An Evaluation of the Antiquity of Great Basin Carved Abstract Rock Art in the Northern Great Basin

University of Nevada, Reno

Paleoindian Rock Art: An Evaluation of the Antiquity of Great Basin Carved Abstract Rock Art in the Northern Great Basin

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Anthropology

Emily S. Middleton

Dr. Geoffrey M. Smith/Thesis Advisor

May, 2013

THE GRADUATE SCHOOL

We recommend that the thesis prepared under our supervision by

EMILY S. MIDDLETON

entitled

Paleoindian Rock Art: An Evaluation of the Antiquity of Great Basin Carved Abstract Rock Art in the Northern Great Basin

be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Geoffrey M. Smith, Advisor

James P. Barker, Committee Member

Peter J. Goin, Graduate School Representative

Marsha H. Read, Ph. D., Dean, Graduate School

May, 2013

ABSTRACT

One of the principle ways that researchers assign sites to particular time periods is using temporally diagnostic projectile points as index fossils; however, this practice has not been widely employed to date rock art sites. I use this approach to add an additional line of evidence supporting other researchers’ suggestions that a unique style of rock art found in the northern Great Basin is older than the majority of rock art found in the region. This style, termed Great Basin Carved Abstract (GBCA), has been found buried beneath a sealed deposit of Mazama tephra (~6,850 14C BP), which suggests that the style dates to at least the Early Holocene. I present frequencies of temporally diagnostic projectile points found at 55 GBCA sites in the northern Great Basin to argue that this style dates to the Terminal Pleistocene/Early Holocene (TP/EH) transition (~12,500-

7,500 14C BP). Furthermore, I examine the relationship between GBCA rock art and several environmental variables to test traditional models of TP/EH land use. I propose a new model of land use for the earliest period of prehistory in the northern Great Basin that better incorporates all available data from the TP/EH; a dataset that now includes rock art.

DEDICATION

This thesis is dedicated to my mother, Kelly. Both personally and professionally, you have always been my role model. You never failed to encourage me, believe in me, and have always been my biggest fan. For your countless years of sacrifice, I dedicate the final product of my own two years of work to you – it will never compare with everything you have done for me, but I offer it nonetheless. Thank You, Mom.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My most sincere thanks are given to those who have provided their assistance throughout my graduate career. First, the Great Basin Paleoindian Research Unit

(GBPRU) provided funding, employment, and ultimately peace of mind for the entirety of my time at UNR, allowing me to focus on classes, research, and writing rather than a

9-5 job. To the faculty of the Anthropology Department, thank you for the spectacular graduate program you have crafted and continue to improve each year; the support that the entire department provides to each of its graduate students on an individual and personal basis creates a working environment that allows us each to flourish in our own ways while still molding us to be better students, professionals, and people.

In particular, my advisor, Dr. Geoffrey Smith, has perfected this technique. Your guidance over the past two years has often been subtle and always in the most polite ways, but the knowledge you have imparted is unmistakable. You have encouraged my professional development and I consider myself an immeasurably better writer, public speaker, and archaeologist. Those of us who get to call you Advisor are a lucky bunch.

To my other committee members, Pat Barker and Peter Goin, your advice has been equally important. Thank you both for your brainstorming efforts at the outset and help in developing a research topic. Pat, your knowledge of and familiarity with all things Great Basin rock art has been an invaluable resource. My research is stronger thanks to your keen observation that my rock art thesis was a bit lacking in – of all things

– rock art! To Peter, your perspective has prompted me to evaluate some of my assumptions and look critically at my work.

I also must thank Bill Cannon, Archaeologist for Oregon’s Lakeview District

BLM; you were instrumental in facilitating this research. Not only did you take time out of your undoubtedly busy schedule to take me to see these spectacular rock art sites firsthand, but you allowed me access to the data that you painstakingly compiled over the years. I hope I have done it justice.

Back at UNR, my fellow graduate cohort has done their share of facilitating as well. Your company, support, mutual commiseration, and above all, your humor have made the difficulties somehow enjoyable. The beer didn’t hurt either…

Finally, I acknowledge my family: Mom, Nana, and Tyler. Though it was never often enough, the times I did come back home served to recharge my batteries and remind me of who I am – that the overstressed and under-slept graduate student I had become was only temporary. Robin (and Vaughn) had to deal with that person all too often. I thank you Robin for your encouragement, your love, and your patience – I am in your debt.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ...... i

DEDICATION ...... ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... iii

LIST OF TABLES ...... viii

LIST OF FIGURES ...... x

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ...... 1 Research Background ...... 4 Environment and Climate ...... 4 The Terminal Pleistocene/Early Holocene Transition, 12,500-7,500 14C BP ...... 5 The Middle Holocene, 7,500-5,000 14C BP ...... 6 The Late Holocene, 5,00014C BP-Present ...... 7 The Human Colonization of the Great Basin ...... 7 Prehistoric Lifeways ...... 9 Terminal Pleistocene/Early Holocene Lifeways ...... 9 Middle Holocene Lifeways ...... 12 Late Holocene Lifeways ...... 14 Situating Great Basin Rock Art within a Broader Context ...... 14 GBCA Rock Art ...... 18 Research Goals...... 29

CHAPTER 2: MATERIALS ...... 30 Documentation and Recordation of GBCA Rock Art Sites...... 32

Establishing Temporal Associations: Diagnostic Artifacts Associated with GBCA Rock Art ...... 33 The Paleoindian Period: 11,000-7,500 14C BP ...... 34 Great Basin Fluted Projectile Points ...... 34 Great Basin Concave Base Projectile Points ...... 35 Great Basin Stemmed Series Projectile Points ...... 35 Windust Stemmed Projectile Points...... 36 Cascade Projectile Points ...... 36 Crescents ...... 37 The Early Archaic Period: 7,500-5,000 14C BP ...... 37 Northern Side-Notched Projectile Points ...... 37 The Middle Archaic Period: 5,000-1,500 14C BP ...... 40 Humboldt Concave-Base Projectile Points ...... 40 Gatecliff Contracting Stem Projectile Points ...... 40 Gatecliff Split Stem Projectile Points ...... 40 Elko Corner-Notched Projectile Points ...... 40 Elko Eared Projectile Points ...... 41 The Late Archaic Period: 1,500-70014C BP ...... 41 Rosegate Corner-Notched Projectile Points ...... 41 The Proto-Historic Period: 700 14C BP-Contact ...... 41 Desert Side-Notched Projectile Points ...... 41 Cottonwood Triangular Projectile Point ...... 41 Data from GBCA Rock Art Sites...... 42

CHAPTER 3: METHODS ...... 46 Establishing the Antiquity of GBCA Rock Art ...... 46 Time Adjusted Projectile Point Frequencies ...... 49 Analysis of Environmental Data ...... 50 Elevations of GBCA Sites ...... 50 Vegetation Communities at GBCA Rock Art Sites ...... 51 Permanent Water Sources near GBCA Sites ...... 55 Hypotheses and Expectations ...... 56

vii

Hypothesis #1...... 56 Hypothesis #2...... 58 Summary ...... 58

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS ...... 60 Diagnostic Projectile Point Frequencies ...... 60 Analysis of Environmental Variables ...... 69 Elevation ...... 69 Permanent Water Sources ...... 74 Vegetation Communities ...... 75 Summary ...... 76

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION ...... 78 The Antiquity of GBCA Rock Art ...... 78 Previous Research ...... 78 The Current Study ...... 81 Reconsidering Paleoindian Land Use Patterns ...... 85 Elevation ...... 87 Vegetation Communities ...... 90 Permanent Water Sources ...... 94 A Proposed Model of Paleoindian Land Use ...... 94

CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION ...... 101 Summary of Findings ...... 102 Future Research ...... 106 Conclusion ...... 111

REFERENCES ...... 112

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1. Northern Great Basin Cultural Periods and Diagnostic Artifacts ...... 34

Table 2.2. GBCA Sites Used in this Study ...... 44

Table 3.1. Elevation Zone Determinations for Study Areas ...... 51

Table 3.2. Hypotheses, Expectations, Materials, and Methods Included in this Study ...... 59

Table 4.1. Diagnostic Projectile Points by Cultural Period at GBCA Sites ...... 61

Table 4.2. Diagnostic Projectile Points by Cultural Period from Nearby Study Areas ...... 63

Table 4.3. Projectile Point Frequencies from GBCA Sites and Other Study Areas, Including Cascade Points in the Paleoindian Period ...... 64

Table 4.4. Projectile Point Frequencies from GBCA Sites and Other Study Areas, with Cascade Points Excluded ...... 65

Table 4.5. Projectile Point Frequencies from GBCA Sites and all Study Areas, Including Cascade Points in the Paleoindian Period ...... 66

Table 4.6. Projectile Point Frequencies from GBCA Sites and all Study Areas with Cascade Points Excluded ...... 66

Table 4.7. Time Adjusted Projectile Point Frequencies for GBCA Sites and other Study Areas ...... 68

Table 4.8. Environmental Data for GBCA Sites...... 71

Table 4.9. Elevation Zone Distribution of GBCA Sites ...... 74

Table 4.10. Types of Permanent Water Sources near GBCA Sites ...... 75

Table 4.11. Vegetation Communities found at GBCA Sites ...... 76

Table 5.1. Site Classification of Single-Component GBCA Sites ...... 98

Table 5.2. Comparison of Paleoindian Lifeways under Traditional and Proposed Models ...... 99

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1. Location of the study area, the northern Great Basin ...... 3

Figure 1.2. Chronology of rock art styles in the Great Basin ...... 17

Figure 1.3. Great Basin Pecked style ...... 20

Figure 1.4. Deeply incised elements of GBCA rock art ...... 20

Figure 1.5. Highly repatinated elements of GBCA rock art ...... 22

Figure 1.6. Integrated elements of GBCA rock art from partially buried Panels A and B at Long Lake ...... 22

Figure 1.7. Partially buried GBCA Panel A at Long Lake ...... 24

Figure 1.8. Partially buried GBCA Panel B at Long Lake ...... 24

Figure 1.9. Profile of sediments covering GBCA Panel A at Long Lake ...... 26

Figure 1.10. Radiocarbon dated GBCA Panel G at Winnemucca Dry Lake ...... 27

Figure 1.11. GBCA Panel I at Winnemucca Dry Lake...... 27

Figure 2.1. Location of GBCA rock art sites and other areas discussed in this study ...... 31

Figure 2.2. Projectile points diagnostic of the Paleoindian period ...... 38

Figure 2.3. Projectile points diagnostic of the Early and Middle Archaic periods ...... 39

Figure 2.4. Projectile points diagnostic of the Late Archaic and Proto-Historic periods ...... 42

Figure 4.1. Distribution of GBCA sites by elevation ...... 74

Figure 5.1. Summed probability curve for radiocarbon date frequencies in the Fort Rock Basin ...... 85

Chapter 1

Introduction

Researchers’ ability to reconstruct the past is dependent on material preserved in the archaeological record. Remains are consistently biased towards those items that have withstood the ravages of time, such as flaked stone tools and associated lithic debris.

These items have allowed archaeologists to investigate some aspects of human behavior in the Great Basin during the Terminal Pleistocene/Early Holocene (TP/EH), ~12,500-

7,500 radiocarbon years before present (14C BP), including mobility and land use strategies (Duke and Young 2007; Jones et al. 2003, 2012; Smith 2007, 2010). While these are important sources of information, other items such as textiles are seldom recovered from TP/EH sites due to preservation bias (but see Barker 2009; Barker et al.

2012; Connolly 1994; Connolly and Barker 2004; Hattori and Fowler 2009). As such, our interpretations of the past generally lack the insight that these items can provide.

Rock art, like flaked stone artifacts, is not subject to rapid decomposition like organic technology (e.g., textiles) and provides an additional, albeit understudied, avenue to understand TP/EH lifeways.

The Great Basin of the American West is one location where decades of research concerning the first inhabitants of the region, herein referred to as Paleoindians, has taken place using lithic assemblages. This research has been largely focused on past subsistence pursuits (Greenspan 1994; Hockett 2007; Pinson 2007; Rhode and

Louderback 2007), technological activities and organization (Beck and Jones 1997, 2009;

Jones et al. 2012; Skinner 2004), and mobility (Duke and Young 2007; Jones et al. 2003,

2012; Smith 2007, 2010). Our knowledge of these topics has been supplemented by reconstructions of environmental and climatic conditions (Benson et al. 2002; Madsen

1999; Madsen et al. 2001; Wigand and Rhode 2002). However, our reconstructions of

Paleoindian lifeways thus far have not been developed using data from rock art sites.

This study presents the results of the analysis of 55 rock art sites in the northern

Great Basin and the temporally diagnostic projectile points found there (Figure 1.1).

Each rock art site contains examples of a recently identified style of rock art termed Great

Basin Carved Abstract (GBCA), which researchers argue is stylistically different and significantly older than much of the rock art found elsewhere in the Great Basin (Cannon and Ricks 1986, 2007; Quinlan 2009; Ricks 1999; Ricks and Cannon 1993; Ritter et al.

2007). Two lines of evidence – a radiocarbon date on carbonates both underlying and covering a GBCA panel carved into tufa in northwestern Nevada (Benson et al. 2012), and the stratigraphic position of a GBCA panel below Mazama tephra in southcentral

Oregon (Ricks and Cannon 1993) – suggest that the GBCA style dates to the TP/EH.

These two examples, however, are isolated cases and are open to criticism based on the association between dated materials and the rock art panels themselves.

Additional indirect support for an early age for GBCA panels includes the fact that they are often highly repatinated and that less patinated, presumably younger styles of rock art are superimposed over GBCA panels (Cannon and Ricks 2007:121-122). To provide additional evidence supporting the early age of GBCA rock art and ultimately to test the hypothesis that GBCA rock art dates to the TP/EH and was produced by Paleoindians, I analyzed the frequencies of time-sensitive projectile points associated with GBCA rock

art sites in the northern Great Basin. I then used the results of these analyses to test current models of TP/EH land use and the second hypothesis that Cannon et al.’s (1990) and Ricks’ (1995) model of land use for the last ~7,000 years in Oregon’s Warner Valley can be applied to the TP/EH. The remainder of this chapter discusses the prehistory of the northern Great Basin, briefly outlines the longstanding difficulties in assigning rock art to particular cultural periods, discusses the character and distribution of GBCA rock art as well as elaborates on both Benson et al.’s (2012) results and Ricks and Cannon’s

(1993) conclusions, and finally states the hypotheses to be tested in this study.

Figure 1.1. Location of the study area, the northern Great Basin. Image source: ESRI.

Research Background

Environment and Climate

The Great Basin is the internally draining portion of the arid American West characterized by wide desert valleys flanked by substantial parallel mountain ranges that are roughly north-south in orientation (Grayson 2011:11, 13). This region is part of the larger Basin-and-Range province that extends from southeastern Oregon to northern

Mexico (Grayson 2011:12). The northernmost portion of the Great Basin in southcentral/southeastern Oregon is bordered by the Columbia Plateau to the north and the Cascade Range to the west (Aikens and Jenkins 1994:1; Grayson 2011:13). This area lies in the rain shadow of the Cascade Range and receives no more than 180 to 300 mm of rain annually, which contributes to the xeric conditions in the area (Aikens and Jenkins

1994:2). Elevations in the northern Great Basin range from ~4,000 ft in several valley bottoms to the ~9,700 ft peak of Steens Mountain in southeastern Oregon (Aikens and

Jenkins 1994:2).

Higher elevations in the region receive more precipitation and are characterized by pine (Pinus ponderosa and Pinus contorta) forests, while the intermediate, drier zones typically contain juniper (Juniperus occidentalus), sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata), and various grasses (e.g., Festuca idahoensis, Elymus cinerus) (Aikens and Jenkins 1994:3).

Lowland areas are distinguished by xeric-adapted species including sagebrush, greasewood (Sarcobatus vermiculatus), and saltbush (Atriplex sp.), while valley bottoms may contain large pluvial lakes, stream-fed wetlands, or playas (Aikens and Jenkins

1994:2-3). Lakes and marshes foster tule (Scirpus sp.) and cattail (Typha latifolia) as well as a variety of terrestrial and aquatic species that prehistoric populations are known to have exploited (Aikens and Jenkins 1994:3). Major lake systems in the northern Great

Basin include Summer Lake, Lake Abert, Surprise Valley, Warner Valley, Massacre

Lake Basin, and Harney-Malheur (Cannon et al. 1990). These areas have been focal points for human exploitation and occupation throughout prehistory.

The Terminal Pleistocene/Early Holocene Transition, 12,500-7,500 14C BP

In keeping with the trends that characterized the Pleistocene as a whole, the terminus of this epoch is distinguished by extreme climatic variability. After the Bølling

Allerød, a 1,000-year warming period that began around ~14,000 14C BP, the climate once again returned to near ice age conditions during the Younger Dryas (Goebel et al.

2011; Madsen 1999). The Younger Dryas lasted from ~11,100 to 10,100 14C BP and was characterized by a refilling of pluvial lakes, downslope expansion of forested woodlands, and extreme climatic variability on a decadal scale (Goebel et al. 2011; Jenkins et al.

2004a:7; Madsen 1999; Minckley et al. 2004:25). As the Younger Dryas came to an end and the glaciers that once covered much of northern North America began to recede for the final time, pluvial lakes shrank and the timberline began to recede upslope (Jenkins et al. 2004a:7). These changes were in part the result of reduced effective moisture due to the repositioning of the jet stream further north as the Laurentide Ice Sheet receded

(Minckley et al. 2004:25).

The aforementioned trends continued throughout the TP/EH transition. The summer insolation maximum during the Early Holocene resulted in warmer summer temperatures and colder winters, which coupled with the continual recession of the

Laurentide Ice Sheet, left the northern Great Basin with drier than present conditions

(Minckley et al. 2004:26). The increased aridity also affected biotic distributions in the northern Great Basin. Conifers such as pine, spruce, and fir moved upslope while simultaneously decreasing in abundance (Minckley et al. 2004:26-27). Sagebrush steppe expanded along basin floors and piedmonts, while juniper dominated lower and middle mountain slopes (Minckley et al. 2004:26-27). Increased aridity left remnants of only the largest pluvial lake systems such as Lahontan, Bonneville, and Searles, and their associated lacustrine resources also decreased in abundance (Minckley et al. 2004:26).

The Middle Holocene, 7,500-5,000 14C BP

The Middle Holocene differed significantly from the TP/EH. Early Holocene trends of increased aridity and decreased precipitation intensified, significant environmental deterioration occurred for mesic-adapted plant communities, and in many valleys, lakes and wetlands disappeared completely. The climatic fluctuations during this period had drastic implications on local biota. Grayson (2000, 2006) argues that small mammals decreased in species richness and evenness, local extinctions occurred, and xeric-adapted species increased in abundance. This period has historically been known as the Altithermal (sensu Antevs 1948), or the Middle Holocene drought (Grayson

2011:243). While Antevs’ (1948) characterization of this period somewhat

oversimplifies the climatic variability evident in various proxy records, his reconstruction was generally accurate and still serves as a useful model today (Grayson 2011:242).

The Late Holocene, 5,000 14C BP-Present

The Late Holocene saw the amelioration of environmental and climatic conditions in the Great Basin. Effective moisture once again increased, many pluvial lakes expanded, and marshes and wetlands became more numerous and productive, offering various subsistence resources (Jenkins 1994:604; Minckley et al. 2004:27). Additionally, sagebrush, shadscale, juniper, and woodland communities reached their present day distributions during the Late Holocene (Minckley et al. 2004:27).

These environmental and climatic fluctuations, particularly those of the TP/EH and Middle Holocene, had marked effects on the prehistoric inhabitants of the northern

Great Basin. Paleoindians and later Archaic groups altered numerous aspects of their behavior ranging from subsistence pursuits to technological organization. Such changes are observable in the archaeological record and offer important information regarding

Paleoindian lifeways.

The Human Colonization of the Great Basin

The exact timing of humans’ arrival to the Americas has long been debated.

Researchers disagree on a variety of issues including the means of transport (e.g., by foot or watercraft), the exact route taken by early groups (e.g., the ice-free corridor, a coastal

route, or transpacific or transatlantic routes), and the specific timing of colonization

(Grayson 2011:48-54). Furthermore, any new evidence is acutely scrutinized and archaeologists often find themselves on opposite sides of the issues.

For decades, the Clovis culture, defined in part by concave-based, fluted projectile points found throughout North America, was accepted as the earliest securely dated cultural complex in North America (Grayson 2011:289; Haynes 2002:81).

Archaeological materials attributed to Clovis date to between 11,500 and 10,900 14C BP

(Waters and Stafford 2007); however, at least two generally accepted sites suggest a pre-

Clovis occupation of North America (but see Haynes 2002, 2007; Fiedel and Morrow

2012). The first is Monte Verde, a site in Chile that suggests to many researchers that people arrived in South America ~12,500 14C BP (Dillehey 1989, 1997; Grayson

2011:60-61; Meltzer et al. 1997; but see Haynes 2002:18). The second site is the Paisley

Caves in Oregon. Those sites offer radiocarbon dates on six coprolites containing human

DNA as old as 12,450 14C BP (Jenkins et al. 2012). These data suggest that humans arrived in the Great Basin before the emergence of the Clovis culture elsewhere in North

America. Not all researchers accept this conclusion, and Jenkins et al.’s (2012) results have been met with skepticism by some (e.g., Goldberg et al. 2009; Poiner et al. 2009; but see Gilbert et al. 2009; Rasmussen 2009), and concerns are largely focused on the associations between artifacts and dated materials. Even if the Paisley Caves results are excluded, humans certainly occupied the region during the Younger Dryas, ~11,100-

10,100 14C BP (Goebel et al. 2011). At least 10 archaeological sites date to the Younger

Dryas in the Great Basin, including Bonneville Estates Rockshelter, Smith Creek Cave,

Danger Cave, and the Sunshine Locality (Goebel et al. 2011).

Prehistoric Lifeways

Terminal Pleistocene/Early Holocene Lifeways

Most researchers agree that one of the cornerstones of Paleoindian lifeways was an emphasis on pluvial lakes and wetlands. Small foraging groups likely followed seasonal distributions of resources yet maintained a focus on lacustrine settings (Beck and Jones 1997:219; Beck et al. 2002; Elston and Zeanah 2002; Jones et al. 2003, 2012;

Madsen 2007). Extensive sites from this period are found along pluvial lake margins and have led many researchers (e.g., Beck and Jones 1997, 2009; Bedwell 1973; Duke and

Young 2007; Jenkins 1994; Jones et al. 2003; Smith 2007; Smith et al. 2012b; Toepel and

Minor 1994) to argue that Paleoindian subsistence economies were largely tied to wetland resources. This strategy has been termed ‘limnosedentary,’ or simply a lowland strategy (Madsen 2002, 2007). This strategy entailed moving residential bases around marshes collecting various edible plants, small mammals, waterfowl, and fish (Beck and

Jones 1997:176, 214; Cannon et al. 1990:176; O’Grady 2004; Pinson 2007; Singer 2004).

The sheer abundance and proximity of resources in wetland habitats during the TP/EH likely made such a lowland strategy advantageous (Madsen 2007:8).

Elston and Zeanah (2002) argue that a wetland focus was strategic in terms of a sexual division of labor. Wetlands surrounding large pluvial lakes would have provided a stable resource patch, particularly during the winter and spring, where women could forage for abundant edible plants as well as small game, birds, and fish close to camp.

The stable returns of these resources would have allowed men to venture out to nearby

low- to mid-elevations where larger game was widely available during the same time of the year (Elston and Zeanah 2002:120). Furthermore, Elston and Zeanah (2002) cite the abundance of pluvial lake systems in the Great Basin during the TP/EH and an overall lack of competition among groups as principal factors which allowed the high degree of mobility commonly attributed to Paleoindians.

The second cornerstone of TP/EH populations was high residential mobility.

Lithic conveyance zone data support models of mobile groups who relocated residential bases with great frequency and magnitude (Jones et al. 2003, 2012; Smith 2010). Such models are largely based on the fact that toolstone was transported substantial distances and that Paleoindian lithic toolkits are flexible and portable: both characteristics expected of mobile populations (Smith 2010:865). While most researchers maintain that toolstone was directly procured (Basgall 1989; Jones and Beck 1999; Jones et al. 2003, 2011;

Smith 2010, 2011) others (e.g., Beck and Jones 2011) have investigated whether exotic materials found in TP/EH lithic assemblages could be a result of exchange. In addition to toolstone transport distance, some researchers have argued that low population densities during the TP/EH contributed to high mobility within large foraging ranges. Louderback et al. (2011) use frequencies of radiocarbon dates while Bettinger (1999) uses frequencies of time-sensitive projectile points to argue that the TP/EH in the Great Basin saw relatively low human population densities compared to later times.

It appears that in the northern Great Basin, TP/EH groups, like Paleoindians elsewhere, “mapped on” (sensu Binford 1980) to productive wetlands (Jenkins 1994).

