and Underhay 1978:28).
Entry into religious societies, i.e. 'antap,
was essential for those with political status (Bean and Vane 1978:662;
Hudson and Underhay 1978:29).
The following elements--rituals, 'antap,
and shaman--will be observed in order to make the relationship between
religion and politics clear.
11
Rituals
Rituals provided a method of social, political, religious and
economic interaction between groups of different areas and enabled
trade agreements, marriage alliances and other inter-group institutions to be initiated and maintained so that goods, services and wealth
could be distributed among groups (Blackburn 1976).
Ritual events were
associated with the production and distribution needs of the group and
their neighbors (Bean and Vane 1978:662).
Every five years all the
chiefs gathered at Muwu to settle civil and legal matters and to coordinate ritual, political and economic matters (C. King 1976:302).
'Antap
Members of 'antap were the only ones who knew the secrets of
acquiring supernatural power.
'Antap was composed of an elite group of
political and religious leaders who controlled ritual, ceremonial and
economic events (Hudson and Underhay 1978:29).
'Antap controlled the
craft guilds by determining who could become a member of certain guilds
(Blackburn 1976:236).
Members of 'antap also maintained the right to
possess certain properties
Vane 1978:662).
~1d
to use them as they wished (Bean and
All village chiefs and their families and all shamans
were required to become members of 'antap.
Each village had its own
'antap members, and these people were also members of 'antap at the
provincial level.
The 'antap members conducted province-related rit-
uals and ceremonies and were also advisors to the big chief (Hudson and
Underhay 1978:29).
Blackburn (1974:105 in G. Romani 1982:102) suggests
that 'antap may have been a supra-organizational structure for integrating economics, politics and religion.
And J. Romani (1981:23)
feels that the religious-oriented 'antap may have been involved in
12
economic activities.
Shaman
Shamans
chiefs.
wer~
members of 'antap.
Shamans could also be village
Some duties of shamans included various methods of curing and
divination; performing religious rites; and overseeing religious and
political interaction among provinces, rancherias, villages and individuals (Hudson and Underhay 1978:30).
Bean 1976:112) feels that
shamans
were an integral part of the political and economic systems. Gayton
(1976:175) feels that shamans were political figures of great power.
Thus it can be seen that 'antap integrated not only politics and
religion for the Chumash, but economics as well.
The following section
will examine the other aspects of the Chumash economy.
Economics
In this section there are four main topics covered:
ination of goods, craft guilds, and exchange.
money, elim-
From this information it
will be seen that the Chumash were not the simple hunting and gathering
group they were once thought to be.
Recent research indicates that the
Chumash
maintained a market economy with standardized, portable mediums of exchange, frequently used to purchase
subsistence materials, most manufactured goods and
some services (C. King 1976:289).
Money
Money, in the form of shell beads, was used to buy goods and as a
form of payment for services.
perform weddings.
The ceremonial chief, paha, was paid to
'Antap dancers were on a salary.
Shamans were paid,
though only if their cures were successful (L. King 1969:41).
had to be paid to the chief for offences committed.
Fines
Most of the people
13
attending fiestas hunted, fished, or paid their own way.
Collections
were made at some fiestas; food and valuables were used as offerings for
increases in sun and crops.
During the ceremony for the winter solstice
the paha and twelve dancers (these dancers were a part of 'antap) performed; then the paha would receive offerings of baskets, chia, islay,
corn, beads, and money for their performance from all those in attendance at the ceremony (C. King 1976:300).
Elimination of Goods
The Chumash produced an amount of goods beyond what subsistence
would require.
In order for them to maintain their economic system,
this surplus of goods had to be eliminated along with their normally
•I
consumed items.
One method of elimination was to bury the items with
their owners at the time of the owner's death.
Some of the items that
were buried were beads, baskets, tools, including bone awls, and shell
money.
troyed).
These same items were often ritually killed (broken or desIn addition to this, the Chumash left manufactured items at
religious shrines (Hudson and Underhay 1978:23).
Another method of re-
moving goods from circulation was to trade them to other groups (C.
King 1976:303).
Craft Guilds
Another part of the economic system was the craft guild.
Craft
specialization caused some levels of status differentiation and provided economic advantages for many people (Bean 1976:115).
There were
part-time and full-time specialists in trading, basketmaking, clam-shell
disk manufacture and plank canoe manufacture, as well as many other industries (Bean 1976:115; G. Romani 1982:85).
The method of entrance
into a guild was not the usual training or inheritance; but rather when
14
a guild member died the right to engage in the craft reverted to the
guild and then was resold to a new member.
Though in other aspects of
society, the nobility tended to inherit resources and controlled distribution through the control of these resources and surpluses (Bean
1976:115).
There are two guilds of which there is ethnohistorical background,
the plank canoe or tomol guild and the sinew-backed bow guild.
Feel-
ings of comraderie existed among guild members, and these feelings were
strengthened by the secret skills and knowledge that were needed to
manufacture the goods and services that the guild produced.
Only guild
members knew how to construct the tomol and the sinew-backed bow.
of them required special tools in their manufacture.
Each
The tools were
the property of the guild and were loaned out to individual members (G.
Romani 1982:102).
Exchange
The most important part of the economic system may have been exchange; in fact, Chumash economy can be characterized as an exchange
economy rather than a subsistence economy.
The reason it can be char-
acterized in this manner is due to the three distinct geographical
areas (inland, island, and mainland coast) within the Chumash environment.
These areas and their resources were discussed in the section on
environment in this chapter.
Each area contains subsistence and util-
itarian resources which are unique to that particular area.
Instead of
individually procuring resources from all three areas, they would obtain
resources from their own area and then exchange resources, goods and
services with people from the other two areas, as well as with other
tribes (C. King 1976).
15
Technology
The Chumash were hunters and gatherers as well as fishermen (Bean
1976; Blackburn 1976; C. King 1976; Kroeber 1925; Landberg 1965).
They
utilized bone, shell, stone and wood for tools and ornaments.
There was a sexual division of labor, with men doing the fishing
and hunting while the women did the gathering; both sexes were involved
in harvesting acorns (Landberg 1965:28).
Although there is not much direct evidence for the Chumash, there
are ethnographic data for California Indians in general regarding the
sexual division of labor.
There was a great similarity all over Cali-
fornia in sexual divisions of labor.
Women, on the whole, made the bas-
kets, and they also usually made the clothing.
all, objects of wood, bone, stone and shell.
Men made most, if not
Male-oriented activities
were hunting and lithic technology, and female-oriented activities were
cooking, food preparation, ground stone tool manufacture, baskets, and
comals (E. Wallace 1978:683).
There was craft specialization in trading, basketmaking, plank
canoe manufacture, and sinew-backed bow manufacture.
In fact, in the
Chumash area, specialists were considered a social class below the
nobility and a class above the commoners (Bean 1976:116).
Subsistence
The Chumash diet consisted of fish, shellfish, sea mammals, land
mammals, birds, roots, nuts and seeds.
The implements used to obtain
these resources will be discussed in the next five sections.
Fishing
There were three major types of fish hooks involved in fishing.
16
They were the bone gorge fish hook, which was a small bi-pointed piece
of bone tied to a line; the composite fish hook, which was made of two
pieces of bone tied at one end to form a small angled hook; and the
curved single-piece hook, which was made of mussel or abalone shell
(Landberg 1965:39).
Large baskets filled with bait of ground-up cactus leaves were
used to catch sardines.
Tridents of bone and shell or flint harpoons
were used to hunt sea mammals (Landberg 1965:39).
Plank canoes of
,sinew-sewn planks made out of driftwood or pine with asphaltum caulking
were used for deep-sea fishing (Grant 1978:515; Landberg 1965:38).
Bone wedges were used to gather shellfish, and abalone pries were used
to pry abalone from rocks (Landberg 1965:40).
Hunting
The implements used in hunting birds and land mammals were a variety of stone and bone projectile points, stone knives, stone blades,
and later the bow and arrow (Grant 1978:515; Landberg 1965:37).
Gathering
The tools used for gathering were digging sticks for digging up
roots; tongs for picking cactus tunas or fruits; baskets and seed
beaters for removing seeds from grasses (Grant 1978:516; Landberg 1965:
40}.
Food Preparation and Storage
The tools used for food preparation and storage were chipped stone
knives, stone scraper planes and stone choppers, ground stone mortars
and pestles to grind seeds, steatite bowls and steatite ollas and ellashaped baskets, flat circular basket trays for winnowing and parching
seeds, basketry water bottles that were water-proofed by coating the
17
inside of the basket with asphaltum, and burden baskets (Landberg 1965:
40).
Fish, meat, yucca, and acorns were dried in earth ovens.
Nuts,
seeds, dried meat, dried fish, and shellfish were stored in large baskets or in structures next to dwellings (Landberg 1965:40).
Baskets
Baskets were used for fishing, gathering, food preparation, transporting items, storage, rituals, and there were also basketry hats
(Elsasser 1978b:626).
Baskets were used for practically everything.
Baskets will be discussed further in Chapter II.
The tool used in the manufacture of coiled basketry was the bone
awl (Boas, et al 1928:154; Elsasser 1978b:626; Gifford 1940:168; Kidder
1932:203; Kroeber 1926:5; Mason 1901:121; W. Wallace 1978:465).
Summary
In this chapter Chumash culture has been examined.
An overview of
the Chumash environment, social organization, religion and politics,
economics and technology has been presented.
The section on the Chumash environment discusses the three zones
in which the Chumash lived and the resources available within each zone.
The correlation between the bone tool materials and the resources found
in these three zones is apparent.
The village of Muwu is a mainland
coast site, located proximal to a lagoon.
There were land and sea mam-
mals as well as birds readily available to the people of Muwu.
It was
these animals that provided the bones for the tools which this study
examines.
diet.
These bones can also provide some evidence about the Chumash
18
The second section concerns the Chumash social organization.
They
organized themselves into political and religious provinces, as well as
rancherias.
The nuclear family was the smallest unit within the vil-
lage, and there was a class or ranking system.
From the information in
this section it can be seen that the Chumash had a complex sociopolitical organization.
The following section examines the inter-relationship of religion
and politics.
The secret society known as 'antap served as the inte-
grating factor not only in religion and politics, but in economics as
well.
Religious, political and economic rituals and ceremontes.were
controlled by 'antap.
Rituals provided a method of social, political,
religious and economic interaction enabling goods, services and wealth
to be distributed.
Shamans were members of 'antap, and they could also
be village chiefs.
They were an integral part of the religious, polit-
ical and economic systems.
In the section on economics four topics were covered.
These
topics were moeny, elimination of goods, craft guilds and exchange.
The final section is on Chumash technology.
A brief overview of
the implements used to obtain subsistence resources is presented.
Each of these elements--environment, social organization, religion and politics, economics and technology--are inter-related and
interact to form the total Chumash cultural system.
A bone tool analy-
sis can lend some insight into that system by allowing the function of
the tools to be established.
Once tool function has been established,
the activities of the people using the tools can also be determined.
A
bone tool analysis can provide insight into the Chumash culture by supplying information regarding what tools were used for and how they were
19
being used.
From this data the tool functions occurring and the ob-
jects being manufactured can be determined.
However, the bone tool
analysis in this study is concerned with identifying tool function only
and not with determining the activities of the people who used these
tools.
CHAPTER II
FUNCTIONS OF AWLS FOR THE CHUMASH
AND OTHER NATIVE AMERICANS
\
This chapter contains definitions and descriptions of bone awls.
