290 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY Lathrap, Donald W., and Robert L. Hoover California State University, Hayward, Insti­ 1975 Excavations at Shilimaqshtush: SBa-205. tute of Cultural Resources, for Ecumene San Luis Obispo County Archaeological Associates, Inc., and the City of Hayward. Society Occasional Paper No. 10. Prokopovich, N. P. Lee, Georgia 1976 California Indians and Cretaceous Concre­ 1981 The Portable Cosmos: Effigies, Ornaments, tions. California Geology 29(12): 273-274. and Incised Stone from the Chumash Area. Research Committee Ballena Press Anthropological Papers No. 21. 1965 History of Washington Township. Third Edi­ Levy, Richard tion. The Country Club of Washington 1978 The Costanoan. In: Handbook of North Township. American Indians, Vol. 8 (California), Rob­ ert F. Heizer, ed., pp. 485-495. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. Notes on a Portable McGuire, Pamela, and E. Breck Parkman 1981 Inventory of Features: Rancho Olompali Rock Art Piece Project. Sacramento: California Department from Western Nevada of Parks and Recreation. Meacham, Charla C. WILLIAM CLEWLOW, JR. 1980 Great Basin Pecked Style Petroglyph: Arch­ HELEN F. WELLS aeological Evidence for Cultural Immigration to the North Coast Ranges. Paper presented The prehistoric aboriginal peoples of west- at the 1980 Annual Meeting of the Society em Nevada are not well known for the for California Archaeology, Redding. manufacture of large quantities of portable Miller, Teresa Ann art. Most of the art familiar to anthropologists 1977 Identification and Recording of Prehistoric in this Great Basin area of resource-deficient, Petroglyphs in Marin and Related Bay Area Counties. M.A. thesis, San Francisco State large, indigenous populations is in the form of University. petroglyphs, or pecked images on non­ portable boulders or chff faces. A consider­ Parkman, E. Breck 1980 ''Irektac: A Typological Consideration of able amount of this art exists in the westem Bedrock Mortars. In: Final Report of Arch­ Great Basin (Heizer and Baumhoff 1962), and aeological Test Excavations of CA-Ala-60 it is astoundingly abundant in some areas. The Located on Route 580, Castro Valley, Ala­ Coso region, for example, has such a quantity meda County, Cahfornia, P.M. 26.0/29.0, of pecked designs (see Grant, Baird, and George R. Miller, ed., pp. 133-169. Report Pringle 1968) that its description in terms of prepared by the California State University, Hayward, Institute of Cultural Resources, hours of labor expended would be staggering for the California Department of Transpor­ (see Bard and Busby [1974] and Busby e/a/. tation. [1978] for rephcative data on amounts of 1981 An Archaeological Investigation of a Portion labor required to produce petroglyphs). of Annadel State Park, Sonoma County, Portable art, as discussed in anthropologi­ California. Part I of A Preliminary Survey of Cultural Resources at Annadel State Park. cal literature, is less common. This statement Sacramento: California Department of Parks is, of course, at least partially a reflection of and Recreation. the fact that anthropologists have not been substantially concerned with the aesthetic Parkman, E. Breck, Diane C. Watts, and Joseph S. Eisenlauer 1978 An Archaeological Reconnaissance of a 2500 C, William Clewlow, Jr., Institute of Archaeology, Univ. of Acre Parcel on Walpert Ridge, Alameda California, Los Angeles, CA 90024. Helen F. Wells, Dept. of County, California. Report prepared by the Anthropology, Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92521. PORTABLE ROCK ART 291 qualities of many common categories of Great communication). The lower Humboldt Val­ Basin material culture. Projectile points, bas­ ley, in the large sink below Lovelock Cave, kets, rabbit skin capes, etc., are most often also yielded a number of carved stone art seen for their functional attributes, although specimens. Harrington (1927:45-47) des­ few would deny the artistry and art inherent cribed and illustrated one such piece, an in their manufacture and appearance. How­ apparent composite of a fish and rattlesnake. ever, portable art "for art's sake" is simply Four additional pieces are discussed and not predominant in the prehistoric cultural illustrated by Cowan and Clewlow inventory which has been compiled for the (1968:202-203, Fig. 4). Three of these are area. interpreted as possibly representing horned Some areas, for reasons yet undetermined, toads or frogs, with the fourth perhaps demonstrate the presence of more portable representing an owl. In no case are these art than others. Generically, this observation distinctions clear, and with imagination one holds true for non-portable art, in the form of could certainly arrive at altemative explana­ petroglyphs, as well. In the case of the latter, tions. These four