The Protohistoric Period in the Western Great Basin
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
UC Merced Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology Title The Protohistoric Period in the Western Great Basin Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7xp393zf Journal Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology, 12(1) ISSN 0191-3557 Author Arkush, Brooke S Publication Date 1990-07-01 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 28-36 (1990). The Protohistoric Period in the Western Great Basin BROOKE S. ARKUSH, Dept. of Sociology and Anthropology, Weber State Univ., Ogden, UT 84408-1208. X HE cultural historical framework for the types and cultural developments. The study western Great Basin derives from a of protohistoric sites and components can compilation of archaeological data which improve our understanding of native cultures identifies time-sensitive artifact types, most as they stood on the brink of intensive contact notably series of projectile points, styles of with Euroamerican society. Moreover, these basketry, marine shell beads, and aboriginal investigations will aid in the identification of ceramics (Elston 1986). The four major subsequent changes in aboriginal material and divisions of the western Great Basin cultural nonmaterial culture and the impacts these chronology (Pre-Archaic, Early Archaic, changes had on ethnographically documented Middle Archaic, and Late Archaic) were groups. This paper is primarily concerned made on the basis of perceived changes in with the protohistory of the western region, as adaptive strategies, which are assumed to be the author is most familiar with its archaeolo reflected in artifact assemblages. Generally gy, ethnography, and history. speaking, these divisions are associated with Webster's Seventh New CoUegiate the following time periods: Pre-Archaic, 8,000 Dictionary defines protohistory as "The study to 6,000 or 5,000 B.C.; Early Archaic, 5,000 to of man in the times that just antedate 2,000 B.C.; Middle Archaic, 2,000 B.C. to recorded history." Moreover, the Dictionary A.D. 500; and Late Archaic, A.D. 500 to ca. of Anthropology defines the term as simply 1850. "early history" (Winick 1966). Perhaps a With few exceptions (e.g., Grosscup 1956; more appropriate definition for the Protohis Bennyhoff 1958; Tuohy 1984), this unifying toric period in western North America would chronological scheme, as well as various other be "a distinct span of time during which regional sequences, does not include a native cultures were modified by the introduc Protohistoric period, a brief, but distinct and tion of Euroamerican diseases, materials, critical era that occurred throughout the and/or practices prior to intensive, face-to- Great Basin. During this time, various face contact with whites." (perhaps most) Numic groups acquired elements of Euroamerican material culture PROTOHISTORIC INDICATORS and became aware of Anglo presence through There are various hallmarks of the communication with other native groups, Protohistoric period in the western Great and/or brief contacts with Euroamerican Basin, the first two of which are historical trappers, traders, or explorers. developments that are difficult to identify in It is important to recognize a Protohis the archaeological record. These consist of toric period in the cultural historical the introduction of the horse and of Old chronology of the Great Basin, as it is World diseases among certain western Numic associated with a particular range of time, and and Washoe groups. One segment of the is characterized by several distinct artifact Northern Paiute that originally inhabited PROTOHISTORIC PERIOD IN THE WESTERN GREAT BASIN 29 areas of eastern Oregon, known historically as diseases first impacted native groups of the the Bannock, acquired the horse sometime western Great Basin. New World natives during the early eighteenth century, moved were immunologically defenseless against eastward into Northern Shoshone territory, many Old World diseases, and various epi and developed Shoshone-like patterns of demics swept through western North America subsistence and social structure (Madsen during the eighteenth and nineteenth centur 1958:21, 1980:18-19; Fowler and Liljeblad ies with deadly results. By the end of the 1986:455). Cultural changes related to eighteenth century, smaUpox had weakened adoption of the horse included the develop the northeastern groups of Shoshone to such ment of fuUy mounted bands with shifting an extent that their range had contracted con leadership, eastward and northward expansion siderably, and entire bands no longer existed onto the Plains to exploit bison, and involve (Shimkin 1986:517-518). It seems likely that ment in a raiding complex for