There are ethnographic data regarding bone awl functions as well as the
functions of bone "awls" other than in basketmaking.
The definitions
and functions of bone tools other than as bone awls are discussed also.
Since there is a lack of information on Chumash bone awls, basketry and
bone tool functions, data regarding other Native Americans will be discussed.
Bone Awl Definitions and Descriptions
The following are nine morphological definitions and descriptions
of bone awls.
Of these, there are eight that have one thing in common,
and that is that in each definition the words "pointed tool" are used
to define the term "awl".
manner.
The ninth does not define bone awl in that
A functional definition is also included to show how it con-
tasts to the morphological definitions.
A bone awl is defined as a "single pointed perforating implement
without eye or groove for attachment (Gifford 1940:168);" a sharp,
pointed tool (Kidder 1932:203; Rozaire 1977:xiv); a sharp pointed bone
hand tool with a natural handle on the top (Cain 1962:28; Roberts 1929:
27); a highly polished bone tool shaped to a fine point, the handle was
often made to fit in the palm of the hand making it easier to hold
20
21
(Allen 1972:18); a pointed piercing tool (Semenov 1964:18); a bone
tool fashioned from the front leg bones of a deer and then sharpened
to a very fine point (Boas, et al 1928:154); a bone implement with a
fine point, usually made from bird or mammal long bones (Martin and
Rinaldo 1939:77); a pointed cannon bone of a mule deer, usually split,
with the condyle unmodified and the other end sharpened to a point
(Hayes and Lancaster 1975:167); a slender tapering bone which usually
retains the articulation on one end (Meighan and Eberhart 1953:121).
In contrast, Gooding's (1980:116) functional description of a bone awl
is a bone tool with polish on the tip as the most common attribute;
there are also diagonal and longitudinal striations on the tip and
shaft; the presence or absence of the head is not a critical factor in
distinguishing this tool from others.
It shall be interesting to see
if the bone awls from Point Mugu can be defined in the same terms as
Gooding's awls after they have been functionally analyzed.
Bone Awl Functions
This section contains information on how the bone awl was used in
making coiled basketry.
The first account is of the Chumash basket-
making process; the other accounts are descriptions of how other Native
Americans used the bone awl in basketmaking.
It has been stated that the main function of the bone is in the
manufacture of coiled basketry (Elsasser 1978b:634; Gifford 1940:168;
Kidder 1932:203; Kroeber 1925:822; Mason 1901:121; W. Wallace 1978:
465).
In fact Wallace (1978:465) feels that the presence of bone awls
is an indication of coiled basketry.
However, this is questionable
since there are awls found in Northwestern California and there is not
22
coiled basketry found there.
Kroeber (1925:822) feels that the same
type of bone awl was used in sewing, slitting lamprey eels and coiled
basketry.
As will be seen in Chapter VIII these functions can be
tested in the future using the functional method of analysis.
If the main function of the bone awl is in the manufacture of
coiled basketry, then it is necessary to know how they were used.
The
following is an ethnographic description of their use.
In coiled basketry, a process of sewing rather than
weaving; the foundation elements are wrapped or
lashed together, and this can be done only with the
aid of an awl or needle. There is no set of parallel
warps to serve as a basis, but the foundation strands
or rods coil in a continuous spiral (Kroeber 1926:5).
When making a coiled basket, the basketmaker first pushes the awl
through the middle coil between the stitches; next the awl is pulled
back through the middle coil between the stitches while a strand of
junco is inserted into the hole made by the awl.
The awl is always
passed between the junco stitches; never through them (Craig 1966:211).
Kroeber (1925:550) states that the awl was as likely to pass through
the junco as it was to pass between the junco.
The articular end (head)
of the awl was pressed against the coils to keep them flat and straight
(Craig 1966:211).
Porno Indian basketmakers use the awl to thrust a hole or opening
from the outer surface toward the inner surface of the basket; the sewing fiber is then passed through this opening (Barrett 1908:160).
In
another account of Porno basketmaking, Allen (1972:18) states that the
bone awl is used to separate the spaces between each coiled sedge or
willow root.
In British Columbia the Indians used bone awls to perforate coils
23
when sewing baskets.
First a coil foundation for the basket is con-
structed, then the foundation is perforated by the bone awl, next the
sewing fiber is passed through the hole, a second hole is made by the
awl and the sewing fiber is then passed through the second hole covering the coil material and then drawn as tightly as possible, sometimes
aided into place by a sharp tapping of the awl (Boas et al 1928:160).
In one account of Pima
ba~ketry
(Cain 1962:28) it is stated that
the bone awl was used to puncture a hole between stitches and then the
sewing element would be threaded through the hole.
He says that the
awl was used as a punch in sewing basketry elements together.
The only tools used by White Mountain Apaches in coiled basketmaking are a butcher knife and a bone awl.
The awl is used to punch
boles in the coils, and then the filament is pushed through as in
threading a needle (Dodge 1900:194).
In his book Wormington (1961:41) describes the method of manufacturing
coiled basketry in the southwest.
of baskets were made by the coiled method.
He states that the majority
In the coiled method, the
basket is built up from the base by a spiral.
the one below with a thin splint.
Each coil is sewed to
The coil itself consists of two rods,
usually willow and a bundle of fibrous material.
In sewing the coils
together a bone awl is used to pass the splint through the fiber bundle.
Basically what can be seen from all these accounts is that the
bone awl was used to create a space between the coils so that the fiber
could be pushed through it to enable the coiling to continue.
24
Functions of Bone "Awls" Other
Than in Basketmaking
This section identifies the functions of bone "awls" other than in
basketmaking.
Bone tool functions that have been mistaken as awl func-
tions are also discussed.
On the whole, bone awls were used to make coiled basketry, although
there have been accounts of bone "awls" being used in other types of
functions.
One of these functions was to perforate or punch holes in
hides {Kidder 1923:203; Kroeber 1926:5; Martin and Rinaldo 1941:175).
Another was to split roots in order to prepare fibers before a basket
can be made {Boas, et al 1928:154).
California Indian groups generally
used "awls" in sewing hides (Bright 1978:183; LaPena 1978:334; Elsasser
1978: 202).
Bone tool functions that have often been mistaken as awl functions
are punches, daggers, drills and reamers.
The reason they may have
been mistaken for awls may be because of the similarity in their morphology.
Punches have been previously classified as punches because of their
blunt point and short tip (Hayes and Lancaster 1975:168).
Frank Roberts
(1929:129) states that a punch is defined as differing from an awl only
by the degree of sharpness of the point.
such
A dagger was classified as
because the point is flattened and bladelike, rather than round
in cross section as an awl is (Hayes and Lancaster 1975:168).
Gooding
(1980:116) defines punch, dagger, drill and reamer in a slightly different manner.
Punches were used to perforate holes in soft material
using a direct thrust motion; daggers were used as a weapon for stabbing, they also used a direct thrust motion but with a harder thrust;
25
drills were used to bore a hole, and they used a piercing revolving motion; reamers were used to enlarge or shape holes and they used a rotating motion.
Gooding's definitions are functional as opposed to the
morphological definitions given by Hayes and Lancaster and Roberts.
Summary
This chapter has examined nine morphological and one functional
description of bone awls.
The major difference between the morphol-
ogical and the functional descriptions is that any pointed bone tool
could be described (morphologically) as a bone awl, while the functional
description uses the wear attributes on the tool to distinguish it as
an awl.
The next section deals with how the bone awl functioned in the
manufacture of coiled basketry.
From all the accounts given, it can be
seen that the awl was used to create a space between coils to allow the
fibers for the next coil to pass through.
This was done by using the
awl in a pushing/pulling manner.
The final section deals with bone awl functions other than in basketmaking.
It is suggested that because of a similarity in appearance
certain tools tend to be classified as awls, although if the wear is
examined on these tools it may be seen that they were not being used
for the same function.
Mugu.
This is the case with the bone tools from Point
They were grouped together as bone awls because of the similar-
ity in their appearance; although after being functionally analyzed it
was found that the tools were not only awls, but drills, punches and
multi-functional tools.
CHAPTER III
PAST RESEARCH
This chapter contains information on 1) morphological and 2) functional bone tool analyses that have been done prior to this study.
As
will be seen, there is a lack of information on bone tool analyses in
general.
In looking at both morphological and functional analyses it
can be seen that even though tools look alike they may have been used
for different functions.
Morphological Analyses
This type of analysis is based on similarities in the morphology of
the bone tools.
All of the tools that are similar in appearance are
grouped together as one tool type.
In all of the following analyses
the tools have been classified according to similarities or differences
in their overall appearance.
The last two accounts mention wear pat-
terns and traces of wear but do not define these terms or why they were
used to designate bone tool categories.
E. W. Gifford (1940) classified bone tools according to their morphology or appearance.
Any bone tool that was pointed and did not have
an eye was classified under the awl category.
The degree and the shape
of the point were also used as a method of classifying the awls.
A
general description of the tool is given as well as some line drawings
of tools, and that is the extent of the classification.
Wendell S. Hadlock (1943:346-347) describes tools that may have
26
27
been bone awls as being so frail that they were used to make holes in
lightweight materials.
The awls were abundant in all levels, and were
made from the leg bones of moose, deer and birds.
No method of classi-
fication is discussed.
Clement Meighan and Hal Eberhart (1953:121) state that the bone
awl is the most common bone tool found on the island.
Bone awls are
described as being predominantly made from bird long bones, ribs, or
penis bones of marine mammals, and an occasional fish bone.
The norm
is a slender tapering bone which retains the articulation on one end.
The length ranges from five centimeters to thirty centimeters.
information on the method of classification is given.
No other
The number of
bone awls found is not given either.
Clement Meighan (1959:399) states that 15 bird bone awls were
found at this site.
Bird bone awls have a long history in southern
California, and once they were introduced they persisted here until the
historic period.
They are concentrated on the islands where mammal
bone is not readily found.
Bird bone awls are rare to absent outside
the southern portion of California.
There was no information given as
to the method of classifying the bone tools as awls.
Frank Roberts, Jr. (1929:127) discusses methods in which bone awls
were made.
Many times all that was done to make an awl from a piece of
broken bone was to sharpen one end.
The articular end was left unmod-
ified to make a handle for the tool.
Splinters and split bones left
over from eating were merely given a sharp point to become usable;
while at other times the entire bone was smoothed and polished.
The
majority of the awls belonging to the sharpened splinter group are
fragments of long bones.
Some of these show a partial polish which is
28
the result of use.
The long bones of deer, antelope and smaller mammals were favored
for making awls.
The longer bones were first split, then one end was
sharpened to a point while the other was left unmodified for use as
a handle and then the entire implement was polished.
The point was con-
stantly resharpened and in time the implement would wear down to leave
only the articular end (Roberts 1929:127).
Spatulate awls are another type of awl found at Shabik'eshchee.
They have a characteristically sharp pointed end but the articular end
has been squared or rounded and smoothed down, making the edge very
thin.
An additional feature for this awl type is the beveling on the
articular end (Roberts 1929:129).
Alden C. Hayes and James A. Lancaster describe bone a\vls as
"pointed tools used for perforating, punching, poking or stabbing"
(Hayes and Lancaster 1975:167).
Three quarters of all the worked bone
found at Badger House were bone awls.
The majority of the awls were
cannon bone of mule deer, unmodified split condyle, with the other end
sharpened to a point.
On some, the articular surface was slightly
ground; on others, the articular surface was flattened by grinding
and polishing.
