UC Merced Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology

Title Some Aspects of Kitanemuk Prehistory

Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3mm1r5kt

Journal Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology, 2(2)

ISSN 0191-3557

Author Sutton, Mark Q

Publication Date 1980-12-01

Peer reviewed

eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 214-225(1980).

Some Aspects of Kitanemuk Prehistory

MARK Q. SUTTON

HE Kitanemuk are one of the lesser tern, economy, and social organization of the Tknown native groups in California. The valley inhabitants took place at that time. The Kitanemuk spoke a Serran language of the post 300 B.P. population ofthe valley repre­ Takic family (Bright 1975) and inhabited sent the ethnographically documented Kitane­ and/or claimed portions of the Tehachapi muk. It would appear, however, that the pre- Mountains and the southwesternmost portion 300 B.P. populations, were quite different of the Mojave Desert (Antelope Valley) during culturally. The extant archaeological data the proto-historic period. seem to be substantial enough to distinguish Relatively little ethnographic and archaeo­ this cultural change and to suggest economic, logical data on the Kitanemuk are available for socio-political, and territorial changes during study. The ethnographic data (cf. Harrington's the late prehistoric period. Comparisons Kitanemuk notes) were gathered fairly late, between the ethnographic Kitanemuk and the represent a shallow time depth, and pertain archaeological record from the Antelope mainly to the Tehachapi Mountains. The Valley support this hypothesis and are dis­ archaeological data are limited, primarily from cussed below. Antelope Valley, and mostly unpublished. The late prehistoric period archaeological remains ETHNOGRAPHIC DATA (after 2200 B.P.) from the Antelope Valley The primary ethnographic data on the have generally been attributed to Shoshonean Kitanemuk were obtained by J. P. Harrington (Kitanemuk) populations (Robinson 1977). in 1917. At this time Harrington was only able This is in basic agreement with Wallace (1962: to interview a few survivors. Harrington's 178) that most, if not all, ofthe late prehistoric Kitanemuk notes have never been fully synthe­ period remains in the desert are attributable to sized or published, but have been used by vari­ the recent Shoshonean speakers, and that "the ous researchers as a data source (cL Blackburn late pattern of life persisted into the historic and Bean 1978). Kroeber's (1925) chapter on period without appreciable change." the Kitanemuk is brief but helpful. A small It has been suggested that the Antelope quantity of other ethnographic data on the Valley was virtually abandoned approximately Kitanemuk are available (cf. Kroeber 1907; 300 years ago (Sutton 1979fl), and that sub­ Harrington 1942; Strong 1929). stantial changes in territory, settlement pat- One of the main thrusts of this paper is a Mark Sutton, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 831 Barstow discussion of changes in Kitanemuk territory Road, Barstow, CA 92311. over time. It is important, therefore, to gain an

