Historical Context
and Archaeological
Research Design for the
Antelope Valley
HISTORICAL CONTEXT AND
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH DESIGN
FOR THE ANTELOPE VALLEY STUDY AREA
LOS ANGELES AND KERN COUNTIES,
CALIFORNIA
Prepared by:
Roger D. Mason, Ph.D.
Sherri Gust, M.S.
David D. Earle, M.A.
Wendy Blumel, M.A.
Seetha N. Reddy, Ph.D.
Mitchel Bornyasz, B.S.,
Mark W. Allen, Ph.D.
PG, CEG
With Contribution from:
Mariam Dahdul, Ph.D.
March 2019
For more information contact:
Cultural Resources Unit
California Department of Transportation District 7
100 S. Main Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
(213) 897-4095
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 1
NATURAL SETTING ............................................................................................................................................ 3
Current Landscape........................................................................................................................................................................... 4
Prehistoric Landscape ................................................................................................................................................................. 21
CULTURAL SETTING .........................................................................................................................................35
Chronology ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 36
Previous Investigations ............................................................................................................................................................... 41
Geoarchaeological Sensitivity Model .................................................................................................................................... 54
Ethnohistoric Period .................................................................................................................................................................... 83
History of Native/Non-Native Relations in the Antelope Valley.............................................................................. 107
RESEARCH CONTEXT .................................................................................................................................... 113
Theoretical Orientation............................................................................................................................................................. 114
Archaeological Property Types .............................................................................................................................................. 131
RESEARCH THEMES, QUESTIONS, AND DATA NEEDS ............................................................................ 134
Theme: Paleoenvironmental Reconstruction ................................................................................................................... 135
Theme: Settlement Patterns and Social Organization ................................................................................................. 148
Theme: Subsistence ................................................................................................................................................................... 170
Theme: Exchange and Conveyance ..................................................................................................................................... 208
Theme: Lithic Technology ........................................................................................................................................................ 238
Theme: Lithic Material Sources for Flaked Stone Tools and Other Artifacts ....................................................... 249
Theme: Prehistoric Population Movements ..................................................................................................................... 258
Theme: Social Differentiation ................................................................................................................................................. 274
Theme: Rock Art in the Antelope Valley Study Area .................................................................................................... 283
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................... 294
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Modern Fauna and Associated Habitats/Locales ................................................................................................ 15
Table 2. Native Uses of Plants ...................................................................................................................................................... 23
Table 3. Animals Present and Utilized in Prehistory ............................................................................................................ 26
Table 4. Antelope Valley Chronology ........................................................................................................................................ 36
Table 5. Select Studies in the Antelope Valley Study Area ............................................................................................... 42
Table 6. Summary of Select Sites in the Antelope Valley Study Area........................................................................... 44
Table 7. Quaternary Sediments within the Study Area....................................................................................................... 57
Table 8. Stratigraphic Sequence of the Antelope Valley ................................................................................................... 66
Table 9. Soil Series in the Antelope Valley. ............................................................................................................................. 69
Table 10. Major Bedrock Formations within the Study Area............................................................................................ 78
Table 11. Faunal Data from 23 Sites in the Study Area .................................................................................................... 193
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
i
07A3822 Task Order 17
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Overview of Antelope Valley Study Area ................................................................................................................. 5
Figure 2. Antelope Valley Study Area ........................................................................................................................................... 6
Figure 3. Hydrology .......................................................................................................................................................................... 33
Figure 4. Major Sites and Site Groupings in the Antelope Valley Study Area ........................................................... 43
Figure 5. Geoarchaeological Sensitivity Map (4 sheets)..................................................................................................... 62
Figure 6. Late Quaternary Climatic Events and Associated Sedimentary Deposits ................................................. 67
Figure 7. Village Locations by Ethnic Group. .......................................................................................................................... 84
Figure 8. Pleistocene Lake Thompson Regional Location ............................................................................................... 141
Figure 9. Prehistoric Lithic Sources ........................................................................................................................................... 210
Figure 10. Native Trails Discussed in Text .............................................................................................................................. 220
Figure 11. Proto-Takic Homeland and Movement to Desert Margin ......................................................................... 261
Figure 12. Proto-Uto-Aztecan Homeland .............................................................................................................................. 262
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Cultural Resources Management Reports for the Antelope Valley Obtained from Records
Searches
Attachment B: Analysis of Four Lithic Assemblages from Archaeological Sites in the SR-138 Northwest
Corridor Improvement Project Antelope Valley, Los Angeles County
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
ii
07A3822 Task Order 17
Introduction
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans/Department) contracted with ECORP
Consulting, Inc. to prepare this regional historical context and research design to guide the
Department’s investigations of Native American archaeological resources in the Antelope Valley
region of southeastern California. The Antelope Valley (Study Area) is a westward extension of the
Mojave Desert in northern Los Angeles County (Caltrans District 7) and southeastern Kern County
(Caltrans District 9). The Study Area covers 5202.71 square kilometers (2008.78 square miles). The
focus of this study is the archaeological record of Native Americans in this region from initial
occupation until AD 1835 (the end of the Mission Period). The purpose of the contexts and theme
discussions (with research questions and data needs) provided herein is to assist with evaluations of
the information potential of Native American archaeological sites in the Antelope Valley. This
document will need to be updated periodically to reflect future advances in archaeological methods
and theory, as well as to incorporate the results of future archaeological investigations in the
Antelope Valley.
Specifically, this document provides the Department a framework for evaluating archaeological
properties from the Antelope Valley for eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)
under Criterion D. To be eligible under Criterion D, NRHP guidance states that a property must have,
or have had, information to contribute to our understanding of human history or prehistory, and the
information must be considered important (see Title 36, Part 60, Section 60.4[d] of the Code of
Federal Regulations [36 CFR 60.4(d)]). This research design focuses solely on Criterion D; the
Department, in consultation with Native American communities and other stakeholders, must
consider whether other National Register criteria apply to individual sites. The NRHP Bulletin series
is an essential reference for researchers when applying the NRHP criteria for evaluation of cultural
resources. This research design may also be used in evaluating a property’s eligibility for listing in the
California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). The CRHR eligibility criteria are nearly identical to
those of the NRHP, but some properties not eligible for listing in the latter may qualify for listing in
the CRHR.
Structure of the Research Design
This document provides information about the natural and cultural setting of the Antelope Valley
Study Area, the theoretical orientation used in the research design, and presents research themes,
along with research questions and data needs that can guide archaeological investigations. The
natural setting includes information about topography, geology, hydrography, climate, vegetation,
and fauna. The cultural setting provides information about chronology, ethnohistory, previous
archaeological investigations, and geoarchaeology. The theoretical orientation section presents
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
1
07A3822 Task Order 17
discussions of the main archaeological theoretical perspectives of cultural materialism, optimal
foraging, the collector-forager model, subsistence intensification and storage of resources, and
human behavioral ecology. Research themes that can be used to structure future archaeological
research in the Antelope Valley include paleoenvironmental reconstruction, settlement systems,
subsistence, exchange and conveyance, lithic technology, lithic sources, population movements, and
social differentiation. Research questions and the kinds of data necessary to address these questions
are provided for each theme.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
2
07A3822 Task Order 17
NATURAL SETTING
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
3
07A3822 Task Order 17
Current Landscape
Geographic Limits of the Antelope Valley
The Antelope Valley is a V-shaped internal drainage basin and a western extension of the Mojave
Desert. It is located in the northern part of Los Angeles County and the southeastern part of Kern
County, California, and covers an area of 5202.71 square kilometers (km2) (2,008.78 square miles)
(Figure 1). The San Gabriel and Tehachapi Mountain Ranges form the western, southern, and
northern boundaries of the Antelope Valley. The eastern boundary, however, is more amorphous and
is marked only by a few buttes as the Antelope Valley transitions into the central Mojave Desert
(Earle et al. 1997). Multiple methods can be used to define the eastern boundaries of the Antelope
Valley. For the purposes of this research design, a combination of watershed boundaries and
ethnographic boundaries were used to define the area referred to here as the Antelope Valley Study
Area (Study Area) (Figure 1). The Study Area is defined as follows: the Valley’s northwest boundary is
defined by the foothills of the Tehachapi Mountains (Figure 2a); the northern boundary runs from the
mouth of Oak Creek Canyon in the foothills of the Tehachapi Mountains, eastward along Oak Creek
Road and SR-58 to the San Bernardino County Line, and immediately south of Fremont Valley (Figure
2b); the southern boundary runs along the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains, Sierra Pelona,
Sawmill Mountain, and Liebre Mountain to Quail Lake (Figures 2c and 2e); the eastern limits are
based on drainage patterns and roughly follow the county line between San Bernardino County and Los
Angeles County, running southward to Moody Springs, and finally to Pinyon Ridge in the foothills of
the San Gabriel Mountains (Figure 2d and 2e). The Study Area also includes a portion of the San
Andreas Rift Zone and the Little Rock Creek Watershed in the San Gabriel Mountains.
Geology and Topography
The Antelope Valley is located in the Mojave Desert province of Southern California. This region is a
southern subsection of the Basin and Range physiographic province characterized by north/southtrending mountain ranges separated by broad alluvial valleys. Predominant landforms within this
province include isolated mountains and ranges, separated by basins with alluvial fans, playas, and
dunes (Bornyasz 2014). The Antelope Valley is an approximately 5,000 km2 basin formed by
movement along the Garlock and San Andreas Faults (Ponti 1985). The Garlock Fault uplifted the
Tehachapi Mountains to the north, and the San Andreas Fault uplifted the San Gabriel Mountains to
the south. These two mountain ranges form the northwestern and southern boundaries of the Vshaped Antelope Valley. The uplift of the Tehachapi and San Gabriel Mountain ranges isolated the
Antelope Valley from the coast and created an interior drainage basin. The formation of this interior
drainage basin likely resulted from the uplift of the San Gabriel Mountains approximately 1 to 2
million years ago, which closed off Tertiary drainage routes from the Tehachapi Mountains to the
ocean. Due to this recent uplift, the Antelope Valley almost entirely filled with Quaternary sediments
(Ponti 1985).
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
4
07A3822 Task Order 17
i
San Bernardino
Kern
p
ha
ins
a
t
un
o
M
c
ha
e
T
Kern
Kern
Ventura
Los Angeles
Palmdale
Santa Clarita
tains
n
u
o
M
b r ie l
San Ga
Sa n Bernardino
Los Angeles
es
gel
An
a
Los
tur
Ven
Location: N:\2015\2015-075.017 Antelope Valley Research Design\MAPS\location_vicinity\AVRD_Vicinity.mxd (AMyers)-amyers 4/16/2018
Lancaster
Simi Valley
Thousand Oaks
Van Nuys
Glendale
Map Date: 4/16/2018
USGS Topographic Quadrangles
I
Antelope Valley Study Area
M i les
County Boundary
0
10
Figure 1. Overview of
Antelope Valley Study Area
Locat ion: N: \ 2015\ 2015-075.017 Ant elope Valley Research Design\ MAPS\ cultural_resources\ overview_maps\ Antelope_Valley_Boundary_V3.mxd
(AMyer s) -amyers 2/ 11/ 2018
1
2
3
4
5
Map Date: 2/ 11/ 2018
USGS Topographic Quadrangles
I
0
Map Features
M i l es
2
Antelope Valley Study Area
Figure 2a Northwest Boundary of Study Area
2
1
4
3
Locat ion: N: \ 2015\ 2015-075.017 Ant elope Valley Research Design\ MAPS\ cultural_resources\ overview_maps\ Antelope_Valley_Boundary_V3.mxd
(AMyer s) -amyers 2/ 11/ 2018
5
Map Date: 2/ 11/ 2018
USGS Topographic Quadrangles
I
Map Features
M i l es
Antelope Valley Study Area
0
2
Figure 2b Nothern Boundary of Study Area
2015-075.017 Caltrans Antelope Valley Research
Sheet 2 of 5
2
1
4
3
Locat ion: N: \ 2015\ 2015-075.017 Ant elope Valley Research Design\ MAPS\ cultural_resources\ overview_maps\ Antelope_Valley_Boundary_V3.mxd
(AMyer s) -amyers 2/ 11/ 2018
5
Map Date: 2/ 11/ 2018
USGS Topographic Quadrangles
I
Map Features
M i l es
Antelope Valley Study Area
0
2
Figure 2c Southwest Boundary of Study Area
2015-075.017 Caltrans Antelope Valley Research
Sheet 3 of 5
2
1
4
3
Locat ion: N: \ 2015\ 2015-075.017 Ant elope Valley Research Design\ MAPS\ cultural_resources\ overview_maps\ Antelope_Valley_Boundary_V3.mxd
(AMyer s) -amyers 2/ 11/ 2018
5
Map Date: 2/ 11/ 2018
USGS Topographic Quadrangles
I
Map Features
M i l es
Antelope Valley Study Area
0
2
Figure 2d Eastern Boundary of Study Area
2015-075.017 Caltrans Antelope Valley Research
Sheet 4 of 5
2
1
4
3
Locat ion: N: \ 2015\ 2015-075.017 Ant elope Valley Research Design\ MAPS\ cultural_resources\ overview_maps\ Antelope_Valley_Boundary_V3.mxd
(AMyer s) -amyers 2/ 11/ 2018
5
Map Date: 2/ 11/ 2018
USGS Topographic Quadrangles
I
Map Features
M i l es
Antelope Valley Study Area
0
2
Figure 2e Southeastern Boundary of Study Area
2015-075.017 Caltrans Antelope Valley Research
Sheet 5 of 5
The elevation of the floor of the valley is 700 meters above mean sea level (AMSL) while the margins
of the valley in the foothills are between 915 and 1,220 meters AMSL. Drainages from the mountains
run across the valley eastward toward Rosamond Lake, which forms the low point of a closed basin in
the western Mojave Desert (see Figure 1). The drainages and Rosamond Lake are dry except during
flood episodes. There are several hills and buttes that rise above the valley floor including Fairmont
Butte, Little Butte, and Rosamond Hills. These buttes are predominantly Tertiary in age and are
composed of quartz monzonite, volcanic felsites/rhyolites, and fanglomerates. Several of the buttes
contain tool-quality felsite/rhyolite, chert, and jasper. The San Andreas Rift Zone runs along the
south side of the Antelope Valley. The rift zone is in a long linear valley that runs along the basal
slopes of the Bald Mountain, Liebre Mountain, Sawmill Mountain, and the Sierra Pelona chain of
mountains. The rift zone is separated from Antelope Valley by Portal Ridge and its extensions which
run parallel with the rift zone.
