UC Merced Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology

Title Archaeology of the Humboldt Lakebed Site

Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3cp5h5nw

Journal Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology, 8(1)

ISSN 0191-3557

Author Livingston, Stephanie D

Publication Date 1986-07-01

Peer reviewed

eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 99-115 (1986) Archaeology of the Humboldt Lakebed Site

STEPHANIE D. LIVINGSTON, Dept. of Anthropology, Univ. of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195.

X HE Humboldt Lakebed site, designated as site afforded an array of resources unequaled 26-CH-15 by the University of California in most Great Basin settings. Fish, migra­ Archaeological Survey in its work in the tory and resident waterbirds, a variety of Humboldt Sink in the 1950s and 1960s, in­ mammals, and marsh vegetation were easUy cludes three sites first investigated by L. L. accessible from the site. In addition, the Loud in 1912 and designated sites 13, 14, resources of the West Humboldt Range were and 15 (Loud and Harrington 1929:132). avaUable less than 5 mUes (8 km.) to the This large site, the object of several east. Lovelock Cave Ues 2 mUes (3.5 km.) subsequent field investigations, is the type to the south. site for Humboldt series projectUe points When archaeological investigations were (Heizer and Clewlow 1968; Bettinger 1978), conducted at Lovelock Cave in 1924, the and, in conjunction with Lovelock Cave, lakebed was a dry playa whose surface was plays a major role in the controversy undergoing deflation (Harrington 1927). It regarding prehistoric lacustrine adaptations was also dry during the 1950s and 1960s. in the western Great Basin. However, untU During the past few years increased dis­ now there has been no pubUshed report charge of the Humboldt River, resulting from describing the salient features of the site. high winter precipitation in the Ruby and Here I review the work conducted at the Independence Mountains, has caused the re- Humboldt Lakebed site and describe the emergence of Humboldt Lake as a major results of those investigations. body of water and the site is once again under water. THE SETTING The surface extent of the area defined The Humboldt Lakebed site Ues on the here as 26-CH-15 measures approximately southeast shore of Humboldt Lake at an ele­ 2,800 ft. (855 m.) east-west and 1,200 ft. vation of approximately 3,940 ft. (ca. 1,200 (365 m.) north-south. The site is located on m.) (Fig. 1). The sediments of the dry one of the main channels, or sloughs, which lakebed support only salt-tolerant grasses, brought fresh water from the Humboldt River and the lakebed is frequently flooded, form­ into the brackish water of Humboldt Lake. ing a large shaUow lake. Napton (1970) Apparently the main part of the site was summarized many early historic accounts of situated on a topographic feature that was the lake and its surroundings. These ac­ either a low dune or a smaU delta formed by counts aU describe an extensive, shaUow, the Humboldt River as it emptied into the brackish, and somewhat foul body of water lake. This high area afforded sufficient surrounded by a large marsh. When the lake elevation above the usual level of the lake is present it supports an array of aquatic waters to keep the surface dry, whUe the vegetation and a broad marsh zone in which slough provided fresh water and offered ac­ tules (Scirpus) and cattaUs (Typha) are cess to the lake other than through the abundant and a variety of other plants are muddy marsh that elsewhere surrounds the avaUable. The lake margin setting of the lake. The western half of the site is ap- [99] 100 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY

Fig. 1. Map of western Nevada showing the location of sites mentioned in the text. THE HUMBOLDT LAKEBED SITE 101 proximately 12 ft. (3.5 m.) lower than the Recovery techniques used in field investi­ eastern half and apparently was more fre­ gations prior to 1965 are, for the most part, quently flooded (HaUinan 1969). poorly documented. Loud's work in 1912 ap­ parently consisted primarUy of gathering HISTORY OF INVESTIGATIONS artifacts from the surface of the site. He In 1911, Lovelock Cave was discovered did, however, do some excavation, noting by guano miners to be an archaeological that: treasure trove. In the foUowing year, L. L. in the case of human remains sometimes Loud, a guard and curator at the Anthropo­ only a bit of bone showed on the surface, logy Museum, University of CaUfornia, and the remainder of the skeleton was Berkeley, was sent by A. L. Kroeber to col­ excavated. However, all work of exca­ lect artifacts from the site for museum vation on these sites was limited to only display. In the course of his work at an hour or two one afternoon [Loud and Lovelock Cave, Loud recorded 17 open sites Harrington 1929:129]. around the margins of nearby Humboldt A record of the techniques used in the 1950 Lake. Of the 1,464 artifacts and 16 burials fieldwork is not avaUable. he coUected from these sites, 1,301 artifacts In 1965 a series of individual pits was and seven burials were from the sites he excavated. Then a 340-ft. by 100-ft. grid caUed 13, 14, and 15 (Loud and Harrington was laid out in 10-ft. by 10-ft. units. The 1929: Appendix 1). pit features in 23 grid units were then exca­ In July 1950, a University of California vated, and eight additional pits were exca­ summer field class in archaeology under the vated outside the grid. A total of 59 pit direction of R. F. Heizer investigated the features were excavated during this season. archaeology of the lower Humboldt River I have been unable to find maps showing the VaUey. The major effort of this group was location of these pits. The only record of devoted to the excavation of Leonard Rock- the datum point for the grid is a note that shelter (Heizer 1951). In addition to the it was placed on a dune on the north edge excavation of the shelter, an extensive sur­ of the site 100 ft. from its eastern edge vey of the area was conducted, several smaU (Toney 1965). Because the datum point for cave deposits were excavated (e.g., Baumhoff the 1965 excavations cannot be relocated, it 1958), site 26-PE-5 was surface coUected is not possible to tie the grid into later (Elsasser 1958), and extensive surface coUec- excavations or into the site map drawn in tions were made from 26-CH-15. 1969. Excavations at 26-CH-15 began in 1965. By 1969 much of the surface of the site Again, work was peripheral to investigations was heavUy deflated, and it had been looted conducted at Lovelock Cave by a summer and disturbed by motor vehicles. StUl, a field class under Heizer's direction. large amount of Uthic material was visible Excavations were continued in 1969 by on the surface and numerous features were another of Heizer's summer field classes. evident in the form of depressions, changes This time the efforts were spUt between in sediment color, and changes in surface Lovelock Cave, under the field direction of topography resulting from differential defla­ L. K. Napton (Napton 1969, 1970; Heizer and tion. The western half of the site was more Napton 1970), and the Humboldt Lakebed severely deflated; the eastern half was some­ site under the field direction of P. HaUinan. what better preserved due to the accumula- 102 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY tion of a partial cover of drift sand lower brown sand. AU strata observed ap­ (HaUinan 1969). pear to be late Quaternary sedimentary de­ Excavation during the 1969 season was posits associated with fluvial, lacustrine or multi-stage. First, a series of individual pit eoUan processes (HaUinan 1969). features was excavated to ascertain if the Large areas of the western half of the nature of the pits could be recognized from site had deflated to the hardpan. In the surface characteristics. The results of these heavUy deflated areas many of the pit fea­ subsurface examinations were used to define tures appeared as columns of sediments pit types used in mapping aU pits at the site raised above the surrounding ground level. (Figs. 2 and 3). Two trenches were then ex­ Excavation of several of the raised features cavated in the eastern half of the site: a revealed that the sediment columns capped north-south trench 8 ft. by 80 ft. and an pit features partiaUy fiUed with midden east-west trench 10 ft. by 70 ft. at the (HaUinan 1969). Heizer (MSa) suggested north end of the north-south trench (Fig. 3). that the raised sediment columns represent AU excavation was done in 6-in. levels and pits in which the fiU is more resistant to some of the excavated fiU was screened deflation than the surrounding sediments. through 1/4-in. screens. These pits were left open or only partiaUy The trenches were located in a low stabi­ fiUed when abandoned by site occupants. lized dune covered with drift sand. This The pits subsequently were fUled by lake dune was the highest point in the site and it sediments when the site was submerged by was hoped that the original deposits had rising lake levels. Then, as the lake water been preserved in and beneath it. The receded, deflation differentiaUy removed the trench excavations demonstrated that drift coarser, less consohdated matrix from around sand overlay the stratum containing archaeo­ the more compacted fine-grained lake logical midden in those areas where deflation sediment that fiUed the open pits, leaving had the least effect. The housefloors and the sediment caps standing as columns other features are in a coarse brown sand, 0 marking the location of pit features in a matrix no longer present (Heizer MSa). - 12 in. thick, that lies below the uppermost drift sand and may also be drift sand. A yeUow, rather irregular, clay hardpan several THE FEATURES inches thick underlay the brown artifact- Some of the primary objectives of the and feature-bearing sand. It has been sug­ 1969 fieldwork were to map the numerous pit gested that this hardpan may be the product features visible on the surface, to identify of incipient soU formation resulting from their nature, and to determine their internal exposure and weathering for a period of time relationships. The maps presented here as (Roger Morrison, personal communication Figures 2 and 3 are a result of these ef­ 1969 to P. HaUinan). Pits, burials, and forts. Mapped pit features of various kinds house floors were noted to extend down to, total 719, 337 on the east side of the site and sometimes into, this hardpan. Under the and 382 on the west side. An area 1,200 ft. hardpan were several feet of brown sands (365 m.) wide in which few pit features and grading into sUtier sediments. AU the no topographic features were recorded sepa­ sediments underlying the hardpan had a high rates the mapped areas. Many features calcium carbonate content. In some parts of eroded to no more than a surface stain and the site a dense, dark gray clay underlay the whose dimensions could not be determined THE HUMBOLDT LAKEBED SITE 103

• o • ••

•.'