[214] ASPECTS OF KITANEMUK PREHISTORY 215 understanding of what territory the ethno­ mountains were the primary occupation area graphic Kitanemuk claimed. Kroeber (1925: and that the desert was utilized on a seasonal 611) stated that the Kitanemuk lived ". . . on basis only. This agreement rests, perhaps, the upper Tejon and Paso creeks . . . held the upon the traditional assumption that desert streams on the rear side of the Tehachapis . . . areas have little to offer and are incapable of the small creeks draining the northern slope of supporting large populations (cL Wallace the Liebre and Sawmill range, with the Ante­ 1962, Steward 1938). lope Valley and the westernmost end of the The settlement pattern of the precontact Mojave Desert . . ." He also reported that the Kitanemuk is very poorly understood. As extent of the Kitanemuk territorial claims in noted above, the ethnographic villages the desert were uncertain and that "the popu­ identified by Kroeber (1925) and Blackburn lation perhaps resided more largely in the and Bean (1978) are located in the Tehachapis. smaller San Joaquin portion ofthe Kitanemuk Neither author identified any villages in the area" (Kroeber 1925:611-6I2). The village and Antelope Valley. The Kitanemuk may have place names listed by Kroeber (1925) are in the been living at La Liebre and Tejon Ranch foothills of the San Joaquin Valley. during the historic period (Johnson 1978), Blackburn and Bean (1978) delineate Kitan­ although the Tataviam may have been at La emuk territory in general agreement with Liebre (King, Smith, and King 1974). It is Kroeber (1925). According to Blackburn and unclear if these were precontact settlement Bean (1978:564) "The Kitanemuk were a small areas. group located primarily in the Tehachapi Kitanemuk subsistence patterns are also Mountains at the southern edge of the San poorly known. Blackburn and Bean (1978:564) Joaquin Valley .... The Kitanemuk were stated that the "general ecological adaptation thus primarily mountain dwellers, although and subsistence technology of the Kitanemuk during cooler seasons of the year, they did differed little from that of their neighbors to range into the arid lowlands to the south." The the north (Yokuts) or west (Chumash) . . ." 'arid lowlands' to the south would be the Ante­ This would seem to indicate (following the lope Valley. As in Kroeber (1925), the known Yokuts example; Wallace 1978) that the villages shown by Blackburn and Bean (1978: Kitanemuk economy emphasized fishing, fig. 1) are all located in the Tehachapis. hunting of waterfowl, and the collection of The major point of variance between various roots and seeds. Little emphasis would Kroeber (1925) and Blackburn and Bean (1978) have been placed on mammals, but rabbits seems to be the extent of Kitanemuk claims in would have been hunted communally. the Antelope Valley. Kroeber (1925) assigns In a general survey of California Indians, almost the entire Antelope Valley to the Kitan­ Beals and Hester (1971) classify the Kitanemuk emuk. Blackburn and Bean (1978) assign the in the "foothill" ecological type and describe Kitanemuk only the northern part of the their general subsistence strategy as gathering valley, although it is clear from their territorial with a minor emphasis on hunting. The settle­ map that this boundary is uncertain. A com­ ment pattern is described as relatively perma­ parison between these territorial assignments nent villages with occupation and resource is shown in Fig. 1. utilization at different locals on a seasonal There is a consensus that the Kitanemuk basis. Beals and Hester (1971:82) go on to state claimed portions ofthe Tehachapi Mountains that "the Kitanemuk did range into the desert and the Mojave Desert. Kroeber (1925) and (Antelope Valley) but had little incentive to do Blackburn and Bean (1978) agree that the so." Schiffman and Garfinkel (1980) stated 216 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY that the acorn was a major staple which Mountains with small seasonal sites located so provided the bulk of the vegetative portion of as to exploit specific resources. The desert area the Kitanemuk diet. They further reported that was clearly considered ephemeral. fish and game were of fairly minor dietary Other aspects of ethnographic Kitanemuk significance. culture important in this study include burial Our composite view of the ethnographic customs and social structure, especially rank­ Kitanemuk subsistence pattern would be an ing and status. Burial customs are briefly men­ economy based primarily on gathering, with tioned by Kroeber (1925) who reported that the importance of fishing and waterfowl hunt­ the Yokuts said that the Kitanemuk interred ing being uncertain. Mammal hunting would corpses. Additional data from Blackburn and have been a minor economic pursuit. The Bean (1978:566) suggest that the Kitanemuk ethnographic Kitanemuk settlement pattern used cemeteries and interred corpses in a tightly would have consisted of a number of semi­ flexed position, the body being "doubled up permanent villages located in the Tehachapi and tied" prior to burial. Blackburn and Bean

Fig. 1. Ethnographic Kitanemuk territorial assignments. ASPECTS OF KITANEMUK PREHISTORY 217

