UC Merced Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology
Title The Desert Tortoise (Xerobates agassizii) in the Prehistory of the Southwestern Great Basin and Adjacent Areas
Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/25v1x5pm
Journal Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology, 11(2)
ISSN 0191-3557
Authors Schneider, Joan S. Everson, G. Dicken
Publication Date 1989-07-01
Peer reviewed
eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 175-202 (1989).
The Desert Tortoise (Xerobates agassizii) in the Prehistory of the Southwestern Great Basin and Adjacent Areas
JOAN S. SCHNEIDER and G. DICKEN EVERSON, Dept. of Anthropology, Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92521.
X HE importance of the desert tortoise western pond turtle and the desert tortoise {Xerobates agassiziif to the aboriginal peoples overlap in portions of this region so that of the southwestern Great Basin and adjacent specific attention is directed to these two areas has not been fully recognized. This lack species in the first part of this paper. Similar of recognition can be attributed to several archaeological problems may exist in other factors, including meager information re areas where species ranges overlap (e.g., Ho- garding the biology and ecology of the species, hokam sites in Arizona). confusion of terminology and the overlapping Faunal analysts should be aware that both of ranges of members of the order Testudines, turtle and tortoise remains can occur at ar meager archaeofaunal data and a lack of a chaeological sites in areas where their ranges synthetic view of the data that are available, overlap or where there is a possibility that and a paucity of ethnographic information. these animals, or objects derived from them, The generic name "turtle" (order Testud were exchanged. Environmental and cultural ines) incorporates 12 families of turtles and interpretations that are based in part on tortoises living today. Of these, seven are faunal remains should consider that while represented on the North American continent. turtle and tortoise elements may be confused, The 18 genera (see Note 1) comprising these ecological requirements and seasonal avail seven families have 48 species (Behler and ability generally are very different for the two King 1979). Several species are represented reptilian genera. in faunal collections from archaeological sites The second part of this paper narrows the in the geographical area with which this paper focus to the desert tortoise, the remains of is concerned. These include the desert tor which are present in many sites in the south toise, the western pond turtle (or Pacific pond western Great Basin and adjacent eastern turtle), the western box turtle, and several areas (Tables 1-3; Fig. 1). The major portion species of mud turtles. All the turtles (with of the ethnographic literature search and the the exception of the western box turtle) re synthetic discussion is focused on this animal. quire a year-round source of water; the desert tortoise is entirely terrestrial. These ecologi DISTRIBUTION AND BIOLOGY cal requirements have far-reaching archaeo Western Pond Turtle {Clemmys marmorata) logical and ethnological implications. The western pond turtle inhabits ponds FOCUS OF THIS STUDY and marshes, slow-moving streams, brackish This study is focused on the desert areas water, and lakes with abundant vegetation. of California and Nevada. The ranges of the The general range of the southwestern sub- 176 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY
y 4> 4J O 4> o &"
C T3 I 2 S CQ 03 » S .c c g c ws wi E sae.s 3 c e c c ¥ e § c E c (3 n « ^ o "* E ^ 5 B E E V 4> o E E E 5 S t> c c c 3 3 £ 3 s = '^ 3 Si E Es 111 I ^ 4) « W ase a 4^ "^S B B C crcr g 3 g c g-3 e .to eo ^ o § § ££_ i cri sis'. — '*-'*- ^ E II II E b E II /c E £ E 'e '5 •8-8 &• S^^ o 5.S.E lie ||§ 4> «) 4J C 1> L^ I E o O 3 SSSStSS s6s
tA M M WWW _4) 'Sb'ftib'Sb „„„,_„ 00*2.= Q I s2 CO
OW.'«5 S=S C3^ tS ^S "a^V >^Ca
u u o o •« I g — o „ S W O >« 5; 3 u u u J: P2 & 5 5 5° _ "* ^-E^' |.g a a ri 0) 4) • •gs so '^ •=-C C .2'C !« •= V Sg8 > > o C g <2 U U 56_ — 3 ^ •5 Cj c/5 (^^ "-I ^ O ^ Is
cTrN1f ^ (^ ^ fn _ _ 210 f*^ ^ r «T/1 - - - _ _ _^ rS ('1 ('1 c SS ck r-Trt-ct: ai ci ei a- IlliCC ft T-t y-^ •, "r^fT^'^55 1-= > BiOOO a E a > £ « C 03 (fl " n w w WW 3_ G E E ,« E E .ill E E E a I « CO .1.1 a a I a a a .5 a a goo aaa « «..- .^ E E u V E g"= a s o v e c c E c c SE iiiil a »> — E« ^ U U U u V u S'^ E E E c c 3 O-Kv£fSa| a .- u-i 3 n (Q 3 •'333^33 = aaa a dec aass _ _ u 'o'^'w "w s.a.a.a s.a.a a£^l I"? E EJ^ fc-.^ &•" a fr Er a frfc-t ggff t*- « 4> 4> j; o i> j::"g'8 CE > n u i> V 3 3^^ >2 (2>>> ££>> c ^^ 2 .&•.? M S 2 " <: s - •(Jv'od .t-"R..." _^ -SS?3"S"l*SV: ^ fi -H'^'-'!Q .SM>.Or-'H ^_ •O X -^ *"* 55 00 J C J, ^ S f. ,H <^ ^ .-• .. 1. », ' oiaiaitkckoi^^^tkeioioiaipidiaiaiai OOddCQCO •, CQ.1 < i,^ T;CD "CDCOCDO'CQCQaDaO'Sff(Tll ^fOSCOfflC^ rf\ rf\ ("Qn rfPSt .'..'. L^ rfCDOacOCQCQflQoaOQCQCt ^ft ^A ^^ ^A /^ I"A__ rt^ r_^ r^Q t/p.^(^Og(/p5 5! ''" •p 31 a>" •r d s I s s ic§ls!s§2§§ lilssSs lO^QSS EE •>• 3 3 -" § +1 +1 +1as s +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 a -3 J3 'o Z +1 il +1 O Q O »0 t S i-H op r- »-H c 1 »^ »/^ ^ •* Tf < i^i i»aSS V V vv vv EE 178 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY a E E a 1 a u a 3 to ^ C 3 .2 c § •o G 8 "O .2 IIIH u: (AW £ Ji ii a 8 8 8 8 8 8 ^ ^ c= J5 S B r4 S.S, S.8, S.S. c & c c E G C 5 5 5 E £ (33(3(3 3 (3a < < D (3 tS I in s E E E E G §1 ^ J ^ ^ J m ec°c°§||c||.S3 o u V V «J 00000 " 3 3 3 3 3 £ J= £ .S £ 00000 xxxxx G St J3 ^j. o O •c 3 si X 3 w w w « f.^ w »i a o X U "o "S - S "o a ^- r- ." rr —— •* _e f i 2 2" 2 o- _ ._ ._ D Bu a. a. 6. Is 0^0 a: ffi G G 3 3 S o = G O O 8 Q Q 8 R Q a o ON e ON " 2 Q I 2 §SJ« 3 «SS 1/3 t: 2 c 3 3 e •5,E all 2 fc t £•§ i S E o§ i I J? 5 o ^ « E G 3^ ^=S^ (X Q ? Ji « M 5 06 (« 10 (/3 > :> K K ^ o [2 J (^ o ;^ s THE DESERT TORTOISE IN PREHISTORY 179 Ui lA lA a G a « SPa GEE aaa M M Wl <2 E* g W J^ J> JJ JC £0*0*00 J i .a •a "o O ^ Ji! Jii X C w w> y> •" o c u —. —. C C C 3: a c iv II E II QH (JU (I. 0. u. S 2 S 2 •s a 3 1^^ •o 3 .C J= - *^ "^ I-I I- W t- •o o- B e u 3 o o ,, E S 3 3 *^ •*£ *^ M ^ m E !0 '-' r^ S$ «5 S§ E s >> is etc .—I 8 E E § § BS BJ u3 5 ^ T3 TJ 13 '^ E 8g S B C C p ^1 ^ fl « W g ill _>, _>N _>% j2 fr ^ s c a ^ j2 ^ •5 •© "O jli |i . c e u' '5b •5k c c u O O 2 c c c 7; « o 5 3 •5 '0 •§ X BL, (fJ lo >< Q t5j(5 X X ^^2i2cQfflffiQ666ou 5 i i U 0 M > i2 2 u i! a' 5 3 (^ r-S *3- 59j .^> « rnO t*^ O E? o1^ X 8(^ (S -J^ en" ^ ^ "^ 4N iO J S" S S 2 to fn W r» r! OQ BQ CQ 0; tJ; ^ ui: u: '^ "? "? D U U U (J (J u 0 ^ ^ J 1 1 I 66666 666;^;^ ;^;^;^ ;^;^;^^^^6 » «J I ^ 000000 * -s WW ^ '^ ^ £J555>55J3^^J:3JJ3 C- C- J NJ C- J J N4 C- C-' c* c- 180 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY THE DESERT TORTOISE IN PREHISTORY 181 Fig. 2. The present ranges of desert tortoise (Xerobates agassizii) and western pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata) in southwestern North America. Adapted from Stebbins (1966). Fig. 3. General schematic representation of tortoise/ turtle indicating portions discussed in text. species (C. m. pallida) lies west of the Sierra Adapted from Stebbins (1966). Nevada crest from San Francisco Bay south August (depending upon latitude). The incu into northwestern Baja California (Fig. 2). bation period is about 12 weeks (Behler and There are a few eastern extensions of the King 1979). Western pond turtles hibernate range, including one running north and then in mud for approximately six months during east along the course of the Mojave River, the colder part of the year (Stebbins 1966). and other isolated populations along the Carson and Truckee rivers in western Nevada. Desert Tortoise {Xerobates agassizii) Western pond turtles are from 8.9 to 17.8 The desert tortoise is strictly terrestrial cm. in diameter. The smooth, broad, and low- (Fig. 4). The high, domed carapace is oblong profile carapace (dorsal shell. Fig. 3) is olive and brown; the plastron is yellowish, the male to dark brown in color. The plastron (ventral plastron being concave (Behler and King shell, Fig. 3) is pale yeUow and on males is 1979). The front pair of the round, stumpy, concave. As with other aquatic turtles, C. elephantine legs are adapted for digging. The marmorata enjoys basking in the sun and tortoise can reach a length of more than 35 feeds mostly on aquatic plants, insects, and cm., but most average about 25 cm. (Dodd carrion. Females lay from three to 11 oval, 1986).