Joumal of Califomia and Greal Basin Anlhropology Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 221-257 (1996).

The Current Status of Archaeological Research in the Mojave Desert

MARK Q. SUTTON, Dept. of Sociology and Anthropology, Califomia State Univ., Bakersfield, CA 93311-1099.

This paper provides a brief outline of the current understanding of the prehistory of the Mojave Desert, a broad framework of culture history, an outline of diachronic environmental change, and a summary of some of the research directions in Mojave Desert archaeology.

JVlORE than 12 years ago, a comprehensive ve Desert have "marker" projectile point forms overview of the California deserts (including die (Fig. 2) commonly used to place sites in time. Mojave Desert, Fig. 1) was provided by Warren This pracfice continues, although it has been ar­ (1984). That syndiesis was current up to about gued that due to rejuvenation, atlaU dart points 1982, and although a variety of regional studies (e.g., Pinto, Elko, Gypsum forms) have no real has been produced, no general summary of Mo­ temporal significance within dart point times jave Desert prehistory has appeared since' (but (Flenniken and WUke 1989; Wilke and Flenni- see Ritter and Coombs 1990). This paper at­ ken 1991). While diis position is not accepted tempts a brief review of the "state of the art" in by many archaeologists (e.g., Bettinger et al. Mojave Desert prehistory and an examination of 1991; O'Connell and Inoway 1994), it is clear current research issues in Mojave Desert archae­ that greater chronometric control of the record ology. is needed. The archaeological record in die Mojave The expansion of peoples speaking Numic Desert is long, diverse, and variable, and is ap­ languages across the Great Basin, of Takic lan­ plicable to a variety of important research ques­ guage groups into southern California, and of tions. An understanding of Pleistocene archaeol­ die Hopi to the Soudiwest poses major questions ogy in this region is poor, and aldiough the ma­ in the understanding of the prehistory and edi­ jority of archaeological work conducted in die nography of western North America. The Moja­ Mojave Desert has centered on the Archaic, the ve Desert (particularly the western Mojave and Early to Middle Archaic is not well understood. die Owens Valley to die north) seems to be die More is known of later prehistory. There is evi­ region where die Northern Uto-Aztecan language dence of considerable population growth and a family developed and differentiated (see Fowler significant increase in social complexity within 1972; Sutton 1987a, 1994a; Madsen and Rhode die last several thousand years. Groups prac­ 1994), and where die aforementioned population ticing agriculture (e.g., the Virgin Anasazi) movements originated (but see Aikens and Wi- occupied portions of the eastern Mojave Desert therspoon 1986). late in time, then apparently were replaced by A full understanding of the environmental his­ hunter-gatherers (die Southern Paiute), suggest­ tory of die Mojave Desert is elusive, aldiough ing interesting models of cultural replacement. major strides have recently been made (see be­ All of the chronological periods in the Moja­ low). Still more elusive is an understanding of 222 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY

Fig. 1. The modem Mojave Desert, showing general westem, central, and eastern geographic divisions. die cultural adjustments made to diose changing THE MOJAVE DESERT conditions. While a broad oudine of archaeolog­ ical times and cultures has been established, few The Mojave Desert (Fig. 1) occupies much of specific detads of social structure, economy, re- southeastern California and extends into por- ligion, etc., are known of the prehistoric peoples tions of Arizona and Nevada. The Mojave Des- of the Mojave Desert. Such answers await us. ert is usually defined using bioenvironmental cri- ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN THE MOJAVE DESERT 223

Fig. 2. Common projectile point forms in the Mojave Desert: (a) Lake Mojave; (b-c) Pinto; (d-e) Elko; (f) Gypsum; (g) Humboldt Concave Base; (h) Eastgate; (i) Rose Spring; (j) Desert Side-notched; (k) Cottonwood Triangular (redrawTi from Heizer and Hester 1978). teria (i.e., climate and vegetation). It is a coast lie to die southwest, the Colorado Desert warm-temperature desert lying between the sub­ is to the southeast, the southern Sierra Nevada tropical Sonoran Desert to the south and the and the San Joaquin Valley are to the west, and cold-temperature Great Basin Desert to the north die Great Basin Desert (including the Owens (Jaeger 1965; Rowlands et al. 1982). The Josh­ Valley) is to the north. For purposes of discus­ ua tree {Yucca brevifolia) is often used as the sion in this paper, the Mojave Desert is divided common vegetative marker of the Mojave Des­ into three regions; western, central, and eastern ert, although the correspondence of its range (Fig. 1). It is important to remember diat die with the limits of the Mojave Desert in the lower boundaries of the Mojave Desert, however they elevations to the south is not precise. The are defined, could not have been static dirough Transverse Ranges and the southern California time, and the imposition of the current bound- 224 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY aries on prehistoric cultures may be misleading dating from 10,000 to 7,500 B.P. . . . [and that] (particularly since the "desert" designation car­ early Holocene environments, while more arid than the Late Wisconsin, were substantially more ries with it certain preconceived notions). mesic than those of the middle and late Holocene [Cleland and Spaulding 1992:3]. Past Environment Basgall and Hall (1992:4), citing data from the Environments change through time, and in north-central Mojave Desert, argued that drier order to understand a cultural adaptation in the conditions existed earlier, perhaps by 10,000 past, it is necessary to understand the associated B.P. Changes in biotic communities occurred at environment so that models of adaptation can be different rates in various locations and included formulated and tested. Thus, an understanding die retreat of woodlands and the expansion of of the changing environment within die area cur­ desert scrub (Spaulding 1990:194). Modern rently defined as the Mojave Desert is critical to vegetation communities were established begin­ a comprehension of the evolving cultural adapta­ ning after 8,000 B.P. (Spaulding 1990:194-195). tions in the Mojave Desert (see Spaulding 1990 The Middle Holocene (ca. 7,500 to 4,000 for a more detailed discussion); however, as B.P.) was warmer and drier than modern condi­ noted by Basgall and Hall (1993:4), environment tions. During the Middle Holocene, a number is not the ordy factor in evolving adaptations in of oscillations in climatic patterns, from some­ the Mojave Desert and, as a determinant in cul­ what wetter to drier, appears to have occurred tural adaptation, should not be "overplayed." (Weide 1982:23; Cleland and Spaulding 1992: Much of the information related to paleoenviron- 4). Some have argued (e.g., Wallace 1962:175; ment is based on proxy data and therefore sub­ Shuder 1967:305) diat the Mojave Desert was ject to a variety of interpretations. Nonetheless, largely abandoned during the Middle Holocene, a general picture of the Late Pleistocene/Holo- aldiough this seems not to have been the case cene environment has emerged. (see below). The Pleistocene (glacial) climate of the Mo­ In die Late Holocene (after 4,000 B.P.), die jave Desert was cooler and effectively wetter climate was generally somewhat cooler and wet­ than today (Weide 1982), although perhaps ter than modern times. However, as the data on warmer and drier than conventional models past climate improve, it is becoming clear that a maintain (Spaulding 1990:196). Several major series of wet and dry episodes marks the Holo­ lake systems, smaller isolated lakes, and asso­ cene, particularly the last 2,000 years (Scuderi ciated lacustrine zones were present and, while 1993; also see Weide 1982:23), at least in the vegetation was similar in character to the Great western portion of the Mojave Desert and the Basin Desert of today, it was distributed very southwestern Great Basin. Enzel et al. (1992) differently (Spaulding 1990), widi pinyon-juni- argued that the Mojave River drainage received per woodlands extending well into the valleys. considerably more water during the early (ca. The Holocene is traditionally divided into 3,500 B.P.) and late (ca. 400 B.P.) Neoglacial three major sections (Early, Middle, and Late, episodes, resulting in lakestands and being indic­ following Spaulding 1994). even though such a ative of major climatic changes in western North simple division belies considerable climatic fluc­ America. Stine (1994) suggested diat at least tuations. The environmental transition from the two major (medieval) droughts impacted the Si­ Pleistocene to the Early Holocene (10,000 to erra Nevada (and so the western Mojave Desert) 7,500 B.P.) appears to have been gradual, as ca. A.D. 892 to A.D. 1112 and ca. A.D. 1209 to A.D. 1350 (also see Graumlich 1993). A juniper and mesic desert scmb species persisted at low elevations well into the early Holocene, cooler and wefter period occurred between 600 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN THE MOJAVE DESERT 225

and 150 B.P. (Cleland and Spaulding 1992:4; Late Pleistocene occupation of the region. also Enzel etal. 1992). Claims for earlier materials—that is from a Pre- Projectile Point Period—have been made but The Nature of the Archaeological Record in remain very controversial. the Mojave Desert The "Pre-Projectile Point" Period Many researchers assume that since there is less rainfall in the Mojave Desert, Holocene land There has been a variety of claims for archae­ surfaces have been relatively stable and well-pre­ ological sites, or purported archaeological sites, served. Following this initial presumption is the in the Mojave Desert dating to a Pre-Projectile working assumption that many, if not most, sites Point Period. The three most notable sites or are surface rather than buried (less rainfall complexes are the Calico Early Man Site, Lake meaning less deposition). Since wind is a major China, and the Manix Lake Lithic Industry. At part of the Mojave Desert environment, it is Calico (Fig. 3), die dating of die site (about commonly believed that many deposits, even if 200,000 B.P.) is generally agreed upon, but they did exist, would have been wind-eroded most researchers reject the claim that the broken such that the heavier artifacts from all time pe­ stones recovered from the excavations are arti­ riods would now lie on a common surface. It is facts (see Budinger and Simpson 1985; Simpson true that many wind-formed surfaces (e.g., des­ et al. 1986; Patterson et al. 1987; Simpson ert pavements) are present in the Mojave Desert 1989; alsoPayen 1982, 1983). Budinger (1996) and sometimes contain very old archaeological reported the discovery of a flake in the Manix materials. However, there are also many depo- Basin which he argued was older than 200,000 sitional environments, and there is a great poten- years B.P. fial for buried sites in many areas (e.g., along At Lake China (Fig. 3), Davis (1978, 1982) die Mojave River [Ross 1992; Connell et al. proposed three Pre-Projectile Point "cultures," 1994], along lakeshores, and in cave sites). primarily flake industries (also see Davis and Another assumption is that since desert peo­ Panlaqui 1978a:Table 9): (1) Early and Late ples were "forced" to be highly mobile, few Core Tool Traditions (dated between 45,000 and stratified midden deposits exist. Although it is 25,000 B.P.); (2) Late Wisconsin Cultures I true that many desert sites lack great depth, (25,000 to 20,000 B.P.); and (3) Late Wisconsin there are many whose deposits exceed two me­ Cultures II (20,000 to 15,000 B.P. and including ters. Preservation is generally good, even in Lake Mojave Period materials). The dating of open sites, and perishables are not uncommon in these materials was based on the relative degree shelters and caves. However, as is true through­ of weathering and typology, but in the absence out North America, rodent disturbance is exten­ of chronometric data, this schema is quite weak. sive in most sites. Vandalism is also a chronic A number of sites containing "crude" and problem. heavily patinated artifacts found along the old shorelines of Lake Manix (Fig. 3) were grouped THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD together to form the Manix Lake Lithic Industry OF THE PLEISTOCENE (Simpson 1958, 1960, 1964), and were thought The Pleistocene cultural record in die Mo­ to date to "between 10,000 and 25,000 years jave Desert is relatively complex, but few new ago" (Simpson 1958:6). This age assignment studies have been conducted in die last 15 years. was made partly on the dating of the lakeshore There is little question that Clovis materials are (Simpson 1964:6-7; Moratto 1984:39), on die present in the Mojave Desert and represent a absence of projectile points (Simpson 1958:7-8, 226 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY

Ltta^

'. i\ \'.-/r\;"'^<^

._Los Angeles

/ The Mojave Desert y

^ 100 km.

Fig. 3. Location of purported Pre-Projectile Point sites, and of Paleoindian and Early Holocene (Lake Mojave and Pinto periods) sites and localities mentioned in the text: (1) the Calico Early Man site; (2) Lake China; (3) Lake Manix; (4) Coyote Gulch; (5) East Rim; (6) the Baker site; (7) Lake Mojave; (8) Rogers Ridge (CA-SBR-5250); (9) the Henwood site (CA-SBR-4966); (10) Pinto Basin; (11) the Stahl site (CA-INY-182); (12) the Awl site (CA-SBR-4562); (13) CA-SBR-5251; (14) CA-KER-3939; (15) Ludlow Cave (CA-SBR-1887); (16) Surprise Spring (CA-SBR-424).

1960:26-27), and the apparent presence of re- gested as representative of the Manix Lake Lith- touchonsomeof the bifaces (Simpson 1960:29). ic Industry, including Coyote Gulch (Simpson Several other sites (see Fig. 3) have been sug- 1952, 1961), the East Rim site (Alsoszatai-Petho ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN THE MOJAVE DESERT 227