(1978:566) stated that the Kitanemuk "carried Air Force Base, and a variety of environmental the body to the cemetery; as they neared it, one impact reports. of them cried out to warn the dead of their For this study, the relevant archaeological arrival." This seems to imply that the cemetery data include settlement patterns and a compar­ was located some distance from the village. ison of archaeological traits with the ethno­ Ceremonial cannibalism was also practiced graphic data. Mortuary data, especially loca­ by the ethnographic Kitanemuk. At the grave, tion and content of cemeteries, are very the skull ofthe corpse was broken open with a important. stone ". . . each mourner (receiving) a tiny por­ The majority of known archaeological tion of the brain to eat" (Blackburn and Bean remains in the Antelope Valley appear to date 1978:566). Grave offerings were interred with earlier than 300 B.P. (Sutton 1979a) and the body. A grave pole was erected at the head include at least three major villages and of a chiefs grave (Blackburn and Bean 1978). numerous special purpose sites. Since no his­ The pole, about 20 feet long and six inches in toric materials have been found at the large diameter, was obtained from the mountains villages, it would be reasonable to assume that and erected at the grave after several cere­ 300 B.P. could represent a terminal date of monies. C. H. Merriam (1955:77-86) described major valley occupation. For the purpose of a similar ceremony among the Gabrielinos and this paper, our discussion will be confined to Serrano about 1906. those sites which were occupied during the late The data on ethnographic Kitanemuk prehistoric period, between 2200 and 300 B.P. social organization are scant. It must have been The late prehistoric period settlement pat­ fairly complex as each village had a chief, a tern that can be extrapolated from an examina­ ceremonial manager, two messengers, tion ofthe extant archaeological data is one of shamans, diviners, and other ritualists (Black­ large permanent (or semi-permanent) villages burn and Bean 1978). Social ranking and pres­ with a variety of smaller special purpose sites tige systems were apparently well developed. occupied on a seasonal basis (Robinson 1977). The presence of large villages (which include ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATA cemeteries) and the number and complexity of There have been no sites excavated in the other sites would suggest that the Antelope Tehachapi Mountain area claimed by the Valley supported a large population during the Kitanemuk. Virtually all ofthe archaeological late prehistoric period, and was not a "fringe" work in the Kitanemuk area has been done in area as suggested by the ethnographic data. the Antelope Valley. The economic base supporting such a popula­ Archaeological research has been con­ tion is not yet understood but the heavy in­ ducted in Antelope Valley since the 1930's volvement in trade networks suggested by although the majority of the work has been Robinson (1977) may be an important factor. done since 1968. Several dozen sites have been Obsidian from the Coso area may have been an excavated by Antelope Valley College where important commodity as Antelope Valley is the recovered material is stored. Unfortunately, situated along a natural trade route. most of these important data are not available in Large permanent populations may not be the literature and secondary sources must be as unusual for desert areas as once thought. relied upon.' The major sources of reported Bettinger (1978) suggested that some groups archaeological data include the research pro­ may have employed a Desert Village adaptive gram at Cerro Coso College, the Cultural strategy characterized by large permanent set­ Resource Management Program at Edwards tlements and specialized economies. This 218 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY would contrast with the Desert Culture strategy status oriented. Interment within the midden is (Jennings 1957) characterized by small popu­ also an important point. lation aggregates and unspecialized subsis­ The other major village known in the wes­ tence strategies. Although an examination of tern valley is Ker-303, located in a small group Bettinger's ideas with respect to the Antelope of hills protruding southward onto the valley Valley is well beyond the scope of this paper, it floor. Ker-303 was tested by Antelope Valley is an interesting point to keep in mind. College from 1972 to 1977, and by the author There are three major late prehistoric (in cooperation with Antelope Valley College period village sites, or complexes, known for through Cerro Coso College in 1977-78). There the Antelope Valley. Two of these villages, are a number of small ephemeral sites located LAn-488 and Ker-303, are located in the around Ker-303 including rock rings, small western part ofthe valley. The third, perhaps lithic scatters, and milling stations (Serfoss more aptly described as a site complex, is asso­ 1972). ciated with the playa complex on Edwards Air The main site area at Ker-303 is several Force Base. There are also a number of special acres in extent, contained a large cemetery, and purpose sites documented for the late prehis­ has a deposit over two meters deep in some toric period including the large rhyolite quarry places. Three structures were located by test in the Fairmont Buttes (Robinson, Sutton, and excavation. Given the size of