'•"--•'v'r, '*•.!• fsT , -

'•','1,1 104 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY

i i S o ! s s • ° ° o 6 .c .^ " xz a. a. u THE HUMBOLDT LAKEBED SITE 105 were not included in the map. SurficiaUy, the fiU appeared to be lake sediments or the pit features occurred in two forms. In unburned midden (HaUinan 1969). the less deflated parts of the site, the During the 1965 excavations C. W. Clew- remains of the pit features were outlined as low (1965) noted a dark ring defining the circles fiUed with midden deposits. Where perimeter of at least two house depressions. deflation had a more pronounced effect, the This dark ring, he suggested, could be the pit features occurred as sediment columns remains of the waU of a wickiup or wind­ standing up to 3 ft. above the present break. Further, Clewlow noted that several ground level as a result of deflation of the of the large house stains visible on the deposits surrounding the pit fiU (HaUinan surface were irregular in outline, with one 1969). segment only vaguely defined. He suggested Pit features varied in diameter from a the vague area could represent a "stage" or few inches to 20 ft. Depth varied from a "entrance" area. Excavation of one of surface stain to 5 ft. In most cases it was these irregularly shaped pits revealed the impossible to determine the original dimen­ profUe shown here as Figure 4a, which sions of the features because deflation had Clewlow concluded supported the inference removed aU but the very bottom of the pit. of a stage/entrance. The same process undoubtedly removed oth­ In 1969, 34 of the 173 surface features ers completely (HaUinan 1969). mapped as house pits were excavated. An A number of pits of varying dimensions additional nine house pits were identified in and attributes were excavated to determine the excavated trenches, bringing the total if surface characteristics could be used as number of houses identified to 182, and the indicators of aboriginal use. Based on the total number of excavated houses to 43. No test excavations, the pit features were postmolds or structural features such as classified for mapping purposes as burial those described by Clewlow were recorded pits, storage pits, hearths, smudge pits, seep for any of the house floors excavated in weUs and house pits for mapping. Features 1969. HaUinan (MS) suggested the absence were mapped as house pits if their diameters of postmolds could indicate that the poles were greater than 5 ft. Presence of large were quite smaU and consequently left little quantities of lithic debitage on the surface trace, or that after the structure was aban­ of large features was also thought to be a doned the poles were recycled into other reliable indicator of houses, but it is unclear structures or used as firewood. The general whether this criterion was used during map­ absence of charcoal in the site could indi­ ping. The Uthic material was thought to cate poor preservation or scarcity of wood. have been contained in the midden fiU which Hearth features were common outside the had deflated, leaving the debitage as a lag house pits, but little evidence was recorded deposit. Apparently the remaining features for hearths from the house floors. Several were recorded as burials if they were less factors may contribute to the absence of than 5 ft. in diameter and human bone was hearths in house features and the absence of seen eroding out of the fiU. They were re­ evidence for burned structures. Recognition corded as hearths if they were less than 5 of hearth features outside the house pits ft. in diameter and the fiU contained char­ suggests that faUure to detect internal coal chunks; they were recorded as storage hearths is not entirely a function of pres­ pits if their diameter was less than 5 ft. and ervation. HaUinan (MS) suggested that the 106 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY

OEON lOWON

brown sand Feature 5 Feature Z

hardpan

OWIOS .

4

• ^^^ \ I^^TTT 1 --^a

brown sand Feoture 3 Feoture 4

hardpan

I foot I 1

Fig. 4. Selected profiles from the Humboldt Lakebed site showing irregular-shaped profile (view a) and superim­ posed house floors (views b - d). Views b and c are in the north and south profiles respectively of the east-west trench. Grid locations are provided; 6 in. baulks were in place when profiles were drawn. View c is Hallinan's Pit #7; its map location is unknown. THE HUMBOLDT LAKEBED SITE 107 generaUy smaU size of the houses with the concomitant risk of burning may have been Early Style Houses the major reason for locating the hearths Fourteen floors in eight separate pits outside the houses. were identified as representing the earUest Excavation of house features revealed style of houses. Five projectUe points that house floors tend to be stacked in pit identified in the field as Elko series dart features. Identification of floors was based points were recovered from house floors. on color changes showing variations in the The remainder of floors classified as Early contours of floor profUes. House floors were so designated because their profUe could not be identified by differential com­ shape and stratigraphic position were simUar paction because of the sandy nature of the to those with Elko series projectUe points. sediments, and no textural changes were When found in a superimposed series with observed. house floors of later periods. Early style ProfUes B, C, and D in Figure 4 are a floors were always stratigraphicaUy inferior. sample of profUes that iUustrate sequences The lowest floor in aU but one such series of superimposed house floors. ProfUe B rested upon or was excavated into the clay iUustrates Hallinan's Features 2 and 5 in the hardpan. The single exception was located north profUe of the east-west trench exca­ at the highest point of the rise into which vated in 1969. Grid designations are shown the trenches were dug. Beneath the lowest in the figure with 6-in. baulks in place. floor and above the hardpan were 14 inches ProfUe C iUustrates HaUinan's Features 3 of brown sand devoid of cultural material. and 4 in the south profUe of the same This stratigraphic sequence indicated that trench. ProfUe D is HaUinan's Pit #7, and the dune was already in the process of for­ is included here as an example of house mation at the time the earUest house pits features excavated outside the trench. Al­ were dug, but it was stUl substantiaUy lower though profUes were drawn for several of than at later times. the house features outside the trench, I was Only a single example of floors of the unable to find records that relate these Early style was found that was not superim­ profUes to a feature on the site map. posed by later ones. Feature 5 (Fig. 4b) Redundancy in the sequence of profUe contained two Early style floors, but this shapes and floor sizes, and the few artifacts feature was lower on the dune than Features recovered from the floors suggested to Hal- 2 and 3. If the surface topography of the linan that diameters and shapes of house pits rise has been shaped by post-occupation de­ are temporaUy sensitive. The sequence des­ flation, deflation of stratigraphicaUy superior cribed in the foUowing paragraphs summar­ floors may account for the absence of later izes the house data from the 1969 excava­ floors overlying these Early examples. tions presented in HaUinan's notes as I Early style floors ranged in diameter from interprete them. I have labeled the floor 61 in. to 168 in. (average diameter = 81 in. profUes Early, Intermediate, and Late in [ca. 2 m.]). Depth from the rim ranged from order to avoid confusion with projectUe 7 in. to 22 in. (average depth = 14 in. [ca. point typology and phase sequences derived 35 cm.]), but depth figures may be mislead­ from elsewhere untU such time as the ing because of possible truncation by exca­ correlations can be tested. vations for later structures or by deflation. Only a single floor of this style had what 108 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY

apparently was an internal hearth, repre­ saucer-shaped to level, the waUs curve up­ sented by a concentration of ash on the ward steeply like a bowl and they no longer surface of the eastern half of the floor. have the right angle turn from the floor that characterizes Early style houses. Intermediate Style Houses As in Early style houses, hearth type Floors were designated Intermediate style features were rarely encountered. Two con­ based on stratigraphic position and on the centrations of ash on separate floors were presence of projectUe points identified as the only features encountered that suggested Rose Spring series or Eastgate series. Inter­ internal fires. Other types of pit features mediate floors were found in 13 of the large were excavated in house floors, but these pit features. Many of these pits had multiple were not numerous either. Four floors as­ floors. Two house pit features contained signed to this period contained internal pits only Intermediate style house floors; five had not recognized as hearths. Early style floors below the Intermediate Intermediate style structures are more style floors; eleven had Late style floors numerous and more widely distributed above Intermediate ones. Sixteen floors throughout the site than Early style struc­ were assigned to the Intermediate style be­ tures. This change may be related to an cause of their artifact content or because increase in the area of the site amenable to their profUe conformed with that of floors house construction as a result of the con­ yielding artifacts identified as Rose Spring tinued accumulation of sediments increasing series or Eastgate series projectUe points. dune surface areas. Alternatively, it may re­ Only six of the 13 pits containing Inter­ present a shift in location of houses to mediate style floors extended down to the areas of the site that are better preserved. clay hardpan. Others had their deepest It may also represent increased visibiUty of Intermediate floors within the sand that had the house pits since Intermediate style hous­ been accumulating on the dune, thus sug­ es tended to be used into the next phase. gesting to HaUinan that formation of the rise continued between the initial occupation Late Style Houses and the excavation of these later structures. Forty-seven floors were assigned to this Intermediate style house pits were larger period. The excavated Late style floors than the underlying Early style. The diam­ range in diameter from 78 in. to 178 in. eter of 14 floors complete enough to provide (average diameter = 123 in. [3.12 m.]). meaningful data ranged from 74 in. to 162 Because the Late style floors are uppermost in. (average diameter = 89 in. [2 m.]). Depth in the stratigraphic sequence they were most from Up to floor ranged from 9 in. to 24 in. subject to the effects of deflation. In many (average depth = 17 in. [43 cm.]). As is the cases the excavated floors were truncated case with the Early style house pits, depth either by deflation or by excavation of sub­ measures must be viewed with caution since sequent house pits. Consequently it is pos­ the amount of truncation by later houses and sible that the diameters of excavated floors erosion is unknown. do not give an accurate impression of the Aside from the change in size. Intermedi­ original dimensions. Some unexcavated floors ate style house pits may be distinguished thought to be Late style exceed 240 in. (6 from those of the Early style by profUe. m.) in diameter. The depth of the excavated The Intermediate style floors are slightly house floors ranged from 6 in. to 22 in. THE HUMBOLDT LAKEBED SITE 109