specimens, from site NV-Pe- however, this may be explained on the basis 67, were in a private collection when recorded of magico-religious behavior associated with in 1968. Cowan and Clewlow (1968:203) also hunting (Heizer and Baumhoff 1962; Heizer note that the large site of NV-Ch-15 "has and Clewlow 1973). Perhaps a similar expla­ yielded a great deal of carved stone art," but nation would hold true for portable art, but, none is illustrated, nor has any been published archaeologically speaking, such an assessment since that time. Nearby Lovelock Cave must await considerable further research. It yielded a carved grasshopper effigy that is should be noted that there seems to be no unusual in that it is made of wood and retains statistically meaningful locational overlap some traces of pitch and pigment (Jones, between the occurrence of rock art in the Weaver, and Stross 1967). Its function, like form of petroglyphs and portable art in the other portable art pieces, is unclear. Loud and Great Basin. Harrington (1929) describe and illustrate two At our present state of knowledge, it carved wooden "talismans" and one prob­ seems that the majority of portable art from lematical carved stone fish, possibly a pend­ the Great Basin has been reported in western ant, from the same site. Nevada. Tuohy and Stein (1969) listed a From further east, at Grass Valley, animal number of stone effigy collections from this effigy figures made of baked clay have been area, and described five unusual stone carvings reported. One represents a horse (Magee recovered as mortuary offerings in a Pyramid 1966) and another may be an owl. Again, Lake shaman's burial. At least two of these precise determination of species is impossible, are fish, one is a "lake monster," one is a and function is unclear. Ambro (1978) be- legless vertebrate, and the fifth represents an heves that they may represent toys, and cites antelope or mountain sheep. These specimens a wide body of Uterature on the subject. He are associated with a bone collagen date of notes that they commonly are reported from 1820±180 years B.P. Tuohy (1969) also both archaeological and ethnographic described a carved and painted polychrome contexts. bird effigy from Hanging Rock Cave, in The carved stone effigy under discussion Churchill County, and is presently compihng was collected near the Lahontan Dam, which data on over 130 portable rock art specimens is located in Churchill County, a few miles from western Nevada (Don Tuohy, personal west of Fallon, Nevada. It thus originates in 292 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY :'i*_'fe Fig. 1. Stone effigy (scale: 1: 2). Drawing by Jennifer Corsiglia. PORTABLE ROCK ART 293 an area known to contain quantities of such continuously from front to back around the art. The sculpture was made from a fiat piece figure. of scoria about 5 cm thick. The stone is not The animal lacks both front and hind legs, quite oval in outline, with one long edge but, when viewed from the rear, a suggestion providing a flat back and the opposite edge of both shoulders and haunches is created by providing a rounded belly for the animal the presence of the medial groove. A tail, sculpture. It was mounted by its owner on a about 6 cm. long and tapering from 0.5 to 1.5 piece of wood (see Fig. 1). cm. in width, protrudes from the center of As mounted, the sculpture stands 16.5 this groove. It is worth noting that the four cm. tall. Viewed in profile (Fig. la), it NV-Pe-67 specimens are grooved, and it is measures 5.5 cm. wide at the base and 11 cm. probable that the use of grooving was one of wide at the middle of the belly. From the the primary shaping techniques available to outer edge of the horn or ear to the tip of the the artist. The specimen under discussion in nose, the head measures 6 cm. wide in profile. this note is shown in profile (Fig. la), from Although the specimen sculpture clearly the back or top (Fig. lb), from the rear or represents an animal, it is impossible to bottom (Fig. Ic) and in 3/4 view (Fig. Id). determine the species intended. As mounted, As with all Great Basin carved effigies, the with its head vertical in relation to its body, it piece may be classed as rather crude and may be interpreted as a kangaroo rat or other experimental. A best guess at its species rodent, or as a skunk. Turned on its side, would be mountain sheep, an assessment with however, it bears a resemblance to the moun­ which Tuohy (personal communication) is in tain sheep portrayed in Great Basin rock art. accord. As Wellmann (1979:56) has noted, The angle at which the head is attached to mountain sheep are by far the most common the body was determined by the shape of the animal portrayed in petroglyphs of the Great stone and the limitations of the sculptor's Basin. They are also the most faithfully skill.