1975; Simpson 1976), and die Baker site (Glen- addressed when considering die evidence for a nan 1974; Nakamura 1991). Odiers (Wallace Pre-Projectile Point (or pre-Clovis) Period in die 1962:174; Glennan 1976:43) claimed die mate­ Mojave Desert. First, and perhaps most impor- rials were late workshop debris (see Warren tandy, there has been little systematic research [1996] for a historical perspective on the Manix conducted on such sites or assemblages (die Lake Industry). work of Davis [1978] at Lake China being a no­ The claims of Pleistocene antiquity for die table exception). Second, very little of the work Manix Lake material rests on three basic argu­ has been adequately described in print. Third, ments: (1) the location of the sites above die claims of antiquity are usually based on typolog­ highest shoreline of Pleistocene Lake Manix ical grounds; that is, that the materials recovered (which drained catastrophically sometime after from the sites are "crude" and therefore old. 14,230 years B.P. [Meek 1989:7]); (2) die arti­ Such claims can easily be dismissed, since such facts being embedded in desert pavement (and typology alone cannot (usually) serve as a chro­ thereby being old); and (3) typology. Each of nological placement technique. Whitley and these arguments is circumstantial and provide no Dorn (1993) argued that for there to be unequiv­ convincing basis for dating the materials as very ocal pre-Clovis sites in South America (e.g., old. Bamforth and Dorn (1988) demonstrated Monte Verde), there most likely had to have that there were no correlations between either been a pre-Clovis migration through North site locafion and shoreline or between cation- America (e.g., through the Desert West, includ­ ratio age and embeddedness in desert pavement ing the Mojave Desert), and that such evidence and argued that the materials were early-stage must exist, although perhaps not well-preserved biface reduction debris dating late in time (see (e.g., Butzer 1988). Nevertheless, if there was Dorn et al. 1986:832, Table 2; Whitley and a pre-Clovis occupation of the Mojave Desert, it Dorn 1993:Table 2) radier dian finished (but remains well hidden. crude) tools. Bamfordi and Dorn (1988:223) did, however, identify early-stage biface reduc­ The Paleoindian Period tion debris diat they dated to the Late Pleisto­ The Paleoindian Period (ca. 12,000 to 10,000 cene. The current view is that the material is years B.P.) follows the hypothetical Pre- workshop debris and not an old assemblage. Projectile Point Period, and Paleoindian sites Possible Pleistocene Rock Art. Using the contain fluted (e.g., Clovis) points and related controversial (e.g., Harry 1995) cation-ratio materials (no Folsom Complex points are known technique to date desert varnish, Dorn et al. from California [Moratto 1984:87]). Clovis ma­ (1986 [and references therein]; also see Whidey terials typically are viewed as representing the and Dorn 1993; Whidey et al. 1996) have ar­ Big Game Hunting Tradition emphasizing the gued that some petroglyphs from the northern exploitation of Pleistocene megafauna (e.g., Wil- and central Mojave Desert date to die Pleisto­ ley 1966; Davis 1978; Chartkoff and Chartkoff cene, several as old as 18,000 years B.P. A 1984; Moratto 1984). It is much more likely number of these cation-ratio dates has apparently that, in addifion to megafauna, Paleoindian peo­ been supported by AMS radiocarbon dates on ples utilized a wide variety of resources, includ­ encapsulated organics in the varnish (Dorn et al. ing plants and small game. 1986; Whidey et al. 1996). However, diese Evidence for a Mojave Desert occupation by techniques remain unverified and the results people possessing a fluting technology is limited should be considered tentative. to relatively few finds of fluted Clovis or Clovis- Discussion. Several major issues must be like points. These finds are widely distributed 228 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY across die Mojave Desert (e.g., Warren and Such a complex has yet to be identified in the Phagan 1988; Basgall and Hall 1991) and rarely Mojave Desert (but see Davis 1978), and Clovis are dated by other than typological means. Only materials appear to be isolated. However, the one Clovis "occupation" site has been identi­ known Clovis points are all of local materials, fied, at Lake China (Davis 1978; Davis and Pan­ indicating a permanent presence. Clearly, this laqui 1978a, 1978b, 1978c). A number of fluted issue remains to be resolved (Warren and Pha­ lanceolate bifaces associated widi Rancholabrean gan 1988:129). fauna were recovered from various loci. Radio­ The economic focus of the Paleoindian Peri­ carbon dates (from tufa) at Basalt Ridge (at Lake od is presumed to have been oriented toward big China, see Davis and Panlaqui 1978c:95) fall be­ game (e.g., Heizer and Baumhoff 1970; Watters tween 13,300 and 10,800 radiocarbon years 1979), based on the occasional remains of mega­ B.P., but the samples were not direcfly asso­ fauna (e.g., at Lake China) and on an absence of ciated with cultural remains. millingstones, the inference being that plants Clovis projectile points, often found as iso­ were not important. There are few data to sup­ lates, have been documented from the (primarily port this view and it is probably unwarranted. central) Mojave Desert (Rogers 1939; Brott However, megafauna do drop out of the record 1966; Davis and Shufler 1969; Glennan 1971; at the beginning of die Holocene, signifying a Sutton and Wilke 1984; Warren and Phagan "shift" to a more generalized economy, com­ 1988; Basgall and Hall 1991, 1994; Basgall monly called the Archaic. If "megafauna" was 1993; Haynes 1996), and most have been as­ a Paleoindian focus, it may be that the earliest signed their age on the basis of their typological Holocene peoples still retained that focus (as­ simUarity with dated specimens from the Plains. suming culttjral continuity, e.g., Warren 1986, 1991), although it was ultimately an unsuccessful THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD one (as the species became extinct). Warren and OF THE HOLOCENE Crabtree (1986:184) considered Lake Mojave to The environmental transition from the Pleis­ be "a Paleo-Indian assemblage . . . ancestral to tocene to the Holocene appears to have been rel­ the early Archaic culttjres of the Pinto period." atively gradual. If cultures developed—at least Thus, Lake Mojave Period materials may reflect partly—in response to changing natural condi­ the first phase of a transition from a Paleoindian tions, we should not expect the transition from toward an Archaic adaptation, while Pinto Peri­ Pleistocene Paleoindians to Holocene (Archaic)- od materials may represent the final phase of the hunter-gatherers to be abrupt. One of the diffi­ transition to the Archaic (see discussion below; culties in delineating chronological periods and/ also see Willig and Aikens 1988). However, or cultural traditions lies in clearly describing Chartkoff and Chartkoff (1984:99-105) included the transitions. Lake Mojave in dieir Early to Middle Archaic periods. The Pleistocene/Holocene Cultural Interface The Early Holocene Record In the Mojave Desert, Clovis is generally viewed as being distinct from the Western The Lake Mojave Period (ca. 10,000 B.P. Stemmed (e.g.. Lake Mojave) Complex (Warren to 7,000 B.P.). At die end of die Pleistocene, and Phagan 1988:128; Wdlig and Aikens 1988: a cultural change is evident throughout North 3, Table 1; Basgall and Hall 1994:65). If diis is America as artifact and ecofact assemblages be­ true, Clovis should have an associated techno­ come more diverse and generalized, implying a logical complex distinct from Lake Mojave. shift to more broadly based economies. In die ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN THE MOJAVE DESERT 229

Mojave Desert, such remains typically fall under Silver Lake projectile points (Fig. 2), presum­ the broad designation of the Western Lithic Co- ably employed on thrusting spears. Warren and Tradition (Davis et al. 1969), die Western Plu­ Crabtree (1986:184) included fluted points and vial Lakes Tradition (Bedwell 1973), or the crescents as part of their early Lake Mojave Western Stemmed Tradition (Willig and Aikens Complex (also see Tadlock 1966:668-669). 1988). Included in these definitions are the However, most researchers would agree that the Playa and Malpais cultures (Rogers 1939), the Paleoindian and Lake Mojave periods are tech­ San Dieguito Complex (e.g., Rogers 1966; War­ nologically separate (see Warren and Phagan ren 1967), and the Lake Mojave Complex (e.g., 1988:128), and fluted points are herein consid­ Campbell et al. 1937; Wallace 1962; Warren ered part of the Paleoindian Period (see above). and Crabtree 1986). The designation of Lake Regional Expressions. The Lake Mojave Mojave' is herein used to refer to this imme­ Complex itself is a regional expression of the diately post-Paleoindian cultural complex in the Western Pluvial Lakes Tradition. Comparable Mojave Desert. materials are widespread in the Great Basin Lake Mojave materials were first identified (e.g., Warren and Ranere 1968; Moratto 1984; at Lake Mojave (Campbell et al. 1937) in the Bryan 1988; Willig and Aikens 1988), suggest­ central Mojave Desert (Fig. 3), when several ing the possibility, if not the likelihood, of some dozen sites were discovered on Terminal Pleis­ cultural relationships. Similar assemblages also tocene and Early Holocene surfaces along its are present in the Tulare Lake Basin of the fossil shoreline. Lake Mojave materials have southern San Joaquin Valley of California (Wal­ since been discovered on the fossil shorelines of lace and Riddell 1988), but the technological, a number of other Pleistocene-age lakes in the temporal, and cultural relationships of this mate­ southwestern Great Basin and at a few nonlake rial have yet to be determined. sites. Cleland and Spaulding (1992:3) argued Within the Mojave Desert, there currently are that Lake Mojave Period sites are absent on no defined subregional geographic expressions of most known Terminal Pleistocene and Early Ho­ Lake Mojave. However, Lake Mojave Period locene surfaces away from lake margins, sup­ sites are known in both the central and eastern porting an association of Lake Mojave sites with Mojave Desert (e.g., Warren and Schneider lakes. If true, this is an interesting association; 1989; Basgall and Hall 1992:5, 1994:63; Basgall however, it may simply be a sampling problem 1993), but are rare in the western Mojave (Sut­ (the lake margin is where archaeologists look). ton 1988a), except perhaps in the Lake China/ The dating of Lake Mojave sites originally Coso area (Davis 1978; Hildebrandt and Gilreath was based on the assumed dates of the presence 1988; Gilreadi and Hddebrandt 1991). Whedier and final desiccation of the Pleistocene lakes, diis distribution has cultural significance is not and lacked chronometric confirmation. How­ known. ever, the occupation of the shoreline of Lake There is some reason to believe that there was Mojave at about 10,000 B.P. is now reasonably cultural continuity between Lake Mojave and the well-established (Warren and DeCosta 1964; following Pinto Period (or that there was at least Warren and Ore 1978; also see Wells et al. a single technological tradition, e.g., Warren [1989:118-122] for information on die hydrolog- 1994:113). While there are a number of single ic history of Lake Mojave). component Lake Mojave and Pinto sites, two The primary marker artifacts of the Lake sites in the central Mojave Desert (Rogers Ridge Mojave Period are the long-stemmed Lake Mo­ [CA-SBR-5250, Jenkins 1987] and Henwood jave and the shorter stemmed and shouldered [CA-SBR-4966, Warren 1991:292]; also see 230 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY

Fig. 3) contain both Lake Mojave and Pinto se­ Virtually nothing is known regarding plant ries points in contemporaneous context. The usage during the Lake Mojave Period. Although discovery of both Lake Mojave and Pinto series the absence of millingstones is a criterion for the points at these sites led Jenkins (1987) to suggest Lake Mojave Period, a few have been discov­ that the two point series co-occur for some inter­ ered at several sites (e.g., Henwood [Warren val of time, at least in some places (in what 1991] and Deception Knoll [Basgall 1994]), sug­ Warren [1994:Table I, 113] suggested was an gesting the possibility of plant exploitation (it is interface between Lake Mojave and Pinto dating reasonable to assume that plants were utilized, to about 8,500 B.P.). However, there are few even with a lack of hard data for the period). hard chronometric data in support of die associa­ Nevertheless, hunting remains an assumed focus. tion and the possibility is not widely accepted Based on die work at Fort Irwin in die central (Basgall 1993:79-80; Basgall and Hall 1994:65). Mojave Desert, a Lake Mojave Period focus on A Note on Lake Mojave Period Cultural artiodactyls and lagomorphs, with some rodents Ecology. Lake Mojave Period cultural ecology and reptiles, has been proposed for some early is not well understood. Warren (1967:184, Holocene deposits at several sites (Basgall 1993: 1991:332) viewed the cultural ecology of the 139, 161, 234, 1994:68; Basgall and Hall 1994: Lake Mojave (his San Dieguito) Period as being 76). Apple and York (1993:113) reported die generalized but nonetheless focused on the hunt­ identification of deer protein on two artifacts ing of artiodactyls. Odiers (Bedwell 1973; Hes­ from a Lake Mojave Period site (CA-SBR-6566) ter 1973) interpreted die adaptation to be related on die northern shore of Lake Mojave, provid­ to the exploitafion of lake resources, a logical ing some evidence of game utilization. In the premise given the geographic distribution of future, new and improved techniques, both in most known Lake Mojave sites on fossil shore­ the field (many sites were excavated decades lines. Davis and Panlaqui (1978b) further sug­ ago) and in the laboratory (e.g., phytolith analy­ gested that Lake Mojave Period peoples utilized sis, testing for protein residues), offer important the lakeshores as part of a larger seasonal round. avenues for research. Many researchers continue to hold a series The Pinto Period (ca. 7,000 B.P. to 4,000 of general assumptions regarding biotic commu­ B.P.). The Pinto Period follows die Lake Mo­ nities and human adaptations leading to the be­ jave Period and is marked by the appearance of lief that Lake Mojave Period peoples subsisted Pinto series projectile points (Fig. 2), first primarily by hunting (see discussion in Basgall defined at Pinto Basin (Campbell and Campbell and Hall 1994:71-76). The artifact assemblages 1935; also see Rogers 1939) (see Fig. 3), and (projectile points but relatively few millingstones presumably used on aflafl darts. The type locali­ [but see Warren 1991:248; Basgall 1993:160, ty at Pinto Basin (Campbell and Campbell 1935) 234, 379]) create and reinforce this view. The extends for miles along a major wash, and nu­ apparent geographic association of these sites merous loci, now recorded as separate sites, with lakeshores suggests access to at least three were discovered that contained a diverse assem­ major ecozones (terrestrial, shoreline, lake) that blage from millingstones to projectUe points are presumed to have contained a diverse re­ (Amsden 1935). The second major Pinto type source base. However, few empirical subsis­ locality is the Stahl site, located in the north­ tence data have been collected, as relatively few western Mojave Desert (Fig. 3), and first inves­ sites have been excavated (or reported) and pre­ tigated by Harrington (1957), who discovered a servation of ecofactual materials often is poor diverse artifact assemblage and possible structur­ (e.g., Douglas et al. 1988). al remains. ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN THE MOJAVE DESERT 231