(average depth = 10.5 in. [26 cm.]). floors of this style, compared to a single Because underestimation of diameter is feature with exclusively Early floors and probably most pronounced in the stratigraph­ only two features with exclusively Interme­ icaUy superior floors due to erosion, HaUinan diate floors. Seven Late floors contained (MS) concluded that later houses had more internal pits, more than any of the preceding internal floor space. On the other hand, he periods. The largest excavated house floors acknowledged that caution must be exercised of this period had several internal pits. The in drawing the conclusion that depth of apparent increase in number of internal pits house floors decreased through time because clearly may be attributed to the larger size deflation undoubtedly caused the stratigraph­ of the sample of floors from this period icaUy superior floors to be shaUower than rather than to structural change. As in their original depth. However, profUes also earlier periods, the majority of floors did indicate that later houses were shaUower. not show evidence of internal storage. Three ProfUes of Early houses show waUs that rise Late floors had concentrations of ash and at right angles from a nearly level floor, charcoal on the floor surface that are whUe profUes of Intermediate houses show thought to represent hearths, and one floor steeply curved waUs which rise from a level had a pit feature that may have been a or rounded floor. The Late house depres­ hearth. The greater number of internal sions appear in profUe as gently rising waUs hearths may also be attributed to the in­ whose point of contact with the floor is creased size of the sample. It is interesting indistinguishable. to note, however, that the largest house In spite of the great number of pits that excavated contained three hearths, aU in have been reduced to unidentifiable surface pits. The possibility remains that the size stains by deflation, vehicular traffic, and of the house had a direct bearing on wheth­ other kinds of disturbance, there is an enor­ er the hearth was internal or external. mous increase in the number of pits contain­ ing Late style floors. Five projectUe points MATERIAL CULTURE identified in the field as Desert series were Human bones, lithic tools, and debitage recovered from house floors exhibiting a comprise the bulk of the assemblage recov­ shaUow saucer shape and from a superior ered from the site by Loud. The most nu­ stratigraphic position. Aside from the in­ merous class of artifacts reported by Loud is crease in the number of pits containing Late chipped stone implements. In addition, he floors, there also appears to be a greater reported handstones ("sheUers," "grinders," number of floors of this period in individual "rubbing stones"), metates, pestles, and pits. The entire area of the site in which mortars ("large," "paint," and "medicine"), houses occur contained floors assigned to ice picks, sinkers, hammerstones, and pipes, this period. Further, none of the numerous as weU as a few bone and sheU objects Late style floors reaches to the hardpan. (Loud and Harrington 1929:130-150). These Because aU occur in high stratigraphic posi­ objects are described in Appendix I of the tions in the profUes, HaUinan (MS) conclud­ Lovelock Cave report (Loud and Harrington ed that sediments continued to accumulate 1929) and are summarized here in Table 1. on the dune during this period. There is no comparable account of the Of the 20 excavated features containing coUections made by the later field parties. Late house floors, seven contained only However, two categories of artifacts, the 110 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY

Table 1 Clewlow into series as defined by Thomas ARTIFACTS RECOVERED BY L. L. LOUD FROM THE HUMBOLDT LAKEBED SITE (1981); the results are presented in Table 2. Artifact Number of Specimens Three named types were defined on the basis Grinding stones 162 of this assemblage: Humboldt Concave Base Metates 11 A, Humboldt Concave Base B, and Humboldt Mortars 13 Pestles 61 Basal-notched. Bettinger (1978) and Thomas Hammerstones 13 (1981, 1985) discussed the temporal signifi­ Ice pick 1 Grooved sinker 1 cance of the Humboldt series projectUe point Perforated sinkers 13 types. Pipes 2 Problematical 3 A total of 150 complete or fragmentary Chipped implements 998 sheU beads and ornaments were recovered Bone 16 Shell 12 from 26-CH-15 prior to 1969. Of these, aU TOTAL 1306 but four were discussed by Bennyhoff and Heizer (1958) in their classification of sheU Source: Loud and Harrington (1929:Appe n dixl) artifacts in the western Great Basin. The remaining four were recovered from the Table 2 surface of the site in 1965 and described by PROJECnLE POINTS Heizer as: an incised Dentalium sheU bead, a FROM THE HUMBOLDT LAKEBED SITE^ "scoop" Olivella bead with a punched Number Time Range Series of Specimens perforation, a fragment of a type 3a2 Olivella bead, and a fragment of a type 3b 1 Desert 427 600-100 B.P. Rosegate 695 1200-600 B.P. Olivella bead (Heizer MSb:17a). Elko 113 3200-1200 B.P. The paucity of artifacts recovered during Gatecliff 62 5000-3200 B.P. Humboldt 159 the 1969 excavations was disappointing, es- Untyped^ 345 peciaUy in terms of the prospect of using TOTAL 1801 the temporaUy significant objects to date pit features. Although the number of artifacts 1. Described in Heizer and Clewlow (1968); placed into series foUowing Thomas (1981,1985). recovered during the final fieldwork is not 2. AU points assigned to types in Heizer and Clewlow (1968) large, analysis of these materials is not yet that cannot t>e assigned to one of the series for which there is a known time span have l>een placed into the untyped category here. complete. The crucial projectUe points and the sheU beads from the 1969 excavations projectUe points and the sheU beads, have have been lost. been treated in some detaU in separate pubUcations (Bennyhoff and Heizer 1958; THE BURIALS Heizer and Clewlow 1968). In 1912 Loud recovered the remains of Heizer and Clewlow (1968) examined aU seven individuals from 26-CH-15. Measure­ of the projectUe points coUected from 26- ments of this coUection are pubUshed in CH-15 by archaeological field parties through Gifford (1926:382) and Kennedy (1959). 1965 and those in two private coUections. Little else is known of these burials. They recognized 21 named, and an additional Between the work of Loud and the 1965 12 possible, types of projectUe points in the excavations, numerous additional burials were 1,801 specimens they examined. To faciUtate exposed, either by natural deflation of the comparison and discussion, I have grouped site or by the activities of reUc coUectors. the numerous types recognized by Heizer and Scattered human bones and the pits dug by THE HUMBOLDT LAKEBED SITE 111 coUectors were noted both in 1950 and 1965. 1981, 1985). The 60 points Heizer and In spite of destruction of burials by natural Clewlow (1968) identified as Pinto and the processes and amateur coUecting activities, two points they identified as Gypsum are eight were recovered prior to 1969 by field here placed in the Gatecliff series (Thomas teams associated with the University of CaU­ 1981), which is dated to between 5,000 and fornia, Berkeley. The information obtained 3,200 B. P. in the western Great Basin (but from those eight burials is summarized in see Flenniken and WUke 1986). The presence Table 3 (abstracted from Heizer [MSb]). of Gatecliff series points indicates the site Organic materials associated with the crema­ may have been used as early as 5,000 B.P., tion burial excavated in 1956 yielded a date but was surely used by at least 3,000 B.P. of 2,690 ± 250 B.P. (Bennyhoff and Heizer The 695 Rosegate series (1,200 to 600 B.P.) 1958:66; Grosscup 1958:19). No other dates and 427 Desert series (post-650 B.P.) points are avaUable for these burials. indicate that use of the site continued at Excavations of pits in 1969 revealed the least into the protohistoric period. remains of at least nine additional indivi­ If the correlation of house floor types duals in five separate pits. Data from these with the projectUe point sequence is vaUd, it burials are presented in Table 4. In overaU should be noted that point frequencies do size, and in profUe, the pits in which many not increase in concert with house struc­ of these burials were found resembled the tures; Desert series points are less abundant pits that were identified as storage or cache than Rosegate points, whUe Late style floors pits. Further, the pit deposits underlying are more abundant than Intermediate floors. the skeletal remains often consisted of or­ The lack of correspondence between abun­ ganic midden containing numerous fish and dance of floors and abundance of points may bird bones. The size, shape, and other con­ indicate that floor profUe is not a good tents of the burial pits indicate that burials temporal indicator. Or it may indicate that may have been placed in storage pits that no errors have been made assigning points or longer were being used for their original floors to styles, or that functional change purpose (Heizer MSb). exists in site-artifact usage and that people who Uved in Late style houses made and dis­ DATING THE SITE carded fewer projectUe points than people in Determining the occupational chronology the preceding period. Sampling error could of the Humboldt Lakebed site is difficult also account for the differences. because deflation left most of the temporaUy Bennyhoff and Heizer's (1958) analysis of diagnostic artifacts on the surface and be­ the sheU beads from 26-CH-15 supports the cause so few radiocarbon dates are avaUable. 3,000 B.P. date for the first occupation of The large number of projectUe points col­ the site. They found that the oldest sheU lected from the surface of the site are the beads from 26-CH-15 are assignable to the primary source of typological dates (see Middle Horizon (3,500 to 2,500 B.P.), and Table 2). Since the points were initiaUy they identified sheU bead types that cross- analyzed and pubUshed (Heizer and Clewlow date to the lower Phase 1 of the Late 1968), considerable research has been done Horizon (2,500 to 1,300 B.P.). However, they on the Great Basin projectUe point chronolo­ found no beads of the upper Phase 1 period gy and many additional radiocarbon dates are of the Late Horizon (1,300 to 500 B.P.). avaUable for the types recognized (Thomas They assumed that the absence of beads 112 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNL\ AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY

o E •s I S3 j3 a, ii IS S fi M 3 eg o " a •c 8. vf •o « C O. T3 -O 4> V u O — U U •H •s IH •s •° S "2 "H o o uo g. u ?^ l» 3 s a a

ga n c ... M &.2 IH bj E O co c .o C M c c

J3 2 3 ^ 5 bO 2 9 •c „ c: « ^ oS oe •o "2 x: " S C l2 u S •2° T3 X M S w o T3 a .s>j= "J r s ~ "S •e g 3 T3 3 8 0 « 8.•a 8 ••2 _ W9 j=

1 j= E t-l 1 2 o o

•3 0 te r « •0 .D V ^ :i 5t Si ' ' ffl E R a •5 X J3 di a X s c 3 vO o PI ?RI S S 2 S I Ed