the excavation Eggers 1976; Sutton 1978) and lithic scatters sample (about 2.5%), one could assume that (e.g., Sutton 1979A>). These sites reflect an more structures are present. intensive use ofthe resources within the valley Numerous trade items were also recovered during the late prehistoric period, most prob­ at Ker-303 including Haliotis, Tivela, Olivella, ably in conjunction with the major villages. Megathura, Mytilus, and Dentalium shell The major village of LAn-488 is located beads and ornaments, steatite, and obsidian. along the southwestern fringe of the valley. This trade apparently involved the Santa Bar­ The site was tested in 1969-70 by Antelope bara coast, the San Joaquin Valley, and the Valley College, yielded a i^C date of 770 + 90 desert to the east. Large quantities of other radiocarbon years (A.D. 1180) (GAK-3010), artifacts were also recovered including Rose and was attributed to the Kitanemuk (Robin­ Spring and Cottonwood projectile points. son 1972). The deposit was three meters in Several radiocarbon dates place the occupa­ depth in some areas and no structures were tion of Ker-303 from about 2200 B.P. to recorded. A small cemetery was discovered 300 B.P. within the village and contained two adults and The cemetery at Ker-303 is especially two children (Robinson 1972). Three of the important due to its wealth of data on status. burials (two adults and one child) had only a Over 30 burials were recovered in controlled few associated artifacts. The fourth was a small excavation although many were damaged. As infant and had more than five thousand small many as 100 may have originally been interred Olivella spp. beads associated with the burial there, since the majority of the cemetery had (Robinson 1972). The beads were very small been destroyed by pothunting. There are and had to be recovered with 1 / 16-inch screen. indications that redwood posts and/or This offering represents great wealth and seems planking were associated with several of the indicative of ascribed status (Robinson 1972). burials (Anonymous 1972). Some ofthe badly Numerous other trade items (shell and steatite) decomposed red-colored wood was tenta­ were recovered at the site. It is clear that the tively identified by the Los Angeles County inhabitants of LAn-488 were wealthy and Museum as redwood although it is possible ASPECTS OF KITANEMUK PREHISTORY 219 that the wood may actually be cedar. This and probably maintained a complex ranking wood may be evidence of the Kitanemuk system. Several specific traits (e.g., posts over practice of placing posts over the graves of some burials and interment instead of crema­ chiefs. tion) are similar to the ethnographic Kitan­ A burial complex of six individuals was emuk but there are many traits (e.g., size, com­ also recovered from Ker-303 (Robinson 1973). plexity) that are dissimilar. It is not known, however, if these individuals The third major village area actually con­ were interred at the same time. A knapping sists of several sites recorded along the south tool kit, including several dozen antler tools, shore of Buckhorn Dry Lake on the eastern several hammerstones, numerous flakes, and fringe of the valley. The sites may represent a chipped stone tools, an awl, and a piece of single massive site, but possibly are best asphaltum was found associated with one of explained as a very intensively occupied the burials (Robinson 1973) suggesting some seasonal site complex. With only very limited sort of specialization. work at the lake sites as a data base, it is very Perhaps the most unusual burial recovered difficult to compare them with the western at Ker-303 consisted of an adult female interred villages. South of Buckhorn Lake there are with the head down and the hips up. Both of large midden accumulations ranging to a meter the legs had been severed at the knees prior to in depth. Mesquite was undoubtedly a major burial and placed on top of the body. The attraction around the lakes as extensive stands artifacts recovered in association with this still remain. burial are indicative of great wealth. Over 1500 Some very limited testing has been con­ Mytilus beads, over 1000 Olivella beads, and ducted at several of these sites. LAn-828 was numerous Haliotis and Limpet ornaments tested in 1972 (Eggers n.d.). Little data are were found (Robinson 1973). available on the results of that work other than Cutting of a body prior to burial is unusual the discovery of cremations with burned but not unique. There are several examples Olivella beads observed in association. Chester from Medea Creek (King 1969), although the King dated some of the recovered beads from specific details of mutiliation differ. It is sug­ LAn-828 as ca. 200 B.C. to A.D. 600 (Green­ gested by King (1969:61) that the mutilation wood and Mclntyre 1980). of the body represents "a very special social Limited testing was undertaken at LAn- identity . . ." Explanations offered for the 771 located several hundred meters south of mutilation include war, execution, or murder LAn-828 (Sutton 1979c). No human remains (King 1969). were recovered, but the site did contain a Most ofthe burials at Ker-303 were placed variety of artifacts including trade items. A in a tightly flexed to loosely flexed position. clay figurine fragment was recovered and is Many were too damaged or otherwise decom­ very similar to one recovered at Ker-303 posed to obtain good orientation and sex data. (Sutton 1979