== hard-shelled eggs in an earthen chamber next The desert tortoise now is an inhabitant to or near water, sometime between April and of the Mojave, Colorado, and Sonoran deserts 182 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY Fig. 4. The desert tortoise (Xerobates agassizii). and ranges from extreme southwestern Utah, (Van Devender and Moodie 1977). Beginning southern Nevada, southern and western approximately 8,000 B.P. the range appears to Arizona, and southeastern California to have contracted to its modern configuration. northern Mexico (Stebbins 1966; Dodd 1986; The desert tortoise is a vegetarian, feeding Fig. 2). It is found associated with a variety on grasses, young and tender plant shoots, and of desert plant communities, including flowers during the cooler hours of the day. Creosote Bush Scrub, Cactus Scrub, Shadscale During the heat of the desert day, the tortoise Scrub, and Joshua Tree Woodland (Lucken- retreats to a burrow. Hibernation in burrows bach 1982). or dens was thought to occur from about Evidence from packrat middens (which October to early March (Stebbins 1966), but document the association of desert tortoise new information indicates that it is variable, remains with Pinus edulis, Querelas pungens, depending on individuals and environmental and Juniperus sp. at about 12,000 B.P.) in New conditions (see Dodd [1986] for a summary of Mexico and Texas attest to a more ecological new data). ly diversified and expanded range in the past The female desert tortoise lays from three (Van Devender and Moodie 1977). Late to seven leathery-shelled eggs in a six-inch- Pleistocene fossils of desert tortoise range as deep nest often located at the mouth of a far west as coastal California and as far east burrow (Behler and King 1979; Dodd 1986). as Dry Cave, near Carlsbad, New Mexico Local environmental conditions may result in THE DESERT TORTOISE IN PREHISTORY 183 variation of clutch size and number of clutches to 40 °. The tortoises pass the heat of the day per year, ranging from none to two (Dodd in these shelters. Rarely is a hole reused the 1986) or three (Behler and King 1979). following year, for weather and rodent activity Tortoise burrows also vary in their con usually cause them to be filled in between figuration depending on season of use and seasons (Woodbury and Hardy 1948). latitude (Woodbury and Hardy 1948; Dodd Sources of biological, ecological, behavior 1986). Burrowing habits have major implica al, paleontological, and taxonomic information tions for the cultural use of the desert tortoise on the desert tortoise have been gathered in by aboriginal peoples (see below). Woodbury an annotated bibliography (Hohman et al. and Hardy (1948) studied the desert tortoise 1980). A comprehensive compendium of on Beaver Dam Slope in Utah and differenti information on the desert tortoise has been ated between summer and winter burrows prepared by Berry (1984). (dens). More recent work (Burge 1978) has shown that the differentiation is somewhat OVERLAPPING OF RANGES less definite and variable. Woodbury and AND TERMINOLOGY Hardy (1948) reported that winter dens generally are permanent excavations, and are The present range of the desert tortoise reused year after year for winter hibernation overlaps that of the western pond turtle in (Fig. 5). These winter dens usually are found portions of the southwestern Great Basin, in small clusters in compact gravel banks and especially along the Mojave River in south run horizontally into the bank for distances up eastern California and at locations in extreme to 10 m. (Woodbury and Hardy 1948). Often western Nevada (Fig. 2). The co-occurrence up to a dozen tortoises will share a winter of these species leads to potentially confusing den. The dens are large, most with a archaeological faunas. There often is difficul characteristic half-moon-shaped entrance (Fig. ty in distinguishing between the two taxa from 6). Other animals, notably packrats, mice, fragmented specimens. This is especially rabbits, lizards, and snakes, make use of troublesome when species identity is used to tortoise dens. The debris of these animals make inferences about seasonality of site use often fills the tunnel entrances. Old twigs and and environmental conditions. The western cactus spines, which are the nesting materials pond turtle is an aquatic animal and requires of rodents, may offer the tortoises some a year-round water source while the desert measure of protection from intruders, but the tortoise is a dweller of arid lands. Differing activity trails of the rodents can indicate the ecological requirements and species-specific presence of a tortoise den (Woodbury and hibernation patterns have important implica Hardy 1948). Some winter dens are large tions for the archaeologist both in cultural and enough to be entered by a grown man paleoenvironmental reconstruction.^ (Woodbury and Hardy 1948). Winter dens Adding to the confusion from the overlap also can be natural features such as a deep of ranges is confusion of terminology in the niche in a rock wall (Fig. 7). ethnographic, archaeologic, and zoologic liter In contrast, summer shelters are tempo ature. "Turtle" often is used generically with rary retreats, constructed annually, and used little attempt at identification of species; by individual tortoises during the active sometimes "turtle" and "tortoise" are used season (Fig. 5). These burrows are dug from interchangeably to refer to the same animal 1 to 1.5 m. into the ground at an angle of 20 ° (e.g., Ebeling 1986). 184 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY WINTER DEN SUMMER SHELTER PLAN 6 FEET 2 METERS Fig. 5. Plan of winter dens and summer shelters (adapted from Woodbury and Hardy 1948). and household use, and symbolic and mythical THE DESERT TORTOISE IN associations. However, much of the literature ETHNOGRAPHIC CONTEXT does not distinguish between tortoise and turtle, leading to confusion. The use of the desert tortoise by aborigi nal people has been poorly documented in the Subsistence ethnographic literature, in spite of a wide Ethnographic documentation of desert distribution of remains in the archaeological tortoise as a subsistence item is sparse. record. Relevant information is considered Culture Element Distribution (CED) lists, a under five categories: subsistence, ceremonial prime source of ethnographic information, or ritualistic use, medicinal use, technological often provide only "yes" or "no" answers to THE DESERT TORTOISE IN PREHISTORY 185 Fig. 6. A desert tortoise burrow entrance. Note the Fig. 7. A desert tortoise winter den beneath a rock characteristic half-moon-shaped entry. Suburban overhang, Joshua Tree National Monument, San Las Vegas, Clark County, Nevada. Bemardmo County, California. questions posed about various foods eaten. the late 1860s (Stejneger 1893). Tortoises were eaten by many desert-dwelling Nutritional analysis has shown that 100 g. aboriginal groups, including the Cupeno, of tortoise meat provides slightly fewer Southern Diegueno (Ipai), Chemehuevi calories than the same amount of squab (Drucker 1937); the Southern Paiute of Ash (Connolly and Eckert 1969). Tortoise meat Meadows and the Shoshoni of Beatty, Nevada was described as "delicious" (James 1906; (Steward 1941); the Taviwatsiu Ute (Stewart Battye 1934a, 1934b) and as delicate in taste, 1942); the Yokuts, Owens Valley Paiute, similar to chicken, but slightly coarser in Mono, Tiibatulabal, and Panamint Shoshoni texture (Connolly and Eckert 1969). Howev (Driver 1937); the Yuma (McGuire and er, an 1862 traveler in Nevada tried eating a Schiffer 1982; Trippel 1984); the Maricopa desert tortoise and noted (Fairchild 1933:14): (Castetter and Bell 1951); the Papago Though there was considerable meat upon the (Castetter and Bell 1942); the Yavapai (White carcass of the reptile, I admit that I did not and Stevens 1980); and the Cahuilla (Bean relish it as well as I did the ordinary plain 1972). Informants from other groups either "jerky'-perhaps on account of the manner of cookuig. denied, or were uninformed, about the use of tortoise as food. The Mohave, however, had Mexican traders reportedly recognized the a great aversion to eating tortoise and spoke potential for a readily portable and storable in a derogatory manner about groups that did source of protein and water and carried live eat the animal (Kroeber 1925; Laird 1976). tortoises on their journeys (Pepper 1963). Drucker (1941:171) reported that among the The preparation of tortoise meat is not Yuma and Pima groups from which he gath well documented in the ethnographic litera ered information any "turtle" was considered ture. The Cahuilla roasted the tortoise (Bean poisonous. In historic times, Paiute and 1972). The Papago removed the plastron, Chemehuevi camps were considered ethnically packed the interior with hot pebbles, and distinctive because of the abundance of cast- roasted the tortoise in its shell in the ashes of out tortoise shells littering the fringes of a fire (White and Stevens 1980). The settlements (Mollhausen 1858:287; Battye Yavapai baked tortoise in an earthenware 1934a). Southern Paiutes near the Great oven (White and Stevens 1980). Historical Bend of the Colorado River ate tortoises until accounts describe placing the live tortoise on 186 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNLA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY its back on the glowing embers of a fire, entrances. The tortoise sensed the presence roasting it in its own shell (Mollhausen 1858: of the water, came out of the burrow, and was 287); killing the animal, removing the shell seized by the hunter (Felger et al. 1981). The and skin and boiling the flesh with seasonings Seri also obtained tortoise during the winter (James 1906:199); and breaking open the months when the animal was in hibernation. plastron, inserting a hot stone in the body Wire hooks at the ends of long poles were cavity and roasting on a fire (Felger et al. thrust into dens (winter burrows) to drag 1981). The Seri Indians of the west coast of tortoises out (Felger et al. 1981). mainland Mexico first twisted off the legs and It is our view that tortoises may have been ate them before the rest of the meat was con used by aboriginal peoples of the Great Basin sumed (Felger et al. 1981). year-round. Winter dens as well as summer Charring on the dorsal side of carapace shelters certainly could have been recognized fragments found in some archaeological con by desert people as places where tortoises texts suggests that the animal often was placed predictably were available. Field observation on its back while being roasted (e.g., Connolly by the senior author established that winter and Eckert 1969; Langenwalter et al. 1983). hibernation locations are readily recognizable Tortoise fragments have been found in the and that tortoises within these dens or excavation of limestone ring middens identi burrows can be observed directly in some fied as roasting pits for agave and other plant cases. Our view is substantiated by a recent foods (Blair 1986; Rafferty and Blair 1987; report describing a technique that biologists Kroesen and Schneider n.d.). Agave and tor have used to capture tortoises when they are toise may have been gathered, cooked, and within their burrows. "Tapping" on the eaten together in the early spring in the Clark carapace or on the floor or roof of the Mountain area of eastern California (Kroesen burrow, with a pole or stick, and then and Schneider n.d.). retreating a short distance usually resulted in Tortoise procurement also is poorly doc the tortoise emerging to the burrow entrance umented. A search of the literature pertain (Medicaetal. 