There was one bird bone awl in the collectiion and
194 mammal bone awls.
Otis T. Mason (1901:122) has a line drawing of an antelope metatarsal which is sharpened to a point in the middle portion of the bone,
with the joint or articular end serving as a handle.
He says that in
every cultural area in North America, wherever graves have been opened,
bone awls are found.
There is no other information on bone awls other
than that previously mentioned.
29
In their study of the SU site Paul Martin and John B. Rinaldo
(1939:77) define awls as a bone implement with a fine point usually
made from bird or mammal long bones.
In their later study of the SU site Paul Martin and John B.
Rinaldo (1941) state in their section on functions of artifacts that
"the only sign of use on awls is the high polish of their tips, suggestive of their use in punching holes in leather fabrics" (Martin and
Rinaldo 1941:175).
No method of classifying bone awls is discussed.
The next two morphological analyses differ from the previous ones
in that they mention wear as a basis for tool clalssification.
Neither
account describes or defines the wear attributes used for classification.
Jean Aigner (1966) classifies bone tools according to their morphology.
There were 233 bone awls and needles found at the Chaluka,
Umnak Island, site.
There were cut bird bone awls, which are defined
as awls made from splintered bird bone that was rapidly fashioned and
smoothed.
Sharp needle-like awls were also found.
The author states:
It is apparent from the morphology of the tools that
some were used for piercing, some for sewing and others
for chiseling and prying. Seven long (20 centimeters)
awls were possibly used in sewing hides and skins.
Designations are made on the basis of morphology and
wear marks (Aigner 1966:62).
The wear marks mentioned by the author in the above quotation are
cutting, incising, smoothing and polishing.
These wear marks are not
defined, and there is no reason given for their being used to designate
bone tool categories.
M. H. Newcomer (1974) discusses the 131 upper paleolithic bone
tools found at the site of Ksar Akil in Beruit, Lebanon.
Of the 131
30
tools found, 39 were bone awls, 79 were bone points and 13 were small
fragments of either awls or points.
The author defines bone awls as a
bone fragment with a sharp pointed tip, with the other edges qnd surfaces being unworked (Newcomer 1974:141).
The bone awls were classified into two types:
the first was the
awl with a delicate, slender tip whose sides are straight or concave;
the second type are awls with a shorter stouter tip whose sides are
often convex.
The awls are also divided into symmetrical and asym-
metrical categories.
In his replication experiments section Newcomer
describes traces of manufacture found on bone tools, but he does not
describe traces of wear.
Functional Analysis
This type of analysis is based on the differences and similarities
in the functional attributes found on the bone tools.
Tools with the
same functional attributes are grouped into the same tool type.
Func-
tional attributes are attributes that appear on the tool as a result of
it being used in a certain manner.
The two functional analyses that
are discussed in this section focus on the functional attributes known
as striations and polish.
sion of each analysis.
These terms will be defined in the discus-
There are only two functional analyses pre-
sented in this section because there have been so few analyses of this
type in the past.
John D. Gooding (1980:113), in his article entitled "Modification
Attributes of Bone Tools from Durango South," classified 51 bone tools
according to the functional wear attributes observed on the tool surfaces through a microscopic inspection of the tools.
Gooding defines
31
functional wear as wear that is created on the tool as a result of that
tool being used repeatedly in a particular manner.
He observed a num-
ber of distinct functional attributes which he then
11~ed
to classify
the bone tools with according to the presence or absence of the attributes of each tool.
The functional attributes that Gooding observed were polish and
striations.
He defines polish as a luster or sheen on the bone surface
resulting from prolonged contact with a soft surface; and striations as
microscopic scratches on the tool surface resulting from abrasive contact with the surface on which the tool was used.
The striations he
observed were diagonal, cross-hatch, transverse, longitudinal, rotation, and counter-rotation.
These are the same striatiDns that were
observed on the bone tools from the Muwu sample.
Stephen A. Chomko (1975:28), in his article entitled "Bone 'Awls'
and Utilized Antler Tines from Arnold Research Cave, 23CY64, Missouri,"
discusses how he examined 32 bone awls and antler tines under a ten to
forty power binocular microscope in order to observe the wear patterns
on the tool surfaces.
The findings were then recorded on outline draw-
ings of the artifacts.
Before observing the wear patterns the bone awls were first typed
morphologically using similar morphological attributes
were used by Kidder (1932:203-222).
to those that
These attributes are:
the element
used for the tool (i.e., the ulna, the long bone, etc.); the presence
of the epiphysis; a longitudinally split bone; mammal or bird bone; and
in addition to a sharpened point, the rest of the tool was heavily
modified.
He then observed the members of each type with the micro-
scope to see whether or not the members of a single type had the same
32
wear patterns.
This was not the case. Chomko found that the members of
the same morphological type can exhibit different wear patterns indicating divergent functions.
And members of different morphological types
can exhibit the same types of wear patterns indicating the same functions.
He found that there may be a relationship between the attributes
of tool thickness and the length of the shaft, and the occurrence of
certain wear patterns.
He also feels that some tools may have been
used in an atypical awl manner.
The functional attributes that Chomko used as a basis for analysis were polish and striations.
He distinguishes between high polish,
which he defines as a distinct luster, and dull polish, which he defines
as an area which has no luster but has been smoothed.
striations as scratches on the tool surface.
He defines
The length, depth, and
orientation of the striations on the shaft and the condition of the tip
were the basis for Chomko's classification.
Summary
In looking at both the morphological and functional analyses, it
can be seen that even though tools look alike they may have been used
for different functions.
Many of the morphological analyses indicate
that bone awls were multi-functional.
know that this is not true.
tion.
From the functional analyses we
Bone awls have their own distinct func-
Thus it would seem that in order to classify bone tools cor-
rectly, the differences and similarities in functional attributes
rather than in the morphological aspects of the bone tools should be
observed when classifying the tools.
In the analysis that was con-
ducted by Chomko the morphologically similar bone tools do not always
33
exhibit the same type of functional wear attributes; and members of
different morphological types can exhibit the same types of functional
wear attributes.
CHAPTER IV
SITE AND SAMPLE BACKGROUND
This chapter contains information regarding the Chumash village
site of Point Mugu (Muwu), the location of the site, and the importance of the site.
The number of bone tools found at this site is
discussed as well as the previous excavations.
Site Location
The bone tools are from the Chumash village site of Muwu, site
number Ven-11 in Ventura County, California.
The site is located
slightly north of what is presently known as Point Mugu and lies approximately ten miles south of the town of Oxnard.
The site is bounded
on the north and east by the foothills of the Santa Monica Mountains
and on the south and west by the Pacific Ocean and a lagoon (Figure 1).
The foothills surrounding Muwu are covered with chapparal.
is a dry creekbed in the northwest area of the site.
There
Calleguas Creek
is the closest viable water source and it lies one mile northwest of
Muwu.
Environment
The village site of Muwu falls into the mainland coastal category (as categorized by Chester King 1976:290 of the three environmental categroies for the Chumash area previously discussed in Chapter
I).
Mainland coast vegetation consists of grasses, sage, sagebrush,
34
35
toyon, live oak and chapparal (C. King 1976:291; Leonard 1971:106-107).
Unique to the coastal area are the salt marshes and small lagoons.
The
vegetation present in the lagoon areas are acquatic plants, rushes,
tules, sedges and commensals (Leonard 1971:107).
The mainland coast
people utilized seeds, bulbs, roots, tubers, fruits, nuts, acorns and
seaweed.
The animal resources available were mule deer, pronghorn an-
telope, rabbits, gophers, squirrels, rats, river fish, rock and sandy
shore fish, and sea mammals, including sea lion, fur seal and harbor
seal.
There were eight species of whale as well as the dolphin, por-
poise and many species of shellfish.
Some examples of the shellfish
are abalone, mussel, clam, oyster and scallop.
Summer and early fall
fishing in the kelp beds and of tuna were stored with acorns as a winter staple (Landberg 1965:49-72).
The birds available were the eagle,
hawk, dove, quail, duck, cormorant, pelican, heron, gulls, geese,
cranes, and mudhen (Harrington 1942 in Landberg 1965:76).
The most
favorable location for birds would have been the littoral area since
the tidal zones of the coast and lagoons offer birds a constant source
of food (Landberg 1965:77).
Tables 1, 2 and 3 in Appendix B list some
of the actual subsistence resources used by the Chumash.
Importance of Muwu
Muwu was important to the Chumash because it was a center for
political, religious and economic activities.
both a religious and a political province.
It was the capital of
Muwu was also known as a
cult center.
The Chumash had distinct political and religious boundaries or
territories.
Within these territories were a number of provinces; each
36
province consisted of a defined area including towns and villages (Hudson and Underhay 1978:27; L. King 1969:41).
lages and
town~
The chiefs of all the vil-
were organized into a single governing body for the
entire province, with one chief serving as the big chief.
The village
or town that the big chief came from served as the capital for the
entire province, and it was at the capital that all ceremonial, political and economic activities were held.
'
There was a Muwu province, the
capital of which was the village of Muwu (Hudson and Underhay 1978:27).
A number of political provinces were sometimes included within a
larger religious province; one such religious province was centered at
the village of Muwu.
These religious territories had their own leaders
and rituals (Hudson and Underhay 1978:28).
Every five years all of the
chiefs got together at Muwu to settle civil, legal or other matters, as
well as to coordinate ritual, political and economic matters (C. King
1976:302).
Muwu has been described as a cult center.
A cult center is a
central village where rituals or trade feasts are held for the peoples
of the surrounding area (an area within a 50-75 mile radius).
Several
hundred to as many as several thousand people have been recorded in attendance at the cult centers during certain ceremonies (Bean 1976:104).
Previous Excavations
There were four excavations undertaken at this site.
was conducted by John Harrington in the mid 1920's.
conducted by D. B. Rogers in 1927.
The first
The second was
The third and most extensive ex-
cavation was conducted by A. Woodward and C. Van Bergen from 1929
through 1932.
This was a salvage excavation conducted during the
37
construction of the Pacific Coast Highway, as a portion of the highway
was found to pass through a part of the village burial grounds.
The
fourth and most recent excavation was conducted by Holly Love (a graduate student at UCLA) and Rheta Resnick (a graduate student from CSUN)
from 1976 through 1978.
It is quite significant that approximately 721 bone tools, which
had previously been grouped as bone awls, were found at Muwu.
There are
more bone tools in this collection but they have been classified morphologically in other bone tool categories.
The majority of the bone
tools found are from the excavation conducted by Woodward and Van Bergen
from 1929 through 1932, and these have no stratigraphic provenience.
During the most recent excavation conducted by Love and Resnick (1976 to
1978) a small sample of, the bone tools were collected.
provenience for these tools.
There is no site
The tools from both excavations are housed
at the Los Angeles Natural History Museum.
Summary
From the information presented in this chapter it can be seen
that the Chumash village of Muwu is located in an area that is biologically diverse with sea, lagoon, and mountain resources readily available.
Muwu was important to the Chumash because it was a political,
religious and economic center.
There have been four excavations conducted at this site.
The
bone tools that are analyzed in this study are from only two of them,
the Woodward/Van Bergen (1929 to 1932) and the Love/Resnick (1976 to
1978) excavations.,
CHAPTER V
BONE AWL SAMPLE
This chapter is concerned with identifying and describing the
sample of tools.
Functional wear is defined, as are the parts of the
bone tools inspected for the reclassification; and definitions and
descriptions are given for the functional attributes that were observed
on the bone tools.
