Constituents of the Mound.
Shells.—The shell layers of the mound are composed principally of the following species:
Oysters, Ostrea lurida.
Mussel shells, Mytilus edulis and Mytilus californianus.
Clams, Macoma edulis and Macoma nasuta.
Many other kinds of shells, including the following species, were found scattered through the mound:
Purpura crispata and canaliculata.
Cerithidea californica.
Helix, two species indet.
Cardium corbis.
Standella, sp.
Tapes staminea.
Of these last species, the cockle, Cardium corbis, and the clam, Tapes staminea, occur quite frequently.[[26]] All of these were used as food by the occupants of the mound. The various species of Helix were probably also used, as they were in more recent times eaten by the California Indians.[[27]] It may be, however, that this species lived on the mound.
The state of preservation of the shells is proportional to their natural hardness. Hence the shells of the Macomas are the most conspicuous, those of the mussels, as the most perishable, are the least noticeable ones in the mound. The relative frequency of occurrence in the case of the three most important species depends on different circumstances.
The lower and the upper strata of this mound are composed of the same varieties of shells, in which point it is different from many shellmounds in other regions. It is, however, true that oyster shells predominate in the lower strata, while Macoma shells are more numerous in the upper ones.[[28]]
Visiting the different shellmounds in the vicinity of the Bay, one finds a general similarity in the kinds of shells composing them. Rarely one or another variety of shell, the Macoma or the cockle, or some other, is found to predominate. This general homogeneity of composition in the shellmounds around the Bay, and the small differences in the amount of any particular species, indicates as a whole the general similarity of the shell fauna at many points about the Bay during the period of occupation of the mounds.
The Indian camping grounds in the interior, although quite similar in form and origin to the shellmounds on the coast, when opened generally present a great difference in appearance. Traces of shells are almost unnoticed from the outside, yet large quantities supplied as food by the rivers of the interior are doubtless to be found in them. These shells have been found during excavations, or their use has been confirmed by persons who observed the mode of living of the Indians of these regions. The Indians also obtained salt-water mussels by trade, even in quite recent times. From the fact that shells are not in evidence on the surface of the camp grounds, one must conclude that their use diminished.
Bones.—Bones of vertebrates are also found in most of the shellmounds. These together with the shells represent the debris of their kitchens. No other shellmound has been seen where so large a quantity of bones was observed as in that at Emeryville. Bones of land and sea mammals, of birds, and of fishes were found in abundance throughout the mound, and fairly evenly distributed in the strata. This fact is the more remarkable since the shellmound at West Berkeley, scarcely two miles distant, does not yield nearly such quantities of bone as this one. The occupants of the mound at Emeryville at all periods were huntsmen to a great degree, besides being fishermen; those of the mound at West Berkeley seem to have depended largely upon fishing; hence the stone sinkers were far more numerous in that mound than at Emeryville.
So far the fauna of only the lowest strata up to 3 feet above the base have been studied. The following species obtained in this horizon were determined by Dr. W. J. Sinclair.
Deer, Cervus sp.
Elk, Cervus canadensis.
Sea-otter, Enhydrus lutris.
Beaver, Castor canadensis.[[29]]
Squirrel, Spermophilus sp.
Rabbit, Lepus sp.
Gopher, Thomomys talpoides.
Raccoon, Procyon lotor.
Wild cat, Lynx sp.
Wolf, Canis sp.
Bear, Ursus sp.
Dog, Canis familiaris.[[30]] (?)
Seal, Phoca sp.
Sea-lion.
Whale.
Porpoise?
Canvasback Duck, Aythya vallisneria.
Goose?
Cormorant, Phlaeocorax sp.
Turtle.
Skates, Thornbacks, and other fish.
No traces of cannibalism have been detected. Most of the hollow bones of larger mammals, and even the smaller bones of the foot, were found to have been split to get at the marrow.[[31]]
Fireplaces.—These were generally known by beds several feet in length consisting of charcoal and yellowish ashes. They occurred in many spots throughout the mound. Numberless scattered bits of charcoal[[32]] and pebbles, mostly about the size of one’s fist and blackened by fire, were further evidences of the continuous use of fire in the preparation of food. In no instance were there any stones set in rows for fireplaces, such as have been observed elsewhere, as in a shellmound near Sierra Point, where stones are plentiful.[[33]] A very peculiar feature of this mound is a yellowish layer of ashes comprising the entire depth of stratum II in [pl. IV], and tapering towards the edge of the mound. Above it lies only the uppermost stratum (I), that of vegetable soil. Though calcined shells[[34]] occurred elsewhere in the mound, they were especially numerous in this ash stratum, and in some spots all shells were calcined. The origin of this ash stratum will be explained later. A similar bed is to be seen in a central layer of the shellmound at West Berkeley, and another one of similar thickness but shorter in a mound near Sausalito.