1986). If burrow locations were ing to groups living in the study area had known, a simple technique such as this would negative results (Steward 1933, 1938, 1941; have made tortoise procurement more reliable Drucker 1937; Stewart 1941,1942; Bean 1972; than procurement based on chance encounter. Laird 1976). The best account of hunting In addition, desert tortoise behavior reported practices comes from the Seri (Felger et al. ly includes aspects of homing and reuse of 1981) and has important archaeological winter burrows (Woodbury and Hardy 1948; implications for the southwestern Great Basin. Berry 1986); these characteristics would add to the likelihood that aboriginal people knew Although faunal analysts have used the where to find tortoises during all seasons of presence of desert tortoise remains as an the year. If this were the case, the desert indication of spring, summer, and/or early fall tortoise was not only available, but had the site seasonality, this is not necessarily a valid additional benefit of self-storage, i.e., that it inference. Seri women, using dogs specially was in a known location where it could be trained to locate tortoises by smell, hunted used when needed, but did not require the that animal during its active season. Three or preservation methods used in the storage of four tortoises were placed in a basket that was other subsistence items (i.e., drying, parching, carried on the head. Tortoises were lured out storage containers). of their burrows with water placed near the THE DESERT TORTOISE IN PREHISTORY 187 The possibility that tortoises were used as rubbed it on the belly to relieve stomach living reservoirs of water has been suggested problems. The same group mixed the pul (James 1906; Woodbury and Hardy 1948). verized shell with boiled tortoise urine and The urinary bladder of an adult tortoise can drank the mixture as a cure for urinary yield up to one-half pint of potable water. problems (Gifford 1936). Waste materials are concentrated in the form of solid uric acid, which is less toxic than urea. Technological and Household Use When picked up, frightened, or molested, the The Cahuilla used tortoises for household tortoise will discharge this water. This utensils (Bean 1972). The Chemehuevi used mechanism may have provided life-saving the carapace as a ladle and as a container in water to desert travelers. which seeds were parched with hot coals (Drucker 1937), and sometimes used tortoise Ceremonial or Ritualistic Use shell fragments as spoons for children (Kelly The use of rattles made of turtle or young MSa). The Southern Paiute of Ash Meadows, tortoise shell has been recorded for the Nevada, used a dipper of "turtle shell" (Stew Cupefio, Luiseno, and various Diegueno ard 1941), as did the Shivwitz Southern Paiute groups. These rattles were used for specific and the Wimonuntci Ute (Stewart 1942). ceremonies such as mourning, first fruits, and Tortoise carapace fragments were found girls' puberty ceremonies (Du Bois 1908; at aboriginal turquoise mines in the vicinity of Kroeber 1908; Sparkman 1908; Waterman Halloran Springs. Malcolm Rogers (1929) 1909; Drucker 1937). Steward (1933, 1938, thought that these had been used as hand 1941) and Stewart (1941,1942) did not report scoops to "muck out" excavations (Heizer and any ceremonial use of turtles or tortoises. Treganza 1944). An account of a Mohave- The use of ceremonial rattles seems to be Chemehuevi battle includes the use of "turtle more prevalent on and near the Pacific coast. shells" to dig a grave for a victim wrapped in Specimens were recovered at Oro Grande buckskin (Van Valkenburgh 1976). (CA-SBR-72) in the Mojave Desert (Rector The Shivwitz Paiute of southern Utah et al. 1983), but they may represent trade made coiled pottery and used a piece of goods or coastal influences. A tortoise-shell "turtle shell" to smooth both the interior and rattle is in the collections of the Pahn Springs exterior surfaces of a vessel (Lowie 1924:225- Desert Museum (Cheryl Jeffrey, personal 226). Tortoise shell bowls in the possession communication 1989) and possibly may have of Paiute and Gosiute groups probably were been used by Cahuilla groups in that area. obtained in trade (Fowler and Matley 1979). The ceremonial use of tortoises or turtles During the Carleton campaign against the by aboriginal Mesoamerican groups may be Paiute in June of 1860 "terrapin shells full of represented in the various codices and salt mixed with a yellowish kind of earth .. ." architectural motifs compiled by Seler (1939). were found near planted and irrigated gardens These include use as a rattle, a drum beaten at what was probably Cornfield Spring with an antler, and ceremonial garb. (Casebier 1972:34). Medicinal Use Symbolism and Myth Medicinal use of the tortoise has been The incorporation of turtle or tortoise recorded by only one ethnographer (Gifford motifs or themes in aboriginal design and oral 1936). The Yavapai pulverized the shell and tradition suggests that spiritual values and 188 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY symbolic significance were connected with these reptiles. Representational tortoise/ turtle elements were thought originally to be absent at Mojave Desert rock art sites (Rec tor 1981) and those at central Baja California sites were reported to be sea turtle (Rector and Ritter 1978). Investigations of Nevada petroglyph sites in the Valley of Fire by the senior author have resulted in the recording of eight tortoise/turtle motifs (Fig. 8). Similar motifs are reported to be present at other sites in the Valley of Fire (Eileen Green, personal communication 1986); at Pi ute Creek, Piute Spring, and the Rodman Mountains (Arda Haenszel, personal commu nication 1986); and at Cow Cove (Daniel McCarthy, personal communication 1986). Although many of these sites have not been visited by the authors, it does appear that tortoise/turtle motifs have a wider occurrence in the desert regions than originally was rec ognized. Interpretations of rock art remain hypothetical; animal motifs have been related to sympathetic "hunting magic" and have been attributed to clan symbolism (Eileen Green, personal communication 1986). A finely made basket that incorporates a tortoise or turtle motif in its base is in the collections of the Palm Springs Desert Museum (Cheryl Jeffrey, personal communi cation 1989). A tortoise/turtle design has been reported on Mohave pottery (Kroeber and Harner 1955). The tortoise food taboo practiced by the Mohave (Kroeber 1925; Laird 1976) and the characterization of "Turtle" in Mohave myth (see below) suggest special significance for the tortoise/turtle in Fig. 8. Tortoise/turtlepetroglyphmotifs, VaUeyofFire, Mohave symbolism. Nevada. The Las Vegas band of the Southern Pai Tortoise/turtle symbolism is a widespread ute fed "turtles" (as well as chuckwalla and cultural phenomenon. Some common symbolic rabbit) to eagles that were taken from their interpretations include that of long or eternal nests when young and raised in cages for life, revered old age (a recognition of the ceremonial use (Kelly MSb). longevity of tortoises) and a base or form of THE DESERT TORTOISE IN PREHISTORY 189 the earth. Mayan symbolism in this respect chaeological sites in the southwestern Great has recently been discussed by Taube (1988) Basin and adjacent areas (Fig. 1). These in his report on Mayan Katun wheels and remains include unmodified fragmental spec ceremonial bloodletting receptacles. Seler imens (both burned and unburned) identified (1939) collected a wide variety of tortoise/ in faunal analyses, tortoise eggs, portions of turtle motifs from codices and other represen turtle and tortoise carapace bearing traces of tational media and discussed their possible asphahum, and tortoise carapace "bowls" and symbolic meanings. "scoops" scraped on the interior and ground "Turtle" appeared to represent a charac on one or more edges. terization of both tortoises and turtles in a The problem of distinguishing naturally number of myths (at least those myths trans occurring tortoise and turtle remains from cul lated to English in the literature of the Desert turally modified ones in archaeological sites Southwest), for the term is used interchange is not confined to these species, but extends ably in regions where one or the other or both to faunal remains in general. There is no of the animals are present. Among the question that ground, drilled, decorated, or Chemehuevi, the "turtle" was a symbol of the otherwise modified specimens are an indica spirit of the people and had an aura of tion of cultural use. However, burned speci sacredness (Laird 1976). In one myth, mens, often accepted as indicators of cultural "Turtle" had the role of a lesser chief in a activity also could be a result of accidental tale of a violated food cache. At the end, burns such as brush fires. Conversely, a lack "Turtle" accepted inevitable doom and died of burning does not necessarily mean that the with great dignity. "He thus expresses the presence of faunal remains is a natural occur Chemehuevi ideal: patience to endure, rence (see ethnographic descriptions of tor strength to survive, courage when all hope is toise preparation given above). The subjec lost" (Laird 1976:277). Other myths por tive judgement of the investigator should be trayed the "turtle" as both a semi-viUain recognized. (Beals 1945) and as a stranger (Gifford 1936). Data