A list of variables is presented, the importance of
the variables, and the significance of the variables is then discussed.
Functional Wear
This study is limited to the reclassification of the 721 bone
tools that had been previously grouped together as bone awls.
This
grouping was done by someone from the 1929 to 1932 Woodward/Van Bergen
excavation.
The reclassification is based solely on the functional at-
tributes observed through a ten power hand lens.
Functional wear (at-
tributes) is wear that is created on a tool as a result of the tool
being repeatedly used in a particular manner.
Distinct types of wear
attributes can be identified and are then used to determine the specific
function of each tool (Chomko 1975; Gooding 1980).
The study undertaken
herein is modeled after the study done by John D. Gooding (1980) of
worked bone tools from two Late Basketmaker sites in the Durango District of Colorado.
38
39
Parts of the Bone Tools
The bone tools in this study were inspected with a ten-power hand
lens.
Each tool was throughly inspected, with special attention given
to the tip, shaft and head.
The tip is the pointed end of the tool and
is usually the area that shows the most modification (Plate 1).
The
shaft includes the original interior surface of the bone, the exposed
edges of the bone's midsection, and the original exterior surface of
the bone (Plate 1).
The head is either the proximal or distal articular
end of the bone and the end that is not pointed (Gooding 1980) (Plate
1)•
Functional Attributes
The functional attributes that were observed on the bone tools
from the Muwu collection were striations.
Gooding (1980:113) and Chomko
(1975:23-29) define striations as microscopic scratches on the tool surface resulting from abrasive contact with the surface on which the tool
was used.
There are six types of striations that were observed on the
bone tools from Muwu.
They are:
diagonal,
transverse, rotation, and counter-rotation.
six striation types are given in Table 4.
cross~hatch,
longitudinal,
The definitions for these
The definitions for striation
types given in Table 4 are based on those used by Gooding (1980) in his
study of worked bone tools.
The analysis results regarding these func-
tional attributes will be discussed in Chapter VI.
Variables
While analyzing the bone tools in this study certain variables
were observed and noted.
These variables are:
1) bird or mammal bone,
2) presence of asphaltum, 3) incising, 4) head modification, 5) polish,
40
6) manufacturing attributes.
These specific variables were chosen for
observation because they occurred on some, but not all, of the bone
tools.
The reason these variables were observed was to see if their
presence or absence was functional.
While observing the functional attributes of the bone tools a
notation was made as to whether the tool was mammal bone or bird bone
(Plate 9).
The reason for noting whether a tool was mammal or bird
bone was to see if there was a functional difference between the two
bone types.
From the results of the analysis contained herein, it was
shown that there is a functional difference.
This difference will be
discussed further in Chapters VI and VII of this thesis.
of asphaltum was noted (Plate 10).
The presence
The reason for this notation was to
see if the presence of asphaltum had anything to do with the function
of the tool and if asphaltum occurred on certain tool types more than
others.
Nothing conclusive has been found at this time.
of incising was also noted (Plate 11).
The presence
Again the reason for noting
incising was to see if its presence had anything to do with the function of the tool.
Nothing conclusive has been found at this time.
The
presence of polish on the tool was noted to see if it bad anything to
do with the tool's function.
time.
Nothing conclusive has been found at this
Morphological attributes noted that may or may not be functional
were head modification; i.e., unmodified (Plate 1 ); battered (Plate
12); or ground (Plate 12); and manufacturing attributes such as splinters, split bone, whole bone, and burned bone.
A splinter is a bone
fragment pointed at one or both ends; absence of the head and absence
of incising lines (which are indicative of the splitting process).
Splinters are created by a bard blow that shatters the bone into a
41
fragment (Plate 13).
A split bone tool is one in which the anterior
and posterior surfaces are deeply incised so that the bone can be split
and quartered.
gle bone.
With this process four tools can be made from one sin-
Splitting is the most common practice in the manufacture of
bone tools (Gooding 1980:111; Kidder 1932:203; Swannack 1969:149)
(Plate 13).
A whole bone is one that has not been split or splintered
(Plate 13).
A burned bone is one that was burned prior to being used
(Plate 14).
Striations on the burned tools show that the tools were
burned prior to use, the reason for this being that burning was a technique used to soften the bone and make it easier to work (Gooding 1980:
111 ) •
Some unusual things that were observed (unusual meaning things
that occurred infrequently and that did not fit into any of the previously described functional attribute categories or variables) were
asphaltum bulbs on the articular end of the tool (Plate 15)
plugs inside the tip of the tool (Plate 16)
asphaltum
asphaltum bits and trans-
verse striations on the articular end of the tool (Plate 10).
Once
again the reason for observing these variables was to see if their
presence had anything to do with the function of the tool they occur
on.
There is ethnographic evidence regarding bone tools with asphaltum bulbs on their articular end.
The Tubatulabal used splinter
awls from a deer's lower leg bone to flake stone implements, the head
of the awl was covered with an asphaltum bulb (Smith 1978).
There is
not any ethnographic information regarding asphaltum plugs inside the
tip of the tool or asphaltum bits and
articular end of the tool.
transve~se
striations on the
The results of the analysis contained
42
herein did not produce anything conclusive at this time as the occurrence of these variables was so infrequent.
The analysis results re-
garding these variables will be discussed in the conclusions.
Summary
This chapter has been concerned with identifying and describing
the sample of bone tools.
Distinct types of functional wear including
the six striation types were identified and will be used to determine
the specific function of each tool, the results of which will be discussed in the following chapter.
There were also six variables ob-
served to see if their presence or absence was functional.
CHAPTER VI
FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS RESULTS
T,his chapter will present the results of the functional analysis.
Chapter VIII will contain the conclusions that can be drawn from these
results.
The five tool types (awl, drill, punch, multi-functional and
unidentified) are discussed and defined according to their functional
attributes.
The frequencies of the functional attributes and the
presence and frequences of the variables discussed in Chapter V are
presented also.
The analysis presented here has concentrated on the striations
found on the tip and shaft of the bone, as this is the area where most
of the modification occurs.
The presence or absence of the head has
been noted as has any wear that appears on the head, although these
variables did not occur frequently enought to classiry the tools with.
Thus head modification was not critical to this study.
The total number of bone tools considered in the study is 721.
Of
these, 61.0% (442) are mammal bone and 39.0% (279) are bird bone (Table
5).
The variables discussed in Chapter V are used but as will be seen
are also not critical to the study because of the low frequency in
which they occur.
The bone tools, however, can be classified according
to the wear attributes found on them as follows:
1) awls; 2) drills;
3) punches; 4) multi-functional; 5) unidentified, which includes bones
without tip wear (Table 5).
43
44
Awls
The bone tools that have been classified as awls comprise 50.0%
(362) of the study; 20.0% (143) are mammal bone and 30.0% (219) are
bird bone (Table 5).
The wear attributes that are typical of bone awls
are diagonal striations on the tip and/or shaft, cross-hatch striations
on the tip and/or shaft, transverse striations on the tip and/or shaft,
longitudinal striations on the tip and/or shaft in conjunction with
diagonal and/or cross-hatch and/or transverse striations on the tip
and/or shaft.
Awls were used in making coiled basketry, and they dis-
play wear that is indicative of a twisting and piercing motion.
This
twisting and piercing motion should not be mistaken for the revolving
or rotary motion that is indicative of a drill.
Drills
The bone tools that have been classified as drills comprise 7.0%
(51) of the total studied; 6.0% (45) are mammal bone and 1.0% (6) are
bird bone
(Table 5).
The wear attributes that denote drills are rota-
tion and counter-rotation striations on the tip and/or shaft.
The
function of a drill was to bore a hole using a piercing revolving motion.
The key word in defining a drill is revolving, meaning a rotary
motion, not to be mistaken for the twisting motion that is indicative
of an awl.
Punches
The bone tools that have been classified as punches comprise
4.0% (25) of the total sample; 1.0% (6) of these are mammal bone and
3.0% (19) are bird bone (Table 5).
The wear attributes that charac-
terize the bone tools as punches are discontinuous longitudinal striations on one or both the tip and shaft.
Punches were used to perforate
45
holes in soft material using a direct thrust motion.
This direct
thrust motion should not be mistaken for the piercing motion involved
in awl and drill functions.
The direct thrust occurs wjthout the twist-
ing motion indicative of an awl and without the rotary motion indicative
of a drill.
A direct thrust involves more force than a piercing motion.
Multi-functional tools
The tools that have been classified as multi-functional comprise
18.0% (131) of the sample; 15.0% (109) of these are mammal bone and
3.0% (22) are bird bone (Table 5).
The wear attributes that character-
ize multi-functional tools are the presence of two or more sets of attributes that are indicative of awls, drills, or punches.
A multi-
functional tool is a tool that was used for more than one function.
Unidentified
The bone tools that have been classified as unidentified comprise
21.0% (152) of the total sample; 19.0% (139) are mammal bone and 2.0%
(13) are bird bone (Table 5).
The attributes that characterize these
tools are the absence of a tip and/or the absence of any wear.
Frequencies
This section will discuss the tip wear that occurs most frequently in the total sample, the mammal bone sample, and the bird bone
sample.
The reason for observing this is to see if a certain type of
tip wear occurs more frequently on mammal or on bird bone tools and, if
so, it has anything to do with the function of the tool.
The tip wear that occurs most frequently in the total sample is
that of diagonal striations, which are indicative of awl function.
Diagonal striations are present on 15.0% (108) of the tools.
The next
46
frequent, transverse striations (also indicative of awl functions)
occur on 10.0% (72) of the tools.
The combination of diagonal and
transverse striations are present on 4.0% (29) of the tools.
Rotation
striations, which are indicative of drill function, occur on 3.0% (24)
of the tools.
In the total bone tool sample, wear that is indicative
of awl function occurs more frequently on the bone tip than does wear
that indicates other functions.
The most frequently occurring tip wear on the mammal bone tools
is diagonal striations.
They occur on 6.0% (27) of the tools.
tion striations occur on 5.0% (22) of the tools.
occur on 3.0% (13) of the tools.
Rota-
Transverse striations
The combination of diagonal and
transverse striations occur on 1.0% (4) of the tools.
The tip wear
that occurs most frequently on mammal bone tools is that which is
indicative of awl function, though the wear that is indicative of drill
function occurs almost as frequently.
Within the bird bone category, as with the mammal bone, diagonal
striations occur most frequently.
tools.
They occur on 29.0% (81) of the
Next are those that show transverse striations; these occur on
21.0% (59) of the tools.
The combination of diagonal/transverse stria-
tions occur on 3.0% (25) of the bird bone tools.
occur on 1.0% (2) of the tools.
Rotation striations
Wear that is indicative of awl func-
tion occurs much more frequently on the tip of bird bone tools than
tip wear that is indicative of any other function.
Tip wear that is
indicative of awl function occurs more frequently on bird bone tools
than on mammal bone tools.
There are a total of 126 different functional attributes that
have been observed on the bone tools in this sample.
These attributes
47
are the same functional attributes described in Chapter V, and they
occur alone or in various combinations as can be seen in Table 8.
Table 8 shows which combinations of functional attributes fall within
each tool type range.
Sixty-seven different types of wear occur
only on the mammal bone and eighteen types of wear occur only on
the bird bone.
There are forty-one types of wear that are common
to mammal and bird bone tools.
Variables
The six variables discussed in Chapter V were observed to see if
their presence was functional.
shown in Table g.