Human Remains and Relics.—A large part of the Emeryville mound consists of remains which have been deposited here by man. Among these are molluscan shells with bones of fish and mammals, used as articles of food. In the narrower sense the human relics consist of the bones of man, graves, and artifacts, which are all found in greater or less abundance throughout the whole thickness of the mound. Actual human bones were not found to be common in this part of the mound except in stratum II, and in the graves of stratum VII. The artifacts obtained were only those of very resistant material, such as stone or shell. All other kinds, such as textiles of plant fibre, baskets, and implements of wood, which doubtless have also existed, had disappeared. The more resistant artifacts were distributed throughout all layers of the mound.[[35]]
About 200 cubic meters of earth were removed and sifted during the excavations, and yielded 600 artifacts of various kinds, averaging three specimens to one cubic meter. The volume of the whole mound we computed to be about 39,000 cubic meters, and it may be assumed that by excavating the entire mound the yield would be about 100,000 specimens, which indicates that many generations must have lived here to deposit such a large number of objects of imperishable material alone.[[36]]
The same computation was applied to each separate layer in the mound, and it was shown that the yield differed according to the section and the stratum explored. The open cut A yielded one specimen to .75 cb. m., and the tunnel B and the pits h to m, six per cb. m. Section C yielded three artifacts to one cb. m. This computation shows that sections nearer the center of the mound yielded the greater number, those toward the edge a smaller number. It also appears that the lower strata contained a larger percentage of artifacts than the upper ones. If, however, the number of flaked chert fragments were subtracted from the yield of the lower strata, their percentage would be much the same as that of the higher layers. The following are the contents of the various strata:
Stratum I had 20 artifacts per 15-1/2 cb. m. = 1.3 per cb. m.
Stratum II, 30 cb. m—133 objects = 4.4 per cb. m.
Stratum III, 20-2/3 cb. m—27 objects = 1.16 per cb. m.
Stratum IV, 11-3/4 cb. m.—41 objects = 3.5 per cb. m.
Stratum V, 9-2/3 cb. m.—34 objects = 3.5 per cb. m.
Stratum VI, 4-1/5 cb. m.—9 objects = 2.1 per cb. m.
Stratum VII, 2-4/5 cb. m.—10 objects = 3.5 per cb. m.
The specimens contained in the graves in strata VI and VII were not counted in with the rest. This comparison shows mainly that stratum II is the richest in implements. The connection of this fact with the preponderance of ashes will be pointed out later.
[26] Eight-tenths of all the shells found in the Oregon shellmounds belong to the species of Mytilus californianus, Tapes staminea, Cardium nuttalii, and Purpura lactuca (Schumacher, Smithson. Rep., 1874, p. 335).
[27] As by the Minooks and the Nishinams (Powers, l. c., pp. 348 and 430); and certainly the custom was a very general one.
[28] We were not so fortunate as was W. H. Dall in the shellmounds of the Aleutian Islands in being able to make “a tolerably uniform division” of the layers in the mound according to the various foods used. (These layers were: “1, Echinus layer; 2, fishbone layer; 3, hunting layer.” Contributions to North American Ethnology, I, p. 49.) The shellmound of Emeryville presents a much greater similarity in the kinds of food used during the different periods of its occupancy.
[29] Extinct in California, and in fact south of Washington; J. Wyman found the remains of elk, wild turkey, and large auk in the shellmounds of New England. The elk, though still in existence, is no longer to be found east of the Allegheny Mountains; the wild turkey is still in existence, but is not to be found in New England, while the auk lives only in the Arctic regions, or at least not farther south than the northern part of Newfoundland (Amer. Naturalist, I, p. 572).
[30] Also found in the shellmounds of New England.
[31] Cf. for shellmounds in Denmark: Ranke, l. c., II, p. 532, for those of the Atlantic Coast, Wyman, l. c., p. 575 (New England) and Abbott, l. c., p. 442 (New York).
[32] Analogous is the statement of Wyman, l. c., p. 564, about the shellmounds of New England.
[33] Cf. also Hellwald, Der vorgeschichtliche Mensch, p. 449, on the Kjökkenmöddinger of Denmark.
[34] Nadaillac, l. c., p. 50, states from uncertain authority that a shellmound near San Pablo was said to consist of calcined shells exclusively, which is certainly an exaggeration.
[35] It is alleged that there are shellmounds in the East which contain no implements at all, and have been used for the gathering of mussels only, and not as dwelling places (Abbott, p. 447, accord. to Charles A. Woodley). Equally uncertain seems to be the distinction made by Schumacher between shellmounds yielding few artifacts and those containing a larger number, as representing a place for temporary or permanent habitation. Similarly dubious is that classification which considers the piling up of shells in various separate heaps as proof of permanent abode and that of single mounds for the use only as temporary stopping places (Smithson. Rep., 1874, pp. 337 to 338).
[36] W. J. Dall (contrib. l. c., I, p. 47) states that during his excavations of the shellmounds of the Aleutian Islands he found on the average one object in one-half ton of earth. This would be 2.63 objects to one cb. m. The yield of the Emeryville shellmound is three objects to one cb. m.