1 s2.0 S0278416503000047 Main

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 22 (2003) 4274
www.elsevier.com/locate/jaa
Cultural transmission, language, and basketry

traditions amongst the California Indiansq
Peter Jordan* and Stephen Shennan
AHRB Centre for the Evolutionary Analysis of Cultural Behaviour, Institute of Archaeology,
University College London, 3134 Gordon Sq, London WC1H 0PY, UK
Received 26 March 2002; revision received 8 October 2002; accepted 12 November 2002
Abstract
Much recent debate has focussed on the relative signicance of phylogenetic (branching) versus ethnogenetic (culture contact induced) processes of cultural transformation. In this paper we employ a longterm and regional framework to analyse the transmission of languages and craft traditions amongst
Californian Indian groups. Initial results suggest that basketry assemblages exhibit a signicant ethnogenetic signal, arising from the horizontal transmission of cultural attributes across sharply dened linguistic boundaries. These ndings converge with those from other regions, where geographic propinquity
rather than linguistic anity has been shown to have a slightly greaterbut not exclusiveinuence on the
composition of material culture assemblages. However, the results presented here also indicate that despite
these broader similarities local basketry traditions remain relatively distinct, and therefore cannot be explained through ethnogenesis alone. It remains a possibility that dierential rates of cumulative innovation
in language and craft traditions may have been present, leading to the erosion of phylogenetic signals for
shared descent and the rapid emergence of distinct local basketry traditions. These issues require further
research at a sub-regional scale.
2003 Elsevier Science (USA). All rights reserved.
Keywords: Cultural evolution; Transmission; Phylogenesis; Ethnogenesis; Languages; Basketry; California Indians
Introduction
In recent years long-standing issues concerning
the relationships between the biological, linguistic,
and cultural attributes of populations have received renewed attention. The theoretical frameq
Supplementary data for this article are available on

ScienceDirect (http://www.sciencedirect.com). Original
data for this paper is also available at http://www.ucl.
ac.uk/ceacb.
*
Corresponding author. Fax: +44-0207-383-2572.
E-mail address: p.jordan@ucl.ac.uk (P. Jordan).
work for such studies, not always made explicit, is

that of Darwinian descent with modication.
Biological, linguistic, and other cultural attributes
are passed on through the generations and are
aected by a variety of processes that result in
change. The paradigmatic pattern for the outcome
of such processes is that established in historical
linguistics, in which new languages come into existence as a result of the splitting of older ones,
when members of the populations concerned
gradually cease to interact with one another.
While this phylogenetic or branching model is
widely accepted in historical linguistics, and of
0278-4165/03/$ - see front matter 2003 Elsevier Science (USA). All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0278-4165(03)00004-7
P. Jordan, S. Shennan / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 22 (2003) 4274
course within biology as a description of the

generation of relationships between species, anthropologists have long argued that within the
non-linguistic socio-cultural sphere processes of
blending are much more important. Moreover,
while the phylogenetic model describes the relations between biological species, it is not so obvious that it applied to the relations between
populations within a species, where gene ow can
and does occur (cf. Moore, 1994). While geneticists have found at least some apparentalbeit
contentiouscorrelation between major language
and genetic groupings (cf. Cavalli Sforza and
Menozzi, 1994), the concern of this paper is to
explore the relationship between linguistic descent with modication processes and the transmission of material culture traditions. In short, if
craft traditions are passed between generations (a)
via the same socially grounded mechanisms that
languages are, and (b) are subject to the same
strategies of social selection as these languages,
then speakers of closely related languages would
be expected to have similar material culture repertoires. Alternatively, if diusion across language
boundaries is a strong force, then adjacent
communities would be expected to share, say,
similar craft traditions irrespective of their linguistic aliation.
Previous studies of this issue have come to
contrasting conclusions. Guglielmino et al. (1995)
found a strong correlation between linguistic afliation and a variety of other socio-cultural
variables, while Welsch et al. (1992) found no such
correlation in the case of artifact types on the
north coast of New Guinea, although that conclusion has been heavily disputed (e.g. Moore and
Romney, 1994).
Two factors complicate the issue. Firstly, many
elements of material culture form the adaptive
technology in particular environments. Groups
speaking dierent languages but sharing similar
ecological niches may come to share a common
technology either by convergent adaptation or
cultural diusion. Second, speakers of related
languages often share contiguous areas. If material culture assemblages are very similar, it becomes impossible to determine whether this is a
result of shared ancestry, geographic diusion, or
indeed convergent adaptation. For these reasons,
the ideal location for research into processes of
cultural transmission would be an area of high
linguistic diversity, rather than a large area populated by speakers of related languages. In linguistically diverse areas many of these
43
complicating factors can potentially be isolated

and disentangled. Indigenous California is one of
the worlds most linguistically diverse regions and
there is abundant data on sophisticated indigenous basketry traditions.
As with Welsch et al. (1992), the key aim of the
current paper is to explore whether geographic
distance or linguistic anity have exerted the
greatest inuence on the material culture traditions of particular ethno-linguistic communities.
If material culture traditions are transmitted vertically in tandem with linguistic traditions then
communities who speak related languages but
perhaps reside in spatially distant areas, thereby
not sharing common borders, will tend to have a
similar repertoire of material culture due to their
shared cultural history. If horizontal transmission
predominates over a certain period, then sets of
adjacent communities will tend to have similar
material culture, irrespective of the local linguistic
anities of particular groups. Finally, if basketry
functions primarily as an adaptive technology,
then populations in similar ecological zones will
have the same kinds of material culture, irrespective of their linguistic anity or geographic
proximity to groups residing nearby but in areas
with dierent ecological characteristics.
Californian languages and material culture

Languages
At the time of European contact there were 94
distinct and mutually unintelligible languages
spoken along the Pacic Coast and South West of
Northern North America. This high level of linguistic diversity can be contrasted with the low
count of only 18 mutually unintelligible languages
spoken throughout the Great Basin and Plateau,
an area of similar geographical size (Jorgensen,
1980, p. 58). The linguistic topography of California was particular rich, with between 64 and 80
languages, further dierentiated into multiple dialects, spread over the mountains valleys and deserts. However, it is important to realise that the
colonial history of California was extremely
traumatic for indigenous groups (see Castillo,
1978), resulting in an estimated 90% demographic
collapse between 1770 and 1900, as well as huge
disruptions in their way of life. The languages that
have survived the turbulent processes of colonialism and external cultural contact have provided the modern researcher with a glimpse,
44
however faded, of a marvellous linguistic diversity

with its origins lying millennia in the past (Shipley, 1978, p. 80). Nevertheless, the potential signicance of this demographic bottleneck for the
nature and extent of the linguistic and cultural
variation that was recorded in the early 20th
century should not be forgotten (cf. Shennan,
2000, 2001).
Californian languages have been subjected to
historical analyses, where a basic system of recurrent sound correspondences is the only known
certain diagnostic for validating a genetic relationship among any group of languages (Shipley,
1978, p. 80). Using these principles the languages
of California have been classed as indigenous
(Penutian, Hokan, Yukian) or exterior stocks
(Algic, Na-Dene, Uto-Aztecan), on the basis of
their genetic relationships with non-local languages (Shipley, 1978, pp. 8182).
Linguistic diusion has complicated this process of identifying historic relationships, although
the spatial patterning of linguistic relationships
encouraged the conclusion that, in general outline,
a series of six successive colonisations had taken
place, with new waves of population speaking
dierent groups of related languages. Those of the
Hokan stock were thought to be derived from the
oldest indigenous communities in the area, whilst
speakers of Penutian languages were understood
to have arrived later, displacing Hokan speakers
from the great central valley. Later, there proceeded an advance of Uto-Aztecan languages into
the area from the south. While the relative chronology of Yukian- and Algic-speaking arrivals
was less certain, it was clear that the Athapaskan
languages arrived most recently, probably from
Oregon (Shipley, 1978, pp. 8182).
The veracity of this model rests entirely on the
validity of its higher level linguistic classications,
from which deeper historical processes are inferred. These taxonomies have been challenged
recently in the context of wider debates between
the language group lumpers and splitters,
which have proceeded at both continental and
regional scales (e.g. Greenberg, 1987). Californian
language groupingsand especially the two great
language stocksHokan and Penutian (Shipley,
1978, p. 81)have been criticised for including
very dierent levels of internal linguistic diversity
(see Goddard, 1996 and especially Mithun, 1999,
pp. 303304). Shipley notes that the postulated
Penutian and Hokan stocks represent unveried
hypotheses but adds optimistically that it is
likely that both theories will eventually be vali-
dated, probably with minor, possibly with major

alterations (1978, p. 81). Hokan, in particular,
has been argued to represent a kind of wastebasket stock for a suite of very dierent
languages that have very littleor indeed no
demonstrable internal relatedness but that lack
evidence for anity with some of the more clearly
established language groups like Na-Dene. The
justication for a Hokan stock has a somewhat
circular reasoning behind it, the argument turning
on the fact that while some limited genetic relations can be inferred between the Hokan languages the high internal diversity in the stock can
be explained away through reference to the deep
antiquity of Hokan language speakers settlement
of the area. Conveniently, this deep history is inferred via reference to the high internal diversity
of the Hokan language stock, which came about
through the Hokan speakers very long-term settlement of the area. There is now more or less
general consensus that these older ambitious
classications (e.g. Shipley, 1978), should now be
tempered by more cautious taxonomies where
Hokan and, to some extent, Penutian have been
either rejected as superstocks or else accepted
with a heavy note of caution (see also Mithun,
1999, pp. 303304). In our current analyses we
accommodate both lumper and splitter language classications to reect the diversity of this
language debate. Appendix A lists 39 ethno-linguistic groups from California in terms of their
language aliation as classied by Shipley (1978)
who has argued for the presence of the contentious Hokan and Penutian stocks.
These classication debates focus on the deeper historical processes by which progressive bifurcation of ancestral protolanguages into dialects
eventually generates new sets of mutually unintelligible languages. When viewing the results of
these processes on the ground researchers have
recurrently noted the sharp linguistic boundaries
that characterise the linguistic geography of California. This tight linguistic packing stands in
sharp contrast to the more graded linguistic topography of adjacent areas of the Great Basin and
Plateau (Jorgensen, 1980, p. 58). In explaining
these distributions Jorgensen argues that local
ecosystems exerted important inuences on patterns of local linguistic evolution, with areas of
concentrated, highly productive and reliable resources encouraging very localised procurement
and ownership regimes, which produced and then
enforced the maintenance of sharp language divisions amongst isolated communities who tended
to exhibit quite low levels of long-range mobility

(Jorgensen, 1980, p. 60).
Basketry
Californian basketry traditions represents one
of the richest craft traditions in the world, exhibiting endless variation both within and between the dierent ethnic groups that comprise
the indigenous population. There is also a general
unity in the broader Californian basketry tradition, which Elsasser (1978) ascribes to the prominence of acorn processing as a key subsistence
adaptation:
Gathering, carrying, storing, milling, and cooking
of acorns, from north to south, were all performed
in approximately the same way; and the similarity
of procedures reected in the forms of the baskets
that otherwise remotely related groups employed
(Elsasser, 1978, p. 626).
This inherent variety within a broader basketry

tradition represents an ideal focus for the investigation of cultural transmission: all groups produce baskets but each according to local tradition.
In other words, the data are regionally comparable, though subject to the kind of localised inuences we seek to explore. Elsasser (1978, p. 627)
notes key dierences in the spatial extent of various basketry traditions:
(a) Local scale: There were numbers of
remarkable variations in. . .form. . .technique. . .
decoration. . .sometimes among closely neighbouring groups. While there is no ready explanation for these discrepancies. . .they may be
looked upon as forming a simple corollary to the
well-known cultural and linguistic separatism of
California Indian groups. . . (Elsasser, 1978, p.
626).
(b) Regional scale: Despite these small-scale
and more qualitative dierences in material culture, all groups produced twined baskets; the
northern tribes used this technique exclusively,
whilst those in the south also made twined baskets
but preferred to employ the coiled technique (see
Fig. 1).
Elsasser (1978) has compiled extensive crosscultural data on the techniques, types, usages,
materials, ornamentation, and dyes employed by
39 California Indian groups in the production of
their basketry. The data are drawn from the
published literature as well as from detailed study
of museum collections, in particular, that of the
University of California, Berkeley. The latter
45
dataset was analysed and described by A.L.

