Category Archives: Archaeology

The oldest mine in California, part 3

Following on from part 1 and part 2. I’ve been using the words mine and mining in the colloquial sense, which excludes quarries for ordinary, non-precious stones unless they are underground workings.

Out in the Mojave desert of southeastern California, near Halloran Springs, are hundreds of small mines that are very possibly the oldest mines in the state. Many of them were worked by the Chemehuevi in early historic times, but the original miners were not California Indians at all.

Those ancient miners in the Mojave Desert were Anasazi, and the mineral they were after was turquoise. It is not widely known outside of archaeological circles, but Ancestral Puebloans established mining camps in the California desert some 1,500 years ago. The turquoise they extracted was traded widely, some of it traveling as far as Snaketown in Arizona. For around 200 to 250 years the Anasazi continued mining there before another group gained control of the deposits.

The newcomers were a different Pueblo group, which we know today as Patayan. Sometimes they are also called Hakataya, but both names refer to the same group. The Patayan continued mining turquoise until they were ultimately replaced by Chemehuevi miners, which appears to have happened sometime around AD 1200. Each of these groups left behind toolmaking debris and broken pottery, which is how we came to know who was working here and when.

California may be the golden state, but there was mining going on for a very long time before gold was discovered in 1842. Yes, that’s right, I said 1842, not 1848. But that’s another story, which I will reserve for another day.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Archaeology, Mining

Seeing through dirt

Article here about new developments in remote sensing being developed in Israel. A team led by Dr. Lev Eppelbaum has apparently developed an algorithm to combine the output from seven different types of sensors to get a very good idea of what lies beneath the ground.

I looked up Advances in Geosciences, the journal mentioned in the article. To my surprise I found not one article, but an entire volume devoted to archaeological and historical applications of remote sensing. So now I’m off to see how much I can read before my head explodes.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Archaeology, Technology

The oldest mine in California, part 2

(Continuing from part 1.) Before the arrival of the Spanish, cinnabar from the New Almaden area in Santa Clara County was traded by the Ohlone to as far north as the Walla Walla along the Columbia River. I have not seen anything indicating when mining was begun there, but the tunnel was roughly 100 feet long when American visitors first described it, suggesting that it had been worked for quite some time.

Farther north there was a flint (chert) mine on Table Mountain, near Oroville. Unlike most chert workings, this was a genuine underground mine, although a shallow one. The opening is quite narrow, but inside the mine was large enough for a person to stand upright. Ethnographic sources indicate that the Maidu miners would make an offering before mining, and would only take as much flint as could be detached by a single blow. It is likely that flint from this mine was used ritually, as it seems unlikely that such care would be taken for purely utilitarian tool stone.

Both of these mines were in use at the time the Spanish first arrived in California, having been worked for an unknown period of time. However, there are mines in Southern California that are known to have been worked as early as 1,500 years ago. These may well be the oldest mines in California. I’ll discuss them in my next post. Meanwhile, for anyone interested in researching this further, a good start would be Mines and Quarries of the Indians of California by Robert Heizer and Adan Treganza.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Archaeology, Mining

The oldest mine in California, part 1

Mining in California means gold, right? Well, not necessarily. The earliest commercial (in the modern sense) mine to operate within the state of California appears to have been the New Almaden, and it produced cinnabar – mercury ore. It was mined as a pigment by Antonio Sunol and Luis Chabolla as early as 1824, but mercury reduction did not begin until 1846. That was still two years before James W. Marshall discovered gold at Sutter’s Mill.

Both gold and silver mining in the nineteenth century depended upon mercury to recover the precious metal from the ore, and more than half the U.S. production (57%) of this vital metal up through 1893 came from the New Almaden. There is a great contemporary description of this mine in Scenes of Wonder and Curiosity in California, written in 1862 by James M. Hutchings. At this time Hutchings wrote the mine had been shut down by a court order, but it soon reopened. More information is available in Will Meyerriecks book Drills and Mills, Precious Metal Mining and Milling Methods of the Frontier West.

As it happens, however, Sunol and Chabolla were not the first people to mine cinnabar at New Almaden; the deposit was being tapped long before the Spanish even arrived in what would become California. And even at that, it may not have been the oldest mine.

More tomorrow.

2 Comments

Filed under Archaeology, Mining

More on the camelid petroglyph

I mentioned this in a previous post. It was reported by David S. Whitley back in 1999 in the San Bernardino County Museum Association Quarterly 46(3), pp. 107-108. Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem to be available online, and my copy is still in a box somewhere from my most recent move. I remember, however, that the site is somewhere in the Rodman Mountains. The photo did look something like a llama, although it could also potentially have been a female deer.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Archaeology, Rock Art

Uncovering the past

Continuing with the theme from my last post, I get a nearly uncontrollable desire to facepalm every time I encounter, as I do far, far too often, the idea that archaeology isn’t about uncovering a real past, but about constructing historical narratives about the past. If this is what it’s all about, why am I getting all sweaty and covered in dirt at the bottom of a hole? I can sit in my armchair and “construct narratives” (which is just another way of saying make up stories) all day long.