relating to the occurrence and fre A Mohave song called "Turtle" recalled a quency of desert tortoise and various turtle westward journey in the direction of the remains have been collected from a variety of Chemehuevi who ate turtle (Kroeber 1925). reports of archaeological investigations within A coyote tale called "Iron-Clothes" related the southwestern Great Basin and adjacent how the "land turtle" came to be used as food areas (Tables 1-3). Data indicate that high and how it was cooked and eaten (Sapir frequencies of tortoise and/or turtle remains 1930). The unique character of the tortoise/ occur in a number of sites including Afton turtle including its physical form, longevity, Canyon (Sutton and Yohe 1989); Oro Grande speed of locomotion, and other behavioral (Langenwalter et al. 1983); Cronese Lakes patterns represented a sharp contrast to many (Drover 1979); Fort Irwin sites in Drinkwater other animals and thus, perhaps, qualified it Basin (Reynolds and Shaw 1982), Tiefort for a place in the symbolism and myth of Basin (Kent 1985), and No Name West Basin aboriginal peoples. (Douglas 1984, 1985); and Atlatl Rockshelter (Douglas 1982). Archaeologists should be ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATA aware that, especially when dealing with Desert tortoise and western pond turtle turtles and tortoises, over-representation in remains have been recovered at numerous ar numerical totals may occur when MNI (Mini- 190 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNLA. AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY mum Number of Individuals) analysis is not considered cultural (Langenwalter etal. 1983). used. Theoretically, if the entire animal was Tortoise remains were distributed in all of the carried to the site (as is the case with most three areas of the site with greater frequen small animals) all skeletal elements may be cies in the two more heavUy utilized areas represented in the assemblage. Larger (Rector et al. 1983). animals butchered elsewhere may be repre The specimens of western pond turtle sented by fewer elements since only those were artifactual and probably represented the animal parts with greater economic value remains of two or more rattles. Several of the would be selectively transported to a habita turtle shell fragments were drilled and some tion site (Binford 1978). Cooking methods were stained with asphaltum. Both character such as roasting in the shell also may result in istics are indicators that the shell was used as over-representation of tortoise and turtle in a rattle. One specimen of desert tortoise shell faunal collections because carbonization also bears traces of asphaltum, possibly indi improves preservation of carapace and plas cating that tortoise shell also was used for tron fragments. In addition, the unique rattles (Langenwalter et al. 1983). characteristics of the carapace and plastron Afton Canyon (CA-SBR-85). Analysis of make even fragmentary specimens more easily the faunal collection from the Afton Canyon identified than bone fragments of some other site on the Mojave River indicated high animals. frequencies of desert tortoise (Sutton and Yohe 1989). The desert tortoise apparently Selected Archaeological Sites with was an important source of protein during the Tortoise/Turtle Remains time this site was occupied (ca. 1,000 B.P.). With the above qualifications in mind, Identified specimens of tortoise remains selected archaeological sites in the Mojave (mostly plastron fragments) were the second Desert (Fig. 1) with high frequencies of desert most frequent (after bighorn sheep), and tortoise and/or western pond turtle remains more frequent than lagomorphs. Western will be discussed. It is beyond the scope of pond turtle remains were absent although this this paper to consider individually all sites site is located within the present range of that with reported tortoise or turtle remains. animal. However, all the sites that the authors have Drinkwater Basin (CA-SBR-4213, -4446, identified from published (and some unpub -4449, -4450). Excavations in Drinkwater lished) literature are presented in Tables 1-3 Basin yielded frequent specimens of both with appropriate references for the interested desert tortoise and western pond turtle at reader. A synthetic discussion of the archaeo sites where Rose Spring and Cottonwood logical incidence of desert tortoise considers Triangular projectile points also were the data from all of these sites. recovered. The presence of pond turtle is Oro Grande (CA-SBR-72). At Oro interesting because the aquatic habitat Grande, a seasonal camp on the Mojave River required by this species has not been present just north of VictorviUe, dated to ca. A.D. at this location for more than 10,000 years 1000, Rector et al. (1983) reported both turtle according to paleoenvironmental reconstruc and tortoise remains. Although tortoise egg tions (Jefferson 1968; Reynolds and Shaw shell fragments (even those that were burned) 1982). There was evidence that these animals and whole sterile eggs were dismissed as non- were cooked and eaten here, apparently after cultural, the tortoise skeletal remains were having been roasted (Reynolds and Shaw 1982). / THE DESERT TORTOISE IN PREHISTORY 191 The identification of pond turtle remains found below 1,500 m. (Dodd 1986). These at these sites has been questioned (Basgall et new data indicate that it is not unusual for al. 1988). There is a possibility that there tortoise remains to occur at sites at higher may have been some confusion between pond elevations. turtle and juvenile tortoise specimens. Valley of Fire (26-CK-1345, -1383, -1384). Resolving this faunal question is important Faunal remains from three sites (Atlatl because of the environmental and seasonal Rockshelter, South Shelter, and Turtle Bone implications involved. site [Warren 1982]) near natural water Cronese Lakes (CA-SBR-2S9, -260B). catchments in sandstone outcrops in southern The Cronese Lakes are two dry lake beds at Nevada had high proportions (up to >83% of the terminus of the Mojave River that faunal remains) of desert tortoise elements. occasionally are filled by the flood waters of Many of the elements, including carapace, that river during periods of heavy precipita plastron, and especially terminal phalanges, tion. Drover (1979) studied two sites there were charred. There were no butchering and found the remains of both western pond marks. Douglas (1982) interpreted the data turtle and desert tortoise. The pond turtle from these sites to mean that the tortoise specimens indicate that either year-round probably was cooked whole over a fire. water of suitable quantity was available at These sites were stratified and also Cronese Lakes in the past or that the turtle showed changes over time in the importance was imported from the Mojave River of the various fauna represented in the (Langenwalter 1978a). collection (to be discussed below). Tortoise was the third most frequent California Coastal Sites. As might be animal identified in the faunal collection. expected from the known range of western Forty-two of the 530 + (MNI = 7) elements col pond turtle, remains of this aquatic reptile lected were burned or calcined. Clustering of have been recorded in many coastal southern the tortoise remains may indicate that the California archaeological sites including those tortoise shell was intact when discarded in Ventura County (Langenwalter 1978b), (Langenwalter 1978a). Long Beach (Wallace 1980), San Clemente Mule Springs (26-CK-300). Substantial and San Miguel islands (Heye 1921), Santa tortoise remains were recovered from this Barbara County, and the Channel Islands southern Nevada site situated at a fairly high (Gifford 1940). elevation (ca. 1,250 m.). The authors noted Southern Arizona Sites. Both desert that the site is at least 152 m. above the 1,067 tortoise and turtle {Kinostemon spp.; m. upper elevational range of desert tortoise Terrapene omata) have been recovered at (Connolly and Eckert 1969). This suggested Hohokam sites in Arizona (Tables 1-3). that tortoises were transported from lower Here, as in the Mojave and Colorado desert elevations. The presence of charred speci sites, tortoise and turtle ranges overlap. mens suggested that tortoises were cooked Frequency of remains and proportions of directly in the fire. faunal assemblages are quite low at most of New information from recent studies of these sites. James (1989b), however, noted modem tortoises indicate that their upper that both desert tortoise and Sonoran mud elevational range is greater than 1,067 m. and turtle {Kinostemon sonoriense) were more that the desert tortoise ranges from below sea important in the Hohokam diet than previous level to above 2,200 m., although most are ly thought, comprising over 29 percent of the 192 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY faunal assemblage at one site. Although the tion data because the unique characteristics of Hohokam were horticulturalists, they supple carapace and plastron fragments make them mented their diet by hunting and gathering relatively easy to identify. Sixth, faunal (Szuter 1989). remains from early sites in most of the pres ent range of desert tortoise are rare. Often Patterns of Archaeological Incidence archaeological deposits of this period are of Desert Tortoise surface or very shallow phenomena and faunal Archaeological data from portions of the remains are subject to extreme taphonomic Great Basin in California, Nevada, Arizona, processes. With these cautionary statements and Utah support our view that desert tor in mind, compilations of Xerobates agassizii toise was an important resource to the aborig data (Tables 1-3) suggest some interesting inal hunter-gatherers and to some extent the patterns. horticulturalists of the desert regions of the Environmental Patterns. Desert tortoise North American Southwest. These data indi was widely used prehistoricaUy throughout cate that tortoise was used throughout a large portions of its present range. Tortoise major portion of the Holocene and that cer remains have been recovered at a variety of tain environmental, cultural, and temporal site types and features, including open sites patterning in the use of this resource can be with and without midden development, caves demonstrated. and rockshelters, pithouses and trash accumu Chronological and contextual data for lations, roasting pits and hearths, and in excavated archaeological sites with remains of cremation associations (John Goodman, per Xerobates agassizii within California, Nevada, sonal communication 1989). and Arizona are presented in Tables 1-3.'