TP/EH groups illustrate Kelly’s (1992:46) suggestion that, “although many variables affect mobility, subsistence – and therefore foraging strategy – is certainly a primary

one.” An additional variable that reflects prehistoric mobility is lithic technological organization (Kelly 1992). The lithic toolkit associated with Paleoindians was comprised of large, bifacially flaked projectile points. In the northern Great Basin, Great Basin

Stemmed (GBS) points date to approximately 11,500-7,000 14C BP and include styles such as Haskett and Windust points (Beck and Jones 2009; Madsen 2007:13-14; Musil

2004; Oetting 1994a). Crescents are also often found in TP/EH lithic assemblages around relict pluvial lakes and are argued to be part of a toolkit designed primarily for wetland resources (Beck and Jones 2010:100; Clewlow 1968; Tadlock 1966). Foliate or leaf-shaped points sometimes referred to as Cascade points are in many cases diagnostic of TP/EH occupations as well (Oetting 1994a; Smith et al. 2012a). These point forms overlap temporally with Great Basin Fluted (GBF) points, similar to Clovis technology elsewhere in North America (Beck and Jones 2009), and are often found together (Beck and Jones 2009; Beck et al. 2004; Smith et al. 2012b). Which point form preceded which, however, is the subject of much contention (Beck and Jones 2010, 2012; Fiedel and Morrow 2012). Regardless, GBS, GBF, and sometimes leaf-shaped points are found in TP/EH contexts, most often in open-air settings around remnant pluvial lakes (Beck and Jones 2009; Madsen 2007:13; Skinner et al. 2004; Smith et al. 2012b). With few exceptions (e.g., Smith 2007; Beck and Jones 2009), TP/EH sites are generally small, contain few formal tools and tool types, and intersite variability is low. Together, these aspects of technological organization point to a mobile lifestyle (Beck and Jones 1997;

Elston and Zeanah 2002).

In addition to the above aspects of prehistoric lifeways related to subsistence, mobility, and technology, various other types of Paleoindian material culture have been

documented. Textiles, including woven sandals and other materials (Connolly 1994;

Connolly and Barker 2004), shell, bone, and stone beads and/or ornaments (Jenkins et al.

2004b), and rock art (Cannon and Ricks 1986; Cannon et al. 1990; Ricks 1994, 1995;

Ricks and Cannon 1993) have all been reported at early sites and while these aspects of the archaeological record possess some utility, their relative paucity limits their ability to inform our understanding of TP/EH lifeways in the northern Great Basin.

Middle Holocene Lifeways

Middle Holocene lifeways appear to have changed dramatically in response to climatic and environmental fluctuations. As the climate deteriorated, many pluvial lake systems desiccated and once productive wetlands disappeared. The wetland focused strategy practiced by TP/EH groups was no longer an option for most Middle Holocene populations and they were forced to alter their subsistence and settlement strategies.

Researchers (e.g., Cannon et al. 1990; Jenkins 1994; Leach 1988; Moore 1998; Ricks

1995) argue that Middle Holocene groups increasingly exploited root crops found in upland areas, particularly those with lithosols capable of supporting edible plants such as

Lomatium species, yampa (Perideridia gairdneri), and bitterroot (Lewisia rediviva).

Upland areas would have continued to offer stable and productive subsistence resources throughout the environmental deterioration characteristic of the Middle Holocene. As mentioned above, Elston and Zeanah (2002) argue that during the TP/EH, abundant pluvial lakes in the northern Great Basin allowed groups to practice high residential mobility. Once those resource patches decreased in number, groups likely began to

practice more logistical mobility (Byrum 1994; Jenkins 1994; Leach 1988; Moore 1999;

Oetting 1994a, 1994b). Additionally, Cannon et al. (1990) and Ricks (1995) argue that during the Middle Holocene, groups in Oregon’s Warner Valley practiced a tethered subsistence strategy in which they spent fall and winters in the lowlands around lakes, and then moved into the uplands during spring and summer to process the aforementioned geophytes.

Human population densities also changed during the Middle Holocene. Antevs

(1948) was the first to suggest that the aridity characteristic of what he called the

Altithermal (~6,500-4,000 14C BP) decreased human population levels in the Great Basin.

Louderback et al.’s (2011) results confirm Antevs’ (1948) suggestion and indicate that there were indeed fewer people on the landscape at that time. Similarly, Bettinger’s

(1999) study of time sensitive projectile point frequencies demonstrates that the Middle

Holocene was characterized by low human population densities.

Middle Holocene lithic technology was largely similar to that employed during the TP/EH, but the patterns evident in attributes like site composition and distribution across the landscape indicate that, as discussed above, lifeways likely changed in part as a response to a deteriorating climate. Point forms changed large stemmed projectile points to Northern Side-notched points in the northern Great Basin (Oetting 1994a).

Additionally, groundstone is found in Middle Holocene contexts in the northern Great

Basin, suggesting that as productive wetlands became scarce, intensive small seed processing became necessary (Jenkins 2004; Helzer 2004; Moessner 2004). Intersite variability also increased (e.g., size, type, location), which likely indicates a diversification in site function (Elston and Zeanah 2002). Additionally, settlement

strategies changed during the Middle Holocene to an emphasis on extended occupations of some locations, as evidenced by a greater frequency of residential structures and “site furniture” (sensu Binford 1979) (Butler 1986; Elston 1986; O’Connell 1975; Smith

2011). These trends are supported by x-ray fluorescence (XRF) data, which indicate that toolstone transport distance and lithic conveyance zone size decreased during the Middle

Holocene likely due to fewer residential moves (Smith 2010, 2011).

Late Holocene Lifeways

The Late Holocene saw climatic and environmental amelioration in the Great

Basin. Pluvial lakes, once so important to prehistoric populations, expanded and again provided an abundance of flora and fauna (Jenkins 1994:604; Minckley et al. 2004:27).

Population levels rose in response to improved environment and increased subsistence resources (Bettinger 1999; Louderback et al. 2011). These circumstances allowed increased sedentism reflected in the form of stone house rings often located in ecotonal settings between marsh and upland areas (Jenkins et al. 2004a:19). Additionally, food storage, intensified root crop exploitation, and the proliferation of groundstone are all typical of the Late Holocene (Jenkins et al. 2004a).

Situating Great Basin Rock Art within a Broader Context

While the above discussion highlights how lithic assemblages, studies of land use patterns, and faunal assemblages have contributed to our understanding of the past, it also

reflects the limited attention that rock art has received from Great Basin researchers.

Although several important studies have been conducted (e.g., Cannon and Ricks 1986,

2007; Quinlan 2007; Ricks 1995, 1999; Ricks and Cannon 1993; Ritter et al. 2007;

Woody 1996), the inability to situate rock art within particular cultural periods has hindered its utility in reconstructing the past. Rock art has not enjoyed substantial attention over the years, and neither meaningful chronologies nor dating methods are widely available to researchers who choose to investigate this aspect of the archaeological record (Quinlan 2007:1). As such, rock art has remained in the preliminary stages of research without much development since early studies in the Great

Basin.

Most early rock art investigations attempted to create a relative chronology of different styles. Steward’s (1929) synthesis of rock art in western North America was one such attempt and his main contribution was, “the definition of terms, classification of rock art styles, and characterization of the spatial and temporal distributions of rock art styles, thereby providing a foundation for future rock art research” (Woody and Quinlan

2009:51). Following Steward’s (1929) example, Cressman (1937) classified different rock art styles found in Oregon. More recently, Heizer and Baumhoff (1962) developed a stylistic typology for Great Basin rock art that researchers continue to use today. Their typology distinguished styles by the method of production, and Heizer and Baumhoff

(1962:197) identified five styles: (1) Great Basin Pecked, or petroglyphs; (2) Great Basin

Painted, or pictographs; (3) Great Basin Scratched, commonly found in southern

California and attributed to Numic groups; (4) Puebloan Painted, found only in southern

Nevada; and (5) Pit and Groove, or cupules – thought to be the oldest style. Heizer and

Baumhoff (1962:198) distinguished some of these styles further, particularly the Great

Basin Pecked style, and differentiate Great Basin Representational and Great Basin

Abstract (either Curvilinear or Rectilinear). GBCA rock art was not identified by Heizer and Baumhoff (1962).

Using these classifications and various relative dating methods including ethnographic information, superimposition of elements, differential repatination, and associations with other archaeological material, Heizer and Baumhoff (1962) proposed a chronology for the various styles (Figure 1.2). They argued that the Pit and Groove style

(~6,000-4,500 14C BP) is the oldest style in the Great Basin. Heizer and Baumhoff

(1962) also estimated the ages of the Abstract Curvilinear (~3,000 14C BP-Contact),

Abstract Rectilinear and Representational (~1,600 14C BP-Contact), and Scratched

(~1,000 14C BP-Contact) styles. While their chronology was preliminary, it has continued to be utilized by researchers with little refinement or revision. This may be a factor of the accuracy of the initial estimates or simply the lack of subsequent research required to further refine Heizer and Baumhoff’s (1962) chronology. This study, however, may provide data that can be used to update their chronology by securing a temporal range for GBCA rock art. The tentative date range for this style is the TP/EH

(see Figure 1.2).

Attempts have been made to develop chronometric dating techniques to date rock art, including cation-dating (Dorn and Whitley 1984), which after much criticism (see

Bierman and Gillespie 1991; Dragovich 1984; Harry 1995) has been largely abandoned.

Radiocarbon dating (Nobbs and Dorn 1991) has also been attempted and proven to be equally problematic (see Dorn 1996; Schneider and Bierman 1997; Watchman 2000).

The fact that rock art resists conventional absolute dating methods has likely played a role in the fact that it has largely been ignored in mainstream archaeological research

(Quinlan 2007; Woody and Quinlan 2009).

Abstract 14C BP Scratched Representational Rectilinear Curvilinear Pit and Groove GBCA

Contact 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 11,000 12,000 ?

Figure 1.2. Chronology of rock art styles in the Great Basin. Adapted from Heizer and Baumhoff (1962) and Ricks (1995).

Given these obstacles, researchers must develop alternative methods of assigning rock art to particular cultural periods, only after which meaningful interpretations of the past may be proposed. Indeed, Thomas (1981:7) argues that archaeology’s initial goal is to “define cultural chronologies” with which we can then tackle the “intermediate objective…to reconstruct prehistoric lifeways.” In the Great Basin, this endeavor has largely been carried out by using projectile points as index fossils. Acknowledging

Thomas’ (1981) call to action, researchers throughout the Great Basin have developed variations of the typology he defined to date sites lacking organic material suitable for

radiocarbon dating. For example, Oetting (1994a) developed a chronology specific to the northern Great Basin that draws heavily from Thomas’ (1981) work. These approaches, known as lithic cross-dating, are particularly applicable to open-air surface sites in the

Great Basin containing little potential for buried cultural deposits. While lithic cross- dating is the primary means used by researchers to date archaeological sites in the region, surprisingly it has been underutilized to date rock art sites thus far. Due to the fact that rock art resists chronometric dating methods, and those alternative dating methods that have been proposed are at best in the preliminary stages of development, using temporally diagnostic projectile points as index fossils is currently the most promising way to assign rock art in the region to specific periods of Great Basin prehistory.

GBCA Rock Art

One of the potential benefits of being able to assign rock art to particular periods of prehistory is to be able to establish its emergence in the region. Currently, only one rock art site is generally accepted by researchers as dating to the Early Holocene (and perhaps earlier). The Long Lake site (35LK514) is a rock art concentration found on a

2.5-mile-long basalt rim along a playa margin on the eastern rim of Warner Valley (Ricks and Cannon 1993). In addition to typical and long recognized Great Basin Pecked styles

(Figure 1.3), including Curvilinear and Rectilinear Abstract and Representational (Heizer and Baumhoff 1962), Long Lake also contains examples of a more recently characterized style, originally called Long Lake Carved Abstract (Cannon and Ricks 1986; Ricks and

Cannon 1993). Further research (Ricks 1995) identified the style at a number of other

sites; therefore, its name was changed to GBCA. The style has been defined by researchers (Cannon and Ricks 1986; Ricks 1995, 1999; Ricks and Cannon 1993) based on three attributes that separate it from Heizer and Baumhoff’s (1962) Great Basin

Pecked Style. First, GBCA is distinguished by the depth of carving (up to 15 mm), which inspired the name Great Basin Carved Abstract (Cannon and Ricks 2007). These deeply incised panels (Figure 1.4) are likely produced through indirect percussion and are clearly different than much of the rock art found in the Great Basin, where a pecking technique was employed to remove the outermost layer of the rock varnish to reveal the lighter color underneath. GBCA panels are best described as bas- or low-relief carvings rather than the pecked designs characteristic of other rock art styles in the region (Ricks and Cannon 1993:94).

Second, GBCA panels are often highly repatinated (Figure 1.5) and there are numerous examples of panels that have completely repatinated, returning to the same color and texture as the surrounding unmodified rock surface (Ricks and Cannon 1993).

This attribute is significantly different from most of the rock art in the Great Basin, which takes advantage of the difference in color between the darker overlying rock varnish and the lighter underlying rock. While the Great Basin certainly contains examples of repatinated rock art, namely Heizer and Baumhoff’s (1962) Pit and Groove style, what sets GBCA apart is that GBCA panels are always more repatinated than other presumably more recent styles at sites (Cannon and Ricks 2007:121-122). In other words, regardless of the different processes at work at any given site, GBCA rock art is consistently the most repatinated style at sites containing multiple styles. While the exact dynamics of

Figure 1.3. Great Basin Pecked style. Photo courtesy of Larry Benson.

Figure 1.4. Deeply incised elements of GBCA rock art.

rock art repatination remain unclear (Dragovich 1984), differential repatination can nevertheless provide relative ages for rock art panels. Generally, the more the panels repatinate, the darker the design elements become, and the older they are in relation to other nearby panels at the same site that are lighter in color.

Third, the use of space is cited as a distinguishing attribute of GBCA rock art

(Cannon and Ricks 1986, 2007; Ricks 1999; Ricks and Cannon 1993). GBCA panels have design elements that lack what researchers call “white space” (Ricks and Cannon

1993). Panels are often entirely filled with a highly integrated design of curvilinear and rectilinear abstract lines, circles, and dots (Quinlan 2009; Ricks 1999; Ricks and Cannon

1993). Line drawings of the partially buried panels at Long Lake (Figure 1.6) provide an excellent example of the highly integrated nature of GBCA panels that distinguishes

GBCA rock art from Heizer and Baumhoff’s (1962) Great Basin Pecked style. The

Pecked style is often characterized by disconnected abstract elements, but complex abstract and representational panels are also common. However, the complex panels of the Pecked style lack the degree of integration that GBCA panels exhibit. The integration of GBCA design elements produces what appears to be cohesive, highly organized panels.

The intricate, integrated, and often repetitive elements of GBCA panels, combined with the degree of repatination and depth of carving, have led researchers (e.g.,

Cannon and Ricks 1986, 2007; Ricks 1995; Ricks and Cannon 1993; Ritter et al. 2007) to conclude that these panels are distinctive enough to warrant a separate stylistic classification. Thus, a brief discussion of the general relationship between GBCA and other rock art styles at sites in the northern Great Basin illustrates how the styles are

Figure 1.5. Highly repatinated elements of GBCA rock art.

Figure 1.6. Integrated elements of GBCA rock art from partially buried Panels A and B at Long Lake. Adapted from Ricks and Cannon (1993).

related. Based on my field visits and firsthand observations of several GBCA sites in the northern Great Basin, as well as other researchers’ published interpretations, I propose several generalizations about GBCA rock art. When GBCA panels are associated with other rock art styles, GBCA rock art is always situated beneath other presumably younger styles, and it is always the most heavily repatinated of the styles present on panels. At sites containing both GBCA and other styles, Heizer and Baumhoff’s (1962) Rectilinear and/or Curvilinear Abstract styles or Representational elements, are often dominant. The scarcity of the GBCA style relative to other styles may be due to the often extreme degree of repatination of GBCA motifs. Cannon and Ricks (2007:115) note that polarized lenses were employed to help identify more GBCA panels at Long Lake and if such an approach was used at other sites in the northern Great Basin, more GBCA panels might be identified and the relationship between GBCA and other styles could change.

The stylistic attributes of GBCA rock art were defined in part from two panels

(Panel A and Panel B) that are partially buried beneath the current ground surface at the

Long Lake site (Figures 1.7 and 1.8). These panels were discovered partially exposed as a result of unauthorized excavations and appear to be a small part of a larger work that extends ~36 m along the rim (Cannon and Ricks 1986). The buried portion of the GBCA panels appear to extend above the current ground surface but have been nearly completely destroyed due to weathering. Above the GBCA rock art are other styles including Abstract Rectilinear and Curvilinear. Only the GBCA style is found beneath the ground surface; all other styles are found above the GBCA portion of the panel. In an attempt to recover any remaining data and mitigate the damage caused by the

Figure 1.7. Partially buried GBCA Panel A at Long Lake. Photo courtesy of Larry Benson.

Figure 1.8. Partially buried GBCA Panel B at Long Lake.

unauthorized excavations, the Lakeview BLM authorized additional excavations of Panel

A and B (Cannon and Ricks 1986; Ricks and Cannon 1993). This work showed that the

GBCA panels extend 94 cm below the current ground surface and are covered by five distinct strata (four of which are shown in Figure 1.9) (Ricks and Cannon 1993). From

~70-90 cm below the surface is a layer of yellow volcanic ash which subsequent laboratory testing determined was Mazama tephra deposited ~6,850 14C BP (Bacon 1983;

Ricks and Cannon 1993). Additionally, a radiocarbon date of 2,170±60 14C BP was obtained on a piece of charcoal recovered ~20 cm below the surface (Ricks and Cannon

1993). With these two dates, it is clear that the panel containing GBCA rock art is at least ~2,200 years old, and because of its stratigraphic position below a sealed primary deposit of Mazama tephra, it is also likely older than ~6,850 14C BP (Cannon and Ricks

2007; Quinlan 2009; Ricks and Cannon 1993). If we assume that sediment was deposited at a consistent rate of ~20 cm per 2,170±60 14C years, (an admittedly tenuous assumption), then the base of the panel ~94 cm below the ground surface may be as old as ~10,200 14C BP. While this final estimate is based on an untested and likely inaccurate assumption, my point is that GBCA may very well date to the TP/EH in the northern Great Basin and is almost certainly the oldest rock art style in the region.

Recent research conducted by Benson et al. (2012) at a second location provides additional support for Cannon and Ricks’ (2007) suggestion that GBCA rock art is old.

Benson et al. (2012) obtained radiocarbon dates on carbonate deposits that cover a tufa formation into which a GBCA panel was incised as well as from a carbonate crust coating the panel itself from the western shore of Winnemucca Dry Lake in northwestern

Nevada (Figures 1.10 and 1.11). These carbonates were produced when the tufa

Present Ground Surface 30 cm

Backdirt from Looters’ Hole 10 cm

Original Ground Surface 0 cm

10 cm Charcoal (2,170±60 14C BP)

30 cm Upper Brown Clay

Northern Side- 50 cm notched point Foliate Point

Metate 70 cm Mano Mazama Tephra (6,850 14C BP)

90 cm Bottom of GBCA panel

Lower Dark Brown Clay 110 cm

Bottom of Excavation

0 m 1 m

Figure 1.9. Profile of sediments covering GBCA Panel A at Long Lake. Adapted from Cannon and Ricks (1986) and Ricks and Cannon (1993).

Figure 1.10. Radiocarbon dated GBCA Panel G at Winnemucca Dry Lake. Photo courtesy of Gene Hattori.

Figure 1.11. GBCA Panel I at Winnemucca Dry Lake. Photo Courtesy of Gene Hattori.

formation was submerged under water; the radiocarbon dates obtained on these materials reflect the periods of time that bracket the production of the rock art. In other words, the carbonates were formed when the tufa was underwater; sometime after the water fell below the base of the tufa formation, the GBCA panel was carved into its surface. The panel was then resubmerged underwater and additional carbonates formed on top of the rock art. Based on the radiocarbon dates obtained by Benson et al. (2012), they argue that the GBCA panel was produced either ~12,600-11,000 14C BP or ~10,000-9,200 14C

BP. These dates essentially indicate when the water level in the Winnemucca Lake subbasin fell below an elevation of ~3,950 ft, the northern spill point at Emerson Pass, exposing the tufa formations on which the rock art was created. Benson et al. (2012) find evidence (e.g., identical values of strontium isotopes and age ranges of algal tufas and laminated carbonates) that a deep freshwater lake existed in the Pyramid and

Winnemucca subbasins of the larger Lake Lahontan system between ~11,000 and 10,000

14C BP. Therefore, they argue that the GBCA rock art was created either before or after this period when the lake occupying the two basins was at or near the Emerson Pass spill point. Despite the potential contamination issues inherent in radiocarbon dating rock art panels (see Dorn 1996; Schneider and Bierman 1997; Watchman 2000) and the ‘reservoir effect’ that complicates radiocarbon dating lacustrine carbonates, Benson et al. (2012) are confident that their dates accurately reflect the production of the rock art. As such, they argue that this GBCA panel represents the oldest petroglyphs in North America.

Numerous other sites containing panels of GBCA rock art have been identified in the northern Great Basin (see Chapter 2) but to date, the age(s) of those panels remains unknown.

Research Goals

Rock art in the Great Basin has resisted conventional dating techniques, which has contributed to the paucity of academic research focused on it (Woody and Quinlan

2009:1). However, researchers have overlooked a potentially useful approach to dating rock art sites – using temporally diagnostic projectile points as index fossils. The primary goal of this study is to provide an additional line of evidence regarding the antiquity of GBCA rock art and demonstrate that it was produced by Paleoindians during the TP/EH. Additionally, GBCA has the potential to inform on TP/EH land use patterns and test commonly accepted models of Paleoindian lifeways. To address these goals, I test the following hypotheses:

1) GBCA rock art dates to the TP/EH and was produced by Paleoindians; and

2) Cannon et al.’s (1990) and Ricks’ (1995) models of a seasonally tethered

subsistence strategy can be applied to the TP/EH and expanded for the

northern Great Basin.

Chapter 2

Materials

Data used in this study were obtained from GBCA rock art sites in southcentral

Oregon’s Lake County (n=50) and northwestern Nevada’s Washoe County (n=5) (Figure

2.1). GBCA rock art, as defined in Chapter 1, was identified at each of the 50 rock art sites in Oregon by Bill Cannon, the Lakeview District BLM Archaeologist, and Mary

Ricks of Portland State University. These researchers were the first to identify the

GBCA style at most sites and together defined its distinguishing characteristics. This work was largely carried out under the auspices of the Lake County Oregon Rock Art

Inventory in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s. The identification, definition, and recording of the GBCA style by the same two individuals throughout the entire process eliminates potential inconsistencies that could arise if numerous unrelated researchers were involved in the characterization process. The GBCA sites from Nevada used in this study were identified by Ritter et al. (2007) (n=3), Benson et al. (2012) (n=1), and Ricks

(1998) (n=1). These researchers used Ricks and Cannon’s (1993) definition of the

GBCA style to identify and record sites in Nevada containing examples of GBCA rock art. Together, the Oregon and Nevada sites (n=55) currently comprise all known GBCA sites in the northern Great Basin.

While the distribution of GBCA appears to be restricted to the northern Great

Basin, the majority of these sites have been identified as a result of the Lake County

Figure 2.1. Location of GBCA rock art sites and other areas discussed in this study. Image source: ESRI.

Oregon Rock Art Inventory. No surveys of this magnitude have been performed in surrounding Oregon counties such as Klamath, Deschutes, Crook, and Harney. Likewise, regional surveys have not been conducted in Nevada’s Washoe, Humboldt, or Pershing counties. When future research of a similar scale and focus to that of the Lake County

Oregon Rock Art Inventory is conducted elsewhere, a broader geographic extent of

GBCA sites may be revealed. Based on informal observations and anecdotal evidence

(see Connick and Connick 1995; Mark and Newman 1995; Parkman 1995), it is possible that GBCA rock art sites will be found in southern Washington and northern California as well.

Documentation and Recordation of GBCA Rock Art Sites

GBCA sites in Lake County, Oregon were documented using a variety of forms including Oregon Cultural Resource site records, Oregon Archaeological Survey forms,

BLM Petroglyph/Pictograph site forms, BLM artifact inventory forms, and BLM photo records. These forms record basic site information including administrative, locational, environmental, physical, and management data and are often accompanied by descriptions, drawings, and photographs of rock art panels. Bill Cannon generously provided copies of these forms for all known GBCA sites in Oregon.

GBCA sites in Washoe County, Nevada were documented using Intermountain

Antiquities Computer System (IMACS) forms including rock art attachments, Nevada

State Museum archaeology site survey records, and Archaeological Field Program site records from the University of Nevada, Reno’s (UNR) Department of Anthropology.

These site forms record similar data as those forms used in Oregon and were obtained using the Nevada Cultural Resource Information System (NVCRIS) as well as conducting a record search of files housed at UNR’s Department of Anthropology.

Published sources including Fagan (1974), Fowler (1993), Fowler et al. (1989),

Konoske (2006), Ricks (1998), Tipps (1997), and Weide (1964) were consulted to compile counts of associated diagnostic projectile points at GBCA sites. UNR has conducted field schools in the northern Great Basin since the 1980’s and survey and excavations have taken place at various sites containing GBCA rock art in both Oregon and Nevada. The technical reports and artifact catalogs produced from this work and housed in UNR’s Department of Anthropology were also consulted for additional projectile point data. The projectile points reported on site forms, reports, and catalogs were compiled from both excavation and surface collections in Oregon and Nevada for this study.

