Composition of California shellmounds

;•'•/*'■ I-'.*-

University of California • Berkeley

Digitized by the Internet Archive

in 2007 with funding from

IVIicrosoft Corporation

http://www.archive.org/details/compositionofcalOOgiffrich

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PUBLICATIONS

IN

AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY AND ETHNOLOGY

Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 1-29 February 24, 1916

COMPOSITION OF CALIFORNIA
SHELLMOUNDS

BY

EDWARD WINSLOW GIFFORD

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS
BERKELEY

UNIVEKSITY or OAUFOKNIA PUBUEOATIONS
DEPABTMTiNT OF ANTHEOPOLOGT

The following publications dealing with archaeological and ethnological subjects issued
mder the direction of the Department of Anthropology are sent in exchange for the publi-
ttMona of anthropological departments and museums, and for journals devoted to general
anthropology or to archaeology and ethnology. They are for sale at the prices stated, which
Include postage or express charges. Exchanges should be directed to The Exchange Depart-
ment, University Library, Berkeley, Calif omia» U. S. A. All orders and remittances should
be addressed to the University Press.

European agent for the series in American Archaeology and Ethnology, Classical Phil-
ology, Education, Modem Philology, Philosophy, and Semitic Philology, Otto Harrassowitz,
Leipzig. For the series in Botany, Geology, Pathology, Physiology, Zoology and also Amer-
ican Archaeology and Ethnology, B. Friedlaender & Sohn, Berlin.

AMEEIOAN AECHAEOLOGT AND ETHNOLOGY.— A. L. Kroeber, Editor. Price per
volume ?3.50 (Vol. X, $4.25).

Cited as Univ. Calif. Publ. Am. Arch. Ethn. Price

Vol. 1. 1. Life and Culture of the Hupa, by Pliny Earle Goddard. Pp. 1-88;

plates 1-30. September, 1903 „ $1.25

2. Hupa Texts, by Pliny Earle Goddard. Pp. 89-368. March, 1904 _. 3.00

Index, pp. 369-378.
Vol. 2. 1. The Exploration of the Potter Creek Cave, by William J. Sinclair.

Pp. 1-27; plates 1-14. April, 1904 „ _ 40

2. The Languages of the Coast of California South of San Francisco, by

A. L. Kroeber. Pp. 29-80, with a map, June, 1904 60

S. Types of Indian Culture in California, by A. L. Kroeber. Pp. 81-103.

June, 1904 26

4. Basket Designs of the Indians of Northwestern California, by A. L.

Kroeber. Pp. 105-164; plates 15-21. January, 1905 ..._ _ 76

5. The Yokuts Language of South Central California, by A. L. BLroeber.

Pp. 165-377. January, 1907 _ 2.25

Index, pp. 379-392.
Vol 8. The Morphology of the Hupa Language, by Pliny Earle Goddard.

344 pp. June, 1905 _ 8.60

Vol. 4. 1. The Earliest Historical Belations between Mexico and Japan, from

original documents preserved In Spain and Japan, by Zelia Nuttall.

Pp. 1-47. April, 1906 _ .80

2. Contribution to the Physical Anthropology of California, based on col-

lections iU' the Department of Anthropology of the University of
California, and in tho U. S. National Museum, by Ales Hrdlicka.
Pp. 49-64, with 5 tables; plates 1-10, and map. Juno, 1906 _... .76

3. The Shoshonean Dialects of California, by A, L. Kroeber. Pp. 65-166.

February, 1907 _ _ 1.60

4. Indian Myths from South Central California, by A. L. Kroeber. Pp.

167-250. May, 1907 - - .76

6. The Washo Language of East Central California and Nevada, by A. L.

Kroeber. Pp. 251-318. September, 1907 _ .75

6. The Religion of the Indians of California, by A. L. Kroeber. Pp. 319-

356. September, 1907 60

Index, pp. 357-374.
Vol. 6. 1. The Phonology of the Hupa Language; Part I, The Individual Sounds,

by Pliny Earle Goddard. Pp. 1-20, plates 1-8. March, 1907 ..._ 86

2. Navaho Myths, Prayers and Songs, with Texts and Translations, by

Washington Matthews, edited by Pliny Earle Goddard. Pp. 21-63.

September, 1907 „ _ — . .76

8. Kato Texts, by Pliny Earle Goddard. Pp. 65-238, plate 9. December,

1909 2.50

4. The Material Culture of the Klamath Lake and Modoc Indians of

Northeastern California and Southern Oregon, by S. A. Barrett.

Pp. 239-292, plates 10-25. June, 1910 ...„ _. .76

5. The Chtmariko Indians and Language, by Roland B. Dixon. Pp. 293-

380. August, 1910 _ 1.00

Index, pp. 381-384.
Vol. 6. 1. The Ethno-Geography of the Pomo and Neighboring Indians, by Sam-
uel Alfred Barrett. Pp. 1-332, maps 1-2. February, 1908 _ S.2S

2, The Geography and Dialects of the Miwok Indiana, by Samuel Alfred

Barrett. Pp. 333-368, map 3.
8. On the Evidence of the Occupation of Certain Regions by the Mlwok
Indians, by A. L. Kroeber. Pp. 369-880. Nos. 2 and 8 in one cover.

February, 1908 ...„ _ „ M

Index, pp. 381-400.

Bancroft Library

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PUBLICATIONS

IN

AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY AND ETHNOLOGY

VOLUME 12

A. L.KROEBER

EDITOR

.^ncroft Library

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS
BERKELEY
1916-1917

: 1 5

V j 2

Cited as Univ. Calif. Publ. Am. Arch. Ethn.

60 71

CONTENTS

Number 1.— Composition of California Shellmounds, Edward Winslow Gifford,
pages 1-29.

Number 2. — California Place Names of Indian Origin, A. L. Kroeber, pages
31-69,

Number 3. — Arapaho Dialects, A. L. Kroeber, pages 71-138.

Number 4. — Miwok Moieties, Edward Winslow Gifford, pages 139-194.

Number 5. — On Plotting the Inflections of the Voice, Cornelius B. Bradley,
pages 195-218, plates 1-5.

Number 6. — Tiibatulabal and Kawaiisu Kinship Terms, Edward Winslow Gif-
ford, pages 219-248.

Number 7. — Bandelier's Contribution to the Study of Ancient Mexican Social
Organization, T. T. Waterman, pages 249-282.

Number 8. — Miwok Myths, Edward Winslow Gifford, pages 283-338, plate 6.

Number 9. — California Kinship Terms, A. L. Kroeber, pages 339-396.

Number 10. — Ceremonies of the Porno Indians, S. A. Barrett, pages 397-441,
8 text-figures.

Number 11. — Pomo Bear Doctors, S. A. Barrett, pages 443-465, plate 7.

Index, pages 467-473.

Errata, page 473.

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PUBLICATIONS

IN

AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY AND ETHNOLOGY

Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 1-29 February 24, 1916

COMPOSITION OF CALIFORNIA SHELLMOUNDS

BY

EDWAED WINSLOW GIFFOED

CONTENTS

PAGE

Introduction 1

Shellmound Constituents 4

Shellmound Environment 7

Age of the Shellmounds , „ 12

Tables 15

INTRODUCTION

The study of the composition of California shellmounds for the
present paper was begun in August, 1913, at the suggestion of Dr.
A. L. Kroeber. The paper has also had the benefit of his advice.

The first portion of the work was to find by analysis the quantity
of the various constituents entering into the mound composition, the
relation of quantity and depth in the occurrence of these constituents,
and the amount of disintegration to which they have been subjected.
The second portion of the work has been to consider the facts brought
out by the analyses and see, first, whether they gave any insight into
the environment of the shellmounds during their growth, and hence,
whether they threw any light on the daily life of the shellmound
dwellers; second, whether they offered any evidence as to the age of
the mounds, either directly or relatively.

