UC Merced Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology

Title The George T. Hunting Complex, Deep Springs Valley, California

Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/8f096091

Journal Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology, 7(2)

ISSN 0191-3557

Author Delacorte, Michael G.

Publication Date 1985-07-01

Peer reviewed

eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 225-239 (1985)

The George T. Hunting Complex, Deep Springs Valley, California

MICHAEL G. DELACORTE

THNOGRAPHIC studies have estab­ ically (Muh 1901: 320-321; Steward 1933: Elished that hunting tactics often reflect 253, 1938: 54, 66), the presence of hunting aspects of group cooperation and social organ­ features is not de facto evidence of coopera­ ization (e.g.. Steward 1938; 231; Turnbuh tive group activity. By considering local en­ 1962: 107; Balikci 1970: 57-58; Smith 1981: vironment, topography, and ethology, one 38). Unfortunately, archaeologists frequently can suggest hunting tactics for individual sites employ ethnographic descriptions of hunting and complexes. This localized approach tactics in an uncritical fashion when inter­ avoids the pitfalls encountered when one preting patterns of cooperation and social applies direct ethnographic parahels (e.g.. organization. Evidence of prehistoric hunting Brook 1980). commonly consists of non-perishable stone The George T. Hunting Complex,' lo­ tools used in procuring and processing game cated in Deep Springs Valley, Inyo County, and, less often, the remains of the animals Cahfornia, includes the remains of at least 27 exploited. Such evidence is useful in under­ circular and sub-circular rock features be­ standing aspects of settlement patterns, sea­ heved to the aboriginal hunting blinds. The son of occupation, and dietary regimes but is complex was first identified in 1984 during generahy of marginal utihty in reconstructing the course of a two-year program of probabi­ specific procurement tactics and hence pat­ listic surface survey aimed at recovering infor­ terns of cooperation and social organization mation on aboriginal subsistence and settle­ (cf. Flannery 1967). Nevertheless, when hunt­ ment patterns in the vahey. Similar features ing tactics can be identified, they provide occur throughout the alpine highlands of the evidence for the size of hunting parties, and White Mountains immediately to the north thus the minimal size of the supporting social (Robert Bettinger, personal communication group. 1984), as weh as in nearby vaheys (Wallace Stone blinds, wahs, and cairns, all of 1976; Brook 1980); however, those in Deep which occur throughout the Great Basin, Springs Vahey suggest evidence of prehistoric afford direct evidence of prehistoric hunting hunting tactics largely unreported in ethno­ tactics (Wallace 1976; Brook 1980; Pendelton graphic literature (see Pippin [1977] for a and Thomas 1983). Previous interpretations review of this material). have often assumed their use by cooperative NATURAL SETTING groups, emphasizing the driving of large game animals, rather than by individuals. Although Deep Springs Valley is an elongate block- this interpretation is supported ethnograph- faulted graben (Blanc 1958; Jones 1965) bounded to the north and west by the White Michael G. Delacorte, Dept. of Anthropology, Univ. of California, Davis, CA 95616. Mountains and to the south and east by the