Establishing Temporal Associations:

Diagnostic Artifacts Associated with GBCA Rock Art

Thomas (1981:7) developed a typology for the central Great Basin that allowed projectile points to be used as index fossils to accomplish what he argues is archaeology’s initial goal of “defin[ing] cultural chronologies.” Thomas’ (1981) typology has been modified by researchers throughout the Great Basin to account for morphological and temporal variation in point types. Using projectile points as index fossils allows sites that resist other dating methods (e.g., radiocarbon dating) to be assigned to particular cultural

periods in a process known as lithic cross-dating. Oetting (1994a) developed a typology specific to the northern Great Basin that established age ranges for points commonly found in that region. Oetting’s (1994a) typology, as well as age determinations made by other researchers (e.g., Beck and Jones 2009; Thomas 1981) are used in this study to provide age estimates for sites containing both diagnostic points and GBCA rock art (see

Chapter 3). Below, I describe the projectile point styles included in this analysis and outline which cultural period they are most commonly associated with in the northern

Great Basin (Table 2.1; Figures 2.2-2.4).

Table 2.1. Northern Great Basin Cultural Periods and Diagnostic Artifacts.

Cultural Period Temporal Range (14C BP) Diagnostic Artifacts Paleoindian 11,500-7,500 GBFa; GBCBb; GBSc; Windust; Crescents; Cascaded Early Archaic 7,500-5,000 Northern Side-notched Middle Archaic 5,000-1,500 HCBe; Gatecliff Series; Elko Series Late Archaic 1,500-700 Rosegate Proto-Historic 700-Contact Desert Side-notched; Cottonwood a GBF = Great Basin Fluted b GBCB = Great Basin Concave Base c GBS = Great Basin Stemmed d Cascade points are included in the Paleoindian Period, however their temporal span may extend into the Early Archaic as well e HCB = Humboldt Concave-Base

The Paleoindian Period: 11,500-7,500 14C BP

Great Basin Fluted Projectile Points. Great Basin Fluted (GBF) projectile points are similar in morphology and technology to Clovis points found elsewhere in North

America (Beck and Jones 1997:162). GBF points display true flute attributes (sensu

Warren and Phagan 1988), are lanceolate-shaped, have concave bases, and commonly exhibit lateral and/or basal grinding. They are often manufactured on high quality crypto-crystalline silicates or obsidian (Amick 1995; Beck and Jones 1990) and like

Clovis points found elsewhere, vary a great deal in size and form. While these points are poorly dated, Beck and Jones (1997:196) argue they are potentially contemporaneous with Clovis points found elsewhere with a temporal range of 11,200 to 10,90014C BP.

Great Basin Concave Base Projectile Points. Great Basin Concave Base (GBCB) projectile points are unfluted lanceolate points. These points often display basal preparation and thinning to various degrees, which is often misidentified as fluting (Beck and Jones 2009). Pendleton (1979) combined both fluted and unfluted lanceolate points

(e.g., Clewlow’s [1968] Black Rock Concave Base points) into the GBCB series. The relationship between GBCB and fluted lanceolate points is currently unclear (Beck and

Jones 2009), but GBCB points appear to date from 11,000 to 7,000 14C BP in the northern Great Basin (Oetting 1994a:44).

Great Basin Stemmed Series Projectile Points. The Great Basin Stemmed (GBS) series is comprised of stemmed projectile points of various styles. Touhy and Layton

(1977) observed similarities in stemmed point types that prompted them to combine the following styles into the GBS series: Cougar Mountain (Layton 1970, 1972), Silver Lake

(Amsden 1937), Lake Mojave (Amsden 1937), Parman (Layton 1970, 1979), and Haskett

(Butler 1965). Due to an apparent lack of temporal separation between these styles based on the current sample of radiocarbon dates associated with GBS points (see Jones and

Beck 1999:Table 7.1), Jones and Beck (1999:85) argue that these styles share similar temporal distributions and each predate 7,000 14C BP. GBS projectile points are

commonly lanceolate-shaped, sometimes shouldered with long tongue-shaped contracting stems and rounded bases, and often possess ground lateral margins (Beck and Jones

2009:167).

Windust Stemmed Projectile Points. Although Touhy and Layton (1977) originally included Windust Points (Rice 1972) in their GBS series, Beck and Jones

(1997, 2009) exclude them from the GBS series because they are morphologically distinct from other GBS styles. Windust points are stemmed points with relatively short blades, square sloping shoulders, broad and often square stems that are commonly ground, and are lenticular in cross section. Beck and Jones (1997:189) also differentiate between Windust Concave-Base and Windust Square-Base stemmed projectile points.

Windust points date from 10,700 to 7,000 14C BP (Jones and Beck 1999:Table 7.1).

Cascade Projectile Points. Foliate projectile points commonly referred to as

Cascade points vary greatly in size and often possess rounded or pointed bases. Cascade points were originally defined by Butler (1961, 1962). Additional diagnostic attributes such as easily definable retouched basal areas and frequently edge-ground striking platforms were defined by Nelson (1969). Ozbun and Fagan (2010) recently emphasized the technological rather than morphological attributes common to Cascade points, focusing on the presence of basal facets likely related to hafting methods. Cascade points are primarily found on the Columbia Plateau; however, some are also found in the northwestern Great Basin. Cascade points are diagnostic of some TP/EH occupations

(Oetting 1994a; Smith et al. 2012a), but are often regarded as poor temporal markers

(Ames et al. 1998:104; Ames et al. 2010) because they have been found in well-dated

Middle and Late Holocene contexts as well (Helzer 2004; Moessner 2004).

Crescents. Crescents are crescentic-shaped, bifacial tools that are highly variable in size and shape. They are almost always made on crypto-crystalline silicates and ground along the medial segment of the lateral edges (Beck and Jones 2010:99). Tadlock

(1966) defined three types of crescents: Quarter-Moon; Half-Moon; and Butterfly. While the function of crescents is still unknown and they remain poorly dated in the Great

Basin, they are common elements of TP/EH assemblages in the Great Basin (Beck and

Jones 1997:206). Crescents are generally associated with GBS series points, and Beck and Jones (2010:Table 5) report radiocarbon dates associated with crescents ranging from

~10,300 to 8,000 14C BP.

The Early Archaic Period: 7,500-5,000 14C BP

Northern Side-Notched Projectile Points. Northern Side-notched projectile points are relatively large and triangular in outline with deep and rounded notches placed high on the blade (Hildebrandt and King 2002:13). These points are typically found on the

Columbia Plateau and in the northern Great Basin (Layton 1985; Leonhardy and Rice

1970; O’Connell 1971, 1975). Northern Side-notched points include forms that other researchers have called Large Side-notched, Medium Side-notched, and Bitterroot Side- notched elsewhere in the Great Basin. Thomas (1981:19) defined Large Side-notched points as weighing >1.5 g with proximal shoulder angles (PSA’s) >150°. Northern Side- notched points date from 7,000 to 4,000 14C BP in the northern Great Basin (Oetting

1994a:44).

(a) (b)

(h) (i) (j)

Figure 2.2. Projectile points diagnostic of the Paleoindian period: (a) Great Basin Fluted, 6.4 cm; (b) Great Basin Concave Base, 4.3 cm; (c) Cougar Mountain, 8.6 cm; (d) Silver Lake, 4.1 cm; (e) Lake Mojave, 5.8 cm; (f) Parman, 6.9 cm; (g) Haskett, 11.7 cm; (h) Windust, 4.8 cm; (i) Cascade, 5.3 cm; and (j) Crescent, 5.8 cm. Measurements indicate the length of specimens; (a-h, j) after Grayson (2011) and (i) after Smith et al. (2012a).

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f)

Figure 2.3. Projectile points diagnostic of the Early and Middle Archaic periods: (a) Northern Side- notched, 5.3 cm; (b) Humboldt Concave-Base, 4.7 cm; (c) Gatecliff Split Stem, 5.6 cm; (d) Gatecliff Contracting Stem, 4.1 cm; (e) Elko Corner-notched, 5.1 cm; and (f) Elko Eared, 5.3 cm. Measurements indicate the length of specimens; (a, c-f) after Grayson (2011) and (b) after Christian (1997).

The Middle Archaic Period: 5,000-1,500 14C BP

Humboldt Concave-Base Projectile Points. Humboldt Concave-Base (HCB) projectile points are lanceolate, unnotched, and possess concave bases. They are variable in size but generally ≥40 mm long, ≥4 mm thick, weigh >1.5 g, and have basal indentation ratios <0.98 (Thomas 1981:17). In the northern Great Basin, HCB points date from 6,000 to 1,300 14C BP (Oetting 1994a:44).

Gatecliff Contracting Stem Projectile Points. Gatecliff Contracting Stem points are large, possess contracting stems, and have basal indentation ratios ≤0.97 (Thomas

1981:23).

Gatecliff Split Stem Projectile Points. Gatecliff Split Stem points are large shouldered points that possess parallel-sided stems and notched or concave bases. They are similar to Gatecliff Contracting Stem points except that they possess bifurcated stems.

Gatecliff Split Stem points have PSA’s ≤100°, notch opening indices >60°, basal indentation ratios <0.97, and generally weigh >1 g (Thomas 1981:26). Points previously classified as Pinto points prior to the creation of the Gatecliff Series are lumped together with Gatecliff Split Stem points in this study. The date range commonly attributed to the

Gatecliff series is from 5,000 to 2,200 14C BP in the northern Great Basin (Oetting

1994a:44).

Elko Corner-Notched Projectile Points. Elko Corner-notched points are large corner-notched points with narrow notch openings. PSA’s range from 110° to 150°, and the points possess basal indentation ratios >0.93 (Thomas 1981:21).

Elko Eared Projectile Points. Elko Eared projectile points are similar to Elko

Corner-notched points except that they possess concave bases that divide their stems into two widely flared ears (Elston 2005:112), producing basal indentation ratios ≤0.93

(Thomas 1981:21). Most Elko series points date from 4,000 to 1,000 14C BP in the northern Great Basin (Oetting 1994a:44).

The Late Archaic Period: 1,500-700 14C BP

Rosegate Corner-Notched Projectile Points. Rosegate Corner-notched projectile points are small, triangular, corner-notched arrow points. They possess expanding stems, bases ≤10 mm wide, and PSA’s between 90° and 130° (Thomas 1981:19). Rosegate points date from 1,500 to 700 14C BP in the northern Great Basin (Oetting 1994a:44)

The Proto-Historic Period: 700 14C BP-Contact

Desert Side-Notched Projectile Points. Desert Side-notched projectile points are small, triangular points with notches relatively high on their sides, and are comparatively long and thin with respect to their width (Thomas 1981:18). These points weigh ≤1.5 g, possess PSA’s >130°, and possess basal width/maximum width ratios >0.90 (Thomas

1981:18).

Cottonwood Triangular Projectile Points. Cottonwood Triangular projectile points are small, unnotched triangular points that weigh ≤1.5 g, are <30 mm long, <4 mm thick, and possess basal width/maximum width ratios >0.90 (Thomas 1981:15-16). Both

Desert Side-notched and Cottonwood points date from 70014C BP to Contact in the northern Great Basin (Oetting 1994a:44).

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 2.4. Projectile points diagnostic of the Late Archaic and Proto-Historic periods: (a) Rosegate, 5.1 cm; (b) Desert Side-notched, 2.5 cm; and (c) Cottonwood, 1.8 cm. Measurements indicate the length of specimens; (a-c) after Grayson (2011).

Data from GBCA Rock Art Sites

The various site forms, reports, and published works discussed above provided projectile point frequencies for each of the 55 GBCA rock art sites included in this study.

Many of the data were produced during UNR’s survey and excavation work at GBCA sites in Oregon and Nevada. Additionally, the Lakeview District BLM has done a considerable amount of work to document GBCA sites and record their associated artifacts including diagnostic projectile points. Despite these efforts, 22 GBCA sites lack diagnostic projectile points. This paucity of data is likely due in part to illegal artifact collecting that often takes place at rock art sites, which are highly visible on the

landscape and have been frequented by both avocational archaeologists and collectors over the years (Bill Cannon, personal communication, 2013).

Site records for the 55 GBCA rock art sites were also consulted to obtain basic environmental data for each site including location, elevation, distance to permanent water, primary vegetation communities, and economically important on-site vegetation

(Table 2.2). This information is used to test the hypotheses outlined at the conclusion of

Chapter 1 and associated expectations (see Chapter 3).

Table 2.2. GBCA Sites Used in this Study.

Site Number Site Name Location Projectile Point Data Environmental Data 35LK023; -24; 44; -1528 The Narrows Lake County, OR + + 35LK043 Plush Road Sink Lake #1 Lake County, OR + + 35LK048 Dana's Site Lake County, OR - + 35LK063 Anthony Springs Lake County, OR + + 35LK070 Spearpoint Spring Lake County, OR + + 35LK093 Bullet Springs Lake County, OR + + 35LK121 S. Hart Lake Lake County, OR + + 35LK208 Mack's U Draw Site Lake County, OR - + 35LK459 Lucky Reservoir Lake County, OR + + 35LK499 Egg Lake Lake County, OR - + 35LK500 Corral Lake Lake County, OR + + 35LK501 Weed Lake Lake County, OR + + 35LK502 Barry Spring Lake County, OR + + 35LK506 Terry Spring Rim Lake County, OR + + 35LK508 Greaser Gap Lake County, OR + + 35LK510 Rosebriar Spring Lake County, OR + + 35LK512 Betheny's Site Lake County, OR - + 35LK513; -21 Jack Lake Lake County, OR + + 35LK514 Long Lake Lake County, OR + + 35LK516 MC Reservoir Lake County, OR + + 35LK538; -747 Juniper Creek Lake County, OR + + 35LK549; -527 Jacob's Reservoir Lake County, OR - + 35LK639 No Name Lake County, OR + + 35LK641 Tired Dam Lake County, OR + + 35LK700 Sherlock Tank Lake County, OR - + 35LK734 East Crump Lake Lake County, OR + + 35LK738 School Section Lake Lake County, OR - + 35LK941; -474 Rabbit Creek Lake County, OR + + 35LK1038 Little Reservoir Petroglyph #2 Lake County, OR - + 35LK2486 Elmers Site Lake County, OR - +

Site Number Site Name Location Projectile Point Data Environmental Data 35LK2488 Fortress Site Lake County, OR - + 35LK2489 Hart Lake Lake County, OR + + 35LK2495 Antelope Canyon Lake County, OR - + 35LK2702 Sherlock Gulch Lake County, OR - + 35LK2746 Foley Tank Lake County, OR + + 35LK2751 Deer Joint Tanks Lake County, OR + + 35LK2752 Rattlesnake Tank Lake County, OR + + 35LK3142; 35HA2847 Potholes Lake County, OR + + 35LK3410 Colvin Lake Petroglyphs Lake County, OR + + 35LK3937 Ana Reservoir #1 Lake County, OR - + 35LK3938 Ana Reservoir #2 Lake County, OR - + 35LK3939 Ana Reservoir #3 Lake County, OR - + 35LK3940 Ana Reservoir #4 Lake County, OR - + 35LK3948 Mary Ann Draw Lake County, OR - + 35LK3949 Fourtyfour Lake Lake County, OR - + 35LK4185 Long Lake Annex Lake County, OR - + 0501050491SI Dan B. Reservoir Lake County, OR + + 0501050909SI Juniper Sink Hole Lake County, OR + + 0501050939SI Twin Lakes South Lake County, OR - + 0501050940SI Twin Lakes North Lake County, OR + + 26WA78; 26WA6374 Massacre Lake Washoe County, NV + + 26WA2456 Tuffy Spring Washoe County, NV - + 26WA3329 Winnemucca Dry Lake Washoe County, NV - + 26WA6916 Sage Hen Spring Washoe County, NV + + 26WA9175; - 9176; Rock Creek Canyon Washoe County, NV + + -166; -165; -9160

Note: Sites with “+” indicate that data were reported for that category; sites with “-” indicate that no data were reported.

1 46

Chapter 3

Methods

This chapter discusses the methods employed to analyze the materials – temporally diagnostic projectile points and several environmental variables associated with GBCA sites – outlined in Chapter 2. I review the statistical tests employed in my analysis and outline a series of expectations related to the hypotheses presented at the end of Chapter 1.

Establishing the Antiquity of GBCA Rock Art

As discussed in Chapter 1, rock art resists traditional chronometric dating methods and the primary means of dating archaeological sites in the Great Basin – lithic cross-dating – has been underutilized to date rock art sites. Using temporally diagnostic projectile points as index fossils is currently the most promising way to assign GBCA rock art to specific periods of Great Basin prehistory and is one of the primary methods employed in this study.

I compiled totals of all temporally diagnostic projectile points reported at each

GBCA site using data contained in site forms, technical reports, and artifact catalogs.

Diagnostic points were grouped by cultural period (Paleoindian [pre-7,500 14C BP], Early

Archaic [7,500-5,000 14C BP], Middle Archaic [5,000-1,500 14C BP], Late Archaic

[1,500-700 14C BP], and Proto-Historic [700 14C BP-Contact]), producing a total number

47 of projectile points per cultural period at each site. Given the possibility that Cascade

(i.e., foliate) points date to both the TP/EH (i.e., the Paleoindian period) and Middle

Holocene or later (Ames et al. 1998:104; Ames et al. 2010; Helzer 2004; Moessner

2004), I tallied points from the Paleoindian period twice – once including Cascade points and once excluding them. This initial analysis of diagnostic point frequencies allowed me to determine how many of the 55 GBCA sites included in this study contained

Paleoindian artifacts. I then summed point totals for each cultural period across all sites, producing frequencies of diagnostic points from each cultural period at all GBCA rock art sites combined. I also calculated these totals twice: once including Cascade points and once excluding them.

Once frequencies of time-sensitive projectile points from different cultural periods were totaled and combined for the sample of GBCA rock art sites, I compared them to similar point frequencies reported by other researchers working in study areas within or near the geographic distribution of GBCA sites: (1) the Fort Rock Basin, OR

(Aikens and Jenkins 1994); (2) the Chewaucan-Abert Basin, OR (Oetting 1995); (3)

Steens Mountain, OR (Jones 1984); and (4) the Massacre Lake Basin, NV (Leach 1988)

(see Figure 2.1). Aikens and Jenkins (1994:iv) report point frequencies from the Fort

Rock Basin, which they argue “is an immense unit of study, including mountains, hills, ridges, valleys, deserts, and woodlands; lakes, marshes, channels, dunes, and playas; and a multitude of micro-environments surrounding each.” Their work in the Fort Rock

Basin was related to both Cultural Resource Management (CRM) and “pure” research projects and provides data from large and biotically diverse areas of the Fort Rock Basin.

Oetting (1995) reports projectile point frequencies for Oregon’s Chewaucan-Abert Basin

48 compiled during the Rivers End Ranch Project. This CRM project focused on inundated archaeological sites affected by the construction of a dam and dike water control structure that seasonally floods ~800 acres of the lower Chewaucan River floodplain (Oetting

1995:iii). Like Aikens and Jenkins’ (1994) sample, Oetting’s (1995) point frequencies from the Chewaucan-Abert Basin provide a good representative sample of the distribution of projectile points across time and space in that region. Jones (1984) reports projectile point frequencies from Steens Mountain. These data were collected during systematic surface survey of the area including both uplands and lowlands. The random nature of Jones’ (1984) sampling strategy, as well as the inclusion of multiple elevation zones, provides a good representation of diagnostic projectile point frequencies on the landscape there. Finally, Leach (1988) employed a systematic random survey of 10 ecological zones in the Massacre Lake Basin of northwestern Nevada and reported frequencies of diagnostic projectile points found there. These four studies provide what

Bettinger (1999:69) calls a “census” of projectile points that together represent a reasonable approximation of the frequencies of diagnostic projectile points found on the landscape in different geographic areas within the overall distribution of GBCA rock art sites in the northern Great Basin.

Projectile points from the four aforementioned regions were grouped by cultural period within each study area in the same manner used for points from GBCA sites. I compared these points to points at GBCA sites to determine if point frequencies at GBCA sites tracked those found on the more general landscape or if Paleoindian points are overrepresented at the rock art sites. In other words, this analysis was designed to

49 determine if Paleoindian points are found in significantly higher numbers at GBCA rock art sites than they occur more generally in the same region.

To determine if point frequencies at GBCA sites differ significantly from point frequencies from the Fort Rock Basin, Chewaucan-Abert Basin, Steens Mountain, and

Massacre Lake Basin, I used a series of chi-square tests. Chi-square tests are statistical tests that can determine whether or not there are statistically significant differences between variables (e.g., point frequencies from different cultural periods) in a contingency table. Because a chi-square test alone does not identify where significant differences occur within a table, I also calculated the standardized residuals, which are the differences between the expected and observed counts in each cell of a contingency table. This step was undertaken to determine whether points from each cultural period are significantly over- or underrepresented at GBCA sites relative to their occurrence in other areas (i.e., the Fort Rock Basin, Chewaucan-Abert Basin, Steens Mountain, or

Massacre Lake Basin). Standardized residual values ≥+1.96 indicate that points from a cultural period are significantly overrepresented while values ≤-1.96 indicate that points from a cultural period are significantly underrepresented.

Time Adjusted Projectile Point Frequencies

In addition to the statistical tests described above, time adjusted projectile point frequencies can also be used to help establish the age of GBCA rock art. Bettinger

(1999:69) argues that time adjusting point frequencies “remove[s] the scalar effects of sample size.” Simply put, this process allows projectile point samples of different sizes

50 and different ages to be directly compared. To time adjust the point frequencies, following Bettinger (1999:69) I divided the total number of points from each cultural period found at all GBCA sites by the total number of years in that cultural period, producing what he terms “interval frequencies.” For example, I divided the total number of points found at all GBCA sites from the Paleoindian period (n=244) by 4,000 years because the Paleoindian period spans from 11,500 to 7,500 14C BP. I repeated this process for each cultural period, producing five interval frequencies for GBCA sites. I then divided each interval frequency by the maximum interval frequency of all cultural periods which produces the time adjusted projectile point frequencies. This process was repeated using the frequencies from the four other study areas (i.e., the Fort Rock Basin,

Chewaucan-Abert Basin, Steens Mountain, and Massacre Lake Basin) within the geographic distribution of GBCA sites.

Analysis of Environmental Data

Elevation of GBCA Sites

As discussed in Chapter 1, most substantial Paleoindian sites containing GBF,

GBCB, GBS points, and crescents are found at lower elevations on landforms associated with relict pluvial lakes and wetlands. Populations inhabiting the Great Basin during the

TP/EH likely frequented pluvial lakes and marshes because those areas provided abundant food resources. If GBCA rock art dates to the TP/EH, then it is reasonable to assume that GBCA sites should be found in areas that Paleoindians frequented.

Therefore, I used elevation data to determine if GBCA sites are located in greater numbers in valley bottom settings, where most pluvial lakes and marshes were located during the TP/EH (Mifflin and Wheat 1979), than in other environmental zones in which there is less evidence of Paleoindian occupations (e.g., uplands).

Ricks’ (1995, 1999) analysis of the rock art in Warner Valley, OR provides a classification of elevation zones that I used for GBCA sites in that area (Table 3.1).

Using natural terrain breaks as a guide, she divided the area into three elevation zones – lowland (<4,800 ft), intermediate (≥4,801-5,650 ft), and upland (≥5,651 ft). Based on elevations reported from site forms, I assigned GBCA sites in Oregon to one of those elevation zones. Similarly, Leach (1988) defined elevation zones for Nevada’s Massacre

Lake Basin – lowland (<5,850 ft), midland (≥5,851-6,100 ft), and upland (≥6,101 ft) – that I used to classify GBCA sites in Nevada (see Table 3.1). GBCA sites from each elevation zone were summed and presented as a percentage of the total sample.

Table 3.1. Elevation Zone Determinations for Study Areas.

Elevation Zone (ft) Study Region Lowland Intermediate/Midland Upland Reference Southcentral Oregon <4,800 ≥4,801-5,650 ≥5,651 Ricks (1995, 1999) Northwestern Nevada <5,850 ≥5,851-6,100 ≥6,101 Leach (1988)

Vegetation Communities at GBCA Rock Art Sites

Some researchers (e.g., Cannon et al. 1990; Ricks 1999) have suggested that

GBCA rock art is associated with economically important vegetation communities,

52 particularly various species of geophytes. Today in the northern Great Basin, such plants are most often found in upland settings in habitats characterized by well drained lithosols that support edible root crops, bulbs, and tubers (Prouty 2004:164; Ricks 1999:196). I consulted site forms to determine if geophytes are noted onsite to test the possible relationship between GBCA site location and plant procurement. Ricks (1999:196) used the presence of a low sage (Artemisia arbuscula) community as a proxy for various geophytes including biscuitroot (Lomatium spp.), wild carrot (Perideridia spp.), wild onion (Allium spp.), sego lily (Caochortus macrocarpus), and bitterroot, because these plants are commonly found in the stony soil that low sage also favors. Following Ricks

(1999), I also used the presence of low sage at GBCA sites as a proxy for geophyte taxa.

GBCA sites with geophytes and/or the presence of a low sage vegetation community were totaled and presented as a percentage of the total sample.