The results of the analyses of eighty-four samples (all part of the
collection of the University of California Museum of Anthropology)
are embodied in the present paper. These samples total in weight
10,003.15 grams, and range in weight from 31.47 to 832.9 grams
(average 119.08 grams). In each case the sample is typical of the

2 University of California Publications in Am. Arch, and Ethn. [ Vol. 12

mound at a particular level and does not merely represent the contents
of a pocket of any kind, for example a fireplace. Such pockets and
their contents have been purposely avoided as not being typical.

Each sample was sifted through three square-mesh screens. The
largest screen had meshes twelve millimeters square, the intermediate
had meshes four millimeters square, and the smallest meshes two milli-
meters square. The material caught by each of these three screens,
beginning with the coarsest, was separated by the eye and the various
constitutents weighed. The fine material passing through the two-
millimeter screen was analyzed chemically, by Mr. C. A. Harwell of
the University of California, for the proportion of shell and of ash.
All matter not proving to be either shell or ash in this chemical analysis
has been called residue wherever mentioned in this paper.

Samples were examined from mounds, shown on the accompanying
map, in the vicinity of San Francisco Bay, as listed below. The
mound numbers refer to a manuscript map^ and, in part, to a pub-
lished map,^ both by Mr. N. C. Nelson.

Sausalito (Mound No. 3) 6 samples

Greenbrae (Mound No. 76) 8

San Rafael (Mound No. 86c) 6

Carquinez (Mound No. 236) 2

Ellis Landing (Mound No. 295) 10

West Berkeley (Mound No. 307) 8

Emeryville (Mound No. 309) 19

Castro (Mound No. 356) 5

San Mateo (Mound No. 372) 4

San Mateo Point (Mound No. 418) 2

San Francisco (Mound No. 417) 1 sample

Half Moon Bay (Mound No. 407) 4 samples

Samples were also examined from three mounds outside of the San
Francisco Bay region. The first two of these, listed below, are on the
shores of Humboldt Bay in northern California, and are numbered
as shown below on a manuscript map of that region by Mr. L. L. Loud.^
One, Eureka mound, is a mile and a half east of the county courthouse
at Eureka. The other, Gunther Island mound, is a mile north of the
waterfront of Eureka and is on an island which lies in front of the
town. The third mound (Point Loma) is on the west shore of San

1 Univ. Calif. Mus. Anthrop., No. 13-1065.

2 N. C. Nelson, Shellmounds of the San Francisco Bay Region, Univ. Calif.
Publ. Am. Arch. Ethn., vii, map 1, 1909.

3 Univ. Calif. Mus. Anthrop., No. 13-994.

1916] Giford: Composition of California Shellmounds 3

Diego Bay in southern California. Its exact location is also shown on
a manuscript map.*

Eureka (Mound No. N59) 1 sample

Gunther Island (Mound No. N67) 7 samples

Point Loma (Mound No. S49) 1 sample

The two samples obtained from Carquinez mound, and likewise the
five from Castro, have not yet been catalogued with the Museum's
collection. The remaining samples, arranged in order of depth of
sample from top to bottom of each mound, are catalogued as follows :

Sausalito mound: 1-14817 to 1-14822.

Greenbrae mound: 1-14906 to 1-14913.

San Eafael mound: 1-14968 to 1-14973.

Ellis Landing mound: 1-11406, 1-11403, 1-11399, 1-11407, 1-11400,

1-11404, 1-11408, 1-11401, 1-11405, 1-11402.
West Berkeley mound: 1-7312, 1-7313, 1-17003, 1-7314 to 1-7318.
Emeryville mound: 1-9869, 1-9870, 1-9872, 1-9874, 1-9876, 1-9878,

1-9880 to 1-9884, 1-9890 to 1-9893, 1-7941, 1-7963, 1-7964,

1-7967.
San Mateo mound: 1-18586 to 1-18588, 1-16758.
San Mateo Point mound: 1-17331, 1-18585.
San Francisco mound: 1-17031.

Half Moon Bay mound: 1-17320, 1-17322 to 1-17324.
Eureka mound: 1-17978.
Gunther Island mound: 1-18546, 1-18547, 1-18553, 1-18556, 1-18576

to 1-18578.
Point Loma mound: 1-17366.

All depths were measured in feet from the surface of the mound.
Often the samples from a given mound, however, were not all taken in
one vertical plane. Such is the case with the samples from Carquinez,
Ellis Landing, West Berkeley, Emeryville, Castro, San Mateo, San
Mateo Point, Half Moon Bay, and (xunther Island." The samples from

4 Univ. Calif. Mus. Anthrop., No. 13-960.

5 Of the Ellis Landing samples, those taken at 1.5, 4.5, and 7 (second seven
in tables) feet are all in the same vertical plane (70 feet from the center); those
taken at 2, 7 (first seven in tables), and 11 feet are all in another vertical plane
(35 feet from the center); and those taken at 3, 6, 10, and 17 feet are in a third
vertical plane (the center). Of West Berkeley samples the one marked 4.5 feet
was not taken in the same vertical plane as the other samples. The first fifteen
Emeryville samples (.5 to 19.5 feet deep) are from a vertical shaft sunk on the
eastern side of the mound. The remaining four samples are from various places
at the bottom of an excavation on the western side of the mound, and represent
the mound at its very base. The first three Castro samples (1, 2, and 3 feet
deep) were taken in one vertical plane; so also were the first three San Mateo
samples (3, 6, and 8 feet deep). The first Half Moon Bay sample (1 foot deep)
was not taken in the same vertical plane with the other three. The last three
Gunther Island samples (6, 6.5, and 8 feet deep) came from one vertical plane.

4 University of California Publications in Am. Arch, and Ethn. [Vol. 12

Sausalito, Greenbrae, and San Rafael were taken from one vertical
plane in the case of each mound.

Where only the approximate and not the absolute depths are given
in the Museum's catalogue, the average depth is given in this paper.
For example, three to six feet in the catalogue is here given as four
and a half feet to serve better the purposes of comparison.

The listing of the mounds in most of the tables is in a series begin-
ning at Sausalito on the north side of the Golden Gate and following
the bay shore around to San Francisco on the south side of the Golden
Gate. Then come the mounds located at Half Moon, Humboldt, and
San Diego bays.

The species of shells from the Point Loma mound are entirely
foreign to the San Francisco Bay and Humboldt Bay mounds. For
that reason the shell of the single Point Loma sample has not been
separated specifically, being of no use for comparison.

The records of the analyses are stated in terms of weight and not
of volume.

SHELLMOUND CONSTITUENTS

The seven main constituents into which each sample of shellmound
material was separated were fish remains (bones and scales), other
vertebrate remains (chiefly bones), shell (almost entirely moUuscan,
but including also barnacles, crab shell, and sea-urchin), charcoal, ash,
rock, and residue (earth, sand, charcoal dust, etc.). Of these con-
stituents, shell is the most abundant, the average mound containing
over fifty-two per cent by weight. Then follow residue with nearly
twenty-eight per cent, ash with over twelve per cent, rock with over
seven per cent, and charcoal, fish remains, and other vertebrate
remains with less than one per cent combined. Table 1 gives the
average per cent of these constituents in the fifteen mounds.

The percentage for fish remains, other vertebrate remains, charcoal,
and rock should undoubtedly be higher than given in the tables. All
of the very minute pieces of these constituents passed through the
fine or two-millimeter screen, and, as they were not separated chem-
ically, are included in the shell, ash, and residue. The percentages for
these three are therefore too high, but there is no practical method of
making the adjustment, so that this slight error in the results will
have to stand.

1916] Gifford: Composition of California Shellmounds 5

In the second table the seven constituents of the first table have
been combined so as to form only three groups. Fish remains, other
vertebrate remains, and shell are included under material derived
from animal sources ; charcoal and ash under products of combustion ;
and rock and residue under material derived from inorganic sources.
The percentages in table 1 for shell and ash differ but little from the
corresponding percentages in table 2 under animal and combustion.
This is due in the first case to the uniformly small amounts of fish and
other vertebrate remains found in the mounds, and in the second case
to the uniformly small quantity of charcoal. The average mound is
composed by weight of over fifty-two per cent of material derived from
animal sources, of thirteen per cent of material produced by com-
bustion, and of thirty-five per cent of material derived from inorganic
sources. For the average San Francisco Bay mound the figures are a
trifle different, being fifty-six, fifteen, and twenty-nine, respectively.