Hydrology
The Study Area lies within the Antelope-Fremont Valleys Watershed (Bornyasz 2014). The AntelopeFremont Valleys Watershed (2,160,629 acres) is predominantly within Kern and Los Angeles Counties
and extends from the community of Boron west to the community of Mojave and south to the
Lancaster-Palmdale area. The most hydrologically significant streams in the Antelope Valley region
begin in the San Gabriel Mountains on the southern edge of the Antelope Valley Region and run
onto the valley floor. They include, from east to west, Big Rock Creek, Little Rock Creek, and
Amargosa Creek. Cottonwood Creek and Oak Creek drain from the Tehachapi Mountains. All of the
drainages recorded within the Antelope-Fremont Valleys Watershed are considered to be isolated
and flow toward the three dry lakes (Rosamond Lake, Rogers Lake, and Buckhorn Lake) on Edwards
Air Force Base. Except during the largest rainfall events of a season, surface water flows quickly
percolate into stream beds and recharge the groundwater basin. Surface water flows that reach the
dry lakes form shallow pools that can last for several months but are eventually lost to evaporation
(Bornyasz 2014).
The topography of the Antelope Valley creates an internal drainage basin wherein, in modern times,
the wet season’s water is absorbed in place. There are several active creeks south and east of the
valley, but only ephemeral drainages within the valley. Due to the high percolation ability of
sediments within the Study Area, rainfall tends to be absorbed into the groundwater aquifer before
reaching the valley interior. Until recently, the groundwater level within the Antelope Valley was
relatively shallow. Drilling operations during the early part of the twentieth century revealed
significant artesian water reserves within fluvial sediments underlying impermeable lake bed silts and
clays. The combination of multiple tectonic faults (most notably within the San Andreas Fault Zone in
the southern portion of the Study Area) and an interlayered permeable and impermeable stratum led
to the formation of springs, seeps, and marshes during prehistoric and historic periods (Sutton
1988b). Over-extraction of groundwater reserves during the modern era has led to a lowering of the
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
11
07A3822 Task Order 17
water table and, in the 1950s, noticeable ground subsidence, sinkholes, and desiccation cracks began
appearing within the valley floor (Orme and Yuretich 2004). Many of the historic seeps and springs
have dried within the last century.
The San Andreas Rift Zone has permanent water sources because the fault traps water below the
surface and forces it up along the fault into springs on the surface. Water from drainages in the
mountains to the south is also trapped in the rift valley within ponds and lakes, such as Elizabeth
Lake and Lake Hughes.
Climate
The Antelope Valley currently lies within an arid region with little natural perennial surface water. The
valley is located in the rain shadow of the San Gabriel Mountains situated to the south and is
secluded from marine air effects (Price et al. 2009). As a result of the variability of rainfall, surface
hydrology is dominated by ephemeral washes, flowing only during storm events and remaining dry
for most of the year. The hydrologic regime for the area follows the general Mediterranean climate,
with cool, wet winters and warm, dry summers. Although the entire Antelope Valley is in the rain
shadow of the San Gabriel Mountains, average rainfall within the Antelope Valley follows a
decreasing gradient from west to east, creating a continuum from a more mesic environment in the
west to a more xeric environment in the east. Winter storms move into the valley from the west and
southwest, releasing rain as they pass over elevated terrain that borders the western part of the
valley. Gorman, just to the northwest of Quail Lake at the west end of the valley, receives an annual
average of 12 inches (305 mm) and foothill areas bordering the western valley receive 10 to 12
inches (254-305 mm) (Earle et al. 1997). By contrast, the valley east of Lancaster receives an average
of 5 to 6 inches (127-152 mm). The valley floor between 9 and 27 miles (14.4-43.4 km) west of
Lancaster averages 8 to 10 inches (203-254 mm).
Temperatures in the Antelope Valley fluctuate widely throughout the year with hot summers and
cold winters. At Edwards Air Force Base, on the eastern side of the Study Area, temperatures average
between 96 and 98 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) in July and August with peak temperatures above 110 °F.
Winters can be cold with nighttime temperatures regularly reaching below freezing with a minimum
low temperature of 3 °F in January (Earle et al. 1997).
Although the Antelope Valley is located in an arid region with limited rainfall, the
Pleistocene/Holocene Lake beds in the eastern portion of the Valley (Rogers Lake, Rosamond Lake,
and Buckhorn Lake) regularly fill with water during the winter months, forming ponds and, in wet
years, shallow lakes that can last through spring (Earle et al. 1997). In major flood episodes water
may flow across the valley floor in an eastward direction to Rosamond Lake.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
12
07A3822 Task Order 17
Vegetation
The majority of the vegetation in the Mojave Desert is composed of creosote bush (Larrea tridentate)
and white bur-sage (Ambrosia dumosa). However, the vegetation does vary by elevation (Koehler et
al. 2005). Low elevations are characterized by desert holly (Atriplex hymenelytra), bur-sage, and
creosote, along with brittle bush (Encelia farinosa), pygmy-cedar (Peucephyllum schottii ), and
cheesebush (Ambrosia salsola). In the next elevation range, from approximately 200 to 1,300 m
AMSL, creosote bush dominates the landscape, with white bur-sage, ephedra (Ephedra spp.),
brittlebush, wolfberry (Lycium spp.), Cooper’s golden bush (Ericameria cooperi ), ratany (Krameria
spp.), and Mexican bladder sage (Scuttelaria [Salazaria] mexicana) as secondary components. The
drier landscape (at an approximate elevation range of 1,300 to 1,700 m AMSL) has mesophytic
upland desert shrubs such as desert almond (Prunus fasciculata), blackbrush (Coleogyne
ramosissima), turpentine broom (Thamnosma montana), and Joshua tree (Yucca brevifolia). The
landscapes at greater than 1,700 m AMSL support sparse stands of Utah juniper (Juniperus
osteosperma) (Koehler et al. 2005).
Today, the vegetation of Antelope Valley includes several plant communities which are distributed by
elevation and soil chemistry. This discussion of the vegetation is synthesized from Hickman (1993),
Holland (1986), Kremkau et al. (2013), Munz (1959, 1968), and Price et al. (2009). The major
vegetation communities and their primary associated plants include:
•
Joshua tree woodland: characterized by Joshua trees with junipers (Juniperus spp.), creosote
bush, buckwheat (Eriogonum spp.), pepper grass (Lepidium fremontii ), desert dandelion
(Malacothrix glabrata), pincushion (Chaenactis sp.), and fiddleneck (Amsinckia tesselata),
among others.
•
Creosote bush scrub: dominated by creosote bush and associated with white bur-sage,
Anderson's boxthorn (Lycium andersonii ), brittlebush, prickly pear (Opuntia sp.), desert
mallow (Sphaeralcea ambigua), winterfat (Krascheninnikovia lanata), cheesebush and Nevada
ephedra (Ephedra nevadensis), among others.
•
Saltbush scrub: dominated by saltbush Atriplex spp., along with Anderson's boxthorn, rabbitthorn (Lycium pallidum), rubber rabbitbrush (Ericameria nauseosa), and antelope bush
(Purshia tridentata), among others.
•
Pinyon juniper woodland: characterized by junipers, pinyon pines (Pinus monophylla and
Pinus edulis), buckwheats, big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata), and other Artemisia species,
antelope brush, rabbitbrush (Ericameria spp.), mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus spp.), and
snakeweed (Gutierrezia spp.), among others.
The foothill slopes that fringe the Antelope Valley on the northwest and southwest are dotted by
Joshua tree woodland community including Mojave yucca (Yucca schidigera), cacti, and grasses.
Joshua trees are restricted to the desert edges, especially to the north and on the foothill slopes. It is
important to note that although the Joshua tree is often considered to be a common vegetative
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
13
07A3822 Task Order 17
marker of the Mojave Desert, its range within the desert, especially in the lower elevations to the
south is not precisely documented (Sutton 1996). Junipers (J. californica and to a lesser degree J.
grandis) are present on the fringes of the valley along the slopes to the northwest and southwest.
The valley floor has creosote bush scrub that includes creosote, white bur-sage (Ambrosia dumosa),
brittle bush, rubber rabbitbrush, silver cholla (Opuntia enchinocarpa), beavertail cactus (Opuntia
basilaris), cheesebush, and Mojave yucca. The dry lakebed of Pleistocene Lake Thompson is
characterized by desert saltbush scrub vegetation which can tolerate high salt (halophytes) in the
sediments and include saltbush (A. canescens), shadescale (A. confertifolia), and allscale (A.
polycarpa). The alluvial fans and lower slopes are vegetated by big sagebrush, rubber rabbitbrush
(Chrysothamnus spp.), tamarisk (Tamarix gallica), and mesquite (Prosopis spp.). Chia (Salvia
columbariae), buckwheat, and ephedra (Ephedra spp.) also are present dotting the landscape. Nonnative plants such as giant reed (Arundo donax), tamarisk, California poppy (Eschscholzia californica),
cheat grass (Bromus tectorum), filaree (Erodium spp.), and others are present in the valley.
In recent history, domestic sheep grazing has had measurable effects on the vegetation in the
Mojave Desert. Webb and Stielstra (1979) conducted a study on short-term effects of sheep grazing
on the desert ecosystem which indicated that trampling resulted in severe compaction of soils, runoff
increased in grazed areas, grasses generally increased while the above-ground biomass under
creosote bush reduced significantly, as did the average cover of bur-sage. Today, Antelope Valley is
dotted by agricultural fields and grazing areas, although the densities of these fields are not high.
Fauna
The list of the animals known to exist in the western Mojave Desert and their associated habitats or
locales (Table 1) is based on the results of formal biological surveys conducted at Edwards Air Force
Base (AFB) (Mitchell at al. 1993; TetraTech 2009; and additional information on shrimp in the western
Mojave Desert [Brostoff et al. 2010]), as well as other informal reports for the region. Most animal
occurrences are tied to habitat types, especially for small animals. Larger mammals and birds travel
freely and may occur in multiple habitat types.
Large mammals in the mountain areas include black bear, mountain lion, and mule deer. The nonnative Rocky Mountain Elk which were imported to the Tejon Ranch area from the Yellowstone area
in historic times, but this species does not occur in any other part of the Antelope Valley. Black bears
mountain lions, and mule deer are native animals. Some medium-sized animals inhabit both the
mountain and desert areas, and include bobcat, coyote, gray fox, raccoon, and American badger.
