The supposition that they were used on the end of a plumb line is also invalid, since civilization was not far enough advanced among the Indians for that sort of thing. Weaving and spinning apparatus requiring the use of the stones as weights are so rarely found that we cannot explain the presence of such a large number of stones in that way. And especially not in California since the Indians there have never spun nor woven.
Hence the only explanation left is that they were used in fishing. The great quantities of such implements found on the coast has often been noted.[[81]] That nine were found in a shellmound such as the one at Emeryville substantiates this theory. They have also been noticed in a number of other shellmounds about the bay (even though these have been little excavated), as at Ellis Landing and in Visitacion Valley,[[82]] and their shape is identically the same ([plate 10], fig. 2). There is one from a shellmound on Seaver’s Ranch with exactly the same shape, [plate 10], fig. 1. Drawings were made by J. Deans of two other objects which were also taken from the same shellmound in Visitacion Valley and which had like forms.[[83]] If we accept the hypothesis that these stones in general are sinkers, there are of course difficulties in the case of individual stones, that must be explained away. The following peculiarities which appear must be mentioned:
1. Occasional peculiarities in material: Some are not very heavy, some rather soft; and in others the ornamentation either in color, grain, or crystalline markings is so prominent that an ornamental use is suggested. 1-8615, [plate 10], fig. 3, seems to be a stone of this description,—the material of which it is made is reddish and fine grained, and ornamented to some extent.
2. The occasional absolute lack of any contrivance by which the implement might have been suspended: 1-8925, [plate 10], fig. 9, is, for instance, of this kind. It is for the greater part of its length absolutely round and gradually tapers to a point. The outer end is in the form of a handle which is flattened to about one-half inch wide and one-quarter inch thick and is rough from the marks of blows; the main part of the instrument is smooth. The handle-like part must, from its form and roughness, have served to fasten it by. It looks, however, more as though it were intended to fit into a shaft, rather than to be suspended. It is important to note that one of the long sides is entirely covered with asphaltum. This fact excludes the possibility that it was fastened into a shaft. It must further be called to mind that, as in the case of the California Indian dancing costume, various rod-like bits of stone are sometimes fastened on by means of hangers, the provision for their suspension being made on the stones themselves. The use of asphaltum in securing them often did away with otherwise necessary changes in their form. At any rate it allowed great imperfection in form.
Fragment 1-8616, [plate 10], fig. 8, is an example of the above; it is pear-shaped and the upper conical point is encircled by a broad band of asphaltum which served for its attachment.
The sinker-like stones of classes I-III present fewer difficulties in their explanation than do the pear-shaped and kindred ones. The use of flat boulder stones with side grooves as net-sinkers is agreed to by all.[[84]] The fact that here as in the East, and as in the shellmound of West Berkeley, many of these have been found in groups, points almost conclusively to their use as net weights.
Professor Putnam has already called attention to the use of spherical stones (fig. 20), with a peripherally encircling groove as sinkers.[[85]] Similar stones are also found in shellmounds in Massachusetts and in the Aleutian Islands.
Dr. Yates[[86]] was informed by an Indian that such was the use of a stone found in Napa (California).[[87]] The use of the oval stones (as fig. 21) is in general to be explained in the same way. A stone of that kind is, for example, known to have been found in Oregon.[[88]] Another one has been found in California (supposedly at Spanish Flat). It has been pictured by H. H. Bancroft.[[89]]
The stone, 1-8535, [plate 12], fig. 7, from stratum I, is a sinker, judging from its general shape; it is long and oval, pierced at the upper end. Stones of like form have been found in numbers in the shellmound at West Berkeley. They are probably sinkers like many other stones found there.[[90]] The upper eyelet has been broken off in the stone under consideration. The stone is slightly flattened; one of the end surfaces is more curved than the other and one of the broad sides more elaborately adorned. On one side a lattice-like ornamentation joins on to a deep groove. On the other side may be seen several somewhat ruder lines like hatchings. The material is that commonly used. Abbott describes an ornamented stone pendent as a gorget and another one from Illinois with plastic ornaments, as a sinker.[[91]] Compare this with a picture of a pendent stone from San Clemente Island.[[92]] The fact that these stones are ornamented seems to make their use as sinkers doubtful but not impossible, since fishhooks are sometimes much ornamented.[[93]]
[Plate 12], fig. 8, 1-8630, is somewhat sinker-like, but in many respects it diverges from the general class. It is made of very light, soft stone, and is an elongated oval in shape, with five grooves parallel to one another cut in about the edge. It is elaborately ornamented with oblique hatch-like lines on the edges between the grooves. Hence it is improbable that it was a sinker—it cannot, however, as yet be assigned to another use.