The seven main constituents are presented in detail in the third
to the ninth tables. The quantities are stated as percentages of the
weight of each sample. It will be noted that the percentages for fish
remains, other vertebrate remains, and charcoal are all very low, while
those for shell, ash, rock, and residue range widely. In the case of
fish remains (table 3) the two high percentages (2.11 and .9) for
Emeryville are due to extraordinarily large fragments of bone. Con-
sidering the rapidity with which fish bones disintegrate, especially
when cooked, it seems rather remarkable that any were preserved at
all. Inasmuch as there are found in some of the mounds, and at all
levels, grooved stones considered to be net sinkers, it is evident that
fishing was a regular means of procuring food.^

In the material examined remains of other vertebrates were found
in slightly larger amounts than those of fish (cf. tables 3 and 4). If
these samples are typical, one of two conclusions must be true : either
the shellmound people ate very few vertebrates outside of fish, or some
destroying agency (possibly a domestic dog) has been a factor in
obliterating the evidence.''

In the eighth table it will be noted that specimens of rock were
retained by the screens from all but two of the eighty-four samples.
The records of the amounts caught by each screen demonstrate that
in the average mound eighty -three per cent passed through the twelve-

6 Cf. N. C. Nelson, Shellmounds of the San Francisco Bay Region, Univ. Calif.
Publ. Am. Arch. Ethn., vii, p. 339, 1909.

7 Cf. N. C. Nelson, op. cit., p. 339.

6 University of California Publications in Am. Arch, and Ethn. [Vol. 12

millimeter and was caught by the four-millimeter and two-millimeter
screens. From this it is evident that eighty-three per cent of the rock
consists of very fine fragments and pebbles. Mounds such as Sausalito
and San Mateo Point probably derive the high average percentage of
rock (see table 1) from the stony land on which they are laid. In
many cases, however, the pebbles and small fragments of rock doubtless
were attached to roots and bulbs dug elsewhere for food. Some of the
ordinary earth or dirt in the shellmounds must have been brought
there in a similar adventitious fashion.

Mussel {Mytilus edulis), clam (Macoma nasuta), and oyster {Ostrea
lurida) are the most prominent molluscan species, at least one of them
being of importance in each of the mounds except Half Moon Bay and
Castro. In the eleven San Francisco Bay mounds, with the exception
of Ellis Landing and Castro, mussel predominates above all other
species. In Ellis Landing clam and in Castro horn-shell (Cerithidea
calif ornica) are the commonest species. In the tenth table are shown
the records for the San Francisco Bay region. The amount of each
species is mentioned as a percentage of the total amount of shell.

The mounds of Half Moon and Humboldt bays naturally yield, at
least in part, shell species different from those typical of the San
Francisco Bay mounds. These species are listed in the eleventh table.
That the sources of shellfish supply of the Eureka and Gunther Island
mounds, although less than two miles apart, were not the same, is made
apparent at a glance by the species found in Gunther Island and not
in Eureka, and furthermore, where they have species in common, by
the widely divergent percentages. Gunther Island savors strongly of
the ocean as well as the bay ; Eureka only of the bay.

As stated in the introduction, three sizes of screens were used as
aids in segregating the various constituents. At the same time record
was kept of the amount of each constituent caught by these screens,
and likewise of the amount of material passing through the fine
screen. There proved to be a considerable variation in regard to this
last point. Eighty-seven per cent of the Gunther Island and only forty-
one per cent of the San Mateo material passed through the fine screen.
Castro with eighty-five per cent and Point Loma with eighty-two per
cent are similar to Gunther Island in this respect. This is owing to
the abundance of earth in Castro and of sand in Gunther Island and
Point Loma. The remaining mounds treated in this paper are more
typical than the above four, ranging from sixty-six per cent in the
case of San Rafael to forty-three per cent in Ellis Landing. Sixty

1916] Giford: Composition of California Shellmounds 7

per cent of the material composing the average mound passed through
the fine, or two-millimeter, screen.

That all shell species do not break up alike was definitely demon-
strated by keeping a record of the amount of mussel, clam, and oyster
caught by the three screens. Of mussel, two per cent was caught by
the coarse screen, twenty-eight per cent by the medium, and seventy
by the fine ; of clam fifteen per cent by the coarse screen, fifty-one by
the medium, and thirty-four by the fine; of oyster thirteen per cent
by the coarse screen, sixty by the medium, and twenty-seven by the
fine. It is very clear that the mussel breaks far more readily than
either clam or oyster, a fact which will have a bearing later in
explaining the difference in the size of shell fragments in the upper
and lower portions of Ellis Landing mound.

SHELLMOUND ENVIRONIVIENT

No evidence of change of environment is afforded by the results
of the analyses. The definite facts established point the other way:
that is, towards the continuity throughout shellmound times of the
conditions as they were at the coming of the white man. This con-
tinuity of conditions is demonstrated by the shell species found in the
mounds. It may be taken as almost axiomatic that the species in a
mound reflect the molluscan fauna of the vicinity, and hence the
environment during the period of growth of the mound. A very clear
case in point is that of the small San Francisco mound located in a
swamp in the Presidio on the south shore of the Golden Gate. This
mound, as one can see by consulting the accompanying map, is situated
in a position favorable for the hunting of both bay and ocean species
of mollusks. The fact that the mound dwellers sought both forms
regularly is shown in table 10 by the nearly equal percentages of
Mytilus californianus and Mytilus edulis. The former is an ocean
species frequenting surf -beaten rocks; the latter lives in the quieter
bay waters.

The presence of large quantities of oyster shell (Ostrea lurida) in
the shellmounds of the central San Francisco Bay region — ^West
Berkeley, Emeryville, San Mateo, and San Mateo Point — points to
the similarity between the conditions during the period of their growth
and the conditions during modern times. This abundance of Ostrea
lurida is made manifest in table 10. Generally speaking, these four

8 University of California Puhlicaltons in Am. Arch, and Ethn. [Vol. 12

mounds lie in the region which has been largely utilized at the present
day for the raising of the introduced Atlantic coast oyster {Ostrea
virginiana) for the market. The introduced oyster has in part dis-
placed the native oyster of shellmound days.

Many examples of the occurrence throughout mounds of other
species might be added as further proof of the absence of sweeping
physiographic changes in the environment of the shellmounds. How-
ever, I will be content with mentioning two others, which are par-
ticularly interesting because they not only show continuity of con-
ditions but also the advantages and disadvantages of the locations of
the mounds involved. These two cases hinge on the occurrence of the
horn-shell (Cerithidea calif ornica) , a small univalve with a great many
spirals, and of another univalve {Phytia myosotis), which is minute.

In Castro mound near the southern end of San Francisco Bay, the
horn-shell proves to be the commonest species (see table 10). Almost
invariably it is found with the apex of the spiral broken off, evidently
to aid in extracting the animal without crushing the entire shell. This
species inhabits salt marshes, where it is usually found by thousands
in shallow pools on top of the marsh. Its occurrence from top to
bottom of the Castro mound proves the existence of salt marsh near by
from the very beginning of its accumulation. This salt marsh with
its deep sloughs, lying between the mound and the bay, must have been
a fairly effective barrier against the mound-dwellers reaching the bay
shore. This conclusion is further warranted by the comparative
scarcity here of ordinary shellmound species, which is very well
shown by the column for Castro in table 10. Further negative proof
of the difficulty that the Castro people had in obtaining the usual
molluscan food is also shown in table 10 by the scarcity or absence
of Cerithidea calif ornica in other mounds, in spite of the fact that it
is a common species in the San Francisco Bay region. Thus it appears
that the people of Castro, on account of the difficulty of obtaining
the ordinary shellmound species, were forced to make use of the small
and unsatisfactory Cerithidea calif ornica. Conversely, the people of
the other San Francisco Bay mounds appear to have neglected it
because of the bountiful supply of other molluscan food.