The frequency of their occurrence is
These variables are:
1) bird or mammal bone,
2) presence of asphaltum, 3) incising, 4) head modification, 5) polish,
6) manufacturing attributes.
Head modification is present on a total of 76 of the bone tools,
72 are mammal bone and 4 are bird bone; 40 of the bones are battered;
13 are ground; 3 are incised; 4 have asphaltum bulbs; 2 are serrated;
1 is bi-pointed; 5 have polish and 17 have striations.
Ten of the
tools show more than one kind of modification.
Polish is present on 83 of the mammal bone tools and 14 of the
bird bone tools.
Asphaltum is present on 7 of the mammal bone and 32
of the bird bone tools.
There are 20 incised mammal bone tools and 3
incised bird bone tools.
Head modification occurs on 34 awls, 19 drills, 1 punch, 23
multi-functional tools, and 9 unidentified tools.
Polish occurs on
48 awls, 20 drills, 1 punch, 20 multi-functional tools, and 8 unidentified tools.
Incising occurs on 8 awls, 3 drills, 2 punches, 2
48
multi-functional tools, 8 unidentified tools.
Summary
This chapter has been concerned with presenting the results of
the functional analysis.
Each bone tool has been classified into a
bone tool type (awl, drill, punch, multi-functional, and unidentified)
according to the functional attributes observed on the tools.
The
presence and frequences of the variables and the tool type that the
variables occur on have been presented.
The conclusions that can be
drawn from the results of the analysis will be discussed in Chapter
VIII.
CHAPTER VII
HYPOTHESES
This chapter is concerned with testing the three hypotheses, that
were formulated in the introduction, using the results of the functional analysis.
Hypothesis 1
If all the bone tools in this sample are awls then each tool
should show the same type of wear.
This is not the case.
There are
six types of striations that were used to functionally analyze the bone
tools.
They are diagonal, cross-hatch, transverse, longitudinal, rota-
tion and counter-rotation.
Diagonal, cross-hatch and transverse stria-
tions are indicative of awls.
of punches.
drills.
Longitudinal striations are indicative
Rotation and counter-rotation striations are indicative of
A combination of the striations that are indicative of awls;
drills and punches indicate multi-functional tools.
In the Muwu sample 126 sets of striations occurred.
These dif-
ferent sets of striations indicate the different functions of the
tools.
This does
not mean that there are 126 different tool types or
functions; rather that there are certain ranges of attributes that belong to the four tool types found.
Of the 126 sets of striations there
are fifty-four within the awl range, seven within the drill range, six
within the punch range, and fifty-nine within the multi-functional
range.
These are shown in Table 8.
49
50
From the results of the functional analysis it can be concluded
that all of the bone tools in the Muwu sample are not bone awls.
Hypothesis 2
If there is a functional difference between mammal bone and bird
bone tools then there should be a difference in the frequency of
the occurrence of the functional attributes on mammal bone and bird
bone tools.
From the analysis results it can be seen that 79.0% of the total
bird bone sample are awls and 32.0% of the total mammal bone sample are
awls.
This indicates that there was a preference for bird bone.
Drills comprise 2.0% of the total bird bone sample and 10.0% of the
total mammal bone sample, indicating a preference of mammal bone for
drill function.
Punches comprise 7.0% of the total bird bone sample
and 1 .0% of the total mammal bone sample, indicating a preference
for bird bone for punch function.
Multi-functional tools comprise 8.0%
of the bird bone sample and 25.0% of the mammal bone sample, indicating a preference for mammal bone for multi-functional functions
(Tables 6 and 7).
There are 126 sets of striations that occur on the bone tools in
the Muwu sample.
Sixty-seven of these occurred only on the mammal
bone tools and eighteen occurred only on the bird bone tools.
There
were forty-one sets of striations that were common to both mammal bone
and bird bone tools.
It is apparent that the mammal bone has a larger
range of attribute sets than the bird bone tools.
This also indicates
a difference in function between mammal bone and bird bone.
In the
sample of 721 bone tools 442 are mammal and 279 are bird bone.
This
indicates that mammal bone was used more often than bird bone as a
51
source for bone tools (Table 9).
From the analysis results it can be concluded that there is a
functionAl difference between mammal bone and bird bone tools.
Hypothesis 3
If there is a correlation between functional attributes and the
morphology of a bone tool then all the bone tools in the sample that
display the same functional attributes should look alike.
There are four bone tools in this sample that have asphaltum
bulbs on their heads.
Two of these display attributes that are indic-
ative of awls, one displays attributes that are indicative of bone
drills, and one displays attributes that are indicative of multifunctional tools.
There are eighty-six tools that display head modification;
thirty-four of these display attributes that are indicative of awls,
nineteen display attributes that are indicative of drills, one displays attributes that are indicative of a punch, twenty-three display
attributes that are indicative of multi-functional tools, and nine are
unidentified (Table 9).
There are ninety-seven bone tools that display polish; fortyeight of these display attributes that are indicative of awls, twenty
display attributes that are indicative of drills, one displays attributes that are indicative of punches, twenty display attributes that
are indicative of multi-functional tools and eight are unidentified
(Table 9).
There are thirty-nine tools that display asphaltum:
twenty-one
display attributes that are indicative of awls, four display attributes that are indicative of drills, one displays attributes that are
52
indicative of punches, eight display attributes that are indicative of
multi-functional tools, and five are unidentified (Table 9).
There are twenty-three tools that display incising.
Eight dis-
play attributes that are indicative of awls, three display attributes
that are indicative of drills, two display attributes that are indicative of multi-functional tools, and eight are unidentified (Table 9).
There are 442 mammal bone tools in the sample.
143 display at-
tributes that are indicative of awls, forty-five display attributes
that are indicative of drills, six display attributes that are indicative of punches, 109 display attributes that are indicative of multifunctional tools and 139 are unidentified (Table 9).
There are 279 bird bone tools in the sample:
219 display at-
tributes that are indicative of bone awls, six display attributes that
are indicative of drills, nineteen display attributes that are indicative of punches, twenty-two display attributes that are indicative of
multi-functional tools, and thirteen are unidentified (Table 9).
From the analysis results it can be concluded that there is not a
correlation between functional attributes and the morphology of a bone
tool.
Summary
This chapter has tested three hypotheses using the results of the
functional analysis.
The following conclusions were found:
1•
All of the bone tools in the Muwu sample are not bone
awls.
2.
There is a functional difference between mammal bone
and bird bone tools.
3.
There is not a correlation between functional attributes and the morphology of a bone tool.
CHAPTER VIII
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The purpose of this final chapter is to determine the correlation
between the .Chumash culture, the functions of awls for the Chumash and
other Native Americans, past research, site and sample background, the
bone awl sample, the hypotheses, and the analysis results.
Some sug-
gestions for future research are discussed as well.
This thesis has focused on the reclassification of a sample of
bone tools from the village site of Muwu.
The new classification has
been based on the examination of functional attributes rather than morphological attributes, the latter being the method of the previous
classification.
The purpose of utilizing the functional method of
classification was to gain a better understanding of the specific functions of the bone tools since it is not always possible to determine
tool function from morphology.
It was found that when wear attributes
are observed, it is possible to determine the specific function or functions of the tool.
The functional analysis of the Muwu tools has shown
that there are differences in wear attributes found on these tools that
establish their specific function.
Many of the tools are drills,
punches, or multi-functional tools as well as being awls.
Chapter Summaries
The first two chapters in this work contain background information on the Chumash.
Chapter I deals with Chumash culture and all
53
54
its interacting aspects.
Chapter II covers information regarding the
functions of awls for the Chumash and other Native Americans.
After
relating this information to the results of the analysis, certain conclusions can be drawn.
These conclusions include redefining the bone
tools and their functions.
The correspondence between how the bone awl
functioned in the basketmaking process and the wear attributes that
appear on the awls that are indicative of basketmaking are examined.
The functions of punches, drills and multi-functional tools are related to the results as well.
From the results contained herein, a functional definition can be
now added to the morphological definitions (given in Chapter II) of the
terms bone awl, bone drill, and bone punch.
The term multi-functional
bone tool can now be added to this group of tools.
Awl
A bone awl can be defined as a single pointed tool that has
diagonal, cross-hatch, and/or transverse striations occurring on the
tip and/or shaft of the tool.
alone or in combinations.
These three striation types can occur
Longitudinal striations occur only in con-
junction with one or more of the diagonal, cross-hatch or transverse
striation types.
Bone awls were used in making coiled basketry and
they display wear that is indicative of a twisting and piercing motion
(Plate 3).
This functional definition differs from the functional def-
inition given by Gooding (1980) in Chapter III of this thesis.
He
states that polish is the most common tip attribute for bone awls.
However, only 13.0% (48) of the bone awls from Muwu show polish;
although of the 48 that do display polish 38 are awls.
Thus it can be
concluded that polish occurs more often on bone awls than on the other
55
bone tools; but it is not the most common tip attribute.
striations are the most common tip attribute for awls.
Diagonal
They occur on
68.0% (245) of the awls from the Muwu sample (Plate 3).
Drill
A bone drill can be defined as a single pointed tool with rotation and/or counter-rotation striations on the tip and/or shaft.
The
function of a drill was to bore a hole using a piercing revolving
motion (Plates 7 and 8).
Punch
A bone punch can now be defined as a single pointed tool with
discontinuous longitudinal striations on the tip and/or shaft.
Punches
were used to perforate holes in soft material using a direct thrust
motion (Plate 5).
Multi-functional
A multi-functional bone tool can be defined as a single pointed
bone tool that has an awl/drill, awl/punch, drill/punch, or awl/drill/
punch function.
The functional attributes that distinguish this tool
type are two or more of the attributes that are indicative of awls,
drills, and/or punches (Plate 12).
Bone awls functioned in the manufacture of coiled basketry.
There is ample evidence to support this assumption as can be seen in
Chapter II.
In that chapter the various methods for using a bone awl
in manufacturing basketry are discussed, and these show that the awl
was used to create a space or hole between the coils in order to insert
the fiber strand to allow the coiling process to continue (Allen 1972:
18; Barrett 1908:160; Boas, et al. 1928:160; Cain 1962:28; Craig 1966:
211; Dodge 1900:194; Kroeber 1925:5; Wormington 1961:41 ).
A twisting
56
and piercing motion was used to insert the awl between the coils (Gooding 1980:114).
These statements are supported by the diagonal, cross-
hatch and transverse striations that are indicative of the bone awls
from Muwu.
In Chapter III, past research, both morphological and functional
bone tool analyses are discussed.
The method of classification was
described, a description of the tool, and the function of the tool are
given (when that information was available).
From this data it can be
seen that in the morphological bone tool analyses any bone tool that
had a sharp pointed tip was classified as a bone awl.
The functions of
awls ranged from basket manufacture to punching, poking, perforating,
stabbing, sewing, chiseling and prying; with none of these functions
ever being defined.
At times in these morphological analyses the term
wear attribute is brought up but is never defined or described.
There were no reasons given for how or why wear attributes were used
in categorizing a tool.
The morphological analyses results seem
to indicate that bone awls were multi-functional, having the function
of punches, daggers, needles, chisels and pries.
The functional analysis of bone tools from the Durru1go South
Project of two Late Basketmaker III sites in Colorado conducted by John
D. Gooding (1980) has been the basis for the analysis of the Muwu bone
tools.
The functional attributes that Gooding used to classify the
tools were polish and striations.
according to striations only.
