The Emeryville Shellmound — A Closer Reading

(0 User reviews)   2001
In Category - Social Conditions
Uhle, Max, 1856-1944 Project Gutenberg 2022 Not confirmed
Kitchen-middens -- California -- San Francisco Bay Area; Indians of North America -- California -- Emeryville -- Antiquities; Emeryville Site (Calif.); Emeryville (Calif.) -- Antiquities Readers of public-domain and historical texts
Project Gutenberg digital edition en

Edition facts

Words 34,468
Reading time 150 min
Text sections 7

Before opening The Emeryville Shellmound — A Closer Reading, the edition data offers a quick orientation: 34,468 words, 2 hr 30 min estimated reading time, and 7 detected text sections.

The text analysis averages about 15.2 words per sentence, while the detected sections provide another way to judge how the source is divided.

Project Gutenberg metadata also associates the work with “Kitchen-middens -- California -- San Francisco Bay Area,” connecting these edition facts with the source record’s subject description.

Max Uhle's 1907 excavation report on the Emeryville Shellmound, detailing stratigraphy, artifacts, and cultural layers. The catalog subjects emphasize kitchen-middens and Native antiquities, but the text focuses on typological classification of stone, bone, and shell implements, with comparative notes from other sites.
Share
Editorial Edition Score 4.7/5

Calculated from edition completeness, EPUB availability, text structure and catalogue metadata. Not a user rating.

How this score is calculated
  • Description quality20 pts
  • Title & short description10 pts
  • Source metadata20 pts
  • Text length15 pts
  • Chapters / structure15 pts
  • EPUB file integrity20 pts

Total of 100 points, scaled to a 2.5-5.0 range. Editions with an empty description or a missing EPUB file are not scored.

Edition quality

Read the Text

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PUBLICATIONS AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY AND ETHNOLOGY Vol. 7 No. 1 THE EMERYVILLE SHELLMOUND BY MAX UHLE BERKELEY THE UNIVERSITY PRESS JUNE, 1907

PART 1. GENERAL REPORT ON THE EXCAVATIONS CONDUCTED BY PROFESSOR.... 1 JOHN C. MERRIAM AND DR. MAX UHLE IN THE SPRING OF 1902...... Introduction................................................ 2 Early Settlements in the Region............................. 5 Early References to Shellmounds of Middle California........ 6 The Nature of the Excavations............................... 7 The Base of the Mound....................................... 9 The Internal Structure...................................... 14 Constituents of the Mound................................... 16 Shells................................................. 16 Bones.................................................. 18 Fireplaces............................................. 19 Human Remains and Relics............................... 19 Burials..................................................... 21 Age of the Mound............................................ 30 Cultural Stages Represented................................. 36

PART 2. ARTIFACTS UNEARTHED AT THE EMERYVILLE SHELLMOUND............ 42 A. Implements of Stone...................................... 42 a. Made by Grinding................................... 42 1. Mortars.......................................... 42 2. Flat Stones...................................... 46 3. Pestles.......................................... 47 4. Hammer-like Stones............................... 49 5. Flat Stones Pointed at Both Ends................. 50 6. Sinker-like Stones............................... 50 7. Cylindrical Stones............................... 56 8. Needle-like Stone Implements..................... 57 9. Tobacco Pipes.................................... 57 10. Various Polished Stones.......................... 59 b. Chipped Stones..................................... 61 B. Utensils of Bone, Horn, and the Teeth of Animals......... 66 Implements of Bone..................................... 66 1. Awl-like Tools................................... 66 a. Common Awls.................................... 66 b. Blunt Awl-like Implements...................... 69 c. Flat Awl-like Implements....................... 69 2. Needle-like Implements........................... 70 a. Straight Needles without Perforation........... 70 b. Curved Needles................................. 70 c. Needles with Eyes.............................. 70 d. Long Crooked Needles........................... 70 3. Rough Awl-like Implements of the Lower Strata.... 71 4. Implements of the Shape of Paper-cutters......... 72 5. Pointed Implements............................... 74 6. Saw-like Notched Bones........................... 76 7. Various Implements and Objects of Bone........... 79 Implements of Antler................................... 80 1. Chisel-like Implements........................... 80 a. Actual Chisels................................. 80 b. Chisel-like Implements of Varying Forms........ 81 2. Implements of Antler with Dull Rounded Ends...... 82 3. Pointed Implements............................... 82 4. Straight Truncated Implements.................... 82 Implements of Teeth.................................... 83 C. Implements Made of Shells................................ 83

California has but few characteristic archaeological remains such as are found in the mounds of the Mississippi valley or the ancient pueblos and cliff-dweller ruins of the South. In the shellmounds along this section of the Pacific coast it possesses, however, valuable relics of very ancient date. These are almost the only witnesses of a primitive stage of culture which once obtained among the early inhabitants of this region.

Some years ago Professor Merriam recognized the necessity of exploring these ancient mounds and represented the facts to the University of California. Mrs. Phoebe A. Hearst generously made the undertaking possible by providing ample financial support for the exploration work.

UNIV. CAL. PUB. AM. ARCH. &. ETH. VOL. 7, PL. 1

One of the largest and best preserved shellmounds was selected as the object of the present investigation, which was entrusted to Professor Merriam and the writer. The mound selected is situated on the eastern side of the Bay of San Francisco at Shellmound Station near Emeryville, and is commonly known as the Emeryville mound. At present it forms a conspicuous feature of the recreation grounds known as Shellmound Park (pl. 1).

