Running head: SAN QUENTIN STATE PRISON ARCHEOLOGY

San Quentin State Prison Archeology

Name:

Professor:

Institution:

Course:

Date:

SAN QUENTIN STATE PRISON ARCHEOLOGY Introduction There have been numerous archeological explorations conducted in Marin County, and areas near San Quentin State prison since the dawn of the twentieth century. Majority of these archeological works is on prehistoric sites and has been under the watchful eye of the federal environmental legislature and the state. The field of cultural and resource management has produced a vast amount of archeological data, and such data are often project dependent, thus most of the time remain not feasible. Over the years, more data has been availed about San Quentin State Prison site, and new findings are being incorporated into broad researchable themes. Resources that are considered to be culturally significant are generally categorized into two: historical resources and archeological resources. This paper will address the projects capability to adversely impose effects on historical and archeological resources at the San Quentin State Prison site and lay a foundation over which future research themes can be developed upon, with analysis based on data review in existence and site inspection. Early Research Among the first archeological studies done in San Quentin State Prison site were mere broad surveys, and were conducted by the students of the University of California for Albert Kroeber. These surveys were only a walk through in search of archeological sites. Mostly big shell mounds were recorded as they represented villages.

Kroeber was Franz Boass student who published the famous culture-historical paradigm. Although he continued using the Boasian approach, he significantly differed from Boas in the sense that, instead of focusing on a particular culture, Kroeber's approach was mainly several

SAN QUENTIN STATE PRISON ARCHEOLOGY culture descriptions and their location mapping. This led to the publication of his books, Handbook of the Indians of California (1925) and Cultural and Natural Areas of Native North America (1939) (McGee & Warms, 2004). In the early 1907, Nelson Nels surveyed the mouth of River Russian south of Sonoma County near the coast of pacific into Marin County, Drakes Estero, Drakes Bay and eastern part of Tomales Bay (Beardsley, 1954; Nelson, 1909). Nelson looked for mounds shells in his study. In addition to documenting the presence of other sites, Nelson interviewed the locals and land owners to gather information that had been destroyed. He discovered that several sites had been destroyed by the rising sea levels (Nelson, 1909). It was established that human activities were the most destructive agents of archeological sites. Nelson documented that, people had

constructed houses on mounds and major sites. It was also noted that some sites had been looted for the purpose of their artifacts to be used in museums displays and homes decorations. Peter Jesse, an amateur archaeologist, did the greatest survey. His work resulted in the discovery of over seventy archaeological sites. His main focus was Sonoma County (Beardsley, 1954). The first site excavation in San Quentin state occurred in 1909 by Nelson at site CAMRN-76 (Slaymaker 1982). In 1914, another excavation by Edward Gifford at CAMRN-76 was conducted. These two sites were never reported, but some of their data were used by Kroeber (1925) and Beardsley (1954). Between mid-1940s and late 1950s Reyes area became a common location for many archeological excavations, but it was not until 1960 that archeologists convinced Marin County Board that an order was needed to preserve archeological sites in the county (King, 1968). The enactment of this ordinance in Marin County is an example on how archaeological sites got protection from the law against over excavation (King 1968).

SAN QUENTIN STATE PRISON ARCHEOLOGY Recent archaeoloy in marin county Information base on Northwest information center maps indicates that, approximately 21% of Marin County has been surveyed. Most studies were restricted to the eastern region of the county where there are more developments. These surveys have resulted in the discovery of over 800 prehistoric sites in the county. At least 50 sites have been subjected to archeological excavation since 1970. As more site protecting laws were enacted, the evaluation of site significance before excavation began to take center stage. A significant study was; the one conducted by Riley at San Francisco State University in 1978. Riley study compared the remains of shellfish and artifacts from site CA-MRN14 to establish the relationship between substance and technological changes over time. Her

conclusion showed that both fauna and shellfish remain portrayed substance pattern changes over time. A fall in the shell to bone ration indicated a decrease in shellfish gathering and an increase in hunting in the higher levels of deposit and lower levels, as well (Riley, 1979). Contrary to this is the middle layer of the deposit had high shell to bone ratio pointing to higher shellfish gathering. Riley explanation for the increased hunting in phase 2 historic component is its direct correspondence with bow and arrow introduction into Marin County in roughly AD 1350 (Riley, 1979). As the time moved on, and the inhabitants of the site came into contact with the Europeans, they would have possibly acquired fire arms, which would have possibly enhanced their hunting prowess. Though no evidence of fire arms has been found in the site to date, domestic animals are believed to have been the main sources of meat to the inhabitants of the site (Riley, 1979).

SAN QUENTIN STATE PRISON ARCHEOLOGY

In 1972, it was discovered that, during the Emeryville Transition, there was a change in the mammal and bird bone ratio quantities. Studies appeared to point that there was increased water based hunting, and a decreased mammal hunting these events occurred at site CA-MRN-20 since Mueller and McGeein (McGeein& Mueller, 1955) reported the same characteristics at level 36-48. Due to inadequate data, it is not possible to make full comparison of the two sites though it appears that the two sites are more contemporaneous (Dyke, 1972). Site Destruction Site destruction occurs when an adverse damage has been inflicted upon the site to the extent that it is no longer feasible to extract archaeological data from the site. Establishing site destruction is not an easy task because to date only 800 prehistoric sites have been documented in Marin County. Nelson had pointed out that several sited had been destroyed by pot hunters, road builders and avid gardeners (Nelson, 1909). From the time of Nelson to present day, the amount of development that has taken place in Marin County has exponentially grown and is still growing. Examples of destroyed sites include; CA-MRN-15I, 168, and 171(Melander & Slaymaker 1969). Based on the information available, there are negative consequences in placing a label destroyed on a site and failing to conduct an appropriate investigation on the site. It is not enough to say a site has been destroyed; researches should go further to identify how it was destroyed because most early excavations were designed to collect data. So this data, which was collected, should be sought after.