* Tortoise remains are found in a wide var Compilations of archaeological data of this iety of geographical locations, including type are hampered by several factors. First, rockshelters and open sites in proximity to it is only relatively recently that faunal washes or extinct water courses, such as at the remains have been routinely analyzed as part Henwood site (Douglas et al. 1988) and the of site investigation and reporting. Therefore, California Wash sites (Blair 1986); at high it is certain that a good deal of information elevations such as Mule Springs (Connolly and has been lost from sites excavated in the past. Eckert 1969; Turner 1978) and Clark Moun Second, some confusion in the identification tain (Rafferty and Blair 1986; Kroesen and of desert tortoise and western pond turtle and Schneider n.d.); at lacustrine sites such as other turtle species may exist, especially in a Wadi Beadmaker (WUke 1978), Koehn Lake few areas where their present or past ranges (Sutton 1988), and Cronese Lakes (Drover may overlap. Third, the interpretation of any 1979); near natural water catchments such as unmodified faunal material as cultural, rather the Turtle Bone site (Warren 1982); at marsh- than naturally occurring, is always problemat side sites such as Myoma Dunes (Wilke 1978) ic. Fourth, tortoise (and other small animals) and Saratoga Springs (Wallace and Taylor may be overrepresented in frequencies in 1959; Wallace 1986); at extant and extinct faunal analyses because the bones of larger springs such as Rogers Ridge (Douglas et al. animals, macerated and splintered in the pro 1988), Big Spring (Warren et al. 1972), and cess of obtaining nutrient-rich marrow, may Soda Springs (Schroth 1983); and in riparian be difficult to identify. Fifth, tortoise may be environments such as Afton Canyon (Schnei further overrepresented in species identifica der 1989), Oro Grande (Rector et al. 1983), THE DESERT TORTOISE IN PREHISTORY 193 and Willow Beach (Schroeder 1961). tial burning of carapace/plastron fragments, A study of faunal remains from early sites has been used by faunal analysts to infer (i.e., Lake Mojave/Pinto Period sites) at Fort various methods of cooking. Analysis of Irwin (Douglas et al. 1988) presents a model intersite variability in the patterns of remains relating intersite variability in faunal represen has the potential for obtaining significant tation to site location, i.e., elevation, catch information about cultural practices, food ment area, and topography of the surrounding preferences, and exchange. area. This model was tested using artiodactyl Temporal Patterns. Changes in subsis and leporid remains only. It certainly seems tence patterns over time sometimes can be reasonable that fauna would be more available recognized by differences in frequencies of and thus more frequent in faunal assemblages various species making up faunal assemblages in archaeological sites close to the habitats of and the relative importance of one resource particular species. compared to others (e.g., artiodactyl and What then, would be the most likely geo leporids [Douglas et al. 1988]; artiodactyl, graphic area to have high frequencies of leporids, and tortoise [Sutton and Yohe 1989]; desert tortoise in archaeological assemblages? tortoise and artiodactyl [Warren 1982]). Above and beyond what was already known, Douglas et al. (1988) noted that data from recent studies of desert tortoise range, habitat, sites at Ft. Irwin indicate that after the Pinto and behavior (given impetus by the endan Period tortoise became an important compo gered status of this species) have added infor nent of faunal assemblages and that high fre mation on population locations. For example, quencies of tortoise remains may be indicative a recent study of tortoise habitat at Twenty- of more recent cultures (i.e., cultures dating nine Palms, California, found a higher corre after the Lake Mojave/Pinto Period). lation between the locations of tortoise bur Warren (1982) presented data from three rows and the edges of galleta grass {Hilaria culturally stratified sites in the vicinity of rigida) stands, than with washes, previously Atlatl Rock in the Valley of Fire, Nevada, cited most often as prime habitat area (Baxter that showed an increase in the proportion of and Stewart 1987). desert tortoise over time, as the proportion of Other recent studies have shown that artiodactyl remains dramatically decreased (in slopes between mountain ranges are prime the Atlatl IV Period [ca. 1200-1880 A.D.]) and habitat but that dry lake playas are devoid of the proportion of leporids remained constant. tortoises (Berry 1984; Dodd 1986). Mixed It was hypothesized that this reciprocal ecotonal settings may have a correlation with phenomenon may be related to the decima tortoise habitat, and thus with high frequen tion of the bighorn sheep population due to cies of tortoise remains at archaeological sites. the widespread use of the bow and arrow dur Patterns of Cultural Use. Desert tortoise ing the Atlatl IV (Paiute) Period (Warren remains in archaeological sites show several 1982:38). At Afton Canyon, near the termi different patterns: carapace fragments only, nus of the Mojave River, artiodactyl/leporid/ skeletal fragments only, both carapace/plas tortoise proportions remained the same over tron and skeletal elements, and carapace time (i.e., stratigraphicaUy) with a suggestion elements modified for technological, ornamen that artiodactyl may actually have increased tal, or ceremonial use. Presence or absence over time (Sutton and Yohe 1989). However, of burned elements (as discussed in the eth the increase in artiodactyl most likely was a nographic section above), especially differen reflection of the specialized use of this 194 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY campsite as a bighorn sheep watering/hunting many of the aboriginal peoples of the Desert location (Schneider 1989). Southwest, especially hunters and gatherers. The data compiled in Tables 1-3 indicate With a few exceptions, ethnographic sources that, over time, there was a significant in provide only vague and/or incomplete refer crease in the number of sites with identified ences to methods of procurement, extent of desert tortoise remains. Whether this in exploitation, and uses of the desert tortoise. crease is related to changes in subsistence At least one ethnographic study, tortoise patterns remains problematic. When sum behavioral characteristics, and field observa marizing extensive chronological data from tions indicate that the desert tortoise was the Ft. Irwin Archaeological Project, Gilreath available on a year-round basis. For this et al. (1987) noted that the vast majority of reason, it is unwise to attempt to establish site radiocarbon dates fall within the last 2,500 seasonality based on the presence of tortoise years. Thus, an increase in desert tortoise remains in faunal assemblages. frequencies may well be due to larger abor From the data presented here (Tables 1-3) iginal populations later in time or may be an it does seem reasonable to conclude that the artifact of taphonomic processes and/or site use of Xerobates agassizii by aboriginal hunters visibility rather than an expression of subsis and gatherers of the Desert Southwest has tence change. Among the Hohokam horticul increased over time. Although desert tortoise turalists of Arizona, tortoise remains are is represented in the faunal assemblages from present, but generally in consistently low a few early Holocene sites, frequencies are frequencies. This may indicate that tortoise not great, yet tortoise remains are, by virtue was only a supplementary resource. of their physical characteristics and common cultural modifications, relatively easily SUMMARY identified and relatively resistant to tapho Faunal specimens of western pond turtle nomic processes. The number of archaeologi and other turtles can be confused with those cal sites having frequent and very frequent of desert tortoise, especially in areas where remains increases over time. ranges overlap. This confusion extends to the Tortoise was readily available, apparently terminology used very commonly in archaeo year-round, over a wide geographical range. logical, ethnographic, and biological literature. It was readily portable and could be stored in Because of the widely divergent ecological live condition. Its habitats at ecotonal requirements of these species and paleocli- boundaries were favored locations for the matic reconstructions based on these require procurement of other resources (both plant ments, it is important that correct identifica and animal) as well as tortoise. Although tion be made. certain cultural groups reportedly avoided Biological and ecological evidence, much eating tortoise and other reptiles, tortoise was of it newly discovered, indicates that desert important economically and ideologically to tortoise was more abundant in the past, had many aboriginal groups in the Greater a wider range, and was a dependable and pre Southwest. dictable resource. Faunal remains in archae NOTES ological sites, historic accounts of the use of 1. A revision of the taxonomic classification of tortoise, and direct nutritional analysis of the gopher tortoises recently has been published tortoise meat suggest that the desert tortoise (Bramble 1982; Lamb et al. 1989). This generic re was an important subsistence resource to vision is based on skeletal, evolutionary, and THE DESERT TORTOISE IN PREHISTORY 195 mtDNA evidence. Under the revision, there are versity of California, Riverside, to the senior author. two tortoise genera: Xerobates and Gopherus. The Portions of this paper were presented at the 1986 previously used taxonomic nomenclature for desert emd 1988 Great Basin Anthropological Conferences tortoise was Gopherus agassizii, and this is the desig and the Twelfth Annual Desert Tortoise Council nation used for this species in most literature up to Symposiimi. The idea for investigating the aborigi the present time. This paper uses the revised taxo nal use of the desert tortoise originated in a Great nomic identification for desert tortoise, Xerobates Basin seminar conducted by Philip J. Wilke at the agassizii. The bases of the generic revision have University of California, Riverside, in 1984. The important implications for archaeologists in terms comments and suggestions of the three reviewers of of soil types and paleoclimatic reconstructions. this paper are sincerely appreciated. 