The water of the bay rises to within 130 feet of the base of the mound (pl. 3) during high tide. The beach is then only one foot above the water level, while the ground in the immediate vicinity of the mound is from two to three feet higher. This ground is quite level and forms a part of an extensive alluvial flat. A small creek, having its source about three miles away, in the hills back of Berkeley, passes the mound on its south side, at a distance of two hundred feet, and empties into the bay. In summer the creek runs dry, but its bed furnishes a channel for subterranean water. Another, lower mound, containing graves, lay on the site of the Emeryville race-track near by, but it has been leveled down during the construction of the track. The shellmound which was the object of the excavation has the form of a truncated cone, with a diameter of 270 feet at its base and 145 feet at the top, and rising 27 feet above the plain. On the north side its foot extends 100 feet farther over the flat, a few feet higher than the level of the ground about it.

Twenty-five or thirty years ago the shore line of the bay lay fifty feet farther out; a pile set at that time is still to be seen at that distance from the beach. It is above the water during high tide and marks the coast line on this side of which floodland was sold by the State. The top of the mound was not at that time crowned by the wooden pavilion which is there at the present time. It was still ungraded, having its natural conical form, and was covered with a wild growth of bushes and brambles. The creek, as yet unregulated, followed its own course and overflowed the land, causing it to become marshy. In the seventies and eighties of the last century, railroad tracks were laid along the eastern side of the mound, and took in a section of its eastern foot. At that time a number of graves and Indian artifacts were discovered. Few of these, however, found their way into the collections of the University, then but recently founded.

EARLY SETTLEMENTS IN THE REGION.

Max Uhle's The Emeryville Shellmound (1907) is a technical excavation report that catalogs thousands of artifacts recovered from a single site on San Francisco Bay. The catalog subjects list "Kitchen-middens" and "Indians of North America—California—Emeryville—Antiquities," but the text itself is organized around artifact typology, not cultural interpretation. Uhle devotes most of his attention to classifying stone pestles, bone awls, and shell implements by shape and wear patterns, often comparing them to finds from other California mounds and even Bolivia.

Stratigraphy vs. Typology

The catalog subjects imply a focus on the shellmound as a midden—a refuse heap. Yet Uhle's report is structured as a typological catalog: Part 2 lists "Implements of Stone" subdivided by manufacturing technique (grinding vs. chipping), then "Utensils of Bone, Horn, and the Teeth of Animals," and finally "Implements Made of Shells." The stratigraphic context is mentioned only briefly in Part 1. For example, Uhle notes that 7 of 17 pestle fragments came from stratum II alone, but he does not analyze why. The artifact descriptions dominate, with measurements and catalog numbers (e.g., 1-8620 from stratum II) but little synthesis of what the layers mean for chronology or daily life.

Comparative Method Without Cultural Claims

Uhle frequently compares Emeryville artifacts to those from other regions, but he avoids broad cultural conclusions. He writes that a grooved stone from West Berkeley "seems arbitrarily to combine several purposes"—as sinker and mortar—but offers no interpretation of the people who made it. When describing a hammer-like stone with finger depressions, he notes similar examples from New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and the Aleutians, and adds that he "noticed that just such flat stones were used in Bolivia for the driving of stakes." These comparisons are purely formal; Uhle does not argue for migration, trade, or shared culture. The catalog subjects' emphasis on "Indians of North America" might lead readers to expect ethnographic description, but Uhle's text is resolutely artifact-centered.

The Limits of the Evidence

Uhle is candid about what the mound does not reveal. He reports that "sharply pointed or button-like ornamentations at the upper ends which are usual in those found in California were not noticed" in the Emeryville pestles. He also notes that only two hammer-like stones were found in this mound, while several were unearthed at West Berkeley. Such observations highlight the site's idiosyncrasies without forcing them into a larger narrative. The catalog subjects list "Kitchen-middens" as a category, but Uhle's own introduction states that shellmounds are "almost the only witnesses of a primitive stage of culture." He does not elaborate on what that stage entailed. Readers should expect a meticulous record of objects, not a story about the people who left them.

This report is best approached as a primary source for artifact typology and excavation method in early twentieth-century California archaeology. The catalog subjects may suggest a broader cultural study, but the text itself is a narrow, descriptive catalog. Readers interested in the daily life of the mound's inhabitants will need to look elsewhere; those studying the history of archaeological classification will find Uhle's work invaluable.

I found myself lingering over Uhle’s careful, dusty layers—each shell and shard pressed into its own quiet chronology. It made me think of old footpaths, how animals and people once traced the same slow lines across this land. That particular ache for an older, tangible map surfaces again in Paths of the Mound-Building Indians and Great Game Animals — Key Ideas to Explore, almost like a shared, half-remembered question.

There are no reviews for this eBook.

0
0 out of 5 (0 User reviews )

Add a Review

Your Rating *
There are no comments for this eBook.

Reader reflection

Take a moment to reflect on this book

Create a short personal record of your experience with this book.

Your progress 0 / 10
1

How far have you progressed with this book?

2

Was reading this book enjoyable?

3

Is this a title you would suggest to others?

4

Did the language feel accessible?

Related eBooks