It’s been my experience that the archaeologists who talk about constructing narratives are almost invariably those who see the field not as a way to find things out about the past, but as a way to advance a political agenda. Now there’s nothing wrong with having a political agenda. I might very well agree that someone’s agenda is noble and well worth pursuing. But I don’t agree that politics, whether for good or bad, is a proper function of archaeology.

Archaeology exists to discover the facts regarding the past, humanly speaking, regardless of whether or not those facts are useful for advancing some political, religious, or social goal. The past uncovered by archaeology can be used in a variety of ways, just like research in any other field. Our role as archaeologists is simply to learn the truth about the past. After that it is all of our responsibility as human beings to ensure that what has been learned is used to do good.

My goals as an archaeologist therefore, are twofold. First, I want to recover all the data that is recoverable about the human past. Second, I want to create a theoretical framework that explains all the data completely, and yet simply. Obviously these are monumental tasks, that may never be completed. They certainly won’t be finished within my lifetime. Nevertheless, this is what I see as the purpose and justification for what I do as an archaeologist.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Anthropology, Archaeology

Why is cultural anthropology (mostly) irrelevant?

Pascal Boyer, an anthropologist at Washington University in St. Louis has a new paper that addresses this question. The paper is titled From Studious Irrelevancy to Consilient Knowledge: Modes Of Scholarship and Cultural Anthropology, and a draft version is available on his web site here (it’s the first one down). The paper came out of a talk Boyer gave at the University of British Columbia. The talk can be seen here, although the sound quality is not great.

I won’t give away Boyer’s answer, but it involves the way scholarship is defined and recognized. Thinking back, I’d say that it’s also the main reason I switched from cultural anthropology to archaeology.

H/T to Michael E. Smith at Publishing Archaeology

Leave a Comment

Filed under Archaeology

Very early occupation of California islands

According to this press release, a team working on Santa Rosa and San Miguel Islands, off the coast of California, have found artifacts dating to the Terminal Pleistocene, ca. 12,200 – 11,400 B.P. (Before Present). They’re saying the stone tools are highly sophisticated, and display excellent workmanship. The photo of the crescent certainly bears that out.

When I was a student at CSU Fullerton I got a chance to participate in an excavation on San Nicolas, and ever since then I’ve tried to pay attention to work being done on all of the Channel Islands.

1 Comment

Filed under Archaeology

Old mines

I just discovered that both the BLM and the NPS have training programs for entering abandoned mines. This is something I will definitely look into, because as much as I would like to investigate the underground workings of important mining sites, I would also like to live long enough to report whatever I might find.

Abandoned mines are frequently time capsules, often with remarkably well preserved artifacts. Mines that closed suddenly, with the workers not being warned that they were losing their jobs at the end of the shift, are especially good candidates for this. In addition, the shape of the underground workings can reveal much about the decisions that were made by a company attempting to follow a profitable ore body.

Anybody doing much historical archaeology in the far west is going to be dealing with old mines from time to time. (And anybody doing much CRM in Nevada is going to be dealing with new mines, but that’s a topic for a different post.)

Leave a Comment

Filed under Archaeology, Mining

Ancient Astronauts?

I was about 10 years old when I first came across the idea that many of the world’s most impressive archaeological sites are actually the work of visitors from outer space. I don’t recall the title of the book, but I clearly remember one particular passage. Referring to the Biblical Ark of the Covenant, the author wrote, “without looking up the actual passage, I seem to recall the Bible mentioning sparks, voices, and fire…”

Even at that age, I was stunned by this statement. I remember thinking, “you’re trying to make a scholarly argument, and you can’t even be bothered to look up a few Bible verses?” (When I looked up the relevant passages myself, they turned out not to support the author’s claims of advanced alien technology. What a surprise.)

As an archaeologist and a science fiction fan, I can’t think of much that would excite me more than discovering actual evidence of extraterrestrial visitation. I would give almost anything to be able to study a genuine xeno-archaeological site. But you’ll perhaps forgive me if I don’t find half-remembered stories from somebody’s childhood Sunday School lessons sufficient grounds to throw out everything that we think we know about the past.

I’m afraid I’m equally unimpressed by the theory that the Great Pyramid was a navigational marker for space travelers. (Wouldn’t a radio beacon have been easier?) Or that the straight lines on the Nazca plain, some stretching as far as nine miles, are actually landing strips. (What did the aliens use for brakes? The space shuttle doesn’t require anywhere near that long a runway.) You want to know what would impress me? Plastics, modern ceramics, composites, advanced alloys, electronic debris. High-tech materials that we are only beginning to learn how to make, or that we don’t know how to produce at all, would be extremely convincing if discovered in an archaeological context, under conditions that rule out fraud.

Obviously, even the most fervent supporters of ancient astronaut theories generally don’t claim that anything like that has ever been found. Rather, all the trash left behind by the builders of these impressive monuments (Yes, Virginia, the builders left trash behind. Lots of it.) was decidedly low tech. And the theory that ordinary human workers could build the pyramids and other monuments without modern technology sounds a lot more reasonable to me than the idea that aliens traveled light years in spaceships made of stone, clay and bronze.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Archaeology, Space