The tools from Muwu were classified
Polish was not utilized because it
occurred on so few of the tools that it was impossible to find anything
conclusive.
Only one of the analyses (Chomko 1975) utilized both
57
morphological and functional methods of analysis.
The tools in this
study were first typed according to their morphology and then they were
typed according to their functional attributes.
What this analysis
showed was that morphologically similar bone tools do not always exhibit
the same type of functional wear attributes (this concurs with the Muwu
analysis results) and different morphological types can exhibit the
same functional wear attributes (this can be seen by the four morphologically classified awls from Muwu (each had an asphaltum bulb on its
head) which were functionally analyzed as two bone awls, one drill and
one multi-functional tool.
The location and importance of the village of Muwu are discussed
in Chapter IV.
There is also information regarding the number of bone
tools found, as well as who excavated the site and when the excavations
took place.
The analysis results show that rather than only one bone
tool function, i.e., awl, there were actually four known functions
occurring at the site of Muwu.
The bone tool sample is identified and defined in Chapter V.
Functional wear, the parts of the bone tools under observation, and
the functional attributes observed on the bone tools are defined as
well.
A list of variables, their importance and what they show are
discussed also.
The functional attributes that were identified and used to classify the bone tools are the six types of striations found in Table 4.
In Chapter VI the analysis results, the frequencies of the
occurrence of the functional attributes, and the presence and frequencies of the variables are presented.
These results indicate that:
1) mammal bone was used more often than bird bone; 2) bone awls were
58
used more often than the other bone tools in the sample; 3) there is a
functional difference between bird and mammal bone, and that bird bone
functioned better in a bone awl capacity than mammal bone did; 4)
drills were not used as often as awls were and that mammal bone functioned better in a bone drill capacity than bird bone; 5) bird bone was
the preferred source for punches and that punches were used less often
than both awls and drills; 6) mammal bone was the preferred source
for multi-functional tools and that multi-functional tools occur less
often than awls but more often than drills and punches; 7) there is a
large amount of unidentified bone in this sample and if it were to be
identified the results of the analysis could change.
Frequencies
The section on the most frequently occurring tip wear in the
total sample, the mammal bone sample and the bird bone sample supports the seven above stated conclusions.
Variables
The variables including eight types of head modification, polish,
asphaltum, and incising were observed to see if their presence was
functional.
From the results of the analysis it can be concluded that:
1) head modification occurs most often on mammal bone.
The tools that
display head modification most often are awls, but head modification
cannot be used to distinguish awls from other tools; 2) polish occurs
most often on mammal bone and the tools that display polish most often
are awls.
Polish cannot be used to distinguish awls from other tools;
3) asphaltum occurs most often on bird bone.
The tools that
display
asphaltum most often are awls, but asphaltum cannot be used to classify
59
a tool as an awl; 4) incising occurs most often on mammal bone.
On the whole the variables occur more often on awls than on
drills, punches, or multi-functional tools.
The variables also occur
more often on mammal bone than on bird bone (except for asphaltum,
which occurs on bird bone more often).
It is not possible at this time
to conclude whether or not the presence of these variables is functional.
In Chapter VII three hypotheses are tested using the results of
the analysis.
The following conclusions were found:
1•
All of the bone tools in the Muwu sample are not
bone awls.
2.
There is a functional difference between the mammal
bone and bird bone tools.
3.
There is not a correlation between functional attributes and the morphology of a bone tool.
Future Research
As a result of this analysis some ideas come to mind regarding
future research.
The ideal situation would be one in which the tools
would have provenience so that changes in wear patterns through time
could be studied, and specialized activity areas could be determined.
It would also be more informative to compare bone tools from two or
more sites, including the analysis of tool types, how many of each type
were found, the type of animal bone (i.e., bird or mammal), and the
type of bone relative to the environmental area it is found in (i.e.,
are bones from the littoral zone found as tools in inland sites or
only in coastal sites, etc.).
To recreate wear, using the same techniques and materials used by
the Chumash, would also provide a more controlled situation for
60
observing the patterns created.
In this situation the function of the
tool would be known as the wear patterns are being created, thus enabling specific wear patterns to be shown together with their specific
functions.
The assumption that bone awls were used in coiled basket manufacture can be tested in the future.
As can the assumption made by Wal-
lace (1978) that the presence of bone awls is an indication of coiled
basketry.
These can be tested by recreating wear and analyzing the
wear attributes.
It would be interesting to test Kroeber's (1925) assumption that
the same type of bone awl was used in sewing, coiled basketry, and in
Northwestern California for slitting lamprey eels.
This can be done by
comparing the functional attributes that are observed on each bone
tool.
It would also be interesting to see if other functional analyses
show the same results as the Muwu analysis.
The value of knowing the specific function of tools is quite
important.
When tool function is known then it is also possible to
know the types of items being made and inferences can be made as to the
uses of these items; from this other inferences can be made as to the
people who are using the items.
Thus a functional analysis not only
tells us the function of the tools but also tells us something about
the people who used them and may, if linked with other data, tell us
something about the division of labor in Chumash society.
REFERENCES CITED
Aigner, Jean
1966
Allen, Elsie
1972
Bone Tools and Decorative Motifs From Chaluka, Umnak
Island. Arctic Anthropology 3(2):57Porno Basket-making; A Supreme Art for the Weaver.
burg: Naturgraph Publishers.
Healds-
Ames, Kenneth Macintyre
1972
The Bone Tool Assemblage From the Garden Island Site,
Prince Rupert Harbor, British Columbia: An Analysis of
Assemblage Variation Through Time. Ph.D. dissertation,
Department of Anthropology, Washington State University.
Barrett, S. A.
1908
Porno Indian Basketry. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 7(3):133-306.
Berkeley.
Bean, Lowell J.
1976
Social Organization in Native California. In Native Californians: A Theoretical Retrospective. Edited by
Lowell J. Bean and Thomas C. Blackburn. pp. 99-125.
Ballena Press, Ramona, California.
Bean, Lowell J., and Harry Lawton
Some Explanations for the Rise of Cultural Complexity in
1976
Native California with Comments on Proto-Agriculture and
Agriculture. In Native Californians: A Theoretical
Retrospective.--Edited by Lowell J. Bean and Thomas C.
Blackburn. pp. 19-49. Ballena Press, Ramona, California.
Bean, Lowell J., and Sylvia Brakke Vane
Cults and Their Transformation. In Handbook of North
1978
American Indians, California, Vol-.-8, pp. 662-672. Volume Editor, Robert F. Heizer. Smithsonian Institution.
Blackburn, Thomas C.
1976
Ceremonial Integration and Social Interaction in Aboriginal California. In Native Californians: A Theoretical
Retrospective. Edited by Lowell J. Bean and Thomas C.
Blackburn. pp. 225-244. Ballena Press, Ramona, California.
61
62
Boas, Franz; H. K. Haeberlin, James A. Teit, Helen N. Roberts
Coiled Basketry in British Columbia and the Surrounding
1966
Region, 1919-1924. Bureau of American Ethnology Annual
Reports 41:119-484. Washington, D. C.
Bright, William
1978
Karok. In Handbook of North American Indians, California
Vol. 8 pp. 180-190. Volume Editor, Robert F. Heizer.
Smithsonian Insitution.
Cain, Thomas
1962
Porno Indian Basketry. The Heard Museum of Anthropolgy
Arizona •
and Primitive Arts. Phoenix,
.
\
Chomko, Stephen A.
1975
Bone "Awls" and Utilized Antler Tines From Arnold
Research Cave, 23CY64, Missouri. Plains Anthropologist
20(67):27-40.
Craig, Steve
1966
1967
Baskets From the Ethnographic and Linguistic Field Notes
of J. P. Harrington. Archaeological Survey Annual Report
8:201-213. University of California, Los Angeles.
The Basketry of the Ventureno Chumash. Archaeological
Survey Annual Report 9:78-149. University of California,
Los Angeles.
Dawson, Lawrence, and James Deetz
1965
A Corpus of Chumash Basketry. Archaeological Survey
Annual Report 7:193-276. University of California, Los
Angeles.
Dodge, K. T.
1900
White Mountain Apache Baskets.
2:194.
American Anthropologist
Elsasser, Albert B.
1978a
Mattole, Nongatl, Sinkyone, Lassik and Wailaki. In Handbook of North American Indians, California Vol. 8-pp.
190-205. Volume Editor, Robert F. Heizer. Smithsonian
Insitution.
1978b
Basketry. In Handbook of North American Indians, California Vol.-s pp. 626-641. Volume Editor, Robert F.
Heizer. Smithsonian Institution.
1978c
Development of Regional Prehistoric Cultures. In Handbook of North American Indians, California Vol.-s, pp.
37-57. Volume Editor, Robert F. Heizer. Smithsonian
Institution.
63
Engelhardt, Zephyrin
1923
Santa Barbara Mission.
James H. Barry Company.
Gayton, Anna H.
1976
Yokuts-Mono Chiefs and Shamans. In Native Californians:
A Theoretical Retrospective. Edited by Lowell J. Bean
and Thomas C. Blackburn. pp. 175-224. Ballena Press,
Ramona, California.
Gifford, E. W.
1940
Californian Bone Artifacts. Anthropological Records
3:1-237. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Gooding, John D.
1980
Modification Attributes of Bone Tools From Durango South.
In The Durango South Project Archaeological Salvage of
Two Late Basketmaker III Sites in the Durange District.
Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona No.
34, pp. 103-120. Edited by John D. Gooding. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona..
Grant, Campbell
Eastern Coastal Chumash. In Handbook of North American
1978
Indians, California Vol. 8~pp. 509-519. Volume Editor,
Robert F. Heizer. Smithsonian Institution.
Hadlock, Wendell s.
1943
Bone Implements From Shell Heaps Around Frenchman's Bay,
Maine. American Antiquity 8:341-353.
Hayes, Alden C., and James Lancaster
1975
Badger House Community. Mesa Verde National Park, Archaeological Research Series 7E.
Hudson, Dee Travis and Ernest Underhay
Crystals in the Sky: An Intellectual Odyssey Involving
1978
Chumash Astronomy, Cosmology and Rock Art. Ballena Press
Anthropological Papers No. 10, edited by Lowell J. Bean
and Thomas C. Blackburn. Ballena Press, Socorro, New
Mexico.
Johnson, Patti J.
1978
Patwin. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8,
pp. 324-351. Volume Editor, Robert F. Heizer. Smithsonian Institution.
King, Chester
Chumash Inter-Village Economic Exchange. In Native Cali1976
fornians: A Theoretical Retrospective. Edited by Lowell
J. Bean and Thomas C. Blackburn. pp. 289-319. Ballena
Press, Ramona, California.
64
King, Linda
1969
The Medea Creek Cemetery (4-LAn-243): An Investigation
of Social Organization From Mortuary Practices. Archaeological Survey Annual Report 11:23-68. University of
California, Los Angeles.
Kroeber, A. L.
1925
Handbook of the Indians of California.
tions, Inc., New York.
1926
Dover Publica-
Basketry Designs of the Mission Indians. American Museum
of Natural History Guide Leaflet 55:1-19.
Landberg, Leif
1965
The Chumash Indians of Southern California.
Museum Papers, No. 19. Los Angeles.
Southwest
LaPena, Frank R.
1978
Wintu. In Handbook of North American Indians, California
Vol. 8, pp. 324-351. Volume Editor, Robert F. Heizer.
Smithsonian Institution.