[225: 226 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY

Inyo Mountains. Precipitation in the vahey is the springs, forming a continuous wall along limited, averaging only 14 cm. (5.5 in.) per the eastern margin of the springs. At the base annum. Most of this occurs during the winter of the scarp is a pronounced fault trough months, although torrential summer thunder­ which contains two perennial spring-fed sag storms are not uncommon. Located on the ponds (Jones 1965). Elsewhere along the fault valley floor adjacent to Deep Springs Lake, an trough, discontinuous ridges running parallel ephemeral playa, the George T. Hunting to the scarp form narrow steep-sided aheys Complex lies at an elevation of 1,510 m. leading to the spring-fed ponds. East of the (4,960 ft.). The site is characterized by two fault an alluvial fan, furrowed by several distinct plant communities. The first, an deeply incised drainages, rises gently for 300 alkaline meadow along the western margin of m. at which point the terrain ascends precipi­ the site encompasses several springs and two tously, gaining 610 m. (2,000 ft.) in 1.3 km. spring-fed ponds. Plants in this mesic environ­ To the west of the site, the terrain is level, ment include big sagebrush (Artemisia triden­ broken only by a low dune ridge, beyond tata), rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus nause- which hes the extant playa of Deep Springs osus), greasewood (Sarcobatus vermiculatus), Lake, 600 m. west of the fault scarp (Fig. 1). tule (Scirpus nevadensis), and a variety of The topography of the site, particularly halophytes such as saltgrass (Distichlis spi- the near-vertical fault scarp, and an abun­ cata). The second, a shadscale community dance of water and forage, combine to pro­ (Bhhngs 1951; Cronquist et al. 1972), occurs vide an area ideahy suited to ambushing large east of the springs on an alluvial fan which game animals. Of great advantage to the terminates abruptly along the Deep Springs prehistoric hunters would have been the fault scarp. This community consists primar­ ability to position themselves along the fault ily of saltbush (Atriplex sp.), spiny hopsage scarp and deep channels in the alluvial fan, (Grayia spinosa), Nevada ephedra (Ephedra weh above animals making their way to the nevadensis), and a variety of native grasses. springs and ponds. Thus it appears that local Among the fauna known to frequent the terrain, as at many hunting and kih sites, was site area are a number of indigenous repthes a critical factor in site location and probably and birds as well as migratory waterfowl. in hunting strategy (Heizer and Baumhoff Mammalian species include black-tailed hare 1962;Frison 1978). O'ackrabbit) (Lepus californicus) cottontah HUNTING BLINDS AND rabbit (Sylvilagus auduboni), coyote (Canis ASSOCIATED FEATURES latrans), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis nelsoni), and The features at the George T. Complex numerous rodents from the famhies Sciuridae, are located either on the rocky alluvial fan Heteromyidae, and Cricetidae. Although above the scarp or on the adjacent paraUel pronghorn (Antilocarpa americana), known to ridges (Fig. 2). The structures were con­ have occurred in Deep Springs Vahey historic- structed of granitic rubble, and are virtually ahy, may also have been present, their former impossible to recognize from great distances. distribution within the valley is uncertain. Thus, it was necessary to carefuhy survey the As indicated, the site is bisected from entire area surrounding the springs. This was northeast to southwest by the Deep Springs accomplished by walking east/west transects fault (Miher 1928; Blanc 1958). The scarp spaced at 10-m. intervals across the alluvial along this fault, primarily unconsolidated fan and adjacent ridges. A total of 100 ahuvium, rises abruptly 15 m. (50 ft.) above transects was surveyed by the author, result- THE GEORGE T. HUNTING COMPLEX 227

GEORGE T. HUNTING COMPLEX Section through northern pond Pinyon/

100 0 500 m. ^v/<\\\\ Juniper

Alluvial Fan Fault Scarp Pond/Fault Trough Parallel Ridge Deep Springs Playa

Fig. 1. Profile of the George T. Complex, showing local topography. ing in the discovery of 33 features, most have provided excehent vantage points and identified as aboriginal hunting blinds. wide fields of fire while at the same time The features were constructed of angular reducing the probabhity of being seen or rock stacked from two to seven courses, scented. The walls of these features are always forming lunate walls or circular rock rings. In positioned along the edge of the fault trough eight cases the central portion of the feature or drainage, thereby providing maximum con­ was dug into the alluvium, the excavated cealment from below. Six of the 33 features material having been piled along the edge of appear to be of different function than the 27 the resulting pit. The features range in size blinds, judging from their size, location, and from 6.8 to 1.05 m. in maximum diameter (x associated artifacts. Two of the six, features 2.73 m., SD 1.19 m.) with depths of from 20 and 31, are tentatively identified as domes­ 1.10 to 0.4 m. (x 0.71 m., SD 0.2 m.) (Figs. 3 tic structures. Both are large, measuring 6.8 and 5). and 4.5 m. in diameter respectively, and Of the 33 features, the location and neither is weh situated for intercepting game. orientation of 27 identify them as hunting In addition. Feature 20 contained a diverse blinds (Figs. 3 and 4). These blinds are assemblage of artifacts and ecofacts including located either: (1) immediately along the edge cans, a steel axe-head, biface fragments, pro- of the fault scarp; (2) along parallel ridges jecthe points, a steatite shaft-straightener, a bordering the fault trough; or (3) along one of milling stone, bones, and charcoal, suggesting several deeply incised channels in the alluvial use of the feature as a domestic structure. fan. All of these are locations that would have Feature 31 (Fig. 5) included a more limited ahowed concealed hunters to wait at a point assemblage, but again with artifact classes above any animals that moved toward the indicating use as a domestic structure. In­ springs and spring-fed ponds. These would cluded in the assemblage were two cans, a 228 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY

DEEP 50 0 100 Contour Interval SPRINGS:[0 LAKE-rM

Fig. 2. Map of the George T. Complex, showing relationship of features to local terrain and spring-fed ponds.