Both of these type sites contained a diverse cultural adaptation related to a climatic shift to artifact assemblage, including mdlingstones, and an increasingly xeric environment and the final die initial definition of die "Pinto culture" in­ desiccation of the Pleistocene lakes (by at least cluded milling equipment. This artifact diversity 6,800 B.P., conditions were more arid than is not reflected in all Pinto-age assemblages, diose of die present [Spaulding 1991, 1994]). however, as millingstones are absent or rare at As aridity increased, settlement patterns seem to many sites (e.g., McGuire and Hall 1988:317), have changed from lakeshore habitats in Lake but present in some others (e.g., die Awl site Mojave times to stream and spring localiUes, [CA-SBR-4562, Jenkins and Warren 1986] and perhaps mirroring the assumed increase in teth­ CA-SBR-5251 [Hall 1994]; see Fig. 3). ering of game populations to those water A major problem in delineating the Pinto Pe­ sources. Warren (1986, 1991) proposed that the riod is the continuing disagreement on the for­ subsistence focus of Pinto remained similar to mal definition and dating of "Pinto" points that of the Lake Mojave Period, at least initially, (e.g., Warren 1980; Thomas 1981; Vaughan and and that die pursuit of "big game" (artiodactyls) Warren 1987; Schrodi 1994). Bodi the Pinto remained a major goal. As game populations Basin and Stahl sites were recenfly reinvestigated declined, Warren hypothesized, the effort to ob­ (Schrodi 1987, 1994) in an effort to resolve tain them would have intensified with a decreas­ some of the problems surrounding die classifica­ ing rate of success, eventually leading to a col­ tion of Pinto points. Schrodi (1994:374-375) lapse of the system and a shift to a more broadly concluded that the Pinto form was not the result based economy. Thus, if one were to classify of a mental template and so could not be used as Lake Mojave as Paleoindian, Pinto might be an "index fossU" for anything odier than dart viewed as die transition to the Archaic. point dmes (ca. 10,000 to 2,000 B.P.). This Other Pinto sites include diose known in die conclusion rather complicates matters. north-central Mojave (e.g., Basgall and Hall The Pinto Period was once thought to have 1992:5; Hall 1994; and as noted above), none of begun about 4,000 years ago, a date that would which appears to be associated with fossil lakes. imply an occupational "hiatus" between the At least diree buried hearth features were dis­ Lake Mojave and Pinto periods (see Jenkins and covered at CA-KER-3939 (Gardner et al. 1994, Warren 1984). However, recent radiocarbon 1995; also see Fig. 3) in die western Mojave data from several purported Lake Mojave/Pinto Desert and were dated between 6,968 + 109 sites in the central Mojave Desert now support (AA-14553) and 5,602 ± 71 (AA-14548) an early date, perhaps 7,000 B.P. or even earlier RCYBP (die earliest Holocene radiocarbon dates (Jenkins and Warren 1986; Jenkins 1987:227- in diat region, presumably dating die site to the 228; Warren 1991:264-267; but see Meighan Pinto Period). Aldiough the analysis of die con­ 1989). Thus, as it is now understood, the be­ tents of die features is incomplete, charcoal, car­ ginning of the Pinto Period immediately follows bonized seeds, and one obsidian flake have so (and perhaps even overlaps) the end of die Lake far been recovered. Mojave Period, and the occupation of the region Two sites containing Pinto-age human re­ appears to have been continuous. However, mains are known, a human cremation from Lud­ Warren and Crabtree (1986:187) suggested diat low Cave (dated at ca. 6,000 B.P. [Osborne Pinto Period settlement patterns may have fluc­ 1993]; see Fig. 3) and an inhumation from the tuated, with lower elevations being essentially Barstow area (ca. 7,000 B.P. [Reynolds 1980]). uninhabited at some times. Recognizing the extraordinarily small sample, Pinto appears to be a broadly generalized diis may indicate diat bodi inhumations and ere- 232 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY mations were practiced during the Pinto Period, recovered from the various Pinto Period sites, and this dichotomy in mortuary practices might including projecfile points and mUling equip­ serve as a regional marker. ment, support this conclusion. Pinto Period Subsistence. Subsistence data The Middle Holocene Record from the Pinto Period are primarily limited to faunal remains, with lagomorphs being the most The Gypsum Period (ca. 4,000 B.P. to frequent, followed by artiodactyl (including 1,500 B.P.). The inception of the Gypsum Peri­ deer, sheep, and pronghorn) remains. Some od (sometimes called the Newberry Period [Bet­ reptiles and rodents are also present, and tortoise tinger and Taylor 1974]) is marked by the ap­ is notably absent. The same pattern is evident at pearance of several projectile point forms (Fig. die Awl site (CA-SBR-4562, Jenkins and War­ 2), notably Elko series and Gypsum points (in­ ren 1986:156; Basgall 1993:362-363) and at Ro­ terpreted as dart points) and Humboldt Concave gers Ridge (CA-SBR-5250, Basgall 1993:361). Base forms (viewed as either points or knives). However, a slighfly different picture is reflected Gypsum points, originally defined at Gypsum from die Henwood site (CA-SBR-4966, Douglas Cave (Fig. 4), were first thought to be Pleisto­ 1991), where lagomorphs dominated, but where cene in age (Harrington 1933), but subsequendy artiodactyls were rare and tortoise was present in have been redated (Heizer and Berger 1970). some number. Utilized animals were not limited Lyneis (1982:176) argued that Gypsum was sep­ to vertebrates, however, as a considerable num­ arate from Elko, and Fowler et al. (1973:81) ber (n = 1,314) of Anodonta shell fragments suggested that Gypsum was a localized develop­ was found in association with a Pinto-age hearth ment in die northeastern Mojave. Lyneis (1982: (dated to 6,640 ± 65 RCYBP, Beta-45611, 177) suggested that a major occupation of "val­ ETH-7129 [Hall 1994:74]) at CA-SBR-5251 in ley floors" occurred during the Gypsum Period. the central Mojave Desert (Hall 1994:78). The Both Gypsum and Elko points are known for the vertebrate faunal assemblage from the CA-SBR- entire Mojave Desert and are generally consid­ 5251 site consisted primarily of lagomorphs and ered temporally coeval. While the relative pau­ large mammals. city of Gypsum Period sites has been cited as Information on plant utilization during the evidence of a sparse occupation, the considerable Pinto Period is very limited. Some evidence of Gypsum Period material from the Fort Irwin pinyon processing (pinyon hulls in three hearth (Basgall et al. 1988; McGuire and Hall 1988; features) was discovered at a Pinto-age (ca. Basgall and Hall 1992:6) and Deadi Valley re­ 6,500 B.P.) locus at Surprise Spring (Fig. 3; gions (Hunt 1960; Wallace 1958, 1977, 1988a) Altschul 1990:105-106), hinting at die use of suggests that the paucity of identified Gypsum pinyon during Pinto times. The presence of mil­ Period sites in the remainder of the desert may lingstones at many Pinto Period sites is sugges­ be due to sampling error and the rarity of mark­ tive that plant processing was performed (as er artifacts (Hall and Basgall 1994:82, 85). would be expected), but it should be remem­ The age of the Gypsum Period has been es­ bered that other resources may have been pro­ tablished by a number of radiocarbon dated cessed on such equipment (Yohe et al. 1991). sites. It begins at about 4,000 B.P., at the onset In spite of the radier limited data, consider­ of a cooler and wetter interval. An increase in able diversity appears to be present in Pinto Pe­ water would presumably result in "more favor­ riod economic assemblages, indicating "the ex­ able" conditions (e.g., greater biomass) in the pansive nature of Pinto period subsistence tac­ desert and may have influenced changes in the tics" (Hall 1994:78). The artifact assemblages cultural adaptations, including increasing popu- ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN THE MOJAVE DESERT

Fig. 4. Location of Middle Holocene (Gypsum Period) sites and localities mentioned in the text: (1) Gypsum Cave; (2) Rose Spnng (CA-INY-372); (3) Newberry Cave (CA-SBR-199); (4) the Hinkley site (CA- SBR-189); (5) Owl Canyon (CA-SBR-3801); (6) Ord Shelter (CA-SBR-2846); (7) the Siphon site (CA- SBR-6580); (8) Rusder Rockshelter (CA-SBR-288); (9) Mitchell Caverns (CA-SBR-117); (10) Stuart Rockshelter; (11) Willow Beach; (12) the Coso Range; (13) the Koehn Lake site (CA-KER-875). lation, trade, and social complexity. diocarbon dates from die Gypsum component at In die western Mojave, die Rose Spring site Rose Spring fall between 2,200 and 4,000 B.P. (Lanning 1963; Yohe 1992; Fig. 4) contains a (Yohe 1992:Tables 24 and 25), but few data re- stratified record dating from Gypsum times. Ra- lating to Gypsum Period lifeways are currenfly 234 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY available from the site. Elsewhere in the west­ Recent excavations at the Siphon site (CA- ern Mojave, materials of Gypsum age and asso­ SBR-6580; Sutton et al. 1993), at die headwaters ciation have been found at several sites (e.g., of the Mojave River (Fig. 4), revealed a 3,500- CA-KER-526, Byrd et al. 1994). Much of die year-old deposit that contained Pinto series and rock art of the Coso Range may date to Gypsum Elko-looking points, suggesting an association times (Grant et al. 1968), and may represent rit­ with the Gypsum Period in the Mojave Desert. ual activities, although some (e.g., Wilke and However, the artifact assemblage included many Rector 1985) have questioned the interpretation items related to the Millingstone Horizon of of ritual function. coastal southern California. The desert influ­ In the central Mojave, die most notable Gyp­ ences at the Siphon site seem clear, but it ap­ sum site is Newberry Cave (Smith et al. 1957; pears to be more closely related to the southem Davis and Smith 1981; Fig. 4). This site appar­ California MUlingstone Horizon than to the des­ enfly contains a cache of specialized hunting and ert (as did the nearby Crowder Canyon sites ritual equipment, including Elko and Gypsum [Basgall and True 1985]; also see McDonald et projectile points, fragments of darts, split-twig al. [1987:66]). figurines, paint, and rock art, all radiocarbon In the eastern Mojave Desert (see Fig. 4), dated to between ca. 3,000 and 3,800 B.P. (Da­ Gypsum Period materials were recovered from vis and Smidi 1981:Table 2). Odier dated Gyp­ the lower level of Rusfler Rockshelter (Davis sum Period sites (see Fig. 4) include Hinkley 1962; Sutton 1992) and at Mitchell Caverns (Leonard 1980) and Owl Canyon (Eckhardt et (Pinto 1989). At Stuart Rockshelter in soudi- al. 1982; Sutton 1986a) near Barstow, and die eastern Nevada, the lowest level was radio­ Ord Shelter trapline cache east of Victorville carbon dated to ca. 4,000 B.P. and contained (Echlin et al. 1981). "Pinto" (likely Humboldt series) points with At Fort Irwin (Fig. 4), at least 10 Gypsum Elko series points being stratigraphically su­ Period sites have been investigated (see sum­ perior (Shufler et al. 1960). Odier Gypsum Pe­ mary by Hall and Basgall 1994). The work at riod materials are known from Willow Beach those sites has documented significant changes (Schroeder 1961) and Gypsum Cave (Harrington between Gypsum and later periods. Gypsum as­ 1933; Heizer and Berger 1970). semblages at Fort Irwin contain greater numbers One of the more interesting aspects of the of bifaces; the decrease beginning in Rose Gypsum Period is evidence of hunting rituals in Spring times probably reflects the change from the form of split-twig figurines and other mate­ dart to arrow points (Basgall et al. 1988:309). rials recovered from Newberry Cave (Davis and Gypsum faunal assemblages contain greater Smith 1981) and in the extensive rock art in the amounts of artiodactyl remains dian do later Coso Range (Grant et al. 1968) diat have been components (which contain larger numbers of dated to this period (see discussion in Warren smaller animals), leading Basgall et al. (1988: 1984:417-419). The specific inferences for hu­ 312) to suggest a shift in subsistence orientation man behavior are not understood. (from large to small game) as well as a decrease Gypsum Period Adaptations. The social or­ in residential mobility (not having to pursue ganization and subsistence base of Gypsum pop­ large game). Interestingly, "Coso style" rock ulations are poorly known, although the hunting art is present in the Tiefort Basin at Fort Irwin of mountain sheep may have been important (apparenfly during Gypsum times), suggesUng (e.g.. Grant et al. 1968; Davis and Smidi 1981) that the hunting of large game may have been and rodents were known to be trapped (Echlin et important (McGuire and Hall 1988:319). al. 1981). Hall and Basgall (1994:85) noted die ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN THE MOJAVE DESERT 235 presence of artiodactyl, lagomorph, rodent, and ing hunting and milling equipment, marine shell tortoise remains at Gypsum Period sites in the artifacts, and considerable obsidian from a vari­ central Mojave Desert. It is clear diat there ety of sources (the Coso Volcanic Field was the were connections (e.g., split-twig figurines) be­ most widely used source in the western and cen­ tween the central and eastern Mojave Desert and tral Mojave Desert [e.g., Gilreath and Hilde­ die Soudiwest during Gypsum times. brandt 1991], but many local sources were used Based on the estimated dates of the estab­ in the eastern Mojave Desert). lishment of large villages, Sutton (1988a) sug­ In the western Mojave Desert, major exca­ gested that a major population increase began in vations have been undertaken (see Fig. 5) at the western Mojave Desert ca. 3,000 B.P. How­ Rose Spring (Yohe 1992), Coso Junction Ranch ever, more recent excavations in the area sug­ (Whidey et al. 1988), various sites in the Coso gest diat diis date probably should be revised up­ Range (Hillebrand 1972; Gilreadi and Hilde­ ward to the latter part of the Gypsum Period, to brandt 1991:Table 3), the El Paso Mountains perhaps as late as 2,000 B.P. The basal radio­ (McGuire et al. 1982), CantU (Sutton 1991), carbon dates from the major "village" along the Koehn Lake (Sutton 1986b, 1990; Sutton and shoreline of Koehn Lake (Fig. 4) suggest its es­ Hansen 1986), and at Cottonwood Creek (CA- tablishment about 1,700 B.P., and may reflect a KER-303; Sutton 1988a). A major increase in major stand of Koehn Lake (Sutton 1986b, population seems to have occurred during or just 1990; Sutton and Hansen 1986). Gilreadi and before Rose Spring times, at least in the western Hildebrandt (1991:7:60) reported a marked in­ Mojave where large villages were established crease in the number of sites in the Coso area (Sutton 1988a, 1990; also see Whifley et al. beginning about 2,300 B.P., and it is possible 1988:8). Rose Spring Period architecture is diat this is related to events elsewhere in the known from at least two sites; a wickiup-like western Mojave Desert. structure from Cantd (Sutton 1991) and a "pit- house" from the Koehn Lake site (Sutton 1990). The Late Holocene Record Many of the large, open Rose Spring Period sites in the western Mojave lack significant Late The Rose Spring Period (ca. 1,500 B.P. to Prehistoric components, suggesting a shift in set­ 1,000 B.P.). Beginning about 1,500 B.P., small tlement (and subsistence) patterns between the projectile points (Eastgate and Rose Spring se­ Rose Spring and Late Prehistoric periods. ries; Fig. 2) appear in the record, likely marking the introduction of bow-and-arrow technology, Despite a relatively rich record for the Rose and generally replacing the dart points (e.g., Spring Period in the central Mojave Desert, few Elko and Gypsum) used in conjunction with the data are available, particularly from south of the adafl. The term Rose Spring is used herein fol­ Mojave River. Most work involving Rose Spring lowing the diagnostic projectile point series Period sites has been undertaken at Fort Irwin (Heizer and Baumhoff 1961:123; Lanning 1963), nordi of Barstow (Basgall et al. 1988; McGuire and is roughly equivalent to the Amargosa Peri­ and Hall 1988; Basgall and Hall 1992) and in od (Wallace 1962) and the Saratoga Springs Pe­ Death Valley (Wallace 1988a). One of die most riod (Warren 1984:420). important sites'is Saratoga Springs (Wallace and Sites dating from the Rose Spring Period Taylor 1959; see Fig. 5), essenfially the regional (see Fig. 5) are fairly common in the Mojave type site for the Rose Spring Period. Desert, though relatively few have been investi­ In the Providence Mountains area of the gated. The sites tend to have well-developed eastern Mojave Desert (Fig. 5), Donnan (1964) middens and abundant material culture, includ­ proposed a cultural sequence diat included a pre- 236 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY

Fig. 5. Location of Late Holocene (Rose Spring and Late Prehistoric periods) sites and localities mentioned in the text: (1) Rose Spnng (CA-INY-372); (2) Coso Junction Ranch (CA-INY-2284); (3) the Coso Range; (4) the El Paso Mountains; (5) Cantil (CA-KER-2211); (6) Koehn Lake (CA-KER-875); (7) Cottonwood Creek (CA-KER-303); (8) Saratoga Sprmgs (CA-SBR-5547); (9) Southcott Cave (CA- SBR-334); (10) Rusder Rockshelter (CA-SBR-288); (11) Muddy and Virgin river area; (12) Rosa­ mond/Rogers lake system; (13) Coso Hot Spnngs; (14) CA-SBR-1913; (15) Deep Creek (CA-SBR- 176); (16) Oro Grande (CA-SBR-72); (17) Afton Canyon (CA-SBR-85); (18) Cronese Lakes; (19) Halloran Spnngs; (20) Vontrigger Spring (CA-SBR-413); (21) Counsel Rocks (CA-SBR-291); (22) Soda Springs Rockshelter (CA-SBR-363B); (23) Mitchell Caverns (CA-SBR-117); (24) Surprise Spring (CA-SBR-424); (25) Cooks Well (CA-SBR-322). ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN THE MOJAVE DESERT 237