The presence of geophytes at GBCA sites or their association with low sage communities today may not accurately reflect vegetation in the past, especially during the distant TP/EH. Changing environmental and climatic conditions may have altered the distribution and/or abundance of vegetation since the time when GBCA rock art was produced; however, a pollen core from Bicycle Pond in Warner Valley provides a picture of changing environmental conditions and in turn, shifts in the distribution of vegetation communities across time (Wigand and Rhode 2002). Data from the core indicate that

Warner Valley contained more big and low sage during the TP/EH than today, as evidenced by a greater abundance of Artemisia pollen ~9,000 14C BP (Wigand and Rhode

2002:Figure 8). While more environmental data from the TP/EH are needed for Warner

Valley and elsewhere, if Ricks’ (1999) suggestion that low sage can be used as a proxy

53 for geophytes is correct, then the Bicycle Pond data suggest that edible roots, bulbs, and tubers were at least as abundant in the northern Great Basin during the TP/EH environment as they are today.

The distribution of other vegetation communities was also affected by environmental and climatic fluctuations during the TP/EH. These fluctuations often affected the vertical distributions of plants as they moved up- and downslope in response to climatic changes. While the cool and moist TP/EH climate facilitated the downslope expansion of coniferous taxa ~3,000 ft lower than today (Goebel et al. 2011; Jenkins et al. 2004a:7; Madsen 1999; Minckley et al. 2004:25) Wigand and Rhode (2002:321) argue that in the northern Great Basin, pine woodland communities were found at similar elevations ~9,000 14C BP as they occur today. Sagebrush communities were also widely distributed along basin floors and woodlands covering mountain slopes during the

TP/EH; in fact, Minckley et al. (2004:25) argue that many present day vegetation communities found along basin floors co-existed with higher elevation taxa during the

TP/EH because of available moisture and microclimatic variations of the varied topography of the region. Similarly, Mehringer (1985) argues that at Fish Lake in the northern Great Basin, sagebrush had expanded upslope by 8,700 14C BP due to reduced effective moisture. Finally, Minckley et al. (2007) use pollen cores from three northern

Great Basin lakes – Dead Horse Lake, Lily Lake, and Patterson Lake – to reconstruct

TP/EH environments. They find that the TP/EH environment around Dead Horse Lake was similar to the modern day Warner Mountains above ~6,200 ft, that Lily Lake’s surrounding vegetation has “changed little over the last 10,000 years,” and that the

54 environment at Patterson Lake for the last ~10,000 years “resembled present-day upper elevation steppe and grasslands” (Minckley et al. 2007:2175-2176).

Perhaps more important is the fact that the distribution of geophyte species is more commonly affected by soil conditions than climatic conditions alone (Dave Rhode, personal communication 2013). Some geophyte species, specifically those that prefer moist, deep-soiled meadows (e.g., camas), may have changed their ranges as the cool and moist TP/EH environment deteriorated (Dave Rhode, personal communication, 2013).

However, the distribution of geophytes that prefer well drained lithosols (e.g.,

Lomatiums, desert parsley, yampa, bitterroot, onion, sego lily) (Housley 1994) – the very taxa that researchers (e.g., Cannon et al. 1990; Ricks 1999) argue to be associated with

GBCA rock art – is likely the same today as during the TP/EH (Dave Rhode, personal communication 2013). Similarly, Prouty (1994:588) argues,

“root grounds remain relatively stable because they typically occur on thin Floke and Olson soils, which cover geologically stable bedrock sub-strata, and retain water very well…thus…root grounds tend to be highly persistent over long periods of time (Housley 1994; see also Schlessman 1984).”

While vegetation communities have surely fluctuated to some degree since the

TP/EH, the vertical distribution of plant communities known to support geophytes were found at their current elevation by at least ~8,700 14C BP, and researchers (e.g.,

Mehringer 1985) argue that these plants were able to co-exist with higher elevation taxa even earlier. More importantly, geophytes in the uplands of the northern Great Basin that prefer well drained lithosols are most likely found in similar elevations today, as they

55 were during the TP/EH. Additional high-resolution paleoenvironmental records are needed to support or refute this assumption.

Permanent Water Sources near GBCA Sites

To situate GBCA rock art within the context of prehistoric land-use patterns, I focused on the location and type of water sources near GBCA sites. I calculated the average distance to permanent water using data compiled from GBCA sites (n=50). I also explored the type of water sources most commonly associated with GBCA sites

(n=55) using data collected from site forms. I tallied the GBCA sites near various types of water sources (e.g., lake/pond, seep/spring, river/stream) and presented them as a percentage of the total sample to determine with which types of water sources GBCA sites are most commonly associated. As mentioned above, climatic fluctuations since the

TP/EH have no doubt changed environmental conditions in the northern Great Basin.

Perhaps some of the most dramatic change is seen in the desiccation of the large pluvial lake systems, only remnants of which remain today (Beck and Jones 1997, 2009; Wigand and Rhode 2002). Thus, the large bodies of water found in the northern Great Basin today are smaller than those found on the landscape during the TP/EH. In other words, the sources of water, particularly lakes, found near GBCA sites during the TP/EH, if anything, were found closer to the rock art sites than they are today.

Hypotheses and Expectations

Using the materials discussed in Chapter 2 and the methods discussed here, I restate my hypotheses and outline a series of corresponding expectations. These are summarized in Table 3.2.

Hypothesis # 1

Currently, two lines of evidence suggest that GBCA rock art dates to the TP/EH in the northern Great Basin. First, the position of GBCA panels partially buried beneath a layer of Mazama tephra at Long Lake (Cannon and Ricks 1986; Ricks and Cannon

1993) suggests that these panels predate ~6,850 14C BP. Second, recently obtained radiocarbon dates on carbonates on and under a GBCA panel at Winnemucca Dry Lake suggest that the panel dates to either ~12,600-11,000 14C BP or ~10,000-9,200 14C BP

(Benson et al. 2012). Together, these findings suggest that GBCA rock art dates to the earliest period of prehistory in the northern Great Basin. Given these suggestions, my first hypothesis is that GBCA rock art dates to the TP/EH and was produced by

Paleoindians. I developed a series of expectations that should be met by the results of my analysis if this first hypothesis is accurate. First, if GBCA rock art dates to the TP/EH, then I expect Paleoindian projectile points to be overrepresented at GBCA sites relative to their occurrence within the more general geographic area where GBCA rock art is found.

Second, if GBCA rock art dates to the TP/EH, then those rock art sites should be located in areas that Paleoindians frequented (i.e., lowland pluvial lake margins). The pattern of TP/EH land use has been developed based on the fact that most substantial

TP/EH sites are found around landforms associated with relict pluvial lakes and marshes

(Beck and Jones 1997:219; Beck et al. 2002; Elston and Zeanah 2002; Jones et al. 2003,

2012; Madsen 2007). Such areas were likely attractive to Paleoindians for a number of reasons, primarily the abundant resources that they provide. Elston and Zeanah (2002) argue that a wetland adaptation was strategic in terms of a sexual division of labor because it allowed both men and women access to important subsistence resources found in different environmental zones from shared residential camps.

Having said that, the availability of suitable rock surfaces for the production of

GBCA rock art may bias any analysis of the distribution of sites. Cannon and Ricks

(2007:119) note that the oldest rock art sites, presumably containing GBCA panels, are commonly found along basalt rims of sink lakes. Such surfaces are not generally found in lowland settings; isolated boulders are the most commonly available rock surface there. While the lowland areas are expected to contain higher numbers of GBCA rock art sites because those areas are known to have been frequented by Paleoindians, the availability of suitable surfaces may impact our understanding of such a distribution – an issue that I return to later.

Third, because Paleoindians frequented lowland pluvial lake margins to exploit the lacustrine resources these areas provided, I expect GBCA sites to be concentrated near sources of water favored by Paleoindians. Thus, GBCA sites should be found closest to water sources such as lakes and ponds.

Hypothesis #2

My second hypothesis is that Cannon et al.’s (1990) and Ricks’ (1995) model of land use, which they developed for the last ~7,000 years in Oregon’s Warner Valley, can be applied to the TP/EH and expanded for the northern Great Basin as a whole. Their model argues that groups moved into the uplands to process geophytes found there during spring and summer months. Researchers have also suggested that GBCA rock art is commonly associated with such geophytes which ethnographic, and likely groups in the more distant past, utilized as food: biscuitroot; wild carrot; wild onion; sego lily; and bitterroot (Cannon and Ricks 1986:12; Ricks 1999:196; Ricks and Cannon 1993:98).

Such resources were available throughout the TP/EH and their availability and distribution today is likely at least the same as it was during the Paleoindian period.

Therefore, if the hypothesis that Cannon et al.’s (1990) and Ricks’ (1995) model can be applied to the TP/EH is accurate, then I expect that the majority of GBCA sites will have geophytes present onsite and/or be associated with a low sage community, which has been argued to be a proxy for geophytes.

Summary

The primary purpose of this study is to test two hypotheses – that GBCA rock art was produced by Paleoindians during the TP/EH, and that Cannon et al.’s (1990) and

Ricks’ (1995) models of land use can be applied to the TP/EH – using the materials and methods outlined above. The frequencies of temporally diagnostic projectile points

59 found in association with GBCA rock art sites compared to those reported by other researchers (e.g., Aikens and Jenkins 1994; Jones 1984; Leach 1988; Oetting 1995) for sites in the surrounding region are used to test my first hypothesis. Additionally, the relationship between GBCA rock art and several environmental variables, including elevation, vegetation communities, and sources of permanent water is investigated to test the second hypothesis and improve our understanding of GBCA rock art and its place in the lifeways of TP/EH populations.

Table 3.2. Hypotheses, Expectations, Materials, and Methods Included in this Study.

Hypothesis Expectation Materials Methods

#1. GBCA rock art dates to the Paleoindian points are Diagnostic Comparison to point TP/EH and was produced overrepresented at GBCA sites Projectile points samples from general by Paleoindians region GBCA rock art is found in areas that Elevation data Assign GBCA sites Paleoindians frequented (i.e., lowland to elevation zones elevations) GBCA rock art is concentrated near Distance to and Determine nearest water sources that Paleoindians type of water water sources to frequented (i.e., lakes) source GBCA sites

#2. Cannon et al.’s (1990) and GBCA rock art sites are associated Vegetation Determine GBCA Ricks’ (1995) model of land with geophytes communities sites with geophytes use can be applied to the onsite TP/EH

Chapter 4

Results

This chapter presents the results of the analyses performed in this study using the materials and methods outlined in Chapters 2 and 3. First, I present the results of comparisons between the frequencies of diagnostic projectile points found at GBCA sites and other regional samples. Second, I present the results of chi-square tests and an analysis of the standardized residuals that reveal whether the relationship between

Paleoindian points and GBCA sites is statistically significant. These analyses are used to test the first hypothesis – that GBCA rock art dates to the TP/EH and was produced by

Paleoindians – and determine if the three corresponding expectations are met. Third, I present the results of the analysis of various environmental variables (e.g., elevation, vegetation communities, distance to permanent water) to highlight trends in the location of GBCA sites and test the second hypothesis – that Cannon et al.’s (1990) and Ricks’

(1995) models of land use can be applied to the TP/EH and expanded for the northern

Great Basin – by determining if the corresponding expectation is met.

Diagnostic Projectile Point Frequencies

I compiled diagnostic projectile point frequencies at 55 GBCA sites using information found in site forms, technical reports, and artifact catalogs. The frequencies for all sites were summed, producing point totals for each cultural period at all GBCA

61 sites (Table 4.1). I also compiled projectile point frequencies for four nearby areas (i.e., the Fort Rock Basin, Chewaucan-Abert Basin, Steens Mountain, and Massacre Lake

Basin) studied as part of CRM and academic research projects to provide samples with which to compare diagnostic point frequencies for GBCA sites (Table 4.2).

Table 4.1. Diagnostic Projectile Points by Cultural Period at GBCA Sites.

Cultural Period Site Number Paleoindian Early Archaic Middle Archaic Late Archaic Proto-Historic 35LK023; -24; 20 (21) 17 91 50 2 -044; -1528 35LK043 - 1 1 4 - 35LK048 - - - - - 35LK063 23 (29) 5 45 38 1 35LK070 13 (18) 3 11 3 2 35LK093 8 (13) 6 26 18 2 35LK121 66 (77) 77 187 109 4 35LK208 - - - - - 35LK459 (1) - 19 2 1 35LK499 - - - - - 35LK500 1 1 - 2 - 35LK501 3 1 8 1 - 35LK502 3 1 3 - - 35LK506 (1) - 2 1 - 35LK508 1 - - - - 35LK510 1 - 2 1 - 35LK512 - - - - - 35LK513; -21 - - 1 1 - 35LK514 1 1 4 1 - 35LK516 1 - - - - 35LK538; -747 - - 1 1 - 35LK549; -527 - - - - - 35LK639 - - 1 1 - 35LK641 7 30 37 55 1 35LK700 - - - - - 35LK734 9 12 13 48 4 35LK738 - - - - - 35LK941; -474 - - 1 - - 35LK1038 - - - - -

Cultural Period Site Number Paleoindian Early Archaic Middle Archaic Late Archaic Proto-Historic 35LK2486 - - - - - 35LK2488 - - - - - 35LK2489 1 - - - - 35LK2495 - - - - - 35LK2702 - - - - - 35LK2746 24 (29) 27 118 118 19 35LK2751 1 - 1 2 - 35LK2752 3 (4) 6 31 25 7 35LK3142; 1 1 2 - - 35HA2847 35LK3410 - - 1 2 2 35LK3937 - - - - - 35LK3938 - - - - - 35LK3939 - - - - - 35LK3940 - - - - - 35LK3948 - - - - - 35LK3949 - - - - - 35LK4185 - - - - - 0501050491SI - - 2 - - 0501050909SI 1 - - - - 0501050939SI - - - - - 0501050940SI 1 - - 1 - 26WA78; 5 (6) 2 20 4 2 26WA6374 26WA2456 - - - - - 26WA3329 - - - - - 26WA6916 - - 1 3 - 26WA9175; 11 17 80 6 1 -9176; -9166; -9165; -9160 Total 207 (244) 208 709 497 48

Note: Values in parentheses represent total Paleoindian points with Cascade points included.

Of the 55 GBCA sites used in this study, 33 (60 percent) contain at least one temporally diagnostic projectile point. Of those 33 sites, 25 (76 percent) contain at least one Paleoindian projectile point as well as points from other cultural periods. When

Cascade points are excluded from my analysis due to their limited utility as temporal

63 indicators, these counts change only slightly: 23 sites (70 percent) contain at least one

Paleoindian point. Of the 25 sites with Paleoindian points – including Cascade points – four sites (16 percent) contain only Paleoindian points and no points from other cultural periods. This count does not change when Cascade points are removed from the analysis.

In sum, Paleoindian projectile points commonly occur at GBCA sites.

Table 4.2. Diagnostic Projectile Points by Cultural Period from Nearby Study Areas.

Cultural Period Study Area Paleoindian Early Archaic Middle Archaic Late Archaic Proto-Historic Fort Rock Basin, OR 52 35 237 335 38 Chewaucan-Abert Basin, OR 29 67 161 196 7 Steens Mountain, OR 12 122 522 274 47 Massacre Lake Basin, NV 5 22 144 46 23

To test the hypothesis that GBCA rock art dates to the TP/EH, I used chi-square tests to compare projectile point frequencies from GBCA sites and the Fort Rock Basin,

Chewaucan-Abert Basin, Steens Mountain, and Massacre Lake Basin (see Tables 4.1 and

4.2). Because chi-square tests alone do not identify where significant differences occur

(i.e., between which cultural periods and areas), I also calculated the standardized residuals to determine if points from particular cultural periods are over- or underrepresented at GBCA sites relative to their occurrence elsewhere. Given that

Cascade points may date to both the TP/EH (i.e., the Paleoindian period) and later times

(Helzer 2004; Moessner 2004; Oetting 1994a), I performed these chi-square tests twice – once with Cascade points included in the Paleoindian period and once with them omitted altogether (Table 4.3 and 4.4).

Table 4.3. Projectile Point Frequencies from GBCA Sites and Other Study Areas, Including Cascade Points in the Paleoindian Period.

Cultural Period Comparisons of Study Areas Paleoindian Early Archaic Middle Archaic Late Archaic Proto-Historic GBCA Sites 244 (+2.34) 208 (+2.70) 709 (+1.44) 497 (-3.85) 48 (-1.67) Fort Rock Basin, OR 52 (-3.65) 35 (-4.23) 237 (-2.26) 335 (+6.03) 38 (+2.61) χ 2 = 111.99, df = 4, p < 0.0001

GBCA Sites 244 (+1.98) 208 (-0.58) 709 (+0.91) 497 (-2.09) 48 (+0.71) Chewaucan-Abert Basin, OR 29 (-3.81) 67 (+1.12) 161 (-1.75) 196 (+4.02) 7 (-1.37) χ 2 = 46.82, df = 4, p < 0.0001

GBCA Sites 244 (+6.37) 208 (-0.13) 709 (-2.64) 497 (+0.31) 48 (-1.60) Steens Mountain, OR 12 (-8.41) 122 (+0.17) 522 (+3.48) 274 (-0.40) 47 (+2.11) χ 2 = 137.67, df = 4, p < 0.0001

GBCA Sites 244 (+1.74) 208 (+0.45) 709 (-1.42) 497 (+0.96) 48 (-1.81) Massacre Lake Basin, NV 5 (-4.64) 22 (-1.20) 144 (+3.78) 46 (-2.56) 23 (+4.81) χ 2 = 76.42, df = 4, p < 0.0001

Note: Standardized residuals are reported in parentheses with significant values (≥+1.96 or ≤- 1.96) bolded.

The results of the chi-square tests shown in Table 4.3 indicate that in each case,

point frequencies at GBCA sites and the four comparative study areas differ significantly.

Standardized residuals show that Paleoindian points are significantly overrepresented at

GBCA sites when compared to the Fort Rock Basin (+2.34), Chewaucan-Abert Basin

(+1.98), and Steens Mountain (+6.37). Standardized residuals for the Massacre Lake

Basin (+1.74), while not statistically significant, strongly suggest that GBCA sites also

contain more Paleoindian points than were found in that area. Additionally, in each case

– including the Massacre Lake Basin – Paleoindian points are significantly

underrepresented on the general landscape compared to GBCA sites. For example,

Paleoindian points in the Fort Rock Basin are significantly underrepresented (-3.65), as

are those from the Chewaucan-Abert Basin (-3.81), Steens Mountain (-8.41), and

Massacre Lake Basin (-4.64).

Table 4.4. Projectile Point Frequencies from GBCA Sites and Other Study Areas, with Cascade Points Excluded.

Cultural Period Comparisons of Study Areas Paleoindian Early Archaic Middle Archaic Late Archaic Proto-Historic GBCA Sites 207 (+1.80) 208 (+2.79) 709 (+1.61) 497 (-3.71) 48 (-1.63) Fort Rock Basin, OR 52 (-2.78) 35 (-4.32) 237 (-2.74) 335 (+5.74) 38 (+2.52) χ 2 = 102.04, df = 4, p < 0.0001

GBCA Sites 207 (+1.62) 208 (-0.52) 709 (+1.03) 497 (-1.99) 48 (+0.74) Chewaucan-Abert Basin, OR 29 (-3.08) 67 (+0.98) 161 (-1.97) 196 (+3.78) 7 (-1.42) χ 2 = 39.07, df = 4, p < 0.0001

GBCA Sites 207 (+5.86) 208 (-0.01) 709 (-2.42) 497 (+0.48) 48 (-1.54) Steens Mountain, OR 12 (-7.66) 122 (+0.01) 522 (+3.16) 274 (-0.63) 47 (+2.01) χ 2 = 115.91, df = 4, p < 0.0001

GBCA Sites 207 (+1.59) 208 (+0.49) 709 (-1.35) 497 (+1.02) 48 (-1.79) Massacre Lake Basin, NV 5 (-4.19) 22 (-1.29) 144 (+3.55) 46 (-2.69) 23 (+4.71) χ 2 = 70.11, df = 4, p < 0.0001

Note: Standardized residuals are reported in parentheses with significant values (≥+1.96 or ≤- 1.96) bolded.

I performed the chi-square tests again, this time excluding Cascade points

altogether and again the tests were significant in each case. Only the standardized

residuals for the comparison of points at GBCA sites and Steens Mountain (+5.86)

indicate that Paleoindian points are significantly overrepresented at GBCA sites relative

to that area; however, values for the Fort Rock Basin (+1.80), Chewaucan-Abert Basin

(+1.62), and Massacre Lake Basin (+1.59) indicate that GBCA sites nevertheless contain

considerably more Paleoindian points than other areas of the northern Great Basin –

simple comparisons of the raw point counts make this clear. Excluding Cascade points,

as I did in Table 4.4, does not alter the general trend highlighted in Table 4.3, which is

that Paleoindian points are overrepresented at GBCA sites relative to their general

occurrence on the landscape. Additionally, Paleoindian points in the general region are

consistently underrepresented compared to those at GBCA sites. These findings indicate

that Paleoindian points are strongly associated with GBCA sites.

I also compared point frequencies from GBCA sites to all four study areas

combined, rather than individually (Tables 4.5 and 4.6). Again, I performed these tests

twice – once with and once without Cascade points. The results from both chi-square

tests are statistically significant and standardized residuals reveal that Paleoindian points

are significantly overrepresented at GBCA sites, regardless of whether Cascade points are

included (+8.45) or not (+7.23).

Table 4.5. Projectile Point Frequencies from GBCA Sites and all Study Areas, Including Cascade Points in the Paleoindian Period.

Cultural Period Study Area Paleoindian Early Archaic Middle Archaic Late Archaic Proto-Historic GBCA Sites 244 (+8.45) 208 (+1.32) 709 (-1.19) 497 (-2.81) 48 (-2.44) Other Study Areas 98 (-7.16) 246 (-1.12) 1,064 (+1.01) 851 (+2.38) 115 (+2.07)

χ 2 = 151.79, df = 4, p < 0.0001 Note: Standardized residuals are reported in parentheses with significant values (≥+1.96 or ≤- 1.96) bolded.

Table 4.6. Projectile Point Frequencies from GBCA Sites and all Study Areas, with Cascade Points Excluded.

Cultural Period Study Area Paleoindian Early Archaic Middle Archaic Late Archaic Proto-Historic GBCA Sites 207 (+7.23) 208 (+1.50) 709 (-0.85) 497 (-2.52) 48 (-2.35) Other Study Areas 98 (-6.06) 246 (-1.26) 1,064 (+0.71) 851 (+2.11) 115 (+1.97)

χ 2 = 114.26, df = 4, p < 0.0001 Note: Standardized residuals are reported in parentheses with significant values (≥+1.96 or ≤- 1.96) bolded.

GBCA panels found partially buried beneath Mazama tephra at Long Lake suggest a pre-6,850 14C BP age for the rock art there. Based on that evidence alone, however, it is possible that GBCA rock art could date only to the Early Archaic (7,500-

5,000 14C BP) and not the Paleoindian (pre-7,500 14C BP) period. The results of chi- square tests and the analysis of standardized residuals presented here make it clear that

GBCA sites are consistently associated with Paleoindian artifacts and not with Early

Archaic artifacts, as could be possible given the association of Mazama tephra and

GBCA panels at Long Lake. While there are two exception, (see Tables 4.3 and 4.4) standardized residuals generally show that Early Archaic points are not statistically significantly overrepresented at GBCA sites. These results clearly and consistently indicate that GBCA rock art is associated with TP/EH occupations in the northern Great

Basin.

While statistical analyses like chi-square tests provide strong evidence regarding the age of GBCA rock art, it is also useful to address the vastly different temporal scales of each cultural period by time adjusting the projectile point frequencies. Following

Bettinger (1999), I calculated and compared the time adjusted projectile point frequencies from GBCA sites to the four study areas to determine if they track point frequencies from nearby regions (Table 4.7).

Table 4.7. Time Adjusted Projectile Point Frequencies for GBCA Sites and other Study Areas.

Cultural Period Study Area Paleoindian Early Archaic Middle Archaic Late Archaic Proto-Historic GBCA Sites 0.08 (0.10) 0.13 0.33 1.00 0.11 Fort Rock Basin, OR 0.03 0.03 0.16 1.00 0.13 Chewaucan-Abert, OR 0.03 0.11 0.19 1.00 0.04 Steens Mountain., OR 0.01 0.14 0.43 1.00 0.20 Massacre Lake Basin, NV 0.02 0.16 0.71 1.00 0.57

Note: The value in parentheses represents the time adjusted point frequency including Cascade points.

Table 4.7 shows that the time adjusted projectile point frequency for the

Paleoindian period at GBCA sites is substantially higher than frequencies from the other study areas. While projectile points from the Middle and Late Archaic are deposited at a higher rate at both GBCA sites and each of the four study areas, these results are expected given taphonomic bias (sensu Surovell et al. 2009). Surovell et al. (2009:1715) argue for “the tendency for younger things to be overrepresented relative to older things in the archaeological record due to the operation of destructive processes like erosion and weathering.” Thus, Middle and Late Archaic points should be, and are, well represented in all study areas likely due to taphonomic bias. Furthermore, none of the time adjusted projectile point frequencies for GBCA sites for the remaining four cultural periods (Early

Archaic, Middle Archaic, Late Archaic, and Proto-Historic) are the highest frequency when compared to the other study areas; in fact, most GBCA point frequencies fall somewhere in the middle. In other words, the point frequencies from each cultural period at GBCA sites exhibit trends found in the other study areas, except for the Paleoindian period which has a substantially higher rate. These results suggest that Paleoindian points were discarded at a greater rate at GBCA rock art sites than they were at other

69 locations in the region, presumably because sites with GBCA rock art were more intensively used during the TP/EH than other parts of the surrounding landscape.