Kroeber, S.A. Barrett, and others after extensive
eldwork in the early 1900s. Elsasser presented
data for amalgamated ethno-linguistic tribal units
(see Fig. 2) like the Pomo, Monache, Yokuts, etc.
(in contrast to the village-based data sets examined by Welsch et al. (1992) in their study of New
Guinea). While general technical variables are
described (e.g. Fig. 1), including, for example, the
presence/absence of feather, banded, or other
decoration, more subtle contextual details like the
specic composition or combination of individual
design motifs are too detailed for the database to
accommodate (cf. Barrett, 1905). With the synthesised nature of the database it is not possible
to explore the historical development of the traditions; rather, the summary represents a snapshot of techniques and traditions across a
postulated ethnographic present of the later
19th/early 20th century. However, the cladistic
analytical techniques we employ below are able
to pull out historical signals in the basketry assemblages by testing whether the present forms
could have arisen either by a blending of techniques between groups or the progressive bifurcation of older traditions into newer techniques
and practices through cultural phylogenesis.
In California, it appears that the day-to-day
production and use of much basketry was predominantly a female occupation, with close associations with domestic food preparation,
cooking, grinding, and so on (Wallace, 1978).
Nevertheless, a range of elegant special purpose
baskets were made by some groups, including the
Pomo and Chumash (Elsasser, 1978, p. 638).
Wallace (1978, p. 683) notes that that craft traditions were strictly demarcated according to
gender, citing ONeale (1932) and arguing that
Women wove the indispensable baskets. It is
noteworthy that the Californian Indians left this,
the most advanced of their handicrafts to females.
Men had no hand in basket weaving other than
fashioning coarsely twined sh traps and other
forms used exclusively by them. It appears that
only amongst the Pomo and adjacent tribes did
men routinely make some limited contribution to
the weaving of specic openwork twined baskets
(Elsasser, 1978, p. 626).
If basketry production has gender associations
then kinship practices such as marriage traditions
will have inuenced cultural transmission. Jorgensen (1980, p. 451) records Californian community marriage patterns as being of both
exogamous (outside) and agamous (endogamy
46
Fig. 1. Coiling and twining techniques used in california baskets (after Elsasser, 1978).
and exogamy; no clear preference for mates inside

or outside the community) types. Jorgensen
speculates as to the existence of periodic unilineal
descent groups amongst the Penutian, and perhaps Hokan and Uto-Aztecan speakers, which
formed around the appropriation of key extractive resource areas: As they settled around their
resources in independent communities, the monolineage communities (single lineage communities) may have engaged in marriages between
cross-cousins (1980, p. 166). At the time of
contact, it appeared that in Californian extractivebased unilineal societies a partner was sought
beyond the immediate community. In northern
California leading families created strategic alliances between distant groups through careful
choice of partners: marriage was an important
mechanism in creating formal relations among
competitive groups who otherwise had minimal
political organisation (1980, p. 166). Jorgensen
also notes the practice of intense bartering in
northern California, and Heizer (1978b) records
47
Fig. 2. Key to tribal territories (After Heizer, 1978a,b).
limited evidence that baskets were passed between

Californian groups, whose broader trade relations
were characterised by one-for-one exchange, with
the use of shell bead currency in some areas.
Nevertheless, at appears that people travelled
only short distances: even people living on the
navigable rivers did not travel far. People who
were caught considerable distances from their
home communities might be treated as poachers
and repulsed. Even trade and ceremonial relations

were maintained within and between neighbouring communities in northern California. Marriage
alliances, too, were between people from communities in the same tribelet or neighbouring
tribelets (Jorgensen, 1980, p. 168). To summarise, there is limited evidence of trade, marriage
and other patterns of general interaction between
the various ethno-linguistic groups. However,
48
even proceeding at very low intensities over long

time periods this cultural contact could have
permitted the partial ow of ideas, genes, portable
artefacts and other cultural attributes across the
network of cultural and linguistic frontiers that
characterised the region (see Figs. 2 and 3).
Aside from these general observations, we have
no real data on how basketry production was
learned and reproduced. Nor do we have detailed
data on rates of innovation. Barrett suggests that,
for the Pomo at least, some degree of manipulation of a basic range of decorative motifs was
acceptable, thereby permitting a great variety
of design combinations. However, there seems to
be an inherent conservatism in the craft: Borrowing of designs or of names seems almost
lacking among the Pomo, and invention of designs, as also of weaves and forms, is quite unknown (Barrett, 1905, p. 652). Nevertheless, the
evidence for trade and kinship suggests at least
some degree of horizontal exchange and there is
clear evidence that certain characteristics were
shared by adjacent tribes: the lattice twined
weave seems to be conned entirely to the Pomo
and adjacent Indians of other linguistic stocks but
of similar culture (Barrett, 1905, p. 648). In another area, for example, Northern and Central
Yana informants recognized 24 designs [motifs] as
their own after looking at Maidu and Achumawi
[basketry] specimens (Johnson, 1978, p. 365,
drawing on the work on Sapir and Spier, 1943,
p. 265).
Fig. 3. Spatial locations of Californian ethno-linguistic groups (Classied according to Shipley, 1978).
Research hypotheses
In this paper we aim to explain the origins of
diversity in the basketry assemblages recorded in
Elsasser (1978) (see Appendix B). Three macroscale factors are identied for each group:
geographic location, linguistic anity, and local
environment. We assume that language functions
as a medium of group communication and similarities and dierences are maintained through
active social selection, to signal both identity and
the bounds of general reciprocity (cf. Nettle,
1999). As elements of a particular group interact
less often, new languages arise from the bifurcation of the older one via a process of linguistic
phylogenesis. Often, historic language relations
have been assumed to form a proxy record of
population histories but even where associations
with biological populations are weakor indeed
controversialthere is no doubt that the clear
branching nature of internal relations between say
Indo-European, Uralic, Bantu, etc. records one
set of cultural transmission vectors via which a
broad body of cultural knowledge/ability/information has been subjected to long-term processes
of descent with modication. In California, we
employ linguistic relations as a conceptual template that serves (a) as one potential proxy for
population history and/or (b) a record of the
transmission route-ways that have aected one
cultural variable in the region and which we can
compare and contrast to those followed by basketry traditions and practices.
In short, we ask whether transmission, continuity, or change in material culture assemblages is
governed more by phylogenesis or ethnogenesis.
In order to explore these transmission pathways
we use data on language (a proxy for ancestry),
geographic distance and adjacency (proxy measures of horizontal diusion), and ecology (a
proxy for convergent adaptation).
Language: If basketry traditions are transmitted within particular linguistic communities rather
than being geographically diused between
groups, then speakers of related languages will
have similar basketry irrespective of geographic
location. Moreover, the relationships between the
basketry assemblages of the dierent groups will
reveal a similar branching pattern, which will have
arisen through the cumulative bifurcation of
techniques through history.
Geography: If diusion (ethnogenesis) is the
predominant process, then adjacent groups sharing a border (Fig. 2) or perhaps closely located in
49
space but not actually adjacent (Fig. 3), will have

similar basketry assemblages irrespective of their
linguistic anity and the local ecology.
Ecology: Finally, if basketry technology is
primarily a means of environmental adaptation
in other words, that given ecological factors
produce certain basketry typesthen groups
whose tribal areas include similar environmental
elements (soils, vegetation, climate, and relief,
etc.) will have similar basketry assemblages.
Conversely, groups whose tribal areas are made
up of very dierent environments will have very
dierent basketry assemblages, irrespective of
their population history (i.e., linguistic anity)
and regardless of the potential for horizontal
diusion of traits from neighbouring groups (i.e.,
adjacency/proximity).
The processes of phylogenesis and ethnogenesis form opposite ends of a continuum. In reality,
the distribution and association of particular
cultural attributes may be the product of both
processes. Moreover, ecology, language and geography are not likely to be mutually exclusive
inuences and diusion may conceivably occur
into adjacent areas of similar language and ecology. The main aim of the paper is to explore and
quantify the importance of these relative inuences and to identify the relative input of dierent
cultural transmission processes.
A further factor to build into the equation is
the relative rate at which dierent cultural attributes are transformed through time, and to model
the cumulative eects of these incremental changes. Languages may, for example, change rapidly
over time and at a rate, say, faster than innovation
in craft traditions (and vice versa). In these situationsand even within a broadly dened cultural
lineage (cf. Shennan, 2000)the initially close associations between material culture and language
may slowly degrade through time, even if they
are being transmitted by similar processes within
the same broader community. This is not to say
that the two sets of variables will not contain a
phylogenetic (or ethnogenetic, produced by extralocal contact) signal, but that the association
between sets of variables will decline through
time, although certain datasets like genes or languages may inherently preserve a deeper historical
signal that say, basketry or burial practices. In
other words, the motors of local innovation
may be running at dierent speeds for dierent
cultural variables, and this may break down the
relationship between language and material culture (cf. Cavalli Sforza and Menozzi, 1994, p. 23
50
for dierent rates of genetic and linguistic evolution). Thus, groups could show evidence of historical relatedness on the basis of language
aliation, but any corresponding similarity suggesting relatedness in, e.g., material culture could
have been innovated away to produce completely distinct local craft traditions.
The data
For 39 of the ethno-linguistic groups outlined
in Elsassers tables of basketry data (see Appendices A and B) associated ecological, linguistic
(using Shipley, 1978 and Goddard, 1996), and
distance variables were compiled.
Ecology
One hypothesis we test is whether the variations
in basketry assemblages have been produced by
convergent ecological adaptation. If this had been
the case then patterns of regional dierence in the
basketry assemblages would eectively map
corresponding environmental variation across
California. But how would this come about?
Through time, communities possessing the locally
most appropriate basketry technologyfor example, for processing acornswould survive more
eectively than those that did not. In this way, the
presence of a given environmental type in a given tribal area would simply have generated an
associated adaptive basketry form or technique.
Groups in similar ecological niches would simply
produce the appropriate kinds of basketry as determined by the ecological specicities of that
niche.
In order to map the ecological characteristics
of Californian sub-regions we employed ECOMAP (1993), whose framework
. . .is a regionalization, classication, and mapping
system for stratifying the Earth into progressively
smaller areas of increasingly uniform ecological
potentials. Ecological types are classied and ecological units are mapped based on associations of
those biotic and environmental factors that directly aect or indirectly express energy, moisture,
and nutrient gradients which regulate the structure
and function of ecosystems. These factors include
climate, physiography, water, soils, air, hydrology,
and potential natural communities (Miles and Goudey, 1998).
The environmental prole of each tribal area

was generated in GIS by overlaying the tribal
areas map (Fig. 2) on to this map of Californian