The deduction that the Castro people lived under conditions differ-
ing from those at Ellis Landing, for example, is obvious. It is sup-
ported, moreover, by the fact that nearly seventy per cent of Ellis
Landing mound is composed of shell, while Castro mound contains only
about twenty-six per cent (see table 1).

1916] Giford: Composition of California Shellmounds 9

The next species to be considered in connection with the matter of
environment is the tiny Phytia myosotis. Its distribution in certain
of the San Francisco Bay mounds is indicated by crosses in table 12.
Like the last species, it also lives in salt marshes, where it occurs on the
underside of driftwood which has lain in the marsh for a considerable
time. Briefly then, the presence of Phytia myosotis in a mound
indicates that there must have been salt marsh close by ; which, further-
more, supplied the inhabitants with some of their firewood. An
examination of table 12 shows therefore that salt marsh existed in
the vicinity of some of the mounds throughout the period of their
growth.

Mr. N. C. Nelson inclines to the theory that some of the San
Francisco Bay shellmounds may have been "begun, if not actually
abandoned, prior to the building up of the now broad belt of reclaim-
able marsh. "^ The absence of salt marsh during shellmound days
would mean a very remote antiquity for the mounds and a great
difference in the physical geography of the San Francisco Bay region.
There is no evidence for either. The salt marsh doubtless grew rapidly
enough to offset the general subsidence of the region as a whole and
thus kept the conditions practically unchanged for countless centuries.
Only a very sudden and extensive elevation or subsidence could
obliterate the salt marsh of the bay. This would have meant a great
difference in the habits of life of the people. The contents of the
mounds certainly offer no indication of such a condition, while the
presence of the two mollusks discussed give positive proof that such
was not the case.

Mr. Nelson directs attention *'to the noticeable variation of the
preponderating shell species represented in the section wall of the
Ellis mound (see pi. 49, fig. 1) . The lower portion of this accumulation
is composed almost exclusively of mussel shells, and it is only in the
upper eight feet that the clam shells become at all plentiful. ' '® Table
13 bears out Mr. Nelson's statement. In it, the amount of clam
(Macoma nasuta) in each sample is compared with the amount of
mussel {Mytilus edulis), each species being given as a percentage of
the combined quantities of both. It will be noted that below ten feet
the amount of Macoma drops to less than ten per cent by weight of the

8 Nelson, Shellmounds of the San Francisco Bay Region, p. .S28; see also p. 317.

9 N. C. Nelson, The Ellis Landing Shellmound, Univ. Calif. Publ. Am. Arch.
Ethn., VII, p. 376, 1910. The reference in the above quotation is to plate 49 in
the paper cited.

10 University of California Publications in Am. Arch, and Ethn. [Vol. 12

combined species. It would be interesting to test by samples the
extent to which Mr. Nelson's assertion holds true below the depth of
seventeen feet.

Similar variations of the preponderating shell species are found
in Sausalito mound between mussel and clam (table 14) ; in Emery-
ville mound between mussel, oyster {Ostrea lurida), and clam (table
15) ; in Castro mound between mussel, horn-shell (Cerithidea calif or-
nica), and oyster (table 16) ; in San Mateo mound between mussel
and oyster (table 17) ; in Half JVIoon Bay mound (table 18) between
the large coast mussel (Mytilus calif ornianus) and the black turban
shell (Tegula funehralis) ; and in Gunther Island mound between all
four of its chief food species (table 19). The twentieth table for
"West Berkeley mound shows variations less extensive than in the pre-
ceding. Tables 21 and 22 show that in Greenbrae and San Rafael
mounds clam (with one exception) and oyster in no case amount to
over ten per cent of the total of mussel, clam, and oyster. Moreover,
mussel varies but little.

All of these cases, where not merely accidental, are to my mind
nothing but instances of the mound-dwellers' overtaxing the supply
of one particular shell species and thus being forced to rely more on
other species. I consider that this explanation covers the case of Ellis
Landing as well as of the other mounds. I have actually seen a modern
instance of this sort. Several years ago clams {My a arenaria)
became very scarce in the mud fiats at the east end of the city of
Alameda on the eastern shore of San Francisco Bay, owing to a few
Chinese clam diggers becoming too persistent in their work in such a
small area. Why could not such a case have occurred in ancient times ?
With Ellis Landing mound, I fail to see where it is necessary to
postulate changes in physiography to account for the abundance of
clam shell in the upper portion of the mound and its scarcity in the
lower portion. ^^ A further consideration of table 13 will show that
in part mussel is more abundant than clam in the upper portion of the
mound. This recurrence of mussel in abundance perhaps represents
a recovery from the drain to which it had been subjected. It is per-
fectly natural that a primitive people should prefer mussels, for they
can be obtained without tools and merely for the effort of pulling
them off the rocks or wood on which they grow. Clams, on the other
hand, have to be dug, requiring more labor.

10 Cf. N. C. Nelson, The Ellis Landing Shellmound, pp. 376-378.

1916] Gifford: Composition of California Shell/mounds 11

The very different manner in which mussel shell and clam shell
break up has been already pointed out. In Ellis Landing an average
of seventy-one per cent of all the mussel (see table 23) stopped by the
screens was caught by the fine or two-millimeter screen, while only
fifteen per cent of the clam was caught by the same screen. Speaking
of the difference in structure of the upper and lower portions of Ellis
Landing mound, Mr. Nelson states that "the upper six or eight feet
of the deposit is comparatively coarse material," while "below it the
material is of an almost uniformly fine and compact nature. "^^ Two
pages farther on in the same paper, he says that "the lower portion
of this accumulation is composed almost exclusively of mussel shells,
and it is only in the upper eight feet that the clam shells become at
all plentiful." These two statements seem to dovetail with the facts
mentioned above as to the average size of the fragments of mussel and
clam shell in the mound. It is obvious that the peculiarity of struc-
ture, to which Mr. Nelson calls attention, is due merely to the different
manner in which the preponderating species in the two portions of
the mound break up.

Besides the cause just mentioned, another has been operative in
producing layers and streaks of finely broken shell at various depths
in the shellmounds. This second cause, which operated constantly
while the mounds were inhabited, was the people themselves. In their
excursions for fuel, food, water, and other necessities, the mound-
dwellers must in time have formed more or less well-defined trails.
Not only must we consider trails, but also the places frequented by
people around their houses. Then, too, dances and other ceremonies,
which attracted a large number of visitors, were certainly instrumental
in breaking up the shell. On the other hand, pockets of unbroken shell
probably represent refuse heaps where people were not in the habit
of walking. The occurrence of the sort of streaks and layers mentioned
above is shown in table 23 for Sausalito, Greenbrae, San Rafael, Ellis
Landing, and Emeryville mounds. Mussel shell is used to demonstrate
this point, a high percentage representing a large amount of finely
broken shell, a lower percentage indicating the reverse.

It is just possible that the favorable location for shellfish at Ellis
Landing mound (note in table 1 that it has a higher percentage than
any other mound) may have made it not only the metropolis but also
a sort of ceremonial center for the region. This would be an additional

11 Nelson, The Ellis Landing Shellmound, p. 374,

12 University of California Publications in Am. Arch, and Et'h7i. [Vol. 12

factor, in helping to exhaust the mussel supply and enforce the more
extended use of clams.