Analysis of Environmental Variables

My analysis of projectile point frequencies indicates that the GBCA style likely dates to the TP/EH. Having established that this rock art style was likely produced by the early inhabitants of the Great Basin, I then considered several environmental variables collected from site forms to test my second hypothesis regarding TP/EH land use in the northern Great Basin (Table 4.8). I analyzed these variables to identify common trends in the location of GBCA sites and test current models of Paleoindian settlement strategies.

Elevation

Many GBCA sites (n=13) are found in elevations from 5,900 to 6,100 ft, while a large number (n=10) are also found from 5,700 to 5,900 (Figure 4.1). Only (n=6) are found between 4,300 and 4,500 ft, and only one site, the Winnemucca Dry Lake site, is found below 4,300 ft. Based on Ricks’ (1999) classifications of elevation zones for

Warner Valley, OR (lowland [<4,800 ft], intermediate [≥4,801-5,650 ft], and upland

[≥5,651 ft]), and Leach’s classifications for the Massacre Lake Basin, NV (lowland

[<5,800 ft], midland [≥5,851-6,100 ft], and upland [≥6,101 ft]), GBCA sites were assigned to lowland, intermediate, or upland elevation zones (Table 4.9). Lowland areas are assumed to be valley bottom settings where pluvial lakes and marshes were common

70 during the TP/EH and where most Paleoindian sites are situated (Beck and Jones 1997,

2009; Bedwell 1973; Duke and Young 2007; Jenkins 1994; Jones et al. 2003; Smith

2007; Smith et al. 2012b; Toepel and Minor 1994). In contrast, upland areas are not typically associated with Paleoindian lifeways. GBCA sites are found in highest numbers in upland zones (n=28; 51 percent), while a lesser number (n=15; 27 percent) are found in intermediate midland zones. Finally, 22 percent of GBCA sites (n=12) occur in lowland zones. These results, coupled with the likelihood that GBCA sites date to the

TP/EH, suggest that early populations utilized upland zones more often than has traditionally been recognized.

Table 4.8. Environmental Data for GBCA Sites.

Diagnostic Distribution Water Vegetation Site Number Points Elevation (ft) Zone Source Type Status Distance (m) Community Geophytes 35LK023,-24, Yes 4,500 Lowlands Hart Lake Lake Perennial 10 - - -44,-1528 35LK043 Yes 5,340 Intermediate No Name Playa Other Intermittent/Ephemeral 20 Low Sage Bitterroot, Lomatium

35LK048 No 5,900 Upland May Lake Lake Perennial 600 Low Sage Lomatium

35LK063 Yes 5,960 Upland Anthony Spring Spring Perennial 1 - -

35LK070 Yes 5,500 Intermediate Spearpoint Spring Spring Perennial 1 - Camas, Bitterroot, Lomatium, Yampa 35LK093 Yes 5,980 Upland Bullet Spring Spring Perennial 1 - Chokecherry -

35LK121 Yes 4,500 Lowlands Hart Lake Lake Perennial 10 - -

35LK208 No 4,900 Intermediate Unnamed Stream River/Stream Intermittent/Ephemeral 10 - Yampa, Lomatium, Onion, Lily 35LK459 Yes 5,746 Upland Lucky Reservoir Reservoir Intermittent/Ephemeral 10 Low Sage -

35LK499 No 5,860 Upland Egg Lake Lake - Onsite - - 35LK500 Yes 5,900 Upland Corral lake Lake Intermittent 800 Low Sage - 35LK501 Yes 5,900 Upland Weed Lake Lake Intermittent 1 - -

35LK502 Yes 6,000 Upland Barry Spring Spring - Onsite Low Sage -

35LK506 Yes 5,400 Intermediate Terry Spring Spring Perennial 100 Low Sage Bitterroot, Yampa

35LK508 Yes 6,050 Upland ------

35LK510 Yes 6,350 Upland Rosebriar Spring Spring - - Low Sage -

35LK512 No 5,850 Upland Noonan Springs Spring - 550 - -

35LK513 Yes 5,800 Upland Jack Lake Lake Intermittent 20 Low Sage Lomatium 35LK514 Yes 6,040 Upland Long Lake Lake Intermittent/Ephemeral Onsite - -

35LK516 Yes 6,000 Upland MC Reservoir Reservoir Intermittent 10 Low Sage -

Diagnostic Distribution Water Vegetation Site Number Points Elevation (ft) Zone Source Type Status Distance (m) Community Geophytes 35LK538, -747 Yes 4,380 Lowlands Lake Abert Lake Perennial 10 - -

35LK549, -527 No 5,800 Upland Jacob's Reservoir Reservoir - 500 - -

35LK639 Yes 5,300 Intermediate Spearpoint Spring Spring Perennial 500 - -

35LK641 Yes 4,900 Intermediate Sucker Creek River/Stream Perennial 10 Low Sage Bitterroot, Lomatium, Yampa

35LK700 No 4,720 Lowlands Sherlock Reservoir Reservoir Intermittent Onsite - -

35LK734 Yes 4,500 Lowlands Lake Warner Lake - - - -

35LK738 No 6,000 Upland School Section Lake Lake - - - Lomatium 35LK941, -474 Yes 5,300 Intermediate Binkey Lake Lake Perennial 100 Low Sage, Lomatium, Onions Big Sage 35LK1038 No 5,806 Upland Little Reservoir Reservoir Perennial 150 - -

35LK2486 No 5,800 Upland Unnamed Sink Sink - Onsite - -

35LK2488 No 6,090 Upland Clover Creek River/Stream - - Low Sage -

35LK2489 Yes 4,480 Lowlands Hart Lake Lake Perennial 20 - -

35LK2495 No 5,800 Upland Clover Creek River/Stream Intermittent/Ephemeral 50 - Lomatium, Bitterroot, Yampa

35LK2702 No 4,900 Intermediate Sherlock Gulch Drainage Intermittent 1 Low Sage -

35LK2746 Yes 5,000 Intermediate Foley Tank Spring - Onsite Low Sage Lomatium

35LK2751 Yes 4,920 Intermediate Deer Joint Tank Tank - Onsite Big Sage Lomatium, Allium

35LK2752 Yes 5,150 Intermediate Unnamed Stream River/Stream Intermittent 100 Low Sage Lomatium, Bitterroot

35LK3142; Yes 5,800 Upland Potholes Lakes Lake - Onsite Low Sage, Camas 35HA2847 Big Sage 35LK3410 Yes 6,300 Upland Colvin Lake Lake Perennial 10 - Lomatium, Yampa,

35LK3937 No 4,336 Lowlands Johnson Creek Spring Spring Intermittent/Ephemeral 1,650 - Lomatium, Onion

35LK3938 No 4,305 Lowlands Johnson Creek Spring Spring Intermittent/Ephemeral 1,200 - -

Diagnostic Distribution Water Vegetation Site Number Points Elevation (ft) Zone Source Type Status Distance (m) Community Geophytes 35LK3939 No 4,360 Lowlands Johnson Creek Spring Spring Intermittent/Ephemeral 400 - -

35LK3940 No 4,347 Lowlands Ana River River/Stream Perennial 1,600 - -

35LK3948 No 4,885 Intermediate Mary Ann Draw River/Stream Intermittent/Ephemeral 50 - -

35LK3949 No 5,900 Upland Fourtyfour Lake Lake Intermittent/Ephemeral 10 - Lomatium 35LK4185 No 6,050 Upland Long Lake Lake Intermittent/Ephemeral 1,000 Low Sage -

0501050491SI Yes 5,740 Upland Jack Creek River/Stream Intermittent/Ephemeral 10 - -

0501050909SI Yes 5,220 Intermediate Unnamed Drainage River/Stream Intermittent/Ephemeral 200 - Yampa

0501050939SI No 5,480 Intermediate Twin Lakes South Lake Perennial 10 Low Sage -

0501050940SI Yes 5,460 Intermediate Twin Lakes North Lake Perennial 10 Low Sage -

26WA69, -6374 Yes 6,200 Uplands Massacre Bench Seep Spring Perennial 100 Low Sage Yampa, Camas, Wild Onion,

26WA2456 No 6,400 Uplands Tuffy Spring Spring - Onsite - -

26WA3329 No 3,939 Lowlands Winnemucca Lake Lake Perennial 500 - -

26WA6916 Yes 6,360 Uplands Sage Hen Spring Spring - Onsite Low Sage -

26WA9175, Yes 5,600 Lowlands Rock Creek River/Stream Perennial Onsite Low Sage - -9176, -9166, -9165, -9160 Note: Zone designations (upland, midland, intermediate, lowland) after Ricks (1999) for GBCA sites in Oregon and Leach (1988) for GBCA sites in Nevada.

4 NUMBER OF SITES NUMBER OF

3,500-3,700 5,301-5,500 3,701-3,900 3,901-4,100 4,101-4,300 4,301-4,500 4,501-4,700 4,701-4,900 4,901-5,100 5,101-5,300 5,501-5,700 5,701-5,900 5,901-6,100 6,101-6,300 6,301-6,500 6,501-6,700 6,701-6,900

ELEVATION (ft)

Figure 4.1. Distribution of GBCA sites by elevation.

Table 4.9. Elevation Zone Distribution of GBCA Sites.

Location of Elevation Zone Total GBCA Sites Upland Intermediate Lowland Southcentral Oregon 25 (46%) 15 (27%) 10 (18%) 50 (91%) Northwestern Nevada 3 (5%) - 2 (4%) 5 (9%) Total 28 (51%) 15 (27%) 12 (22%) 55 (100%)

Permanent Water Sources

I also considered the location and type of permanent water source nearest to

GBCA sites to evaluate the expectations that correspond to the first hypothesis – that

GBCA rock art dates to the TP/EH and was produced by Paleoindians. Using the data reported on site forms, I calculated the average distance from GBCA sites to sources of

75 permanent water (e.g., lakes, ponds, seeps, springs, rivers, streams). GBCA sites with no such data were excluded from this analysis, as were those sites whose nearest permanent water source is man-made (i.e., reservoirs). The results indicate that GBCA sites are on average 214.8 m from permanent water sources today. The most common types of permanent water sources found near GBCA sites are lakes (n=20; 36 percent), springs

(n=14; 25 percent), and rivers/streams (n=10; 18 percent) (Table 4.10). Excluding other water sources (e.g., sinks, tanks, and drainages), lakes – in addition to being the most common – are also the closest to GBCA sites (μ=173 m), followed by rivers/streams

(μ=204 m), and springs (μ=346 m).

Table 4.10. Type of Permanent Water Sources near GBCA Sites.

Location of Type of Permanent Water Source Total GBCA Sites Lake Spring River/Stream Other

Southcentral Oregon 19 (35%) 11 (20%) 9 (16%) 11 (20%) 50 (91%) Northwestern Nevada 1 (2%) 3 (5%) 1 (2%) - 5 (9%) Total 20 (37%) 14 (25%) 10 (18%) 11 (20%) 55 (100%)

Vegetation Communities

To test the hypothesis that GBCA rock art is associated with geophytes, in particular geophytes supported by well drained lithosols most often found in upland regions, I consulted site forms to determine whether any such taxa were noted onsite

(Table 4.11). Various kinds of geophytes, including Lomatium, wild onions, and wild carrots were listed on site forms for 35 percent (n=19) of GBCA sites. Ricks (1999) has also suggested that low sage communities can be used as a proxy for various geophytic

root crops. A low sage community was reported on 87 percent (n=48) of GBCA site

forms. Additionally, other taxa known to be economically important to prehistoric

populations, such as Great Basin wild rye (Elymus cinereus), Indian rice grass (Oryzopsis

hymenoides), and Currant (Ribes spp.), are found at 40 percent (n=22) of GBCA sites.

These results, derived from the most comprehensive list of GBCA sites compiled to date,

indicate that GBCA rock art is positively associated with geophyte communities that

prehistoric groups exploited for subsistence purposes (Couture et al. 1986; Housley 1994;

Prouty 1994). As discussed in Chapter 3, the abundance and distribution of such plant

communities is arguably found in similar elevations today as during the TP/EH, although

continued paleoenvironmental studies are needed to support or refute this assumption.

As such, the taxa present at GBCA sites today is likely similar to those present during the

TP/EH when the rock art was created.

Table 4.11. Vegetation Communities found at GBCA Sites.

Culturally Geophytes Low Sage Community Location of Significant Vegetation GBCA Sites Yes No Yes No Yes No Southcentral Oregon 18 (33%) 32 (58%) 45 (82%) 5 (9%) 19 (35%) 31 (56%) Northwestern Nevada 1 (2%) 4 (7%) 3 (5%) 2 (4%) 3 (5%) 2 (4%) Total 19 (35%) 36 (65%) 48 (87%) 7 (13%) 22 (40%) 33 (60%)

Summary

The results presented here provide an understanding of the relationship between

GBCA rock art and other aspects of the archaeological record and various environmental

77 variables. GBCA sites contain significantly more Paleoindian projectile points than such points occur on the general landscape. These results provide support for arguments made by Cannon and Ricks (1986; see also Ricks and Cannon 1993) for the Long Lake site and

Benson et al. (2012) for the Winnemucca Dry Lake site, and ultimately for my first hypothesis – that GBCA rock art dates to the TP/EH. Collectively, these efforts make it clear Paleoindians produced GBCA rock art in the northern Great Basin prior to ~7,500

14C BP. Additionally, standardized residuals generally suggest that GBCA rock art is not significantly associated with diagnostic artifacts from later cultural periods, meaning that the style likely only was produced before ~7,500 14C BP.

GBCA sites are found in greater numbers in upland elevations, rather than in lowland areas containing landforms most commonly associated with large Paleoindian sites. These upland areas support root crops with which about one-third of GBCA sites

(35 percent) are directly associated (i.e., geophytes are present onsite). Most GBCA sites

(87 percent) also contain low sage communities, which Ricks (1999) used as a proxy for the presence of geophytes. Finally, GBCA sites are, on average, 215 meters away from a permanent source of water, most commonly a lake. I discuss the implications of the associations of GBCA sites and environmental variables to current models of Paleoindian land use and my second hypothesis in Chapter 5.

Chapter 5

Discussion

At the outset of this study, I presented rock art as a useful but understudied source of information that can be utilized to contribute to our understanding of Paleoindian lifeways. Lithic artifact assemblages are commonly used to construct models of human behavior for the earliest inhabitants of the Great Basin and such models often cite substantial TP/EH sites dominated by GBS and GBF projectile points as evidence that

Paleoindians employed a lowland- or wetland-focused land use strategy (Beck and Jones

1997; Beck et al. 2002; Bedwell 1973; Elston and Zeanah 2002; Jones et al. 2003, 2012;

Madsen 2007). In this study, I tested the hypothesis that GBCA rock art dates to the

TP/EH. I used the results of my hypothesis test to determine how GBCA rock art relates to current models of TP/EH land use

The Antiquity of GBCA Rock Art

Previous Research

Several lines of indirect evidence suggest that GBCA rock art is older than much of the rock art found in the Great Basin. GBCA panels are often highly repatinated and in some cases have completely returned to the color of the surrounding rock surface

(Ricks and Cannon 1993). Most rock art found in the Great Basin takes advantage of the

79 contrast between the darker outer surface, or varnish, and the lighter colored material underneath, which is exposed through pecking or scratching. When they were initially produced, GBCA panels exhibited this contrast as well, but through various natural processes including wind and water action, they have weathered and returned to the original color of the rock surface on which they were produced. While the exact dynamics of repatination remain unclear despite some efforts to understand the process

(e.g., Allen 1978; Butzer and Hansen 1968; Dorn 1991; Dorn and Whitley 1984;

Dragovich 1984; Grant 1967) differential repatination can nevertheless provide relative ages for rock art panels. In general, the more the panels have repatinated, or darkened, the older they are in relation to lighter colored panels at the same site.

Evidence for the great antiquity of GBCA rock art is also found in the layering of different design elements. Presumably, later styles of rock art were superimposed over earlier panels. Cannon and Ricks (2007:121) note “wherever the GBCA rock art occurs in association with other rock art styles common to Warner Valley, the GBCA style always underlies all other styles.” These other styles include those incorporated in Heizer and Baumhoff’s (1962:234) typology, such as Curvilinear or Rectilinear Abstract, and

Representational, which they argue date to within the last ~3,000 years. While the superimposition of younger styles over the GBCA style only provides relative ages for the different styles, it nevertheless suggests that GBCA rock art is the oldest rock art style in the Great Basin.

Direct evidence for the age of GBCA rock art is found at Long Lake in southcentral Oregon, where two GBCA panels were found partially buried beneath the ground surface. These panels extend 94 cm below the current ground surface; from ~70-

90 cm below the surface, a layer of Mazama tephra occurs. This ash is in a primary depositional context and dates to ~6,850 14C BP (Cannon and Ricks 2007; Ricks and

Cannon 1993), suggesting that the rock art panels are at least that old. Cannon and Ricks

(2007:116) argue that the GBCA panels could be much older, as the ash only provides a date after which the rock art was created – in other words, a limiting date for how young it is. These facts not only suggest that GBCA rock art is of great antiquity, but also that it may date to the TP/EH, the time during which Paleoindian populations colonized and settled into the Great Basin.

Recent research conducted by Benson et al. (2012) provides additional direct evidence that GBCA rock art dates to the TP/EH. They obtained radiocarbon dates on carbonate crusts that covered a tufa formation into which a GBCA panel was incised as well as from a carbonate crust coating the panel itself from Winnemucca Dry Lake in northwestern Nevada. The dates suggest that the GBCA rock art panel was produced either ~12,600-11,000 14C BP or ~10,000-9,200 14C BP. While the ‘reservoir effect’ could potentially complicate radiocarbon dating of lacustrine carbonates including tufa,

Benson et al. (2012) are confident that their dates accurately reflect the age of the rock art. As such, the radiocarbon dates on that particular GBCA panel suggest that the style is extremely old, and as Benson et al. (2012) suggest, perhaps “the oldest petroglyphs in

North America.”

When taken together, the evidence outlined above strongly suggests that GBCA rock art dates to the TP/EH in the northern Great Basin. However, the indirect evidence

(i.e., repatination of GBCA panels, superimposition of presumably younger styles over presumably older GBCA panels) alone provides only a relative age of GBCA rock art. In

81 other words, GBCA panels are older, by some unknown amount of time, than other styles. Similarly, the direct evidence (i.e., GBCA panels below Mazama tephra at Long

Lake, radiocarbon dates on carbonates from a GBCA panel at Winnemucca Dry Lake) occurs at only two sites, both of which are open to criticisms based on the associations between the dated materials and the rock art panels themselves. It is also currently unclear if other GBCA sites are also that old.

The Current Study

The primary purpose of this study has been to test the hypothesis that GBCA rock art dates to the TP/EH by compiling the most comprehensive list of GBCA sites to date and evaluating my related expectations using archaeological data. I reviewed the temporally diagnostic artifacts (e.g., projectile points) found at GBCA sites and my results support the hypothesis that GBCA rock art dates to the TP/EH. Chi-square tests indicate that there are significant differences between frequencies of Paleoindian projectile points found at GBCA sites and on the more general landscape of the northern

Great Basin. Standardized residuals reveal that Paleoindian points are consistently overrepresented at GBCA sites relative to their general occurrence on the landscape.

Furthermore, points from other cultural periods, most importantly the Early Archaic

(7,500-5,000 14C BP), are not overrepresented at GBCA sites – a possibility given the age of Mazama tephra (6,850 14C BP) and its association with the GBCA panels at Long

Lake. These results provide unequivocal quantitative evidence that GBCA rock art dates to only the TP/EH and not later periods.

Additional support comes from an analysis of time adjusted projectile point frequencies. Bettinger (1999) argues that this process allows point frequencies from cultural periods of different temporal scales to be directly compared. For example, frequencies of points from the Paleoindian period, which spanned 4,000 years, can be compared to frequencies of points from the Late Archaic period, which lasted only 800 years. The time adjusted point frequency for the Paleoindian period at GBCA sites is higher than frequencies for the same period in the other study areas (i.e., Fort Rock

Basin, Chewaucan-Abert Basin, Steens Mountain, and Massacre Lake Basin). Simply put, Paleoindian projectile points were discarded at a greater rate at GBCA rock art sites than elsewhere in the northern Great Basin, presumably because those locations were used more intensively than other parts of the landscape.

I presented a series of expectations related to the hypothesis that GBCA rock art dates to the TP/EH at the conclusion of Chapter 3. Based on my results, the first expectation – Paleoindian projectile points are overrepresented at GBCA sites relative to their occurrence within the more general geographic area in which GBCA rock art is distributed – was met. Paleoindian points are indeed overrepresented at GBCA sites and time adjusted point frequencies also suggest that Paleoindian points were discarded at a higher rate at GBCA sites than other locations in the region. While my results clearly indicate an association between GBCA rock art and Paleoindian projectile points, the substantial degree to which the points are overrepresented at GBCA sites was not expected. Paleoindian points should actually be rare on the landscape relative to later points for several reasons. First, Surovell et al. (2009:1715) discuss taphonomic bias or,

“the tendency for younger things to be overrepresented relative to older things in the

83 archaeological record due to the operation of destructive processes like erosion and weathering.” In other words, there are considerably fewer opportunities for more recent archaeological sites, deposits, or materials to be destroyed simply due to the fact that they have been on the landscape for less time. In this study, projectile points from the earliest period of prehistory in the northern Great Basin should be rare on the landscape compared to more recent point types. If GBCA site do not date to the TP/EH, then projectile points from more recent cultural periods should be overrepresented while points from the Paleoindian period should be underrepresented due to the taphonomic bias. My results show exactly the opposite: Paleoindian points are significantly overrepresented at GBCA sites. Given that taphonomic bias should favor the preservation of more recent points at the expense of older points, the fact that the oldest point types in the Great Basin are overrepresented at GBCA sites is even more significant and provides stronger support for the hypothesized TP/EH age of GBCA rock art.

Second, Jones and Beck (1999:87) argue that Paleoindian projectile points,

“were more highly prized by their users, more highly curated than their Archaic equivalents (Beck and Jones 1997), and thus less frequently discarded. It is therefore not unrealistic to assume that two stemmed points may herald a very significant TP/EH occupation.”

If Jones and Beck (1999) are correct in their assertion, then not only do raw counts of

Paleoindian points at GBCA sites suggest significant TP/EH occupations, but the statistically significant overrepresentation of early points provides even stronger support for a great antiquity for the rock art style. In other words, those GBCA sites containing only a few Paleoindian points relative to later point styles may actually represent

84 substantial TP/EH occupations, and those GBCA sites containing many Paleoindian points may represent very substantial TP/EH occupations.

Finally, the overrepresentation of Paleoindian points at GBCA sites may also be more significant than simple counts suggest due to low human populations during the

TP/EH compared to later times. Louderback et al. (2011) constructed radiocarbon date frequency distributions for several areas of the Great Basin including the Fort Rock Basin to serve as proxies for human populations (Figure 5.1). This approach assumes that more people on the landscape produced more archaeological sites containing datable materials.

Louderback et al. (2011:369) argue that troughs and peaks in the frequencies of dates represent periods of high and low population levels in different areas of the Great Basin.

While their research was focused primarily on human population density during the

Middle Holocene, Louderback et al.’s (2011) results strongly suggest that various regions of the Great Basin saw low population densities during the TP/EH. Instead of compiling radiocarbon dates, Bettinger (1999) used diagnostic projectile point types to measure changes in prehistoric populations. He reviewed 16 published datasets from across the

Great Basin and time adjusted the raw counts of projectile points from those areas to remove the effects of sample size and differential temporal scales, thereby facilitating comparisons between temporal periods and geographic regions. While it is important to keep Surovell et al.’s (2009) warning of taphonomic bias in mind, at face value,

Bettinger’s (1999) findings, like those of Louderback et al. (2011), suggest that populations were low throughout the early and Middle Holocene relative to later times and in turn, that fewer projectile points and less organic material associated with human occupations were deposited during those times. Therefore, the overrepresentation of

Paleoindian points at GBCA sites may be even more telling about the age of the rock art style then raw counts of point types alone indicate.

Figure 5.1. Summed probability curve for radiocarbon date frequencies in the Fort Rock Basin. Interval Size is 150 years. Adapted from Louderback et al. (2011).

Reconsidering Paleoindian Land Use Patterns

The ability to assign GBCA rock art to the TP/EH allows it to be used as an index fossil, much like projectile points are used, to date archaeological sites that cannot be

86 dated using other methods (e.g., radiometric dating, dendrochronology). The standardized residuals calculated for projectile point frequencies indicate that GBCA rock art dates to only the TP/EH and not later cultural periods. As such, the presence of

GBCA rock art at sites, like the presence of Paleoindian projectile points, indicates that those locations were utilized during the TP/EH. In turn, its distribution can be used to contribute to our understanding of Paleoindian land use in the northern Great Basin.