mihing stone, six Owens Vahey Brown Ware Similar duck blinds occur at Mono Lake both ceramic sherds (Riddeh 1951), and a single above and below the historic 1940 highstand obsidian flake. of the lake (Linda Reynolds, personal com­ Among the four remaining features (17, munication 1985), which suggests the use of 18, 19, 22), three are relatively large, ranging such blinds throughout the very recent past — from 1.5 to 4.5 m. in diameter. Ah four certainly within the last 100 years. features are located immediately adjacent to Artifacts associated with Feature 22, how­ one of the spring-fed ponds and are today ever, include the brass bases from paper used as duck-hunting blinds, as indicated by shotgun shehs, chert and obsidian flakes, and numerous spent shotgun shehs. Also present a fragment of a faceted blue-glass bead, which in three of the four features are one or more collectively suggest use of the blind for flakes or stone tool fragments. Whether these waterfowl hunting somewhat earlier in the are in fact aboriginal structures subsequently historic era. Although the presence of flakes reused by contemporary hunters is uncertain, and a glass bead do not confirm historic but their location within 10 meters of the Native American use of this blind, such an pond would be hi suited for the interception interpretation is not unreasonable given the of most large animals coming to water. continuation of hunting and other traditional THE GEORGE T. HUNTING COMPLEX 229

N

DEEP SPRINGS GEORGE T COMPLEX LL Feature 8 DEEP SPRINGS GEORGE T.COMPLEX ?? T"-- Fig. 3. Feature 8, lunate wall identified as a hunting Feature 31 blind. Numbers refer to elevations above and Fig. 5. Feature 31, a domestic structure. Numbers below ground surface. refer to elevations above and below ground surface.

subsistence activities weh after contact (Wheat 1967). If stone blinds were in fact used in early historic or prehistoric times for hunting ducks in Deep Springs Valley, they differ from the conical tule or brush duck bhnds reported from the central and western Great Basin (Steward 1933; Wheat 1967: 117; Wallace 1976). In order to test the hypothesis that both the domestic structures and duck blinds differ from the 27 features identified as hunting blinds, a t-test (Thomas 1976) comparing their mean diameters was computed. The resulting t values of 4.83 and 2.81, respective­ ly, indicate that the two groups of structures differ dramaticahy in size, these values being significant at the .01 level for a two-tahed test. These statistics do not, of course, con­ ••N firm the function of the features, but given the accompanying differences in location and DEEP SPRINGS GEORGE T COMPLEX assemblage, a minimum of three functional Feature 9 types (large-mammal-hunting blinds, duck- Fig. 4. Feature 9, circular rock-ring hunting blind. hunting blinds, and domestic structures) is Numbers refer to elevations above and below ground surface. suggested. 230 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY

ASSOCIATED ARTIFACTS fragments made of obsidian and a variety of cherts: one from Feature 15, two from Relatively few artifacts were found in Feature 19, and five from Feature 20. None is association with the features at the George T. sufficiently complete to warrant measure­ Complex (Table 1). In part, this may be a ment. Also recovered were fragments of two result of ongoing alluvial deposition covering obsidian preforms, one from Feature 19, the earher surfaces (Lustig 1963) and extensive other from Feature 28; neither was suffici­ vandalism by hlicit collectors. Ah the same, if ently complete to speculate on its original size the site was used primarily for hunting, to the or configuration. Feature 18 yielded one exclusion of tool maintenance and manu­ obsidian uniface 2.9 cm. long, 1.4 cm. wide, facturing or butchering activities, few artifacts and 0.5 cm. thick, which exhibits steep would have been lost or broken. Thus at sites retouch along two parallel margins. Finally, like the George T., with a restricted range of smah quantities of chert and obsidian debit- activities such as those connected with hunt­ age were recorded in and around eight of the ing large vertebrates, the associated artifact 33 features. With the exception of Feature assemblage should be limited in both size and 20, in which 13 flakes were recovered, no diversity. more than six pieces were found in associa­ Among the temporahy diagnostic artifacts tion with any feature. All of these flakes are recovered are two projectile-point fragments, thin and exhibit diffuse bulbs of percussion six Owens Vahey Brown Ware sherds, and a which suggests that they were struck in the single fragment of a faceted blue-glass bead. final stages of tool manufacture or resharp- The projecthe points, both found in Feature ening. 20, a probable domestic structure, are of A shaft straightener was found cached in obsidian and assigned to the Rose Spring the rock wah of Feature 20. It was manu­ series, dated to between A.D. 600 and A.D. factured from a mottled pale-green steatite 1300 (Bettinger and Taylor 1974; Thomas which had been shaped and smoothed over its 1981). Similar points are common at sites entire surface as indicated by numerous stria- throughout Deep Springs Valley and in the tions. The shaft straightener is 9.7 cm. long, adjacent Owens Vahey (Bettinger 1975). The 5.1 cm. wide, and 4.0 cm. thick, and is occurrence of these points in Feature 20 generally cylindrical, tapering slightly at each suggests occupation as early as roughly A.D. end. Two polished grooves 0.9 cm. wide and 600; however, given the presence of several 0.4 cm. deep run across one face, terminating historic artifacts in this feature (see above) abruptly at the margins. Both ends and a the possibility that the points were scavenged small portion of one face also show evidence from an older site can not be discounted. The of battering, with pecking scars often inter­ six sherds, all from Feature 31, also a prob­ rupting striations. This suggests its use as a able domestic structure, suggest late prehis­ hammer after completion of the finished tool. toric occupation. Finally, the single glass-bead Given the width and depth of the grooves, fragment found in Feature 22 may indicate which can accommodate shafts no larger than the historic use of this structure, perhaps as a 0.8 cm. in diameter, use of this staff straight­ duck-hunting blind. ener appears to have been restricted to arrows In addition to the temporally diagnostic rather than dart shafts, the latter being too artifacts, a number of flaked-stone tools and a large for the grooves (Aikens 1970). smah quantity of debitage was found (Table While a variety of ground stone milling 1). Included among these are eight biface equipment was observed within the boundar- THE GEORGE T. HUNTING COMPLEX 231