AGE OF THE SHELLMOUNDS

Mr. N. C. Nelson estimates the volume of Ellis Landing mound at
1,260,000 cubic feet,^^ in other words 35,649 cubic meters. By actual
test of shellmound material before it had been broken up or disturbed,
I have found that its specific gravity is about 1.3. This makes the
total weight of the Ellis Landing shellmound about 51,085 short tons.
The shell entering into the mound would be about 69.43 per cent (see
table 1) of this, or 35,468 tons. If we take Mr. Nelson's estimate of
thirty-five hundred years as the age of the mound, the shell must have
been laid down at the average rate of 10.13 tons a year, or fifty-six
pounds a day. This amount of shell a day certainly seems reasonable
enough, if we accept one hundred people as the average population
of the mound throughout its growth. Both Dr. Kroeber and Mr.
Nelson consider this figure to be the most probable, the former basing
his opinion on his knowledge of California Indian life, the latter on
his findings at Ellis Landing.

Turning to table 1 it is found that 13.99 per cent of Ellis Landing
mound consists of ash. The actual weight of ash in the mound is
therefore about 7147 short tons. Again employing Mr. Nelson's
estimate of thirty-five hundred years as the age of the mound, we find
that ash accumulated at the rate of 2.04 tons a year, or 11.2 pounds
a day. If we adopt .009^^ pound of ash as the average amount pro-
duced by one pound of wood, then it appears that the Ellis Landing
people used 1240 pounds of wood a day. If the assumed population of
one hundred individuals was distributed among fifteen families, this
would mean an average of eighty-three pounds of wood per family
per day. This is a moderate amount if one considers that they had
an abundance of driftwood close at hand. The two great rivers which
drain the interior of California, the Sacramento and the San Joaquin,
empty into San Francisco Bay through the adjoining Suisun and San
Pablo bays. They must have given the shellmound people of the
region a great variety of driftwood as well as a great quantity.

12 Nelson, Shellmounds of the San Francisco Bay Eegion, p. 346.

13 This approximate figure was derived by averaging the percentages of ash
for the trees likely to have been accessible to the shellmound dwellers. The
percentages were obtained from Romeyn Beck Hough, American Woods, 1888 ff.

1916] Gilford: Composition of California Shellmounds 13

These results accordingly corroborate Mr. Nelson 's figure of thirty-
five hundred years as the age of Ellis Landing mound. Of course they
are dependent primarily on the acceptance of his assumption of one
hundred people as the average population day in and day out.

Dr. Max Uhle estimated the volume of Emeryville mound at 39,000
cubic meters.^^ Again using 1.3 as the specific gravity of shellmound
material, the weight of the entire mound proves to be about 55,885
short tons. Of this mass I assume that 59.86 per cent by weight is
shell and 13.47 per cent is ash, as shown in table 1. Then in actual
figures the shell in Emeryville mound would weigh 33,455 tons and
the ash 7528 tons.

Let us suppose that the average population at Emeryville mound
was one hundred as at Ellis Landing, for the two mounds approximate
each other in volume. If we allow that these hundred people ate
shellfish at the same rate as the Ellis Landing people, it then took
thirty-three hundred years to accumulate the shell in Emeryville
mound. Assuming that thirty-three hundred years is the correct age,
the amounts of wood burned daily by the two populations were slightly
different, though in virtual agreement. In Ellis Landing with an
average population of one hundred and an age of thirty-five hundred
years, it was shown that the rate of accumulation of ash was 11.2
pounds a day. In Emeryville mound, however, the people burned more
wood, and ash accumulated at the rate of twelve pounds a day or 2.2
short tons a year. The Emeryville people used about 1333 pounds of
wood a day.

Of course the results for Emeryville could be reversed by assuming
that the amount of wood burned per day was the same as at Ellis
Landing. In that case the amount of shellfish consumed per day would
be less and the age of the mound would be thirty-seven hundred years
instead of thirty-three hundred. This is really a further confirmation
of the probable age of the mound rather than a contradiction. By
age I mean, of course, the number of years during which accumula-
tion took place; not the number of years the mound has been in
existence.

It is plain that results depend upon what we assume our unknown
quantities to be, and unfortunately there are many of these. Never-
theless, the period of thirty-three hundred or thirty-seven hundred
years for Emeryville mound may be claimed to be a reasonable length

14 The Emeryville Shellmound, Univ. Calif. Publ. Am. Arch. Ethn., vii, p. 10,
1907.

14 University of California Publicationa in Am. Arch, and Ethn. [Vol. 12

of time for the accumulation of the mound. In fact, it is substantiated
by Mr. Nelson's figures for Ellis Landing. His estimate and the
present one for Emeryville really corroborate each other.

This method of ascertaining the age of the mounds might be applied
to all treated in this paper, were it not that the precarious factors are
too numerous. The percentages of shell and ash in table 1, however,
afford evidence that all shellmounds did not grow at the same rate.
The mode of accumulation for the average mound was one part of ash
to four parts of shell. In Ellis Landing the ratio is one to five and
in Emeryville one to four. Emeryville matches the average mound,
while Ellis Landing exceeds it on the side of shell. San Francisco
and Emeryville mounds are the only ones that show the average ratio
of ash to shell.

Considering the entire list of fifteen mounds, four have exception-
ally large amounts of ash compared to shell : San Rafael, Carquinez,
and West Berkeley with the ratio of one to two; and Castro with the
ratio of one to three. In the majority of mounds the amount of ash
is below the average when compared to the amount of shell : Green-
brae, Ellis Landing, and San Mateo with the ratio of one to five ; Eureka
with one to six ; Point Loma with one to seven ; Gunther Island with
one to nine ; San Mateo Point with one to ten ; and Sausalito and
Half Moon Bay with one to thirteen.

Differences of this sort have a very direct bearing on calculations
with regard to the age of the mounds. Where the amount of ash is
exceptionally high in proportion to the shell, it does not mean merely
that the inhabitants burned more than the usual amount of wood;
but it undoubtedly means that the mound was built up more slowly
than others with a less amount of ash. The inhabitants, instead of
depending to the usual extent on shellfish, lived more on vegetable
foods which would leave no trace. The only thing to tell the tale would
be the unusually high percentage of ash compared to shell. Therefore
one cannot estimate the accumulation of shell in a mound of this sort
at the same rate as in an average mound like Emeryville.

The puzzle of the age of the shellmounds requires for its solution
every scrap of information bearing on the mounds. A knowledge of
shellmound composition, of population, of artifacts, of skeletal remains,
of environment, or of food alone will not solve the puzzle. The proper
combination of all of these is necessary to gain the end.

Transmitted December 4, 1914.

1916]

Giford: Composition of California Shellmounds

15

«0 M (M_

oi to ■*'

•?, lO 05

lO^tDIMOO^OCO^DCOOSCl-*!

00 00 ■*■
i-i i-i >n

00 ?0 CO lO Tfl

00 ic oa

00 00 00 CO

_ oa oq i-H 00 00
■*' oi i-H to t-' ci
CO i-l 00 <0 <N r-(

00 Od lO CD

jS 1-1 CO CO
M (N t^ CO lO

CO IC -<*( OQ

Siooot-xo-^cot-ooco
t<ireo-^t-oi(Mcoa)i>-W(M

=80i— lOr-INrHOqoOT-lOO

o ©q CO CO (M

fM

„-<tl CO-<*<COCOC005C5

■5 •<* -* C5 CO Tj< IC 00 OJ O IC

-9 Tji 10 co' lo oi <m" OJ id <jj 00 - _ —

«2lOC010lOCOkO>0(M>0»OlOlOCO

-* CO Oi O U3

CO 00' id 00" N 10
' '" (M in m

w

W

hJ

Eh

PQ

&<

<

0

H

M

W

0

<1

Bj

M

<i

; h.g 10

ira CO o>

(M Tt< CD

iH CO 10

CO t^ i-i 00 in

O O i-l iH iH

00 00 00

-* 01 CO 00 10

O O i-H CO CO 00

i-H O O

bo <»

■^ ®

-(J

cS

.9
'3

pq

0

c3

c3

m

a>

IjO

&

0)

d

»H

S

EC

fl

a

ppl

u

STt

CU

^

rt

m

ert

OJ

0

OD

0

w

w

0

oc

CC

c8

S aj

C8

03

hJ

bn

bo

^

A

a

eS

3

»H

a

0)

9>

3

3

0

>

>

H

0

fl(

-<

<

16 University of California Publications in Am. Arch, and EtJin. [A'"ol. 12

TABLE 2

Shellmound Composition in Percentages of Material Derived from Animal

Sources, from Combustion, and from Inorganic Sources

Mound Animal Combustion Inorganic

Sausalito 55 4 41

Greenbrae 65 13 22

San Eafael 54 25 21

Carquinez 55 27 18

Ellis Landing 70 14 16

West Berkeley 53 24 23

Emeryville 60 14 26

Castro 26 10 64

San Mateo 59 11 30

San Mateo Point 59 6 35

San Francisco 57 16 27

Half Moon Bay 57 4 39

Eureka 69 12 19

Gunther Island 16 2 82

Point Loma 29 5 66

Average mound 52 13 35

Average S. F. Bay mound 56 15 29

1916]

Giford: Composition of California Shellmounds

17

C8 o *

5 G

C3 cu

w

&^

hJ

Z

pq
<!
Eh

P^

w

g

>.

—

M

iz;

^ s

5

P9

S

u

tiD

M

03 a

W

w S

c^

t- i

rH

•*

iH

in

M

CT

q

i-H ;

q

q

q

q

q

q

08 s
03

iHiHCqiNMCO-^'^'-IOtOt-t-OOOiOlOOi-IINNeS

a a a s ^

in in o o o p £

„ „ ^, ^, ,.^ , t^t^^Ci*^**-*^^^

M fQ « M -aj

18

University of California Publications in Am. Arch, and Etlin. [Vol. 12

•3*2?

wa=5

» 53 ® B « L'^

03 J3

H

CM

'^

hJ

M

'<5

>> ni

<J

'"'

H

m

<

M

S^

H

^fe

H

«

->!

»

«

09 B

H

ST3

M

w «

H^

tf

^

H

*' s

w

«.s

H

O 3

O

§1

<o eg

iH o : <H

iH ; o o

"5.'"

s a s a

»j'iHr-iiH'iMc<icoco'>*Tiim!Otdt-t-Q03>o>ootHCJ(M'eoT)(int-i>oJ^^

o o o o >

pq m pq ffl -ij

1916]

Giford: Composition of California Shellmounds

19

.s a®

o ood

fl fl o

0® Coo 1-1

00

PQ -I

in
o

CO

t-

m

«5

in

i

in

; 50
; in

in ;

00

CO

; in

(M ;

00

P-C |> »

CO C

^ i

i4

to iH
O CO

<s.S

o3

02 caoo

00 i

■*

«0

oi :

00

o
in

c ® ^

00

00

IN

t-

in

CO

IN :

05 ;

05

in ;

t-

CO

00 o

(8 —
02

to CO
00 00

■a a s s s ^i

■g^io mininin in in in in loininoooog

« 'r-lrHiHC^CQC0C0''*'*'in!0«!t-t-00Oi0iOO'HNe<ic0'*lOt-t^oiS^S^ o

20

University of California Publications in Am. Arch, and Ethn. [Vol. 12

o o '

a •

wa^

.^5 : o =2

rt fl o

s s «

ee r* 10

o o t- o CO m N

c3

in

t- i

■*

(M i

00 i

t- i

IN

N

<H ;

iH

o i

o I

iH

O

a E a a

in lO o o o o

® iHr-li-lCQlM«C0'<*-*in««>t-t-Q005CJ

O rH N (M CO

_ ^ ..,,,, ... ,_,--- t- 05 -w -^ *^ *J U

pq PQ n pq •<

1916]

Giford: Composition of California Shellmounds

21

•S go
o o T)!

-=« s

« O '^

eg o *

8 * 'o CO 03

t-

to

CO

(M

rH

CO

t^

H

• 00 ;

CO

00

d :

lO

t-^

T)(

CO

H

■

^

hJ

H

(B

o

Eh

Si

; CO

O

in

CT r-l

IM

CO
en

CO r-

lO tc

; t-

; Cl-

; IN

; in

CO in I- (N CO th
(N CO to in ■* ■*

t-

I "^

d

to 00
IM

rH

00 tc

; p-

; to'

t-^ o-

to t- 00 iH
rH iH rH N

CI-

a

00 j

05

IN

i cc

tc

(N

CO i
(N •

eo'
IN

IN

CO

CO

T-

; CO

; t-

QC

CO

23

CO

(N

00

CO

l^

o

; "^

: to

IN

in

eo

00

CO

o

IN

o'S i 12

a tUN

OB (SrH

(Sjeo

a> c8to

to

00 1

00 ;

00

m ;

IN 1

CO :

•>*
t- ;

00
(N

05

^

IN

iH

in ;

■*' ;

r-( •

in

; 1 ; ; . ; ; N :
• • • ; • ; "? •

i '^ i ;

; ; r-i ; : . t ;
; : 03 ; : : ; :

i 1 i i i • i ' i

i in' i ;

i i ■* ; j i i i

Ol

Q

r-li-liHMClC0C01l'^int0t0t^t-000>0lOOiHlNNC0'^int-t-0»

^ ^ e a B s w

in in o o o o 2

£ is £ J5 a>

o o o o k

W m PQ 05 <J

22

University of California Publications in Am. Arch, and Ethn. [Vol. 12

.S SN

a o 5

r-J m

03 S a:

5 5 Sin t-^

02 «

S ^''

S'>OT

•* oi iH 00 tr-
ee CO ej ' OT

00 lO

03 00 00

M i

00

^ '^.

50 i

^ ;

CO ;

t^

to ;

lO

in =°

in ;

OS i

CO i

eo'

t-_ i

rt

■*.

r-l iH

00

CO

N

N i

in

r-i to'

to

■<»

iri

OS

i i i (N i

I "? :

; iH i

; t- i

i °^ :

i '^ i

j to ! i i i i j i i

i j i o> ;

: CO i

; "^ ;

; ■* ;

i i> i

: c<i i I ; i i i i 1
' rH

P. "5.

in

in

in

in

in

in

0)

■H

■H

1H

(M

ci

CO

eo'

Tt

>*■

in

to

to'

t-

t-

00

05

05

oo-^iMc^cO'^int-t-oj*;*;

a a s s «

in in o o o o ~

o o o o t»
M pq m m <)

1916]

Gilford: Composition of California Shellmounds

23

(N

I « « '5 in N

iZ3 *

in

®

t-

o

iH

t^

to

1H

00

H

w

J

o

pq

£;•«« ;

<

Z

Q>^ Od 1

H

o

M TO '

; : 05 ;

: 9 i

\ "i ;

! : r-i :

; in :

• 1-t

i "^ :

in Ml iM (N in 05

OS CO i-l 00

(N_ •* 00 05

OJ M CO 00

rH (M IN r-l

05 00
00 CO

QQ A

iH ; t- ; ■>* to
to I to ; CO (M
iH ; in ! CO -fli

05

05

05

00

00

rH

rt a) in
GQ c3in

05
CO

in ;

o

cj ;
in ;

CO

to

in ;

to

to i

so

££od

: : 1 00 ;
: : 1 t- ;

; CO ;

i CO i

; 05 ;
; 00 ;

; 03 :
; CO :

; 00 :

00 i : i i i i i i

i i : 00 :

; to i

j "^ ;

• tH ■

: * i

i a> !

CO : i ; 1 i ! ; i
iH

: "* • i

: ; iH ;
1 I N I

; 00 I 1

i ; to i i ! : !