ecological zones (ECOMAP, 1993; and see Miles
and Goudey, 1998). Given that our basketry assemblages were recorded in presences/absences,
and that we assumed a hypothetical correspondence between the presence of any given environmental characteristics and an associated
basketry variables (or set of variables) we identied only the presence/absence of particular ecological zones in each tribal area rather than
calculating the percentage of each tribal area
made up of these dierent environmental types.
Finally, most groups recorded in the basketry
data base have their own tribal territory in the
base map (Fig. 2), although there is some discrepancy for groups like the Yokuts (or Serrano
and Kitanemuk), who occupy two areas, yet their
basketry is recorded for the larger unied
group(s). Here, environmental variables record
the whole area occupied by the larger social unit.
Conversely, Plains Miwok and Sierra Miwok,
each with dierent basketry traditions, occupy the
larger tribal area of Miwok and so environmental variables for both these groups are those
for the larger Miwok tribal area shown ion Fig. 2.
Language
As noted above, there is general consensus on
some but not all of the language classications,
with Hokan and Penutian, in particular, remaining contentious (see Appendix A). We did not
possess data on the degree of cognate sharing
between Californian languages and so a suite of
existing classications was employed rather than
generating fresh language trees through cladistic
techniques (cf. Gray and Jordan, 2000). To accommodate this breadth of opinion between linguistic lumpers and splitters we employ
Shipleys (1978) more ambitious classicatory
language tree/table, which includes six distinct
stocks, as well as three versions of Goddards
(1996) more recent classication, which is held to
reect current consensus over Californian languages. Goddards (1996) language table/tree is
produced in such a manner that higher superstock level classications are noted, albeit with
caution, enabling three possible readings of the
table, which range from the ambitious to the more
conservative. To summarise the four tables/trees:
Shipley (1978): Both Hokan and Penutian superstocks are present (see Appendix A).
Goddard (1996) version A: Our rst version of
Goddards taxonomy closely resembles Shipley
(1978), with Hokan and Penutian superfamilies present, although there is slightly more
detailed classication within these units. For
example, Shipley lists all the four Miwok
groups as speaking Miwok, within the Utian
family of the Penutian stock. Goddard indicates, however, that the Utian family contains
the Miwok subfamily, which is divided into
West and East Miwok branches, containing
Lake and Coast, and then Sierra and Plains
Miwok languages, respectively.
Goddard (1996) version B: There is a much
more important divergence from Shipley
(1978) in our second version of Goddards classication, with Hokan rejected as a stock and
its component families then presented as independent units with no deeper historical/genetic
association present.
Goddard (1996) version C: In the third classication both Hokan and Penutian groupings
are rejected and only lower order relationships
retained in the classication. Throughout all
four classications, however, Na-Dene, Algic,
Yukian, and Uto-Aztecan are retained as viable
taxonomic units as there exists sucient general
consensus as to their general integrity as groups
of historically/genetically related languages.
In order for these language tables/trees to be
subject to quantitative analyses we translated
the hierarchical relations into a corresponding
mathematical format by employing and adapting
a system initially detailed by Welsch et al. (1992).
For Shipley and then Goddard, the following
percentage values were employed. Note that there
are slight dierences in terminology and that the
percentage values dene the relative degrees of
similarity/dierence expressed in the original language tables/trees (cf. Table 1).
Table 1
Measures of linguistic similarity
Shipley (1978)
Dierent stock
Same stock
Same family
Same language
Goddard (1996)
Dierent (super)family
Same superfamily
Same family
Same subfamily
Same sub-branch
Same language (but possibly
dierent dialects thereof)
5%
30%
50%
95%
5%
15%
30%
50%
60%
95%
51
Distance measures
Abstract references to distance have an inherent ambiguity, especially in studies of cultural
transmission, where social distances aect the
speed, direction, and indeed, possibility, of potential diusion. At the same time this is a preliminary study, which aims to identify broad
relative inuences and so two simple measures
were employed, rstly, euclidean geographic (as
the crow ies) distances (i.e., proximity) and
secondly, adjacency (i.e., the presence of a shared
ethno-linguistic border). The base map for both
measures is Heizers (1978a, and see: Fig. 2) tribal
map. Heizer does note that there is inevitably a
degree of arbitrariness in the specic boundaries
used, but the map is employed here as a means of
deriving a general indication of the spatial interrelations between tribal areas and so this is not
considered a problem:
(a) Proximity: For geographic distance the centre
point of each ethno-linguistic unit were plotted (see Figs. 2 and 3) as nodes using GIS
and a matrix of euclidean distances between
nodes generated.
(b) Adjacency: In order to calculate adjacency a
simple binary matrix was calculated. Groups
sharing a common border (see Fig. 2) scored
1 and the absence of a common border
scored 0. The San Francisco Bay was not assumed to represent a serious constraint to
interaction and so groups either side of the
water were recorded as having a common
border.
These denitions lead on to a number of important issues relating to various measures of distance
and their eects on cultural transmission. Further
studies will employ GIS to account for the eects
of altitude, major rivers and water bodies,
mountains, etc. on cultural diusion. We do note
that the more simplistic measures employed here
model the more general contours of interaction,
rather than the eect of specic and localised axes
like key rivers or mountain passes.
Basketry
The baseline basketry data we use are drawn
from two detailed tables in Elsasser (1978) and
were converted into a table of presences/absences.
Denite presences of a particular variable were
recorded as 1s. Where certain variables are not
recorded (e.g., coiled boiling vessels amongst the
Achumawi) this was recorded as a 0. Likewise,
52
where information is noted to be uncertain or

probabilistic 0s were also recorded. As neither of
us have strong familiarity or specic expertise in
the eld of Californian basketry studies we sought
to reproduce the contents and categories of Elsassers table as faithfully as possible, rather than
subject the data to our own subjective re-editing.
In Appendix B the categories and codes employed
by Elsasser (1978) and adapted for use in the
current paper are stated in full, enabling direct
comparison between our matrices and the original
dataset. Our aim in this paper is to identify larger
scale regional patterns in generalised basketry
distributions. Future papers will adopt a more
localised scale to focus on specic basketry techniques in greater detail.
Analyses were carried out rstly on the full set
of 219 variables and then on the various subsets
that make up Elsassers tables (e.g., types and
uses, ornamentation, etc.). In addition, additional
subsets were generated (e.g., detailing all raw
materials used). Dye variables were included in
the full set of variables but not subjected to individual analysis as a distinct subset. Finally, there
is speculation that that twining and coiling technologies may have very dierent histories in the
region (see Elsasser, 1978, p. 634). Hence, lumping
associated coiling and twining variables together
in analyses may potentially obscure results which
might indicate distinctly dierent vectors of
transmission. In particular, it has been suggested
that coiled techniques were brought to the region
through the migration of Penutian speakers
(Dawson, 1973) and came to overlay pre-existing
twining traditions. In order to explore these
questions further, all variables associated with
either coiling or twining traditions were extracted to form a general coiling and a general
twining dataset, although these were not broken
down into subsets like ornamentation, types, and
uses, etc., as we did for the full set of basketry
variables.
distinguish similarities deriving from recent common descent from those relating to diusion,
common adaptive patterns or distant common
ancestry, so that overall similarity may result from
any of the above factors or a mixture of them all.
Phenetic methods of describing similarity are unable to detect evidence for shared ancestry (i.e.,
phylogenesis) because they do not test for it, although, as will see, they can provide input for
analyses that do address these issues. In contrast,
cladistic analyses calculate the frequency of
shared derived characteristics, thereby aiming to
detect the potential existence of descent with
modication processes. Used in careful combination, this battery of tests has the potential to
quantify relative ethnogenetic and phylogenetic
contributions to processes of cultural transmission.
Mantel Matrix tests
For these analyses data on basketry, ecology,
language, and distance were converted into similarity (basketry, language, adjacency, and ecology) and distance matrices (geographic distance).
It is worth noting that there are four matrices,
representing language trees from Shipley (1978)
and Goddard (1996). Dierences between these
trees relate, in essence, to the in/exclusion of the
larger Hokan and/or Penutian superstocks (cf.
Table 2).
There is a problem in converting categorical
data into binary data in that clusters of variables
are reproduced into groups of non-independent
variables. Accordingly, for our analyses we employed the Jaccard index (or similarity ratio) in
which joint absences are excluded from consider-
Table 2
Summary of dierences between dierent linguistic
classications
Language tree
Analyses
We employ statistical tests and biological
phylogenetic models to evaluate the contributions
of ethnogenesis and phylogenesis in Californian
cultural transmission. The methods employed
here can be divided into phenetic and phylogenetic tests. The former calculate overall similarities between the units of analysisin this case
ethno-linguistic groupswithout any attempt to
Shipley (1978)
Goddard (1996)
version A
Goddard (1996)
version B
Goddard (1996)
version C
y yes, n no.
Contentious language
stocks present
Hokan stock?
Penutian stock?
y
y
y
y
ation and equal weight is given to matches and

non-matches, thus minimising this eect.
The Mantel Matrix test is a method of comparing whole matrices with one another to assess
the extent to which the values in one are correlated with those in another (Mantel, 1967;
Barbujani, 1995, p. 776). In addition to comparing
two matrices and obtaining a correlation value
between them, it is also possible to analyse three
matrices at a time and obtain partial correlations,
for example the correlation between basketry and
language similarity controlling for distance. The
results of the zero-order Mantel tests are shown in
Table 3.
For the basketry variables as a whole, geographic distance accounted for 38% of the basketry variation between ethno-linguistic groups
while adjacency accounted for only 15%. Shipleys
language denitions accounted for only 7% or
variation whilst those of Goddard generated better results. Ecology accounted for around 12%, a
similar value to language.
In the various subsets distance generally accounted for more basketry variation than adjacencyup to 45% versus 12% in the case of raw
materialsalthough adjacency had a similar impact on techniques as distance (both around 16%).
Generally, distance and adjacency had greater
inuences than either language or ecology, although for types, ecology was more important
than either language or adjacency but still had less
of an impact than distance. In the four denitions
of language relations those with fewer superstocks accounted for slightly more variation. In
the case of ornamentation Goddards nal language denition (without Hokan and Penutian
stocks) accounted for almost 14% of variation.
Overall, distance appears to be playing the
most important role in generating the variation in
the basketry traditions we observe across California. As noted above, however, such simple
zero-order correlations cannot be taken at face
value, because there are likely to be correlations
between spatial, ecological and linguistic distance:
Ethno-linguistic groups who share a common
border or who are geographically close to one
another may well tend to occupy environments
with similar ecological characteristics and to
speak related languages, so that the eects of each
of these factors on basketry variation will not be
independent of one another. Carrying out partial
correlation analyses enables these correlations
between putative explanatory factors to be controlled.
53
As Table 4 illustrates, for the analysis of all

basketry with distance and adjacency (mutually
correlated with a value of )0.37), if we compare
the partial correlation between basketry and distance controlling for adjacency, with that for
basketry and adjacency controlling for distance,
we nd that the rst is approximately twice as
large; distance is far more important. The implications of this become even clearer when we look
at the percentage of the variation in basketry accounted for by the two variables. Whereas distance accounts for 34% of the variation, adding in
language only accounts for an extra 8% leaving
58% unexplained.
Distance and language shower a weaker mutual inter-correlation ()0.27). When the other
variable is controlled, the partial correlation of
distance with basketry is twice as great as that
of language. Adding the eect of ecology to that
of distance (35%) accounts for only an extra 8%
giving 43% accounted for by the two variables
together.
Distance and ecology have a stronger mutual
inter-correlation ()0.41) although the partial
correlation of basketry with distance is six times
higher ()0.56) than basketry with ecology (0.11),
with the other factor controlled. Including the
eects of ecology adds only 3% to the 36% accounted for by distance, leaving 60% unexplained.
In the remaining sets of statistics, adjacency and
language, adjacency and ecology, and language
and ecology have broadly similar degrees of inuence on basketry and leave around 80% of
variance unexplained in all three calculations.
Clearly, geographic distance appears to have a
much greater inuence on basketry assemblages
than any of the other factors.
The results for coiled basketry reveal dierent
patterns. There is a relatively strong mutual correlation ()0.37) between distance and adjacency
although the partial correlation with adjacency is
fteen times higher (0.29) than that with distance
()0.02), when the other factor is controlled. Although almost 90% of the variation remains unexplained adjacency accounts for almost all the
explained variance in coiled basketry (10%) with
distance adding less than 1%. Throughout the
analyses of coiled basketry unexplained variance
ranges between 90% and almost 100%. None of
the postulated inuencing factors appear to have
any signicant inuence on the composition of
coiled basketry assemblages. In all cases it is adjacency that appears to have the greatest, albeit
nominal eect, on coiled basketry.
54
Table 3
Zero-order Mantel test results
Assemblages
Inuences:
Geog.
dist.
Adj.
Lang 1
Lang 2
Lang 3
Lang 4
Ecology
All basketry
Correlation coecient (rY1)

Determination of Y by X1
(%)
Probability
)0.621
0.385
0.399
0.159
0.265
0.07
0.358
0.128
0.362
0.131
0.364
0.132
0.340
0.115
p is 1
in 1000

(%)
Probability
)0.132 0.312
0.0174 0.097
0.157
0.024
0.128
0.016
0.141
0.141
0.117
0.013
0.122
0.014
p is 1
in 1000
)0.531
0.282
0.266
0.071
0.2
0.04
0.294
0.086
0.304
0.092
0.304
0.092
0.244
0.059
p is 1
in 1000
)0.394
0.155
0.414
0.172
0.263
0.069
0.309
0.096
0.309
0.096
0.316
0.1
0.298
0.088
p is 1
in 1000
)0.597
0.357
0.313
0.098
0.180
0.032
0.285
0.081
0.29
0.084
0.305
0.093
0.333
0.111
p is 1
in 1000
)0.509
0.259
0.402
0.162
0.272
0.074
0.367
0.134
0.37
0.137
0.369
0.136
0.281
0.079
p is 1
in 1000
)0.514
0.264
0.303
0.092
0.248
0.061
0.340
0.115
0.341
0.116
0.339
0.115
0.260
0.067
p is 1
in 1000
)0.671
0.451
0.35
0.122
0.224
0.05
0.305
0.093
0.299
0.089
0.303
0.092
0.324
0.105
p is 1
in 1000
Coiled
Twined
Techniques
Types and
uses
Ornamentation
Techniques
and raw
materials
Raw
materials

(%)
Probability
(%)
Probability
(%)
Probability
(%)
Probability
(%)
Probability
(%)
Probability
Key: Inuences (geog. dist. geographic distance (proximity); adj. adjacency; Lang 1/2/3/4 language classications by (1) Shipley (1978), and (24) by Goddard, 1996, versions A, B, and C, respectively, i.e., A has all contested
supergroups, B has Penutian but not Hokan, and C has no supergroups); probability (y p is 1 in 1000).
Relationships between twined basketry, ecology language, distance, and adjacency are dierent to those for coiled basketry. Distancerather
than adjacencyhas the greatest inuence on
twined assemblages, with adjacency, ecology, and

language exerting nominal inuences.
To summarise, proximity (geographic distance)
and adjacency appear to exert the greatest inu-
ences on the various basketry assemblages, whilst

language and ecology appear to exert only minor
inuences. Proximityone proxy measure for
horizontal cultural blendingappears to be particularly important in inuencing the distribution
of twined basketry types. Coiled basketry assemblages, however, have a very high component that
cannot be explained by either ethnogenesis, convergent adaptation or vertical transmission: each
local assemblages appears essentially distinct, although there is some limited evidence for horizontal diusion.
Correspondence analysis
In addition to the Mantel Matrix test the
basketry data were also subjected to correspondence analysis, using all the variables together as
well as various subsets (cf. Moore and Romney,
1994 for a comparable use of this method).
Correspondence analysis is a method for summarising the variation in frequency or presence/
absence data and characterising its main patterns
in a small number of new axes (see e.g. Shennan,
1997); it is closely analogous to principal components analysis. In contrast to analyses based
on similarity or distance measures, such as the
Mantel Matrix test, it has the advantage of being
based on the original raw data values, in this
case the values of each of the ethno-linguistic
groups on the various basketry variables. As already noted, converting the basketry data into
binary format may generate non-independent
variables, which could inuence the outcome of
analyses. In order to explore this issue further,
multidimensional scaling analysis (SPSS PROXXXCAL) was performed on the basketry data
for the 39 ethno-linguistic groups, using the
Jaccard similarity matrix of all basketry variables. The result was more or less identical to the
correspondence analysis plot. In other words,
dichotomising the multistate variables did not
make any dierence to the results presented in
the current analysis.
The output of the correspondence analysis
method includes scatterplots of the original observations, in this case the ethno-linguistic units
described in terms of their basketry variables, in
relation to the new axes. An indication of the
extent to which the dierent axes summarise the
variation in the data is also given. The analyses
whose results are described below were carried out
using the CANOCO and CanoDraw software (ter
Braak and Smilauer, 1998; Simlauer, 1992). Cor-
55
respondence analysis statistics are recorded in

Appendix C.1
Important note: The numbering of the assemblages varies with each plot as outlined in Table 5.
All basketry variables (with Shipley, 1978 language key): Fig. 4 shows the ethno-linguistic
groups against the rst two axes of the correspondence analysis based on all the basketry variables.
It is readily apparent that the distribution of the
points on the plot corresponds to an only slightly
distorted representation of their relative geographical positions (see Fig. 4), with the northern
groups at the left-hand end of the characteristic
horseshoe-shaped distribution and the southern
ones at the right-hand end. Groups speaking
Pentuatian and Hokan aliated languages are
widely scattered throughout the region, indicating
that linguistic anityat least according to this
contested classicationhas little bearing on the
distribution of basketry assemblages, which seems
1
The keys to plots (Figs. 412) record groups
linguistic aliation as dened by the Goddard (1996)
version C classication, whilst the key to plot x uses
Shipleys (1978) classication. In other words, the
Hokan and Penutian superstocks are absent from the
former series of plots but are included in the latter plot.
The use of Goddard C required many more linguistic
categories to be dened and this created a problem with
the output from the software, which can only show up to
16 data categories. One solution would have been to
employ the Penutian superstock classication, but this
would have meant comparing broader superstocks with
stocks and families (e.g., Yukian), all quite dierent
units of analysis reecting very dierent degrees of
relatedness. Instead, two groupsIpaiTipai and Maiduwere excluded from the analysis on the grounds that
they are both small and, according to Goddard (1996)
version C, are non-related to other groups. They are also
geographically marginal to the study area and so their
exclusion was not thought to be a problem, especially
since we were more interested in the detection of overall
processes than in localised details. In addition, as our
analyses progressed through the various subsets it was
noted that for the Types and uses, Ornamentation,
Raw materials, and Technology and raw materials
classes no data were recorded in Elsasser (1978) for
Esselen and the Lake and Coast Miwok groups. These
groups were also subsequently removed from the analysis. The plot using Shipleys (1978) denition has only
six larger groupings of languages, which include both
Hokan and Penutian, and so this problem of constraint
was not encountered. This nal plot is included as this
classication is employed in both the Mantel Matrix
analyses we conducted above and the cladistic analysis
we perform below.
56
Table 4
Mantel Matrix test: partial correlations
Assembalges
Calculationsa
B/D/A
B/D/L
B/D/E
All basketry
Regression coecient (bY1)

Partial regression (bY1_22)
Correlation coecient (r12)
Partial correlation (rY1_22)
Determination of Y by X1 (%)
Total determination of Y (%)
Unexplained variance of Y (%)
0
0.269
0
0.131
)0.621
0.399
)0.373
)0.555
0.23
0.34
0.077
0.418
0.581
0
0.005
0
0.003
)0.621
0.364
)0.27
)0.582
0.26
0.35
0.077
0.427
0.572
Coiled basketry

0
0.173
0
0.17
)0.132
0.312
)0.373
)0.017
0.285
0.002
0.095
0.097
0.902
0
0.001
0
0.001
)0.132
0.117
)0.27
)0.104
0.085
0.014
0.01
0.024
0.975
Twined basketry

0
0
0
0.173
0.184
0.004
0.228
0.091
0
0
0
0.179
0.054
0.002
0.029
)0.016
)0.531
)0.531
)0.531
0.312
0.266
0.304
0.244
0.122
)0.373
)0.27
)0.411
0.449
)0.483
)0.489
)0.487
0.29
0.086477 0.196304 0.033822 )0.0211
0.267
0.257
0.275
0.1
0.021
0.052
0.007
)0.002
0.288
0.31
0.283
0.097
0.711
0.689
0.716
0.902
B/A/L
B/A/E
B/L/E
0
0.309
0
0.092
)0.621
0.3403
)0.411
)0.561
0.118
0.359
0.034
0.394
0.605
0.269
0.005
0.216
0.004
0.399
0.364
0.29
0.329
0.283
0.128
0.098
0.227
0.772
0.269
0.309
0.208
0.183
0.399
0.34
0.449
0.293
0.196
0.123
0.068
0.192
0.807
0.005
0.309
0.004
0.256
0.364
0.34
0.188
0.325
0.297
0.113
0.095
0.209
0.79
0
0.0917
0
0.061
)0.132
0.122
)0.411
)0.09
0.075
0.013
0.009
0.023
0.976
0.173
0.173
0.001
0.091
0.16904 0.17946
0.0003 )0.016
0.312
0.312
0.117
0.122
0.29
0.449
0.292
0.29
0.029 )0.021
0.094
0.1
0.003 )0.002
0.098
0.097
0.901
0.902
0.184
0.228
0.136
0.146
0.266
0.244
0.449
0.18
0.14524
0.052
0.038
0.09
0.909
0.001
0.091
0.0012
0.077
0.117
0.122
0.188
0.097
0.102
0.011
0.012
0.024
0.975
0.004
0.228
0.004
0.181
0.304
0.244
0.188
0.27
0.2
0.081
0.047
0.128
0.871
Key: B basketry assemblage; D geographic distance; A adjacency; E ecology; L language (Shipley, 1978,
version C, i.e., no Hokan or Penutian superstock). Y probability at 1 in 1000.
a
Note. Calculations are performed as y/x1/x2, e.g., in column B/D/A basketry x, distance y1, adjacency y2.
to be inuenced much more by geographic location, our proxy measure for horizontal cultural
diusion. The cluster of Na-Dene language
speakers is the obvious exception to this pattern,
although all these languages are found in contiguous areas of northern California.
All Basketry variables (Goddard C key): This
plot (Fig. 5) is essentially the same as the one
described above but the linguistic key has been
changed to that of Goddard C. Hokanthe contentious waste-bin stockand Penutian have

been broken down into smaller classications,
generating a new set of patterns between languages in the basketry plot. There is now a much
greater tendency for clustering according to linguistic anity although this probably reects the
fact that speakers of related languages tend to be
clustered in the same sub regions (e.g., speakers of
Table 5
Tribal numbering on CA plots
Correspondence analysis plots: keys to ethno-linguistic groups
Fig. 5: all
basketry (With
Goddard, 1996,
version C)
Fig. 6:
coiled
Fig. 7:
twined
Fig. 8:
techniques
Fig. 9: raw
materials
Fig. 10:
techniques and
raw materials
Fig. 11:
ornamentation
Fig. 12:
types and
uses
TOLOWA
KAROK
YUROK
WIYOT
HUPA
MATTOLE
SINKYONE
NONGATL
LASSIK
WAILAKI
CHIMARIKO
SHASTA
ATSUGEWI
ACHUMAWI
CAHTO
YUKI
POMO
WAPPO
LAKE MIWOK
COAST MIWOK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Absent
Absent
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Absent
Absent
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Absent
Absent
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Absent
Absent
WINTU
NOMLAKI
PATWIN
YANA
MAIDU
COSTANOAN
ESSELEN
SALINAN
YOKUTS
SIERRA MIWOK
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
21
22
23
24
Absent
25
26
27
28
29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Removed
as outlier
21
22
23
24
Absent
25
26
27
28
29
21
22
23
24
Absent
25
26
27
28
29
21
22
23
24
Absent
25
26
27
28
29
19
20
21
22
Absent
23
Absent
24
25
26
19
20
21
22
Absent
23
Absent
24
25
26
19
20
21
22
Absent
23
Absent
24
25
26
19
20
21
22
Absent
23
Absent
24
25
26
Fig. 4: all
basketry with
Shipley, 1978
57
34
Absent
34
Absent
34
Absent
34
Absent
37
Absent
37
Absent
37
Absent
38
39
37
Absent
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
PLAINS MIWOK
MONACHE
TUBATULABAL
CHUMASH
GABRIELINO
LUISENO
SERRANO AND
KITANEMUK
CAHUILLA
IPAI-TIPAI
Fig. 11:
ornamentation
Fig. 10:
techniques and
raw materials
Fig. 9: raw
materials
Fig. 8:
techniques
Fig. 7:
twined
Fig. 6:
coiled
Fig. 5: all
basketry (With
Goddard, 1996,
version C)
Fig. 4: all
basketry with
Shipley, 1978
Correspondence analysis plots: keys to ethno-linguistic groups

Table 5 (continued)
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Fig. 12:
types and
uses
58
Na-Dene languages are located exclusively in the

north). In other words, this plot serves to illustrate the complex entanglement of geographic
(ethnogenetic) and historical (phylogenesis) factors in studies of cultural transmission.
Figs. 612 show the plots of the ethno-linguistic groups against the rst two CA axes, with
the Goddard C classication retained as the
language key. Variables from sub-categories of
the full basketry database are plotted, which included ornamentation, raw materials, basketry
techniques, types and uses, and the combined
raw materials and techniques dataset. In addition, the exclusively coiling and twining variables
were also plotted.
Coiled Basketry (Fig. 6): This is generally a
southern phenomenon (Elsasser, 1978, p. 626)
and so many of the northern groups are absent
from the plot. Uto-Aztecan speakers basketry
tends to cluster, while that of the Yukian, NaDene, Utian and Wintuan speakers appears to be
much more scattered. When a Coast Miwok
outlier is removed from the plot, this confused
patternwith the exclusion of the cluster of UtoAztecan speakersremains unchanged.
Twined Basketry (Fig. 7): This was present
amongst all groups, and an exclusive technology
in the northern part of the region. This plot is
interesting in that there is strong clustering according to regional geographic location. Northern and more central groups are pulled out along
the vertical axis, whilst those from the south are
separated along the horizontal axis. The densest
clusters are amongst the northern groups,
manybut certainly not all of whomspeak
closely related Na-Dene languages. Kroeber
(1905, p. 105), for example, acknowledges the
linguistic dierences characteristic of this area,
but also records virtually indistinguishable basketry traditions amongst local groups including
the Yurok, Karok, and Hupa.
Techniques (Fig. 8): In this plot there are
three main groupings: northern groups are pulled
out to the top and left, midland groups like the
Pomo, Wappo, and Miwok are clustered densely
to the right whilst southern groups are pulled
down towards the bottom of the vertical axis.
The groups do also cluster according to language
but, once again, this seems to be as closely related to geographic location as much as the
presence of shared linguistic histories determining similar basketry traditions.
Raw materials (Fig. 9): Groups clearly plot
according to geographic location (northern
59
Fig. 4. Correspondence analysis plotall basketry variables with Shipley (1978) language key (Hokan and Penutian
Present).
groups to the bottom left, midland groups higher

on the vertical axis and souther groups to the
bottom right). Languages do cluster, but only
when groups in one area speak related tongues.
Techniques and raw materials (Fig. 10): Once
again, there is strong regional grouping in these
basketry traditions, with geography meshing with
linguistic aliation to generate language clusterings.
Ornamentation (Fig. 11): There is very dense
clustering amongst northern groups, with groups
from central and coastal California being pulled
out to the bottom right. More southerly groups
from the interior pull out to the top right. This
plot suggests the presence of three broad regional
trends in ornamentationnorthern, midland and
southernwith loose associations with linguistic
anity. Uto-Aztecan speakers are present in both
southern and midland clusters, suggesting that
horizontal diusionand not shared historyis
the most important factor generating these 3-way
sub-groupings.
Types and uses (Fig. 12): The plot reects the
geographic location of dierent ethno-linguistic
groups. The dense cluster of northern groups is

extremely striking, suggesting that there are essentially uniform basketry types in the area, irrespective of the fact that many of these groups
speak unrelated languages.
Correspondence analysis: discussion
These plots highlight three issues. Firstly, it is
clear that the kind of linguistic classications
employed in the plots can inuence the kind of
conclusions that can be drawn from the analysis.
When the bigger Hokan and Penutian stocks are
included in the key, there appears to be very little
association between linguistic anity (in this
classication degrees of relatedness are very weak
anyway, especially for very widely distributed
Hokan languages) and the basketry assemblages.
Geographic proximityour proxy for horizontal
cultural diusionappears to be the dominant
inuence. The use of a more conservative classicatory key generates more complex results, with
language (history) and geography (diusion) appearing to exert combined inuences. Secondly,
even with this latter Goddard C key, geography
60
Fig. 5. Correspondence analysis plotall basketry variables with Goddard (1996) version C language key (Hokan and
Penutian not present).
still appears to remain the most important inuence on basketry. Clusters of related languages do
emerge within clusters of similar basketry types,
but within these clusters other unrelated languages
are also present. The consistently dense clustering
of the northern groupsNa-Dene but also
speakers of other unrelated languagesis perhaps
the clearest example of this phenomenon. Rather,
it would appear from these clustered plots that the
basketry of California is marked by three broadly
dierent traditions; northern, midland and
southern. The southern trend is loosely associated
with Uto-Aztecan speakers, who occupy much of
this area, whilst the midland tradition has much
weaker aliation with any one group of languages. Na-Dene speakers cluster in the northern
traditions butas consistently notedmany other
groups in this area have almost identical basketry
but speak unrelated languages. The high levels of
similarity dening this northern trend are revealed
most clearly in ornamentation, raw materials and
types and uses. Thirdly, these three broad regional
basketry groupings suggest intense localised interaction of a kind which can proceed both
withinand betweenrelated and unrelated language groups. This would indicate that dierent
transmission processes are at work on dierent
scales, producing (a) localised sub-regional
branching of languages versus horizontal diusion
of basketry, whilst (b), at a regional scale, basketry appears to be branching into three broadly
dened lineages, with the northern tradition most
distinct.
Phylogenetics
In addition to phenetic analyses, biological
phylogenetic methods were applied to the basketry data. As outlined above, phylogenetic
processes of cultural transmission operate via
the progressive bifurcationor cultural speciation. Where cultural phylogenesis has proceeded branching diagrams (akin to language
trees or evolutionary charts of biological species)
can be employed to map these transmission
route-ways.
It is important to note from the outset that the
application of cladistic models to cultural datasets
61
Fig. 6. Correspondence analysis plotcoiled basketry variables with Goddard (1996) version C language key (Hokan
and Penutian not present).
is a heuristic exercise and we do not assume, a

priori, that phylogenesis must have generated the
variation in the basketry assemblages we observe.
Rather, we postulateas a null hypothesisthat
cultural speciation (bi-furcation) has been an
important process in California, generating the
observed composition of the basketry assemblages. We then test for presence of a phylogenetic
signal in the data, quantify its relative contribution and attempt to link the operation of the
processes to specic transmission mechanisms, in
particular, the role of geography, linguistic aliation and/or local ecology.
If we assume that new basketry traditions
(techniques, decorative styles, and forms) arise
from the bifurcation of older ones (language formation and biological speciation may be argued
to proceed in the same way) then the cladistic
method of phylogenetic reconstruction can be
employed to generate a tree diagram (cladogram).
This tree diagram links the basketry traditions of
the ethno-linguistic groups in such a way that that
the number of hypothesised changes required to
account for the similarities among them is mini-
mised. An exact cultural analogy would be, for

example, the composition of Germanic or Slavic
languages, which have older Indo-European elements alongside progressively more recent elements, including pan Germanic or pan Slavic
elements, as well as the subjective elements that
distinguish Czech from Russian, or German from
Dutch. The key point is that these similarities and
dierencesand degrees of relatednesscan be
mapped through genealogical tree charts. Theoretically, if phylogenetic processes have produced
the individual basketry assemblages, then each
assemblage (i.e., a basketry language of diverse
elements of varying ancestry) will contain deeper
proto elements that are shared with almost all
other groups, plus a series of more recent ones of
branching origin, each shared with progressively
fewer and fewer other groups, to a point where
each groups basketry is distinct, but exhibits decreasing degrees of relatedness as the dates of divergence between the dierent techniques go
further back in time. These hierarchical degrees
of ancestral basketry relatedness can be plotted as
a cultural tree diagram, which is analogous
62
Fig. 7. Correspondence analysis plottwined basketry variables with Goddard (1996) version C language key (Hokan
to language trees, biological species trees, and so

on.
Cladistic analyses require a series of tests,
rstly to identify whether these data contain a
phylogenetic signal; secondly, to test the strength
of this signal by investigating how well the data t
a bifurcating tree model (a close t would suggest
that phylogenesis played a dominant role; a poor
t that ethnogenesis or convergent adaptation had
predominated); thirdly, to examine how well other
bifurcating tree models (generated from ecology,
language and geographic distance data) t the
basketry data. A close t between, say, the basketry data and the ecology tree would suggest that
environmental adaptation had been an important
inuence on emerging basketry traditions. Likewise, a close t between the distance and basketry
trees would suggest that geographic propinquity
had been an important inuence.
When applied to datasets cladistics works
backwards into history by reconstructing, in this
case, basketry genealogies from the common similarities and dierences amongst the assemblages.
Three main datasets were tested, all basketry

variables, coiling variables and twining variables.
In particular, there is general consensus that
twining and coiling techniques have dierent histories in the region and cladisitics represents a
powerful technique for opening out these assertions and linking them to explanatory mechanisms.
Do the data contain a phylogenetic signal?
In scenerios where phylogenesis has predominated over ethnogenesis, there will be a close t
between specic sets of cultural variables and the
bifurcating tree model, as cultural lineages form
along the lines of biological speciation. Parsimony
analysis identies the cladogram (branching tree
structure), which requires the least number of
evolutionary changes, i.e., the best t tree for a
given data set. Thus, if regional basketry variation
has arisen through phylogenesis then the assemblages will reveal clear hierarchical patterns of
progressive interrelatedness that can easily be
mapped onto a phylogenetic tree diagram. Conversely, any random dataset could have spurious
63
Fig. 8. Correspondence analysis plotbasketry techniques with Goddard (1996) version C language key (Hokan and
patterns that could be progressively sub-divided

and mapped onto a best t tree. Cladistics is a
heuristic technique and it is important to quantify
how eectively it accounts for trends in the data.
The PTP (permutation tail probability) is a standard method to test for the presence of a phylogenetic signal. Paup 4.0 (Swaord, 1998) software
was employed to generate 1000 random basketry
datasets by reshuing all the variables multiple
times. After each permutation a best t (or most
parsimonious tree or cladogram) was computed for these random data combinations, with
the shortest tree lengths indicating the best t
(data variation is accounted for by a minimum
number of bifurcations). Next, the length of the
most parsimonious best t cladogram was obtained from the original unpermuted data and
compared to the range of best t trees from the
shued datasets. If the original data cladogram is
shorter than 95% or more of the random cladograms derived from the permuted data, then a
phylogenetic signal is considered to be present in
the data set. In other words, there are genuine
phylogenetic patterns in the data, and these patterns are much stronger than 1000 random recompositions of the same data elements.
For the full set of 219 basketry variables the
best t tree on the unpermuted data had a length
of 602. The tree lengths calculated for the random
datasets varied between 1132 and 1184 indicating
that there was a phylogenetic signal in the data.
Coiled basketry had 69 characters and a best t
tree of 173. The fact that the random trees ranged
between 298 and 321 suggests that the phylogenetic signal was relatively strong. The signal for
twined basketry was even stronger, with 81 characters tting a tree whose length was 217 whilst
the trees for the permutated data ranged between
359 and 385. For all results p 0:001.
How well do the data t the bifurcating tree model?
As noted, cladograms can be generated for any
dataset but the degree to which variation in the
data can be represented in the form of a branching
diagram will vary signicantly: a best t tree can be
generated, but how well does that tree actually
64
Fig. 9. Correspondence analysis plotraw material variables with Goddard (1996) version C language key (Hokan and
account for the variations in the data (i.e., how

important has phylogenetic branching actually
been in the the generation of a particular set of
cultural assemblages). To use another linguistic
example, in historical linguistic terms there is no
debate that English is a Germanic language which
emerged from the same series of progressive linguistic bifurcations that generated German,
Dutch, Frisian, and other related languages.
However, much of the current vocabulary is of
French (Norman) and other diused origins. In
short, there are clearly historical genetic signals
in the data from which an uncontested family tree
can be drawn, although much of the internal linguistic content (the inherent internal variation in
the linguistic assemblage) does not t these lines
of branching descent very well. The reason for this
is the long-term operation of other horizontal
transmission processes. Measuring the t of data to tree does therefore give some indication of
the relative historical contributions of phylogenetic
versus ethnogenetic transmission processes.
As Forey et al. (1992, pp. 7475) note, there
are various means for measuring how well a tree
ts a given dataset. We use the consistency index