Table 1 ARTIFACTS ASSOCIATED WITH FEATURES OF THE GEORGE T. HUNTING COMPLEX

Projectile Historic Shotgun Milling Flakes Biface Preform Uniface Points Artifacts Shells Stones Other Feature 15 2 1 Feature 17 3 Feature 18 3 8 Feature 19 6 2 15 Feature 20 13 5 cans, axe shaft straightener Feature 22 5 11 glass bead Feature 25 1 Feature 28 3 Feature 31 1 6 sherds Totals 34 8 37

Table 2 ARTIFACTS ASSOCIATED WITH ADJACENT SITES Projectile Points Milling Eastgate/ DSN/ Shell Site Flakes Stones Man OS Elk Rose Spring Cottonwood Bifaces Preforms Cores Unifaces Drills Sherds Beads CA-INY-264 X X X - X X XXXX-XX CA-INY-2639 X X x X X X XXXXXX- CA-INY-2640 X X X X X - XXXXX-X ies of the George T. Hunting Complex, with ADJACENT SITES the exception of two specimens found in features 20 and 31, ground stone does not As with many functionally specific sites appear to be associated with the features. or activity loci, interpretation of the George Three forms or types of milling equipment T. Complex requires consideration of adjacent were recorded during the survey: block mih­ sites which may have acted as staging areas for ing stones (4 specimens); grinding slicks (3 hunting activities. Three sites (CA-INY-264, examples); and mortars (2 specimens). Ah CA-INY-2639, CA-INY-2640) tentatively were manufactured of local granitic material. identified as seasonal base camps or habita­ Given the ubiquitous occurrence of mihing tion sites have been recorded within 1.2 km. equipment in a variety of contexts through­ of the George T. Complex (Delacorte 1984). out Deep Springs Valley, including numerous Each is characterized by a diverse artifact isolated specimens (Delacorte and Adams assemblage that includes a variety of flaked 1984), its presence at the George T. Complex and ground stone tools and suggests a wide is not unexpected. The avahabhity of abun­ range of subsistence and maintenance activi­ dant plant resources in the immediate vicinity ties (Table 2). Projecthe points from these further suggests that this area may have been sites include Elko, Eastgate/Rose Spring, and exploited for a variety of resources on differ­ Desert Side-notched / Cottonwood types. The ent occasions. temporal range of these point types is from 232 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY roughly 1200 B.C. through the historic era tures but it is possible to suggest whether they (Bettinger and Taylor 1974). are of historic or prehistoric origin through a The presence of projectile points and combination of ethnographic, geologic, and bifaces, presumably used for hunting and archaeological evidence. butchering, suggests that large vertebrates One clue to the dating of the features of may have been pursued from these sites. The the George T. Complex is provided by the occurrence of extremely fragmented, uniden­ location of features in relation to areas of tifiable ungulate teeth at ah three sites tends recent ahuvial debris flows (Beaty 1963, to corroborate this. Furthermore, the location 1970, 1974). Without exception, the features of these sites at a minimum of 350 m. away are situated on older portions of the alluvial from the springs and blinds of the George T. fan and adjacent ridges rather than younger Complex would not disrupt movement of surfaces (Lustig 1963), where one might game to and from the springs or hunting reasonably have expected some to occur if activities associated with the blinds (cf. Gould construction continued into the historic era. 1968). The presence of substantial lichen growth on Many small scatters of non-diagnostic many of the blinds, which is not found on the lithic artifacts were also found near the nearby historic structures, further suggests hunting complex. The relation of these scat­ some antiquity. ters to the George T. Complex or the The direct association of flaked-stone occupation sites is unclear, but their limited artifacts with at least eight of the features size and scanty assemblages suggest brief use lends support to the contention that they as temporary camps or limited activity loci, were used in prehistoric times. Similarly, with perhaps for the exploitation of seasonally the exception of those features thought to be available riparian resources. duck bhnds or domestic structures, historic Finahy, there are the remains of a number artifacts are entirely absent. Further, Steward of historic structures, including two stone (1938: 60) specifically described the use of corrals, a section of stone wall, and the stone stone hunting blinds at this location in late foundation of a house. Although the date of prehistoric or protohistoric times, thus in­ construction for these features is unknown, creasing the likelihood of a prehistoric origin, most are believed to have been buht in the and the probabihty of the site use in hunting. latter half of the 19th century, as the house is Accepting that these features are prehis­ depicted on a U. S. Government Land Office toric hunting blinds, it stih remains to deter­ plat map of Township 8 South, Range 36 mine which species of animal(s) were hunted East, MDM, dated 1880. (Brook 1980; Pendleton and Thomas 1983). There would seem to have been three species DISCUSSION of large game that the aboriginal inhabitants of Deep Springs Vahey could have hunted at It is difficult to date construction and use the springs of the George T. Complex: mule of rock structures or alignments (Pendleton deer (Odocoileus hemionus); pronghorn (An- and Thomas 1983). This difficulty is com­ tilocapra americana); and bighorn sheep (Ovis pounded by the continuous use of many such canadensis nelsoni). Of these three potential features over long periods of time, often into prey species, only deer remain in the vahey in the historic era (Brook 1980; Binford 1982: substantial numbers today. Thus in the ab­ 19; Pendleton and Thomas 1983). There are sence of site-specific observation of animal currently no methods for dating these struc­ behavior, determining which of these was THE GEORGE T. HUNTING COMPLEX 233