;■*■;!

i i 00 i

i ■* i ;

i i 03 i ; i i i

Pjin in in in in in in

® '.-(.-tiHN(M'cOCo''*'^'intOtOt-t-00O3O3'

a B e B ^

in in in ininoooog

ocSiHNcimTiiint-i^oi^S^S ">

iHiHr-(.-li-(iHTHiHrHrHr-|0OO0 ^

K n n n <i

24

University of California Publications in Am. Arch, and Ethn. [Vol. 12

-uBj.ii UBS T-ir-i'^ i-t ::'^'^i'^:»^;

■ i ; : P^ ; I 1 j I
03JBH uBg ^!><;;5">-i i ! \ X \ X i i>H i

tx 00

03JBJII UBg CO : (M

o aiiiAXaaraa^ 20oO(MisitSlNISI><{>H><)>H>ifH>^>-i^

""^^Ya'l^i '^S'^N i \ ^ X >^ X itH>H j

^"■^8ma« ^ X ^ :^^X^>^X>^X>^

jaBJB^ UBg ^|x)(>^'^ES:N 'N I ; I I ;(>H |

(yjilBSiiBg ^ 25 M '^ "^ ■"*

03 >^ Xj

X !>H >H

■1:3

3

3

c8

01

C3

3

fi

0

-M

c

>^

cS

S

1^

!S S

^ o S

2 ^ S

C3 ^ OD

•2 "C .3 =3

P.X-C

s S o

o im

3 ° IB

c S =

o o o

c 5 's

C3 2 =3

J-5

OP C

W^ 0)

.2^3

tj •«

<!).-.«

&2|

«3

0^ C

03"^

III

0 cc 0

g ® 0.

O}

a

«) '^ (S

-u

TS

J3 U

■^ 0**-t

'«

03

«M 0

p

.< vi

D

•fH

S?"" ®

S

-1^

0)

d

'p

^ u

«J

P

3 0

1916]

Giford: Composition of California Shellmounds

25

TABLE 11

Average Specific Composition (in Percentages)* of the Shell from
Half Moon Bay and Humboldt Bay Mounds

Species

Half Moon Bay

Eureka

Gunther Island

Mytilus edulis

X

58

X

Barnacles (Balanus)

X

3

X

Crab shell

Y

Y

Cardium corbis

Y

— .

14

Paphia staminea

1

....

x2

Schizothaerus nuttallii

X

2

23

Macoma nasuta

3

17

Mytilus californianus

25

....

—

Littorina scutulata

Y

Sea urchin

X

Y

Tegula funebralis

35

....

—

Tegula brunnea

X

....

Chitons

X

....

Limpets

Y

....

Platyodon cancellatus

Y

....

....

Pholadidea penita

Y

—

Saxidomus nuttallii

X

....

—

Crepidula adunca

Y

....

Saxidomus giganteus

—

1

Cardium californiense

Y

Paphia tenerrima

1

Zirphaea erispata

—

Y

Unidentified shell

32

34

28

* Where the amount of a species is less than one per cent, but more than one-tenth of one
per cent, an X has been substituted for the actual figure; where less than one-tenth of one
per cent a Y has been substituted.

26

University of California Publications in Am. Arch, and Ethn. [Vol. 12

TABLE 12

Occurrence of Phytia myosotis (indicated by x)

Depth

.5
1

1.5
2
3

3.5
4

4.5
5
6

6.5
7
7
8
9
9.5

10

10,5

11

12

12.5

13

14

15.5

17

17.5.

19.5
Bottom
Bottom
Bottom
Bottom

— X —

02 "

— X

1916]

Giford: Composition of California Shellmounds

27

TABLES 13 TO 22

Tables 13 to 22 show the relative abundance in each sample of the
species included in the table. This relative abundance is expressed in
percentages of the sum of the species.

TABLE 13
Ellis Landing

Depth
1.5

Mytilus edulis
43

Macoma nasuta
57

2

55

45

3

98

2

4.5

87

13

6

2

98

7

7

93

7

85

15

10

53

47

11

91

9

17

96

TABLE 14

Sausalito

4

Depth

1

Mytilus edulis
41

Macoma nasuta
59

3.5

37

63

5

38

62

8

79

21

12

69

31

12.5

57

TABLE 15
Emeryville

43

Depth
.5

Mytilus edulis Macoma nasuta Ostrea lurida
74 14 12

1.5

62

25

13

3

43

49

8

5

87

6

7

7

49

46

5

8

42

51

7

9

79

18

3

9.5

57

34

9

10

40

S6

4

10.5

80

19

1

11

50

47

3

IS

81.

13

6

15.5

71

18

11

17.6

71

19

10

19.5

58

22

20

Bottom

34

—

66

Bottom

31

5

64

Bottom

42

4

54

Bottom

63

—

37

28

University of California Publications in Am. Arch, and Ethn. [Vol. 12

TABLE 16

Castro

Depth

1

Mytilus edulis Cerithidea californica Ostrea lurida
6 65 29

2

10

78

12

3

10

81

9

4

6

61

33

5

1

TABLE 17

San Mateo

84

15

Depth
3

Mytilus edulis
62

Ostrea lurida
38

6

41

59

8

54

46

14

50

TABLE 18

50

Half Moon Bay

Depth
1

Tegula funebralis
78

Mytilus californianus
22

1

59

41

3

32

68

6

28

TABLE 19

72

GuNTHER Island

Depth
1

SchizothaeruE
nuttallii

1

i

Macoma
nasuta

71

Cardium
corbis

Paphia
staminea

28

2

33

67

—

—

2.5

54

7

11

28

6

58

28

14

—

6.5

10

30

42

18

8

45

34
TABLE 20

16

5

West Berkeley

Depth
2 .

Mytilus edulis Macoma nasuta Ostrea lurida
73 3 24

3.5

74

2

24

4.5

57

26

17

5

77

2

21

6.5

60

2

38

8

58

1

41

10

54

1

45

12

73

—

27

1916]

Giford: Composition of California Shellmounds

29

TABLE 21

Greenbrae

Depth
.5

Mytilus edulis
81

Macoma nasuta
13

Ostrea lurida
6

2

96

4

—

4

96

1

3

6

91

9

—

8

97

2

1

10

99

1

—

12

99

—

1

14

90

1

9

TABLE 22

'

3an

Rafael

Depth
.5

Mytilus edulis
97

Macoma nasuta
3

Ostrea lurida

2

99

1

—

4

99

—

1

6

99

—

1

8

95

2

3

10

97

2

1

TABLE 23

Mussel Shell (Mytilus edulis) Caught by the Fine, or Two-millimeter, Screen

IN Percentages of the Amount of all Mussel Caught by Screens

Depth
.5

Sausalito

Greenbrae
77

San Rafael
97

Ellis Landing

Emeryville
90

1

88

1.5

....

86

62

2

....

65

86

61

3

....

41

55

3.5

68

....

4

82

91

....

4.5

....

80

5

92

....

....

66

6

70

67

63

7

....

....

54

71

7

....

82

8

79

76

86

67

9

....

....

75

9.5

....

....

....

67

10

....

71

95

71

62

10.5

....

....

85

11

....

....

....

90

73

12

93

83

....

12.5

91

....

....

13

....

....

96

14

....

81

....

15.5

— «

88

17

....

.— .

....

87

17.5

....

..••

....

92

19.5

....

....

....

....

90

Bottom

....

.•••

....

..—

84

Bottom

••.•

....

83

Bottom

....

....

95

Bottom

...•

97

Average

85

76

87

71

79

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PUBLICATIONS- (CONTINUED)

Vol. 7. 1. The Emeryville Shellmound, by Max Ume. Pp. 1-106, plates 1-12, with

38 text figures. June, 1907 _ „ 1.25

2. Eecent Investigations bearing upon the Question of the Occurrence of

Neocene Man in the Auriferous Gravels of California, by William

J. Sinclair. Pp. 107-130, plates 13-14. February, 1908 ..._ .86

3. Porno Indian Basketry, by S. A. Barrett. Pp. 133-306, plates 15-30,

231 text figures. December, 1908 „... 1.78

4. Shellmoundg of the San Francisco Bay Eegion, by N. C. Nelson.

Pp. 309-356, plates 32-34. December, 1909 J50

5. The Ellis Landing Shellmound, by N. 0. Nelson. Pp. 357-426, plates

36-50. April, 1910 75

Index, pp. 427-443.