2. Very little was known about the desert tortoise until the early 1970s when concern about REFERENCES the endangerment of the species was fu-st voiced (Berry 1984). Since then, a good deal of informa Basgall, Mark E., M. C. Hall, and William R. tion has been gathered from biological and ecologi Hildebrandt cal studies supported by the U.S. Government, many 1988 The Late Holocene Archaeology of a direct result of the development of the 1980 Drinkwater Basin, Ft. Irwin, San Bernar California Desert Plan. Dodd (1986) has summa dino County, California. Report pre rized much of the newly acquired information from pared for the U.S. Army Corps of a monument^ review of desert tortoise work by Engineers, Los Angeles District, by Far Berry (1984). Western Anthropological Research 3. Reptiles, in particular, are valuable in Group, Davis, California. paleoenvironmental reconstruction because they are particularly sensitive to temperature due to their Battye, Charles "cold-blooded" metabolism. Reptiles also have a 1934a An Episode of the Early Days at Nee relatively slow rate of evolutionary change; response dles, California. Santa Fe Magazine to climatic variation more likely is a move to a more 28(12):37-39. desirable environment rather thaa the relatively rapid adaptation of mammalian species (Voorhies 1934b Railroading vs. Prospecting When the 1977). Santa Fe Was Young. Santa Fe Maga 4. Commimications with a number of faunal zine 28(4):37-40. analysts and archaeologists at universities, the Baxter, Ronald J., and Glenn R. Stewart Bureau of Land Management, National Park Ser vice, and U.S. Forest Service had negative results 1987 Tortoise Microhabitat at the Twentynine regarding the presence of desert tortoise fauna! Palms Marine Corps Base. Paper pre remauns in excavated archaeological sites in sented at the 12th Annual Meeting and southwestern Utah. Symposium of the Desert Tortoise Coun cil, Las Vegas. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Bayham, Frank, and Pamela Hatch We thank Lynda Blair, Charles Douglas, Eileen 1985 Archaeofaunal Remains from the New Green, Kevin Rafferty, and Claude Warren, of the River Area. In: Hohokam Settlement University of Nevada, Las Vegas; Robert Yohe, and Economic Systems in the Central University of California, Riverside; Mark Q. Sutton, New River Drainage, Arizona, David E. California State University, Bakersfield; Christine Doyel and Mark D. Elson, eds., pp. 405- Szuter and Stan Olsen, University of Arizona; 433. Phoenix: Soil Systems Publications Sharon Urban, Arizona State Museum; and Steven in Archaeology No. 4. James, Arizona State University. Kristin Berry Beals, Ralph (Bureau of Land Management), Philip Medica (Los 1945 The Contemporary Culture of the Cahita Angeles County Museum of Natural History), Indians. Bureau of American Ethnology Cheryl Jeffrey (Pahn Springs Desert Museum), Bulletin No. 142. Diana Pinto, Lester Ross, Arda Haenszel, Freda Shenkarow, Daniel McCarthy, Karl Taube, Scott Bean, Lowell John Fedick, and Adella Schroth were most helpful in a 1972 Mukat's People: The Cahuilla Indians of variety of ways. This research was partially support Southern California. Berkeley: Univer ed by a Humanities Research Grant from the Uni sity of California Press. 196 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY Behler, John L., and F. Wayne King Campbell, Elizabeth W. Crozer 1979 The Audubon Society Field Guide to 1931 An Archaeological Survey of the Twenty North American Reptiles and Amphibi Nine Palms Region. Southwestern ans. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Museum Papers No. 7. Berry, Kristin H., ed. Casebier, Dennis G. 1984 The Status of the Desert Tortoise {Go 1972 Carlton's Pah-Ute Campaign. Norco, pherus agassizii) in the United States. CA: Tales of the Mohave Road Publish Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ing Co. from the Desert Tortoise Council. On Castetter, E. F., and W. H. Bell fde at the Bureau of Land Management, 1942 Pima and Papago Indian Agriculture. Riverside, CA. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico 1986 Desert Tortoise {Gopherus agassizii) Press. Relocation: Implications of Social 1951 Yuman Indian Agriculture. Albuquer Behavior and Movements. Herpeto- que: University of New Mexico Press. logica 42(1):113-125. Ciolek-Torrello, R., M. M. Callahan, and D. H. Binford, Lewis R. Greenwald 1978 Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology. New York: 1988 Hohokam Settlement Along the Slopes Academic Press. of the Picacho Mountains. The Brady Blair, Lynda M. Wash Sites, Tucson Aqueduct Project. 1986 A New Interpretation of Archaeological Museimi of Northern Arizona Research Features in the California Wash Region Paper 35, 2 (1 and 2). of Southern Nevada. Master's thesis. Clewlow, C. William, Jr., and Helen Fairman Wells University of Nevada, Las Vegas. 1980 Test Excavations at Bird Springs, Clark Bramble, Dennis M. County, Nevada (26CK1). Report on file 1982 Scaptochelys: Generic Revision and at the Environmental Research Center, Evolution of Gopher Tortoises. Copeia University of Nevada, Las Vegas. 1982(4):852-867. Connolly, C, and N. Eckert Brooks, Richard H., and Daniel O. Larson 1969 The Archaeological Significance of the 1975 Prehistoric and Historic Research Along Desert Tortoise. Nevada State Museum the Navajo-McCollough Transmission Anthropological Papers No. 14:80-92. Line Right-of-Way. Report No. 4-2-1 on Davis, C. Alan, and Gerald A. Smith file at the Environmental Research 1981 Newberry Cave. Redlands, CA: San Center, University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Bernardino County Museum Association. Brooks, R. H., R. Ellis, L. Brennan, T. Swearingen, Davis, James T. E. Green, and D. Jenkins 1%2 The Rustler Rockshelter (SBr-288), A 1982 Test Excavations at the Happy Face Site Culturally Stratified Site in the Mohave (26CK1481) (CR-NV-05-634) and the Desert, California. Berkeley: University Barbeque Site (26CK1482) (CR-NV-05- of California Archaeological Survey 635), Hidden Valley Within the Muddy Reports No. 57:25-65. Mountains, Clark County, Nevada. Dodd, C. Kenneth Jr. Report No. 1-1-34 on file at the Environ 1986 Desert and Gopher Tortoises: Perspec mental Research Center, University of tives on Conservation Approaches. In: Nevada, Las Vegas. The Gopher Tortoise and His Commimi- Burge, B. L. ty. Proceedings of the 5th Annual Meet 1978 Physical Characteristics and Patterns of ing of the Gopher Tortoise Council, D. Utilization of Cover Sites Used by R. Jackson and R. J. Bryant, eds., pp. 54- Gopherus agassizii in Southern Nevada. 72. Gainesville, FL: Gopher Tortoise In: Proceedings of the 3rd Desert Council. Tortoise Council Symposium, M. Trotter Douglas, Charles L. and C. G. Jackson, eds., pp. 80-111. 1982 Faunal Remciins from Atlatl Rockshelter, Long Beach, CA: Desert Tortoise The Turtle Bone Site, and South Shelter, Council. Valley of Fire State Park, Nevada. In: THE DESERT TORTOISE IN PREHISTORY 197 Prehistoric Developments at Atlatl Rock, Southern Sierra Nevada. University of by Claude N. Warren, pp. 107-174. California Anthropological Records 1(2). Report on file at the Nevada Division of Drover, Christopher E. State Parks, Carson City. 1979 The Late Prehistoric Human Ecology of 1984 Faunal Remains from 24 Archaeological the Northern Mohave Sink, San Bernar Sites on Fort Irwin, California. In: An dino County, California. Ph.D. disserta Evaluation of 22 Selected Sites in No tion, University of California, Riverside. Name West Basin, Fort Irwin, San Drucker, Philip Bernardino County, California, by 1937 Culture Element Distributions V: Michael S. Kelly and Claude N. Warren, Southern California. University of Appendix C, pp. C-1 to C-45. Fort Irwin California Anthropological Records 1(2). Archaeological Project Research Report No. 10. Salinas, CA: Coyote Press. 