ceramic phase roughly equivalent to the Rose a variety of plant foods, with a lesser emphasis Spring Period. This phase was based on the on larger (e.g., deer-size) game dian previously 1962 excavations at Southcott Cave (Sutton et al. diought (diis pattern is also reflected in the cen­ 1987) and Rusfler Rockshelter (Davis 1962). tral Mojave [Basgall et al. 1988]). The exploita­ Although analysis is not yet complete, additional tion of a variety of ecozones also is indicated. excavations at Rusfler Rockshelter (Sutton 1992, Agricultural Cultures of the Eastern Mojave 1995) have confirmed the presence of Rose Desert. Beginning prior to the Rose Spring Pe­ Spring Period materials at that site (but not at riod, and lasting through Rose Spring times, Soudicott Cave [Sutton et al. 1987]). Warren agricultural (and dius post-Archaic) peoples ap­ (1984:395) noted that the cultural sequence of pear to have been present in portions of the east­ die Providence Mountains area diverged "from ern Mojave Desert. By about 1,300 B.P., Ana­ that of the northeastern Mojave Desert at die end sazi populations were well established in die of Amargosa I" (the early Rose Spring Period), Muddy and Virgin river areas (see Fig. 5) and and believed that the "Providence Complex, controlled or influenced a considerable portion possibly preceded by a 'nonceramic Yuman' as­ of die northeastern Mojave Desert (Shutler 1961; semblage, appears to represent the Hakataya in­ Leonard and Drover 1980; Warren et al. 1980; fluence in the southeast Mojave Desert" (War­ Lyneis et al. 1989; Lyneis 1992, 1995). Ana­ ren 1984:395). Unfortunately, little else is sazi influence persisted into the early Late Pre­ known regarding Rose Spring Period settlement historic Period. and subsistence in the eastern Mojave Desert. The Late Prehistoric Period (ca. 1,000 B.P. Rose Spring Period Adaptations. Early in­ to Historic Contact). The Late Prehistoric Pe­ terpretations of Rose Spring Period ecology were riod is marked by Desert series (Desert Side- based on the original work at the Rose Spring notched and Cottonwood Triangular types; Fig. site, from which Lanning (1963:246-248, Table 2) projectile points, by various poorly defined 2) reported the recovery of numerous projectile brown ware ceramics (Bettinger 1986; Pippen points but only 18 mdling implement fragments 1986; Lyneis 1988), and, over the eastern three- (manos, metates, and pesfles), thus suggesting a quarters of the desert, by Lower Colorado Buff hunting focus for the Rose Spring Period. How­ Ware. The period presumably reflects the late ever, recent investigations at that site (Yohe prehistory of the ethnographic groups inhabiting 1992) revealed the presence of a considerable the region and has been variously called "Yu­ number of portable mdling implements, plus nu­ man" (Rogers 1945:168), "Hakataya" (Schroe­ merous bedrock milling features. Furthermore, der 1957, 1979), "Prehistoric Shoshonean and this pattern is repeated at other Rose Spring Pe­ Yuman" (Wallace 1962:177), "Protohistoric" riod sites in the western Mojave Desert (Cantil (Warren 1984:424), and "Shoshonean" (Warren [Sutton 1991]; Koehn Lake [Sutton 1986b, 1990; and Crabtree 1986:191). In spite of the likeli­ Sutton and Hansen 1986]; and Cottonwood hood that these linguistic/ethnic assignments are Creek [CA-KER-303; Sutton 1988a]), indicating mosfly correct (e.g., Sutton 1989), die use of diat mdling (presumably including plants) was such edinically weighted terms is dropped herein an integral aspect of Rose Spring adaptation. in favor of a purely descriptive term—Late Pre­ In sum, Rose Spring Period ecology appears historic. While die subsequent Protohistoric Pe­ not to have been specialized toward hunting (see riod is highly significant and interesting (Arkush die various references noted above and Gumer- 1990), it is not very visible in the Mojave Des­ man 1985). Important resources included medi­ ert; thus, it is not considered separately from the um to small game (lagomorphs and rodents) and Late Prehistoric Period. 238 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY

Most anthropologists view die Late Prehis­ ing that time. In the Muddy and Virgin rivers toric as the archaeological extension of the eth­ area of the northeastern Mojave (see Fig. 5), nographic present (as witnessed by the use of Anasazi peoples were present, perhaps having ethnic period names). This approach appears to moved in from the Southwest and themselves be valid for much of die Mojave, as regional in­ later replaced by die Soudiern Paiute (hunters teraction spheres (Sutton 1989) in die Late Pre­ and gatherers who adopted small-scale agricul­ historic seem roughly the same as those in the ture). Along the Colorado River (and in westem ethnographic present, suggesting continuity for Arizona), the agricultural, ceramic-manufactur­ roughly the last 1,000 years. The exception to ing groups (die Hakataya) appear to have been this is the southeastern Mojave Desert, where in place for some time and could be viewed as the Chemehuevi (a group speaking a Numic lan­ indigenous rather than intmsive. In some sense, guage) entered the area within the last several dien, "Formative" peoples (the Hakataya?) may hundred years. It has been argued (Kroeber have developed within the eastern Mojave Des­ 1959; Lerch 1985; Sutton 1986c, 1987a) diat die ert, as well as entering it already "developed," Chemehuevi replaced the earlier ceramics people some subsequendy being replaced by hunter- (called Hakataya or Patayan by most archaeolo­ gatherers. gists), and that these Hakataya were specifically While there appears to be a greater number of the "Desert Mohave," a group speaking a Yu­ sites dating to the last millennium than from man language and related to the agricultural Mo­ earlier times, this may be somewhat illusory. have people along die Colorado River. There The vast majority of sites is "dated" by their are two lines of evidence in support of the re­ surface manifestations, and so many contain placement idea; ethnography (including oral tra­ "late" components. However, earlier buried dition) and ceramics in the archaeological record components may also be present but undetected, (see references above). resulting in a disproportionate representation of Schroeder (1979:100) defined die Hakataya late sites. as an agricultural "pottery-making people" who The Western Mojave Desert. An environ­ were "rock-oriented," that is, emphasized the mental factor that seems to have had major influ­ use of stone in their various constructions (struc­ ence in the western Mojave Desert during Rose tures, rock rings, walls, roasfing pits, align­ Spring times was increased effective moisture. ments, etc.). In west-central Arizona, where the A stand of Koehn Lake (Fig. 5) at the 1,930-ft. various Hakataya branches are relatively well- elevation appears to have occurred beginning known (see Schroeder 1979:Fig. 1), consider­ sometime just after 2,000 B.P., as evidenced by able archaeological evidence as to their presence a shoreline bench feature, the presence of has been documented. WhUe Schroeder (1979: "beach" sand in the geomorphic samples, abun­ Fig. 1) depicted Hakataya as extending across dant juniper seeds in the midden at the Koehn the bulk of the Mojave Desert, the evidence for Lake site (in an area where juniper is now ab­ a Hakataya presence in those areas is primarily sent), and an adjoining large Rose Spring Period limited to the presence of certain ceramics (e.g., midden radiocarbon dated between 1,700 and Schroeder 1979:103), an artifact type that could 1,000 B.P. (Sutton and Hansen 1986). It is not be traded and that becomes increasingly rare as known if this (apparent) mesic episode affected one moves west. other lake systems in the western Mojave Desert The Late Prehistoric Period is complicated (Rosamond/Rogers and China/Searles) or in by the fact that groups practicing agriculture Owens Valley. However, the Koehn Lake site were present in the eastern Mojave Desert dur­ appears to have been abandoned about 1,000 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN THE MOJAVE DESERT 239

B.P., roughly the time of the first of the major ve River near Victorville, proved to be a major, "medieval droughts" (Stine 1994), when it is repeatedly used camp where lagomorph exploita­ believed that Koehn Lake dried up (Sutton tion was important. Further downriver, the Af­ 1986b, 1990; Sutton and Hansen 1986; Sutton ton Canyon site (Schneider 1989) contained a and Everson 1992). The western Mojave Desert simUar artifact assemblage but included ceram­ appears to have been the homeland, or at least ics, which were absent at Oro Grande. The ex­ the southern part of it, for the expansion of ploitation of lithic resources and artiodactyls was populations speaking Numic languages north and important at Afton Canyon. A study of trails in east across the Great Basin (Fowler 1972, 1983; die Afton Canyon area (James 1987, 1996) re­ also see Sutton 1987a, 1994a; Madsen and vealed a very complex system, indicating consid­ Rhode 1994). It is possible that the drought erable activity. hypothesized for the western Mojave Desert at Of particular interest is the presence of ap­ about 1,000 B.P. was an influence in the move­ parent Anasazi materials in the central Mojave ment of diese people. Desert, discovered in the Cronese Lakes area Important excavations of Late Prehistoric (Rogers 1929; Drover 1979), along the Mojave sites in the western Mojave Desert include the River (Rogers 1929; Warren 1984; Schneider upper, and highly disturbed, component at Cantil 1989), and at the Halloran Springs turquoise (Sutton 1991), the upper component at Cotton­ mines (Rogers 1929; Leonard and Drover 1980). wood Creek (CA-KER-303; Sutton 1988a), sites These developments may be related to either the around the Rosamond/Rogers lake system on influence of Virgin Anasazi trade or to part of a Edwards Air Force Base (e.g., Byrd et al. problematic Anasazi "occupation" of the area, 1994), and at several other sites in the area or a combination of both. (summarized by Sutton 1988a). Significandy, At Fort Irwin, in the central Mojave Desert the Late Prehistoric occupation at both the Rose north of the Mojave River, a number of late pe­ Spring (Yohe 1992) and Coso Junction Ranch riod sites have been investigated (Basgall et al. (Whidey et al. 1988) sites in the northwestern 1988; McGuire and Hall 1988; Hall and Basgall Mojave is relatively minor, suggesting a settle­ 1990). Data indicate an increasing dependence ment pattern shift from Rose Spring times. How­ on small game (a pattern continuing from the ever, significant Late Prehistoric occupation is Gypsum Period, see above), relating either to a known in the Coso Volcanic Field area (Gilreath decreasing abundance of larger animals and/or a and Hildebrandt 1991), including die ethno­ shift in subsistence-settlement organization away graphic Panamint vUlage at Coso Hot Springs. from the exploitation of large game. Basgall et The Central Mojave Desert. In die central al. (1988:316) supported die idea of a shift in Mojave Desert, the Mojave River appears to subsistence-settlement organization. have been the primary focus of occupation dur­ In Death Valley (the north-central Mojave ing the Late Prehistoric Period (e.g.. Smith Desert), the Late Prehistoric record is rich (Hunt 1963). In the Summit Valley near the head­ 1960; Wallace 1977, 1988b). Wallace (1977: waters of the Mojave River, several late villages 129) suggested diat the increase in the number that were recenfly investigated (e.g., CA-SBR- of Late Prehistoric sites from the preceding peri­ 1913 [Sutton and Schneider 1996]; die Deep od may indicate the arrival of the ancestors of Creek site [CA-SBR-176, Altschul et al. 1989]) die Panamint Shoshoni (part of the expansion of indicated the presence of semipermanent base Numic peoples) in the area ca. 1,000 B.P. camps in that area late in time. The Oro Grande The Eastern Mojave Desert. The Late Pre­ site (Rector et al. 1983), located along die Moja­ historic Period in the eastern Mojave Desert is. 240 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY perhaps, die most difficult to address. At the (e.g., Schneider 1988), particularly the fate of beginning of the Late Prehistoric, much of die the apparently large populations in the western eastern Mojave was either occupied or influ­ and southeastern Mojave Desert. It may be that enced by agricultural populations centered along the western Mojave Desert was depopulated by the Colorado River, populations diat also prac- disease and/or forcefully by the Spaniards (Sut­ ficed extensive hunting and gathering. It is not ton 1988a), while in the eastern Mojave the at all clear who occupied the eastern Mojave; Chemehuevi may have pushed out the Desert there could have been practicing agricultural Mohave. peoples living in the interior desert (there is no Additionally, there is a greafly reduced pres­ physical evidence of agriculture known), hunter- ence of obsidian in the southern half of the Mo­ gatherers using ceramics traded from the river, jave Desert during the Late Prehistoric Period, or river agriculturalists who were hunting and leading to the speculation that some sort of a gathering wild foods in the region. No specific trading (sociopolitical?) "boundary" was pres­ research program to address these questions has ent (Sutton 1988b, 1989). This boundary rough­ been carried out. ly follows die ethnographically recorded linguis­ After about A.D. 1700, the hunting and tic boundary between Takic and Numic language gathering Chemehuevi occupied part of this re­ groups (except the Chemehuevi) and may sug­ gion, leaving a "veneer" on the archaeological gest that a major sociopolitical shift had oc­ record and making the task of sorting out the va­ curred by about 1,000 B.P. rious prehistoric ethnic units even more difficult. Late Prehistoric sites, mostly containing Lower GENERAL RESEARCH ISSUES Colorado Buff Ware ceramics (Hakataya?), are Early Human Occupation very common in the Providence Mountains and the Mid Hills area, indicating a significant popu­ The physiographic situation of the Mojave lation, at least during the early portion of the Desert makes it a good place to look for early Late Prehistoric Period prior to the entrance of (pre-Clovis) human occupation. The presence of the Chemehuevi. an extensive system of Pleistocene rivers and Excavations have been undertaken at a num­ lakes provided an environmental setting where ber of Late Prehistoric Period sites in the eastern humans, if in the New World at an early date, Mojave Desert. Rusfler Rockshelter (Davis could be expected to have lived. In addition, the 1962; Sutton 1992, 1995) contains a record dat­ "stable" (and inferentially old) and relatively ing from dart-point times. A record of ceramic pristine landforms suggest that such early sites traditions is present at the site, but lithic pro­ could be located and investigated. The archaeo­ curement and tool production were major activi­ logical record provides some hope for propo­ ties there. Other excavated sites include Von­ nents of early human occupation. Sites asso­ trigger Springs (Sutton and Novickas MS), ciated with lakeshores are known and morpho­ Counsel Rocks (Cameron and Rafter 1983), logically old-looking lithic materials are wide­ Soda Springs Rockshelter (Cameron 1984; spread. The analytical problems include demon­ Schroth and Joesink-Mandeville 1987), Southcott strating firm associations of sites with lake- Cave (Sutton et al. 1987), Mitchell Caverns shores, dating the lakestands, and determining (Pinto 1989), Surprise Spring (Altschul 1990), whether "old-looking" equals "old." To date, and Cooks Well (Moskowitz 1994). none of these associations has been shown to be Discussion. There is a number of important tme and no unequivocal evidence of pre-Clovis issues regarding the Late Prehistoric Period humans is known. However, there is nothing to ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN THE MOJAVE DESERT 241 say that such evidence will not be found. The The Archaic as an Analytical Unit recent dating of some rock art is provocative (but not widely accepted) and may serve to re­ Is die Archaic a useful concept for ordering energize some researchers. and understanding Mojave Desert prehistory, or is it just an arbitrary category used for conveni­ The Paleoclimatic Record ence? If used as a "stage" of generalized hun­ ter-gatherers, as operationally defined in this pa­ Considerable information regarding die dis­ per, dien it is related to die antecedent Paleoin­ tribution of biotic communities over time in the dian adaptation, and in order to understand one, Mojave Desert has been, and is continuing to be, we must understand both. obtained and synthesized. These data are ac­ Perhaps one of the most important problems quired from packrat nests, tree ring records, ar­ in using the Archaic as an analytical unit in chaeological sites (botanical and faunal data), Mojave Desert archaeology is the tendency to spring investigations, lake corings, and from a "lump" cultures across temporal and geographic variety of other contexts. Portrayals of a very space. This sometimes occurs in the Great Ba­ dynamic climatic history, particularly in die Ho­ sin, where the "Desert Archaic" period is often locene, is emerging. used. However, the use of a Desert Archaic However, virtually all of the interpretations concept "masks substantial change in the Moja­ regarding paleoclimate in the Mojave Desert ve Desert 8000-1500 B.P." (Lyneis 1982:172), (and elsewhere) are based on proxy data. While oversimplifies a very complex prehistory, and the presence of a particular species at a particu­ gives the impression of substantial cultural con­ lar place and time may be well-demonstrated, tinuity throughout most of the Holocene. The the climatic meaning of that presence is quite an­ record of the Archaic in the Mojave Desert is other matter. Arguments rage over the amount one of substantial variabUity and should not be of rainfall in an area, whether the temperature concealed through the uncritical use of the "Ar­ was higher or lower, how such conditions af­ chaic" concept. fected spring flow and animal populations, etc. In their discussion of the Mojave Desert, As one might expect, the more recent and com­ Chartkoff and Chartkoft' (1984) end die Archaic plete the data, the more agreement there is re­ at 4,000 B.P., apparenfly concluding that their garding its interpretation. As more paleocli­ succeeding period, the Pacific, exhibits a suffi­ matic data are amassed, this situation can do cient increase in social complexity. While this nothing but improve. argument has merit in much of the California The more difficult problem is to relate pa­ culture area, with its relatively dense populations leoclimatic information to anthropological issues. and specialized economies, this does not seem to At what point in time do lake-adapted (Pleisto­ be a valid application in the Mojave Desert. cene) cultures "become" spring-adapted (Archa­ Perhaps due to the environmental constraints of ic) cultures? How do "droughts" affect desert- a relatively low productivity ecosystem, cultures adapted hunter-gatherers? At what threshold throughout the Mojave Desert never became as does a drop in animal populations trigger human large or as culturally complex as some of the subsistence shifts? What were the social organi­ California groups. zations present and/or necessary to successfully Paleoindian-Archaic Transition adapt to changing environmental conditions? These, and many other questions, remain un­ Adjunct to the above issue is an under­ answered (and sometimes unasked). standing of the transition from die Paleoindian 242 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY culture(s) of the Pleistocene to those of the Ho­ Canyon (summarized in Turner 1994), in south­ locene. Clearly, environmental change affected ern Nevada (Green 1987), and on geoglyphs the cultural transidon, but how and to what de­ (von Werlhof 1987). A variety of interpreta­ gree? To answer that question, one must under­ tions has been presented. Among the most in­ stand the environmental and cultural systems of teresting and innovative was the work of Whit­ both periods. The commordy held model of Pa­ ley (1994) on die Coso petroglyphs, where he leoindian adaptation is predicated on the assump­ argued that the increase in bighorn sheep rock tion that big game (namely Pleistocene megafau­ art after ca. 800 B.P. was not the result of hunt­ na) was emphasized. However, as noted above, ers attempting to intensify hunting success but it is more likely that the Paleoindian adaptation was an attempt by gatherers to increase rainfall. was much more generalized (e.g., Simms 1988). Archaic-Formati ve-Archaic Transitions It may be that the Paleoindian adaptation of the Late Pleistocene was very similar to that of the Archaic hunter-gatherers had occupied the Early Archaic, except that Paleoindians utilized northeastern Mojave Desert since the Pleistocene "big" game, whereas the Archaic peoples did but were "replaced" by Formative agricultural­ not. With the extincdon of megafauna, along ists within the last several thousand years. A with the associated procurement and processing Basketmaker/Anasazi archaeological sequence is technologies, the adaptation "suddenly" became evident in the Virgin/Muddy river region (Har­ Archaic at some magic moment, even though the rington 1927; Shuder 1961; Lyneis 1992, 1994, remaining large mammal species were stUl uti­ 1995). However, it is not clear whether these lized. If this scenario approximates reality, it is populations entered the area from the Southwest, clear that we must radically rethink both our perhaps displacing hunter-gatherer populations, definitions and research designs. or "evolved" in place. If it is an indigenous If, for example, the Lake Mojave Complex development, die Virgin Anasazi borrowed the (and Period) is essentially a Paleoindian adapta­ full suite of Southwestern traits, from ceramics tion minus Pleistocene megafauna, it may be that to architecture. Lake Mojave peoples retained a focus on big At about A.D. 1150, or shortly thereafter, the game even in an atmosphere of diminishing re­ Virgin Anasazi abandoned the area and were re­ turn. This is the same argument used to model placed by the Southern Paiute, a Numic group, the transition between the Lake Mojave and Pin­ although it has been suggested that the Virgin to periods (Warren 1986, 1991); perhaps there Anasazi "developed" into the Numic (Gunner- were several transitions over time to adjust to son 1962). Ambler and Sutton (1989:41-42; the loss of that resource class. This model is also see Sutton 1986c) suggested that the South­ testable, particularly given the potential of pro­ ern Paiute forced the Anasazi out of the area, al­ tein residue techniques (Kooyman et al. 1992; though this argument is largely circumstantial. Newman et al. 1993). The other major possibility is that Anasazi popu­ lations withdrew into the Southwest due to envi­ Rock Art Research ronmental degradadon (Larson and Michaelsen Rock art is widely distributed across the Mo­ 1990), with the void being filled by the Southern jave Desert, primarily pictographs, petroglyphs, Paiute. and geoglyphs. Several important rock art re­ In any case, both the transitions from Archaic search efforts have been undertaken, most nota­ to Formative and from Formative back to bly in die Coso Range (Grant et al. 1968; Whit­ Archaic did occur, even if the details are very ley 1982; Wilke and Rector 1985), at Black poorly understood. Perhaps both transitions are ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN THE MOJAVE DESERT 243