Vol. 8. 1. A Mission Record of the California Indians, from a Manuscript in the

Bancroft Library, by A. L. Kroeber. Pp. 1-27. May, 1908 „. .26

2. The Ethnography of the Cahuilla Indians, by A. L. Kroeber. Pp. 29-

68, plates l-is: July, 1908 76

3. The BeUgion of the Luisefio and Dieguefio Indians of Southern Cali-

fornia, by Constance Goddard Dubois. Pp. 69-186, plates 16-19.
June, 1908 1.26

4. The Culture of the Luisefio Indians, by Philip Stedman Sparkman.

Pp. 187-234, plate 20. August, 1908 50

5. Notes on Shoshonean Dialects of Southern California, by A. L. Kroe-

ber. Pp. 235-269. September, 1909 ^ .35

6. The Religious Practices of the Dieguefio Indians, by T. T. Waterman.

Pp. 271-358, plates 21-28. March, 1910 .80

Index, pp. 359-369.

Vol. 9. 1, Tana Texts, by Edward Sapir, together with Yana Myths collected by

Roland B. Dixon. Pp. 1-235. February, 1910 2.50

2. The Chumash and Costanoan Languages, by A. L. Kroeber. Pp. 237-

271. November, 1910 35

3. The Languages of the Coast of California North of San Francisco, by

A. L. Kroeber. Pp. 273-435, and map. April, 1911 1.50

Index, pp. 437-439.

Vol. 10. 1. Phonetic Constituents of the Native Languages of California, by A.

L. Kroeber. Pp. 1-12. May, 1911 10

2. The Phonetic Elements of the Northern Paiute Language, by T. T.

Watennan. Pp. 13-44, plates 1-5. November, 1911 45

3. Phonetic Elements of the Mohave Language, by A. L. Kroeber. Pp.

45-96, plates 6-20. November, 1911 .66

4. The Ethnology of the Salinan Indians, by J. Alden Mason. Pp. 97-

240, plates 21-37. December, 1912 1.75

5. Papago Verb Stems, by Juan Dolores. Pp. 241-263. August, 1913 25

6. Notes on the Chilula Indians of Northwestern California, by Pliny

Earl Goddard. Pp. 265-288, plates 38-41. April, 1914 30

7. Chilula Texts, by PUny Earle Goddard. Pp. 289-379. November,

1914 1.00

Index in press.

Vol. 11. 1. Elements of the Kato Language, by Pliny Earle Goddard. Pp. 1-176,

plates 1-45. October, 1912 2.00

2. Phonetic Elements of the Dieguefio Language, by A. L. Kroeber and

J. P. Harrington. Pp. 177-188. April, 1914 10

3. Sarsi Texts, by Pliny Earle Goddard. Pp. 189-277. February, 1915.... 1.00

4. Serian, Tequistlatecan, and Hokan, by A. L. Kroeber. Pp. 279-290.

February, 1915 10

5. Dichotomous Social Organization in South Central California, by Ed-

ward Winslow Gifford. Pp. 291-296. February, 1916 05

6. The Delineation of the Day-Signs in the Aztec Manuscripts, by T. T.

Waterman. Pp. 297-398. March, 1916 , 1.00

7. The Mutsun Dialect of Costanoan Based on the Vocabulary of De la

Cuesta, by J. Alden Mason. Pp. 399-469. March, 1916 70

Vol. 12. 1. Composition of California Shellmounds, by Edward Winslow Gifford.

Pp. 1-29. February, 1916 30

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PUBLICATIONS- (CONTINUED)

Volumes now completed:

Volume 1. 1903-1904. 378 pages and 30 plates _ „ „ $4.25

Volume 2. 1904-1907. 393 pages and 21 plates „ 8.60

Volume 3. 1905. The Morphology of the Hupa Language. 344 pages 3.50

Volume 4. 1906-1907. 374 pages, with 5 tables, 10 plates, and map 3.60

Volume 5. 1907-1910. 384 pages, with 25 plates 3.50

Volume 6. 1908. 400 pages, with 3 maps _ _ 8.60

Volume 7. 1907-1910, 443 pages and 50 plates 8.50

Volume 8. 1908-1910. 369 pages and 28 plateg , 8.50

Volume 9. 1910-1911. 439 pages _ „ 3.50

Note.— The University of Oalifcmia Publications are offered in exchange for the publi-
cations of learned societies and institutions, universities and libraries. Complete lists of all
the publications of the University will be sent upon request. For sample copies, Usta of
publications or other information, address the Manager of the University Press, Berkeley,
California, U. S. A. All matter sent in exchange should be addressed to The Exchange
Department, University Library, Berkeley, California, U. S. A.

AGEICULTUEAL SCIENCES.— E. B. Babcock, J. W. Gilmore, and O. B. Lipman, Editors.
Price per volume, $3.50. Volumes I and II in progress.

ASTEONOMY.— W. W. Osmpbell, Editor. (Lick Observatory, Mt. Hamilton, Cal.)
Publications of the Lick Observatory. — ^Volumes I-XII completed.

BOTANY.— W. A. Setchell, Editor. Price per volimie $3.50. Volumes I (pp. 418), n (pp.
360), III (pp. 400), and IV (pp. 397) completed. Volumes V and VI in progress.

CLASSICAL PHILOLOGT.— Edward B. Clapp, William A. Merrill, Herbert O. Nutting,
Editors. Price per volume $2.00. Volume I (pp. 270) completed. Volume n in
progress.

EDUCATION.— Edited by the Department of Education. Price per volume $2.50.

ENGIITEEBING.— Edited under the direction of the Engineering Departments. This series
will contain contributions from the Colleges of Mechanics, Mining, and Civil Engi-
neering. Volume I in progress.

GEOGEAPHY. — Euliff S. Holway, Editor. Volume I In progress.

GEOLOGY. — Bulletin of the Department of Geology. Andrew C. Lawson and John O.
Merriam, Editors. Price per volume $3.50. Volumes I (pp. 435), 11 (pp. 457), III
(pp. 482), IV (pp. 462), V (pp. 458), VI (pp. 454), VII (pp. 504), and VIII (pp. 583)
completed. Volume IX in progress.

MODEEN PHILOLOGY.— Volumes I (pp. 400) and II (pp. 373) completed. Volumes III
and IV in progress.

PATHOLOGY. — Frederick P. Gay, Editor. Price per volume, $2.50. Volume I (pp. 347)
completed. Volume II in progress.

PHILOSOPHY. — G. H. Howison, Editor. Volume I (pp. 262) completed. Volume n in
progress. Price per volume $2.00.

PHYSIOLOGY.— S. S. Maxwell, Editor. Price per volume $2.00. Volumes I (pp. 217),
II (pp. 215), III (pp. 197), and IV (pp. 228) completed. Volume V in progress.

PSYCHOLOGY. — George M. Stratton, Editor. Volume I in progress.

ZOOLOGY. — ^W. E. Eitter and C. A. Kofoid, Editors. Price per volume for volimies I-X,
$3.50; for volume XI and following, $5.00. Volumes I (pp. 317), II (pp. 382), III
(pp. 383), rV (pp. 400), V (pp. 440), VI (pp. 478), VII (pp. 446), VIII (pp. 357), IX
(pp. 365), X (pp. 417), and XI (pp. 538) completed. Volumes XII to XVI inclusive,
in progress.

UinrVEESITY OF OALIFOENIA CHEONICLE.— An official record of University life,
issued quarterly, edited by a committee of the Faculty. Price, $1.00 p«r year. Cur-
rent volume No. XVIIL

Address all orders or requests for Information concerning the above publications to The
University Press, Berkeley, California.

European agent for the series in American Archaeology and Ethnology, Classical Phil-
ology, Education, Philosophy, and Semitic Philology, Otto Harrassowitz, Leipzig. For the
series in Agricultural Sciences, Botany, Geography, Geology, Mathematics, Pathology,
Physiology, Zoology, and also American Archaeology and Ethnology, E. Friedlaender &
Sohn, Berlin.

^'A^

it