Desert kit fox, black-tailed jackrabbits, and desert cottontails mostly occur on the valley floor along
with many types of rodents and reptiles. Black-tailed jackrabbits are known in all habitats on the
valley floor and are known to be a primary food for large raptors, bobcat, and coyote. Raptors,
including hawks and owls, are common predators of both rabbits and rodents. Numerous small birds
and reptiles are present. In addition, playas inundated for days to weeks by seasonal rains contain
several types of freshwater shrimp and water fleas.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
14
07A3822 Task Order 17
Tehachapi Mountains
and South Sierras
Lakes, ponds, streams
Playas
Edwards Base-Wide
Large Mammal
Taxon
Incidental Report
Common
Name
Alkali Scrub
Group
Desert Scrub
Table 1. Modern Fauna and Associated Habitats/Locales1
Mammals
ArtiodactylaArtiodactyls
Canidae-Canids
CricetidaeCricetids
Felidae-Felids
HeteromyidaeKangaroo and
pocket rodents
Elk, Rocky
Mountain*
Deer, mule
Cervus elphus
Coyote
Canis latrans
x
Dog, domestic
Fox, gray
Canis lupus familiaris
Urocyon
cinereoargenteus
Vulpes macrotis
Peromyscus maniculatus
x
Fox, desert kit
Mouse, North
American deer
Mouse,
grasshopper
Mouse, western
harvest
Vole, California
Woodrat
Bobcat
Mouse, little
pocket
Mouse, longtailed pocket
Mouse, pocket
Rat, desert
kangaroo
Rat, chiseltoothed
kangaroo
Rat, kangaroo
Rat, Merriam’s
kangaroo
Rat, Panamint
kangaroo
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
x
Odocoileus hemionus
Onychomys torridus
Reithrodontomys
megalotis
Microtus californicus
Neotoma spp.
Felis rufus
Perognathus
longimembris
Perognathus
Chaetodipus
Perognathus spp. or
Chaetodipus spp.
Dipodomys deserti
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Dipodomys microps
x
Dipodomys spp.
Dipodomys merriami
Dipodomys
panamintimus
x
x
x
15
07A3822 Task Order 17
MustelidaeMustelids
ProcyonidaeRacoons
SciuridaeSquirrels
Ursidae-Bears
Tehachapi Mountains
and South Sierras
Lakes, ponds, streams
Playas
x
Edwards Base-Wide
Large Mammal
x
Incidental Report
Taxon
Alkali Scrub
LeporidaeLeporids
Common
Name
Desert Scrub
Group
Jackrabbit,
black-tailed
Cottontail,
desert
Badger,
American
Racoon,
northern
Ringtail
Marmot,
yellow-bellied
Squirrel, whitetailed antelope
ground
Squirrel,
California
ground
Squirrel,
Mohave
ground
Bear, black
Lepus californicus
Ursus americanus
x
Eagle, golden
Falcon, prairie
Harrier,
northern
Hawk, Cooper’s
Hawk,
ferruginous
Hawk, redtailed
Kestrel,
American
Lark, horned
Swift, Vaux’s
Aquila chrysaetos
Falco mexicanus
Circus cyaneus
x
x
Nighthawk,
lesser
Killdeer
Chordeiles acutipennis
Sylvilagus audubonii
x
Taxidea taxus
Procyon lotor
Bassariscus astutus
Marmota flaviventris
x
x
x
x
x
x
Ammospermophilus
leucurus
x
Spermophilus beecheyi
x
Xerospermophilus
mohavensis
x
Birds
AccipitridaeHawks & eagles
Alaudidae-Larks
ApodidaeSwifts
CaprimulgidaeGoatsuckers
Charadriidae-
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
Accipiter cooperi
Buteo regalis
Buteo jamaicensis
Falco sparvericus
Eremophilia alpestris
Chaetura vauxi
Charadrius vociferus
16
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
07A3822 Task Order 17
Plovers
ColumbidaePigeons, doves
CorvidaeCrows, jays
EmberizidaeWarblers,
sparrows
FringillidaeFinches
Dove,
mourning
Dove, whitewinged
Raven,
common
Zenaida macroura
Grosbeak,
black-headed
Meadowlark,
western
Oriole, hooded
Oriole,
northern
Oriole, Scott’s
Sparrow, blackthroated
Sparrow,
Brewer’s
Sparrow,
chipping
Sparrow, lark
Sparrow, sage
Sparrow,
savannah
Sparrow, whitecrowned
Tanager,
western
Warbler, blackthroated gray
Warbler, hermit
Warbler,
Wilson’s
Warbler,
yellow-rumped
Finch, house
Pheucticus
melanocephalus
Sturnella neglecta
Haemorhous mexicanus
x
Goldfinch,
Spinus psaltria
x
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
Zenaida asiatica
Corvus corax
x
x
x
x
x
Icterus parisorum
Amphispiza bilineata
x
x
Piranga ludoviciana
Setophaga nigrescens
Setophaga occidentalis
Cardellina pusilla
Setophaga coronata
17
Tehachapi Mountains
and South Sierras
Lakes, ponds, streams
x
x
x
x
Chondestes grammacus
Artemisiospiza belli
Passerculus
sandwichensis
Zonotrichia leucophrys
Playas
x
x
Spizella passerina
Edwards Base-Wide
Large Mammal
x
Icterus cucullatus
Icterus galbula
Spizella breweri
Incidental Report
Taxon
Alkali Scrub
Common
Name
Desert Scrub
Group
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
07A3822 Task Order 17
Hirundinidae
LaniidaeShrikes
Mimidae-Mimic
thrushes
MuscicapidaeGnatcatchers,
etc.
PhasianidaeFowl-like birds
PicidaeWoodpeckers
PtilogonatidaeSilky flycatchers
RemizidaeVerdin
Strigidae-Owls
SturnidaeStarlings
TrochilidaeHummingbirds
lesser
Siskin, pine
Swallow, barn
Swallow, cliff
Swallow, tree
Shrike,
loggerhead
Mockingbird,
northern
Thrasher,
LeConte’s
Thrasher, sage
Mockingbird,
northern
Gnatcatcher,
blue-gray
Kinglet, rubycrowned
Robin,
American
Quail, California
Mimus polyglottos
Toxostoma lecontei
Oreoscoptes montanus
Mimus polyglottos
Polioptila caerulea
Regulus calendula
Turdus migratorius
Callipepla californica
Woodpecker,
ladder-backed
Phainopepla
Picoides scalaris
Verdin
Auriparus flaviceps
Owl, burrowing
Owl, great
horned
Owl, longeared
Owl, shorteared
Starling,
European
Hummingbird,
Anna’s
Athene cunicularia
Bubo virginianus
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
Phainopepla nitens
x
Tehachapi Mountains
and South Sierras
Lakes, ponds, streams
Playas
x
x
x
x
Edwards Base-Wide
Large Mammal
Spinus pinus
Hirundo rustica
Petrochelidon pyrrhonota
Tachycineta bicolor
Lanius ludovicianus
Incidental Report
Taxon
Alkali Scrub
Common
Name
Desert Scrub
Group
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Asio otus
x
Asio flammeus
x
Sturnus vulgaris
Calypte anna
18
x
x
x
x
07A3822 Task Order 17
TyrannidaeFlycatchers
VireonidaeVireos
Wren, house
Flycatcher, ashthroated
Flycatcher,
empidonax
Flycatcher,
western
Kingbird,
western
Pewee, western
wood
Phoebe, Say’s
Vireo, solitary
Vireo, warbling
x
Tehachapi Mountains
and South Sierras
x
Lakes, ponds, streams
Campylorhyncus
brunneicapillus
Playas
Wren, cactus
Edwards Base-Wide
Large Mammal
TroglodytidaeWrens
Incidental Report
Taxon
Alkali Scrub
Common
Name
Desert Scrub
Group
x
Myarchus cinerascens
Empidonax sp.
Empidonax difficilis
Tyrannus verticalis
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Contopus sordidulus
x
Sayornis saya
Vireo solitarius
Vireo gilvus
x
x
x
Coachwhip
Snake, gopher
Chuckwalla
Masticophis flagellum
Pituphis catenifer
Sauromalus ater
x
x
Iguana, desert
Dipsosaurus dorsalis
x
Lizard, desert
horned
Lizard, desert
spiny
Lizard, leopard
Lizard, Mojave
fringe-toed
Lizard, sideblotched
Lizard, zebra
tailed
Whiptail,
western
Tortoise, desert
Phrynosoma platyrhinos
Rattlesnake,
Mojave
Crotalus scutalatus
x
Reptiles
ColubridaeColubrids
IguanidaeIguanids
TelldaeWhiptails
TestudinidaeLand tortoise
ViperidaeVipers
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
Sceloporus magister
Gambelia wislizenii
Uma scoparia
Uta stansburiana
Callisaurus draconoides
Aspidoscelis tigris
Gopherus agassizii
19
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
07A3822 Task Order 17
BranchinectidFairy shrimp
TriopsidaeTadpole shrimp
Monidae-Water
fleas
1
Lizard, desert
night
Xantusia vigilis
Shrimp, setose
clam
Shrimp,
common clam
Shrimp, giant
fairy
Shrimp,
Colorado fairy
Shrimp,
versatile fairy
Shrimp, alkali
fairy
Shrimp, Lynch
tadpole
Water flea,
Macleay’s
Water flea,
common
Cyzicus setosa
Tehachapi Mountains
and South Sierras
Lakes, ponds, streams
Playas
x
Edwards Base-Wide
Large Mammal
x
Incidental Report
Taxon
Alkali Scrub
XantusiidaeNight lizards
Invertebrates
Cyzicidae-Clam
shrimp
Common
Name
Desert Scrub
Group
x
Eocyzicus digueti
Branchinecta gigas
Branchinecta
coloradensis
Branchinecta lindahli
Branchinecta mackini
Lepidarus lemmoni
Moinodaphnia macleayi
Moina sp.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Compiled from Brostoff et al. 2010; Mitchell at al. 1993; TetraTech 2009. Where applicable, Latin names
have been updated according to the most currently accepted taxonomy.
*Non-native species
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
20
07A3822 Task Order 17
Prehistoric Landscape
Vegetation and Traditional Uses
Much of what is known about prehistoric vegetation in the Antelope Valley results from studies
conducted in other parts of the Mojave Desert. In this section, discussion is focused on aspects of the
prehistoric landscape that would have shaped and influenced Native American adaptations. Some of
the plants that were important contributors to the plant diet, subsistence, and lifeways include bursage, creosote, saltbush, cacti, yucca, screwbean (Prosopis pubescens), mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa),
Indian ricegrass (Stipa hymenoides), juniper, acorns (Quercus spp.), and piñon.
The earliest vegetation record is from the Late Wisconsin glacial period during the late Pleistocene
prior to human occupation of the Mojave Desert. At that time, the Mojave Desert had piñon-juniper
woodland on the valley floor. At the beginning of the Holocene around 12,000 years ago the
vegetation changed and the piñon-juniper woodland was replaced by desert shrubs (desert scrub
and creosote scrub plant communities) on the desert floor (Koehler and Anderson 1998; Koehler et
al. 2005; West et al. 2007). By around 8,300 years ago, Spaulding (1990) argues that juniper had
disappeared from the lower slopes and was replaced by arid shrubs. As the desert grew warmer and
drier, the vegetation shifted from sagebrush, rabbitbrush, and shadescale to arid species such as
ephedra, matchweed, desert thorn, cacti, and Joshua tree, to very arid species such as white bursage, creosote, and other desert thermophiles (Spaulding 1990). It is important to caution that rarely
are changes in vegetation communities synchronous because responses of individual plant taxa to
changing climate are distinct and need not respond similarly in all soil types, and micro-niche
climatic variability has to be taken into account when modeling vegetational change. In other words,
the reconstructions done for the Central and Northern Mojave Desert areas may not be fully
applicable to Antelope Valley.
Creosote bush vegetation was most likely present during the Early and Middle Holocene (11,700 to
4200 cal BP) and was definitely established by the beginning of the Late Holocene (circa 4200 cal BP).
West el al. (2007:32) state that by 5,000 years ago, the primary characteristics of the Mojave Desert
vegetation as observed today were established, with modern associations developing over the next
several thousand years. Similarly, Koehler and Anderson (1998:283) suggest that the “modern
composition of dominant vegetation was completed about 4500 B.C.” Circa 4200 BP precipitation
began to increase, resulting in greater resource productivity (Rhode 2001; Wigand and Rhode 2002).
