Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
For a number of years the subject of California archaeology has undergone a great deal of discussion. A large measure of this discussion has been concerned with the problem of chronology. Heizer (1949) has postulated a classification of cultural and temporal relationships for central California. His chronology is based primarily on stratigraphic sequences together with intrasite comparisons and geological-chemical soil and bone analysis. This paper is an attempt to examine a part of his sequences using a new method for the chronological ordering of archaeological deposits (Brainerd 1951; Robinson 1951). The material to follow will be divided into three categories: 1) theory and method; 2) a discussion of the sequences resulting from the application of the method used here; and 3) the nature of the conclusions which one may safely draw in the light of 1) and 2) above.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Russell E. Belous (1953) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: