The Development of Cultural Sequences in the : The Contributions of Malcolm J. Rogers

Mark Q. Sutton typologies. Trained as a geologist, Rogers relied on surface materials, and he based his cultural sequences, Abstract at least partly, on horizontal stratigraphy that revolved on associations with lakes and springs and the pres- Malcolm J. Rogers was one of the first archaeologists to work ex- tensively in , including in both the Mojave and ence or absence of certain artifact types (e.g., pottery). Colorado deserts. He faced many challenges in these efforts— a Interestingly, however, his southern California coastal lack of funding, an archaeological terra incognita, harsh climate, sequence was built from and confirmed by his strati- rugged terrain, and less than efficient transportation. He also lacked modern archaeological tools, such as radiocarbon dating. Neverthe- graphic excavations at the Harris site. less, Rogers was able to propose a general outline of prehistory that, although since altered in detail and precision, is still broadly It seems that Rogers’ primary goal was to discover accurate and widely cited. An outline of his contributions to the development of the chronology of the Mojave Desert is presented the sequence of cultures (rather than denoting simple in this paper. temporal periods), and he appears to have been more interested in the people behind the assemblages than Introduction in the absolute ages of the assemblages themselves. Only reluctantly did he assign “dates” to the Mojave Malcolm J. Rogers was a pioneer, among the first Desert sequence (Rogers 1939:Plate 21). In 1939 he archaeologists to work extensively in southern Cali- believed that people had only been in North America fornia (see Hanna 1982; Carrico 2008). In spite of for a few thousand years (the “short chronology”), so the many hardships in doing fieldwork and issues in the dates he assigned are now known to be much too data collection and record keeping (e.g., Warren and late. Irrespective of the dating, the general sequence Schneider 1989), Rogers laid the groundwork for the proposed by Rogers continues to influence our under- archaeology of a number of regions, including the standing of Mojave Desert prehistory. Mojave Desert. Rogers commonly employed the terms “phase,” “in- The primary goal of Rogers’ research was areal dustry,” and “complex” in his definitions of archaeo- synthesis (Hanna 1982:407). Rogers had a strong logical entities or cultures. He defined these classifica- ethnographic interest, and he used the direct histori- tory units using specific artifacts to mark phases of an cal approach (Strong 1941; also see Warren 1998:15) industry, and then he combined several industries to in his evaluation of later prehistory. He developed a form a complex (Hanna 1982:381) but did not neces- “fully systematic approach” to his fieldwork (Hanna sarily intend these classificatory entities to reflect tem- 1982:401) that included field survey, collection poral or even cultural constructs. These terms continue management, trenching, and development of artifact to be employed in California archaeology today, albeit

Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly, Volume 48, Numbers 3 and 4 58 Sutton with different meanings, so it is important to account The Development of Rogers’ Mojave Desert for the change in lexicon. Sequence

Regional Chronologies About 1925 Rogers began to reconnoiter the Mojave Desert, primarily the central Mojave Desert, to gather Rogers worked extensively in three major regions of information for use in the construction of a cultural Alta California—the coast, the Colorado chronology. No previous work had been done in the Desert, and the Mojave Desert— and developed basic Mojave Desert with this objective, so Rogers was es- chronological models for each of these regions. In the sentially encountering an archaeological terra incog- San Diego area, a modified version of his basic chro- nita. Rogers did not conduct any systematic survey (in nology is still used (Sutton and Gardner 2010) but is the contemporary archaeological sense) (see Warren not without its critics. In the northern Colorado Desert 1998:15), but he discovered many sites and described of California, a new model to replace that of Rogers many landscapes. Artifacts were found, collected, or has only recently been proposed (Sutton 2011). noted; associations with natural features (e.g., springs or lakes) were made, and a model of chronology The development of Rogers’ Mojave Desert sequence emerged. Only occasional small excavations (“test (Figure 1) is discussed below. The Mojave Desert gen- units” in the contemporary archaeological lexicon) erally occupies the northern portion of the California were made, mainly due to the general absence of large desert but includes portions of southern Nevada and stratified site deposits and the presence of sites that western Arizona. It is a region of very dry landscapes contained numerous surface artifacts (Warren 1986:1– but with a number of fossil lakes and rivers, indicative 1). Lacking vertical stratigraphic data or chronometric of a much wetter past. dating, Rogers utilized horizontal stratigraphy, artifact

Figure 1. The evolution of Rogers’ Mojave Desert chronology and the current Mojave Desert sequence.

Rogers’ 1931 Rogers’ 1939 Rogers’ 1945 Rogers’ 1950 Rogers’ 1966 Current Mojave Desert Chronology Chronology Chronology Chronology Chronology Sequence (Sutton et al. 2007) Pre-Clovis (hypothetical) Paleoindian Malpais San Dieguito I San Dieguito I Playa I San Dieguito II San Dieguito II Lake Mojave Eolithic Playa II San Dieguito III San Dieguito III Amargosa I Pinto (Pinto) (and Deadman Lake) Pinto-G ypsum Amargosa II (Gypsum) Gypsum Amargosa I Amargosa III Basket-M aker Amargosa II Basketmaker III Basketmaker III Anasazi (Rose Spring in the western Mojave) Desert Yuman I I Yuman/ Late Mohave Yuman II Patayan II Shoshonean Prehistoric Chemehuevi Yuman III Patayan III

PCAS Quarterly 48(3&4) The Development of Cultural Sequences in the Mojave Desert 59

types (many of which were first defined by Rogers), II or III times” (ca. AD 1000) (Rogers 1931:8). The and geomorphic associations to construct a relative Desert Mohave were identified based on sites con- chronology. Among his earliest efforts was an attempt taining “Mohave” pottery, Pacific Coast shell beads to discover the people responsible for the turquoise and ornaments, and cremations found in “cremation mining in the Halloran Springs area (Rogers 1929), cemeteries” and as isolated mortuary features. Rog- whom he identified as Puebloan. ers (1931:9) thought that the Mojave Sink “seems to have been the locus of Desert Mohave villages” and The 1931 Chronology further noted that the “Mohaves abandoned this desert area about the time of the seventeenth or eighteenth Based on his work from 1925 to 1930, Rogers pro- century to the Chemehuevi.” posed but did not publish his first cultural sequence for the Mojave Desert (Rogers 1931; also see Warren The Chemehuevi, who followed the Desert Mohave 1998:19–20). This sequence (Figure 1) consisted of (Rogers 1931:10; also see Lerch 1985), were identi- four archaeological cultures, the first of which, “Eo- fied by a sparse material culture consisting of an lithic” (Rogers 1931:7), included all materials from undefined “certain type of arrow point,” possibly initial human occupation up to “Basket-Makers of Ne- some stone mortars, and the “freshest” petroglyphs vada,” after which came “Desert Mohave” and finally that were “zoic” in form. Rogers (1931:9) noted that “Chemehuevi.” All Rogers’ archaeological cultures the “Mohaves abandoned this desert area ... to the were assigned to fairly recent times. Chemehuevi” (see Sutton 1986, 1994).

The Eolithic (Rogers 1931:6–7) was “the first [earliest] The 1939 Chronology evidence of prehistoric man” and was characterized by a “widespread chipped-stone culture of primitive By the early 1930s other archaeologists such as Mark technique.” Eolithic sites were to be found on gravel Harrington and Elizabeth Crozer Campbell had begun terraces in both the Mojave and Colorado deserts of working in the Mojave Desert and had their own ideas California, Nevada, and Arizona, generally along the about modeling Mojave Desert prehistory. Of particu- edges of the major river valleys but “occasionally out- lar note was the work of Elizabeth Crozer Campbell side the river basin on gravel mesas.” Characteristic of and William H. Campbell who had conducted major the heavily patinated artifact assemblage were “hand- efforts at Pinto Basin (Campbell and Campbell 1935) choppers” and “percussive flakes” of “chert, felsites, and Lake Mojave (Campbell et al. 1937; also see quartzite, and chalcedony,” and an “absence of such Campbell 1936). The Campbells argued for a Pleisto- stone forms in the other local cultures.” cene age for the Lake Mojave materials, although no method to determine their precise age was available Sites of the Basket-Makers were located along the at that time. Rogers did not agree that these materials shores of dry lake beds and at the turquoise mines. were as old as the Campbells had suggested, and his Artifacts characteristic of this culture were “atlatl position was generally accepted by the archaeological dart points” and “BM III pottery” (Rogers 1931:7–8). community (see discussion in Warren 1998:22–23). Exploitation of turquoise was a major activity (also see Rogers 1929). Rogers (1931:7) had written that a report on his Eo- lithic culture was in preparation. It is possible that this The Desert Mohave were a “branch of the Yuman manuscript formed the basis of his 1939 treatise Early stock,” who had occupied the area “as early as Pueblo Lithic Industries (Rogers 1939), in which he pub-

PCAS Quarterly 48(3&4) 60 Sutton

lished a general outline of Mojave Desert prehistory by Elizabeth Campbell (1936; Campbell et al. 1937), (Figure 1). It also seems possible that the publication who called it Lake Mojave. Rogers chose not to fol- of Early Lithic Industries was spurred on by his desire low the lead of Campbell in naming the unit, at least to respond to the work of Elizabeth Campbell, as partly because he disagreed with Campbell’s estimate Rogers included considerable criticism of Campbell’s of its age. Subsequent research has confirmed the work (see discussion in Warren 1998:21–25). The time nature and age of Campbell’s Lake Mojave (Wallace covered by his general Eolithic culture was filled by 1962; Warren 1967, 1984), and Rogers’ Playa phases four newly defined specific cultural units, beginning have long since been incorporated into the Lake Mo- with the Malpais industry and ending with Amargosa jave complex. industry. Late prehistoric cultures (Yuman and Sho- shonean) were only briefly noted. Pinto-Gypsum

Malpais Rogers’ (1939) third major cultural unit was the Pinto-Gypsum complex. As with Playa (Lake Mo- The earliest of Rogers’ industries was called Malpais. jave), Rogers (1939) believed that the Pinto-Gypsum Rogers (1939:6–22, Table 2) reported that Malpais complex was much later than is now known, and he sites were located on gravel terraces above the river thought that it might be related to Basketmaker I in the valley (recall this same criterion for the Eocene cul- Southwest. The Gypsum point and five different types ture) and that “house” sites (rock rings) and intaglios of Pinto points were major markers, but a number of were present on those same terraces. Artifacts includ- other artifact types were included (Rogers 1939:Table ed a variety of flake tools, choppers, and types. 2). Rogers (1939:71) argued that Pinto-Gypsum was All the cultural material was heavily patinated. Absent so different from Playa that the appearance of Pinto- were projectile points or other bifaces. Gypsum “must mark the incursion of a new” people into the region, with little or no separation in time. Playa Rogers (1939:72) further suggested that as the climate dried, Pinto-Gypsum people may have moved “toward The second major cultural unit was the Playa industry, the higher northern terrain” where Amargosa I later a part of the larger San Dieguito/Playa complex. San developed, perhaps as a “closing phase of the Pinto Dieguito was the southern California coastal aspect, Industry.” and the Playa industry was the desert aspect of the complex (Rogers 1939:28). Playa was divided into In 1939 Rogers seems to have recognized that Pinto two phases, Playa I and II. Playa I was defined as hav- and Gypsum were separate entities or “industries” ing a variety of artifact types (Rogers 1939:Table 2), (see Rogers 1939:2, 72) but considered them to be including stemmed points, crescents, and a variety of “regional variations” (Rogers 1966:27). Mostly based scrapers, choppers, and flake tools, located predomi- on his work in the Salt Spring area (see Byrd et al. nately along the margins of dry lakes. Phase II was 1998), Rogers (1939:48) noted that while there were similar in general nature, but the artifacts were less sites containing only Pinto or only Gypsum points, eroded and patinated. Pressure flaking was apparent, a number of sites contained both. This may have and obsidian was used for the first time. prompted Rogers to combine the two “industries” into the same complex in his 1939 work. After seeing the Playa is the same basic archaeological entity that had separation of the two in the vertical stratigraphy at been earlier identified along Lake Mojave Ventana Cave (Haury 1950), Rogers changed his mind

PCAS Quarterly 48(3&4) The Development of Cultural Sequences in the Mojave Desert 61 and considered the two to be chronologically separate, Rogers (1939:73) argued that the Yuman presence in a conclusion supported by later research. the Mojave Desert did not exceed 600 years and the Shoshoneans were present no longer than 300 years, a Campbell and Campbell (1935) had previously de- total of 900 years for the “late” groups. fined the Pinto period and dated it as following Lake Mojave, a time no doubt too early for Rogers. In ad- The 1945 Chronology dition, Rogers did not agree that a single type of Pinto point could be used to define the Pinto period (Byrd et While Rogers (1939:Plate 21) did include late prehis- al. 1998:653). A firm definition of the Pinto complex toric groups in his chronology, there was virtually no continues to elude us (Sutton et al. 2007), and research discussion of them. (Recall that the title of the 1939 on this issue continues. work referred to “early” lithic industries.) However, in 1945 he published some of his ideas about later Amargosa prehistory. Rogers (1945) proposed an outline of Yu- man (but not Shoshonean [Numic]) prehistory, which The fourth major entity proposed in 1939 was the included the eastern portion of the Mojave Desert, Amargosa industry, divided into two phases, Amargo- the Colorado Desert, and much of the rest of southern sa I and II. Amargosa I was marked by large sites with California. Using the direct historical approach, Rog- Pinto and large side-notched points (Rogers 1939: ers divided Yuman into three phases: Yuman I, II, and Plate 16), while Amargosa II was marked by smaller III. Yuman I (AD 500 to 1000) marked the introduc- sites with Elko and Rose Spring points (see Rog- tion of pottery and agriculture; Yuman II had ceramics, ers 1939:Plate 18). Rogers (1939:72) suggested that and agriculture was the dominant subsistence system Amargosa I might have been the “final phase” of the (AD 1000 to 1500); and Yuman III had ceramics and Pinto industry. Rogers (1939:61) further argued that postdated AD 1500 (essentially what Rogers consid- Amargosa II was identical to “Basket-Maker III” and ered to be the post-Lake Cahuilla period). The “Desert that it was intrusive in California, a view continued Mohave” were seen as Yuman, and Rogers acknowl- from his 1929 publication. This implies that Rogers edged the presence of Numic groups (e.g., Southern believed that Amargosa I and Amargosa II were quite Paiute) late in time in the eastern Mojave Desert. The separate entities, the former related to Pinto and the Yuman sequence, now widely referred to as Patayan, latter to Basketmaker, but that he had not yet fully is still employed, although it has been proposed to articulated this in his 1939 classification. This seems replace it in much of interior southern California (Sut- to be the reason for the change he made in 1950. ton 2011).

Yuman/Shoshonean The 1950 Chronology

In 1931 Rogers had included a discussion of three By 1950 Rogers had come to accept the fact that the post-Eolithic cultural units: Basket-Maker, Desert archaeology of the Mojave Desert was much older Mohave, and Chemehuevi (see Figure 1). In the 1939 than he had previously believed, and he realized that a chronology, Basket-Maker III was considered to be revision of his 1939 chronology was in order. How- Amargosa II, part of his Early Lithic industries. The ever, this important revision was published within Desert Mohave and Chemehuevi discussed in 1931 the body of the Ventanta Cave report (Haury 1950: were classified in 1939 as Yumans and Shoshoneans Table 12) (see Figure 1). Rogers made a number respectively, and they were not discussed in any detail. of significant changes to his 1939 chronology. He

PCAS Quarterly 48(3&4) 62 Sutton

connected the Malpais industry to the San Dieguito 1950. A great deal more detail on his views of the San along the coast (where he had worked at the Har- Dieguito complex was provided, but the later cultures ris site) and dropped the distinction of Playa being a were not considered. It remains possible that the desert industry separate from San Dieguito. Thus, he revising and editing of Rogers’ San Dieguito complex redefined Malpais and Playa I and II as San Dieguito I, paper altered some of his actual views (e.g., Hanna II, and III respectively. Today, the desert aspect of San 1982:243, 298). Dieguito is recognized as the Lake Mojave complex. Still Influential In 1939 Rogers had defined Pinto-Gypsum as a com- plex, as he had already recognized it as two separate en- The cultural sequence(s) outlined for the Mojave Des- tities (industries). Further, Rogers (1939:72) was think- ert by Rogers (1931, 1939, 1945, 1966; Haury 1950: ing that Amargosa I was actually more closely related to Table 12), plus that of Elizabeth Campbell, formed Pinto-Gypsum (a “third” Pinto phase; Rogers 1939:72) the foundation for the sequence still in widespread use and that Amargosa II was “identical” to Basketmaker today. Rogers seemly had the basic sequence right, III. In spite of this, he had left the two Amargosa phases but was patently wrong about the absolute chronol- together in 1939 (later admitting this was a poor choice ogy, and that error formed the basis of much of the [Rogers 1966:27]). Based on the stratigraphic separa- disagreement between Rogers and Campbell. For a tion of Pinto from Gypsum at Ventana Cave, Rogers variety of reasons, the early ideas of Rogers were (in Haury 1950:Table 12) separated the two, renaming accepted over the ideas of Campbell, and so Rog- Pinto as “Amargosa I” and Gypsum as “Amargosa II.” ers tended to get the “credit.” In the end, however, Since the 1939 iteration of Gypsum was redefined as Campbell’s general dating was shown to be correct, Amargosa II, Rogers created a new phase, Amargosa and Rogers finally changed his mind on the antiquity III, to equate with the old Amargosa I, which in 1939 he of cultures in the Mojave Desert just before he died had thought might have been a third phase of Pinto. In (Rogers 1966:140). Nevertheless, Rogers’ work re- retrospect, these changes seem logical. mains very influential. While the names have changed and continue to confuse, the foundation provided by Today, Pinto and Gypsum are defined as separate Rogers has enabled us to develop the chronological cultural complexes with different assemblages and models currently being batted about. generally dating sequentially (Sutton et al. 2007). A newly identified possible cultural complex, Deadman Acknowledgments Lake in the southeastern Mojave Desert, is thought to be generally contemporaneous with Pinto (Sutton et This paper is a revised and expanded version of one al. 2007:239–240). presented at the 46th Annual Meeting of the Society for California Archaeology held in San Diego in 2012, The 1966 Sequence and I appreciate the invitation of Ruth Musser-Lopez to participate in that symposium. I greatly appreciate At the time of his death in 1960, Rogers was work- the comments and suggestions of Henry C. Koerper, ing on a comprehensive treatment of the San Dieguito Don Laylander, Ruth Musser-Lopez, Joan Schneider, complex in southern California, including the Mo- and Claude N. Warren and the assistance of Robin jave Desert. That work (Rogers 1966) was published Laska. Much of my interpretation of Rogers’ work in posthumously (edited and revised). It reiterated the the Mojave Desert outlined in this paper mirrors that basic San Dieguito I, II, and III sequence proposed in of Warren (1984, 1998), to whom a great debt is owed.

PCAS Quarterly 48(3&4) The Development of Cultural Sequences in the Mojave Desert 63