Bur-sage, creosote bush, saltbush, Joshua tree, and yucca were an established part of the vegetation
by the end of the Pleistocene (11,700 years ago), but there may have been changes in their
distribution and densities in response to micro-climatic changes in the Antelope Valley during the
Medieval Climatic Anomaly (AD 300-700) and Little Ice Age (AD 1300-1870) events. Piñon was not a
significant part of the vegetation on the desert floor from the earliest human occupation, but it was
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
21
07A3822 Task Order 17
likely present on the hills and mountain slopes to the northwest and southwest, at elevation ranges
of approximately 3,000 to 9,000 feet AMSL (Clarke 1977; Minnich 1973). Similarly, oak trees and
juniper were also present on the hills and mountain slopes above the desert margin; oaks were found
up to 7,000 feet AMSL and juniper between 2,500 and 6,500 feet AMSL (Minnich 1973). Juniper
occurs as part of the pinyon-juniper woodland community (between 3,000 and 5,000 feet AMSL), and
Joshua tree-juniper woodland intermixed with saltbush scrub (between 2,500 feet AMSL and 5,000
feet AMSL) (Clarke 1977).
The timing of the arrival of Indian ricegrass (Stipa hymenoides) in the Valley is not known, but the
plant’s seeds were used for food during ethnohistoric times by Native Americans. Mesquite, and
probably also screwbean, likely were established in the Antelope Valley by 4,200 years ago (Schroth
1987). Mesquite was used by Central Mojave Desert inhabitants by the Rose Spring Period (ca. AD
225 to AD 1100), based on macrobotanical data from the Afton Canyon site (CA-SBR-85). Schroth
(1987) states that mesquite was used continuously from approximately 2000 BC by the Mojave
Desert inhabitants.
Ethnohistorically, the Antelope Valley area was used by the Tataviam, Kitanemuk, Serrano, and
Kawaiisu groups. Documentation of plant use by these groups has been used as a model for
prehistoric plant use. Two plants that occur in abundance in the Antelope Valley, bur-sage and
creosote bush, have no uses as food, but they have been used for medicinal purposes. Different parts
of saltbush), cacti, Joshua tree and yucca, screwbean, mesquite, Indian ricegrass, juniper, acorns, and
piñon were all used as food (Bean 1972; Fowler 1986; Knack 1981; Kroeber 1925). Fowler (1986)
identified several plant complexes for which specific procurement and processing techniques were
developed by inhabitants of the Great Basin and Mojave Desert; two of these were plant complexes
found on the valley floor: the agave/yucca/cactus complex and the mesquite/screwbean complex.
The piñon-juniper complex and the acorn complex were found at higher elevations in the hills and
mountains on the margins of the Antelope Valley. In addition to the members of these main plant
groups, there were several plants that were of secondary importance to most of the Native American
groups of the Valley. These plants include, but are not limited to, chia, blazing star (Mentzelia
albicaulis), pigweed (Amaranthus spp.), buckwheat (Eriogonum spp.), desert dandelion (Malacothrix
californica), tansy mustard (Descuriania pinnata), sea blight (Suaeda torreyana), desert onion (Allium
fimbriatum), and desert lily (Hesperocallis undulata).
During discussions with representatives of Native American communities in the Valley, as part of this
study, researchers were provided with a list of traditional plants used by the Serrano ethnic group,
which occupied the southern part of the Antelope Valley Study Area at the time of Spanish contact.
These are listed in Table 2. Traditional uses of these plants among the neighboring Cahuilla ethnic
groups have been well documented (Bean and Saubel 1972) and are provided in the third column of
Table 2 for reference purposes only.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
22
07A3822 Task Order 17
Fauna and Traditional Uses
Based on archaeological collections, the mountainous fringe of the western Mojave Desert was home
to black bear, bighorn sheep, deer, and chuckwalla. The valley floor was home to pronghorn, kit fox,
jackrabbit, rabbit, squirrels, vole, rats, desert tortoise, iguana, and quail. Lynx, coyote, gray fox, and
some others were found both in the mountains and on the valley floor. Temporally transitory lakes
and ponds (including vernal pools) were home to ducks, geese, egret, heron, and fairy shrimp.
Pronghorn antelope and jackrabbits are discussed in more detail below because of their potential to
provide large amounts of meat as a result of communal hunting using drives and brush corrals.
Animals that may have been used as resources for food, pelts, and feathers are listed in Table 3.
Pronghorn antelope were present in the Antelope Valley grasslands in prehistoric and historic times.
Large antelope populations were present in the valley well into the late 1800s, but in 1934 only four
females were present in the valley according to a Fish and Game census. By 1940 pronghorn in the
Antelope Valley were locally extirpated. Pronghorn are most active in the daytime. Their primary
defense mechanisms were being part of a herd and fast locomotion. The animals are known to be
very curious, and both prehistoric and modern hunters used a flag or pendant tied to vegetation to
attract individual animals into range. Pronghorn were also hunted communally using drives.
Table 2. Native Uses of Plants
Scientific Name
Common Name
Use*
Adenostoma fasciculatum
Allium spp.
Arctostaphylos spp.
Chamise
Wild onion
Bur-sage
Manzanita
Artemisia californica
Atriplex ssp.
California Sagebrush
Saltbush
Baccharis viminea
Brodiaea pulchella
Mulefat
Wild Hyacinth
Chilopsis linearis
Desert Willow
Chlorogalum pomeridianum
Soaproot
Echinocactus acanthodes
Barrel Cactus
Encelia farinosa
Ephedra nevadensis
Eriogonum fasciculatum
Brittle Bush
Ephedra
California Buckwheat
Eriodictyon trichocalyx
Yerba Santa
Construction material, medicine
Bulbs used as food.
Medicine
Berries and seeds used as food. Leaves
used for medicine.
Medicine
Seeds used as food. Leaves used for soap
and medicine.
Medicine
Corms (bulbs) used as food. Corms and
flowers used as soap and shampoo.
Wood for construction and making bows.
Bark used for fiber (nets and clothing).
Bulb used for soap. Fibers used to make
brushes.
Buds and flowers used as food. Provided
emergency water.
Medicine
Twigs used for tea. Seeds used for food.
Shoots and seeds used as food. Leaves
used to make a drink for medicine.
Leaves used for medicine.
Ambrosia dumosa
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
23
07A3822 Task Order 17
Scientific Name
Common Name
Use*
Eucalyptus globules
Leaves steamed for medicine.
Helianthus californicus
Juglans californica
Blue Gum Tree;
Eucalyptus (non-native
tree)
California Sunflower
California Black Walnut
Juncus spp.
Juniperus californica
Larrea tridentate
Lycium andersonii
Muhlenbergia rigens
Nicotiana attenuata
Nicotiana trigonophylla
Rush
Juniper
Creosote Bush
Water Jacket
Deer Grass
Tobacco
Tobacco
Opuntia acanthocarpa
Buckhorn Cholla
Opuntia basilaris
Opuntia occidentalis
Pinus monophylla
Beavertail Cactus
Prickly Pear Cactus
Pinyon Pine
Pinus spp.
Pine
Platanus racemosa
Western Sycamore
Populus fremontii
Fremont Cottonwood
Prosopis glandulosa
Honey Mesquite
Prosopis pubescens
Screwbean Mesquite
Prunus ilicifolia
Hollyleaf Cherry
Pteridium aquilinum var.
pubescens
Quercus agrifolia
Quercus chrysolepis
Quercus dumosa
Quercus kelloggii
Quercus lobata
Quercus spp.
Bracken Fern
Rhus integrifolia
Lemonade Berry
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
California Live Oak
Canyon Live Oak
California Scrub Oak
California Black Oak
California White Oak
Oak
Seeds used as food.
Nuts used as food. Hulls used for dye for
baskets.
Fiber for baskets
Berries used for food.
Stems and leaves used for medicine.
Berries used for food.
Stalks used in basket making.
Tobacco for smoking in pipes or chewing.
Tobacco used in rituals, by shamans, and
as medicine.
Fruit used as food. Ashes of stems used as
medicine.
Fruit buds and seeds used as food.
Fruits used as food.
Pinyon nuts used as food. Pinyon wood
used as firewood.
Pine needles and roots used in basket
making. Pine pitch used as adhesive. Bark
used as roofing material.
Wood used in house construction and to
make wooden bowls.
Leaves and bark used as medicine. Wood
used to make mortars and tools and for
firewood.
Blossoms and pods (beans) used as food.
Wood used to make mortars and bows, for
house posts and for firewood. Bark used as
fiber.
Pods (beans) used as food. Roots and bark
used as medicine.
Pulp of fruit and kernels of pits used as
food.
Shoots used as food.
Acorns used as food.
Acorns used as food.
Acorns used as food.
Acorns used as food.
Acorns used as food.
Ashes of wood and bark used as medicine.
Wood used to make mortars.
Berries used to make a beverage.
24
07A3822 Task Order 17
Scientific Name
Common Name
Use*
Rhus ovata
Sugarbush
Rubus vitifolius
Salix gooddingii
California Blackberry
Black Willow
Salix spp.
Salvia apiana
Willow
White Sage
Salvia columbariae
Salvia mellifera
Chia
Black Sage
Sambucus mexicana
Elderberry
Scirpus spp.
Bulrush
Simmondsia chinensis
Stipa hymenoides
Trichostema lanatum
Jojoba
Indian Rice Grass
Woolly Blue Curls
Berries used as food. Leaves used for
medicinal tea.
Berries used as food.
Wood and fiber used to make bows and
baskets.
Leaves used to make medicinal tea.
Seeds used for food. Leaves used for
medicine.
Seeds used for food and medicine.
Seeds used for food. Leaves and stalks
used as a condiment.
Berries used as food and basket dye.
Blossoms and roots used as medicine.
Roots, seeds, and pollen used as food.
Fiber from stalks used for bedding, mats,
weaving, and roofing.
Fruit and seeds used as food.
Seeds used for food.
Leaves and flowers used for medicinal tea.
Typha latifolia
Cat-tail
Urtica holosericea
Stinging Nettle
Vitis girdiana
Washingtonia filifera
Desert Wild Grape
California Fan Palm
Yucca brevifolia
Joshua Tree
Yucca schidigera
Mojave Yucca
Yucca whipplei
Yucca, Spanish Bayonet
Roots and pollen used for food. Roots
used for medicine. Stalks used for fiber.
Leaves used for food. Stalks used for fiber.
Nettles used externally for medicine.
Grapes used as food.
Fruit used as food. Palm fronds used in
house and ramada construction. Seeds
used in gourd rattles. Stems used to make
spoons. Leaves used to make sandals.
Stems used to make fire.
Fiber used for sandals and nets. Blossoms
used for food.
Fruit pods used as food. Roots used for
soap. Fiber used for bowstrings, netting,
baskets, ropes, and matting. Leaves used in
house construction.
Stalk and flowers used as food. Leaves
used for fiber.
* From: Bean and Saubel 1972
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
25
07A3822 Task Order 17
Table 3. Animals Present and Utilized in Prehistory
Common Name
Chuckwalla
Deer, mule
Sheep, bighorn
Ducks
Egret, snowy
Geese
Heron, great blue
Shrimp, clam
Shrimp, fairy
Shrimp, tadpole
Coyote
Fox, kit
Iguana, desert
Rattlesnake
Jackrabbit
Pronghorn
Quail, California
Rabbit, Audubon
Rabbit, brush
Rat, kangaroo
Squirrel, antelope ground
Squirrel, Mohave ground
Tortoise, desert
Vole, California
Woodrat
Badger
Skunk
Raccoon
Grasshopper
Taxon
Sauromalus ater
Odocoileus hemionus
Ovis canadensis
Anatidae
Egretta thule
Anseridae
Ardea herodias
Cyzicus setosa
Branchinecta spp.
Lepidarus lemmoni
Canis latrans
Vulpes macrotis
Dipsosaurus dorsalis
Crotalus spp.
Lepus californicus
Antilocapra americana
Callipepla californica
Sylvilagus audubonii
Sylvilagus bachmani
Dipodomys spp.
Ammospermophilus leucurus
Otospermophilus mohavensis
Gopherus agassizii
Microtus californicus
Neotoma spp.
Taxidea taxus
Mephitis mephitis
Procyon lotor
Acrididae
Areas Where Present
Fringe hills and mountains
Fringe mountains
Fringe mountains
Lakes and ponds
Lakes and ponds
Lakes and ponds
Lakes and ponds
Lakes and ponds
Lakes and ponds
Lakes and ponds
All areas
Valley floor
Valley floor
Valley floor
Valley floor
Valley floor
Valley floor
Valley floor
Valley floor
Valley floor
Valley floor
Valley floor
Valley floor
Valley floor
Valley floor
Valley floor
Valley floor
Valley floor
Valley floor
From: Laudenslayer et al. 1995 and Earle et al. 1997
Jackrabbits are known to be active during the late afternoon and night and spend most daylight
hours resting. Resting spots tend not to be reused and are most often located in shade during hot
months. In the Mojave Desert, resting spots are sometimes extended into shallow burrows when no
other shade is available (Nagy et al. 1976). Jackrabbits evade their natural predators by having
protective coloration, fast movement, and no scent. Reproduction can occur year round but tends to
be most common in the first half of the year. Jackrabbits are known to travel to areas with more
vegetation during winter months and travel distances of 5 km are common. Jackrabbits are also
known to be attracted to seasonal water features in the Mojave Desert (Simes 2015). Carnivorous
mammals, raptors, and colorful birds were likely hunted for pelts and feathers, but not used for food
(Lightfoot and Parrish 2009:360-361). There is evidence for consumption of the remainder of the
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
26
07A3822 Task Order 17
animals listed in Table 2 and ethnographic evidence of use of resources like insects (Earle et al.