(CI) to measure what proportion of the basketry
variation has arisen through cumulative bifurcation, meaning that they t the tree model very
well, or through horizontal mixing and diusion,
which will result in a very poor tree t. A 0 score
represents 100% homoplasya very poor tor,
in cultural transmission terms, 100% blending. A
score of 1 means a perfect tree t; or in other
words, that all variation has arisen through the
cumulative bifurcation of earlier traditions,
meaning that these changes can be mapped perfectly in the form of a branching tree diagram.
Importantly for cultural transmission studies, the
CI score gives a measure of relative phylogenetic:ethnogenetic contributions (cf. Tehrani and
Collard, 2002).
For all three Californian basketry datasets it
would appear that the phylogenetic signal, which
we detected by employing the PTP test, is not
particularly strong, and that around 65% of basketry assemblage composition can be attributed to
horizontal mixing (e.g., that 35% of the variation
in the full set of California basketry variables is
65
Fig. 10. Correspondence analysis plotraw materials and techniques with Goddard (1996) version C language key
(Hokan and Penutian not present).
associated with phylogenetic or branching processes and 64% is the result of cultural blending.
The gures for coiling and twining are similar,
with around 40% of basketry variation associated
with branching processes of transmission.
Explaining the data: the KishinoHasegawa test
Methods. Although we have noted that the
three sets of basketry data do appear to have been
inuenced by phylogenesis we still lack explanatory mechanisms to account for these patterns of
cultural variation. And here we can return to our
three core hypotheses, that basketry variation in
California has been inuenced most strongly by
either (a) shared population/linguistic history (b)
horizontal diusion, and/or (c) ecological adaptation.
Just as a tree diagram can be calculated to
express degrees of graded similarity and/or difference between the 39 groups in terms of their
basketry assemblages, so a dierent set of relations between the same groups can be expressed in
the form of a language tree, or in a distance/ad-
jacency tree, or indeed in a tree plotting ecological

similarities between tribal areas. If, for example,
basketry assemblages are a product of intense
local interaction then adjacent/proximal groups
will have very similar basket traditions, meaning,
in cladistic terms that the branching structure of
the basketry and distance trees will match one
another very closely. Indeed, the closer the t the
more credibility can be attached to a particular
hypothesis. The same line of deductive reasoning
follows for comparisons between basketry and
language (proxy for population history) trees and
basketry and ecology trees (ecological adaptation).
In short, assessing the t of a range of explanatory trees to the best t tree of a given data
set constitutes a powerful analytical tool for assigning explanatory mechanisms to observed
patterns of cultural diversity. Even where a given
data set contains a phylogenetic signal there is no
a priori reason to assume that it will t closely
with trees constructed for the linguistic, geographic or ecological data sets. The method
66
Fig. 11. Correspondence analysis plotornamentation variables with Goddard (1996) version C language key (Hokan
enables explanatory models of cultural diversity

to be disentangled and compared systematically
on a case-by-case empirical basis. Where languages and basketry assemblages had been
transmittedand progressively bifurcatedin
tandem the language and basketry trees would t
very closely togther, indicating the presence of
broadly dened cultural lineages (cf. Shennan,
2000).
Analysis. Methods like the PTP test can determine the shortest possible tree length for a given
data set relatively quickly. In this sense, they rapidly evaluate how many bifurcations (i.e., tree
length) must have taken place in order to produce
the broader data patterning. Calculating the specic structure of the basketry best t trees involves
more complex analyses and requires the use of
PAUP 4 (Swaord, 1998) software. Often, a small
group of best t trees, all with the same length, will
t the data equally well. Amongst this group, minor rearrangements of lower order tree branches
distinguish dierent trees, but none of these
changes make any one tree t the data any better

(or worse) than the rest: all these trees t the data
equally well and all have the same overall length.
Best t trees were s calculated for (a) All Basketry
Variables, (b) Coiled Variables and (c) Twined
Variables.
Seven further trees were constructed manually
in MacClade 4 (Maddision and Maddision, 2000).
These explanatory trees represented relations of
similarity and dierence between the 39 ethnolinguistic groups in terms of their linguistic anity, geographic distance, adjacency and the local
ecological characteristics of each groups area.
Once again we postulated that if basketry traditions had progressively bifurcated along the same
vertical historical axes as languages, then the
language tree for California would be very similar
in length and structure to the basketry best t
trees. Similarly, trees for distance represent a
proxy measure of horizontal diusion (closer
groups have similar basketry) and ecology for
convergent adaptation (groups from similar areas
have similar basketry assemblages):
67
Fig. 12. Correspondence analysis plotbasketry types and uses with Goddard (1996) version C language key (Hokan
Languages: four language trees were included

in the analysis: Shipley (1978) and Goddard
(1996) version A, both of which include the contentious Hokan and Penutian superstocks, plus
Goddard (1996) versions B (no Hokan but Penutian) and C (no Hokan, no Penutian).
Geographic distance: a nearest neighbour tree
was generated using squared Euclidean distance
Adjacency: the adjacency matrix used in the
Mantel Matrix tests (above) was converted into a
nearest neighbour dendrogram. The original matrix measured the presence of shared borders between the 39 ethno-linguistic groups in binary
format.
Ecology: the Ecozone similarity matrix (using
Jaccard coecients) used in the Mantel Matrix
tests (above) was converted into a nearest neighbour dendrogram.
Assessing the t of other data trees
There are statistical techniques for measuring
the strength of t between data trees and
explanatory trees and the KishinoHasegawa
test (Kishino and Hasegawa, 1989) represents one

method. In these tests the basketry data are
passed through the series of constraint trees
(language, ecology, distance) so that the degree of
t between the basketry and these new trees can
be calculated. Obviously, the optimal tree(s) for
basketry will, by default, t the basketry data
most closely, but the closeness of t between this/
these tree(s) and the various explanatory trees
(language, distance, ecology) can be measured
statistically. While the optimal tree will t the
data bestand thereby have the shortest length
good explanatory trees will also enjoy a close t
and short length in relation to the data. In this
way, increasing tree lengths amongst the suite of
explanatory models will signal a progressively
worse t and hence a poorer explanation of the
observed basketry variation. If there is no statistical dierence between the optimal tree and
the best explanatory tree then this model eectively predicts the data variance and can be tentatively accepted as valid explanation. Where
there is a signicant dierence in degree of t
68
between the optimal and best explanatory tree,

then the order of the trees gives some relative
indication of the importance of dierent cultural
transmission factors (i.e., history/geography/convergent adaptation).
As noted above, the rst stage in the analysis is
to generate an optimal tree for basketry. Due to
the complexity of datasets there are often multiple
best t trees, all of the same length, but diering
very slightly in the arrangements of smaller clades
or branches. They all have the same basic macro structure but accommodate minor details in
data variation by alternative arrangements of
outlying branches. For All Basketry there were 4
optimal trees, for Coiled Variables 34 trees and
for Twined 4 trees.
Each of the explanatory trees (ecology/language/distance) was characterised by a distinct
architecture as dierent bifurcations structured
each tree into dierent formats. At the same time,
none of these trees were fully resolved. This
means that many clades did not bifurcate into two
further branches but split into bushes of multiple
branches, indicating multiple possible avenues of
unrelated descent rather than progressive bifurcation. In practice however, the explanatory trees
did have varying degrees of internal structure. For
example, while it known that Californian languages can be grouped into languages and stocks it
is not possible to determine which group of languages emerged rst in history: they all emerge
from a deep historical past. When mapped as a tree
diagram, each stock or unrelated language emerges
from a common source. In this sense, there are
unresolved splits that are represented as bushes.
In order to resolve these explanatory trees
the basketry data was passed through them and
a heuristic search conducted in PAUP 4 (Swafford, 1998) to nd which tree would best t the
basketry data within the basic structural terms
of each explanatory tree. In other words, rather
than search for a best t tree for the basketry data
that can take any form, this method represents a
controlled search within external imposed frameworks. Limited rearrangements are possiblebut
the tree has to t the data as closely as possible
within the terms imposed, for example, by the
structure of particular language tree groupings
(Table 6).
This method generates a suite of resolved
explanatory trees for ecology, language and distance, which can then be statistically tested
against the best t tree(s) for the basketry.
Ranking the trees according to degree of tas-
Table 6
Consensus (best t) trees
Assemblages
Charactersa
Length
All basketry
Coiled basketry
Twined basketry
219
69
81
602
173
217
i.e., number of variables.
sessed in terms of tree lengthallows a simple

summary of results. Table 7 details the results of
these KishinoHasegawa analyses.
The easiest route into these statistics is to note
that all the explanatory trees are signicantly different to the optimal trees: none provide an absolute answer to our investigation of basketry
variations. For all basketry variables adjacency
appears to exert the greatest inuence on basketry,
suggesting that diusion has been important, although the most conservative language tree is only
slightly longer this, and actually shorter than the
tree for geographic distance. The other language
classications provide weaker explanations and
the inuence of ecology appears to be particularly
weak. Here we detect a scenario whereby basketry
techniques are being reproduced according to local/sub-regional traditions, in some loose association with only very closely related (and
geographically proximal) languages.
The results for coiled basketry suggest a bigger
role for regional diusion, with linguistic aliation playing a lesser role, even when associations
between only very closely related languages are
accounted for. The more ambitious language
classications do not t the data well and local
ecology also appears to have little inuence.
The distribution of twined basketry variation
appears to have some association with very closely related languages, suggesting at least some
inuence of vertical cultural transmission. Adjacency also makes a strong contribution, which is
interesting because many related languages are
spoken in contiguous areas. Progressively more
ambitious language classications t the data
better than the geographical distance tree, again,
suggesting some association between the descent
with modication processes transmitting twining
techniques and languages. This is interesting,
because these more complex classications link
groups that are often no longer adjacent, and the
fact that these trees t the data better than distance suggests that basketry traditionsat least
with regard to twiningcannot be accounted for
by cultural diusion alone. It would appear that
69
Table 7
Results of KishinoHasegawa test
Rank
Length
Dierence
All basketry variables

1
602
0
2
761
159
3
774
172
No. of
trees
Signi di at
<0:0001*
Tree description (ranked)
4
4
3
n/a
yes
yes
Optimal basketry
Adjacency
Language (Goddard, 1996, version A: no Hokan, no
Penutian)
Geographic Distance
Language (Goddard, 1996, version B: no Hokan,
Penutian retained)
Language (Shipley, 1978 Hokan and Penutian retained)
Language (Goddard, 1996, version C: Hokan and
Penutian retained)
Ecology
4
5
777
792
175
190
12
6
yes
yes
6
7
819
840
217
238
2
3
yes
yes
902
300
yes
34
2
119
242
n/a
yes
yes
yes
Coiled basketry variables

1
173
0
2
226
53
3
233
60
4
241
68
5
249
76
yes
6
7
8
261
268
269
88
95
96
82
2
251
yes
yes
yes
Twined basketry variables