exploited by prehistoric hunters at the springs concealed hunters. Ethnographic accounts do is difficult. mention that pronghorn were hunted in this Mule deer occur today throughout the vicinity (Steward 1938: 60); nevertheless, the White and Inyo mountains in smah herds. bhnds located well above the springs on the Seasonal migration typicahy involves move­ ahuvial fan seem ih suited to this purpose - ment up-slope to higher elevations in the the terrain is rugged and offers access only to summer months, winter being spent on the the steep slopes beyond, neither of which lower slopes immediately above the vahey would be attractive to pronghorn. floor. Although mule deer exhibit a wide Mountain sheep were unth recently com­ range in diet, depending on local conditions, mon on the steep slopes east of the site they generally favor browse over grass (Hill (Weaver and Mensch 1970). Today, however, 1956). Thus the site environment including few if any animals remain in the area. Unlike the salt-grass meadows west of the blinds and deer and pronghorn, mountain sheep rely on the open shadscale of the alluvial fan affords steep terrain in order to escape predators, less-than-ideal habitat. Deer occasionally avoiding the more open valley floors (Wehes water at the springs but their access is and Welles 1961; Hansen 1981a). The size of restricted by their aversion to travel across the bighorn herds, although seasonally variable, is open vahey floor and playa, where they are generally small, rarely exceeding ten animals subject to predation, and their avoidance of (Hansen 1981b). Both the diet and feeding the precipitous slopes east of the springs habits of mountain sheep differ considerably (Jones 1981a). by location and season, yet generally grasses Even though the habitat of the springs and forbs are preferred over browse when and adjacent terrain is marginal for deer, deer avahable (Browning and Monson 1981). Per­ conceivably could have been hunted from haps the most critical factor in the survival of some of the blinds, particularly those along desert bighorn is the avahabihty of reliable trahs leading directly to the spring-fed ponds. water sources (Wehes and Wehes 1961; Turner However, blinds located somewhat higher on and Weaver 1981). The importance of water the alluvial fan, apparently situated to inter­ to sheep is particularly evident during hot, cept animals travehng off the slope, suggest dry summer months when most animals water that another prey species was involved. daily (Turner and Weaver 1981). Thus the Pronghorn, locally extirpated in the mid- presence of suitable forage, water, and steep 19th century, might also have been a prey terrain adjacent to the George T. hunting species at the site. Although herd size is blinds combine to provide an ideal habitat for seasonally variable, it often exceeds 100 mountain sheep (Weaver and Mensch 1970). animals, particularly during the winter. Unlike That mountain sheep were the primary deer, pronghorn are ideahy suited to the flat target of aboriginal hunters at the George T. open terrain of valley bottoms (Koopman Complex is suggested by three further lines of 1967), since they rely on speed to escape evidence. First, sheep were known to use the predators (Baily 1971). The feeding habits of spring-fed ponds as watering sites (Doug pronghorn include a greater proportion of Poweh, personal communication 1985). Sec­ grasses than do those of deer (Bailey 1971), ond, many blinds, including those on the though locally, browse may be included. ahuvial fan, are situated to intercept animals Given the avahabhity of suitable forage, it is travehng to the springs from the steep slopes quite possible that pronghorn watered at the and canyons to the east, an area known to springs, making them potential targets for have been inhabited by sheep but not by deer 234 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY

(Jones 1*58la), and probably not by prong­ ard 1938: 34-36; Turnbull 1962: 262; Balikci horn. Finally, the ethnographic record specif­ 1970: 57-58). Independent hunting, on the ically mentions that mountain sheep were other hand, can be effectively conducted by a hunted from stone blinds at these springs single hunter (e.g.. Steward 1938: 36, 60) and (Steward 1938: 60), generally its returns are not appreciably im­ In suninian,-, the behavioral characteristics proved by the presence of additional individ­ and habitat requirements of the three poten­ uals. In these cases, more than one individual tial prey species suggest that mountain sheep may choose to hunt together, a father and son were the most likely target of hunters at the for example, but the success per hunter is not site, an hypothesis supported by ethnographic thereby increased. records that confirm the hunting of sheep at The basis for the distinction drawn here this location. Deer and pronghorn were pres­ between cooperative and individual hunting is ent, however, and might v,'ell have been taken somewhat different in concept from the kind incidentally, of distinction Binford (1978: 169) drew between encounter and intercept hunting. His INTERPRETATION distinction emphasized behavioral responses At the outset of this paper it was sug­ to the predictability and concentration of gested that the procurement tactics emplosed game within specific seasonal and locational at specific prehistoric hunting stations might settings and broader constraints imposed by be deduced by an evaluation of site layout, the adaptive systems in which hunting occurs. environmental and topographical context, and Encounter hunting is best suited to areas patterns of local animal behavior. If so, one where game is dispersed and relatively unpre­ shotild be able further to infer the number of dictable and in systems in which the acquisi­ individual hunters necessary to implement tion of food in bulk is rare. Encounter those tactics and thus the minimal size of the hunting is thouglit to characterize such so- social group needed to support hunting activ­ called "forager" adaptive systems as typify ity there. Unfortunately, it is seldom possible the /Gwi San (Binford 1980: 8), Intercept to distinguish among all the innumerable hunting is, by contrast, more likely to occur hunting tactics that might have typified a when game is both predictable and concen­ particular location - there are simply too trated (conditions that are conducive to am­ many different tactics and too many different bushing large numbers of animals) and when conditions that affect the manner in which the seasonal round demands large amounts of these are implemented in specific settings. stored food. Intercept hunting is said to be Normally, however, information of the kind most common among such logistically organ­ noted above should make it possible to ized groups as the Nunamiut Inuit who distinguish between hunting tactics of two embrace a "collector" type adaptive system basically different kinds: those that art co

intercept specific animals or herds using one patterns of resource exploitation and at times of several traditional trahs to and from the the minimal size of the supporting socio­ ponds (cf. Wehes and Welles 1961; Jones economic group. By considering the number 1981b). This explanation assumes that the of individuals necessary to implement a given movement of animals varies somewhat annu­ hunting tactic, it is possible to distinguish ally and seasonahy, and that adjustments in between tactics requiring the equivalent of the location of bhnds may have been neces­ large multi-family groups and those under­ sary to compensate for this. A second possi­ taken by individuals. Despite the fact that bhity is that blinds were positioned so that hunting patterns may not always reflect day- hunters could avoid being scented in spite of to-day social organization, as for example changing wind direction, thus requiring a during festivals when large groups temporarily number of blind locations. Third is the cooperated to drive rabbits or pronghorn likelhiood that the number of blinds merely (Steward 1938), the presence of carefully reflects the long-term use of the area as a conceived and often costly fachities like stone hunting station, which would result in an blinds, wahs, cairns, and rock art does suggest accumulation of features, many used only well-established patterns of behavior that may sporadicahy. This is not unreasonable given reflect social organization (Heizer and Baum­ experimental data which suggest that most of hoff 1962; Pendleton and Thomas 1983). the blinds require only a few minutes to In the present case, site layout, animal construct (see Pendleton and Thomas [1983] behavior, and local topography suggest that for an alternative view). Finally, it is conceiv­ mountain sheep were consistently hunted by able, though unlikely, that individual blinds individuals in Deep Springs Vahey and that were owned, each hunter or family construct­ this required only minimal group size. Wheth­ ing its own. er similar patterns occur elsewhere in the It is presently impossible to determine Great Basin in prehistoric contexts is unclear. precisely why such a large number of blinds Ethnographic data indicate that both coopera­ exists at this and other locations (e.g., Brook tive and independent hunting tactics were 1980). However, archaeological data accumu­ widespread historically (Pippin 1977: 338). lated during the course of a comprehensive The importance of specific hunting patterns survey of Deep Springs Vahey suggest that and their relative age thus remains critical to prehistoric population levels were simhar, or our understanding of local adaptations and below, those recorded historically (Delacorte changes within them. 1984). There is thus litfle doubt that the local population would have been inadequate to occupy all the blinds simultaneously, arguing in favor of an alternative explanation to ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS account for the large number of blinds at the My sincere thanks to George T. Delacorte, whose George T. Complex. support of the Deep Springs Project was instrumental in previous research leading to this publication. CONCLUSIONS Appreciation is also expressed to Robert L. Bettinger, Christopher Raven, Richard Schahenberger, and an anonymous reviewer for reading earlier drafts of this Much remains to be learned about Great paper and providing many useful comments. Finahy, Basin hunting patterns and the role of hunting I thank the students of Deep Springs College enrohed in regional adaptations. Analysis of sites like in the preindustrial technology class for participating George T., however, can provide data on local in hunting-blind-construction experiments. THE GEORGE T. HUNTING COMPLEX 237