1997:49-50).
Fauna with Supernatural Significance
In addition to animals used in prehistoric times for food, pelts, and feathers, animals appear in native
creation stories or have supernatural significance to this day. Understandably, Native American
communities are reluctant to share their oral traditions/histories with non-community members,
particularly for the purposes of publication. Thus, the information presented herein is based solely on
published ethnographic works available for some of the Native American groups of the Mojave and
Colorado Deserts.
Among southern California Takic groups, living animals were believed to have been the descendants
of animals created by the transformation of the First People by the Creator (Ramon and Elliot
2000:571-573). The interactions of the Creator with these First People, who combined human and
animal characteristics at that time, comprise an important theme in sacred stories (Harrington
1986:III:101:73). Supernatural animals such as Coyote and Raven were described in sacred stories and
referenced in sacred songs. The spirit helpers that were obtained at initiation among southern
California Takic groups were often spirits in animal form. Various types of living animals were viewed
as possessing special powers, such as understanding human speech or foreseeing the future (Ramon
and Elliot 2000:218; Strong 1929:117). In addition, it was believed by the Serrano and other groups
that some people formerly or presently had the supernatural power to transform themselves into
animal form and back again (Ramon and Elliot 2000:294-295, 769-770, 793-794).
Historically, information about living and supernatural animals has been provided by native people
using native animal terms or glosses into Spanish or English folk terms for different animal species.
The native ’taxonomy’ for animal species did not conform to categories of scientific classification.
Thus, the correspondence of cultural or religious information about animals to specific species may
be difficult to determine where closely related and phenotypically similar animal taxa occur in the
southern California region.
The religious and supernatural associations of specific animals are
discussed below.
Bears
The bear appears among the First People and is a supernatural figure in sacred stories involving
other such animals. At the time of the death of the Creator, he instructed Bear to gather wood and
excavate a hole for his cremation (Strong 1929:140). In addition, it was believed that were-bears were
present in the contemporary world because of the capacity of bear shamans to transform themselves
into a bear form (Ramon and Elliot 2000:793-794). Living bears were also believed to have
supernatural associations, for example a special group of white bears believed to live at a lake near
the top of Mt. San Gorgonio (Gifford 1918:184). In addition, living bears were believed to have
human emotions and unusual powers. Bears who lost siblings to human hunters would avenge
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
27
07A3822 Task Order 17
themselves, and it was said that it was dangerous for a person to speak ill of bears, for they would
always hear this and avenge the insult (Benedict 1924:385; Strong 1929:116-117). It was also believed
that native people could directly communicate with bears, including asking bears for permission to
pass without harm when encountering them in the mountains (Strong 1929:117).
Coyotes
Coyote figured among the First People of creation time, stealing the Creator’s heart at his cremation.
Coyote was a central figure in sacred stories as a muti-faceted character, exhibiting both good and
bad behavior and character. Coyote was the representative animal of the Coyote moiety or ritual
division among the Serrano and other Takic language groups. It was believed by the Serrano that
‘spirit’ Coyotes might be seen by people as an omen of misfortune (Ramon and Elliot 2000:192-193).
Wolves
Wolf was a supernatural being said to be the older brother of Coyote and exhibiting a more sober
and reliable character (Gifford 1918:178; Zigmond 1980:229).
Wildcats
Wildcat was the supernatural representative animal of the wildcat moiety or ritual division among the
Serrano and some other Takic groups, such as the desert, pass, and mountain divisions of the
Cahuilla (Bean 1972:85). This appears to have been a bobcat such as Lynx rufus rather than a
mountain lion (Puma concolor), because native consultants distinguished between wildcats (tukut)
and mountain lions (wanac) (Gifford 1918:278; Ramon and Elliot 2000:343-344).
Mountain Lions
This animal is said by Gifford (1918:278) to have been linked to the Wildcat Moiety, along with
wildcat (tukut), the principal moiety animal. Gifford referred to mountain lion (Puma concolor) as
tukutcu, while Ramon called it wanac (Ramon and Elliot 2000:678). Benedict (1924:370) referred to
the wildcat as tukut, and the mountain lion as wanac.
Bighorn sheep
These are associated with the supernatural migration song cycles, including migrations from the San
Bernardino Mountains to the north down the length of the Mojave River and across the desert to the
east. A traditional story about mountain lions hunting bighorn sheep in a celestial context was
recalled by Ramon (Ramon and Elliot 2000:406-407, 677-678).
Deer
Deer figured among the First People of creation times. Ramon recounted a story about the moment
of transformation of some First People into deer by the Creator (Ramon and Elliot 2000:571-573).
Supernatural deer existed that could not be killed, according to Serrano belief (Bean and Smith
1978:573). Luiseño accounts describe a large, reddish magical deer that also could not be killed
(Boscana 1933:132). Sacred songs with which the Serrano were familiar recounted places associated
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
28
07A3822 Task Order 17
with deer north of the San Bernardino Mountains (Ramon and Elliot 2000:201-202). Ramon recalled a
story about a white deer seen as an ill omen (Ramon and Elliot 2000:663).
Badgers
Badger also figured among the First People of creation time and was present at the cremation of the
Creator. It was said that the First People had surrounded the funeral pyre to prevent Coyote from
entering the pyre and stealing the Creator’s heart. This stratagem failed, however, because due to
Badger’s bowed legs, Coyote was able to push under him and get to his objective (Gifford 1918:184;
Ramon and Elliot 2000:443-446,530-534)
Rabbits
Among the Kawaiisu, a sacred story recounted a supernatural Rabbit of creation times that routinely
abused a rattlesnake that had not yet been endowed with fangs and venom - the snake begged the
Creator for a means of defense to put the Rabbit in its place (Zigmond 1980:). A Cahuilla sacred story
recounts Rabbit among the First People dodging arrows at the time that the Creator fomented war
among them (Strong 1929:137). A Serrano sacred story recounts a celestial race between Coyote and
Rabbit (Ramon and Elliot 2000:614-616).
Rattlesnakes
Supernatural rattlesnakes were important figures in native belief in southern California, and were
frequently represented in pictographic rock art. For more westerly Takic language groups,
Rattlesnake figured as one of the ‘familiars’ or manifestations of the deity Chinigchinich, and one of
his ‘avengers’ (Boscana 1933:130-131). A Kawaiisu sacred story about Rattlesnake asking for fangs is
referred to above. A similar story about the Creator giving fangs to Rattlesnake who was being
abused was told by Cahuilla elders (Strong 1929:136).
Frogs
Frog was included among the First People. When they decided to kill the Creator, Frog was chosen to
slowly poison him. The marks seen on a frog’s back today are described as having originated when
the Creator probed at Frog (who he could not see) with a spear during the episodes of poisoning
(Gifford 1918:184).
Hummingbirds
The Kitanemuk referred to the initial population of the world with people as having involved a female
genitor at that time who gave birth to a supernatural Hummingbird (Blackburn and Bean 1978:568).
A Cahuilla creation story recounts how the Creator had fomented war between the First People.
Hummingbird, with a bow and a quiver on her back, could not be hit by her opponents because she
was so small (Strong 1929).
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
29
07A3822 Task Order 17
Eagles
Eagles were captured and raised to be used in the Eagle Killing Ceremony, an important ritual. Eagles
also figured in the sacred origin stories of the Serrano and other Takic groups. A white eagle
accompanied the creator being (Kukitat) on his southward migration toward Morongo (Gifford
1918:183). Among the Chumash, Eagle (Slo’ow) was one of the principal supernatural beings who
controlled human fate. For Takic language groups, eagle feathers formed an important element in
the Sacred Bundle that embodied the spiritual essence of a community.
Hawks
Hawks are referred to as First People and appear in sacred form in native sacred stories, such as a
Kawaiisu tale about Owl, Snowbird, several Hawks, Eagle, Falcon, and Quail (Zigmond 1980:167-169).
Owls
The owl had supernatural connotations as an omen of bad fortune, as among the Kitanemuk
(Blackburn and Bean 1978:568). A Kawaiisu sacred story recounts the interaction of Owl with various
other sacred birds and other animals (Zigmond 1980:167-169).
Ravens
Raven was an important animal with supernatural connotations. For more westerly Takic language
groups, Raven figured as one of the ‘familiars’ or manifestations of the deity Chinigchinich, and one
of his ‘avengers’ (Boscana 1933:130-131). Among the Serrano, Crow was considered a relative of
Wildcat (Gifford 1918:178). The Raven was considered a bird of omen, or a supernatural messenger
(Boscana 1933:130).
Lizards
Lizard was found among the First People and played an important role in the efforts of the First
People to kill their Creator, by observing the latter carefully at night while the other First People were
asleep (Gifford 1918:199; Ramon and Elliot 2000:747-749). Such supernatural lizards were also
described as having shamanic powers and the ability to perform ritual dances (Ramon and Elliot
2000:762-763).
Antelopes
Ramon recounted that Serrano sacred songs were sung that referred to antelope (Ramon and Elliot
2000:274-275).
Foxes
A Kawaiisu sacred story refers to Coyote attempting to imitate the actions of Fox, with disastrous
results for Coyote (Zigmond 1980:103).
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
30
07A3822 Task Order 17
Butterflies and Moths
The Luiseño Song of Temenganesh refers to butterflies with their cocoons having a form that recalls
the Luiseño pohota or sacred enclosure (DuBois 1908). Ramon recalled that she was told that moths
were spirit beings that should not be harmed (Ramon and Elliot 2000:863-864).
Dragonflies
The dragonfly (qrinyinyi') figures in a song of the Serrano, as sung today by Ernest Siva, relating to
the dragonfly’s association with spirituality and good values. It is today a symbol for Serrano
traditional culture and cultural values.
Tortoises and Turtles
A Kawaiisu sacred story recounts how Coyote and Turtle hunted deer, and Coyote used Turtle’s
limited jumping ability to cheat him of the deer meat, with an angry Turtle later exacting revenge
(Zigmond 1980:131).
Squirrels and Chipmunks
The squirrel and chipmunk were mentioned in Luiseño sacred songs, and it was recounted that
chipmunk was one of the First People who helped to carry the log on which the Creator was laid
during his cremation (DuBois 1908).
Kangaroo Rats
A Kawaiisu sacred story recounts how Coyote had an encounter with Kangaroo-rat, whom he
proceeded to mock. He then attempted to imitate her actions in harvesting rice-grass seeds and
ended up killing himself (Zigmond 1980:109).
Quail
Ramon recalled that several bird species were recalled as having spoken the Serrano language in
respect to naming themselves, including the quail (Ramon and Elliot 2000:38). Zigmond (1980:185)
reproduces a Kawaiisu sacred story about a supernatural Quail whose cradleboard-making provided
a cultural charter for what kind of willow the Kawiisu should use to make cradleboards.
Roadrunners
An encounter with a roadrunner could be considered an ill omen among the Serrano (Ramon and
Elliot 2000:854).
Changes in Water Availability Through Time
Late Pleistocene/Holocene Lake Stands
Rosamond Lake, and its near neighbors within Edwards AFB — Rogers and Buckhorn Lakes — are
Holocene relics of an earlier, much larger perennial body of water, Lake Thompson. From at least
30,860 BP, during the Wisconsin Glacial Stage, a lake as large as 950 square kilometers in area
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
31
07A3822 Task Order 17
and more than 80 meters deep filled the center of the Antelope Valley (Meyer and Bowers 2002;
Orme 2008; Orme and Yuretich 2004; Rhode and Lancaster 1996). Rain and snowmelt from the San
Gabriel Mountains to the south and southwest reached Lake Thompson mainly via Amargosa, Little
Rock, and Big Rock Creeks, while Mojave, Oak, Cottonwood, and Los Alamos Creeks (Figure 3)
brought runoff from the Tehachapi Mountains, located to the northwest. This high stand lasted for
several thousand years, and continued, its depth and extent varying slightly, until around 17,000 BP.