SAN QUENTIN STATE PRISON ARCHEOLOGY Social Interaction And Organization Evidence of how prehistoric communities interacted with others and structured themselves have been studied and documented. This archaeological study is a difficult one; nevertheless archaeologists have devoted a considerable amount of time in the pursuit. Study of this nature is conducted through analysis of burial goods and mortuary practices. Analysis conducted by Luby in site CA-ALA-328 is considered to be the most relevant study concerning mortuary practices. He ended up concluding that there were cultural traits that suggested social control not observable in mortuary practice pattern (Luby, 2004). His choice to examine burial rank versus iniquities was commendable since rank was not practiced in an egalitarian society. Luby pointed out that, the study of other additional themes, like trade networks would have been an important addition to the study (Luby, 2004). It is thought that mortuary studies

would also contribute to introduction of other significant themes to study such additional themes include; settlement patterns and social organization. According to the Lubys study, one factor that was of potential interest was the date of the cemetery at the base. He stated that the date was 500 BC and approximately 200 burials were found in the cemetery. Every site included in the present day studies include studies on burial goods and mortuary practices. Despite all this, none of the known sites except CA-MRN-27 has yielded results that have a true definition of the western societys definition of cemetery. Thorough studies on social stratification have yielded results that social ranking existed among these societies. These rankings have formed the main basis over which the theory of this ancient society was an egalitarian society.

SAN QUENTIN STATE PRISON ARCHEOLOGY No documented studies about warfare have been conducted in San Quentin State prison, but most studies appear to focus on southern California (Lambert & Walker, 1991). Almost no evidence of warfare has been observed in the sites. However, CA-MRN-5 had some defensive evidence. It was established that a skeleton with would like marks and projectile points on the skeletal remains was enough evidence. A burial at CA-MRN-17 had the same features with the

embedded features at the hips and the femur. Another female skeleton was found to have no feet, but no study was conducted to establish if the feet were mutilated before death or after death. No further constructive discussions can be made concerning warfare, however, it should be noted that, though little warfare has been established, evidence of violence should be isolated from grave practices. Technological Changes To the present day, technological studies are limited to only obsidian analysis. Archaeologists are interested in this part so as to improve chronologies and refine dating tools. Studies by Mikkelsen examined ground stone to establish if resources could be associated with some ground stone types. She sought for evidence of the way specific tools that were utilized and examine if certain stones could have been milling tool, her findings were; no particular resource could be said to be a specific tool type (Mikkelsen 1985). Although it was possible for recognition of some tool type e.g grinding slabs for grinding seeds, it was impossible to reconstruct use wear tools. Because of the long occupancy of most of the sites, technological changes were eminent. When studies were made on projectile point technology, however, no observable technological changes were made at CA-MRN-27, 159, 601or 673. However, some sites did show some

SAN QUENTIN STATE PRISON ARCHEOLOGY

technological changes this is likely due to relative short duration of time of occupancy of the site. Or it was occupies at a period of time when projectile point technology was static. It is even more shocking that some sites like CA-MRN-193 did not have any evidence of technological change, yet it was occupied for a long period of time. This could be attributed to the limited investigations that have been conducted in this area. It is most likely that future studies and investigations will shade a lot more light in to this area. Conclussion Lots of prehistoric archeological studies have been carried out in Marin County. Most of these studies were initiated by environmental laws that were enacted 30 years ago. Nevertheless there are places where better and more research needs to be conducted. The intent of this paper was to propose themes for future studies and work that would benefit from additional research such as living patterns. In my, this paper has fulfilled its purpose.

SAN QUENTIN STATE PRISON ARCHEOLOGY Reference Beardsley, Richard K. (1954). Temporal and Areal Relationships in Central California Archaeology. Reports of the University of California Archaeological Survey 24-25. Berkeley, California. King, Thomas (1968). County Antiquities Legislation, New Hope for Archaeological Preservation. American AntiqUity.

Luby, Edward M. (2004.) Shell Mounds and Mortuary Behavior in the San Francisco Bay Area. North American Archaeologist. Lambert, Patricia M. and Phillip L. Walker (1991), Physical Anthropological Evidencefor the Evolution ofSocial Complexity in Coastal Southern California. Antiquity. .

Nelson, Nels C. (1909). Shellmounds ofthe San Francisco Bay Region. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology. Berkeley, California. Riley, Lynn Marie (1979). Shelter Hill: An Analysis ofFaunal Remains and Artifacts from a Marin County Shellmound. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, San Francisco State University.

Slaymaker, Charles (1974). Fidemo, the Twilight, and Before: A Study ofCoast Miwok Political Organization. Unpublished Master's Thesis, Department ofAnthropology, California State University, San Francisco

McGee, R. Jon and Richard L Warms (2004). Anthropological Theory: An Introductory History. Third Edition. McGraw Hill, New York.