recovered, five (four aduhs and one child) were Another cemetery was excavated by Ante­ interred in a small common grave with many lope Valley College in 1975. This site (LAn- associated grave goods. The child had a shroud 767) is located just into the foothills on the consisting of 1101 spirelopped Olivella spp. southwestern fringe of the Antelope Valley. beads placed on the pubic area, a necklace While the cemetery itself is isolated, several containing 2135 Olivella spp. shell beads, 54 other sites, including camps, are located more Olivella spp. beads near the cranium, and nearby. No direct relationship can currently be four bird bone tools in general association shown between the cemetery and the other (Toney 1968). Several other artifacts present, sites. including more Olivella spp. beads and a Eleven burials were recovered at LAn-767, metate, could not be associated with specific seven of which were disturbed by stream individuals. One ofthe adults had an obsidian action. The four intact burials were interred in projectile point lodged in the chest cavity. It is a tightly to loosely flexed position with a vari­ interesting to note that most of the offerings, ety of orientation. Few artifacts were recov­ representing considerable wealth, were asso­ ered, mostly Olivella spp. beads, a few with ciated with the child. incised edges. None of the burials bad grave A Tataviam cemetery (LAn-487), located goods associated in quantity and no apparent in the Sierra Pelona Mountains just south of pattern of artifact distribution with regard to Antelope Valley, was salvaged by Antelope either sex or age was evident (R. W. Robinson, Valley College in 1971. The cemetery is not 1980, personal communication). This cemetery directly associated with a habitation site. This is quite similar to the Tataviam cemetery is in contrast with sites in Antelope Valley (LAn-487) excavated in 1971 (Robinson 1972). proper, and near the lakes, where human It is possible that the LAn-767 site was also remains were found in the village midden. Tataviam. Fifteen burials were recovered at LAn-487 but Two other Tataviam cemeteries south of only six by controlled excavation. The other the Antelope Valley are discussed by King, nine were removed by pothunters although Smith, and King (1974). The cemeteries are not some data on one of those were recovered. located directly in habitation areas but are Four of the seven burials with data con­ nearby. King, Smith, and King (1974) indicate tained grave goods which were meager com­ that a number of high status items were re­ pared with some of the burials from LAn-488 covered and that the social system was fairly or Ker-303. The single infant burial recovered complex. The cemeteries at LAn-487 and LAn- from LAn-487, contained no offerings. Ofthe 767 do not seem to exhibit these traits. five burials with observable position; four were DISCUSSION tightly flexed in a sitting position, and one was loosely flexed in a prone position. I would suggest that the late prehistoric The grave goods with the males consisted period population of Antelope Valley was primarily of chipped stone tools, while the ancestral to the ethnographic Kitanemuk. offerings with the female consisted of shell Thomas Blackburn (1980 personal communica­ beads and ornaments. No firm dating is avail­ tion) feels that the late prehistoric period able for the site, although it is probably late Antelope Valley populations were more likely (Robinson 1972). Robinson (1972) suggests proto-Tataviam. The mortuary data would that ascribed status is not represented at the indicate that the Tataviam held portions ofthe site, in contrast with the cemetery at LAn-488 foothills and valley floors near Palmdale, but (discussed above) which he uses for probably not the majority ofthe valley, during comparison. the late prehistoric period. ASPECTS OF KITANEMUK PREHISTORY 221