Traditional treatments of Paleoindian land use strategies emphasize the importance of pluvial lakes and marshes (Beck and Jones 1997; Beck et al. 2002;

Bedwell 1973; Elston and Zeanah 2002; Jones et al. 2003, 2012; Layton 1979; Madsen

2007). Such models rely primarily on the presence of diagnostic Paleoindian projectile points to assign open-air sites to the TP/EH. While useful, lithic assemblages containing

GBS and GBF points potentially offer an incomplete picture of Paleoindian land use – one biased towards hunting. Other items, such as textiles, can help provide other perspectives on early lifeways (Barker 2009; Barker et al. 2012; Connolly 1994;

Connolly and Barker 2004; Hattori and Fowler 2009), but perishable artifacts are almost always only recovered from caves and rockshelters. Rock art has not contributed significantly to studies of Paleoindian land use because researchers have either generally not regarded it as a product of the TP/EH or have been dissuaded by the difficulty of confidently assigning it to particular time periods. The results of my study clearly indicate that GBCA rock art is Paleoindian in age and as such, it can be used to test current models of TP/EH land use. Below, I relate the environmental variables of GBCA rock art sites introduced earlier (elevation, vegetation communities, distance to

87 permanent water), to current models of Paleoindian land use and propose an updated model based on my results.

Elevation

Although upland sites are not unknown (e.g., Last Supper Cave [Layton and

Davis 1978], Smith Creek Cave [Bryan 1979], Bonneville Estates Rockshelter [Goebel

2007]) most substantial Paleoindian sites are found at lower elevations on landforms associated with relict pluvial lakes and wetlands (Beck and Jones 1997; Beck et al. 2002;

Bedwell 1973; Elston and Zeanah 2002; Jones et al. 2003, 2012; Madsen 2007).

Paleoindians likely frequented lower elevation areas because they provided abundant subsistence resources including fish, birds, large and small mammals, and aquatic plants.

Thus, my second expectation outlined at the conclusion of Chapter 3 is that if GBCA rock art dates to the TP/EH, then GBCA sites should be found in areas frequented by

Paleoindians (i.e., lowland pluvial lake margins). The results of my study do not meet this expectation; rather, they indicate that GBCA sites are found more often in upland settings. Only 22 percent of known GBCA sites occur in lowlands, while 51 percent are found in the uplands. The remaining 27 percent are found in intermediate/midland zones.

However, as previously noted, Cannon and Ricks (2007:119) argue that basalt rims of sink lakes were the preferred surface for some of the oldest rock art in southcentral

Oregon. Such surfaces are not found in lowland settings; instead, isolated boulders are more common there. While lowland zones were expected to contain higher numbers of

GBCA rock art because those areas were frequented by Paleoindians, a lack of suitable rock may bias the results of my analysis.

With respect to elevation, the distribution of GBCA sites is not consistent with two of the most cited current models of Paleoindian land use. These models are largely updated versions of Bedwell’s (1973) “Western Pluvial Lakes Tradition,” one of the first major models of Paleoindian land use to cite the importance of pluvial wetlands and lakes. Bedwell (1973:170) argued that the similarities in the environments of the Fort

Rock Basin in the north, California’s Lake Mojave in the south, and all points between allowed groups to practice a specialized adaptation focused on pluvial lakes and marshes.

Furthermore, Bedwell (1973:170) argued that groups moved throughout the Great Basin along a north-south axis without ever leaving a lacustrine environment. The similarities in artifact forms found throughout the region supported Bedwell’s (1973) model.

Subsequent research (e.g., Beck and Jones 2009; Elston and Zeanah 2002) has shown that Paleoindian adaptive strategies were somewhat more complex than Bedwell

(1973) originally proposed. Jones et al. (2003:7) argue that the high biotic productivity and concentrated low-cost resources that wetlands provided during the TP/EH facilitated a “traveler” strategy rather than a “processer” strategy (sensu Bettinger and Baumhoff

1982). A traveler strategy is characterized by a narrow diet breadth in which groups take advantage of limited microenvironments, or subsistence “patches,” by moving residential bases often and with great magnitude. This strategy would have allowed small groups to move into a wetland patch, focus on a few high ranked resources until return rates diminished, and move on to the next wetland. Conversely, a processor strategy is characterized by a wider diet breadth that incorporates resources whose value can only be

89 realized by costly handling and processing (Jones et al. 2003:8). Using Paleoindian subsistence and settlement pattern data, Jones et al. (2003:8) argue that Paleoindians behaved more like travelers because “they appear to have exploited a small set of food resources, focused subsistence efforts on a few kinds of resource patches, and allocated relatively greater effort to travel than to the extraction and processing of resources than did later Great Basin groups.” However, Jones et al. (2003:37) also caution that

“[Paleoindians] most probably switched from one adaptive pose to the other or practiced both, depending on local environmental and social factors.” Given that the location of many GBCA sites, predominately away from low elevation settings, is not consistent with Jones et al.’s (2003) model, coupled with their suggestion that Paleoindians practiced both strategies and/or switched between them, a reconsideration of traditional

Paleoindian land use is warranted – a point to which I return later.

A second model of Paleoindian land use has been proposed by Elston and Zeanah

(2002). While their model is largely consistent with Jones et al.’s (2003) model, including a wetland focus and narrow diet breadth during the TP/EH, Elston and Zeanah

(2002) also argue that men and women’s foraging goals may have diverged. Lower elevation wetlands provided stable and productive resource patches for women to gather lower-ranked but lower-risk resources like waterfowl, fish, and small game during late winter and early spring (Elston and Zeanah 2002:120). Meanwhile, men traveled to low- to mid-elevation zones to hunt higher-ranked but higher-risk (i.e., more variable) large game. This division of labor, Elston and Zeanah (2002:121) argue, “allowed Great Basin foragers to have it both ways: women saw to it everyone had something to eat, while men brought home the occasional high return prey.” According to this model, Paleoindian

90 sites should occur in lower elevation settings close to both men’s hunting grounds and wetland areas where women were could gather resources closer to home. The location of

GBCA rock art, found in higher frequencies in upland elevations, is not consistent with this model of Paleoindian land use. While Elston and Zeanah’s (2002) model could account for GBCA sites found in intermediate or midland zones (27 percent of the sample), it does not consider upland regions and as such, cannot account for the fact that over half of GBCA sites are located there.

The distribution of GBCA sites by elevation suggests that current models of

TP/EH land use, which are largely based on the distribution of Paleoindian sites containing diagnostic projectile points, cannot fully account for the trends identified here.

In order to better understand Paleoindian lifeways, as Jones et al. (2003:8) urge, “we must make use of other sources of information.” I have followed their suggestion by utilizing GBCA rock art as an index fossil to provide additional information about TP/EH lifeways. GBCA sites are predominately situated in uplands, suggesting that

Paleoindians used other parts of the landscape that have traditionally not figured prominently in treatments of TP/EH lifeways.

Vegetation Communities

To test the hypothesis that Cannon et al.’s (1990) and Ricks’ (1995) models of land use – in which groups travelled to the uplands in spring and summer to target geophytes – can be applied to the TP/EH, I also considered GBCA rock art sites’ association with geophytes. Various geophytes such as Lomatium, wild onions, and wild

91 carrots are most commonly found in upland settings characterized by well drained lithosols. Low sage communities favor similar conditions and Ricks (1999) used them as a proxy for root crops, bulbs, and tubers. Over one-third of GBCA rock art sites in my sample are associated with at least one of the aforementioned taxa. Additionally, a low sage community occurs at 87 percent of GBCA sites. While climatic and environmental conditions have certainly fluctuated since the TP/EH, many researchers (e.g., Mehringer

1985; Minckley et al. 2004, 2007; Wigand and Rhode 2002) have suggested that in the northern Great Basin, particularly near Warner Valley where many GBCA sites are located, the abundance and vertical distribution of vegetation communities (e.g., sagebrush-grass steppe) has not drastically changed over time. More importantly, geophytes that prefer well drained lithosols, such as those that researchers (e.g., Cannon et al. 1990; Ricks 1999) have specifically argued to be associated with GBCA rock art, remain relatively stable over long periods of time (Prouty 1994), and are likely found in the same elevations during the TP/EH as they are currently found today (Dave Rhode, personal communication 2013). Although additional high-resolution environmental records are clearly needed to refine our understanding of past conditions, if the vegetation found at GBCA sites today resembles the vegetation found at GBCA sites when the rock art was produced during the TP/EH, then it can be argued that GBCA rock art is positively associated with geophytes. As such, the expectation that GBCA sites are associated with such taxa – is met.

The fact that GBCA sites are found primarily in upland settings and associated with geophytes is consistent with a model of land use proposed by Cannon et al. (1990) and Ricks (1995) for Warner Valley. They evaluated Weide’s (1968) model of lakeside

92 adaptation in the northern Great Basin and argue that it should be expanded. Weide

(1968) found that most settlements in the northern Great Basin are clustered around lakes on valley floors that would have offered abundant resources. Using data accumulated largely from upland settings since Weide’s (1968) fieldwork (e.g., Cannon and Ricks

1986; Fowler et al. 1989), Cannon et al. (1990) and Ricks (1995) proposed an expanded model for land use in Warner Valley for the last ~7,000 years. They suggest that groups used a tethered subsistence strategy in which they wintered in the lowlands, and focused on lake and marsh resources (Cannon et al. 1990:179; Ricks 1995). During the late spring and early summer, uplands became the focus of activity and groups harvested and processed geophytes there. Cannon et al. (1990:179) argue that this model characterizes land use in Warner Valley for the last ~7,000 years, but also suggest that it “may be longstanding, and that archaeological investigation of the sites identified as major upland occupation sites will show additional evidence of these activities.”

Given the results of my study, I argue that Cannon et al.’s (1990) and Ricks’

(1995) model can be applied to the TP/EH in the northern Great Basin. The results of my work clearly indicate that GBCA rock art dates to the TP/EH and was produced by

Paleoindians. GBCA sites are found in precisely the same location that Cannon et al.

(1990) and Ricks (1995) argue was a focus of activity from April to August each year, and the same plant taxa that Cannon et al. (1990) suggest that groups targeted in the uplands are commonly found at GBCA sites. Thus, the model of land use for Warner

Valley proposed by Cannon et al. (1990) and Ricks (1995) for the last ~7,000 years can likely be extended further back in time and probably also characterizes the lifeways of the region’s earliest inhabitants.

Cannon et al. (1990) and Ricks (1995) are not the first researchers to suggest that upland areas were important to early groups in the northern Great Basin. Fagan (1974) excavated several upland springs in southeastern Oregon and found evidence that those locations had been visited throughout the last ~11,000 years. Paleoindian points were recovered from each of the upland spring sites in fairly large quantities, which demonstrates that environmental settings other than lowland pluvial lake basins were important to TP/EH groups.

Although supported by Fagan’s (1974) study, Cannon et al.’s (1990) model for upland geophyte exploitation is based on indirect evidence (e.g., site location). Direct evidence of geophyte processing during the TP/EH, which would allow their model to be more convincingly applied to the TP/EH, is provided by paleoethnobotanical data in the

Fort Rock Basin. Prouty (2004:163) recovered biscuitroot dated to ~8,850 14C BP at the

Locality III Site. Similar data from the Paisley Caves in the northern Great Basin provide support for root crop exploitation during the TP/EH. A human coprolite radiocarbon dated twice to 12,290±60 and 12,345±55 14C BP produced ~9,000 Apiaceae pollen grains per cubic centimeter (Dennis Jenkins, personal communication 2013). Apiaceae is a family of plants that includes various wild carrots, Desert Parsley, and numerous

Lomatium species. Apiaceae-type plant starch, as well as Proboscidean (i.e., mammoth or mastodon) protein residue, was also recovered on a polished and battered handstone found in strata dated to 12,425±25 and 11,560±40 14C BP (Dennis Jenkins, personal communication 2013). Thus, in addition to the large game often assumed to have been important to Paleoindian subsistence economies (Grayson 2011:76-79; Haynes 2002:175-

176), the findings at the Paisley Caves and Locality III suggest that root crops were

94 important during the earliest periods of prehistory and provide support for applying

Cannon et al.’s (1990) and Ricks (1995) model to the TP/EH.

Permanent Water Sources

Many researchers (e.g., Beck and Jones 1997; Beck et al. 2002; Bedwell 1973;

Elston and Zeanah 2002; Jones et al. 2003, 2012; Madsen 2007) have noted that most substantial TP/EH sites were located near pluvial lakes and marshes because of the abundant and productive resources that those areas offered. Thus, I expected that most

GBCA sites would be located near substantial bodies of water. Lakes are associated with over one-third of GBCA sites. The remaining two-thirds of GBCA sites are found near springs (26 percent), rivers and streams (18 percent), and other water sources (20 percent). Given that GBCA sites are frequently found near lacustrine settings, the location of GBCA sites with respect to water is consistent with general TP/EH land use models. This new information – elevation, associated taxa, and nearby water sources – provide a starting point with which to construct an updated model of Paleoindian land use.

A Proposed Model of Paleoindian Land Use

I have talked at length about current models of Paleoindian land use. In general, such models posit that Paleoindians were highly mobile and moved from one wetland patch to another, exploiting abundant lacustrine resources at each location. I have also

95 suggested that models emphasizing a lowland focused subsistence strategy are not entirely compatible with the results of my study, namely the locations of GBCA sites, which I have established are TP/EH in age. GBCA rock art sites are found in areas not predicted by current Paleoindian land use models, and given that GBCA sites are likely coeval with Paleoindian sites near pluvial wetlands, a reconsideration of these models is warranted. Other researchers (e.g., Byrum 1994; Fagan 1974; Jenkins 1994; Oetting

1994a, 1994b; Paul-Mann 1994) have found similar evidence in the northern Great Basin that upland, lowland, and non-lacustrine lowland areas were important to early groups, indicating that broader and more flexible subsistence strategies were likely practiced during the TP/EH.

Given that the most substantial TP/EH archaeological sites are found on landforms associated with relict pluvial lakes and wetlands in lower elevations, these areas no doubt figured prominently in Paleoindian lifeways. However, upland areas appear to have also been important destinations for TP/EH groups given the high frequency of GBCA sites found in those areas. I suggest that Paleoindians employed a seasonally tethered subsistence strategy akin to that proposed by Cannon et al. (1990) and

Ricks (1995) for later times. During the fall and winter, Paleoindian groups wintered in lowland base camps along the margins of pluvial lakes and wetlands. There, they could have taken advantage of a variety of lacustrine resources including aquatic plants, waterfowl, fish, and small game, much like ethnographically-documented groups did

(Steward 1938). In keeping with traditional TP/EH land use models, groups perhaps moved their lowland base camps frequently from one wetland patch to another as resources were exploited. Following Elston and Zeanah (2002) and Ricks (1995), these

96 lowland base camps could have facilitated the procurement of many resources by women, while permitting men to venture into adjacent low- and mid-elevations to hunt large game. During the late spring and summer, early groups may have moved their residential camps into the uplands where they could have exploited the abundant root crops that became available at that time, as Cannon et al. (1990) and Ricks (1995) have argued occurred during later times. While in the uplands, geophytes could have been harvested and processed, large game hunted, and nearby lithic materials procured (Cannon et al.

1990). Given that the uplands support substantial geophyte communities (Housley 1994;

Prouty 1994, 2004; Ricks 1999), Paleoindians were likely able to remain relatively sedentary in their upland summer base camps, unlike their frequent movements between wetland patches during the winter.

The land use strategy presented for the fall and winter in my new model is consistent with traditional models of Paleoindian land use. Researchers have used materials (i.e., lithic assemblages) from lowland occupations to construct models of

Paleoindian lifeways. Some researchers (e.g., Beck and Jones 1997; Elston and Zeanah

2002) argue that these assemblages are generally small, contain few formal tools and tool types, and intersite variability is low. These attributes are characteristic of mobile populations and argued to be a hallmark of Paleoindian lifeways elsewhere in North

America (Amick 1996; Kelly and Todd 1988; Kilby 2011). In particular, Duke and

Young (2007:134-135) argue that a model of episodic permanence in which “residential stability [is] punctuated with the potential for distant travel” was favored during the

TP/EH in the Great Basin. My proposed model of winter land use is consistent with

Duke and Young’s (2007) model because I argue that TP/EH groups remained in lowland

97 basins during the winter, moving them as necessary in response to declining resource return rates. This pattern could be regarded as episodic permanence: TP/EH groups remained at one lowland base camp near a wetland patch until resources diminished, and then episodically moved to another as necessary.

The proposed spring and summer upland base camps are new additions to models of TP/EH land use because such locations have not featured prominently in past treatments. My study indicates that GBCA rock art, which I have demonstrated to be

TP/EH in age, is found in high frequencies in upland settings. Given that upland areas have not been found to contain substantial TP/EH sites, it is difficult to characterize how these proposed upland base camps differed from those proposed for lowlands.

Obviously, if GBCA sites represent upland base camps occupied during the spring and summer, as I have suggested, then such occupations are associated with rock art. While the function or purpose of rock art production itself is not the focus of this research, and is perhaps ultimately unknowable, the fact that groups arguably moved into the uplands to process geophytes may be related to making rock art in some way.

Upland GBCA sites can be characterized in a general sense by identifying traits shared by them. To do so, I examined several commonly reported site attributes (e.g., site area, flake density, and site type) at GBCA sites that only contain Paleoindian points to limit the likelihood that these attributes are functions of later occupation(s) (Table 5.1).

Four GBCA sites meet this criterion and are all relatively large and contain some type of groundstone (e.g., bedrock mortars, portable metates, handstones). Although the sample is admittedly small, at face value these trends support the hypothesis that GBCA rock art production in the uplands was associated with plant processing. Additionally, all four

GBCA sites are large, pointing to repeated occupations and an investment in place.

People likely returned to these locations time and time again, and were tied to them enough to build structures in a few cases.

Table 5.1. Site Classification of Single-Component GBCA Sites.

Site Type Site Number Site Area, (m2) Flake Density Groundstone Structure Rockshelter 35LK508 1 mile long Low x - x 35LK516 1 mile long High x - - 35LK2489 20,000 - x x x 0501050909SI 22,500 - x x -

Upland base camps appear different from what researchers have argued typify lowland occupations in the TP/EH. Lowland Paleoindian sites are often small, open-air lithic scatters with few formal tools (but see Beck and Jones [2009], Graf [2001], and

Smith [2007]), while GBCA sites associated with upland areas are relatively large and contain groundstone suggestive of plant processing. GBCA sites are also located near lakes, and regardless of their location (i.e., upland or lowland) are on average only 173 m from those water sources. Of the GBCA sites found closest to a lake, ~60 percent of those sites are found in the uplands on average 167 m from the closest lake. In other words, most GBCA sites are not found near lowland pluvial lake systems, but rather bodies of water, such as smaller sink lakes, in higher elevations. Cannon and Ricks

(2007:119) argue that this is also true for some of the largest rock art sites in Warner

Valley. Following Elston and Zeanah (2002:121), it appears that upland base camps also

“allowed Great Basin foragers to have it both ways” because they provided stable and

99 abundant geophytes nearby while also being positioned relatively close to lacustrine resources. With this understanding of the characteristics of both lowland and upland base camps, the model of Paleoindian land use proposed here can be further developed with respect to other aspects of Paleoindian lifeways. That is, settlement and subsistence patterns and mobility strategies can be proposed and compared to traditional models of

Paleoindian behavior (Table 5.2).

Table 5.2. Comparison of Paleoindian Lifeways under Traditional and Proposed Models.

Paleoindian Settlement Primary Subsistence Adaptive Strategy Lifeways Fall/Winter Spring/Summer Fall/Winter Spring/Summer Traditional Models Lowland Lowland Lacustrine Lacustrine Traveler Proposed Model Lowland Upland Lacustrine Geophytes Traveler/Processor

Traditional models (e.g., Jones et al. 2003) of Paleoindian lifeways argue for high residential mobility through which TP/EH groups settled around lowland lake margins for short periods before they moved to the next wetland patch. I suggest that a residential mobility strategy alone may not fully encompass the movements of TP/EH groups. As

Elston and Zeanah (2002) and Cannon et al. (1990) suggest, a subset of the population, namely women, likely remained in the lowlands while men came and went on logistically-oriented hunting or toolstone acquisition trips. These same activities, divided primarily along gender lines, were likely also carried out while TP/EH groups summered in the uplands (Cannon et al. 1990; Ricks 1995). Given these arguments, it appears that a logistical strategy, in which the majority of the population remained at a base camp while smaller groups ventured away from home to procure critical resources for the

100 community, may be a more accurate portrayal of Paleoindian land use in both the lowlands and uplands.

As I have suggested elsewhere, traditional models of Paleoindian subsistence should be updated in light of the results presented here. Lacustrine resources were probably not the only substantial subsistence resources exploited by Paleoindians.

TP/EH groups likely pursued seasonally available foods, exploiting the abundant lacustrine resources in the fall and winter, and abundant upland root crops during the spring and summer. This model of a seasonally tethered subsistence strategy has implications regarding the adaptive strategy (i.e., traveler or processor) that TP/EH groups employed. Jones et al. (2003) have argued that Paleoindians relied upon a traveler strategy in which more effort was invested in traveling between resource patches and less effort was invested in processing low-return foods. However, the results of this study and my proposed model suggest that Paleoindian groups also invested effort in harvesting and processing geophytes in the uplands. Thus, a processor strategy seems more applicable, at least for part of the year, and there is some direct evidence from both the Paisley Caves and Locality III Site that lower-ranked resources were consumed during the TP/EH

(Dennis Jenkins, personal communication 2013; Prouty 2004). The proposed model suggests that broader and more flexible subsistence strategies were practiced during the

TP/EH than are generally attributed to early populations in the Great Basin. It appears that like Paleoindians elsewhere, groups in the northern Great Basin “mapped on” (sensu

Binford 1980) to resource patches both in upland and lowland settings. Thus, Cannon et al.’s (1990) and Ricks’ (1995) model for the last ~7,000 years in Warner Valley should be applied to the TP/EH and expanded for the northern Great Basin as a whole.

101

Chapter 6

Conclusion

In this study, I have evaluated the antiquity of GBCA rock art by examining associated temporally diagnostic projectile points. While using temporally diagnostic projectile points as index fossils is one of the principle ways that researchers assign sites to particular time periods, this practice has not been widely employed to date rock art sites. I used this approach here to add an additional line of evidence that supports other researchers’ (e.g., Benson et al. 2012; Cannon and Ricks 1986, 2007; Ricks and Cannon

1993) suggestions that GBCA rock art is the oldest rock art in the Great Basin. I also examined the relationship between GBCA rock art and several environmental variables to contribute to our understanding of TP/EH land use patterns. This research was guided by two hypotheses outlined at the end of Chapter 1:

1) GBCA rock art dates to the TP/EH and was produced by Paleoindians; and

2) Cannon et al.’s (1990) and Ricks’ (1995) models of a seasonally tethered

subsistence strategy can be applied to the TP/EH and expanded for the

northern Great Basin.

The materials and methods used to test the hypothesis were presented in Chapters

2 and 3 and the results of my analysis were presented in Chapter 4. The implications of

102 the results were discussed in Chapter 5. Here, I summarize the most important results, briefly discuss their significance, and propose several avenues for continued research.

Summary of Findings

The primary purpose of this study was to test the hypothesis that GBCA rock art dates to the TP/EH in the northern Great Basin. To accomplish this goal, I employed temporally diagnostic projectile point frequencies from GBCA sites and compared those frequencies to point frequencies from the surrounding landscape. The time adjusted point frequencies that I analyzed suggest a strong Paleoindian association with GBCA sites.

The time adjusted point frequency for the Paleoindian period at GBCA sites is higher than frequencies for that period in the other study areas (i.e., the Fort Rock Basin,

Chewaucan-Abert Basin, Steens Mountain, and Massacre Lake Basin). In other words,

GBCA sites have a stronger Paleoindian presence because projectile points diagnostic of this time period were deposited at a greater rate there than elsewhere throughout the northern Great Basin. Additionally, chi-square tests indicate that there are significant differences between frequencies of Paleoindian points at GBCA sites and on the more general landscape of the northern Great Basin. Analyses of standardized residuals demonstrate that not only are Paleoindian points consistently overrepresented at GBCA sites relative to their general frequency on the landscape, but points from other cultural periods, namely the Early Archaic (7,500-5,000 14C BP), are not overrepresented at

GBCA sites. These results suggest that GBCA rock art dates to only the TP/EH and was not produced into the Early and Middle Holocene, a possibility given the age of Mazama

103 tephra (6,850 14C BP) and its association with GBCA panels at Long Lake. This finding alone may be the single most significant finding of this study. The fact that the temporal range of GBCA rock art has been defined to only the TP/EH allows it to be used as an index fossil in future research. Much like Paleoindian projectile points allow researchers to assign archaeological sites that cannot be dated using radiometric methods to the

TP/EH, GBCA rock art can and should now be used an indicator of Paleoindian occupations, even in the absence of diagnostic Paleoindian artifacts themselves.