related to similar processes occurring in the east­ system, perhaps dating to Gypsum times, was ern Great Basin with the Fremont (e.g., Madsen hypothesized (based on site location) as being 1982). Exploration of the detads and modeling related to riparian habitats, with exploitation of the anthropological causes and effects of these the surrounding areas. It is presumed that transitions could have widespread application. Koehn Lake was dry during this time. The sec­ ond system, primarily dating to Rose Spring Settlement/Subsistence Models (Human and times, changed from the previous pattern, when Cultural Ecology) Koehn Lake apparenfly became filled (ca. just There currently is no coherent baseline of after 2,000 B.P.?). This second pattern involved human or cultural ecology for the Mojave Des­ the occupation of lakeshore sites and probably ert, not even for the ethnographic period (but focused on the exploitation of lacustrine re­ see Fowler 1995). The Great Basin model (Ste­ sources and lagomorphs. The third system, dat­ ward 1938; Thomas 1971) is not applicable, ex­ ing after ca. 1,000 B.P., exhibits a shift in the cept in a very broad sense, due to the significant settlement/subsistence pattern away from the difference in the biotic environment and resource lake and back to a dependence on streams and/or base between the Great Basin and Mojave des­ springs, and an apparent (but as yet unknown) erts. In addition, the environmental regimes of shift in resource exploitation. The Rose Spring die Mojave Desert during the Holocene and Late component at the Cantil site (Sutton 1991) con­ Pleistocene are poorly known (particularly to ar­ tains attributes of the second and third patterns: chaeologists), and there is a great need to under­ it is dated at the end of the second pattern (or at stand more fully the apparently diverse and dy­ the beginning of the third) and is associated with namic paleoclimafic record (Spaulding 1990). a riparian habitat. Thus, the Canfil site might be Such an understanding is key to the reconstruc­ viewed as a transitional adaptation between the tion of settlement/subsistence systems and to the second and third patterns. modeling of cultural change over time. There Assuming that the later climate was hotter is, however, a number of ideas regarding chang­ and drier than during the preceding Rose Spring ing settlement/subsistence patterns from period times, segments of the population may have to period. These transitions, discussed above, moved out of the area as a response to more are only very broadly known, and no complete xeric conditions. There is some reason to sus­ settlement/subsistence systems have been de­ pect that the pattern of major Kawaiisu occupa­ scribed (issues of sedentism or territorality re­ tion of the southern Sierra Nevada documented main unexplored). Consequenfly, researchers during die edinographic period is late (Sutton are forced to look at small segments of systems 1991), as suggested by the current understanding and model the remaining, usually major, por­ of the archaeology of the area (e.g., Pruett tion. Such an approach is ultimately unsatisfac­ 1987). Sutton (1991) suggested die possibility tory, but it is a start. that, due to the beginning of a warmer and drier Changing Settlement/Subsistence in the period beginning about 1,000 B.P., the Kawaiisu Western Mojave Desert. Recenfly, a model of core occupation area shifted from the western changing settlement/subsistence systems in the Mojave Desert to the southern Sierra Nevada. Fremont Valley over the last several thousand However, the Kawaiisu still retained claim to the years has been proposed (e.g., Sutton 1988c, western Mojave Desert, as recorded by Kroeber 1990, 1991) based on data from excavations at (1925) and Zigmond (1986). the Cantil and Koehn Lake sites and from earlier Further, if the southern Sierra Nevada/west­ work in the soudiern Sierra Nevada. The first ern Mojave Desert supported a substantial popu- 244 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY lation until about 1,000 B.P. when die environ­ several diousand years ago (e.g., Sutton 1987b, ment deteriorated, as suggested above, those 1994b), both Takic and Numic (several lan­ people may have intmded upon their neighbors guages each) diverged and expanded. to the north and east. This may have been the The distribution of die various Takic lan­ beginning of the Numic expansion thought to guages (including Kitanemuk and Serrano in the have originated in this area at about this time Mojave Desert) suggests an expansion sometime (Sutton 1987a, 1994a; Madsen and Rhode 1994). during the last several thousand years (Moratto The expansion of population documented in 1984:560). Although the direction of this ex­ the Antelope Valley to the south (Sutton 1988a, pansion is debatable, it seems reasonable—based 1988c) seems to have begun too early to have on the center of gravity argument for all of been influenced by the apparent desiccation of NUA—that the Takic homeland was in the west­ Koehn Lake at ca. 1,000 B.P. However, die ern Mojave and that the expansion was south­ initial establishment of the Koehn Lake site may ward into southern California. No detailed ex­ date from the same time (ca. 2,000 B.P.) as the amination of die "Takic problem" has been un­ populafion extended to the south, and could be dertaken. related. If there was a series of lakestands in On the other hand, the divergence and expan­ the Fremont Valley throughout the Holocene (as sion of the various Numic groups has received it appears from multiple visible fossil shore­ much more attendon (summarized in Sutton lines), the implications regarding our under­ 1994a). The generally accepted view is that Nu­ standing of prehistoric cultural ecology and pop­ mic diverged into three "mother" languages (all ulation movements could be quite significant. in the Mojave Desert/Owens Valley area), each of which then gave rise to a "daughter" lan­ Linguistic Prehistory guage that expanded rapidly across the Great Ba­ Although the ethnographic distribution of sin beginning about 1,000 B.P. (but perhaps ear­ languages in the Mojave Desert is not very com­ lier). The causal factors involved in the move­ plex, as it is in the California culture area, this ment of the Numic (or Takic) are unknown, but relative simplicity belies a very complicated and may be related to environmental factors (e.g., a dynamic situation in prehistory. The western xeric period). The mechanisms by which such Mojave Desert/southern Sierra Nevada region a population movement may have occurred are appears to be the homeland of Northern Uto- also unclear, although there have been several Aztecan (NUA), a large language group that in­ models put forth (Bettinger and Baumhoff 1982; cludes the Takic, Numic, Hopic, and Tubatula- Sutton 1986c). balic branches (Lamb 1958) and commonly, but Thus, within the last several thousand years, erroneously, referred to as "Shoshonean." Ac­ the Mojave Desert was witness to three major cording to the current majority view (summa­ population (though possibly only language) rized by Sutton 1994a; but see Aikens and Wi- movements out of the region: the movement of therspoon 1986; Aikens 1994), NUA arrived in Hopic to the Southwest; the expansion of Takic the western Mojave/southern Sierra Nevada re­ into most of southern California; and the expan­ gion about 5,000 years ago and diverged into the sion of Numic across the Great Basin and be­ four branches listed above about 3,000 years yond. The key to understanding these popula­ ago. While the Tubatulabalic branch (consisting tion movements, and ultimately their effect on of one language, Tubatulabal) remained in place the prehistory of western North America, lies in and Hopic (consisting of one language, Hopi) the Mojave Desert and Owens Valley. It is an apparenfly moved into the Southwest at least exciting research prospect. ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN THE MOJAVE DESERT 245

CONCLUSION Crabtree 1986; Grayson 1993; although some others still use the "h") and to avoid any possible confusion The archaeological record of the Mojave with the currently full and artificial Lake Mohave lo­ cated along the Colorado River behind Davis Dam. Desert is very rich, highly varied, and relatively uninvestigated. That record includes both the ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS earliest known and claimed archaeology in die 1 appreciate the time, advice, comments, and con­ western hemisphere and a record of indigenous tributions of Gwyn Alcock, Mark E. Basgall, Gerrit peoples from the late 1800s. The Archaic of die L. Fenenga, Jill Gardner, M. C. Hall, Robert E. Mojave Desert is quite long and complex, en­ Parr, Lester A. Ross, Joan S. Schneider, Kristin D. Sobolik, W. Geoffrey Spauldmg, David S. Whidey, compassing virtually the entire Holocene. The Robert M. Yohe II, and several anonymous reviewers transition(s) to the Formative in the eastern Mo­ for the Journal (they did their job quite well). I jave is late enough in time that a fairly detailed especially thank Mike Glassow for his comments, pa­ tience, and guidance. The restricted length of this record of diat process still exists. The oppor- paper necessitated the omission of much important tunides to elucidate problems of considerable an­ work in Mojave Desert archaeology and I apologize thropological importance are many in the Moja­ to those whose work was not included. ve Desert. They are waiting for us. REFERENCES NOTES Aikens, C. Melvin 1. Although published later, the summary of 1994 Adaptive Strategies and Environmental Mojave Desert prehistory by Warren and Crabtree Change in the Great Basin and Its Periph­ (1986) was written well before (ca. 1972) that of eries as Determinants in the Migrations of Warren (1984), the latter being more up to date than Numic-speaking Peoples. In: Across the the former. West: Human Population Movement and 2. The term Archaic has been defined in a variety the Expansion of the Numa, David B. of ways, most commonly referring to a generalized Madsen and David Rhode, eds., pp. 35- hunter-gatherer "stage" postdadng the Pleistocene 43. Salt Lake City: University of Utah (VVilley and Phillips 1958). Some prefer to define Press. the Archaic as an adaptive strategy, "an economic Aikens, C. Melvin, and Younger T. Witherspoon pattem in which a wide range of locally available 1986 Great Basin Prehistory: Linguistics, Ar­ plants and animals are exploited across regional chaeology, and Environment. In: An­ microenvironments by populations familiar with their thropology of the Desert West: Papers in distribudon and seasonality" (Willig and Aikens Honor of Jesse D. Jennings, Carol Condie 1988:5), while others suggest abandoning the term al­ and Don D. Fowler, eds., pp. 7-20. Uni­ together (Simms 1988:41). For the purposes of this versity of Utah Anthropological Papers paper, the Archaic is considered to be a stage (Willey No. 110. and Phillips 1958) that represents the "generalized Alsoszatai-Petho, John A. economic adaptation" (Willig and Aikens 1988:5) of 1975 The East Rim Site, Califomia (SBCM- post-Pleistocene hunting and gathering peoples at the 1803): An Early Western Lithic Co-Tradi­ band or tribe level of sociopolitical complexity. So tion Site. Master's thesis, Eastem New defined, the Archaic of the Mojave Desert begins ca. Mexico University. 10,000 B.P., although some groups may have had relatively specialized adaptations depending on loca­ Altschul, Jeffrey H. tion (Meighan 1959:302). The Archaic persisted 1990 Prehistoric Adaptation to a Desert Spring throughout most of the Holocene, and many cultures Environment: Archaeological Investiga­ in the Mojave Desert were still "Archaic" at the tions of Surprise Spring, San Bemardino time of European contact. County, Califomia. Tucson: Statistical Research Technical Series No. 27. 3. When first defined, the temporal period and Pleistocene body of water herein called Lake Mojave Altschul, Jeffrey H., William C. Johnson, and Mat­ was spelled "Lake Mohave" (with an "h" rather thew A. Stemer than a "j"). The "j" is used here, both due to 1989 The Deep Creek Site (CA-SBr-176): A recent convention (e.g., Warren 1984; Warren and Late Prehistoric Base Camp in the Mojave 246 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY

River Forks Region, San Bemardino 1994 Perspectives on the Early Holocene Ar­ County, Califomia. Tucson: Statistical chaeological Record of the Mojave Desert. Research Technical Series No. 22. In: Kelso Conference Papers 1987-1992, A Collection of Papers and Abstracts from Ambler, J. Richard, and Mark Q. Sutton the First Five Kelso Conferences on the 1989 The Anasazi Abandonment of the San Prehistory of the Mojave Desert, G. Die- Juan Drainage and the Numic Expansion. ken Everson and Joan S. Schneider, eds., North American Archaeologist 10(1):39- pp. 63-81. Califomia State University, 54. Bakersfield, Museum of Anthropology Oc­ Amsden, Charles Avery casional Papers in Anthropology No. 4. 1935 The Pinto Basin Artifacts. In: The Pinto Basin Site, by E. W. C. Campbell and Basgall, Mark E., and D. L. Tme W. H. Campbell, pp. 33-51. Southwest 1985 Archaeological Investigations in Crowder Museum Papers No. 9. Canyon, 1973-1984: Excavations at Sites SBr-421B, SBr-421C, SBr-421D, and Apple, Rebecca, and Andrew York SBR-713. Report on file at the San Ber­ 1993 Kem River Gas Transmission Company, nardino County Archaeological Informa­ Kem River Pipeline, Cultural Resource tion Center, San Bernardino County Mu­ Data Recovery Report, Califomia. Report seum, Redlands. on file at the San Bemardino County Ar­ chaeological Information Center, San Ber­ Basgall, Mark E., M.C. Hall, and Kelly R. McGuire nardino County Museum, Redlands. 1988 The Late Holocene Archaeology of Drink- water Basin, Fort Irwin, San Bemardino, Arkush, Brooke S. Califomia. Report on file at the San Ber­ 1990 The Protohistoric Period in the Westem nardino County Archaeological Informa­ Great Basin. Journal of Califomia and tion Center, San Bemardino County Mu­ Great Basin Anthropology 12(l):28-36. seum, Redlands. Bamforth, Douglas B., and Ronald I. Dom Bedwell, Stephen F. 1988 On the Nature and Antiquity of the Manix 1973 Fort Rock Basin: Prehistory and Environ­ Lake Industry. Joumal of Califomia and ment. Eugene: University of Oregon Great Basin Anthropology 10(2): 209-226. Books. Basgall, Mark E. Bettinger, Robert L. 1993 Early Holocene Prehistory of the North- 1986 Intersite Comparison of Great Basin Central Mojave Desert. Ph.D. disserta­ Brown Ware Assemblages. In: Pottery tion. University of Califomia, Davis. of the Great Basin and Adjacent Areas, 1994 Deception Knoll (CA-SBR-5047): An Suzanne Griset, ed., pp. 97-105. Univer­ Early Holocene Encampment in the North- sity of Utah Anthropological Papers No. Central Mojave Desert. In: Off Limits in 111. the Mojave Desert, Robert E. Reynolds, Bettinger, Robert L., and Martin A. Baumhoff ed., pp. 61-70. Redlands: San Bemar­ 1982 The Numic Spread: Great Basin Cultures dino County Museum Association Special in Competition. American Antiquity 47(3): Publication 94-1. 485-503. Basgall, Mark E., and M. C. Hall Bettinger, Robert L., and R. E. Taylor 1991 Relationships Between Fluted and 1974 Suggested Revisions in Archaeological Se­ Stemmed Points in the Mojave Desert. quences of the Great Basin in Interior Current Research in the Pleistocene 8:61- Southem California. Nevada Archaeologi­ 64. cal Survey Research Paper No. 5:1-26. 1992 Fort Irwin Archaeology: Emerging Per­ Bettinger, Robert L., James F. O'Connell, and David spectives on Mojave Desert Prehistory. H. Thomas Society for California Archaeology News­ 1991 ProjectUe Points as Time Markers in the letter 26(5): 1-7. Great Basin. American Anthropologist 1993 Conventional Wisdom as "Alternative 93(1):166-172. Perspective" on Mojave Desert Prehis­ Brott, Clark W. tory? Society for Califomia Archaeology 1966 How Stones Became Tools and Weapons. Newsletter 27(6):4-8. In: Ancient Hunters of the Far West, by ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN THE MOJAVE DESERT 247

M. J. Rogers, pp. 139-193. San Diego: Campbell, E. W. C, and W. H. Campbell Union-Tribune Publishing Company. 1935 TTie Pinto Basin Site. Southwest Museum Bryan, Alan L. Papers No. 9. 1988 The Relationship of the Stemmed Point Campbell, E. W. C, W. H. Campbell, E. Antevs, and Fluted Point Traditions in the Great C. E. Amsden, J. A. Barbieri, and F. D. Bode Basin. In: Early Human Occupation in 1937 The Archaeology of Pleistocene Lake Mo­ Far Westem North America: The Clovis- jave. Southwest Museum Papers No. 11. Archaic Interface, Judith A. Willig, C. Chartkoff, Joseph L., and Kerry Kona Chartkoff Melvin Aikens, and John L. Fagan, eds., 1984 The Archaeology of Califomia. Stanford: pp. 53-74. Nevada State Museum Anthro­ Stanford University Press. pological Papers No. 21. Cleland, James H., and W. Geoffrey Spaulding Budinger, Fred E., Jr. 1992 An Alternative Perspective on Mojave 1996 A Search Strategy for Evidence of Early Desert Prehistory. Society for Califomia Man in America: A Preliminary Assess­ Archaeology Newsletter 26(6): 1-6. ment of the Manix Type Section, Central Mojave Desert, Califomia. In: Proceed­ Connell, S. D., T. WiHiamson, and S. G. Wells ings of the Society for Califomia Archae­ 1994 Reconnaissance Investigation of Holocene ology, Vol. 9, Judyth Reed, ed., pp. 113- and Pleistocene Sediments Along the Mo­ 119. San Diego: Society for Califomia jave River, Southem Califomia: ImpUca- Archaeology. tions for Archaeological Studies. In: Kel­ so Conference Papers 1987-1992, A Col­ Budinger, Fred E., Jr., and Ruth DeEtte Simpson lection of Papers and Abstracts from the 1985 Evidence for Middle and Late Pleistocene First Five Kelso Conferences on the Pre­ Man in the Central Mojave Desert of history of the Mojave Desert, G. Dicken Southern Califomia. In: Woman, Poet, Everson and Joan S. Schneider, eds., pp. Scientist: Essays in New World Anthro­ 95-105. Califomia State University, Ba­ pology Honoring Dr. Emma Lou Davis, kersfield, Museum of Anthropology Occa­ Thomas C. Blackbum, ed., pp. 16-36. sional Papers in Anthropology No. 4. Ballena Press Anthropological Papers No. 29. Davis, C. Alan, and Gerald A. Smith 1981 Newberry Cave. Redlands: San Bemar­ Butzer, Karl W. dino County Museum Association. 1988 A "Marginality" Model to Explain Major Spatial and Temporal Gaps in the Old and Davis, Emma Lou (ed.) New World Pleistocene Settlement Rec­ 1978 The Ancient Califomians: Rancholabrean ords. Geoarchaeology 3:193-203. Hunters of the Mojave Lakes Country. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles Byrd, Brian F., Drew Pallette, and Carol Serr County Science Series 29. 1994 Prehistoric Settlement Along the Eastem Margin of Rogers Dry Lake, Westem Mo­ 1982 The Geoarchaeology and History of China jave Desert, Califomia. San Diego: Lake, Califomia. In: Peopling of the Brian F. Mooney Associates, Anthropo­ New World, Jonathan E. Ericson, R. E. logical Technical Series 2. Taylor, and Rainer Berger, eds., pp. 203- 228. Ballena Press Anthropological Papers Cameron, Constance No. 23. 1984 The West Pond Report: Archaeological In­ vestigations at SBr-363c, Soda Springs Davis, Emma Lou, and Carol Panlaqui (Zzyzx), Califomia. Califomia State Uni­ 1978a Stone Tools, The Action Units. In: The versity, Fullerton, Occasional Papers of Ancient Califomians: Rancholabrean Hun­ the Archaeological Research Facility, No. ters of the Mojave Lakes Country, Emma 2. Lou Davis, ed., pp. 30-75. Natural His­ tory Museum of Los Angeles County Sci­ Cameron, Constance, and John Rafter ence Series 29. 1983 A Test Unit at CA-SBR-291 (Counsel Rocks). Report on file at the San Bernar­ 1978b Transient Homes of Migratory Foragers: dino County Archaeological Information The Sites. In: The Ancient Califomians: Center, San Bemardino County Museum, Rancholabrean Hunters of the Mojave Redlands. Lakes Country, Emma Lou Davis, ed.. 248 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY

pp. 76-152. Natural History Museum of Early Human Occupation in Far Western Los Angeles County Science Series 29. North America: The Clovis-Archaic In­ terface, Judith A. Willig, C. Melvin Ai­ 1978c Concluding Remarks. In: The Ancient kens, and John L. Fagan, eds., pp. 131- Califomians: Rancholabrean Hunters of 144. Nevada State Museum Anthropolog­ the Mojave Lakes Country, Emma Lou ical Papers No. 21. Davis, ed., pp. 177-180. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County Science Drover, Christopher Series 29. 1979 The Late Prehistoric Human Ecology of the Northem Mohave Sink, San Bemardi­ Davis, Emma Lou, and Richard Shuder, Jr. no County, Califomia. Ph.D. disserta­ 1969 Recent Discoveries of Fluted Points in tion, University of Califomia, Riverside. Califomia and Nevada. Nevada State Mu­ seum Anthropological Papers No. 14:154- Echlin, Donald R., Philip J. WiUce, and Lawrence E. 171. Dawson 1981 Ord Shelter. Joumal of Califomia and Davis, Emma Lou, Clark W. Brott, and David L. Great Basin Anthropology 3(l):49-68. Weide 1969 The Westem Lithic Co-Tradition. San Eckhardt, William T., Richard H. Norwood, John R. Diego Museum Papers No. 6. Cook, and Fran E. Buck 1982 Archaeological Investigations at the Owl Davis, James T. Canyon Site, Rainbow Basin, San Bemar­ 1962 The Rusder Rockshelter Site (SBr-288), A dino County, Califomia. In: The Ar­ Culturally Stratified Site in the Mohave chaeology of Owl Canyon and Stoddard Desert, Califomia. Berkeley: Reports of Valley, Mojave Desert, Califomia, Wil­ the University of Califomia Archaeologi­ liam T. Eckhardt and M. Jay Hatley, eds., cal Survey No. 57:25-65. pp. 100-226. Riverside: Bureau of Land Donnan, Christopher B. Management Cultural Resource Publica­ 1964 A Suggested Culture Sequence for the tion in Anthropology and History. Providence Mountains (Eastem Mojave Enzel, Yehouda, William J. Brown, Roger Y. Ander­ Desert). Los Angeles: University of Cal­ son, Leslie D. McFadden, and Stephen G. Wells ifomia Archaeological Survey Annual Re­ 1992 Short-Duration Holocene Lakes in the Mo­ port 1963-1964:1-26. jave River Drainage Basin, Southem Cali­ Dom, Ronald I., D. B. Bamforth, T. A. Cahdl, J. fomia. Quatemary Research 38:60-73. C. Dohrenwend, B. D. Turrin, D. J. Donahue, A. J. Flenniken, J. Jeffrey, and Philip J. Wilke T. Jull, A. Long, M. E. Macko, E. B. Weil, D. S. 1989 Typology, Technology, and Chronology of Whidey, and T. H. Zabel Great Basin Dart Points. American An­ 1986 Cation-Ratio and Accelerator Radiocarbon thropologist 91(1): 149-158. Dating of Rock Vamish on Mojave Arti­ facts and Landforms. Science 231:830- Fowler, Catherine S. 833. 1972 Some Ecological Clues to Proto-Numic Homelands. In: Great Basin Cultural Douglas, Charles L. Ecology: A Symposium, Don D. Fowler, 1991 Analysis of Faunal Remains from Site 4- ed.,pp. 105-122. Reno: Desert Research Sbr-4966. In: Archaeological Investiga­ Institiite Publications in the Social Sci­ tions at Nelson Wash, Fort Irwin, Califor­ ences No. 8. nia, by Claude N. Warren, pp. 187-202. Fort Irwin Archaeological Project Re­ 1983 Some Lexical Clues to Uto-Aztecan Home­ search Report No. 23 (2 vols.). Report lands. Intemational Joumal of American on file at the San Bemardino County Ar­ Linguistics 49(3):224-257. chaeological Information Center, San Ber­ 1995 Some Notes on Ethnographic Subsistence nardino County Museum, Redlands. Systems in Mojavean Environments in the Douglas, Charles L., Dennis L. Jenkins, and Claude Great Basin. Joumal of Ethnobiology N. Warren 15(1):99-117. 1988 Spatial and Temporal Variability in Faunal Fowler, Don D., David B. Madsen, and Eugene M. Remains from Four Lake Mojave-Pinto Hattori Period Sites in the Mojave Desert. In: 1973 Prehistory of Southeastern Nevada. Reno: ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN THE MOJAVE DESERT 249

Desert Research Institute Publications in Gunnerson, James H. the Social Sciences No. 6. 1962 Plateau Shoshonean Prehistory: A Sug­ Gardner, Jdl K., Sally F. McGill, and Mark Q. gested Reconstruction. American Antiq­ Sutton uity 28(l):41-45. 1994 Buried Hearth Features Along the Garlock Hall, M. C. Fault. Paper presented at the annual Kel­ 1994 Middle Holocene Human Occupation of so Conference, Little Lake, Califomia. Site CA-SBR-5251 in Tiefort Basin, Fort 1995 Further Analysis of Mid-Holocene Hearth Irwin, San Bemardino County, Califomia. Features Along the Garlock Fault, West­ In: Off Limits in the Mojave Desert, em Fremont Valley. Paper presented at Robert E. Reynolds, ed., pp. 71-80. Red- the Society for Califomia Archaeology lands: San Bemardino County Museum Fall Data Sharing Meetings, Los Angeles. Association Special Publication 94-1. Gilreath, Amy J., and William R. Hildebrandt Hall, M. C, and Mark E. Basgall 1991 National Registration of Historic Places 1990 Salvage Archaeology of CA-SBR-111, Registration Form: Coso Archaeological Fort Irwin, Califomia: A Late Prehistoric District. Report on file at the National Rockshelter in the North-Central Mojave Park Service, San Francisco. Desert. Report on file at the San Bemar­ dino County Archaeological Information Glennan, William S. Center, San Bemardino County Museum, 1971 Concave-Based Lanceolate Fluted Projec­ Redlands. tile Points from Califomia. The Master- 1994 Lessons to Leam from Newberry/Gypsum key 45(l):27-32. Period Archaeology of the Mojave Desert. 1974 The Baker Site (SBr-541): An Eady Lith­ In: Kelso Conference Papers 1987-1992, ic Assemblage from the Mojave Desert. A Collection of Papers and Abstracts from Pacific Coast Archaeological Society the First Five Kelso Conferences on the Quarterly 10(2): 17-34. Prehistory of the Mojave Desert, G. Dic­ 1976 The Manix Lake Lithic Industry: Early ken Everson and Joan S. Schneider, eds., Lithic Tradition or Workshop Refuse? pp. 82-94. Califomia State University, Journal of New World Archaeology 1(7): Bakersfield, Museum of Anthropology Oc­ 43-62. casional Papers in Anthropology No. 4. Grant, Campbell, James W. Baird, and J. Kenneth Harrington, Mark R. Pringle 1927 A Primitive Pueblo City in Nevada. 1968 Rock Drawings of the Coso Range, Inyo American Anthropologist 29(2):262-277. County, Califomia. Maturango Museum 1933 Gypsum Cave, Nevada. Southwest Muse­ Publication No. 4. um Papers No. 8. Graumlich, Lisa J. 1957 A Pinto Site at Litde Lake, Califomia. 1993 A 1000-Year Record of Temperature and Southwest Museum Papers No. 17. Precipitation in the Sierra Nevada. Qua­ Harry, Karen G. temary Research 39:249-255. 1995 Cation-Ratio Dating of Vamished Arti­ Grayson, Donald K. facts: Testing the Assumptions. Ameri­ 1993 The Desert's Past: A Nahiral History of can Antiquity 60(1): 118-130. the Great Basin. Washington: Smithsoni­ Haynes, Gregory M. an Institution Press. 1996 Evaluating Flake Assemblages and Stone Green, Eileen M. Tool Distributions at a Large Westem 1987 A Cultural Ecological Approach to the Stemmed Tradition Site Near Yucca Rock Art of Southem Nevada. Master's Mountain, Nevada. Joumal of Califomia thesis, University of Nevada, Las Vegas. and Great Basin Anthropology 18(1): 104- Gumerman, George IV 130. 1985 An Optimal Foraging Approach in Subsis­ Heizer, Robert F., and Martin A. Baumhoff tence Change: The Coso Junction Ranch 1961 The Archaeology of Wagon Jack Shelter. Site. Master's thesis, University of Cali­ In: The Archaeology of Two Sites at fomia, Los Angeles. Eastgate, Churchill County, Nevada. Uni- 250 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY

versity of Califomia Anthropological Rec­ Jenkins, Dennis L. ords 20(4): 119-138. 1987 Dating the Pinto Occupation at Rogers Ridge: A Fossil Spring Site in the Mo­ 1970 Big Game Hunters in the Great Basin: A jave Desert, Califomia. Joumal of Cali­ Critical Review of the Evidence. Berke­ fornia and Great Basin Anthropology 9(2): ley: Contributions of the University of 214-231. Califomia Archaeological Research Facili­ ty 7:1-12. Jenkins, Dennis L., and Claude N. Warren 1984 Obsidian Hydration and the Pinto Chro­ Heizer, Robert F., and Rainer Berger nology in the Mojave Desert. Journal of 1970 Radiocarbon Age of the Gypsum Cave Califomia and Great Basin Anthropology Culture. Berkeley: Contributions of the 6(l):44-60. University of Califomia Archaeological Research Facility 7:13-18. 1986 Test Excavation and Data Recovery at the Awl Site, 4-SBr-4562, a Pinto Site at Fort Heizer, Robert F., and Thomas R. Hester Irwin, Califomia. Fort Irwin Archaeolog­ 1978 Great Basin Projectile Points: Forms and ical Project Research Report No. 22. Re­ Chronology. Ballena Press Publications in port on file at the San Bemardino County Archaeology, Ethnology and History No. Archaeological Information Center, San 10. Bemardino County Museum, Redlands. Hester, Thomas R. Kooyman, Brian, Margaret E. Newman, and Howard 1973 Chronological Ordering of Great Basin Ceri Prehistory. Berkeley: Contributions of 1992 Verifying the Reliability of Blood Residue the University of Califomia Archaeologi­ Analysis on Archaeological Tools. Jour­ cal Research Facility 17. nal of Archaeological Science 19:265-269. Hildebrandt, William R., and Amy J. Gilreath Kroeber, Alfred L. 1988 Survey and Evaluation of Cultural Re­ 1925 Handbook of the Indians of Califomia. sources on a Portion of the Navy/CUV Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin Contract (Residual Navy 2) Lands Within 78. the Coso KGRA, Inyo County, California. Report on file at the Archaeological Infor­ 1959 Ethnographic Interpretations 7-11. Uni­ mation Center, University of Califomia, versity of Califomia Publications in Amer­ Riverside. ican Archaeology and Ethnology 47(3). Lamb, Sydney M. Hillebrand, Timothy S. 1958 Linguistic Prehistory in the Great Basin. 1972 The Archaeology of the Coso Locality of Intemational Joumal of American Linguis­ the Northem Mojave Region of Califor­ tics 24(2):95-100. nia. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara. Lanning, Edward P. 1963 The Archaeology of the Rose Spring Site Hunt, Alice INY-372. University of CaUfomia Publi­ 1960 Archeology of the Death Valley Salt Pan, cations in American Archaeology and Eth­ Califomia. University of Utah Anthropo­ nology 49(3). logical Papers No. 47. Larson, Daniel O., and Joel Michaelsen Jaeger, E. C. 1990 Impacts on Climatic Variability and Popu­ 1965 The Califomia Deserts. Stanford: Stan­ lation Growth on Virgin Branch Anasazi ford University Press. Cultural Developments. American Antiq­ James, E. Henry uity 55(2):227-249. 1987 Everyday Trails of the Manix Quadrangle. Leonard, Jo Anne C. San Bemardino County Museum Quarterly 1980 A Final Report of the Surface Collection 34(1). and Excavations of SBr-189. Report on 1996 15,000 Years of Human Trails in the Lake file at the San Bemardino County Archae­ Manix Basin. In: Proceedings of the So­ ological Information Center, San Bemardi­ ciety for Califomia Archaeology, Vol. 9, no County Museum, Redlands. Judyth Reed, ed., pp. 127-152. San Di­ Leonard, N. Nelson 111, and Christopher E. Drover ego: Society for Califomia Archaeology. 1980 Prehistoric Turquoise Mining in the Hal- ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN THE MOJAVE DESERT 251

loran Springs District, San Bemardino Madsen, David B., and David Rhode (eds.) County, Califomia. Joumal of Califomia 1994 Across the West: Human Population and Great Basin Anthropology 2(2):245- Movement and the Expansion of the Nu­ 256. ma. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. Lerch, Michael K. 1985 The Desert Mojave: A Review of Ethno­ McDonald, Meg, Philip J. Wilke, Andrea Kaus, and historic Data and Archaeological Implica­ Chris Moser tions. Paper on file at the Department of 1987 McCue: An Elko Site in Riverside, Cali­ Anthropology, University of Califomia, fomia. Joumal of Califomia and Great Riverside. Basin Anthropology 9(l):46-73. Lyneis, Margaret M. McGuire, Kelly R., and M. C. Hall 1982 Prehistory in the Southem Great Basin. 1988 The Archaeology of Tiefort Basin, Fort Ir­ In: Man and Environment in the Great win, San Bemardino, Califomia. Report Basin, David B. Madsen and James F. on file at the San Bemardino County Ar­ O'Coimell, eds., pp. 172-185. Society for chaeological Information Center, San Ber­ American Archaeology Papers No. 2. nardino County Museum, Redlands. 1988 Tizon Brown Ware and the Problems McGuire, Kelly R., Alan P. Garfinkle, and Mark E. Raised by Paddle-and-Anvil Pottery in the Basgall Mojave Desert. Joumal of Califomia and 1982 Archaeological Investigations in the El Great Basin Anthropology 10(2): 146-155. Paso Mountains of the Westem Mojave Desert: The Bickle and Last Chance Sites 1992 The Main Ridge Community at Lost City: (CA-Ker-250and-261). Report on file at Virgin Anasazi Architecture, Ceramics, the Southem San Joaquin Valley Archae­ and Burials. University of Utah Anthro­ ological Information Center, Califomia pological Papers No. 117. State University, Bakersfield. 1994 East and Into the Plateau: An Archaeo­ Meek, Norman logical Examination of the Numic Expan­ 1989 Geomorphic and Hydrologic Implications sion in Southem Nevada, Northem Arizo­ of the Rapid Incision of Afton Canyon, na, and Southem Utah. In: Across the Mojave Desert, California. Geology 17(1): West: Human Population Movement and 7-10. the Expansion of the Numa, David B. Meighan, Clement W. Madsen and David Rhode, eds., pp. 141- 1959 Californian Cultures and the Concept of 149. Salt Lake City: University of Utah an Archaic Stage. American Antiquity Press. 24(3):289-305. 1995 The Virgin Anasazi, Far Westem Pueblo- 1989 Further Comments on Pinto Points and ans. Joumal of World Prehistory 9(2): Their Dating. Joumal of California and 199-241. Great Basin Anthropology 11(1): 113-118. Lyneis, Margaret M., Mary K. Rusco, and Keith Moratto, Michael J. Myhrer 1984 Califomia Archaeology. Orlando: Aca­ 1989 hivestigations at Adam 2 (26Ck 2059): A demic Press. Mesa House Phase Site in the Moapa Val­ Moskowitz, Kathy ley, Nevada. Nevada State Museum An­ 1994 The Archaeology of Three Sites in the thropological Papers No. 22. Providence Mountains State Recreation Area. Master's thesis, Califomia State Madsen, David B. University, Bakersfield. 1982 Get It Where the Gettin's Good: A Varia­ ble Model of Great Basin Subsistence and Nakamura, N. Nobora Settlement Based on Data from the East- 1991 The Baker Site: A Non-Projectile Point era Great Basin. In: Man and Environ­ Assemblage at Pleistocene Lake Mohave. ment in the Great Basin, David B. Madsen In: Papers on the Archaeology of the Mo­ and James F. O'Connell, eds., pp. 207- jave Desert No. 2, Mark Q. Sutton, ed., 226. Society for American Archaeology pp. 11-42. Coyote Press Archives of Cal­ Papers No. 2. ifomia Prehistory No. 32. 252 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY

Newman, Margaret, Robert M. Yohe II, Howard Reynolds, Robert E. Ceri, and Mark Q. Sutton 1980 Paleontological Salvage: Southem Cali­ 1993 Immunological Protein Residue Analysis fomia Edison Company, Ten Megawatt of Non-lithic Archaeological Materials. Solar Generating Pilot Plant, Daggett, Joumal of Archaeological Science 20:93- California. Report on file at the San Ber­ 100. nardino County Archaeological Informa­ O'Connell, James F., and Can M. Inoway tion Center, San Bemardino County Mu­ 1994 Surprise Valley Projectile Points and Their seum, Redlands. Chronological Implications. Joumal of Ritter, Eric W., and Gary B. Coombs Califomia and Great Basin Anthropology 1990 Southem Califomia Desert Archaeology: 16(2): 162-198. Prospectus for Settlement-Subsistence Stu­ Osborne, Richard H. dies. Pacific Coast Archaeological Soci­ 1993 The Archaeological Collection from Lud­ ety Quarterly 26(1):24-41. low Cave, South-Central Mojave Desert, Rogers, Malcolm Califomia. Joumal of Califomia and Great 1929 Report on an Archaeological Reconnais­ Basin Anthropology 15(2):225-234. sance in the Mohave Sink Region. San Di­ ego Museum of Man, Archaeology 1(1), Patterson, Leland W., Louis V. Hoffman, Rose Marie Higginbotham, and Ruth D. Simpson 1939 Early Lithic Industries of the Lower Basin 1987 Analysis of Lithic Flakes at the Calico of the Colorado River and Adjacent Desert Site, California. Journal of Field Archae­ Areas. San Diego Museum of Man Papers ology 14(1):91-106. No. 3. 1945 An Outline of Yuman Prehistory. South­ Payen, Louis A. western Joumal of Anthropology 1(2): 167- 1982 Artifacts or Geofacts at Calico: Appli­ 198. cation of the Barnes Test. In: Peopling of the New World, Jonathon E. Ericson, 1966 Ancient Hunters of the Far West. San Di­ R. E. Taylor, and Rainer Berger, eds., ego: Union-Tribune Publishing Company. pp. 193-201. Ballena Press Anthropologi­ Ross, Lester A. cal Papers No. 23. 1992 Late Quatemary Geoarchaeology in San Bemardino County, Califomia: Geo­ 1983 The Pre-Clovis of North America: Tem­ morphic Models for Locating Buried Ar- poral and Artifactual Evidence. Ph.D. dis­ sertation, University of Califomia, River­ chaeosediments. Paper presented at the side. annual meetings of the Society for Califor­ nia Archaeology, Pasadena. Pinto, Diana G. Rowlands, Peter, Hymm Johnson, Eric Ritter, and 1989 The Archeology of Mitchell Caverns. Albert Endo Califomia State Department of Parks and 1982 The Mojave Desert. In: Reference Hand­ Recreation, Califomia Archeological Re­ book on the Deserts of North America, ports No. 25. Gordon L. Bender, ed., pp. 103-162. Pippen, Lonnie C. Westport: Greenwood Press. 1986 Intermountain Brown Wares: An Assess­ Schneider, Joan S. ment. In: Pottery of the Great Basin and 1988 Late Prehistoric Times in the Central Mo­ Adjacent Areas, Suzanne Griset, ed., pp. jave Desert: Some Problems. Pacific 9-21. University of Utah Anthropological Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly Papers No. 111. 24(l):30-44. Pmett, Catherine Lewis 1989 The Archaeology of the Afton Canyon 1987 Aboriginal Occupation of Sand Canyon. Site. San Bernardino County Museum Master's thesis, Califomia State Univer­ Association Quarterly 36(1). sity, Bakersfield. Schroeder, Albert H. Rector, Carol H., James D. Swenson, and Philip J. 1957 The Hakataya Cultural Tradition. Ameri­ Wilke (eds.) can Antiquity 23(2): 176-178. 1983 Archaeological Studies at Oro Grande, 1961 The Archaeological Excavations at Willow Mojave Desert, Califomia. Redlands: San Beach, Arizona. University of Utah An­ Bemardino County Museum Association. thropological Papers No. 50. ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN THE MOJAVE DESERT 253

1979 Prehistory: Hakataya. In: Handbook of 1960 Archaeological Survey of the Eastem Cali­ North American Indians, Vol. 9, South­ co Mountains. The Masterkey 34(1):25- west, Alfonzo Ortiz, ed., pp. 100-107. 35. Washington: Smithsonian Institution. 1961 Coyote Gulch: Archaeological Investiga­ Schroth, Adella tions of an Early Lithic Locality in the 1987 The Pinto Basin Site Revisited: Prelimi­ Mojave Desert of San Bernardino County. nary Results of 1972 Research Conducted Archaeological Survey Association of by George Jefferson at the Pinto Basin Southem Califomia Paper No. 5. Site. Paper presented at the annual Kelso 1964 The Archaeological Survey of Pleistocene Conference, Zzyzx, Califomia. Manix Lake (An Early Lithic Horizon). 1994 The Pinto Point Controversy in the West­ Proceedings of the 35th Intemational Con­ em United States. Ph.D. dissertation. Uni­ gress of Americanists 35:5-9. versity of Califomia, Riverside. 1976 A Commentary on W. Glennan's Article. Joumal of New World Archaeology 1(7): Schroth, Adella, and L. R. V. Joesink-Mandeville 63-66. 1987 Bifaces from the Soda Springs Rockshelter (CA-SBr-363B). Pacific Coast Archaeo­ 1989 An Introduction to the Calico Early Man logical Society Quarterly 23(3):35-57. Site Lithic Assemblage. San Bemardino County Museum Quarterly 36(3). Scuderi, Louis A. Simpson, Ruth DeEtte, L. W. Patterson, and Clay A. 1993 A 2000-Year Tree Ring Record of Annual Singer Temperatures in the Sierra Nevada Moun­ 1986 Lithic Technology of the Calico Mountain tains. Science 259:1433-1436. Site, Southem Califomia. In: New Evi­ Shuder, Richard, Jr. dence of the Pleistocene Peopling of the 1961 Lost City: Pueblo Grande de Nevada. Americas, Alan L. Bryan, ed., pp. 89- Nevada State Museum Anthropological 106. Orono: University of Maine. Papers No. 5. Smith, Gerald A. 1967 Cultural Chronology in Southem Nevada. 1963 Archaeological Survey of the Mojave Ri­ In: Pleistocene Studies in Southem Nev­ ver Area and Adjacent Regions. Red- ada, H. M. Wormington and Dorothy El- lands: San Bemardino County Museum hs, eds., pp. 304-308. Nevada State Mu­ Association. seum Anthropological Papers No. 13. Smith, Gerald A., W. C. SchuUing, L. Martin, R. J. Sayles, and P. Jillson Shutler, Richard, Jr., Mary E. Shutler, and James S. 1957 Newberry Cave, Califomia. San Bemar­ Griffin dino County Museum Scientific Series 1. 1960 Stuart Rockshelter: A Stratified Site in Southern Nevada. Nevada State Museum Spaulding, W. Geoffrey Anthropological Papers No. 3. 1990 Vegetational and Climatic Development of the Mojave Desert: The Last Glacial Max­ Simms, Steven R. imum to the Present. In: Packrat Mid­ 1988 Conceptualizing the Paleoindian and Ar­ dens: The Last 40,000 Years of Biotic chaic in the Great Basin. In: Early Change, Julio L. Betancourt, Thomas R. Human Occupation in Far Westem North Van Devender, and Paul S. Martin, eds., America: The Clovis-Archaic Interface, pp. 166-199. Tucson: University of Ari­ Judith A. Willig, C. Melvin Aikens, and zona Press. John L. Fagan, eds., pp. 41-52. Nevada 1991 A Middle Holocene Vegetation Record State Museum Anthropological Papers No. from the Mojave Desert and Its Paleocli­ 21. matic Significance. Quatemary Research Simpson, Ruth DeEtte 35:427-437. 1952 A New Discovery of Early Core-And- 1994 Toward a Comprehensive Understanding Flake Tools in the Mojave Desert. The of Postglacial Environments in the South­ Masterkey 26(2):62-63. em Great Basin. Paper presented at the 1958 The Manix Lake Archaeological Survey. aimual meetings of the Society for Ameri­ The Masterkey 32(1):4-10. can Archaeology, Anaheim. 254 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY

Steward, Julian H. 1991 Archaeological Investigations at Cantil, 1938 Basin-Plateau Aboriginal Sociopolitical Fremont Valley, Westem Mojave Desert, Groups. Bureau of American Ethnology Califomia. Califomia State University, Bulletin 120. Bakersfield, Museum of Anthropology Oc­ Stine, Scott casional Papers in Anthropology No. 1. 1994 Extreme and Persistent Drought in Cali­ 1992 Recent Excavations at Rustler Rockshelter, fomia and Patagonia During Medieval Eastern Mojave Desert. Society for Cali­ Time. Nature 369(6481):546-549. fomia Archaeology Newsletter 26(5): 10. Sutton, Mark Q. 1994a The Numic Expansion as Seen from the 1986a Archaeological Investigations at the Owl Mojave Desert. In: Across the West: Canyon Site (CA-SBR-3801), Mojave De­ Human Population Movement and the Ex­ sert, Califomia. Coyote Press Archives pansion of the Numa, David B. Madsen of Califomia Prehistory No. 9. and David Rhode, eds., pp. 133-140. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. 1986b Preliminary Results of the Excavations at Koehn Lake, Westem Mojave Desert, 1994b A Consideration of a Hopi Migration Califomia. Paper presented at the annual Across the Mojave Desert. In: Kelso meetings of the Society for Califomia Ar­ Conference Papers 1987-1992, A Collec­ chaeology, Santa Rosa. tion of Papers and Abstracts from the First Five Kelso Conferences on the Pre­ 1986c Warfare and Expansion: An Ethnohistoric history of the Mojave Desert, G. Dicken Perspective on the Numic Spread. Joumal Everson and Joan S. Schneider, eds., pp. of Califomia and Great Basin Anthropol­ 15-20. Califomia State University, Ba­ ogy 8(l):65-82. kersfield, Museum of Anthropology Occa­ 1987a A Consideration of the Numic Spread. sional Papers in Anthropology No. 4. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Califor­ 1995 The Rusder Rockshelter Site. In: An­ nia, Riverside. cient Surfaces of the East Mojave Desert, 1987b Consideration of a Hopi Migration Across Robert E. Reynolds and Jennifer Rey­ the Mojave Desert. Paper presented at the nolds, eds., pp. 81-82. San Bemardino annual Kelso Conference, Soda Springs, County Museum Association Quarterly Califomia. 42(3). 1988a An Introduction to the Archaeology of the Sutton, Mark Q., and G. Dicken Everson Westem Mojave Desert, Califomia. Coy­ 1992 Archaeological Investigations at the Oak ote Press Archives of Califomia Prehis­ Creek Canyon Site. Pacific Coast Archae­ tory No. 14. ological Society Quarterly 28(l):43-66. 1988b Obsidian Analyses in the Mojave Desert, Sutton, Mark Q., and Carl L. Hansen Califomia: Results, Cautions, and Com­ 1986 Investigations at Koehn Lake, Western ments. In: Obsidian Dates IV, Clement Mojave Desert. Paper presented at the W. Meighan and Janet Scalise, eds., pp. Great Basin Anthropological Conference, 51-63. Los Angeles: University of Cali­ Las Vegas. fornia Instituteof Archaeology Monograph No. 24. Sutton, Mark Q., and Robin Novickas MS The Archaeology of Vontrigger Springs, 1988c On the Late Prehistory of the Mojave De­ Eastem Mojave Desert, Califomia. Draft sert. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society MS in possession of the authors. Quarteriy 24(l):22-29. Sutton, Mark Q., and Joan S. Schneider 1989 Late Prehistoric Interaction Spheres in the 1996 Archaeological Investigations at Guapia- Mojave Desert, Califomia. North Ameri­ bit: Testing of the CA-SBR-1913 Site. can Archaeologist 10(2):95-121. San Bemardino County Museum Associa­ 1990 Koehn Lake in the Prehistory of the tion Quarterly 43(4). Southwestem Great Basin. Paper present­ Sutton, Mark Q., and Philip J. Wilke ed at the annual meetings of the Society 1984 New Observations on a Clovis Point from for American Archaeology, Las Vegas. the Central Mojave Desert, Califomia. ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN THE MOJAVE DESERT 255

Journal of Califomia and Great Basin An­ view. Report on file at the National Park thropology 6(1): 113-115. Service Westem Service Center, Tucson. Sutton, Mark Q., Christopher B. Donnan, and Den­ 1988a Old Cmmp Flat and Ubehebe Craters: nis L. Jenkins Two Rockshelters in Death Valley Nation­ 1987 The Archaeology of Southcott Cave, Prov­ al Monument. Monographs in Califomia idence Mountains, California. Joumal of and Great Basin Anthropology No. 2. Califomia and Great Basin Anthropology 1988b Desert Foragers and Hunters: Death Val­ 9(2):232-250. ley's Last Prehistoric Inhabitants. Pacific Sutton, Mark Q., Joan S. Schneider, and Robert M. Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly Yohe II 24(1): 11-21. 1993 The Siphon Site (CA-SBR-6580): A Mil­ Wallace, William J., and Francis A. Riddell lingstone Horizon Site in Summit Valley, 1988 Prehistoric Background of Tulare Lake, California. San Bemardino County Muse­ Califomia. In: Early Human Occupation um Association Quarterly 40(3). in Far Westem North America: The Clo­ Tadlock, W. Lewis vis-Archaic Interface, Judith A. Willig, C. 1966 Certain Crescentic Stone Objects as a Melvin Aikens, and John L. Fagan, eds,, Time Marker in the Westem United pp. 87-102. Nevada State Museum An­ States. American Antiquity 31(5):662- thropological Papers No. 21. 675. Wallace, Wdliam J., and Edith S. Taylor Thomas, David H. 1959 A Preceramic Site at Saratoga Springs, 1971 Prehistoric Subsistence-Settlement Pattems Death Valley National Monument, Cali­ of the Reese River Valley, Central Neva­ fornia. Los Angeles: Contributions to da. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Cal­ Califomia Archaeology 3(2). ifomia, Davis. Warren, Claude N. 1981 How to Classify the Projectile Pomts from 1967 The San Dieguito Complex: A Review and Monitor Valley, Nevada. Joumal of Cali­ Hypothesis. American Antiquity 32(2): fomia and Great Basin Anthropology 3(1): 168-185. 7-43. 1980 Pinto Points and Problems in Mojave Des­ Tumer, Wilson G. ert Archaeology. In: Anthropological Pa­ 1994 The Rock Art of Black Canyon. San Ber­ pers in Memory of Earl H. Swanson, Jr., nardino County Museum Association L. B. Harton, Claude N. Warren, and Do­ Quarterly 41(1 & 2). nald R. Tuohy, eds., pp. 67-76. Poca- Vaughan, Sheila J., and Claude N. Warren tello: Idaho Museum of Natural History. 1987 Toward a Definition of Pinto Points. Jour­ 1984 The Desert Region. In: Califomia Ar­ nal of California and Great Basin Anthro­ chaeology, by Michael J. Moratto, pp. pology 9(2): 199-213. 339-430. Oriando: Academic Press. von Werlhof, Jay 1986 Early Holocene Cultural Adaptations in 1987 Spirits of the Earth: A Study of Earthen the Mojave Desert. Paper presented at the Art in the North American Deserts, Vol. World Archaeological Congress, South 1, The North Desert. El Centro: Imperi­ Hampton. al Valley College Museum Society. 1991 Archaeological Investigations at Nelson Wallace, William J. Wash, Fort Irwin, Califomia. Fort Irwin 1958 Archaeological Investigations in Death Archaeological Project Research Report Valley National Monument 1952-1957. No. 23 (2 vols.). Report on file at the Berkeley: Reports of the University of San Bernardino County Archaeological In­ Califomia Archaeological Survey No. 42: formation Center, San Bemardino County 7-22. Museum, Redlands. 1962 Prehistoric Cultural Development in the 1994 Water and Man in the Deep Desert: A Southem Califomia Deserts. American Model for Changing Settlement Pattems of Antiquity 28(2): 172-180. the Eariy Holocene. In: Kelso Confer­ 1977 Death Valley National Monument's Pre­ ence Papers 1987-1992, A Collection of historic Past: An Archaeological Over­ Papers and Abstracts from the First Five 256 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY

Kelso Conferences on the Prehistory of Watters, David R. the Mojave Desert, G. Dicken Everson 1979 On the Hunting of "Big Game" by Great and Joan S. Schneider, eds., pp. 113-122. Basin Aboriginal Populations. Joumal of Califomia State University, Bakersfield, New World Archaeology 3(3):57-64. Museum of Anthropology Occasional Pa­ Weide, David L. pers in Anthropology No. 4. 1982 Paleoecological Models in the Southem 1996 The Manix Lake Lithic Industry in Histor­ Great Basin: Methods and Measurement. ical Perspective. In: Proceedings of the In: Man and Environment in the Great Society for Califomia Archaeology, Vol. Basin, David B. Madsen and James F. 9, Judyth Reed, ed., pp. 120-126. San Di­ O'Connell, eds., pp. 8-26. Society for ego: Society for Califomia Archaeology. American Archaeology Papers No. 2. Warren, Claude N., and Robert H. Crabtree Wells, Stephen G., Roger Y. Anderson, Leslie D. 1986 Prehistory of the Southwestem Area. In: McFadden, William J. Brown, Yehouda Enzel, and Handbook of North American Indians, Jean-Luc Miossec Vol. 11, Great Basin, Warren L. d'Aze­ 1989 Late Quatemary Paleohydrology of the vedo, ed., pp. 183-193. Washington: Eastem Mojave River Drainage, Southern Smithsonian Institution. Califomia: Quantitative Assessment of the Late Quatemary Hydrologic Cycle in Warren, Claude N., and John DeCosta Large Arid Watersheds. Las Cmces: New 1964 Dating Lake Mohave Artifacts and Mexico Water Research Institute Report Beaches. American Antiquity 30(2):206- No. 242. 209. Whitley, David S. Warren, Claude N., and H. T. Ore 1982 The Study of North American Rock Art: 1978 Approach and Process of Dating Lake A Case Study for South-Central Califor­ Mohave Artifacts. The Joumal of Califor­ nia. Ph.D. dissertation. University of nia Anthropology 5(2): 179-187. California, Los Angeles. Warren, Claude N., and Carl Phagan 1994 By the Hunter, For the Gatherer: Art, 1988 Fluted Points in the Mojave Desert: Their Social Relations and Subsistence Change Technology and Cultural Context. In: in the Prehistoric Great Basin. World Ar­ Early Human Occupation in Far Westem chaeology 25(3):356-373. North America: The Clovis-Archaic In­ terface, Judith A. Willig, C. Melvin Whitley, David S., and Ronald I. Dom Aikens, and John L. Fagan, eds., pp. 121- 1993 New Perspectives on the Clovis vs. Pre- 130. Nevada State Museum Anthropolog­ Clovis Controversy. American Antiquity ical Papers No. 21. 58(4):626-647. Whitley, David S., George Gumerman IV, Joseph M. Warren, Claude N., and Anthony J. Ranere Simon, and Edward H. Rose 1968 Outside Danger Cave: A View of Eariy 1988 The Late Prehistoric Period in the Coso Man in the Great Basin. Eastem New Range and Environs. Pacific Coast Ar­ Mexico University Contributions in An­ chaeological Society Quarterly 24(1):2-10. thropology 1(4): 6-18. WTiidey, David S., Ronald I. Dom, Julie Francis, Warren, Claude N., and Joan S. Schneider Lawrence L. Loendorf, Thomas Holcomb, Russel 1989 Nelson Lake, San Bernardino County, Tanner, and Joseph Bozovich Califomia: Museum Records and Collec­ 1996 Recent Advances in Petroglyph Dating and tions from Important Early Sites. San Their Implications for the Pre-Clovis Oc­ Bernardino County Museum Quarterly cupation of North America. In: Proceed­ 34(2):3-50. ings of the Society for Califomia Archae­ Warren, Claude N., Martha Knack, and Elizabeth ology, Vol. 9, Judyth Reed, ed., pp. 92- von Till Warren 103. San Diego: Society for Califomia 1980 A Cultural Resource Overview for the Archaeology. Amargosa-Mojave Basin Planning Units. Wilke, Philip J., and J. Jeffrey Flenniken Riverside: Bureau of Land Management 1991 Missing the Point: Rebuttal to Bettinger, Cultural Resources Publications, Anthro­ O'Connell, and Thomas. American An­ pology-History. thropologist 93(1): 172-173. ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN THE MOJAVE DESERT 257

Wilke, Philip J., and Carol H. Rector Yohe, Robert M. II 1985 A Reconsideration of Prehistoric Rock Art 1992 A Reevaluation of Westem Great Basin in the Coso Range, Inyo County, Califor­ Cultural Chronology and Evidence for the nia. Paper presented at the annual meet­ Timing of the Introduction of the Bow and ings of the Society for Califomia Archae­ Arrow to Eastem Califomia Based on ology, San Diego. New Excavations at the Rose Spring Site Wdley, Gordon R. (CA-INY-372). Ph.D. dissertation. Uni­ 1966 An Introduction to American Archaeol­ versity of Califomia, Riverside. ogy: Vol. 1, North and Middle America. Yohe, Robert M. II, Margaret E. Newman, and Joan Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. S. Schneider Willey, Gordon R., and Philip Phillips 1991 Immunological Identification of Small- 1958 Method and Theory in American Archae­ Mammal Proteins on Aboriginal Milling ology. Chicago: University of Chicago Equipment. American Antiquity 56(4): Press. 659-666. Willig, Judith A., and C. Melvin Aikens Zigmond, Maurice L. 1988 The Clovis-Archaic Interface in Far West­ 1986 Kawaiisu. In: Handbook of North Ameri­ em North America. In: Early Human can Indians, Vol. 11, Great Basin, Warren Occupation in Far Westem North Ameri­ L. d'Azevedo, ed., pp. 398-411. Wash­ ca: The Clovis-Archaic Interface, Judith ington: Smithsonian Institution. A. Willig, C. Melvin Aikens, and John L. Fagan, eds., pp. 1-40. Nevada State Mu­ seum Anthropological Papers No. 21.