It seems likely that the major territorial The causal factors in this possible abandon­ base ofthe Kitanemuk system moved from the ment are unknown, but if the Antelope Valley Antelope Valley to the Tehachapi Mountains populations were economically dependent about 300 B.P. Due to the paucity of archaeo­ upon trade networks, any disruption of these logical data from the Tehachapis, it is unclear networks may have resulted in the collapse of if the Kitanemuk retreated into the mountains the cultural system forcing the populations to they had already occupied or moved into an move. entirely new area, perhaps displacing another Disruption of trade networks may not have group. It is also possible that the prehistoric been the only destabiHzing factor operating in Antelope Valley populations were not Kitane­ the Antelope Valley. Thomas Blackburn (per­ muk (as Blackburn suggested) and that after sonal communication, 1980) suggested that the collapse of the valley cultural system, the disease epidemics may have played a role. Kitanemuk ofthe Tehachapis expanded their While there is currently no empirical evidence territory to include part of the valley vacated to support this, the time factor of 300 B.P. by this other group. offered as a terminal date for the major Ante­ If the Antelope Valley populations were lope Valley occupation (Sutton 1979fl) roughly ancestral to the Kitanemuk, considerable cul­ coincides with Spanish intrusions along the tural change must have taken place after their coast and the Colorado River. It has been move into the Tehachapis. The economic base shown by Dobyns (1963a, 1963^) that diseases may have changed from a prestigious wealth- could disrupt or destroy populations well in oriented trading economy to primarily a gather­ advance of actual contact with the Spanish. If ing economy. While the ethnographic data sug­ Antelope Valley populations were heavily gest that Kitanemuk prestige and status involved in trade, they may have received systems were well developed, the economic diseases fairly early. base would seem insufficient to support such The disruption of Antelope Valley culture complex social and political systems. These may have occurred at approximately the same social systems may be remnants of proto- time as the desiccation of Lake Cahuilla. Wilke Kitanemuk traits which were based on a more (1978) suggests that the drying of Lake highly developed economic system, one origi­ Cahuilla may have had widespread repercus­ nating during their tenure in the Antelope sions throughout southern California. It may Valley. be that the Antelope Valley, although some­ It has been suggested that Antelope Valley what far removed.from Lake Cahuilla, was populations were heavily involved in southern also affected by the desiccation of the lake. California trade and may have served as There is still another intriguing hypothesis. middlemen in that network (Robinson 1977). Chester King (personal communication, 1980) The "middleman" role may have provided the suggested the possibility that the Antelope economic base needed to support a complex Valley populations were physically removed en social system in the desert, although such masse by the Spanish in 1811. King stated that systems may not be that unusual (Bettinger mission records showed that a large group of 1978). Serrano (Kitanemuk?) were brought to the San The major occupation in the Antelope Fernando Mission in 1811 from a village at Valley appears to have ended prior to contact, Willow Springs (near Rosamond). King also about 300 B.P. (Sutton 1979a). After that time suggested that two other villages in the valley the valley was utilized only on an ephemeral were concurrently occupied and engaged in an basis, as reflected in the ethnographic record. intermarriage system with the Willow Springs 222 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY

group. The Spanish action may have effec­ An examination ofthe mortuary data from tively depopulated the valley very suddenly. the known cemeteries in the valley allows us to The A.D. 1700 date proposed for the gen­ make some preliminary late prehistoric period eral depopulation of the Antelope Valley was territorial assignments for the Tataviam and based on a 300 B.P. '^C date from Ker-303 Antelope Valley populations (proto-Kitane- (U.C.L.A. 1884a) and the lack of historic trade muk). These suggested boundaries are shown items at any of the known villages. It would in Fig. 2 and should be considered very seem possible that the valley population was preliminary. The northern portions of the removed by the Spanish before much trade had proto-Kitanemuk boundary are based on the occurred, and that the absence of historic ethnographic data, as archaeological data are material would not be unusual. While this is an lacking. The proto-Kitanemuk cemeteries interesting possibility, it is beyond the scope of seem to be located within villages (although the this paper. ethnographic data suggested that Kitanemuk

Fig. 2. Suggested Late Prehistoric territorial boundaries. ASPECTS OF KITANEMUK PREHISTORY 223 cemeteries were located away from the habita­ porting large permanent populations and tion area) and usually contain grave goods. complex trade networks. It is hypothesized Tataviam cemeteries seem to be located away that the proto-Kitanemuk abandoned the from habitation sites and contain far fewer Antelope Valley circa 300 B.P., shifting their offerings. major territorial and economic base to the The proto-Kitanemuk probably held the Tehachapi Mountain area, although the causal western Antelope Valley including the Teha­ factors for such a shift are unknown. chapi foothills, the foothills in the southwest The hypotheses presented here are quite Antelope Valley, and the majority ofthe valley preliminary and based upon incomplete data. floor eastward to the lakes. This is suggested by They will serve, I hope, to generate research the location and content of the LAn-488 and and thought on this area so that a better under­ Ker-303 cemeteries. The cemeteries at LAn- standing of the region's prehistory can result. 487 and LAn-767 indicate that the Tataviam held the Sierra Pelonas and the Palmdale area ACKNOWLEDGMENTS in addition to the territory delineated in King Thanks to Thomas Blackburn, Chester and Blackburn (1978:fig. 1). This is in general King, R. W. Robinson, Mike Mclntyre, Nancy agreement with King, Smith, and King (1974) Evans, Philip Wilke, Harry Lawton, and anon­ that the Tataviam wintered on the plains ofthe ymous reviewers for the Journal for reading Antelope Valley. and commenting on earlier versions of this The situation in the eastern Antelope paper. Valley during the late prehistoric period is NOTE more confused. It would appear that the area 1. I have purposely included some archaeo­ around the lakes was heavily utilized although logical data in this paper mostly heretofore unavail­ it is not clear by whom. It seems possible that able in the literature. My purpose in this is to make the lakes were concurrently claimed and used these important data available to other researchers. by several groups other than the Kitanemuk, perhaps the Vanyume and/or the Kawaiisu. REFERENCES This occupation would most probably have Anonymous been in late spring to exploit the large mesquite 1972 Archaeology New Note; A. V.C.-10. Ante­ stands and waterfowl. The presence of crema­ lope Valley Archaeological Society News­ tions at LAn-828 would suggest visitations by letter, June 1972. groups from outside the valley. Bettinger, Robert L. 1978 Alternate Adaptive Strategies in the CONCLUSION Prehistoric Great Basin. Journal of The ethnographic record suggests that the Anthropological Research 34(l):27-46. Kitanemuk did not occupy the Antelope Blackburn, Thomas C, and Lowell Bean Valley during the proto-historic period, and 1978 Kitanemuk. In: Handbook of North the archaeological record supports this posi­ American Indians; Vol. 8, California, tion. The archaeological record indicates, R.F. Heizer, ed. pp. 564-569. Washing­ however, that the Antelope Valley did support ton D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. a large population during the late prehistoric Bright, William period (2200-300 B.P.) which may have later 1975 Two Notes on Takic Classification: abandoned the valley. This population, prob­ Paper read at the Third Annual Friends ably proto-Kitanemuk, maintained complex of Uto-Aztecan Conference, Flagstaff, social and economic systems capable of sup­ Arizona. June, 1975. 224 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY

Dobyns, Henry 1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. 1963a Indian Extinction in the Middle Santa Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin Cruz Valley, Arizona. New Mexico His­ 78. torical Review 38(2): 163-181. Merriam, C. Hart 19636 An Outline of Andean Epidemic History 1955 Studies of California Indians. The Staff to 1720. Bulletin ofthe History of Medi­ of the Department of Anthropology of cine 37(6):493-515. the University of California, eds. Berke­ ley: University of California Press. Eggers, A. V. n.d. Notes on LAn-828. Original m.s. in Robinson, R. W. author's possession. 1972 A Salvage Excavation of an Alliklik Cemetery, Green Valley, California. Harrington, John P. Unpublished paper on file at Antelope 1942 Cuhure Element Distribution, XIX: Valley College. Central California Coast. University of California Anthropological Records 1973 Report by Roger Robinson. Antelope 7(1): 1-46. Valley Archaeological Society News­ letter 2(9):4-5. Jennings, J. D. 1957 Danger Cave. Memoir 14, Society for 1977 The Prehistory of the Antelope Valley, American Archaeology, Salt Lake City. CaUfornia: An Overview. Kern County Archaeological Society Journal 1:43-48. Johnson, John R. 1978 The Trail to Kashtiq. Journal of Cali­ Robinson, R. W., Mark Q. Sutton, and A. V. fornia Anthropology 5(2): 188-198. Eggers 1976 Investigations at LAn-298: A Reappraisal King, Chester and Thomas C. Blackburn of Cultural Traditions in Antelope Val­ 1978 Tataviam. In: Handbook of North Ameri­ ley, California. Paper presented at the can Indians; Vol. 8. California, R. F. Annual Meeting of the Society of Cali­ Heizer, ed. pp. 535-537. Washington, fornia Archaeology, San Diego. D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. Schiffman, Robert A. and Alan P. Garfinkel King, Chester, Charles Smith, and Thomas F. King 1980 Draft Archaeological Overview of Kern 1974 Archaeological Report Related to the County. Report prepared by Bakersfield Interpretation of Archaeological Re­ College. sources Present at Vesquez Rock County Park. Manuscript on file with Los Serfoss, Wes Angeles County Parks and Recreation 1972 Report on Field Surveys. Antelope Department, Los Angeles. Valley Archaeological Society News­ letter l(3-4):3. King, Linda B. 1969 The Medea Creek Cemetery (LAn-243). Strong, William Duncan An Investigation of Social Organization 1929 Aboriginal Society in Southern Cali­ from Mortuary Practices. University of fornia. University of California Publica­ California Archaeological Survey tions in American Archaeology and Annual Report 11:23-68. Ethnology 26(1): 1-358. Kroeber, A. L. Sutton, Mark Q. 1907 Shoshonean Dialects of California. Uni­ 1978 Excavations at LAn-298: A Preliminary versity of California Publications in Analysis. Paper presented at the Society American Archaeology and Ethnology for California Archaeology Fall Data 4(4): 167-250. Sharing Meeting, Redlands. ASPECTS OF KITANEMUK PREHISTORY 225

1979a Some Thoughts on the Prehistory of the Report prepared by University of Cali­ Antelope Valley. Paper presented at the fornia Archaeological Survey, Los Society for California Archaeology Angeles. Annual Meetings, San Luis Obispo. Wallace, William J. 19796 Archaeological Investigations at LAn- 1962 Prehistoric Cultural Development in the 765. A Surface Site in the Antelope Val­ Southern California Desert. American ley, California. Pacific Coast Archaeo­ Antiquity 28:172-180. logical Society Quarterly 15(4):35-47. 1978 Southern Valley Yokuts. In: Handbook 1979c Archaeological Investigations at LAn- of North American Indians, Vol. 8, Cali­ 771. Archaeological Survey Association fornia, R. F. Heizer, ed. pp. 448-461. Journal 3(1): 11-22. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institu­ tion. 1979c/ Three Baked Clay Figurines from the Antelope Valley, California. Journal of Wilke, Philip J. California and Great Basin Anthro­ 1978 Late Prehistoric Human Ecology at Lake pology l(2):367-369. Cahuilla, Coachella Valley, California. Contributions of the University of Cali­ Toney, James T. fornia Archaeological Research Facility, 1968 Archaeological Salvage of Site 4-LAn- No. 38. 192, Los Angeles County, California.