In Chapter 5, I discussed several reasons why the above results may be even more significant than the projectile point data alone suggest. First, as Surovell et al. (2009) suggest, taphonomic processes preferentially preserve more recent point types and destroy/contribute to the loss of earlier types. There should be more recent point types on the landscape and fewer early point types because more time has elapsed for countless destructive processes to act upon early points. Second, Jones and Beck (1999) suggest that there were fewer early point types on the landscape to begin with because they were highly prized, curated to a greater degree, and discarded less than later Archaic points.

Finally, Bettinger (1999) and Louderback et al. (2011) argue that there were fewer people on the landscape during the TP/EH to leave behind archaeological materials. Given these arguments, the overrepresentation of Paleoindian projectile points at GBCA sites may be even more telling regarding the age of GBCA rock art than raw counts of point types alone suggest. For these reasons, my study provides support for the hypothesis that

GBCA rock art dates to the TP/EH. Potentially even more significant is the fact that the rock art style dates only to the early human occupation of the area and not later. As such,

104 it can be used as an index fossil to identify sites with a Paleoindian component even in the absence of other time markers such as projectile points.

In this study, I also investigated the relationship between GBCA rock art and several environmental variables to improve our understanding of Paleoindian land use. I found that in contrast with traditional TP/EH land use models that emphasize the importance of lowland pluvial wetlands, GBCA sites are most commonly found in upland settings. Traditional models of Paleoindian land use (e.g., Beck and Jones 1997; Beck et al. 2002; Bedwell 1973; Elston and Zeanah 2002; Jones et al. 2003, 2012; Madsen 2007), are based largely on lithic assemblages found on landforms associated with relict pluvial lakes and wetlands. In this study, however, I used a novel source of data to contribute new information regarding the land use of the earliest inhabitants of the northern Great

Basin. As some researchers (e.g., Jones et al. 2003) have suggested, new sources of information, in this case GBCA rock art, can enhance our understandings the past. The fact that high frequencies of GBCA sites are found in uplands suggests that those areas were important to early groups. Geophytes were also likely important to early groups as

GBCA sites are often found in association with such taxa. This finding is also not typical of most current models of TP/EH lifeways, which stress that Paleoindians focused on subsistence resources associated with lowland pluvial lakes and wetlands. Finally, an analysis of the distances to and sources of permanent water near GBCA sites also suggests that upland water sources were important, as many GBCA sites are found near smaller upland sink lakes. Using GBCA sites and their associated environmental variables, it appears that both geophytic taxa and lacustrine resources were important to

TP/EH populations in the northern Great Basin.

105

As discussed in Chapter 5, these results can contribute to our understanding of

Paleoindian land use. Rather than a lowland-focused subsistence economy that current

TP/EH models of land use propose (e.g., Elston and Zeanah 2002; Jones et al. 2003),

Paleoindians appear to have utilized upland areas as well, taking advantage of the subsistence resources that those areas provided. Cannon et al. (1990) and Ricks (1995) have suggested that such a pattern was in place in Oregon’s Warner Valley for at least the past ~7,000 years. The results of my study indicate that this pattern of land use can likely be applied to the TP/EH and expanded for the northern Great Basin as a whole. As such,

I have proposed an updated model of Paleoindian land use in which early groups employed a seasonally tethered subsistence strategy. I argue that Paleoindians in the northern Great Basin spent falls and winters in the lowlands along the margins of pluvial lakes and wetlands, exploiting lacustrine resources and small game. In the springs and summers, they moved their base camps into the uplands to take advantage of geophytes that the stony, shallow sediment there supports. While in the uplands, these groups also produced GBCA rock art. This seasonally tethered subsistence strategy exhibits characteristics of both a traveler and a processor strategy (sensu Bettinger and Baumhoff

1982). Paleoindians behaved like travelers in the winter, moving from one wetland patch to another, and like processors in the summer, remaining at upland base camps and focusing on plant processing. TP/EH populations thus practiced a broader and more flexible subsistence strategy than researchers have generally attributed to early populations in the northern Great Basin.

My research contributes significantly in two ways to Great Basin archaeology.

First, I have successfully established a TP/EH age for GBCA rock art, making this style

106 the oldest in the Great Basin. As I have discussed, rock art resists most chronometric dating methods, so the ability to successfully establish temporal control using an already widespread archaeological relative dating method – using temporally diagnostic projectile points as index fossils – is a significant contribution. Second, this research contributes to general Paleoindian research, providing information regarding TP/EH land use patterns (i.e., use of the uplands) that have been otherwise archaeologically invisible to researchers (e.g., Beck and Jones 1997, 2009; Bedwell 1973; Duke and Young 2007;

Jenkins 1994; Jones et al. 2003; Smith 2007; Smith et al. 2012b; Toepel and Minor 1994) who have only found substantial Paleoindian occupation in lowland elevations. Given the newly identified aspect of Paleoindian lifeways – GBCA rock art in the uplands associated with geophytes – some of our long held assumptions of TP/EH land use can now be reevaluated and reconstructed to more accurately reflect all data from one of the earliest periods of human occupation in the Great Basin.

Future Research

While this research has produced some novel and important results, there is potential for future research. Additional research focused on rock art in the Great Basin can contribute to our general knowledge of this understudied aspect of the archaeological record. Historically, rock art has been relegated to the background of archaeological research, both academic and otherwise, and has thus far not contributed significantly to our understanding of the past, especially the more distant past (Woody and Quinlan

2009:1). While some researchers have investigated rock art, most work has focused on

107 interpreting the panels in search of meaning (Heizer and Baumhoff 1962; Martineau

2003; Whitley 1994, 1996, 1999). Some recent research has attempted to understand rock art’s place in relation to other aspects of the archaeological record (e.g., Cannon and

Ricks 2007; Pendegraft 2007; Quinlan 2003, 2007) and the landscape in general (e.g.,

Bradley 2000). If future researchers build on this work and attempt to understand rock art in relation to the other archaeological materials with which it is associated, rock art can better contribute to our understanding of the past. Continued research focused on rock art has the potential to enhance our interpretations of the past by supplying new information that traditional sources of archaeological data (e.g., lithic assemblages) alone cannot provide.

Continued research specifically focused on GBCA rock art will also likely provide new insight. While this study employed a comprehensive list of all currently known GBCA sites in the northwestern Great Basin, there are no doubt additional undiscovered GBCA sites on the landscape. Targeted research, not unlike the Lake

County Oregon Rock Art Inventory, will no doubt identify more GBCA rock art sites.

Except for the five sites in northwestern Nevada included in this study, all GBCA sites were identified as a result of the aforementioned survey in Lake County, Oregon. The researchers and BLM staff involved in that project set out to identify and record all rock art sites in the county. Should land management agency staff and other researchers working in the surrounding counties in Oregon, as well as those in northern Nevada, northern California, and southern Washington undertake similar surveys, more sites may be discovered and the geographic distribution of the GBCA style expanded.

Furthermore, rock art sites that have already been identified in the northern Great Basin

108 should be reevaluated and revisited to determine if the GBCA style is present. GBCA panels are often difficult to see because they are highly repatinated and at times have completely returned to the same color as the surrounding rock. Trained eyes looking at the right time of day will likely reveal this style at many previously recorded rock art sites in the region.

Should future researchers follow this suggestion and more GBCA sites are found, the analysis performed in this study can be repeated with a larger sample. New sites will yield additional counts of diagnostic projectile points, particularly if excavations are carried out, and these can be used to calculate projectile point frequencies. Like I did in this study, these frequencies can be compared to those from surrounding regions using simple chi-square tests and analyses of standardized residuals. Such analyses, using a larger sample of GBCA sites and associated projectile points, may help to further refine the temporal span of GBCA rock art.

Additionally, environmental variables associated with any newly identified

GBCA sites, including those addressed in this study (e.g., elevation, vegetation communities, distance to permanent water) as well as others (e.g., rock type, sediment type, slope, exposure), can be investigated. Such analysis will provide more information regarding the land use patterns of TP/EH populations in the northern Great Basin. As I discussed, current models of Paleoindian land use have been largely developed using data derived from lithic assemblages alone. While these materials certainly have allowed for an understanding of TP/EH lithic technology, it has been difficult to expand the picture that they provide (Barker et al. 2012). The distribution of GBS and GBF point sites alone cannot provide a complete picture of Paleoindian land use. GBCA rock art, dated to the

109

TP/EH, provides an additional opportunity to investigate aspects of Paleoindian lifeways and behaviors that have thus far been difficult to discern using lithic assemblages alone.

Thus, a larger sample of GBCA sites and related environmental variables can be evaluated to determine how GBCA rock art sites fit in with the larger trends of land use during the earliest period of prehistory in the northern Great Basin.

Specifically, further research may strengthen the argument regarding land use that

I have made here – Paleoindians traveled into the uplands during the spring and summer to process geophytes. If the methods that were employed ethnographically to process geophytes (e.g., digging sticks, manos, metates, flake tools) (Prouty 1994) are investigated in greater depth, as well as what material remains would be left behind (e.g., expedient flake tools, small lithic scatters, groundstone) the relationship between these items and temporally discreet GBCA sites can be examined. Should geophyte processing materials be found at GBCA sites with only Paleoindian artifacts, the veracity of my argument that upland sites were occupied by Paleoindians during the spring and summer to process geophytes would be supported. Such an analysis would likely require a reevaluation of existing GBCA sites to record the associated lithic materials, as well as additional large scale surveys to identify more GBCA sites.

The proposed model of land use would also benefit from a better understanding of the relationship between vegetation communities at GBCA sites and with other sites on the landscape. Similar to the way that I compared point frequencies from GBCA sites to those found at sites in the nearby regions, the same should be done for plant communities. This research was beyond the parameters of this study and will require a large sample of random sites to be compiled from the surrounding regions (i.e., the Fort

110

Rock Basin, Chewaucan-Abert Basin, Steens Mountain, and Massacre Lake Basin).

Such an analysis could help determine if the association between GBCA sites and geophyte taxa is unique to these rock art sites, or if other sites on the landscape also exhibit similar trends. Additionally, further research focused on reconstructing local environmental conditions in the northern Great Basin during the TP/EH may allow a better understanding of the distribution and abundance of plant communities. In other words, such research may provide more substantial support for the argument that the association between geophytes and GBCA sites today also occurred during the TP/EH.

In addition to the above suggestions for future research regarding GBCA rock art, the approach that I have taken in this study can be employed to date other styles of rock art in the Great Basin. While Heizer and Baumhoff (1962) proposed a chronology of their identified rock art styles, their research has not been significantly reevaluated or updated since it was proposed 50 years ago. An analysis of projectile points associated with a particular rock art style, for example, Representational, may allow the temporal span that Heizer and Baumhoff (1962) assigned to that style (~1,600 14C BP – Contact) to be more thoroughly evaluated. This approach would be especially useful for dating the

Pit and Groove style. Like the GBCA style, it has been argued to be some of the oldest rock art in the Great Basin (~6,000-4,500 14C BP), and it is stylistically distinct from much of the other rock art in the Great Basin (Heizer and Baumhoff 1962). By employing an analysis similar to that performed here, the temporal span of the Pit and

Groove style may be better understood.

111

Conclusion

As noted previously, to test our notions of prehistoric lifeways, Jones et al. (2003) argue that “we need to recast our expectations to make use of other sources of information.” Other researchers (e.g., Barker et al. 2012) have echoed this sentiment, specifically regarding TP/EH lifeways, given the fact that so much of our understanding of this early period comes from a single source – lithic assemblages. While these data permit an extensive understanding of TP/EH lithic technology, expanding our study of this period to include other aspects of Paleoindian behavior as well as reevaluating traditional models has proven difficult. My study has improved our understanding of

Paleoindian behavior by investigating an aspect of the TP/EH archaeological record that has thus far been understudied and poorly understood. The inclusion of novel sources of information will not only broaden our understanding of Paleoindian behavior in general, but provide clarification on various specific topics as well. Here, I have secured GBCA rock art a place in Paleoindian lifeways, and expanded traditional models of land use for the TP/EH using new data. Further research of a similar focus and scale will determine if the proposed model of Paleoindian land use is useful for understanding the behavior of some of the earliest populations in the northern Great Basin.

112

References Cited

Aikens, C. Melvin, and Dennis L. Jenkins (editors) 1994 Archaeological Researches in the Northern Great Basin: Fort Rock Archaeology Since Cressman. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers 50, Eugene.

Allen, Carlton C. 1978 Desert Varnish of the Sonoran Desert – Optical and Electron Probe Microanalysis. Journal of Geology 86:743-752.

Ames, Kenneth M., Don E. Dumond, Jerry R. Galm, and Rick Minor 1998 Prehistory of the Southern Plateau. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 12: Plateau, edited by Dewart E. Walker, Jr., pp. 103-119. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Ames, Kenneth M., Kristen A. Fuld, and Sara Davis 2010 Dart and Arrow Points on the Columbia Plateau of Western North America. American Antiquity 75:287-325.

Amick, Daniel S. 1995 Raw Material Selection Patterns among Paleoindian Tools from the Black Rock Desert, Nevada. Current Research in the Pleistocene 12:55-57. 1996 Regional Patterns of Folsom Mobility and Land Use in the American Southwest. World Archaeology 27(3):411-426.

Amsden, Charles A. 1937 The Lake Mohave Artifacts. In The Archaeology of Pleistocene Lake Mohave: A Symposium by Elizabeth W. C .Campbell, William H. Campbell, Ernst Antevs, Charles A. Amsden, Joseph A. Barbieri, and Francis D. Bode, pp. 51-98. Southwest Museum Papers 11, Los Angeles.

Antevs, Ernst 1948 The Great Basin, with Emphasis on Glacial and Postglacial Times: Climatic Changes and Pre-White Man. In Bulletin of the University of Utah 38(20):168- 191.

Bacon, Charles 1983 Eruptive History of Mount Mazama and Crater Lake Caldera, Cascade Range, USA. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 18:57-115.

Barker, Pat 2009 Woven Sandals as Boundary Markers Between the Great Basin and Southwest Culture Areas. In Past, Present, and Future Issues in Great Basin Archaeology:

113

Papers in Honor of Don D. Fowler, edited by Bryan Hockett, pp. 125-145. BLM Cultural Resource Series 20.

Barker, Pat, Eugene M. Hattori, Catherine S. Fowler, and William J. Cannon 2012 Getting Beyond the Point: Paleoindian Period Textiles in the Northwestern Great Basin. Paper presented at the 33rd Biennial Great Basin Anthropological Conference, Stateline, NV.

Basgall, Mark E. 1989 Obsidian Acquisition and Use in Prehistoric Central Eastern California: Preliminary Assessment. In Current Directions in California Obsidian Studies, edited by Richard E. Hughes, pp. 111-126. Contributions of California Archaeological Research Facility 48, Berkeley.

Beck, Charlotte, and George T. Jones 1990 Toolstone Selection and Lithic Technology in Early Great Basin Prehistory. Journal of Field Archaeology 17(3):283-299. 1997 The Terminal Pleistocene/Early Holocene Archaeology of the Great Basin. Journal of World Prehistory 11(2):161-263. 2009 The Archaeology of the Eastern Nevada Paleoarchaic, Part I: The Sunshine Locality. University of Utah Anthropology Papers 126, Salt Lake City. 2010 Clovis and Western Stemmed: Population Migration and the Meeting of Two Technologies in the Intermountain West. American Antiquity 75(1):81-116. 2011 The Role of Mobility and Exchange in the Conveyance or Paleoarchaic Toolstone. In Perspectives on Trade and Exchange in California and the Great Basin, edited by Richard E. Hughes, pp. 55-82. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Beck, Charlotte, George T. Jones, Dennis L. Jenkins, Craig E. Skinner, and Jennifer J. Thatcher 2004 Fluted or Basally-Thinned? Re-Examination of Lanceolate Point from the Connley Caves in the Fort Rock Basin. In Early and Middle Holocene Archaeology of the Northern Great Basin, edited by Dennis L. Jenkins, Thomas J. Connolly, and C. Melvin Aikens, pp. 281-294. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers 62.

Beck, Charlotte, Amanda K. Taylor, George T. Jones, Cynthia Fadem, Caitlyn R. Cook, and Sara A. Millward 2002 Rocks are Heavy: Transport Costs and Paleoarchaic Quarry Behavior in the Great Basin. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 21:481-507.

Bedwell, Stephen F. 1973 Fort Rock Basin: Prehistory and Environment. University of Oregon Books, Eugene.

114

Benson, Larry, Eugene Hattori, John Southron and Ben Aleck 2012 The Oldest Dated Petroglyphs in North America. Paper presented at the 33rd Biennial Great Basin Anthropological Conference. Stateline, NV.

Benson, Larry, Michaele Kashgarian, Robert Rye, Steve Lund, Fred Paillet, Joseph Smoot, Cynthia Kester, Scott Mensing, Dave Meko, and Susan Landström 2002 Holocene Multidecadal and Multicentennial Droughts Affecting Northern California and Nevada. Quaternary Science Reviews 21:659-682.

Bettinger, Robert L. 1999 What Happened in the Medithermal. In Models for the Millennium: Great Basin Anthropology Today, edited by Charlotte Beck, pp. 62-74. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Bettinger, Robert L., and Martin A. Baumhoff 1982 The Numic Spread: Great Basin Cultures in Competition. American Antiquity 47(3):485-503.

Bierman, Paul R., and Alan R. Gillespie 1991 Accuracy of Rock-Varnish Chemical Analyses: Implications for Cation-Ratio Dating. Geology 19:196-199.

Binford, Lewis R. 1979 Organization and Formation Processes: Looking at Curated Technologies. Journal of Anthropological Research 35(5):255-273. 1980 Willow Smoke and Dogs' Tails: Hunter-gatherer Settlement Systems and Archaeological Site Formation. American Antiquity 45(1):4-20.

Bradley, Richard 2000 An Archaeology of Natural Places. Routledge Press, New York.

Bryan, Alan L. 1979 Smith Creek Cave. In Archaeology of Smith Creek Canyon, edited by Donald R. Touhy and Doris L. Rendall, pp. 164-251. Nevada State Museum Anthropological Papers 17. Carson City, NV.

Butler, Robert. B. 1961 The Old Cordilleran Culture in the Pacific Northwest. Occasional Papers of the Idaho State Museum 5. Pocatello. 1962 Contributions to the Prehistory of the Columbia Plateau. Occasional Papers of the Idaho State Museum 9. Pocatello. 1965 A Report on Investigations of an Early Man Site near Lake Channell, Southern Idaho. Tebiwa 8:1-21.

115

1986 Prehistory of the Snake and Salmon River Area. In Great Basin, Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 11, edited by Warren L. D’Azevedo, pp. 135-148. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.

Butzer, Karl W., and C. L. Hansen 1968 Desert and River in Nubia: Geomorphology and Prehistoric Environments at the Aswan Reservoir. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison.

Byrum, R. Scott 1994 Holocene Settlement Variation, Site Types, and Subsistence Activities in the Boulder Village Uplands, Fort Rock Basin, Oregon. In Archaeological Researches in the Northern Great Basin: Fort Rock Archaeology Since Cressman, edited by C. Melvin Aikens and Dennis L. Jenkins, pp. 369-384. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers 50, Eugene.

Cannon, William J., and Mary Ricks 1986 The Lake County Oregon Rock Art Inventory: Implications for Prehistoric Settlement and Land Use Patterns. In Contributions to the Archaeology of Oregon 1983-1986. Association of Oregon Archeologists Occasional Papers 3, edited by Kenneth M. Aimes, pp. 1-23. Portland State University. 2007 Contexts in the Analysis of Rock Art: Settlement and Rock Art in the Warner Valley Area, Oregon. In Great Basin Rock Art: Archaeological Perspectives, edited by Angus R. Quinlan, pp. 107-125. University of Nevada Press, Reno.

Cannon, William J., Cliff Creger, Don D. Fowler, Eugene M. Hattori and Mary F. Ricks 1990 A Wetlands and Uplands Settlement-Subsistence Model for Warner Valley, Oregon. University of Nevada, Reno, Department of Anthropology, Research Report 89-2.

Christian, Leif J. 1997 Early Holocene Typology, Chronology, and Mobility: Evidence from the Northern Great Basin. University of Nevada, Reno, Department of Anthropology, Sundance Archaeological Research Fund Report 3.

Clewlow, William C., Jr. 1968 Surface Archaeology of the Black Rock Desert, Nevada. University of California Archaeological Survey Reports 73:1-94.

Connick, Robert E., and Frances Connick 1995 A Summer Solstice Petroglyph Site. In Rock Art Studies in the Americas. Papers presented to Symposium B of the AURA Congress, Darwin 1988, edited by Jack Steinbring, pp.111-115. Oxbow Monograph 45.

116

Connolly, Thomas J. 1994 Prehistoric Basketry from the Fort Rock Basin and Vicinity. In Archaeological Researches in the Northern Great Basin: Fort Rock Archaeology Since Cressman, edited by C. Melvin Aikens and Dennis L. Jenkins, pp. 63-83. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers 50, Eugene.

Connolly, Thomas J., and Pat Barker 2004 Basketry Chronology of the Early Holocene in the northern Great Basin. In Early and Middle Holocene Archaeology of the Northern Great Basin, edited by Dennis L. Jenkins, Thomas J. Connolly, and C. Melvin Aikens, pp. 251-270. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers 62, Eugene.

Couture, Marilyn D., Mary F. Ricks, and Louise Housley 1986 Foraging Behavior of a Contemporary Northern Paiute Population. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 8(2):150-160.

Cressman, Luther 1937 Petroglyphs of Oregon. University of Oregon Monographs, Studies in Anthropology 2. University of Oregon, Eugene.

Dillehey, Tom D. 1989 Monte Verde: A Late Pleistocene Settlement in Chile, Vol.1, Paleoenvironment and Site Context. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C. 1997 Monte Verde: A Late Pleistocene Settlement in Chile, Vol.2, The Archaeological Context and Interpretation. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C.

Dorn, Ronald I. 1983 Cation-Ratio Dating: A New Rock Varnish Age-Determination Technique. Quaternary Research 20:49-73. 1991 Rock Varnish. American Scientist 79:542-553 1996 A Change of Perception. La Pintura 23(2):10-11.

Dorn, David, and David Whitley 1984 Chronometric and Relative Age Determination of Petroglyphs in the Western United States. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 74:308-322.

Dragovich, D. 1984 Desert Varnish as an Age Indicator for Aboriginal Rock Engravings: A Review of Problems and Prospects. Archaeology in Oceania 19(2):48-56.

Duke, Daron G., and D. Craig Young 2007 Episodic Permanence in Paleoarchaic Basin Selection and Settlement. In Paleoindian or Paleoarchaic: Great Basin Human Ecology at the Pleistocene- Holocene Transition, edited by Kelly E. Graf and Dave N. Schmitt, pp. 123-138. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

117

Elston, Robert G. 1986 Prehistory of the Western Area. In Great Basin, Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 11, edited by Warren L. D’Azevedo, pp. 135-148. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C. 2005 Flaked and Battered-Stone Artifacts. In Camels Back Cave, edited by Dave N. Schmitt and David B. Madsen, pp. 92-119. University of Utah Anthropological Papers 125, Salt Lake City.

Elston, Robert G., and David W. Zeanah 2002 Thinking Outside the Box: A New Perspective on Diet Breadth and Sexual Division of Labor in the Prearchaic Great Basin. World Archaeology 34(1):103- 130.

Fagan, John L. 1974 Altithermal Occupations of Spring Sites in the Northern Great Basin. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers 6., Eugene.

Fiedel, Stuart J., and Juliet E. Morrow 2012 Comment on “Clovis and Western Stemmed: Population Migration and the Meeting of Two Technologies in the Intermountain West” by Charlotte Beck and George T. Jones. American Antiquity 77(2):376-385.

Fowler, Don D. 1993 Archaeological Investigations in Warner Valley, Oregon, 1989-1992: An Interim Report. University of Nevada, Reno, Department of Anthropology Technical Reports 93-1.

Fowler, Don D., Eugene M. Hattori, and Cliff Creger 1989 Summary Report of Archaeological Investigations in Warner Valley, Lake County, Oregon, 1987-1988. University of Nevada, Reno, Department of Anthropology Research Reports 89-1.

Gilbert, M. Thomas P., Dennis L. Jenkins, Thomas F. Hingham, Morten Rasmussen, Helena Malmström, Emma M. Svensson, Juan J. Sanchez, Linda Scott Cummings, Robert M. Yohe II, Michael Hofreiter, Anders Götherstrom, Eske Willerslev 2009 Response to Poinar et al. on “DNA from pre-Clovis human coprolites in Oregon, North America.” Science 325:148-b.

Goebel, Ted 2007 Pre-Archaic and Early Archaic Technological Activities at Bonneville Estates Rockshelter: A First Look at the Lithic Record. In Paleoindian or Paleoarchaic: Great Basin Human Ecology at the Pleistocene-Holocene Transition, edited by Kelly E. Graf and Dave N. Schmitt, pp. 156-184. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

118

Goebel, Ted, Bryan Hockett, Kenneth D. Adams, David Rhode, and Kelly Graf 2011 Climate, Environment, and Humans in North America’s Great Basin during the Younger Dryas, 12,900-11,600 Calendar Years Ago. Quaternary International 242(2):479-501.

Goldberg, Paul F., Francesco Berna, Richard I. Macphail 2009 Comment on “DNA from pre-Clovis human coprolites in Oregon, North America.” Science 325:148-c.