At times, the lake may have overflowed to the north into the Freemont Valley, its flood waters
feeding Koehn Lake (Orme and Yuretich 2004).
During the alternate climatic warming and cooling episodes that followed the Last Glacial Maximum
and characterized the Pleistocene/Holocene Transition and the Holocene epoch, playas in the
Mojave Desert became desiccated, then sometimes were refilled and stood for years, decades, or
centuries as relatively shallow lakes. There is little evidence for the timing of the various infill events
of the Lake Thompson playa, but shoreline and wave-deposited sediments around Rosamond Lake
indicate that there may have been infill events and shallow lake stands around 12,600 BP and around
6830 BP (Orme 2008; Orme and Yuretich 2004).
As temperatures warmed in the Holocene, Lake Thompson eventually broke up into Rogers Lake,
Rosamond Lake, and Buckhorn Lake (Figure 3) around 8,000 years ago (Thompson 1929). During the
late Holocene, periodic short-duration partial to full inundations of these lakebeds occurred during
exceptionally wet winters. Today, most of the water comes from direct rainfall and local runoff, but
occasionally, as in the 1982-1983 El Niño episode, stream flow from the mountains is sufficient to
reach the playas (Lee 1997; Meyer and Bowers 2002; Orme and Yuretich 2004). During rainfall events
small playa basins and stable dunes along the margins of Rosamond and Rogers Dry Lakes provided
natural catch basins for water runoff and rainfall from areas throughout the Antelope Valley. These
small basins or ponds were able to retain water for relatively long periods of time, attracting birds
and sustaining plant growth (Norwood 1989).
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
32
07A3822 Task Order 17
Oak
Creek
Map Features
Antelope Valley Study Area
Hyrdrological or Topographical Feature
Creek
Tehachapi
Mountains
Rogers Lake
Cottonwood
Creek
Bean Spring
Rosamond Lake
()-amyers 10/3/2018
Location: N:\2015\2015-075.017 Antelope Valley Research Design\MAPS\Meeting_Maps_and_Analysis\2018-09-28 Hydrology Figure\AVRD_Hydro_Geo_20180928.mxd
Willow
Springs
Buckhorn Lake
Los Alamos
Buckhorn
Spring
Quail Lake
Lake Hughes
Elizabeth
Lake
Lovejoy
Springs
Amargosa
Creek
Big Rock
Creek
Little
Rock Creek
I
San Gabriel
Mountains
M i l es
0
5
Map Date: 10/3/2018
Photo Source: ESRI Service Layer
Figure 3. Antelope Valley Hydrological and Topographical Features
2015-075.017 Antelope Valley Research Design
Water Seeps and Springs
The Antelope Valley is an enclosed drainage basin. Prior to the arrival of Europeans, the unique
topography and the high percolation-ability of the sediments resulted in a high water table within
the valley floor (Orme 2008). The combination of the high water table and multiple small faults within
the valley interior and along the San Andreas Rift Zone resulted in the Antelope Valley containing
numerous springs, marshes, and seeps during the prehistoric period (Sutton 1988b). Notable springs
within the valley that were active during the pre-contact period include Bean Springs, Willow Springs,
Lovejoy Springs, and Buckhorn Springs (Earle et al. 1997) (see Figure 3). There was a system of sag
ponds in the area now occupied by Quail Lake (a modern man-made reservoir) at the west end of
the Antelope Valley. In addition, numerous springs and seeps were located within the San Andreas
Rift Zone including a spring and potential small lakebed at the location of modern Lake Elizabeth.
Thus, despite the arid climatic conditions, both perennial and, depending on the climatic fluctuations,
seasonal water sources were likely present throughout the Antelope Valley during the prehistoric
period.
Lithic Sources
A variety of both local and imported lithic material was available to prehistoric inhabitants of the
Antelope Valley. Local lithic material, including rhyolite, cryptocrystalline silicate (CCS; jasper,
chalcedony, and chert), quartz, steatite, and basalt was primarily quarried from the Tertiary-age
volcanic buttes and hills located throughout the Antelope Valley and from the San Andreas Rift Zone.
Notable lithic sources within the Antelope Valley include rhyolite outcrops at Fairmont Butte and the
Rosamond Hills, CCS sources in the Rosamond Hills and Kramer Hills to the east of the Study Area,
and steatite outcrops in the Sierra Pelona within the San Andreas Rift Zone (Earle et al. 1997; Sutton
1993). In addition to these well-studied sources, other buttes and hills within the valley, including
Little Buttes, Soledad Mountain, and the Bissell Hills contain rhyolite and/or CCS materials (Dibblee
1967). No attempts have been made to identify all the available lithic sources in the region. However,
the Antelope Valley and adjacent areas likely contained numerous CCS sources (Sutton 1988b).
Quartz and basalt are prevalent both within the valley and in the surrounding mountains. Little
information is known about the specific sources for these materials.
In addition to locally available lithic materials, imported materials are prevalent throughout sites in
the Antelope Valley Study Area. Most notably, obsidian from the Coso Mountains to the north is
present in the archaeological record throughout the Valley (Sutton 1991). In addition to obsidian,
fused shale from Ventura County has been identified at sites within the Antelope Valley (Earle et al.
1997).
Lithic sources are discussed in more detail in the Theme: Lithic Material Sources section.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
34
07A3822 Task Order 17
CULTURAL SETTING
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
35
07A3822 Task Order 17
Chronology
The cultural chronology used for the Antelope Valley is based on a chronology for the Mojave Desert
widely used in recent decades (Earle et al. 1997; Price 2009; Warren 1984), albeit with some variations
in starting and ending dates for specific periods. The temporal units used by Sutton et al. (2007) for
the Mojave Desert were termed complexes because it was thought each complex represented a
specific cultural adaptation or even a cultural group. However, cultural characteristics may vary within
a temporal unit, both temporally and spatially. In the greater Antelope Valley region, the
juxtaposition of different foothill and desert-based adaptive systems and, apparently, of different
cultural groups, makes the identification of a single complex as being characteristic of a temporal
unit problematic. The temporal units used here are periods that are based on shifts in projectile point
types (for illustrations of the projectile point types characteristic of the Antelope Vally, see Sutton
[2018:36] and Sutton et al. [2007:234]). Such projectile point changes are used to mark temporal
units, since this class of artifacts is the only one that can provide temporal markers for each cultural
period from the Pleistocene to Spanish contact (Sutton 2017:4). The date ranges for the cultural
periods are adapted from Sutton (2016:267-268). Sutton (2016) does not indicate whether the date
ranges are based on calibrated dates. The Antelope Valley chronology is shown in Table 4 and each
period is discussed below.
Table 4. Antelope Valley Chronology
Geological Era
Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene
25,000-11,700 cal BP
Early and Middle Holocene
(11,700-4200 cal BP)
Late Holocene
(4200-0 cal BP)
Period
Clovis Period
Years
12,000 to 9500 BC
Lake Mojave Period
Pinto Period
Gypsum Period
Rose Spring Period
Late Prehistoric Period
Mission Period
9500 to 7000 BC
8250 to 2500 BC
2500 BC to AD 225
AD 225 to 1100
AD 1100 to AD 1769
AD 1769 to AD 1835
Although there is archaeological evidence for human occupation before 12,000 BC elsewhere in the
Americas, no cultural material dating to the time before the Clovis Period has been found in the
Mojave Desert to date.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
36
07A3822 Task Order 17
Late Pleistocene/ Early Holocene (25,000-11,700 cal BP)
Clovis Period (12,000 to 9500 BC)
The Clovis Period was an era of environmental transition between the late Pleistocene and early
Holocene. The Clovis Period within the Mojave Desert is represented by fluted projectile points that
were used by big game hunters. Fluted projectile points, including both Clovis points and Great Basin
Corner-Notched points, were hafted to the end of a throwing spear. Fluted points have been
discovered along the shores of former pluvial lakes at China Lake Naval Weapons Station (north of
Antelope Valley) and Edwards Air Force Base (within the northeastern part of Antelope Valley). There
are two sites at Lake China with Clovis and Lake Mojave points (a later point type; see below). Thus, it
is not known if other artifacts at these two particular sites are associated with Clovis Period or Lake
Mojave Period, or both. All other Clovis points in the Mojave Desert occur as isolated surface finds
(Sutton 2018). It is thought that populations during this time period in the region consisted of small
bands of hunters who followed big game herds.
Early and Middle Holocene (11,700-4200 cal BP)
The people who occupied the Mojave Desert during the Early and Middle Holocene are posited to be
descendants of the megafauna hunter populations who successfully adapted to warming and drying
conditions after the ice age ended. During the Early Holocene (11,700-8200 cal BP), the focus was on
hunting artiodactyls around the remnant lakes. During the warm arid conditions of the Middle
Holocene (8200-4200 cal BP) these groups became more generalized foragers who hunted and
trapped large, medium, and small mammals and added plant foods to the diet.
Lake Mojave Period (9500 to 7000 BC)
During the Early Holocene the climate became warmer and drier resulting in a changing distribution
of faunal communities, including a decrease in large game and an increase in the availability of small
game such as rabbits and rodents (Sutton 2018). However, there were still remnant pluvial lakes at
this time, and Lake Mojave Period sites are typically (but not exclusively) found around the margins
of ancient lakes. The Lake Mojave tool assemblages include Great Basin Stemmed series projectile
points including Lake Mojave and Silver Lake points. The shift from fluted points to stemmed points
may indicate a shift from hunting megafauna to hunting artiodactyls (deer and mountain sheep).
Sutton (2018) says that the fluted points were used on thrusting spears in an intercept hunting
strategy, while the stemmed points of the Lake Mojave period were likely used on smaller spears
launched with a spear-thrower (atlatl). Other flaked stone tools include crescents (eccentrics), leafshaped bifaces (cutting and piercing tools), formed unifaces including large domed scrapers and
small beaked engravers, and cores from which flakes could be removed as needed. The cores were
also used as tools (Sutton 2018). Ground stone implements occur in small numbers during this time
(Warren 2002) and indicate the addition of hard seeds in the diet. It appears that Lake Mojave
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
37
07A3822 Task Order 17
groups gradually adapted to an increasingly warmer and drier environment resulting in shifts in
technology and subsistence, with exploitation of additional ecozones.
Pinto Period (8250 to 2500 BC)
The Pinto Period overlaps in time with the Lake Mojave Period because both Great Basin Stemmed
points and Pinto points were used during the period from 8250 to 7000 BC. The Pinto Period was a
time of increasing aridity which culminated in the Mid-Holocene Warm Period, circa 5500-2500 BC.
This warm period is characterized by the disappearance of lakes, followed by a great reduction in
streams and springs. By the end of the Pinto Period, water could be obtained only at a small number
of seasonal springs. The desert vegetation community that was similar to that of today developed
during this period. Pinto period sites are usually found in open settings, in relatively well-watered
locales representing isolated oases of high productivity with fossil stream channels and springs.
Increasing amounts of ground stone tools suggest increasing use of small seeds. Artiodactyl hunting
continued, but increasing aridity reduced the number of deer available. Greater numbers of small
animals such as rabbit, rodent, reptile, and fresh water mussel resources were exploited compared to
previous periods. The artifact assemblage is similar to the Lake Mojave assemblage. Pinto projectile
points replaced Lake Mojave points and Silver Lake points, and the crescents and engravers
characteristic of the Lake Mojave Period were no longer used. Drills were added to the assemblage
and the number of ground stone tools increased (Warren 2002). Warren (2002:139) sees the shift in
projectile point types and the increasing use of plant foods during the Pinto Complex as resulting
from decreasing numbers of artiodactyls (deer and mountain sheep) during this warm, dry period. In
order to more efficiently take more of the diminishing numbers of artiodactyls, Pinto points were
used because the shouldered Pinto points stayed inside the animal after it was shot (Warren 2010).
Late Holocene (4200-0 cal BP)
At the beginning of the Late Holocene after about 4200 BP (circa 2200 BC) annual rainfall increased
and areas that could support significant amounts of food resources expanded. During the Late
Holocene there is an increase in population, along with what appears to be increasing sedentism and
resource intensification in and around the Antelope Valley. Three periods were defined within the
Late Holocene in the Mojave Desert: the Gypsum Period (ca. 2500 BC to AD 225), the Rose Spring
Period (roughly equivalent to Warren’s Saratoga Springs Period) (ca. AD 225 to 1100), and the Late
Prehistoric Period (ca. AD 1100 to AD 1769) (Sutton 2007 et al.; Sutton 2016; Warren 1984). Each
period is characterized by specific projectile point types.