NOTE logical Site Formation. American Antiquity 45(1): 4-20. 1. Features 1-15 and 31-33 are recorded as 1982 The Archaeology of Place. Journal of An­ CA-INY-3411; features 16-25 and 27-30 as CA-INY- thropological Archaeology 1: 5-31. 3409; and Feature 26 as CA-INY-3410. Blanc, Robert P. 1958 Geology of the Deep Springs Valley Area, REFERENCES White-Inyo Mountains, California. Master's thesis, University of California, Los Angeles. Aikens, C. Melvin 1970 Hogup Cave. University of Utah Anthro­ Brook, Richard A. pological Papers No. 93. 1980 Inferences Regarding Aboriginal Hunting Be­ havior in the Saline Valley, Inyo County, Bailey, Vernon California. Journal of California and Great 1971 Mammals of the Southwestern United Basin Anthropology 2(1): 60-79. States. New York: Dover Publications. Browning, Bruce M., and Gale Monson Balikci, Asen 1981 Food. In: The Desert Bighorn, G. Monson 1970 The Netsilik Eskimo. New York: The Nat­ and L. Sumner, eds., pp. 80-99. Tucson: ural History Press. University of Arizona Press. Beaty, Chester B. Cronquist, Arthur, Arthur Holmgren, Noel Holmgren, 1963 Origin of Alluvial Fans, White Mountains, and James Reveal California and Nevada. Association of Amer­ 1972 Intermountain Flora. New York: Hafner ican Geographers Annals 53: 516-535. Publishing. 1970 Age and Estimate Rate of Accumulation of Delacorte, Michael G. an Alluvial Fan, White Mountains, Califor­ 1984 Preliminary Report of Work Conducted Un­ nia, U. S. A. American Journal of Science der Federal Antiquities Permit No. 84- 268: 50-77. CA-037. Report submitted to the Bureau of 1974 Debris Flows, Alluvial Fans and a Revital­ Land Management, Cahfornia Desert Dis­ ized Catastrophism. Zeitschrift fur Geo- trict, Riverside. morphologie 21: 39-51. Delacorte, Michael G., and Cynthia J. Adams Bettinger, Robert L. 1984 An Archaeological Survey of a Proposed 1975 The Surface Archaeology of Owens Valley, Hydroelectric Project in Deep Springs Val­ Eastern California: Prehistoric Man-Land Re­ ley, Inyo County, Cahfornia. Report sub­ lationships in the Great Basin. Ph.D. disser­ mitted to the Bureau of Land Management, tation, University of California, Riverside. California Desert District, Riverside. Bettinger, Robert L., and R. E. Taylor Department of the Interior 1974 Suggested Revisions in Archaeological Se­ 1880 Map of Township 8S Range 36E. San Fran­ quences of the Great Basin in Interior cisco: General Land Office. Southern California. Nevada Archaeological Flannery, Kent V. Survey Research Paper No. 5: 1-26. 1967 The Vertebrate Fauna and Hunting Patterns. Bihings, W. D. In: The Prehistory of the Tehuacan Vahey, 1951 Vegetational Zonation in the Great Basin of D. S. Byers, ed., pp. 132-177. Austin: Uni­ Western North America. Union Inter­ versity of Texas Press. nationale des Sciences Biologiques, Serie B9: Frison, George C. 101-122. 1978 Prehistoric Hunters of the High Plains. New Binford, Lewis R. York: Academic Press. 1978 Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology. New York: Gould, Richard A. Academic Press. 1968 Living Archaeology: The Ngatatjara of West­ 1980 Willow Smoke and Dogs' Tails: Hunter- ern Austraha. Southwestern Journal of An­ Gatherer Sethement Systems and Archaeo­ thropology 24(2): 101-122. 238 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY

Hansen, Charles G. Pippin, Lonnie C. 1981a Habitat. In: The Desert Bighorn, G. Monson 1977 Bighorn Sheep and Great Basin Prehistory. and L. Sumner, eds., pp. 64-79. Tucson: In: The Archaeology of Smith Creek Can­ University of Arizona Press. yon, Eastern Nevada, Donald R. Tuohy and Doris L. RendaU, eds., pp. 332-358. Nevada 1981b Population Dynamics. In: The Desert Big­ State Museum Anthropological Papers No. horn, G. Monson and L. Sumner, eds., pp. 17. 217-235. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Riddell, Harry S. 1951 The Archaeology of a Paiute Vihage Site in Heizer, Robert F., and Martin A. Baumhoff Owens Valley. Berkeley: University of Cali­ 1962 Prehistoric Rock Art of Nevada and Eastern fornia Archaeological Survey Reports Cahfornia. Berkeley: University of Cahfornia No. 12: 14-28. Press. Smith, Eric A. Hill, Ralph R. 1981 The Application of Optimal Foraging The­ 1956 Forage, Food Habits, and Range Manage­ ory to the Analysis of Hunter-Gatherer ment of the Mule Deer. In: The Deer of Group Size. In: Hunter-Gatherer Foraging North America, W. P. Taylor, ed., pp. Strategies, B. Winterhalder and E. Smith, 393-414. Harrisburg: Stackpole Company. eds., pp. 36-65. Chicago: University of Chi­ Jones, Blair F. cago Press. 1965 The Hydrology and Mineralogy of Deep Springs Lake, Inyo County, California. Steward, Julian H. Washington: United States Geological Sur­ 1933 Ethnography of the Owens Valley Paiute. vey Professional Paper 502-A. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 33(3). Jones, Fred L. 233-350. 1981a Competition. In: The Desert Bighorn, G. Monson and L. Sumner, eds., pp. 197-216. 1938 Basin-Plateau Aboriginal Sociopolitical Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Groups. Bureau of American Ethnology Bul­ letin 120. 1981b Sign Reading and Field Identification. In: The Desert Bighorn, G. Monson and L. Thomas, David Hurst Sumner, eds., pp. 236-259. Tucson: Univer­ 1976 Figuring Anthropology. New York: Holt, sity of Arizona Press. Rinehart, and Winston. Koopman, Karl F. 1981 How to Classify the Projectile Points from 1967 Artiodactyls. In: Recent Mammals of the Monitor Valley, Nevada. Journal of Califor­ World, S. Anderson and J. K. Jones, eds., pp. nia and Great Basin Anthropology 3(1): 385406. New York: Ronald Press. 7-43. Lustig, Lawrence, K. Turnbuh, Colin 1963 Clastic Sedimentation in Deep Springs Val­ 1962 The Forest People. New York: Doubleday. ley, Cahfornia. Washington: United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 352-F. Turner, Jack L., and Richard A. Weaver 1981 Water. In: The Desert Bighorn, G. Monson MUler, William J. and L. Sumner, eds., pp. 100-112. Tucson: 1928 Geology of Deep Springs Valley, California. University of Arizona Press. Journal of Geology 36: 510-525. Wahace, Whliam J. Muir, John 1976 Hunting Blinds of the Death Valley Indians. 1901 The Mountains of California. New York: Century Co. The Masterkey 50: 149-154. Pendleton, Lorann S., and David H. Thomas Weaver, Richard A., and Jerry L. Mensch 1983 The Fort Sage Drift Fence, Washoe County, 1970 Desert Bighorn Sheep in Northern Inyo and Nevada. American Museum of Natural His­ Southern Mono Counties. Sacramento: Cali­ tory Anthropological Papers No. 58. fornia Department of Fish and Game. THE GEORGE T. HUNTING COMPLEX 239

Welles, Ralph E., and Florence B. Welles Wheat, Margaret M. 1961 The Bighorn of Death Valley. Washington: 1967 Survival Arts of the Primhive Paiutes. Reno: United States Department of the Interior, University of Nevada Press. National Park Service.