Graf, Kelly E. 2001 Paleoindian Technological Provisioning in the Western Great Basin. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology and Ethnic Studies, University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

Grant, Campbell 1967 Rock Art of the American Indian. Crowell, New York.

Grayson, Donald K. 2000 Mammalian Responses to Middle Holocene Climatic Change in the Great Basin of the Western United States. Journal of Biogeography 27(1):181-192. 2006 The Late Quaternary Biogeographic Histories of Some Great Basin Mammals (Western USA). Quaternary Science Reviews 25:2964-2991. 2011 The Great Basin: A Natural Prehistory. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Greenspan, Ruth L. 1994 Archaeological Fish Remains in the Fort Rock Basin. In Archaeological Researches in the Northern Great Basin: Fort Rock Archaeology Since Cressman, edited by C. Melvin Aikens and Dennis L. Jenkins, pp. 485-501. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers 50, Eugene.

Harry, Karen G. 1995 Cation-Ratio Dating of Varnished Artifacts: Testing the Assumptions. American Antiquity 60(1):118-130

Hattori, Eugene M., and Catherine S. Fowler 2009 Recent Advances in Great Basin Textile Research. In Past, Present, and Future Issues in Great Basin Archaeology: Papers in Honor of Don D. Fowler, edited by Bryan Hockett, pp. 103-124. BLM Cultural Resource Series 20.

Haynes, Gary 2002 The Early Settlement of North America: The Clovis Era. University Press, Cambridge.

Haynes, Gary, David G. Anderson, C. Reid Ferring, Stuart J. Fiedel, Donald K. Grayson, C. Vance Haynes Jr., Vance T. Holliday, Bruce B. Huckell, Marcel Kornfeld, David J.

119

Meltzer, Julie Morrow, Todd Surovell, Nicole M. Waguespack, Peter Wigand, and Robert M. Yohe II 2007 Comment on “Redefining the Age of Clovis: Implications for the Peopling of the Americas.” Science 317:320-b.

Heizer, Robert F., and Martin A. Baumhoff 1962 Prehistoric Rock Art of Nevada and Eastern California. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Helzer, Margaret 2004 Archaeological Investigations at the Bergen Site: Middle Holocene Lakeside Occupations Near Fort Rock, Oregon. In Early and Middle Holocene Archaeology of the Northern Great Basin, edited by Dennis L. Jenkins, Thomas J. Connolly, and C. Melvin Aikens, pp. 77-94. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers 62, Eugene.

Hildebrandt, William R., and Jerome H. King 2002 Projectile Point Variability Along the Northern California-Great Basin Interface: Results from the Tuscarora-Alturas Projects. In Boundary Lands: Archaeological Investigations Along the California-Great Basin Interface, edited by Kelly R. McGuire, pp. 5-20. Nevada State Museum Anthropological Papers 24, Carson City.

Hockett, Bryan 2007 Nutritional Ecology of Late Pleistocene to Middle Holocene Subsistence in the Great Basin: Zooarchaeological Evidence from Bonneville Estates Rockshelter. In Paleoindian or Paleoarchaic: Great Basin Human Ecology at the Pleistocene- Holocene Transition, edited by Kelly E. Graf and Dave N. Schmitt, pp. 204-230. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Housley, Lucile A. 1994 It’s in the Roots: Prehistoric Plants and Plant Use in the Fort Rock Basin. In Archaeological Researches in the Northern Great Basin: Fort Rock Archaeology Since Cressman, edited by C. Melvin Aikens and Dennis L. Jenkins, pp. 561-572. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers 50, Eugene.

Jenkins, Dennis L., Thomas J. Connolly, and C. Melvin Aikens 2004a Early and Middle Holocene Archaeology in the Northern Great Basin: Dynamic Natural and Cultural Ecologies. In Early and Middle Holocene Archaeology of the Northern Great Basin, edited by Dennis L. Jenkins, Thomas J. Connolly, and C. Melvin Aikens, pp. 1-20. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers 62, Eugene.

120

Jenkins, Dennis L., Leah L. Largaespada, Tony D. Largaespada, and Mercy McDonald 2004b Early and Middle Holocene Ornament Exchange Systems in the Fort Rock Basin of Oregon. In Early and Middle Holocene Archaeology of the Northern Great Basin, edited by Dennis L. Jenkins, Thomas J. Connolly, and C. Melvin Aikens, pp. 251-270. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers 62, Eugene.

Jenkins, Dennis L. 1994 Settlement-Subsistence Patterns in the Fort Rock Basin: A Cultural-Ecological Perspective on Human Resources to Fluctuating Wetlands Resources of the Last 5,000 Years. In Archaeological Researches in the Northern Great Basin: Fort Rock Archaeology Since Cressman, edited by C. Melvin Aikens and Dennis L. Jenkins, pp. 599-628. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers 50, Eugene. 2004 The Grasshopper and the Ant: Middle Holocene Occupation and Storage Behavior at the Bowling Dune Site in the Fort Rock Basin, Oregon. In Early and Middle Holocene Archaeology of the Northern Great Basin, edited by Dennis L. Jenkins, Thomas J. Connolly, and C. Melvin Aikens, pp. 123-156. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers 62, Eugene.

Jones, George T. 1984 Prehistoric Land Use in the Steens Mountain Area, Southeastern Oregon. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Washington. University Microfilm, Ann Arbor.

Jones, George T., and Charlotte Beck 1999 Paleoarchaic Archaeology in the Great Basin. In Models for Millennium: Great Basin Anthropology Today, edited by Charlotte Beck, pp. 83-95. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Jones, George T., Charlotte Beck, Eric E. Jones, and Richard E. Hughes 2003 Lithic Source Use and Paleoarchaic Foraging Territories in the Great Basin. American Antiquity 68(1):5-38.

Jones, George T., Lisa Fontes, Rachel A. Horowitz, Charlotte Beck, and David G. Bailey 2012 Reconsidering Paleoarchaic Mobility in the Central Great Basin. American Antiquity 77(2):351-367.

Kelly, Robert L. 1992 Mobility/Sedentism: Concepts, Archaeological Measures, and Effects. Annual Review of Anthropology 21:43-66.

Kelly, Robert L., and Larry C. Todd 1988 Coming into the Country: Early Paleoindian Hunting and Mobility. American Antiquity 53(2):231-244.

121

Kilby, David 2011 Clovis Caches and the Early Paleoindian Record of North America. In Peuplements et Préhistoire en Amériques, edited by Denis Vialous, pp. 71-84. Muséum National d’Histoire, Paris.

Konoske, Ashley A. 2006 The Archaeology and Rock Art of Rock Creek, Northwestern Nevada. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Nevada, Reno.

Layton, Thomas N. 1970 High Rock Archaeology: An Interpretation of the Pre-History of the Northwestern Great Basin. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Harvard University, Cambridge Massachusetts. 1972 Lithic Chronology in the Fort Rock Valley, Oregon. An Obsidian Hydration Study from Cougar Mountain Cave. Tebiwa 3:41-56. 1979 Archaeology and Paleo-Ecology of Pluvial Lake Parman, Northwest Great Basin. Journal of New World Archaeology 3(3):41-56. 1985 Invaders from the South? Archaeological Discontinuities in the Northwestern Great Basin. Journal of California and Great Basin Archaeology 7(2):183-201.

Layton, Thomas N. and Jonathon O. Davis 1978 Last Supper Cave: Early Post-Pleistocene Cultural History and Paleocology in the High Rock Country of northwestern Nevada. Manuscript on File in the Department of Anthropology, University of Nevada, Reno.

Leach, Melinda 1988 Subsistence Intensification and Settlement Change among Prehistoric Hunters and Gatherers of the Northwestern Great Basin. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles. University Microfilm, Ann Arbor.

Leonhardy, Frank C., and David G. Rice 1970 A Proposed Culture Typology for the Lower Snake River Region, Southeastern Washington. Northwest Anthropological Research Notes 4(1):1-29.

Louderback, Lisbeth A., Donald K. Grayson, and Marcos Llobera 2010 Middle Holocene Climates and Human Population Densities in the Great Basin, Western USA. The Holocene 21(2):366-373.

Madsen, David B. 1999 The Nature of Great Basin Environmental Change During the Pleistocene/ Holocene Transition and its Possible Impact on Human Populations. In Models for the Millennium: Great Basin Anthropology Today, edited by Charlotte M. Beck, pp. 75-82. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

122

2002 Great Basin Peoples and Late Quaternary Aquatic History. In Great Basin Aquatic Systems History, edited by Robert Hershler, David B. Madsen, and Donald R. Currey, pp. 387-405. Smithsonian Contributions to Earth Sciences 33. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C. 2007 The Paleoarchaic to Archaic Transition. In Paleoindian of Paleoarchaic?: Great Basin Human Ecology at the Pleistocene-Holocene Transition, edited by Kelly E. Graf and Dave N. Schmitt, pp. 3-20. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Madsen, David B., Dave Rhode, Donald K. Grayson, Jack M. Broughton, Stephanie D. Livingston, J. Hunt, Jay Quade, Dave N. Schmitt, and Monson W. Shaver III 2001 Late Quaternary Environmental Change in the Bonneville Basin, Western U.S.A. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 167:243-271.

Mark, Robert, and Evelyn Newman 1995 Cup and Ring Petroglyphs in northern California and Beyond. In Rock Art Studies in the Americas. Papers presented to Symposium B of the AURA Congress, Darwin 1988, edited by Jack Steinbring, pp.13-21. Oxbow Monograph 45.

Martineau, LaVan 2003 The Rocks Begin to Speak: Understanding Indian Rock Writing. KC Publications Inc., Las Vegas.

Mehringer, Peter J. 1985 Late-Quaternary Pollen Records from the Interior and Northern Great Basin of the United States. In Pollen Records of Late Quaternary North American Sediments, edited by Vaughn M. Bryant, Jr., Richard G. Holloway, pp. 167-190. American Association of Stratigraphic Palynologists, Dallas.

Meltzer, David J., Donald K. Grayson, Gerardo Ardila, Alex W. Baker, Dena F. Dincauze, C. Vance Haynes, Francisco Mena, Lautaro Nunez, and Dennis J. Stafford 1997 On the Pleistocene Antiquity of Monte Verde, Southern Chile. American Antiquity 62:659-993.

Mifflin, Martin D., and Margaret M. Wheat 1979 Pluvial Lakes and Estimated Pluvial Climates of Nevada. Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology Bulletin 94. Mackay School of Mines, University of Nevada, Reno.

Minckley, Thomas A., Patrick J. Bartlein, and J.J. Shinker 2004 Paleoecological Response to Climate Change in the Great Basin since the Last Glacial Maximum. In Early and Middle Holocene Archaeology of the Northern Great Basin, edited by Dennis L. Jenkins, Thomas J. Connolly, and C. Melvin Aikens, pp.21-30. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers 62, Eugene.

123

Minckley, Thomas A., Cathy Whitlock, and Patrick J. Bartlein 2007 Vegetation, Fire, and Climate History of the Northwestern Great Basin during the Last 14,000 Years. Quaternary Science Reviews 26:2167-2184.

Moessner, Jean 2004 DJ Ranch: A Mid- to Late Holocene Occupation Site in the Fort Rock Valley, South-Central Oregon. In Early and Middle Holocene Archaeology of the Northern Great Basin, edited by Dennis L. Jenkins, Thomas J. Connolly, and C. Melvin Aikens, pp. 95-122. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers 62, Eugene.

Moore, Mathew J. 1998 Prehistoric Land-Use Pattern Changes in the Vicinity of Beatty’s Butte – Southeastern Oregon. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Nevada, Reno

Musil, Robert R. 2004 If It Ain’t Fluted Don’t Fix It: Form and Context in the Classification of Early Projectile Points in the Far West. In Early and Middle Holocene Archaeology of the Northern Great Basin, edited by Dennis L. Jenkins, Thomas J. Connolly, and C. Melvin Aikens, pp. 271-280. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers 62, Eugene.

Nelson, Charles M. 1969 The Sunset Creek Site (45-KT-28) and Its Place in Plateau Prehistory. Washington State University, Laboratory of Anthropology Report of Investigations 47, Pullman.

Nobbs, Margaret, and Ronald Dorn 1993 New Surface Exposure Ages for Petroglyphs from the Olary Province, South Australia. Archaeology in Oceania 28:18-39.

O’Connell, James F. 1971 The Archaeology and Cultural Ecology of Surprise Valley, Northeast California. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley. 1975 The Prehistory of Surprise Valley. Ballena Press Anthropological Papers 4, Ramona, California.

Oetting, Albert C. 1994a Chronology and Time Makers in the Northwestern Great Basin: the Chewaucan Basin Cultural Chronology. In Archaeological Researches in the Northern Great Basin: Fort Rock Archaeology Since Cressman, edited by C. Melvin Aikens and Dennis L. Jenkins, pp. 41-62. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers 50, Eugene.

124

1994b Early Holocene Rabbit Drives and Prehistoric Land-Use Patterns on Buffalo Flat, Christmas Lake Valley, Oregon. In Archaeological Researches in the Northern Great Basin: Fort Rock Archaeology Since Cressman, edited by C. Melvin Aikens and Dennis L. Jenkins, pp. 155-171. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers 50, Eugene.

1995 Archaeological Survey and Preliminary Site Evaluations for the Rivers End Ranch Project, Lake County Oregon. Heritage Research Associates, Inc. Submitted to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District.

O’Grady, Patrick 2004 Zooarchaeological Analysis of Cultural Features from Four Early to Middle Holocene Sites in the Fort Rock Basin. In Early and Middle Holocene Archaeology of the Northern Great Basin, edited by Dennis L. Jenkins, Thomas J. Connolly, and C. Melvin Aikens, pp.187-208. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers 62, Eugene.

Ozbun, Terry L. and John L. Fagan 2010 Cascade Projectile Point Technology. Journal of Northwest Anthropology 44:1- 22.

Parkman, E. Breck 1995 California Dreamin’: Cupule Petroglyph Occurrences in the American West. In Rock Art Studies in the Americas. Papers presented to Symposium B of the AURA Congress, Darwin 1988, edited by Jack Steinbring, pp.1-12. Oxbow Monograph 45.

Paul-Mann, Teri 1994 Far Butte: An Archaic Hunting, Gathering, and Vision Quest Site in the Silver Lake Valley, Oregon. In Archaeological Researches in the Northern Great Basin: Fort Rock Archaeology Since Cressman, edited by C. Melvin Aikens and Dennis L. Jenkins, pp. 329-348. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers 50, Eugene.

Pendegraft, Signa W. 2007 Grinding Stone and Pecking Rock: Rock Art of the High Basins, Spanish Springs, Nevada. In Great Basin Rock Art: Archaeological Perspectives, edited by Angus R. Quinlan, pp. 52-69. University of Nevada Press, Reno.

Pendleton, Lorann S. 1979 Lithic Technology in Early Nevada Assemblages. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, California State University, Long Beach.

125

Pinson, Arianne 2007 Artiodactyl Use and Adaptive Discontinuity Across the Paleoarchaic/Archaic Transition in the Northern Great Basin. In Paleoindian or Paleoarchaic: Great Basin Human Ecology at the Pleistocene-Holocene Transition, edited by Kelly E. Graf and Dave N. Schmitt, pp. 187-203. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Poinar, Hendrick, Stuart J. Fiedel, Christine E. King, Alison M. Devault, Kristi Bos, Melanie Kuch, and Regis Debruyne 2009 Comment of “DNA from pre-Clovis human coprolites in Oregon, North America.” Science 325:148.

Prouty, Guy L. 1994 Root Crop Exploitation and the Development of Upland Habitation Sites: A Prospectus for Paleoethnobotanical and Archaeological Research into the Distribution and Use of Economic Plants in the Fort Rock Basin. In Archaeological Researches in the Northern Great Basin: Fort Rock Archaeology Since Cressman, edited by C. Melvin Aikens and Dennis L. Jenkins, pp. 573-598. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers 50, Eugene. 2004 Plants and Prehistory: Paleoethnobotanical Investigations in the Fort Rock Basin Lowlands. In Early and Middle Holocene Archaeology of the Northern Great Basin, edited by Dennis L. Jenkins, Thomas J. Connolly, and C. Melvin Aikens, pp. 157-166. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers 62, Eugene.

Quinlan, Angus, R. 2003 Marks of Distinction: Rock Art and Ethnic Identification in the Great Basin. American Antiquity 68(2):372-390. 2007 Integrating Rock Art with Archaeology: Symbolic Culture as Archaeology. In Great Basin Rock Art: Archaeological Perspectives, edited by Angus R. Quinlan, pp. 1-10. University of Nevada Press, Reno. 2009 Rock Art Styles and Sites in the Great Basin. In Archaeology in America: An Encyclopedia, Vol.4, Southwest and Great Basin/Plateau, edited by Francis P. McManaman, pp. 256-261. Greenwood Press, Westport.

Rasmussen, Morten, Linda Scott Cummings, M. Thomas P. Gilbert, Vaughn Bryant, Colin Smith, Dennis L. Jenkins, and Eske Willerslev 2009 Response to comment by Goldberg et al. on “DNA from pre-Clovis human coprolites in Oregon, North American.” Science 325:148-d.

Rhode, David, and Lisbeth A. Louderback 2007 Dietary Plant Use in the Bonneville Basin During the Terminal Pleistocene/Early Holocene Transition. In Paleoindian or Paleoarchaic: Great Basin Human Ecology at the Pleistocene-Holocene Transition, edited by Kelly E. Graf and Dave N. Schmitt, pp. 231-250. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

126

Rice, David G. 1972 The Windust Phase in Lower Snake River Region Prehistory. Washington State University, Laboratory of Anthropology, Report of Investigations 5, Pullman.

Ricks, Mary F. 1994 Rock Art and Human Settlement in the Fort Rock Basin. In Archaeological Researches in the Northern Great Basin: Fort Rock Archaeology Since Cressman, edited by C. Melvin Aikens and Dennis L. Jenkins, pp. 85-98. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers 50, Eugene. 1995 A Survey an Analysis of Prehistoric Rock Art of the Warner Valley Region, Lake County, Oregon. University of Nevada, Reno, Department of Anthropology Technical Report 96-1. 1998 Reconnaissance of Rock Art Locations and Associated Archaeological Sites. Cooperative Agreement 1422-B950-A5-0016, Task Order 002. Bureau of Land Management, Surprise Resource Area, Cedarville, California, and University of Nevada, Reno. 1999 With an Open Mind: The Place of Rock Art in the Northern Great Basin Prehistoric Cultural Systems. In Models for the Millennium: Great Basin Anthropology Today, edited by Charlotte Beck, pp. 192-199. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Ricks, Mary F., and William J. Cannon 1993 A Preliminary Report on the Lake County, Oregon, Rock Art Inventory: A Data Base for Rock Art Research. In American Indian Rock Art: Papers Presented at the Rock Art Symposium, edited by William D. Hyder, pp. 93-106. American Rock Art Research Association, San Miguel.

Ritter, Eric W., Alanah Woody, and Alan Watchman 2007 Petroglyph Dating on the Massacre Bench. In Great Basin Rock Art: Archaeological Perspectives, edited by Angus R. Quinlan, pp. 126-139. University of Nevada Press, Reno.

Schlessman, Mark A. 1984 Systematic Botany Monographs, Vol. 4. Systematics of Tuberous Lomatiums (Umbelliferae).The American Society of Plant Taxonomists, University of Michigan Herbarium.

Schneider, Joan S., and Paul R. Bierman 1997 Surface Dating Using Rock Varnish. In Chronometric Dating in Archaeology, edited by R. E. Taylor and Martin J. Aitken, pp. 357-388. Plenum Press, New York.

Singer, Vivien J. 2004 Faunal Assemblages of Four Early to Mid-Holocene Marsh-side Sites in the Fort Rock Basin, Oregon. In Early and Middle Holocene Archaeology of the Northern

127

Great Basin, edited by Dennis L. Jenkins, Thomas J. Connolly, and C. Melvin Aikens, pp. 167-186. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers 62, Eugene.

Skinner, Craig E., Jennifer J. Thatcher, Dennis L. Jenkins, and Albert C. Oetting 2004 X-Rays, Artifacts, Procurement Ranges: A Mid-Project Snapshot of Prehistoric Obsidian Procurement Ranges. In Early and Middle Holocene Archaeology of the Northern Great Basin, edited by Dennis L. Jenkins, Thomas J. Connolly, and C. Melvin Aikens, pp. 221-232. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers 62, Eugene.

Smith, Geoffrey M. 2007 Pre-Archaic Mobility and Technological Activities at the Parman Localities, Humboldt County, Nevada. In Paleoindian or Paleoarchaic?: Great Basin Human Ecology at the Pleistocene-Holocene Transition, edited by Kelly E. Graf and Dave N. Schmitt, pp. 139-155. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. 2010 Footprints Across the Black Rock: Temporal Variability in Prehistoric Foraging Territories and Toolstone Procurement Strategies in the western Great Basin. American Antiquity 75(4):865-885. 2011 Shifting Stones and Changing Homes: Using Toolstone Ratios to Consider Occupation Span in the Northwestern Great Basin. Journal of Archaeological Science 38:461-469.

Smith, Geoffrey M., Peter Carey, Emily S. Middleton, and Jennifer Kielhofer 2012a Cascade Points in the Northern Great Basin: A Radiocarbon-Dated Foliate Point Assemblage from Warner Valley, Oregon. North American Archaeologist 33(1):13-34.

Smith, Geoffrey M., Donald Pattee, and Traevis L. Field 2012b UNR’s Return to Warner Valley: A Study of Changing Land-Use Patterns During the Terminal Pleistocene/Early Holocene in South-Central Oregon. Paper Presented at the 33rd Biennial Great Basin Anthropological Conference, Stateline, NV.

Steward, Julian 1929 Petroglyphs of California and Adjoining States. Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, 24(2):47-238. University of California, Berkeley. 1938 Basin-Plateau Aboriginal Sociopolitical Groups. Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 120.

Surovell, Todd A., Judson Byrd Finley, Geoffrey M. Smith, P. Jeffrey Brantingham, and Robert Kelly 2009 Correcting Temporal Frequency Distributions for Taphonomic Bias. Journal of Archaeological Science 36:1715-1724.

128

Tadlock, W. Lewis 1966 Certain Crescentic Stone Objects as a Time-Marker in the Western United States. American Antiquity 31(5):662-675.

Thomas, David H. 1981 How to Classify the Projectile Points from Monitor Valley, Nevada. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 3(1):7-43.

Tipps, Julie A. 1997 High, Middle, and Low: An Analysis of Resource Zone Relationships in Warner Valley, Oregon. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Nevada, Reno.

Toepel, Kathryn Anne, and Rick Minor 1994 100 Sites, 1000 Isolates, 10,000 Acres: A Survey Perspective on Prehistoric Land- Use Patterns in the Fort Rock Basin. In Archaeological Researches in the Northern Great Basin: Fort Rock Archaeology Since Cressman, edited by C. Melvin Aikens and Dennis L. Jenkins, pp. 125-154. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers 50, Eugene.

Touhy, Donald R,. and Thomas N. Layton 1977 Towards the Establishment of a New Series of Great Basin Projectile Points. Nevada Archaeological Survey Reporter 10:1-3.

Warren, Claude N., and Carl Phagan 1988 Fluted Points in the Mojave Desert: Their Technology and Cultural Complex. In Early Human Occupation in Far Western North America: The Clovis-Archaic Interface, edited by Judith A. Willig, C. Melvin Aikens, and John L. Fagan, pp.121-130. Nevada State Museum Anthropological Papers 21, Carson City.

Watchman, Alan 2000 A Review of the History of Dating Rock Varnishes. Earth-Science Reviews 49:261-277.

Waters, Michael R., and Thomas W. Stafford, Jr. 2007 Redefining the Age of Clovis: Implications for the Peopling of the Americas. Science 315(5815):1122-1126.

Weide, Margaret L. 1968 Cultural Ecology of Lakeside Adaptation in the Western Great Basin. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles.

Whitley, David 1994 By the Hunter for the Gatherer: Art, Social Relations and Subsistence Change in the Prehistoric Great Basin. World Archaeology 25(3):356-373.

129

1996 A Guide to Rock Art Sites: Southern California and Southern Nevada. Mountain Press Publishing Company, Montana. 1999 The Vision Quest in the Coso Range. American Indian Rock Art 25(1):1-31, edited by Steven M. Freers. American Indian Rock Art Research Association, Tucson.

Wigand, Peter, and David Rhode 2002 Great Basin Vegetation and Aquatic Systems: The Last 150,000 Years. In Great Basin Aquatic Systems History, Smithsonian Contributions to Earth Sciences 33, edited by Robert Hershler, David B. Madsen, and Donald R. Currey, pp. 309-367. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C.

Woody, Alanah 1996 Layer By Layer: A Multigenerational Analysis of the Massacre Lake Rock Art Site. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Nevada, Reno.

Woody, Alanah, and Angus R. Quinlan 2009 The Avoided Past: Great Basin Rock Art in Archaeological Thought and Its Potential in the Study of Past Identity. In Past, Present, and Future Issues in Great Basin Archaeology: Papers in Honor of Don D. Fowler, edited by Bryan Hockett, pp. 49-66. BLM Cultural Resource Series 20.