1941 Culture Element Distributions XVII: 1985 Analysis of Fauna from Five Archaeolog Yuman-Piman. University of California ical Sites in No Name West Basin, Ft. Anthropological Records 6(3). Irwin, California. In: Archaeological Du Bois, Constance G. Studies in No Name West Basin, Ft. Ir 1908 Religion of the Luiseno Indians. win, California, Vol. 1, the Field Phase University of California Publications in of Data Recovery at 10 Loci, by Michael American Archaeology and Ethnology S. KeUy, Appendix 3. Salinas, CA: 8(3). Coyote Press. Ebeling, Walter 1986 Analysis of Faimal Remains from Scout 1986 Handbook of Indian Foods and Fibers of Shelter, Clark County, Nevada. Report Arid America. Berkeley: University of on file at the Environmental Research California Press. Center, University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Ellis, R. R., R. H. Brooks, E. Green, and T. Swear 1987 Faunal Analysis for Three Archaeologi ingen cal Sites in the Clark Mountains, Califor 1982 A Cultural Resources Survey and nia. In: Archaeological Mitigation at Limited Test Excavations in the Vicini Sites CA-SBr-4889, -5300, -5302, -5303, ties of Quail Point, Bimkerville Ridge, CoUsseum Mine Project, Clark Moun and Hackberry Springs, Virgin and tains, San Bernardino County, California, Mormon Mountains, Southern Nevada. by Kevin Rafferty and Lynda Blair, Report No. 2-5-8 on fde at the Environ Appendix C, pp. 185-207. Report No. 5- mental Research Center, University of 97-2 on fde at the Environmental Nevada, Las Vegas. Research Center, University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Fairchild, Mahlon Dickerson 1933 A Trip to the Colorado Mines in 1862. Douglas, C. L., D. L. Jenkins, and C. N. Warren California Historical Society Quarterly 1988 Spatial and Temporal Vju-iability in 12:11-17. Faunal Remains from Four Lake Mojave-Pinto Period Sites in the Mojave Felger, R., M. Moser, and E. W. Moser Desert. In: Early Human Occupation in 1981 The Desert Tortoise in Seri Indian Far Western North America: the Clovis- Culture. In: Proceedings of the 1981 Archaic Interface, J. A. Willig , C. M. Desert Tortoise Council Symposium, K. Aikens, and J. L. Fagan, eds., pp. 131- A. Hashager, ed., pp. 113-120. Long 144. Nevada State Museum Anthropo Beach, CA: Desert Tortoise Council. logical Papers No. 21. Fowler, D. D., D. B. Madsen, and E. M. Hattori Douglas, Ronald D. 1973 Prehistory of Southeastern Nevada. 1980 Lake Mojave Archaeological Project, Reno: University of Nevada Desert Research Paper No. 5. Report on file at Research Institute Publications in the the Department of Anthropology, Social Sciences No. 6. California State University, Fullerton. Fowler, Don D., and John F. Matley Driver, Harold E. 1979 Material Culture of the Numa: The 1937 Culture Element Distributions VI: John Wesley PoweU CoUection 1867- 198 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY 1880. Smithsonian Contributions to Hatch, Pamela, and Jerry B. Howard Anthropology No. 26. 1988 The Casa Buena Faunal Assemblage: Gifford, E. W. Monitoring Cultural Modification of Local Environmental Conditions. In: 1936 The Northeastern and Western Yavapai. Excavations at Casa Buena: Changing University of California Publications in Land Use along the Squaw Peak Park American Archaeology and Ethnology way, Jerry B. Howard, ed., Vol. 2, pp. 34(4). 531-560. Phoenix: Soil Systems Publica 1940 Californian Bone Artifacts. University of tions in Archaeology No. 11. California Anthropological Records 3(2). Haury, Emil W. Gillespie, William B. 1938 Food. In: Excavations at Snaketown, by 1987 Vertebrate Remains. In: The Archaeol Harold S. Gladwin, Emil W. Haury, E. ogy of the San Xavier Bridge Site (AZ B. Sayles, and Nora Gladwin, pp. 156- BB:13:14), Tucson Basin, Southern Ari 158. Tucson: University of Arizona zona, by John C. Ravensloot, pp. 271- Press. 301. Tucson: Arizona State Museum, 1950 The Stratigraphy and Archaeology of Cultural Resources Management Divi Ventana Cave, Arizona. Tucson: sion Archaeological Series No. 171 (Part University of Arizona Press. 3). Hayden, Irwin 1989 Vertebrate Faunal Remains. In: 1930 Mesa House. In: Archeologjcal Explo Hohokam Archaeology Along Phase B of rations in Southern Nevada, Mark R. the Tucson Aqueduct Central Arizona Harrington, ed., pp. 26-92. Southwest Project, Jon S. Czaplicki and John C. Museum Papers No. 4. Ravensloot, eds., pp. 85-98. Tucson: Heizer, Robert F., and Adan E. Treganza Arizona State Museum Cultural Re 1944 Mines and Quarries of the Indians of sources Management Division Archaeo California. California Journal of Mines logical Series No. 178, Vol. 4. and Geology 40(3):291-359. Giheath, A. J., M. E. Basgall, and M. C. Hall Heye, G. G. 1987 Compendium of Chronologically Indica 1921 Certain Artifacts from San Miguel tive Data from Ft. Irwin Archaeological Island, California. Museum of the Sites, San Bernardino County, California. American Indian, Heye Foundation, Report prepared for U. S. Army Corps Indian Notes and Monographs 7(4). of Engineers, Los Angeles District. Hohman, J. P., R. D. Ohmart, and J. Schwartzmann Glass, Margaret 1980 An Annotated Bibliography of the 1984 Faimal Remains from Hohokam Sites in Desert Tortoise {Gopherus agassizi). the Rosemont Area, Northern Santa Rita Long Beach, CA: Desert Tortoise Mountains. In: Hohokam Habitation Council Special Publication No. 1. Sites in the Northern Santa Rita Moun Howe, Charley tains, by Alan Ferg, Kenneth C. Rosen, 1980 A Prehistory of Black Canyon. Archaeo William L. Deaver, Martyn D. Tagg, logical Survey Association of Southern David A. Phillips, Jr., and David A. California, Occasional Paper No. 11. Gregory, pp. 823-913. Tucson: Arizona State Museum Cultural Resources Hunt, Alice Management Division Archaeological 1960 Archeology of the Death Valley Salt Pan, Series No. 147, Vol. 2, Part 2. California. University of Utah Anthro pological Papers No. 47. Harrington, Mark R. James, George Wharton 1930 Paiute Cave. In: Archeologjcal Explora 1906 The Wonders of the Colorado Desert, tions in Southern Nevada, Mark R. Har Vol. 1. Boston: Little, Brown and Co. rington, ed., pp. 106-126. Southwest James, Steven R. Museum Papers No. 4. 1986 Archaeofauna from the Lovely Site, Pinal 1933 Gypsum Cave, Nevada. Southwest County, Arizona. Flagstaff: Northland Museum Papers No. 8. Research. Report on file at the U.S. THE DESERT TORTOISE IN PREHISTORY 199 Department of the Interior, Bureau of MSb Notebook of the Las Vegas Band, South Reclamation, Arizona Projects Office, ern Paiute Field Notes. Berkeley: Uni Phoenix. versity of California Archives No. 138 2m. Anthropology Document 18. 1989a Hohokam Faunal Resources in the Wad- dell Project Area. In: Settlement, Kent, Jonathan D. Subsistence, and Specialization in the 1985 Faunal Remains from 10 Archaeological Northern Periphery: the Waddell Pro Sites in Tiefort Basin, Central Mojave ject, Margarie Green, ed., pp. 873-920. Desert, California. In: Flood, Sweat, Tempe: Archaeological Consulting and Spears in the Valley of Death: Site Services, Ltd. Cultural Resources Report Survey and Evaluation in Tiefort Basin, No. 65. Report on fde at the U.S. Ft. Irwin, California, Dennis L. Jenkins, Department of the Interior, Bureau of ed., pp. E1-E44. Salinas, CA: Coyote Reclamation, Arizona Projects Office, Press. Phoenix. Kroeber, A. L. 1989b Archeofaunal Analysis. In: The Blue 1908 Notes on the Luiseno. In: ReUgion of Point Bridge Archeological Site (AR-03- the Luiseno Indians, by Constance G. Du 12-03-55): A Hohokam Hamlet in Tonto Bois, Appendix II. University of Califor National Forest, Arizona, by James B. nia PubUcations in American Archaeolo Rodgers, pp. 127-153. Report on file at gy and Ethnology 8(3). the Tonto National Forest, Phoenix. 1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. 1989c Pinnacle Peak Village Archaeofauna: Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin Hohokam Hunting Patterns in the No. 78. McDowell Mountains Northeast of Kroeber, Alfred L., and Michael J. Harner Phoenix. Report on fde at the Office of 1955 Mohave Pottery. University of California Cultural Resource Management, Depart Anthropological Records 16(1). ment of Anthropology, Arizona State Kroesen, Kendall W., and Joan S. Schneider University, Tempe. n.d. Ring Midden Roasting Pits at Clark Jefferson, George T. Mountain, Mojave Desert, San Bernar 1968 The Camp Cady Local Fauna from dino County, California. In: Papers on Pleistocene Lake Manix, Mojave Desert, the Archaeology of the Mojave Desert II, California. Master's thesis. University of Mark Q. Sutton, ed. Coyote Press Ar California, Riverside. chives of California Prehistory No. 32 (in press). Jensen, WiUiam MS Prehistoric Turquoise Mining in the Laird, Carobeth Turquoise Mountain Region, Northeast 1976 The Chemehuevis. Banning: Malki Mohave Desert, California. Manuscript Museum Press. on file at the Archaeological Information Lamb, T., J. C. Avise, and J. W. Gibbons Center, San Bernardino County Museum, 1989 Phylogenographic Patterns in Mitochon Redlands, CA. drial DNA of the Desert Tortoise {Xero Johnson, Paul bates agassizi), and Evolutionary Rela 1989 Faunal Remains from the Dakota Wash tionships Among the North American Site. In: Archaeological Investigations Gopher Tortoises. Evolution 43( 1) :76-87. at AA:16:49 (ASM). The Dakota Wash Langenwalter, P. E., II Mitigation, Douglas A. Craig, ed., pp. 1978a Faunal Analysis of Cronese Basin Sites. 225-238. Tucson: Pima Community Report on fde at the Eastern Informa College, Anthropology Series, Archaeo tion Center, University of California, logical Report. Riverside. KeUy, Isabel 1978b The Zooarchaeology of Two Prehistoric MSa Notebook of Chemehuevi Fieldnotes: Chumash Sites in Ventura County, Ethnography. Berkeley: University of California. Los Angeles: University of California Archives No. 138 2m. Anthro California Institute of Archaeology pology Document 18. Monograph Series 5(2). 