Gypsum Period (ca. 2500 BC to AD 225)
During the Gypsum Period the artifact assemblage included Elko and Gypsum dart points and
bifaces. Ground stone milling tools become relatively commonplace. The subsistence pattern, based
on material found in temporary camps in the desert, included generalized hunting activities (large,
medium, and small mammals, and desert tortoise), and seed processing, indicated by more
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
38
07A3822 Task Order 17
numerous milling stones than in previous periods. Mesquite, located in high water table areas, may
have been an important food resource during Gypsum times. Quartz crystals, paint, and rock art
indicate ritual activities (Sutton 2017:9). A bone awl recovered at Barrel Springs (CA-LAN-82)
suggests the manufacture of basketry by this time. There was a large residential site at the Fairmont
Butte rhyolite source during this period and the CA-KER-303 site complex on the northwest side of
the Antelope Valley, a permanent village in later periods, was occupied beginning in Gypsum Period
times. These developments have suggested an increase in population in the Antelope Valley in
Gypsum Period times.
Rose Spring Period (ca. AD 225 to 1100)
The Rose Spring Period is also known as the Saratoga Spring Period. The bow and arrow were
introduced in the Antelope Valley at the beginning of the Rose Spring Period circa AD 225. Rose
Spring and Eastgate arrow points were used, along with Cottonwood Triangular points beginning
around AD 900. Other artifacts include stone knives and drills, bone awls, and ground stone tools.
Manufacture of chlorite schist beads and steatite artifacts was being carried out in the southern
Antelope Valley by this time.
Late Prehistoric Period (ca. AD 1100 to AD 1769)
The archaeological material from the Late Prehistoric Period resulted from the activities of the
ancestors of the ethnographic groups around the edges of Antelope Valley region including the
Kitanemuk, Tataviam, Serrano, and Kawaiisu. Desert Side-Notched and Cottonwood Triangular arrow
points were used during the Late Prehistoric Period. The rest of the Rose Spring artifact assemblage
continued into the Late Prehistoric period with the addition of pottery. Bedrock mortars occur in high
frequencies in the residential bases and villages along the desert margin. Some desert floor sites,
such as CA-LAN-298, have both bedrock mortars and portable mortars and pestles.
Mission Period (AD 1769 to AD 1835)
The Mission Period begins with the Portola Expedition in AD 1769 which established the first
permanent Spanish presence in California. Franciscan friars established missions at San Gabriel (AD
1771) and San Fernando (AD 1797) (Castillo 1978). The first written historical information about
Native Americans in the Antelope Valley region dates from the 1770s, during the Mission Period.
Ethnohistorical documentation from this period includes mission records and the accounts of
Spanish friars and soldiers (Bolton 1935:6-7,12-13; Cook 1960:245-248, 256-257; Coues 1900:I:267270; Huntington Library 2006). Although California became part of Mexico after Mexican
independence in 1821, the missions secularized and closed until circa 1835.
Other Temporal Units
Sutton (2018) recently proposed new temporal units consisting of patterns and phases with dating
based on BP, rather than BC, for the Late Pleistocene through the Middle Holocene. In Sutton’s new
scheme, the Clovis Period is now the Lakebed Pattern which is divided into Lakebed I (11,600 to
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
39
07A3822 Task Order 17
11,000 BP) Phase and Lakebed II (11,000 to 10,200 BP) Phase. The Lake Mojave Period is the Lake
Mojave Pattern with Lake Mojave I (10,200 to 9300 BP) and Lake Mojave II (9300 to 8500 BP) Phases.
The Pinto Period is the Pinto Pattern with Pinto I (8500 to 7500 BP), Pinto II (7500 to 5000 BP), and
Pinto III (5000 to 4000 BP) Phases. Sutton (2018) does not indicate whether the date ranges are
based on calibrated dates. Note that in this new chronology the Lake Mojave Pattern does not
overlap in time with the Pinto Pattern. Sutton’s new chronology is not used in this research design
since it has not yet been evaluated by other archaeologists who specialize in the Late Pleistocene
and Early/Middle Holocene of the Mojave Desert.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
40
07A3822 Task Order 17
Previous Investigations
Overview of Previous Investigations and Major Sites in the Antelope Valley
Historically, few archaeological studies were conducted in the Antelope Valley compared to the
central and eastern areas of the Mojave Desert. Early studies in the 1920s and 1930s were conducted
by a mix of amateur collectors and professional researchers. Although many private and public
museum collections date to this era, little documentation is available for much of this early work.
Collections of artifacts from Antelope Valley archaeological sites can be found at the Fowler Museum
at University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), the Antelope Valley Indian Museum, Antelope Valley
College, the Kern County Museum, and Edwards AFB curation facilities.
Professional studies of the Antelope Valley increased in the early 1960s with the work of William
Glennan. William Glennan excavated multiple sites in the Antelope Valley including the Fairmont
Butte Site and the Sweetser Site (Stickel and Weinman-Roberts 1979). Glennon’s work was followed,
in the late 1960s through the 1980s, by an increased number of studies by local universities and
military installations. Based on early reports housed at the South Central Information Center, in the
1970s, Edwards Air Force Base began their cultural resources program and several institutions
including Antelope Valley College, California State University Bakersfield, and UCLA conducted much
of the work in the area during this time. Two researchers, Dr. Roger Robinson at Antelope Valley
College and Dr. Mark Sutton at CSU-Bakersfield led the majority of the studies within the Antelope
Valley during this period. In the late 1980s and 1990s, research in the Antelope Valley moved away
from the universities and transitioned to being conducted by cultural resources management firms
for specific development projects.
As part of the current study, a records search was performed at both the South Central Coastal
Information Center and Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center for the entire Antelope
Valley Study Area. As a result of these records searches, 85 reports were identified that included
substantial site information, subsurface testing and data recovery results, or presented overview data
for the Study Area (see Attachment A). Of these 85 reports, approximately 37% dealt with
investigations within Edwards Air Force Base, and another 22% were related to investigations within
or near the town of Rosamond (just west of Edwards Air Force Base). The western, central, northern,
and southern portions of the Study Area are more sporadically represented in the literature.
Major Sites and Studies within the Study Area
Based on a review of the reports from the information centers, lithic scatters and temporary
campsites make up the most commonly recorded sites in the Study Area. Larger, more intensively
used sites containing deep midden deposits, rock art, burials, and evidence of continuous or
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
41
07A3822 Task Order 17
frequent seasonal occupation are present within the Study Area, but are less frequent. These larger
sites tend to be located near springs, creeks, or buttes containing lithic material sources. A brief
discussion of selected studies (Table 5) and sites (Table 6) within the Study Area is presented below;
locations of sites discussed are shown in Figure 4. The following discussion provides the results of
selected major projects conducted in three different parts of the Study Area (Antelope Valley,
Tehachapi Mountains and Foothills, and San Andreas Rift Zone and San Gabriel Mountains) that
provide insight on prehistoric and historic period human adaptations and occupations.
Table 5. Select Studies in the Antelope Valley Study Area
Part of Study
Area
Antelope Valley
Floor
Projects
Sites (CA-)
Reference
Synthesis of Edwards Air
Force Base
KER-526; KER-3033;
KER-2489;
LAN-716; LAN-863;
LAN-828/H
KER-302
Earle et al. 1997
KER-129
Sutton 1988
KER-2821/H
Way et al. 2009
LAN-1789/H
Test Excavation and Surface
Collection
Synthesis of Archaeology in
the Western Mojave Desert
Tehachapi Renewable
Transmission Project
Multiple studies
Tehachapi
Mountains and
Foothills
San Andreas Rift
Zone and San
Gabriel Mountains
Brock 1994
Stephen Sorensen Park
Project
State Route 138 Corridor
Studies
Synthesis of Archaeology in
the Western Mojave Desert
LAN-192
Love et al. 1989,
Sutton 1988
Price et al. 2005
LAN-4640; LAN-4632;
LAN-4621; LAN-4620
KER-303
Allen 2018; Mason
and Blumel 2015
Sutton 1988
Synthesis of Research at
Barrel Springs
State Route 138 Corridor
Ethnographic Studies
Synthesis of Archaeology in
the Western Mojave Desert
Cooper Canyon Trail Camp
Project
LAN-82
Love 1989
Totem Pole Ranch
(Maviayek?)
LAN-488
Earle 2015
LAN-1209/H
Milburn 2003
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
42
Sutton 1988
07A3822 Task Order 17
Mulitple Geographically Clustered Sites
Individual Site Location
Location: N:\2015\2015-075.017 Antelope Valley Research Design\MAPS\Meeting_Maps_and_Analysis\2018-09-28 Cultural Resource Site Locations\AVRD_CRM_SiteLocations_20190220.mxd (AMM)-amyers 2/28/2019
Antelope Valley Study Area
Area B
Area A
CA-KER-2821
(approximate)
CA-KER-303
EDWARDS AIRFORCE BASE
CA-LAN-863, CA-LAN-526,
CA-LAN828/H, CA-KER-3033,
CA-LAN-716, CA-LAN-2489
CA-KER-302
CA-LAN-4620
CA-LAN-3723
CA-LAN-4632
CA-LAN-4640
CA-LAN-1789
Area C
Area D
CA-LAN-192
Sites Recorded Within Area
CA-KER-302, -2314, -2330, -2489, -2546, -2567, -2568, -2569, -2570, -2582, -2760, -2761, -2762, 2763, -2764, -2765, -2767, -2768/H, -2769, -2770, -2771, -2772, -2773, -2850, -2851, -3033, -3052/H, Area A. Rosamond Hills
3817
Area B. Edwards AFB
Over 1,000 sites previously recorded on Edwards AFB.
CA-LAN-297, -298, -676, -688, -1777, -1778, -1779, -1780, -1781, -1782, -1783, -1784, -1789, -1788, 1789, -2045, -3123, -3171, -3172, -3723, -3727, -3873, -3876, -3877, -3878, -3879, -3880, -3881, -3882,
Area C. Fairmont Butte surrounds
-3884, -3885, -3888, -3990, -4380, -4381, -4383, -4384, -4388, -4393, -4395, -4399, -4400, -4403, 4404, -4405, -4416, -4620
Area D: Anaverde Valley/Ritter Ridge/Leona Valley CA-LAN-767, -3176, -1263, -1264, -1575, -1576, -1577, -1578, -2311, -2552, P19-004156
CA-LAN-818, -1032, -1033, -1209/H, -1254, -1301, -1303, -1304, -1312, -1332, -1457, -1458, -1459, 1509, -1513, -1514, -1515, -1516, -1616/H, -1974, -1975, -1976, -1977, -1978, -2128, -2129, -2137, Area E. Little Rock Creek Watershed
2130, -2188, -2221, -2222, -2223, -2224, -2225, -2226, -2227, -2228, -2229, -2230, -2231, -2232, -2250,
-2251,-2252
Area E
CA-LAN-1209
I
Miles
0
5
Map Date: 2/28/2019
Base Source: ESRI Service Layer
Figure 4. Major Sites and Site Groupings in the Antelope Valley Study Area
2015-075.017 Antlelope Valley Research Design
Table 6. Summary of Select Sites in the Antelope Valley Study Area
Site Trinomial
(CA-)
KER-526
Common
Name
None
Description
Age
General Location
Residential Base
Gypsum Period
Edwards AFB
KER-3033
None
Temporary Camp
Gypsum Period
Edwards AFB
KER-2489
None
Quarry and Rock
Shelter
No Data
Edwards AFB
LAN-716
None
Large, Low Density
Lithic Scatter
No Data
Edwards AFB
LAN-863
None
Residential Base
with Multiple Loci
Gypsum Period,
Rose Springs Period,
and Late Prehistoric
Period
Edwards AFB
LAN-828/H
None
Temporary Camp
and HistoricPeriod House Site
Gypsum Period to
Rose Spring Period
Edwards AFB
KER-302
Sweetser Site
Occupation Site
Pinto Period and
Gypsum Period
Hidden Valley area of
the Rosamond Hills
KER-129
Willow
Springs Site
Occupation Site
Late Holocene
Near Willow Springs
KER-2821/H
Bean Spring
Site
Occupation Site
Lake Mojave Period
and Pinto Period
LAN-1789/H
Fairmont
Butte Site
Quarry and
Occupation Site
LAN-192
Lovejoy
Springs Site
Occupation Site
Pinto Period to the
Late Prehistoric
Period
Gypsum Period,
Rose Spring Period,
and Late Prehistoric
Period
Northwest of Willow
Springs at Bean
Spring
In and around
Fairmont Butte
LAN-4640
LAN-4632
LAN-4621
None
None
None
Temporary Camp
Lithic Scatter
Temporary Camp
No Data
No Data
No Data
South of Quail Lake
Near Neenach
Northwest of
Fairmont Butte
LAN-4620
None
Lithic Scatter
No Data
North of Fairmont
Butte
KER-303
Cottonwood
Creek Site
Occupation Site
Gypsum Period to
the Late Prehistoric
Period
where Cottonwood
Creek comes out of
the Tehachapi
Mountains
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
44
Near Lovejoy Buttes
07A3822 Task Order 17
Site Trinomial
(CA-)
LAN-82
LAN-488
LAN-1209/H
Common
Name
Barrel Springs
Site
Description
Age
General Location
Occupation Site
as early as the Pinto
Period
Totem Pole
Ranch
Skelton
Ranch Site
Occupation Site
Late Holocene
San Andreas Rift
Zone, near the mouth
of Little Rock Canyon
southeast of Palmdale
Near Barrel Springs
Occupation Site
Late Prehistoric
Period
Cooper Creek
Site
Seasonal Campsite
Gypsum Period
mouth of King’s
Canyon near the San
Andreas Rift Zone
along Cooper Creek
in the San Gabriel
Mountains
Antelope Valley Floor
Edwards Air Force Base covers 66,502 acres in the eastern portion of the Study Area and contains
three Holocene Lake Beds (Rogers Lake, Rosamond Lake, and Buckhorn Lake) that make up the
remains of Pleistocene Lake Thompson. Archaeology on Edwards Air Force Base was spearheaded by
Mark Sutton in the 1970s and continued by Richard Norwood and his successors to this day. More
studies have been conducted on the Base than in any other portion of the Antelope Valley. A
summary of all recorded sites on Edwards Air Force Base was prepared by Computer Sciences
Corporation in 1997 (Earle et al. 1997) that documented the site work done on the Base to that point.