1
217
0
2
286
69
4
12
n/a
yes
3
4
288
289
71
72
8
25
yes
yes
5
6
294
302
77
85
12
71
yes
yes
7
8
313
349
96
132
6
6
yes
yes
there is an inherent historical signal in these data

for twined basketry, suggesting loosely dened
cultural lineages.
Discussion
As was the case with the New Guinea analysis
carried out by Welsch et al. (1992), the current
ndings strongly suggest that geographic propinquity exerts an important identiable inuence on
the distribution of basketry traditions in California. At the same time, there appears to be some
detectable relationship between the composition
Optimal basketry
Geographic distance
Adjacency
Penutian)
Penutian retained)
Language (Shipley, 1978Hokan and Penutian retained)
Ecology
Penutian retained)
Optimal basketry
Penutian)
Adjacency
Penutian retained)
Language (Shipley, 1978Hokan and Penutian retained)
Penutian retained)
Geographic distance
Ecology
of local basketry assemblages and groups language aliation. If we assume that language afnity constitutes a proxy measure for broadly
dened population histories then these ndings
could generally be attributed to the inuence of
signicant horizontal diusion, across the linguistic boundaries of the region. However, it is important to note that distance is, in itself, neither a
process of change nor explanation for the distribution of particular cultural attributes. It is
merely a proxy measure for likely intensities of
regional interaction.
These points aside, there appears to be no
unequivocal evidence that cultural lineages
70
have existed in California, whereby processes of

cumulative population bifurcation and subsequent isolation have reproduced lineages of
closely related languages and basketry traditions.
What we do detect probably amounts to sub-regional communities of culture, where broadly
similar basketry traditions are found alongside a
suite of related and non-related languages. The
strength of the association between these basketry
and linguistic sub-regions depends largely on the
kind of linguistic classications employed. One
explanation for this is that the superstocks simply
arent real entities, or that the postulated historical linkages that unite them extend so far back
in historical time that once existing relationships
have long since disappeared. Clearly, the transmission processes aecting basketry and language
distributions are similar in that these sub-regional
clusterings are produced, although the t between distributions is rather loose and perhaps
strongest for twined basketry. In other words,
these initial ndings indicate that languages and
craft traditions are subject to broadly similar
transmission processes, but that basketry is more
susceptible to horizontal diusion.
At the same time, the analyses indicated only
very broad similarities in adjacent basketry traditions even at the sub-regional scale. All the
statistical analyses revealed high levels of unexplained variance, in other words, that each local
basketry tradition was essentially distinct. However, the relatively low level of resolution of the
basketry data set may mean that the analyses are
only picking up certain spatial/adaptive signals
from this material. A much smaller scale and
socially grounded study might reveal dierent
patterns and the presence of localised cultural
lineages in basketry traditions. Indeed, this
phenomenon is suggested repeatedly in the
(qualitative) ethnographic literature. As Dawson
and Deetz (1965, p. 203) conclude in a study of
Chumash basketry:
The most distinctive and recognizable aspects of
Chumash style are primarily in the sense of spacing in designs which is subtly dierent from that
of their neighbours. Their avoidance of blocky effects and love of sharp lines and angles in gures
are outstanding.
In terms of the current study, the results suggest

that local processes of cultural transmission are
producing a set of residual basketry dierences,
which cannot be explained by either geographic
propinquity or linguistic anity.
Conclusion
Amongst indigenous communities in California regional similarities in material culture assemblages appear to be related, in part, to the
geographic distances between the ethno-linguistic
groups. California appears to have broad regional
groupings in basketry traditions, despite the extremely high levels of linguistic diversity. Within
these groupings many communities may speak
similar languages although many do not. Clearly,
transmission must be proceeding across these
linguistic boundaries. Exploring these basketry
traditions at a regional scale suggests that the
linguistic aliation of the groups appears to be
less important in determining the similarity of
their material culture. However, at smaller scales
of analysis there is an increased likelihood that
groups with similar material culture will speak
similar languages, perhaps a legacy of the fact
that the diusion of languages and/or traditions
may be associated with their internal transformation, again, leading to the loss of any historical signal in the cultural attribute
assemblages if diusion is either long range or
long term. Ecological similarities between tribal
areas, however, appear to encourage only some
extremely minor convergence in basketry characteristics. At a broader level, these ndings suggest
that broadly comparable cultural processes are
aecting the transmission of language and the
traditions associated with material culture use and
production. Interestingly, however, the sharp
Californian linguistic boundaries, which have
been of great interest to both anthropologists and
linguists alike, appear to be largely porous to the
diusion of certain broad material culture traditions at least when viewed on a sub-regional scale.
These processes appear to have given rise, languages aside, to what Welsch et al. (1992, p. 590)
have coined sub-regional communities of culture.
The micro-topographies of indigenous culture,
indicated by the sharply dened linguistic diversity, are overlain, at local and regional scales, by
the sharing of more general basketry traditions.
Anecdotal evidence resonates with these general
conclusions:
The three languages (Yurok, Karok, and Hupa)
are as radically dierent in phonetics as they
are totally unrelated in vocabulary. The three
tribes live in close contact, with more or less intercourse and general friendly relations. In their
culture they are remarkably alike (Kroeber,
1905, p. 105).

The basketry of the Yurok, Karok, and Hupa is
virtually identical. No basket could be identied
with certainty as from a particular one of the three
tribes. When a large number of baskets from one
tribe are brought together, slight dierentiating
tendencies are discernable. Thus the Karok are
more inclined than other tribes to use red. They
seem also more inclined to use patterns containing
vertical outlines instead of the more usual oblique
(Kroeber, 1905, pp. 1167).
At the same time, the statistical methods employed here indicate that a large proportion of
variation in the assemblages is not accounted for
by either the eects of distance, ecology or broad
linguistic anity: most ethno-linguistic groups
have essentially dierent basketry traditions.
These realisations point to the need for more research in the following areas:
More detail is need at a local scale to explore
specic mechanisms of cultural transmission
rather than the broader historical patternings
explored here.
Distinct local traditions may also be produced
by high levels of local craft innovation, which
may both erode any historical signal in the
data and counteract the emergence of greaterand ethnogenesis ledcultural convergence
between adjacent groups.
This paper constitutes a pilot study of basketry
and language. Further analysis is required to
explore whether other cultural variables like
burial practices, belief systems and kinship
are subjected to vertical rather then horizontal
modes of transmission.
An important caveat to these conclusions is that
the basketry variables we have analysed were all
recorded in the later colonial period, at a time
when indigenous California had been subjected to
a suite of profound changes following the initial
Spanish conquest. The exact impacts of these
factors on patterns of indigenous cultural transmission remain, as yet, unclear, but emphasise the
role of historical contingency in all forms of social
interaction, and thereby the need for careful caseby-case empirical studies of ethno- and phylogenesis. Although we have dened these two
transmission mechanisms and noted the importance of potentially dierential innovation rates
on patterns of transmission, their exact workings
within this Californian context appear to have
involved too many variables that are too poorly
understood to be successfully built into mathematical models that can predict or fully explain
71
the material culture assemblages we have focused

upon.
As Zigmond (1941) also noted, geographic
proximity, linguistic anity and/or, local ecology, taken together or singly, simply cannot
account for local nuances in the distribution and
composition of particular indigenous traditions.
In the nal section of his ethnobotanical investigation of Uto-Aztecan groups in California
and the Great Basinall of whom speak very
closely related languages and occupy contiguous
areas with very similar ecologyhe argues
that:
We are forced to the conclusion. . . that native peoples frequently fail to exploit plants which are
available to them and which serve useful purposes
to at least some of their contemporaries
(1941:277).
Moreover,
no line of demarcation between so-called cultural
areas will adequately represent the ethnobotanical
situation. Not only do areas of usage shift
from species to species, but even parts of a plant
will have distinctive areas of utilization (1941, p.
278).
We believe, however, that by starting with

generalised modelsby throwing simple questions at complex issuesand a suite of clear
hypotheses we can, rstly, identify the broader
dimensions to, and legacies of, cultural transmission so that, secondly, further analyses can
focus in the areas where our theorization and
empirical investigations are weakest. It is hoped
that this paper will reopen long standing debates
about the emergence of cultural and linguistic
diversity both in California and in other regions
of the world.
One nal point. This analysis of basketry has
focused on the ethnographic present of indigenous California, but this anthropological study
also makes contributions to archaeological debates on the material and linguistic dimensions of
cultural transmission and transformation. Firstly,
it illustrates that the relationships linking the
transmission of material culture and language are
extremely poorly understood. We simply cannot
assume that the distribution and long-term reproduction of very similar artefact types/traditions indicates any corresponding association
with particular language groups whether at the
language, stock or superstock level of taxonomic
classication: for example, the basketry of NW
72
California is very similar yet linguistically the area

is extremely heterogeneous. Secondly, had we
studied these basketry distributions as normative
archaeological assemblages then there is a strong
likelihood that we would have dened archaeological cultures on the basis of the kinds of
basketry similarity plots presented in the correspondence analysis, outlined above, and then
perhaps gone on to postulate ethnic groupings
and corresponding linguistic anities as existing
at a similar scale. Two points arise, rstly, that
there is no close relationshipbar a loosely
dened and non-exclusive sub-regional one

between language, material culture and any form
of ethnic identity; secondly, archaeological cultures, even as invented units, do appear to be
much larger than the distinct socio-linguistic
communities who reproduce these broader
communities of culture at a much more extensive scale. Clearly, even with powerful computing
facilities and modern cladistic and statistical
techniques quantication and explanation of
cultural transmission processes remain in their
infancy.
Appendix A. The linguistic anity of 39 ethno-linguistic groups in California
Postulated
arrival date
STOCK
FAMILY
LANGUAGE
Ethno-linguistic
Code (in
this paper)
OLDEST
HOKAN
HOKAN
HOKAN
HOKAN
HOKAN
HOKAN
HOKAN
HOKAN
HOKAN
HOKAN
HOKAN
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
CHUMASHAN
PALIHAINAN
PALIHAINAN
POMOAN
SHASTAN
YANA
YUMAN
CHIMARIKO
ESSELEN
KAROK
SALINAN
CHUMASHAN
ACHUMAWI
ATSEGEWI
POMO
SHASTA
YANA
DIGUENO
CHIMARIKO
ESSELEN
KAROK
SALINAN
CHUMASH
ACHUMAWI
ATSUGEWI
POMO
SHASTA
YANA
IPAI-TIPAI
11
27
2
28
34
14
13
17
12
24
39
LATER
PENUTIAN
PENUTIAN
PENUTIAN
PENUTIAN
PENUTIAN
PENUTIAN
PENUTIAN
PENUTIAN
PENUTIAN
PENUTIAN
MAIDUAN
UTIAN
UTIAN
UTIAN
UTIAN
UTIAN
WINTUAN
WINTUAN
WINTUAN
YOKUTSAN
MAIDU
MIWOK
MIWOK
MIWOK
MIWOK
COSTANOAN
PATWIN
WINTU
NOMLAKI
YOKUTS
MAIDU
LAKE MIWOK
COAST MIWOK
SIERRA MIWOK
PLAINS MIWOK
COSTANOAN
PATWIN
WINTU
NOMLAKI
YOKUTS
25
19
20
30
31
26
23
21
22
29
NEWER
UTO-AZTECAN
UTO-AZTECAN
UTO-AZTECAN
UTO-AZTECAN
UTO-AZTECAN
NUMIC
TAKIC
TAKIC
TAKIC
TAKIC
MONO
CAHUILLA
G-F LANG
L-J LANG
SERRANO
32
38
35
36
37
UTO-AZTECAN
TUBATULABAL
TUBATULABAL
MONACHE
CAHUILLA
GABRIELINO
LUISENO
SERRANO AND
KITANEMUK
TUBATULABAL
33
NA-DENE
NA-DENE
NA-DENE
NA-DENE
NA-DENE
NA-DENE
NA-DENE
NA-DENE
ATHAPASKAN
ATHAPASKAN
ATHAPASKAN
ATHAPASKAN
ATHAPASKAN
ATHAPASKAN
ATHAPASKAN
ATHAPASKAN
HUPA
MATTOLE
TOLOWA
WAILAKI
WAILAKI
WAILAKI
WAILAKI
WAILAKI
HUPA
MATTOLE
TOLOWA
SINKYONE
NONGATL
LASSIK
WAILAKI
CAHTO
5
6
1
7
8
9
10
15
NEWEST
73
Appendix A. (continued)
Postulated
arrival date
STOCK
FAMILY
LANGUAGE
Ethno-linguistic
Code (in
this paper)
UNKNOWN
ALGIC
ALGIC
N/A
N/A
WIYOT
YUROK
WIYOT
YUROK
4
3
UNKNOWN
YUKIAN
YUKIAN
N/A
N/A
WAPPO
YUKI
WAPPO
YUKI
18
16
Note. For other classications, see Goddard (1996), although the main dierence between Shipley, 1978 and Goddard, 1996 versions A, B, and C is the presence or absence of Hokan and/or Penutian. The other larger classications,
like Na-dene and so on, are much more certain.
Appendix B. Basketry variables