Leonard, Nelson, III
1971
Natural and Social Environments of the Santa Monica Mountains. Archaeological Survey Annual Report 13:93-135.
University of California, Los Angeles.
Martin, PaulS., and John B. Rinaldo
1939
The SU Site. Chicago Natural History Museum Fieldiana
32.
1941
The SU Site.
32.
Chicago Natural History Museum Fieldiana
Mason, Otis T.
1901
The Technic of Aboriginal American Basketry.
Anthropologist 3:
American
Meighan, Clement W.
1959
The Little Harbor Site, Catalina Island: An Example of
Ecological Interpretation in Archaeology. American
Antiquity 24(4):383-405.
Meighan, Clement and Hal Eberhart
1953
Archaeological Resources of San Nicolas Island, California. American Antiquity 19(2):109-125.
Newcomer, M. H.
1974
Study and Replication of Bone Tools From Ksar Akil.
World Archaeology 6(2):138-153.
65
O'Neale, Lila M.
1932
Yurok-Karok Basket Weavers. University of California
Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnography 32
(1):1-184. Berkeley.
Resnick, Rheta
1980
Subsistence Patterns at Ven-11, A Coastal Chumash Village.
Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, California State University, Northridge.
Roberts, Frank
1929
Shabik'eshchee Village: A Late Basketmaker Site in the
Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. Bureau of American Ethnology
Bulletin No. 92. Smithsonian Institution.
Romani, Gwendolyn
1982
In Search of Soapstone. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, California State University, Northridge.
Romani, John
1981
Astronomy and Social Integration. Unpublished M.A.
thesis, Department of Anthropology, California State University, Northridge.
Rozaire, Charles
1977
Indian Basketry of Western North America.
Los Angeles, California.
Semenov, S. A.
1964
Prehistoric Technology.
Brooke House,
Harper and Row, New York.
Smith, Charles R.
1978
Tubatulabal. In Handbook of North American Indians, California Vol. 8-,-pp. 437-446. Volume Editor, Robert F.
Heizer. Smithsonian Institution.
Swannack, Jervis D., Jr.
1969
Big Juniper House, Mesa Verde National Park. National
Park Service, Archaeological Research Series 7C.
Wallace, Edith
1978
Sexual Status and Role Differences. In Handbook of North
American Indians, California Vol. 8, pp. 683-689. Volume Editor, Robert F. Heizer. Smithsonian Institution.
Wallace, William
1978
Northern Valley Yokuts. In Handbook of North American
Indians, California Vol. 8:, pp. 462-472. Volume Editor,
Robert F. Heizer. Smithsonian Insitution.
66
Wormington, H. M.
1947
Prehistoric Indians of the Southwest.
Natural History, Popular Series
Denver Museum of
APPENDIX
A
PLATES
67
Plate 1
Tip, Shaft and Head of Bone.
Head unmodified
0
<(
w
J:
ILL.
<(
:c
(/)
a.
-
1-
68
Plate 2
Bone Displaying Polish
---
----.-
---
\:.r
!',·
\
"'· ..
'\
_.
' '
69
Plate 3
Diagonal Striations on Bone Tool
70
Plate 4
Cross-hatch
St~iations
on Bone Tool
..-
--
....---...
~
.....
-t:..
.....
.....
-"
I
I
-I
I
71
Plate 5
Longitudinal Striations on Bone Tool
.....
-.-.
---......
-,...=-=.--'..
-~
f>
.-··...
---:
~
~.
~-
---
,...
-
I
t
'
72
Plate 6
Transverse Striations on Bone Tool
--""""'
-.-......
,_
-....--'*
-.
~
~
...-----
---\-
f..
~
---......
~·
-.......--
:-'.
--io.il.•
---~~
-·
~
:,
73
Plate 7
Rotation Striations on Bone Tool
--
....-........_..,.
--·
~
._
-
---...::...
......
:.-
!:...
~I
"""'
f,
74
Plate 8
Counter-rotation Striations on Bone Tool
------·
-
--~.
-....
--
::...,
--'
t:..
....-~-
75
Plate 9
Mammal Bone and Bird Bone Tools
Cl
a:
aJ
76
Plate 10
Asphaltum on Bone Tool
77
Plate 11
Incised Bone Tool
78
Plate 12
Head battered and ground.
Multi-functional tool.
79
Plate 13
Splintered Bone Tool, Split Bone Tool, Whole Bone Tool
---
...
'[
E:..
=-
I
80
Plate 14
Bone Tool That is Burned
.-..
----·--.----·
-.--.....
----
•,
-....---"""
----
~--
·-
81
Plate 15
Bone Tools With Asphaltum Bulbs
82
Plate 16
Bone Tools With Asphaltum Plugs
APPENDIX
B
TABLES
83
Table 1
Mammal bone from the 1929-1932 and 1976-1978 excavations
1929-1932 excavation
Northern fur seal
Harbor seal
Guadalupe fur seal
Northern sea elephant
Stellar sea lion
Whale
California sea lion
Sea otter
Alaskan fur seal
Bear
1976-1978 excavation
Harbor seal
Sea otter
California sea lion
mule deer
jack rabbit
cottontail rabbit
wood rat
ground squirrel
coyote
gray fox
(Landberg 1965; Resnick 1980)
84
Table 2
Bird bone from the 1929-1932 excavation
Cormorant (sp.)
Loon ( sp.)
Brandt cormorant
Turkey vulture
Baird cormorant
Red tailed hawk
Farrallon cormorant
Brown pelican
Albatross
Common egret
Western gull
Sandhill crane
Gull (sp.)
Little brown crane
Great blue heron
Prairie falcon
Common loon
Goose
Pacific loon
Duck
Red-throated loon
Curlew
Western grebe
(Landberg 1965; Resnick 1980)
85
Table 3
Fish remains from the 1929-1932 and 1976-1978 excavations
1929-1932 excavation
California stingray
California halibut
California sheephead
Pacific barracuda
Yellowtail
California bonito
Great white shark
Bonito shark
Broadbill swordfish
Rock cod
Mako shark
Pacific angel shark
1976-1978 excavation
Bat ray
Shovelnose guitarfish
Round stingray
White sea bass
California halibut
Pacific angel shark
Pile perch
Pacific bonito
White croaker
Queenfish
Senorita
Olive rockfish
Rubberlip surfperch
Kelp rockfish
Sargo
Sculpin
California sheephead
Pacific mackeral
Pacific barracuda
Bonito shark
Broadbill swordfish
Striped marlin
Tiger shark
(Landberg 1965; Resnick 1980)
86'
Table 4
Striation types
Striation type
Definition
Diagonal
striations that are diagonal to the long axis of
the tool. Diagonal striations are indicative of
a twisting and piercing motion that is associated with awl functions. (Photo #3)
Cross-hatch
striations that cross one another, forming "x's".
This occurs when diagonal thrusting and rotation
are clockwise and/or counter clockwise from the
tip. (Photo #4)
Longitudinal
striations that are parallel to the long axis of
the ~ool. They do not run the entire length of
the tool, but appear and then disappear. Longitudinal striations are indicative of a thrusting motion associated with punches and daggers.
(Photo #5)
Transverse
striations that are perpendicular to the long
axis of the tool. They are indicative of an
alternating motion. (Photo #6)
Rotation
unidirectional spiral striations that are perpendicular to the long axis of the tool. They
indicate a rotary motion that is associated with
drills. (Photo #7)
Counter-rotation
bi-directional spiral striations usually separated by a central ridge. They are associated
with drills. (Photo #8)
After Gooding (1980)
87
Table 5
Functionally classified bone tools, total sample (721)
Tool Type
Number
Percent
Awl
362
50.0%
mammal
bird
143
219
20.0%
30.0%
Drill
51
7.0%
mammal
bird
45
6
6.0%
1.0%
Punch
25
4.0%
mammal
bird
6
19
1.0%
3.0%
MultiFunctional
131
18.0%
mammal
bird
109
22
15.0%
3.0%
Unidentified
152
21 .0%
mammal
bird
139
13
19.0%
2.0%
Total
721
100.0%
88
Table 6
Functionally classified mammal bone tools (442)
Tool Type
Number
Percent
143
32.0%
Drill
45
10.0%
Punch
6
1.0%
MultiFunctional
109
25.0%
Unidentified
139
31.0%
Total
442
100.0%
Awl
89
Table 7
Functionally classified bird bone tools (279)
Tool Type
Number
Percent
219
79.0%
Drill
6
2.0%
Punch
19
7.0%
MultiFunctional
22
8.0%
Unidentified
13
5.0%
279
100.0%
Awl
Total
90
Table 8
Range of 126 Functional Attributes Indicating Tool Type
AWL (total 54)
Mammal (total 45)
Bird (total 31)
1.
diagonal
tip
diagonal
2.
transverse
tip
transverse
3.
cross-hatch
tip
cross-hatch
4.
diagonal/cross-hatch
tip
diagonal/cross-hatch
5.
diagonal/transverse
tip
diagonal/transverse
6.
diagonal
diagonal
tip
shaft
diagonal
diagonal
7.
transverse
longitudinal
tip
shaft
transverse
longitudinal
8.
diagonal/longitudinal/
transverse
longitudinal
tip
shaft
diagonal/longitudinal
transverse
longitudinal
9.
diagonal/transverse
transverse
tip
shaft
diagonal/transverse
transverse
10.
diagonal/transverse
diagonal
tip
shaft
0
11.
diagonal/cross-hatch
diagonal
tip
shaft
12.
transverse
transverse
tip
shaft
transverse
transverse
13.
diagonal/transverse
diagonal transverse
tip
shaft
0
1 4.
0
tip
shaft
cross-hatch
longitudinal
15.
diagonal
longitudinal
tip
shaft
diagonal
longitudinal
16.
transverse
diagonal/transverse
tip
shaft
transverse
diagonal/transverse
17.
cross-hatch/longitudinal
tip
cross-hatch/longitudinal
91
Table 8 (Cont'd)
AWL
Mammal
Bird
18.
diagonal
diagonal/longitudinal
tip
shaft
diagonal
diagonal/longitudinal
19.
0
tip
shaft
transverse
cross-hatch/longitudinal/
transverse
20.
diagonal/cross-hatch
longitudinal
21.
22.
0
tip
tip
diagonal/cross-hatch/
transverse
tip
shaft
diagonal/cross-hatch/
transverse
diagonal/cross-hatch
0
0
23.
diagonal/cross-hatch
cross-hatch
tip
shaft
24.
diagonal/cross-hatch/
transverse
diagonal
tip
shaft
25.
diagonal/cross-hatch
diagonal/cross-hatch
tip
shaft
26.
diagonal
transverse
tip
shaft
27.
cross-hatch
diagonal
tip
shaft
28.
diagonal/longitudinal
diagonal/longitudinal
tip
shaft
diagonal/longitudinal
diagonal/longitudinal
29.
diagonal/longitudinal
tip
diagonal/longitudinal
30.
diagonal/longitudinal/
transverse
tip
diagonal/longitudinal/
transverse
31 •
diagonal/longitudinal
diagonal
tip
shaft
0
32.
transverse
diagonal
tip
shaft
transverse
diagonal
0
0
92
Table 8 (Cont'd)
AWL
Mammal
Bird
33.
diagonal/transverse
longitudinal
tip
shaft
diagonal/transverse
longitudinal
34.