200 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY Langenwalter, P. E., II, R. E. Langenwalter, and J. Pepper, C. G. Strand 1%3 The Truth about the Tortoise. Desert 1983 Analysis of Vertebrate Faunal Animal Magazine 26(10):10-11. Remjiins and Implications for Aboriginal Pinto, Diana G. Subsistence. In: Archaeological Studies 1989 The Archaeology of Mitchell Caverns. at Oro Grande, Mojave Desert, San State of California Department of Parks Bernardino Coimty, California, C. H. and Recreation, California Archeological Rector, J. D. Swenson, and P. J. Wilke, Reports No. 25. eds., pp. 109-138. Redlands, CA: San Bernardino County Museum Association. Rafferty, Kevin, and Lynda Blair 1987 Final Report: Archaeological Mitigation Leonard, N. N., Ill, and C. E. Drover at Sites CA-SBr-4889, -5300, -5302, and 1980 Prehistoric Turquoise Mining in the -5303, CoUsseum Mine Project, Clark Halloran Springs District, San Bernar Mountains, San Bernardino County, dino County, California. Journal of California. Report No. 5-97-2 on file at California and Great Basin Anthropology the Environmental Research Center, 2:245-256. University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Lowie, R. H. 1924 Notes on Shoshonean Ethnography. Rector, Carol H. Anthropological Papers of the American 1981 Rock Art of the East Mojave Desert. In: Museum of Natural History 20(3). Background to Historic and Prehistoric Resources of the East Mojave Desert Luckenbach, R. A. Region, by Chester King and Deimis G. 1982 Ecology and Management of the Desert Casebier, Appendix 5, pp. 236-248. Riv Tortoise {Gopherus agassizii) in CaUfor- erside: Bureau of Land Management. nia. In: North American Tortoises: Conservation and Ecology, R. B. Bury, Rector, Carol H., and Eric W. Ritter ed., pp. 1-37. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 1978 Turde Depictions in Central Baja Cali Service Research Report 12. fornia Rock Art. Pacific Coast Archaeo logical Society Quarterly 14(1):2-10. Macko, M. E., E. B. Weil, J. Weisbord, and J. Lytle-Webb Rector, C. H., J. D. Swenson, and P. J. Wilke, eds. 1982 Class III Cultural Resource Survey. 1983 Archaeological Studies at Oro Grande, Intermountain Power Project (IPP), Mojave Desert, California. Redlands, Intermountain-Adelanto Bipole Trans CA: San Bernardino County Museum mission Line, Right-of-Way, California Association. Section. Report on file at the Bureau of Reynolds, R. L., and C. A. Shaw Land Management, Barstow. 1982 Faunal Analysis of the Fort Irwin Project McGuire, R. H., and M. B. Schiffer Sites CA-SBr-4213, -4446, -4449, -4450. 1982 Hohokam and Patayan: Prehistory of Report on file at the George C. Page Southwestern Arizona. New York: Museum, Los Angeles. Academic Press. Rogers, Malcolm Medica, P. A., C. L. Lyons, and F. B. Turner 1929 Report of an Archaeological Reconnais 1986 "Tapping": a Technique for Capturing sance in the Mohave Sink Region. San Tortoises. Herpetological Review 17(1): Diego Museum Papers No. 1. 15-16. Sapir, Edward MoUhausen, Baldwin 1930 Texts of the Kaibab Paiutes and Uintah 1858 Diary of a Journey from the Mississippi Utes. Proceedings of the American to the Coasts of the Pacific with a Academy of Arts and Sciences 65(2). United States Government Expedition. London: Longman, Brown, Green, Schneider, Joan S. Longmans, and Roberts. 1989 The Archaeology of the Afton Canyon Site. San Bernardino County Museum Peck, Stuart L., and Gerald A. Smith Association Quarterly 36(1). 1957 The Archaeology of Seep Spring. Bloom- ington, CA: San Bernardino County Mu Schroeder, Albert H. seum Association Scientific Series No. 2. 1961 The Archaeological Excavations at Wil- THE DESERT TORTOISE IN PREHISTORY 201 low Beach, Arizona, 1950. University of Stewart, Omer C. Utah Anthropological Papers No. 50. 1941 Culture Element Distributions XIV: Schroth, Adella Northern Paiute. University of Califor 1983 Report of the Field Season, Soda Springs nia Anthropological Records 4(3). Rockshelter. Report on file at the 1942 Culture Element Distributions XVIII: Bureau of Land Management, Riverside. Ute-Southern Paiute. University of Seler, EduEU'd CaUfornia Anthropological Records 6(4). 1939 Gesammelte Abhandlungen zur Ameri- Sutton, Mark Q. kanischen Sprach - und Alterthum- 1986 Archaeological Investigations at the Owl skunde, Vol. 4. Unpublished English Canyon Site (CA-SBR-3801), Mojave translation under the direction of Charles Desert, California. Coyote Press P. Bowditch. Cambridge, MA: Carnegie Archives of California Prehistory No. 9. Institution of Washington. 1987 Excavations at CA-SBR-3829, The Shutler, Richard, Jr. Denning Springs Rockshelter, Avawatz 1961 Lost City: Pueblo Grande de Nevada. Mountains, San Bernardino County, Nevada State Museum Anthropological CaUfornia. In: Papers on the Archaeol Papers No. 5. ogy of the Mojave Desert I, Mark Q. Shutler, R., Jr., M. E. Shutler, and J. S. Griffith Sutton, ed., pp. 115-140. Coyote Press 1960 Stuart Rockshelter: A Stratified Site in Archives of CaUfornia Prehistory No. 10. Southern Nevada. Nevada State Muse 1988 An Introduction to the Archaeology of um Anthropological Papers No. 3. the Western Mojave Desert, California. Smith, Gerald A. Coyote Press Archives of California 1963 Archaeological Survey of the Mojave Prehistory No. 14. River and Adjacent Regions. Blooming- Sutton, M. Q., C. B. Donnan, and D. L. Jenkins ton, CA: San Bernardino County 1987 The Archaeology of Southcott Cave, Museum Association. Providence Mountains, California. Sparkman, Philip S. Journal of California and Great Basin 1908 The Culture of the Luiseno Indians. Anthropology 9:232-250. University of California PubUcations in Sutton, Mark Q., and J. A. Tremblay American Archaeology and Ethnology 1977 Archaeological Investigations at Seven 8(4). Sites at Edwards Air Force Base, CaU Stebbins, R. C. fornia. Technical PubUcation No. 18. 1966 A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Edwards Air Force Base: Air Force Amphibians. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Flight Test Center. Co. Sutton, Mark Q., and Robert M. Yohe II Stejneger, L. 1989 An Analysis of the Vertebrate Faunal 1893 Annotated List of the Reptiles and Remains from the Afton Canyon Site. Batrachians CoUected by the Death In: The Archaeology of the Afton VaUey Expedition in 1891, with Descrip Canyon Site, by Joan S. Schneider, tions of New Species. North American Appendix 5, pp. 143-158. San Bernar Fauna 7:159-228. dino Coimty Museum Association Steward, JuUan H. Quarterly 36(1). 1933 Ethnography of the Owens Valley Paiute. Szuter, Christine University of California PubUcations in 1984 Paleoenvironment. In: Hohokam American Archaeology aad Ethnology Archaeology Along the Salt-Gila Aque 33(3). duct, Central Arizona Project, Lynn S. 1938 Basin-Plateau Aboriginal SociopoUtical Teague and Patricia L. Crown, eds.. Vol. Groups. Bureau of American Ethnology 7, pp. 81-93. Tucson: Arizona State Bulletin No. 120. Museum Cultural Resource Management Division Archaeological Series No. 150. 1941 Culture Element Distributions XIII: Nevada Shoshone. University of Califor 1989 Hunting by Prehistoric HorticulturaUsts nia Anthropological Records 4(2). in the American Southwest. Ph.D. 202 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY dissertation. University of Arizona, Warren, C. N., L. Alexander, P. Charest, and E. Tucson. Von TiU Warren Taube, Karl A. 1972 Archaeological Reconnaissance at Big 1988 A Prehispanic Maya Katun Wheel. Springs. Report on fde at the Las Vegas Journal of Anthropological Research VaUey Water District. 44(2):183-203. Waterman, T. T. Trippel, Eugene 1909 The ReUgious Practices of the Diegueno 1984 The Yuma Indians. Journal of Califor Indians. University of California PubU nia and Great Basin Anthropology 6:154- cations in American Archaeology and 183. Ethnology 8(6). Turner, Thomas Hal Weaver, Donald E., ed. 1978 Mule Springs Rockshelter, Its Archaeo 1988 Hohokam Settlement Along the Slopes logical and Ecological Interpretation of the Picacho Mountains, Environment Within the Southern Great Basin. and Subsistence, Tucson Aqueduct Master's thesis, University of Nevada, Project, Vol. 5. Museum of Northern Las Vegas. Arizona Resesu-ch Paper No. 35. Van Devender, Thomas R., and Kevin B. Moodie White, D. R., and D. W. Stevens 1977 The Desert Tortoise in the late Pleisto 1980 An Overview of Desert Tortoise, Go cene with Comments about its Earlier pherus agassizii, Ethnozoology. In: History. In: Proceedings of the 1977 Proceedings of the 1980 Desert Tortoise Desert Tortoise Council Symposium, M. Council Symposium, K. A. Hashagen, Trotter and C. G. Jackson, Jr., eds., pp. ed., pp. 102-108. Long Beach, CA: 41-45. Long Beach, CA: Desert Desert Tortoise Council. Tortoise Council. WiUce, PhiUp J. Van Valkenburgh, Richard F. 1978 Late Prehistoric Human Ecology at Lake 1976 Chemehuevi Notes. In: Paiute Indians CahuiUa, CoacheUa VaUey, California. II, David A. Horr, ed., pp. 225-253. New Berkeley: University of CaUfornia York: Garland PubUshing Co. Archaeological Research FaciUty Contri Voorhies, M. R. butions No. 38. 1977 Giant Tortoises. Fossil Evidence of Williams, Pete A., and Robert I. Orlins Former Subtropical Climate on the 1963 The Corn Creek Dunes Site: A Dated Great Plains. University of Nebraska Surface Site in Southern Nevada. State Museum Notes 57(5). Nevada State Museum Anthropological WaUace, WiUiam J. Papers No. 10. 1980 A Turtle SheU Rattle from Long Beach. Woodbury, Angus M., and Ross Hardy The Masterkey 54(3): 102-107. 1948 Studies of the Desert Tortoise, Gopherus 1986 Trial Excavations at CA-SBR-5545 and agassizii. Ecological Monographs 18. -5547 in the Saratoga Springs Area, Yohe, Robert M. II Death Valley National Monument, 1987 An Analysis of the Archaeofauna from Cidifomia. In: Papers on California CA-SBR-3829. In: Papers on the Ar Prehistory: I, pp. 57-97. Coyote Press chaeology of the Mojave Desert, Mark Archives of California Prehistory No. 8. Q. Sutton, ed., pp. 141-150. Coyote Wallace, WUUam J., and Edith Taylor Press Archives of California Prehistory 1959 A Preceramic Site at Saratoga Springs, No. 10. Death Valley National Monument, Yoshikawa, L. Keiko California. Los Angeles: Contributions 1986 Analysis of Faunal Remains. In: The to California Archaeology No. 3. 1985 Excavations at the Hodges Site, Warren, Claude N. Pima County, Arizona, Robert W. Layhe, 1982 Prehistoric Developments at Atlatl Rock. ed., pp. 271-284. Tucson: Arizona State Report on fde at the Nevada Division of Museum Cultural Resource Management State Parks, Carson City. Archaeological Series No. 170.