See supplementary data (available on ScienceDirect).
Appendix C. Summary of CA statistics
Correspondence analysis plot axis
All basketry (Shipley, 1978 Key)

All basketry (Goddard, 1996 C Key)
Coiled basketry
Twined basketry
Techniques
Types and uses
Ornamentation
Raw materials and techniques
Raw materials
18.1
17.9
16.1
18.2
15.8
29.4
26.3
22.4
26
29.6
29
28
29.7
27.9
42
48.1
35.4
41.8
38.1
37.2
38.7
38
37.4
51.8
59.9
46.1
50.8
44.5
43.2
48.6
45.4
45
60
69.9
53.7
58.3
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Andrew Bevan, Mark
Collard, Clare Holden and Fiona Jordan for
their valuable assistance in bringing this paper to
press.
REFERENCES CITED
Barbujani, G., 1995. Reply to Roberts, Moore and
Romney. Current Anthropology 36 (5), 769788.
Barrett, S.A., 1905. Basket designs of the Pomo Indians.
American Anthropologist NS 7 (4), 648653.
Braak, T.C.J.F., Smilauer, P., 1998. CANOCO Reference Manual and Users Guide to Canoco for
Windows: Software for canonical Community Ordination (version 4). Microcomputer Power, Ithaca,
NY, USA.
Castillo, E.D., 1978. The impact of Euro-American
exploration and settlement. In: Heizer, R.F. (Ed.),
Handbook of North American Indians, California,
vol. 8. Smithsonian Institute, Washington, pp. 80
90.
Cavalli Sforza, L., Menozzi, P., 1994. The History and

Geography of Human Genes. Princeton University
Press, Princeton, NJ.
Dawson, L., Deetz, J., 1965. A Corpus of Chumash Basketry. Annual Report Archaeological Survey, Dept. of
Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles.
Dawson, L., 1973. Towards a historical interpretation of
Californian and Great Basin Basketry. Unpublished
manuscript.
ECOMAP, 1993. National hierarchical framework of
ecological units. Unpublished administrative paper,
US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Washington, DC, 20 pp.
Elsasser, A.B., 1978. Basketry. In: Heizer, R.F. (Ed.),
Handbook of North American Indians, California,
vol. 8. Smithsonian Institute, Washington, pp. 626
641.
Forey, P.L., Humphries, C.J., Kitching, I.L., Scotland,
R.W., Siebert, D.J., Williams, D.M., 1992. Cladistics. A Practical Course in Systematics. Claredon
Press, Oxford.
Goddard, I., 1996. Introduction. In: Goddard, I. (Ed.),
Handbook of North American Indians. Languages,
Vol. 17. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, pp. 1
16.
74
Gray, R., Jordan, F., 2000. Language trees support the

express-train sequence of Austronesian expansion.
Nature 405 (29), 10521055.
Greenberg, J.H., 1987. Language in the Americas.
Stanford University Press, Stanford.
Guglielmino, C.R., Vignotti, C., Hewlett, B., Cavali
Sforza, L.L., 1995. Cultural variation in Africa: role
of mechanisms of transmission and adaptation.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
USA 92, 75857589.
Heizer, R.F., 1978a. In: Handbook of North American
Indians, Vol. 8. Smithsonian Institute, Washington,
CA.
Heizer, R.F., 1978b. Trade and Trails. In: Heizer, R.F.
(Ed.), Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8.
Smithsonian Institute, Washington, CA, pp. 690693.
Johnson, J.J., 1978. Yana. In: Heizer, R.F. (Ed.),
Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8
California. Smithsonian Institute, Washington, pp.
361369.
Jorgensen, J.G., 1980. Western Indians. Comparative
Environments, Languages, and Cultures of 172
Western American Indian Tribes. W.H. Freeman,
San Francisco.
Kishino, H., Hasegawa, M., 1989. Evaluation of the
maximum likelihood estimate of the evolutionary
tree topologies from DNA sequence data, and the
branching order in Hominoidea. Journal of Molecular Evolution 29, 170179.
Kroeber, A.L., 1905. Basket Designs of the Indians of
Northwestern Californian. University of California
Publications. American Archaeology and Ethnology
2 (4), 102164.
Mantel, N., 1967. The detection of disease clustering and
a generalized regression approach. Cancer Research
27, 209220.
Miles, S., Goudey, C., 1998. Ecological Subregions of
California. USDA Forest Service. USDA, Natural
Resources Conservation Service, USDI, Bureau of
Land Management. http://www.r5.fs.fed.us/ecoregions/ Internet number: R5-EM-TP-005-NET.
Mithun, M., 1999. The Languages of Native North
America. CUP, Cambridge.
Moore, J.H., 1994. Putting anthropology back together
again: the ethnogenetic critique of cladistic theory.
American Anthropologist 96, 925948.
Moore, C.C., Romney, A.K., 1994. Material culture,
geographic propinquity, and linguistic aliation on
the North Coast of New Guinea: a reanalysis of
Welsch, Terrell, and Nadolski (1992). American
Anthropologist 96, 370396.
Nettle, D., 1999. Linguistic Diversity. Oxford University
Press, Oxford.
ONeale, L.M., 1932. Yurok-Karok Basket Weavers.
University of California Publications in American
archaeology and Ethnology 32 (1), 1184.
Sapir, E., Spier, L., 1943. Notes on the Culture of the
Yana. University of California Anthropological
records, Berkeley 3(3), 239298.
Shennan, S., 1997. Quantifying Archaeology, second ed.

Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.
Shennan, S., 2000. Population, Culture History, and the
Dynamics of Culture Change. Current Anthropology 4 (5), 811835.
Shennan, S., 2001. Demography and Cultural Innovation: a Model and its Implications for the Emergence
of Modern Human Culture. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 11 (1), 516.
Shipley, W.F., 1978. Native languages of California. In:
Heizer, R.F. (Ed.), Handbook of North American
Indians, California, vol. 8. Smithsonian Institution,
Washington, pp. 8090.
Simlauer, P., 1992. CanoDraw. Microcomputer Power
Ithaca, NY, USA.
Swaord, D.L. 1998. PAUP* 4. Phylogenetic Analysis
Using Parsimony (* and Other Methods), Version 4,
Sinauer, Sunderland.
Tehrani, J., Collard, M., 2002. Investigating cultural
evolution through biological phylogenetic analyses
of Turkmen textiles. Journal of Anthropological
Archaeology 21, 443463.
Wallace, E., 1978. Sexual status and role dierences. In:
Indians, California, vol. 8. Smithsonian Institute,
Welsch, R.L., Terrell, J.E., Nadolski, J.A., 1992. Langauge and culture on the North Coast of New Guinea.
American Anthropologist 94, 568600.
Zigmond, M.L., 1941. Ethnobotanical Studies among
California and Great basin Shoshoneans. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University. University
Microlms International 7019, 046, University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Further Reading
Baumho, M.A., 1978. Environmental background. In:
Indians, California, Vol. 8. Smithsonian Institute,
Boyd, R., Richerson, P., 1985. Culture and the
Evolutionary Process. Chicago University Press,
Chicago.
Cavalli Sforza, L.L., Feldsman, M., 1981. Cultural
Transmission and Evolution: A Quantitative Approach. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Cook, S.F., 1978. Historical Demography. In: Heizer,
R.F. (Ed.), Handbook of North American Indians,
California, Vol. 8. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, pp. 8090.
Shennan, S., Steele, J., 1999. Cultural Learning in
hominids: a behavioural ecological approach. In:
Box, H., Gibson, K. (Eds.), Mammalian Social
Learning: Comparative and Ecological Perspectives.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 367
388.

1 s2.0 S0278416503000047 Main

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

1 s2.0 S0278416503000047 Main

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 22 (2003) 4274

Cultural transmission, language, and basketry

Supplementary data for this article are available on

work for such studies, not always made explicit, is

P. Jordan, S. Shennan / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 22 (2003) 4274

course within biology as a description of the

complicating factors can potentially be isolated

Californian languages and material culture

P. Jordan, S. Shennan / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 22 (2003) 4274

however faded, of a marvellous linguistic diversity

dated, probably with minor, possibly with major

P. Jordan, S. Shennan / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 22 (2003) 4274

to exhibit quite low levels of long-range mobility

This inherent variety within a broader basketry

dataset was analysed and described by A.L.

P. Jordan, S. Shennan / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 22 (2003) 4274

and exogamy; no clear preference for mates inside

P. Jordan, S. Shennan / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 22 (2003) 4274

Fig. 2. Key to tribal territories (After Heizer, 1978a,b).

limited evidence that baskets were passed between

and repulsed. Even trade and ceremonial relations

P. Jordan, S. Shennan / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 22 (2003) 4274

even proceeding at very low intensities over long

P. Jordan, S. Shennan / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 22 (2003) 4274

space but not actually adjacent (Fig. 3), will have

P. Jordan, S. Shennan / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 22 (2003) 4274

The environmental prole of each tribal area

areas map (Fig. 2) on to this map of Californian

P. Jordan, S. Shennan / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 22 (2003) 4274

P. Jordan, S. Shennan / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 22 (2003) 4274

where information is noted to be uncertain or

P. Jordan, S. Shennan / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 22 (2003) 4274

ation and equal weight is given to matches and

As Table 4 illustrates, for the analysis of all

P. Jordan, S. Shennan / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 22 (2003) 4274

Correlation coecient (rY1)

Correlation coecient (rY1)

Correlation coecient (rY1)

twined assemblages, with adjacency, ecology, and

P. Jordan, S. Shennan / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 22 (2003) 4274

ences on the various basketry assemblages, whilst

respondence analysis statistics are recorded in

P. Jordan, S. Shennan / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 22 (2003) 4274

Regression coecient (bY1)

Regression coecient (bY1)

Regression coecient (bY1)

changed to that of Goddard C. Hokanthe contentious waste-bin stockand Penutian have

P. Jordan, S. Shennan / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 22 (2003) 4274

Correspondence analysis plots: keys to ethno-linguistic groups

P. Jordan, S. Shennan / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 22 (2003) 4274

Na-Dene languages are located exclusively in the

P. Jordan, S. Shennan / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 22 (2003) 4274

groups to the bottom left, midland groups higher

groups. The dense cluster of northern groups is

P. Jordan, S. Shennan / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 22 (2003) 4274

P. Jordan, S. Shennan / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 22 (2003) 4274

is a heuristic exercise and we do not assume, a

mised. An exact cultural analogy would be, for

P. Jordan, S. Shennan / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 22 (2003) 4274

to language trees, biological species trees, and so

Three main datasets were tested, all basketry

P. Jordan, S. Shennan / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 22 (2003) 4274

patterns that could be progressively sub-divided