0
tip
shaft
transverse
diagonal/longitudinal
35.
cross-hatch
cross-hatch
tip
shaft
cross-hatch
cross-hatch
36.
diagonal/cross-hatch/
longitudinal
tip
37.
diagonal/cross-hatch
diagonal/longitudinal
tip
shaft
0
38.
diagonal/longitudinal
diagonal/transverse
tip
shaft
0
39.
cross-hatch/longitudinal
transverse
diagonal
tip
shaft
40.
diagonal/longitudinal
transverse
tip
shaft
41 •
diagonal
cross-hatch
tip
shaft
0
42.
cross-hatch
transverse
tip
shaft
0
43.
diagonal
longitudinal/transverse
tip
shaft
0
44.
diagonal/longitudinal
cross-hatch
tip
shaft
45.
diagonal/cross-hatch
transverse
tip
shaft
0
46.
cross-hatch
diagonal/cross-hatch/
transverse
tip
0
shaft
diagonal
diagonal/transverse
tip
shaft
47.
0
0
93
Table 8 (Cont'd)
AWL
Mammal
Bird
48.
0
tip
shaft
diagonal/transverse
cross-hatch
49.
0
tip
shaft
longitudinal/transverse
diagonal/transverse
tip
cross-hatch/transverse
diagonal/cross-hatch
50.
cross-hatch/transverse
51.
0
tip
52.
longitudinal/transverse
diagonal
tip
shaft
53.
diagonal/longitudinal
longitudinal
tip
shaft
diagonal/longitudinal
longitudinal
54.
OJ
tip
shaft
longitudinal/transverse
diagonal/transverse
DRILL (total 7)
Mammal (total 5)
Bird (total 5)
55.
rotation
tip
rotation
56.
counter-rotation
tip
counter-rotation
57.
counter-rotation
counter-rotation
tip
shaft
counter-rotation
counter-rotation
58.
tip
shaft
rotation
rotation
59.
tip
shaft
transverse/rotation
rotation
60.
counter-rotation
tip
diagonal/counter-rotation shaft
61.
rotation
diagonal/rotation
tip
shaft
94
Table 8 (Cont'd)
PUNCH (total 6)
Mammal (total 5)
62.
longitudinal
diagonal
Bird (total 5)
tip
shaft
63.
tip
shaft
incised
longitudinal
64.
longitudinal
tip
longitudinal
65.
longitudinal
longitudinal
tip
shaft
longitudinal
longitudinal
66.
longitudinal/transverse
longitudinal
tip
shaft
longitudinal/transverse
longitudinal
67.
longitudinal/transverse
tip
longitudinal/transverse
MULTI-FUNCTIONAL TOOLS (total 59)
Mammal (total 53)
68.
longitudinal
diagonal/longitudinal/
transverse
Bird (total 18)
tip
shaft
69.
diagonal/counter-rotation tip
diagonal/longitudinal
shaft
70.
diagonal/counter-rotation tip
71.
cross-hatch/
counter-rotation
tip
cross-hatch/
counter-rotation
72.
diagonal/rotation
tip
diagonal/rotation
73.
diagonal/rotation
diagonal
tip
shaft
diagonal/rotation
diagonal
74.
diagonal/transverse/
counter-rotation
transverse
tip
shaft
0
tip
75.
diagonal/counter-rotation
cross-hatch/rotation
95
Table 8 (Cont'd)
MULTI-FUNCTIONAL TOOLS
Mammal
76.
Bird
0
tip
diagonal/transverse
counter-rotation
diagonal/transverse/
counter-rotation
diagonal
tip
shaft
78.
longitudinal/transverse
diagonal/longitude
tip
shaft
0
79.
counter-rotation
diagonal/longitudinal/
counter-rotation
tip
0
77.
80.
0
shaft
counter-rotation
diagonal/longitudinal/
transverse
tip
shaft
81 •
diagonal/rotation
transverse
tip
shaft
82.
transverse/rotation
cross-hatch/longitudinal
tip
shaft
0
83.
diagonal/counter-rotation tip
diagonal/cross-hatch
shaft
0
84.
transverse/rotation
diagonal
tip
shaft
transverse/rotation
diagonal
85.
diagonal/rotation
diagonal/rotation
tip
shaft
diagonal/rotation
diagonal/rotation
86.
transverse/rotation
tip
transverse/rotation
87.
diagonal/counter-rotation tip
shaft
diagonal
0
88.
0
diagonal/transverse/
rotation
diagonal/longitudinal
tip
shaft
89.
counter-rotation
longitudina~/transverse
tip
shaft
0
0
96
Table 8 (Cont'd)
MULTI-FUNCTIONAL TOOLS
Mammal
90.
91.
Bird
diagonal/cross-hatch/
rotation
diagonal
tip
shaft
cross-hatch/
counter-rotation
diagonal/cross-hatch
tip
shaft
0
0
92.
diagonal/counter-rotation tip
transverse/
counter-rotation
shaft
0
93.
diagonal/rotation
cross-hatch
tip
shaft
diagonal/rotation
cross-hatch
94.
0
tip
shaft
longitudinal/rotation
diagonal/longitudinal/
rotation
95.
0
tip
shaft
transverse/rotation
diagonal/cross-hatch
96.
counter-rotation
cross-hatch
tip
shaft
0
97.
diagonal/transverse/
rotation
diagonal
tip
shaft
diagonal/transverse/
rotation
longitudinal
tip
shaft
cross-hatch/transverse/
counter-rotation
diagonal
tip
shaft
98.
99.
100.
101.
0
0
0
diagonal/rotation
diagonal/longitudinal/
rotation
tip
shaft
diagonal/longitudinal/
counter-rotation
tip
0
97
Table 8 (Cont'd)
MULTI-FUNCTIONAL TOOLS
Mammal
Bird
102.
rotation
longitudinal
tip
shaft
0
103.
counter-rotation
diagonal
tip
shaft
0
104.
counter-rotation
diagonal/longitudinal
tip
shaft
105.
counter-rotation
diagonal/transverse
tip
shaft
106.
diagonal/cross-hatch
counter-rotation
cross-hatch/longitudinal
tip
shaft
diagonal/counter-/
rotation
cross-hatch
tip
shaft
108.
rotation
diagonal/longitudinal
tip
shaft
109.
transverse/counter-/
rotation
diagonal
tip
shaft
11 0.
rotation
longitudinal/transverse
tip
shaft
0
111.
diagonal/rotation
diagonal/transverse
tip
shaft
0
112.
longitudinal/rotation
rotation
tip
shaft
0
113.
diagonal
diagonal/cross-hatch/
counter-rotation
tip
107.
114.
cross-hatch/transverse/
counter-rotation
diagonal/longitudinal/
transverse
shaft
tip
shaft
98
Table 8 (Cont'd)
MULTI-FUNCTIONAL TOOLS
Mammal
115.
Bird
diagonal/cross-hatch/
counter-rotation
cross-hatch/transverse
tip
shaft
diagonal/longitudinal/
counter-rotation
longitudinal
tip
shaft
cross-hatch/transverse/
rotation
tip
diagonal/cross-hatch/
counter-rotation
diagonal
tip
shaft .
119.
diagonal/rotation
longitudinal
tip
shaft
diagonal/rotation
longitudinal
120.
longitudinal/rotation
tip
0
121.
diagonal/cross-hatch/
counter-rotation
tip
diagonal/longitudinal/
rotation
tip
123.
transverse/rotation
transverse
tip
shaft
transverse/rotation
transverse
124.
0
tip
longitudinal/transverse/
rotation
116.
117.
118.
122.
0
0
cross-hatch/transverse/
rotation
0
0
125.
rotation/diagonal
tip
0
126.
counter-rotation
longitudinal
tip
shaft
counter-rotation
longitudinal
Total:
Total:
109
Total Mammal Only:
67
60
Total Bird Only:
18
99
Table 9
Variables
HEAD MODIFICATION
Awl
Battered
mammal
bird
Drill
Punch
MultiFunct.
Unidentified
Total
1
0
40
4
0
13
0
0
0
3
0
2
0
17
1
11
0
11
0
0
0
5
1
Ground
mammal
bird
3
0
0
1
0
0
0
Incised
mammal
bird
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
Serrated
mammal
bird
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
Bi-pointed
mammal
bird
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
Polish
mammal
bird
1
1
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
5
0
2
0
0
0
5
3
0
15
2
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
3
0
34
19
23
9
86
16
8
83
4
0
14
20
8
97
Striations
mammal
bird
Asphaltum
Bulb
mamma_l_
bird
Total
5
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
POLISH
Mammal
38
20
Bird
10
0
Total
48
20
0
100
Table 9
Variables (Cont'd)
ASPHALTUM
Awl
Mammal
Drill
Punch
MultiFunct.
Unidentified
Total
5
0
Bird
16
4
0
8
4
32
Total
21
4
1
8
5
39
7
20
0
7
INCISING
Mammal
8
3
Bird
0
0
1
1
Total
8
3
2
2
3
8
23
101
Table 10
Chumash Chronology
The following is a generalized chronology for the Chumash area.
It is presented in order to establish a general time frame in which to
view the sample of 721 bone tools from Muwu.
Millingstone Horizon
5500 B.C. - A.D. 500
The Millingstone Horizon is characterized by an orientation toward
the acquisition and processing of vegetal resources (Elsasser 1978c;
Landberg 1966; Leonard 1971).
The implements characterizing this time
period are the mano and metate (Elsasser 1978c).
remains found at inland sites.
There are no shell
Coastal sites are located in grassland
and sagebrush plant communities, close to the mouth of a major drainage
system.
There was very little inter-village interaction, and what
there was was restricted to villages in similar environments (Elsasser
1978c; Landberg 1966; Leonard 1971).
Intermediate Period
1500 B.C. - A.D. 500
The Intermediate Period is characterized by an increase in hunting
and a decrease in plru1t processing and a new emphasis on fishing.
The
implements that characterize this time period are the basket hopper
mortars, bowl mortars, pestles, broad leaf shaped blades, side notched
projectile points, leaf shaped and stemmed projectile points (Elsasser
1978c).
Coastal villages contine to be located in the same places as
they were in the Millingstone Horizon (Landberg 1966; Leonard 1971 ).
In addition to these are other villages which are now located around
lagoons and in smaller drainages (Leonard 1971).
a millingstone economy.
Inland villages retain
There is now evidence of interaction between
the inland zone and the mainland coast zone, with coastal animal
102
remains found in inland sites (ibid.).
Late Period
A.D. 500-1769
In the Late Period there is a decrease in plant processing tools
found in assocation with plant materials (Leonard 1971 ).
The imple-
ments that characterize this time period are stemless projectile points
with either concave or convex bases, circular shell fish hooks.
increase in bone tools and bone, stone, and shell ornamants.
An
An in-
crease in the use of asphaltum, burials became more elaborate, and there
was an increase in burial goods (Elsasser 1978c).
Small flaked stone
tools (points, drills and flake scrapers) are most numerous.
coast there is an increase in fishing implements.
Rock shelters are
occupied for the first time between A. D.1000 and A.D. 1200.
village interaction increases.
On the
Inter-
Shell beads and Catalina Island steatite
are found throughout the three environmental area (Leonard 1971).
APPENDIX
c
FIGURES
dew
eaJ~
qsemnqJ
Chumash area map
7 . --
1f;;o~ \
~
..,
"
1c}......
I
fl:,nr
Co r1cepftort.
San:fa.. 8arbqf'CL Cho..rLfle.f
Ao..ltbv
C.~
.:x:tn
A,!Juel
~
~
Ca.rtytJA-
a.::. n-.·t.~
_j