I u as I'- 3 e is rtrS T3 •s ° a. .2 "= i2 E E is B"-3 E iJ o' .. •5 i^ o o o •H E § B 0,6 0 CO 3 3 S -J g n u '€ '2 E E E s n c o •J i2« o 0 0. « u E I E« i •? o •s 2 E U M > ^ (0 C C m E

(S IQ (A e i,- o 3 3 3 3 ^ ^ ^ THE HUMBOLDT LAKEBED SITE 113 representing the upper Phase 1 indicated the Table 5 site was abandoned untU Phase 2 of the Late RADIOCARBON DATES Horizon, or protohistoric times, for which FROM THE HUMBOLDT LAKEBED SITE they recognized representative beads in the Date Laboratory Material Association 26-CH-15 assemblage. No hiatus in deposi­ B.P. Number tion of sediments or any other indication of 960 ±80 B-14923 charcoal bowl-shaped house floor a hiatus in occupation was recorded. 1,040 ±80 B-14928 soil bowl-shaped Discrepancy between independent chrono­ house floor 1,140 + 60 B-14925 soil bowl-shaped logies derived using projectUe points and house floor sheU beads has been noted in other western 1,160 ±80 B-14926 soil bowl-shaped house floor Great Basin settings (Thomas 1985). In view 1,270 ±80 B-14924 soil bowl-shaped of the span of time involved in the recovery house floor 1,370 + 110 B-14927 soil bowl-shaped of these coUections, the disturbed nature of house floor the site, and the fact that not aU of the 2,690 + 250 M-649 organic burial* artifacts have been fuUy analyzed, or can be 550 ±60 UCLA-1071A organic storage pit'' accounted for, the discrepancy in chronolo­ gical indicators is not surprising. Grosscup (1958:19). •"Heizer and Napton (1970:46). Eight radiocarbon dates are now avaUable for the site. The dates of 2,690 ± 250 B.P. archaeological purposes. It is the only (Bennyhoff and Heizer 1958:66, Grosscup excavated low-elevation site with a large 1958:19) for the cremation burial excavated artifact inventory and numerous structural m 1956, and 550 ± 60 B.P. (Heizer and features suggestive of sedentary settlement. Napton 1970:46) for a storage pit have been Although most of the excavated materials supplemented by six additional dates that I and many of the surface coUections from obtained for organic material recovered from 26-CH-15 remain to be analyzed, this site house floors during the 1969 excavations and Lovelock Cave have played important (Table 5). I could find no datable materials roles in the development of the concept of a for the steep-sided floors thought to be limnosedentary Ufestyle. associated with Elko series projectUe points As described by Heizer and his students, or from the shaUow floors associated with the limnosedentary lifestyle is characterized Desert series points. Further, I could not by almost exclusive use of lake and marsh locate measured profUes or photos for the resources which permitted sedentary, or near house floors from which organic materials sedentary, occupation of the lakeshore envi­ were coUected. The six dates shown in Table ronment (Heizer 1967; Cowan 1967; Napton 6 are from floors described above as Inter­ 1969, 1970). Intriguing and controversial, mediate style, and indicate that these houses the limnosedentary hypothesis remains to be were used from at least 1,370 B.P. untU at supported by further research, either from least 960 B.P. the Humboldt Lakebed site or from other western Great Basin lakeside locations. In FUTURE WORK fact, recent excavations at Hidden Cave The Humboldt Lakebed site has long been (Thomas 1985) and survey in the area sur­ unique in our knowledge of western Great rounding Hidden Cave in the Carson Sink Basin prehistory. It was one of the first (KeUy 1985), an environment apparently very sites in Nevada to be investigated for simUar and immediately to the south of the 114 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY

Humboldt Sink, have yielded significantly Clewlow, C. W., Jr. different interpretations of contemporary 1965 Unpublished fieldnotes on the excava­ prehistoric adaptive strategies. Analysis of tions at the Humboldt Lakebed site, the faunal remains from the Humboldt Lake- 1965. MS on file at the Lowie Museum bed site that I am now conducting and of Anthropology, University of Califor­ nia, Berkeley. investigation of structural and burial features in the StiUwater WUdlife Refuge, Cowan, R. A. apparently simUar in appearance to those of 1967 Lake Margin Ecologic Exploitation in the Humboldt Lakebed site (Dansie 1986), the Great Basin as Demonstrated by an Analysis of Coprolites from Lovelock wiU certainly shed light on the nature of Cave, Nevada. Berkeley: University of prehistoric adaptive strategies in the western California Archaeological Survey Report Great Basin lacustrine settings. No. 70:21-35. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Dansie, A. J. 1986 Lahontan Basin Silt and Bone Taphon- I am indebted to Patrick S. HaUinan and the omy over the Last 12,000 years: Clima­ many individuals who participated in the field- tic Implications of Stillwater and work at the Humboldt Lakebed site and to those Pyramid Lake Skeletons. Paper pre­ responsible for the curation of the collections sented at the 20th Great Basin An­ and notes. Frank Norick and the staff at the thropological Conference, Las Vegas. Lowie Museum of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley, were extremely helpful and Elsasser, A. B. cooperative in obtaining and providing the ma­ 1958 The Surface Archaeology of Site 26-Pe- terials and records that made this report pos­ 5, Pershing County, Nevada. Berkeley: sible. Donald K. Grayson, David Rhode, and University of California Archaeological anonymous reviewers offered valuable suggestions Survey Report No. 44(2):26-56. on the manuscript. Financial assistance was pro­ Flenniken, J. J., and P. J. Wilke vided by National Science Foundation Disserta­ 1986 The Flaked Stone Assemblage from tion Improvement Grant BNS83-15233. Hogup Cave, Utah: Implications for REFERENCES Prehistoric Lithic Technology and Cul­ ture History in the Great Basin. Paper Baumhoff, M. A. presented at the 20th Great Basin An­ 1958 Excavation of a Cache Cave in Pershing thropological Conference, Las Vegas. County, Nevada. Berkeley: University of California Archaeological Survey Gifford, W. W. Report No. 44(2):14-25. 1926 California Anthropometry. University of California Publications in American Bennyhoff, J. A., and R. F. Heizer Archaeology and Ethnology 22(2). 1958 Cross-Dating Great Basin Sites by Cali- fornian Shell Beads. Berkeley: Univer­ Grosscup, G. L. sity of California Archaeological Survey 1958 Radiocarbon Dates from Nevada of Ar­ Report No. 42:60-92. chaeological Interest. Berkeley: Univer­ sity of California Archaeological Survey Bettinger, R. L. Report No. 44(1):17-31. 1978 Humboldt Basal-notched Bifaces as Time Marker[s] in the Western Great 1960 The Culture History of Lovelock Cave, Basin. Tebiwa: Miscellaneous Papers Nevada. Berkeley: University of Cali­ of the Idaho State University Museum fornia Archaeological Survey Report No. of Natural History 10. 52. THE HUMBOLDT LAKEBED SITE 115

HaUinan, P. S. keley: University of California Archae­ 1969 Unpublished fieldnotes on the excava­ ological Research Facility Contribution tions at the Humboldt Lakebed site. No. 10. MS on file at the Lowie Museum of KeUy, R. L. Anthropology, University of California, 1985 Hunter-gatherer Mobility and Sedentism: Berkeley. a Great Basin study. Ph.D. dissertation. MS Unpublished analysis notes on the house University of Michigan. features at the Humboldt Lakebed site. Kennedy, K. A. R. MS on file at the Lowie Museum of 1959 The Aborigmal Population of the Great Anthropology, University of California, Basin. Berkeley: University of Cali­ Berkeley. fornia Archaeological Survey Report No. Harrington, M. R. 45. 1927 Some Lake-Bed Camp-Sites in Nevada. Loud, L. L., and M. R. Harrington Museum of the American Indian, Heye 1929 Lovelock Cave. University of Califor­ Foundation, Indian Notes 4(l):40-47. nia Publications in American Archaeo­ Heizer, R. F. logy and Ethnology 25(1). MSa Unpublished notes on pit features in Napton, L. K. the Lower Humboldt Valley. MS on file 1969 The Lacustrine Subsistence Pattern in at the Bancroft Library, University of the Desert West. Kroeber Anthropolog­ California, Berkeley. ical Society Special Publication No. MSb Archaeology of the Lower Humboldt 2:28-69. VaUey, Nevada. MS on file at the 1970 Archaeological Investigations in Love­ Bancroft Library, University of Cali­ lock Cave, Nevada. Ph.D. dissertation. fornia, Berkeley. University of California, Berkeley. 1951 Preliminary Report on the Leonard Thomas, D. H. Rockshelter Site, Pershing County, Ne­ 1981 How to Classify the Projectile Points vada. American Antiquity 17(2):89-98. from Monitor VaUey, Nevada. Journal 1967 Analysis of Hiunan Coprolites from a of California and Great Basin Anthropo­ Dry Nevada Cave. Berkeley: Univer­ logy 3(1) :7-43. sity of California Archaeological Survey 1985 The Archaeology of Hidden Cave, Ne­ Report No. 70:1-20. vada. Anthropological Papers of the Heizer, R. F., and C. W. Clewlow, Jr. American Museum of Natural History 1968 Projectile Points from Site NV-Ch-15, 61(1). Churchill County, Nevada. Berkeley: Toney, J. University of California Archaeological 1%5 Unpublished fieldnotes on the excava­ Survey Report No. 71:59-101. tions at the Humboldt Lakebed site. Heizer, R. F., and L. K. Napton MS on file at the Lowie Museum of 1970 Archaeology and the Prehistoric Great Anthropology, University of California, Basin Lacustrine Subsistence Regime as Berkeley. Seen from Lovelock Cave, Nevada. Ber­