horses and the effects of smallpox, chicken pox, measles, other material goods (Steward 1938:201; and cholera were felt by native groups of the Stewart 1970; Layton 1978; Steward and western Great Basin prior to their actual Wheeler-Voegehn 1974). contact with fur traders and explorers in the Initial dispersion of the horse into the early nineteenth century (cf. Crosby 1972:37; Great Basin was facilitated by the Pueblo Malouf and Findlay 1986:504-506). Revolt of 1680, which provided a major Early modifications in western Numic opportunity for the Utes to acquire these material culture resulted from the introduc animals from the Eastern Pueblos (TwitcheU tion of a variety of mass-produced items 1914,11:277; Shimkin 1986:517), and resulted obtained through interaction with neighboring in the accelerated spread of horses to the native groups, as well as with Anglo trappers Comanche-Shoshone, linguistic kin of the and traders. These new elements included Utes. According to Haines (1938:Fig. 1; iron utensils such as knives, axes, awls, 1939:19) and Vernam (1964:211), some Idaho fishhooks, and arrow points, as well as glass Shoshone bands were mounted by 1690 or beads, blankets, and western clothing. The 1700. Driver and Massey (1957:285, Map 85) acquisition of these items had a tremendous also indicated that the Northern Shoshone effect upon the traditional economy. In many first obtained horses during the late 1600s. cases, these objects replaced elements of There is litfle or no definitive data concerning aboriginal material culture. Some Numic the introduction of the horse among western groups acquired firearms during protohistoric Numic groups, but Madsen (1958:21) times, but this occurred mostly among the suggested that the Bannock probably pos Northern and Eastern Shoshone, Bannock, sessed some horses by 1700. Together with Ute, and Comanche (cf. Hughes and Benny the Shoshone, the Bannock became middle hoff 1986:Table 1). men in trading the animals to various One of the most common protohistoric Columbia Plateau tribes, such as the Nez artifact types found in archaeological contexts Perc6 and Cayuse. If one accepts the date of in the western Great Basin is the glass trade A.D. 1700 as marking the introduction of the bead. Most early glass beads recovered from horse among the Bannock, then this date can sites in western North America were pro be used to denote the beginning of the Proto duced in the glass factories of Murano, historic period in the western Great Basin. Venice, and originaUy were distributed to It is difficult to determine when European various native groups by Euroamerican 30 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY explorers, fur traders, and trappers (Sorensen Uterature has revealed the presence of glass and Le Roy 1968). trade-beads at no fewer than 38 aboriginal Because the western Great Basin was a sites in the western Great Basin (Fig. 1). The peripheral area of the fur trade, it seems number of glass trade-beads recovered from likely that many glass beads entered this each of the above sites is presented in Table region through traditional trade networks, 1. In addition to the sites listed in Table 1, especially through trans-Sierran trade (cf. glass trade-beads also have been documented Heizer 1970:238). Early Spanish land at a protohistoric site near Masonic, Mono expeditions to upper California and the County, California (Tuohy 1969), and at establishment of the Mission system were various native sites in Panamint and Death responsible for the mass distribution of glass valleys, Inyo County, California (Wallace et al. beads in California (Motz et al. 1986:116). 1959:9; Hunt 1960:285-287). These desirable items were eagerly acquired At many of the above sites, glass beads by interior CaUfornia natives and apparently are the only nonaboriginal artifacts present in were traded eastward into the Great Basin in the recovered assemblages. This pattern a rapid fashion. indicates that most precontact aboriginal Archaeological data from sites in the industries such as those involving flaked and eastern Sierra Nevada, such as CA-lny-2 ground stone, worked bone, ceramics, and (Riddell 1951), CA-Iny-1700(Bettinger 1989), basketry remained intact during the Protohis and CA-Mno-2122 (Arkush 1989), suggest toric period. that glass beads either partially or completely DISCUSSION replaced aboriginally produced beads of shell and stone during protohistoric times. Steward A major problem associated with the (1933:258) indicated that among the Owens Protohistoric period in the western Great Valley and Mono Basin Paiute, glass beads Basin is estabhshing a uniform date for its replaced shell beads as a form of money inception, as it began at different times in during the ethnographic period. Steward