References Cited Hanna, David C. 1982 Malcolm J. Rogers: The Biography of a Byrd, Brian F., James D. Eighmey, Richard Hughes, Paradigm. Master’s thesis, Department of and Jerry Schaefer Anthropology, San Diego State University, 1998 Malcolm Rogers’ Legacy at Salt Spring – Ex- San Diego. amining the Archival Evidence. In Springs and Lakes in a Desert Landscape: Archaeo- Haury, Emil W. logical and Paleoenvironmental Investiga- 1950 The Stratigraphy and Archaeology of Ventana tions in the Silurian Valley and Adjacent Cave. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Areas of Southeastern California, edited by Brian F. Byrd, pp. 649–690. Report on Lerch, Michael K. file, San Bernardino County Museum Ar- 1985 The Desert Mohave: A Review of Ethnohis- chaeological Information Center, Redlands, toric Data and Archaeological Implications. California. Manuscript on file, Department of Anthropol- ogy, University of California, Riverside. Campbell, Elizabeth W. Crozer 1936 Archaeological Problems in the Southern Rogers, Malcolm J. California Deserts. American Antiquity 1929 Report on an Archaeological Reconnais- 1(4):295–300. sance in the Mohave Sink Region. San Diego Museum Papers No. 1. San Diego Museum Campbell, Elizabeth W. Crozer, and William H. of Man, San Diego. Campbell 1931 Report of Archaeological Investigations of 1935 The Pinto Basin Sit: An Ancient Aboriginal the Mohave Desert Region during 1930. Camping Ground in the California Desert. National Anthropology Archives, Bureau of Southwest Museum Papers No. 9. Southwest American Ethnology, Report 2104 (Pt. 1). Museum, Los Angeles. Manuscript on file, San Bernardino County Museum, Redlands, California. Campbell, Elizabeth W. Crozer, William H. Campbell, 1939 Early Lithic Industries of the Lower Basin Ernst Antevs, Charles A. Amsden, Joseph A. of the Colorado River and Adjacent Desert Barbier, and Francis D. Bode Areas. San Diego Museum Papers No. 3. San 1937 The Archeology of Pleistocene Lake Mo- Diego Museum of Man, San Diego. have: A Symposium. Southwest Museum 1945 An Outline of Yuman Prehistory. Southwest- Papers No. 11. Southwest Museum, Los ern Journal of Anthropology 1(2):167–198. Angeles. 1966 Ancient Hunters of the Far West. Edited by Richard F. Pourade. Union-Tribune Publish- Carrico, Richard L. ing, San Diego. 2008 Malcolm Rogers, 1890–1960. In Fragile Patterns: The Archaeology of the Western Strong, William D. Papaguería, edited by Jeffrey H. Altschul 1941 Review of Malcolm J. Rogers’ “Early and Adrianne G. Rankin, pp. 31–40. SRI Lithic Industries of the Lower Basin of the Press, Tucson, Arizona. Colorado River and Adjacent Desert Areas.” American Anthropologist 38(2):314.

PCAS Quarterly 48(3&4) 64 Sutton

Sutton, Mark Q. Warren, Claude N. 1986 Warfare and Expansion: An Ethnohistoric 1967 The San Dieguito Complex: A Review and Perspective on the Numic Spread. Journal Hypothesis. American Antiquity 32(2):168– of California and Anthropology 185. 8(1):65–82. 1984 The Desert Region. In California Archaeol- 1994 The Numic Expansion as Seen from the ogy, by Michael J. Moratto, pp. 339–430. Mojave Desert. In Across the West: Human Academic Press, Orlando, Florida. Population Movement and the Expansion of 1986 Preliminary Final: The Research Overview, the Numa, edited by David B. Madsen and Volume 2, Fort Irwin Historic Preservation David Rhode, pp. 133–140. University of Plan, National Training Center, Fort Irwin, Utah Press, Salt Lake City. San Bernardino County, California. Report 2011 The Palomar Tradition and its Place in the prepared for Interagency Archaeological Ser- Prehistory of Southern California. Pacific vices, Western Region, San Francisco. Report Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly on file, Environmental Division, Directorate 44(4):1–74. of Public Works, Fort Irwin, California. 1998 Understanding Siluria: A History of Central Sutton, Mark Q., and Jill K. Gardner Mojave Desert Archaeology. In Springs and 2010 Reconceptualizing the Encinitas Tradition of Lakes in a Desert Landscape: Archaeological Southern California. Pacific Coast Archaeo- and Paleoenvironmental Investigations in the logical Society Quarterly 42(4):1–64. Silurian Valley and Adjacent Areas of South- eastern California, edited by Brian F. Byrd, Sutton, Mark Q., Mark E. Basgall, Jill K. Gardner, and pp. 13–43. Report on file, San Bernardino Mark W. Allen County Museum Archaeological Information 2007 Advances in Understanding Mojave Desert Center, Redlands, California. Prehistory. In California Prehistory: Colo- nization, Culture, and Complexity, edited by Warren, Claude N., and Joan S. Schneider Terry L. Jones and Katherine A. Klar, pp. 1989 Nelson Lake, San Bernardino County, Cali- 229–245. AltaMira Press, Lanham, Maryland. fornia: Museum Records and Collections from Important Early Sites. San Bernardino Wallace, William J. County Museum Association Quarterly 1962 Prehistoric Cultural Development in the 36(2):3–50. Southern California Deserts. American Antiq- uity 28(2):172–180.

PCAS Quarterly 48(3&4)