As of that time, 1,084 prehistoric-age sites had been recorded on Base property and 126 of these
had been subject to subsurface testing. Although new sites have been subsequently identified on the
Base, Earle et al. (1997) provide a good basis for establishing the types of sites present on the Base
property. Four hundred and sixty-five sites (42%) are described as lithic scatters or flaking stations,
and 416 (38%) of recorded sites are considered to represent temporary camps. These two site types
make up the majority (80%) of the sites recorded within the Base boundaries. Other site types
present, but not as prevalent, include hearth and roasting features (9%), milling stations (5%), lithic
quarry sites (1%), rock shelters (less than 1%), residential bases or villages (less than 1%), cremations
(less than 1%), rock alignments (less than 1%), pictographs (less than 1%), faunal/animal bone
scatters (less than 1%), and isolated finds (less than 1%) (Earle et al. 1997).
The numbers and proportions of each site type on Edwards Air Force Base are based mostly on
surface data. However, identification of site type based on surface characteristics is likely fairly
accurate in a desert environment where vegetation is minimal and ground visibility is generally good.
The full distribution of subsurface resources across the Antelope Valley Study Area is unknown and
the available information is based solely on the small percentage of sites that have been tested or
excavated. The potential for an area to contain buried resources depends heavily on a variety of
factors including landform, surface stability, paleo environment, and the intensity and length of
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
45
07A3822 Task Order 17
human occupation. To date, a full survey of the Antelope Valley for buried resources has not been
conducted.
A brief description of selected sites on the Base is provided below.
CA-LAN-863 is a large 3,000,000-square meter residential base with multiple loci with deposits to
a depth of 155 centimeters below surface. Artifacts recovered include approximately 2,000 pieces
of debitage, lithic tools, ground stone, schist fragments, shell beads, fire affected rock, charcoal,
over 3,000 faunal/animal bone fragments, shell fragments, and egg shells. Obsidian hydration
analysis and shell bead analysis have produced dates of 4200 BP, 1100 BP, 500 BP, and 200 BP
(Earle et al. 1997).
CA-KER-526 is a large (35,727-square meter) residential base with a substantial subsurface
component reaching a depth of 190 centimeters below surface. The site contains two discrete
occupation units consisting of the main site deposit and a blown-out artifact concentration. Both
occupation units were dated to the Gypsum Period using obsidian hydration and radiometric
data. Artifacts recorded include approximately 10,000 flakes, lithic tools, ground stone, shell
beads, shell fragments, and over 14,000 faunal bone fragments (Earle et al. 1997).
CA-LAN-828/H is a large temporary camp and historic-period home site. The prehistoric portion
includes debitage, lithic tools, shell beads, shell fragments, ground stone, fire-affected rock, and
an anthropomorphic figurine. The site was dated to approximately 2200 BP to 1400 BP (Rose
Spring Period) (Earle et al. 1997).
CA-KER-3033 is a 1,000-square meter temporary camp containing a subsurface deposit down to
110 centimeters. The site contains a hearth, more than 6,000 pieces of debitage, rhyolite tools,
cores, ground stone, shell beads, charcoal, and small mammal bones. Radiocarbon testing from
collected charcoal samples yielded dates between 2560 and 2240 BP (Earle et al. 1997).
CA-LAN-716 is a large low density lithic scatter that measures 200,000-square meters. Subsurface
testing indicated that the site is approximately 10 centimeters deep. Artifacts recovered include
44 flakes, 1 scraper, and 15 faunal/animal bone fragments (Earle et al. 1997).
CA-KER-2489 is a 1,200-square meter rhyolite quarry and rock shelter. The site has a maximum
depth of 30 centimeters, and contains 175 pieces of rhyolite debitage, three debitage pieces of
other lithic materials, three bedrock mortars, and four rodent and lagomorph bones (Earle et al.
1997).
In addition to the sites listed above, in 2013, a survey of 3,140 acres in the northwestern part of
the Base for the Oro Verde Solar Facility Project recorded only 49 lithic scatters, 78 temporary
camps, and 1 possible hearth/roasting pit in this large area (Cunningham et al. 2013). This
represents limited use of this area by ancestors of the Kawaiisu.
Sweetser Site (CA-KER-302). CA-KER-302 is a prehistoric occupation site located in the Hidden Valley
area of the Rosamond Hills. This site was originally studied by William Glennan, who conducted
surface artifact collections of the site in 1964 and 1965. He described the site as a semi-permanent
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
46
07A3822 Task Order 17
camp encompassing 1-acre and containing lithic tools, debitage, ground stone, bedrock mortars, and
petroglyphs (Glennan 1971). This site, along with the Fairmont Butte Site described below, formed
the basis of Glennon’s rhyolite tradition theory, which postulated that there was an early cultural
tradition in the Antelope Valley that utilized local rhyolite almost exclusively for stone tool
manufacture (Sutton 1987). Glennan dated the site to 4000 to 6000 BP, although no absolute dating
methods were used, and his date estimations were based primarily on comparisons of tool types. In
1991, the site was resurveyed by Robert Yohe who noted that the site is considerably larger than
described by Glennan. In 1994, James Brock conducted test excavations of the southern portion of
the site (Brock 1994). As a result, significant subsurface deposits were identified as well as a buried
occupation level and a large lithic scatter associated with quarrying and lithic reduction. The
Sweetser site is often used as the type site for the Pinto Period, although no absolute dates have
been established for the site and Brock (1994) has doubts that the site dates to that period.
Willow Springs Site (CA-KER-129). CA-KER-129 was recorded by Price in 1954. This site was noted as
containing multiple temporary camps, milling features, a complex of 49 rock cairns, rock art, and
midden near the springs. It appears to have been occupied in the Late Holocene. Although Sutton
suggests CA-KER-129 was a Kitanemuk village (Sutton 1988a, 2016), the site may have been a camp
or seasonal residential base re-occupied from year to year by the ancestors of both the Kitanemuk
and Serrano.
Bean Spring Site (CA-KER-2821/H). CA-KER-2821/H is a large prehistoric occupation site and historicage ranch complex located northwest of Willow Springs at Bean Spring. The site includes 20 separate
loci and covers an area of 371 acres. The site is centered on Bean Springs and includes midden, shell
beads, ground stone, lithic tools, debitage, and hearth features. In 2009, Pacific Legacy conducted
subsurface testing on a portion of the site (Way et al. 2009). The excavations identified a subsurface
deposit down to a depth of at least 60 centimeters below surface. Atomic mass spectrometry
radiocarbon dates from shell beads from the site produced dates of 9020-9430 and 8020
radiocarbon years BP, providing dates from the early Lake Mojave Period. Additional radiocarbon
dates from hearth features indicate that this site was occupied either continuously or regularly
through the Late Prehistoric Period. Lithic tools noted include Pinto, Elko, and Cottonwood series
projectile points and a re-sharpened Great Basin Stemmed series point. This site has evidence of an
extensive trade network to acquire lithic materials from the San Joaquin Valley, Fairmont Butte,
Rosamond Hills, Brown Butte, Gem Hill, the Coso Mountain Range, and Grimes Canyon in Ventura
County (Way et al. 2009). The site may have been a camp or seasonal residential base re-occupied
from year to year.
Fairmont Butte Site (CA-LAN-1789/H). CA-LAN-1789/H is a collection of separate loci located in and
around Fairmont Butte in the southern central Antelope Valley. The loci within the Fairmont Butte
Site were originally recorded as 12 separate sites (CA-LAN-296, -298, -677, -679, -680, -681, -682H, 683, -684, -685, -686, and -898), but were later combined into one large site CA-LAN-1789/H in 1989
(Love et al. 1989). Fairmont Butte is a low-lying hill in the central-southern portion of the Antelope
Valley that contains tool-quality rhyolite. Fairmont Butte rhyolite was extensively quarried in
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
47
07A3822 Task Order 17
prehistoric times and traded over large portions of the Antelope Valley. The Fairmont Butte site
contains rhyolite quarry sites, lithic scatters, over 500 bedrock mortars, and a large midden site (CALAN-298). Several Fairmont Butte sites were originally excavated by Glennan in 1970 who noted that
the majority of the lithic material identified was made of rhyolite. In the 1970s, additional surveys and
subsurface investigations, notably by Antelope Valley College, added additional loci to the site and
extensive excavations conducted within the midden portion of the site. In the late 1970s, excavations
at Fairmont Butte by Mark Sutton found two buried occupation horizons that continued to a depth
of 2 meters (Sutton 1982a). The uppermost horizon contained a dense deposit of varied Late
Prehistoric Period artifacts. Below this, Sutton found a deposit of exclusively rhyolitic artifacts and no
late materials. The midden deposit at CA-LAN-298 is about two meters deep and is associated with
bedrock mortars and rock art (Sutton 1982a). Shell and stone beads and three glass trade beads
were excavated from CA-LAN-298 in the 1990s (Sutton 1988b). Occupation at CA-LAN-298 appears
to have begun during the Pinto Period (prior to 2,000 BC) and continued through the Late Prehistoric
Period (A.D. 1200 - contact) (Sutton 1988b:75). A larger midden area (over 150 meters long) is known
in the southern part of Fairmont Butte, but has never been excavated (no site number assigned).
Over 530 bedrock mortars are known in the entire Fairmont Butte complex. These data suggest there
was a village at Fairmont Butte, although no cemetery has been found.
Lovejoy Springs Site (CA-LAN-192). CA-LAN-192 is a large prehistoric occupation site centered on
Lovejoy Springs near Lovejoy Buttes about 15 km north of the mouth of Big Rock Canyon near Lake
Los Angeles. The site contained deep midden deposits, debitage, tools, ground stone, both native
and Southwestern ceramics, and nine human burials containing several thousand shell beads.
Although heavily collected over the last century, the site measures at least 500 meters by 1,000
meters (500,000 square meters) in size (Price et al. 2009). Both formal and informal studies and
artifact collections have been carried out on the site in the 1920s, 1954, 1968, 1989, 1990, 1994, 1996,
2004, and 2005. Older informal collections and the construction of Lake Los Angeles led to the
destruction of a large portion of the site. In 2005, Applied Earthworks, Inc. was contracted to conduct
phased studies of the site, synthesize previous studies, and analyze artifacts housed in various local
repositories (Price et al. 2009). The site has an extensive Gypsum Period component with large
quantities of manos and metates and a cemetery with multiple individuals and thousands of Olivella
beads. A child burial had a double loop necklace with 2,135 Olivella saddle beads or tiny disc beads.
Radiocarbon dating from the child burial yielded a date of circa 2700 BP (700 BC in the late Gypsum
Period). There is a Rose Spring component at the site, indicated by one radiocarbon date and
obsidian hydration measurements, and a Late Prehistoric component with Desert Brownware
ceramics and a radiocarbon date of 350 B.P. (Price et al. 2009). Although most of the cultural material
at the site has not been assigned to a particular time period, it is likely that this was a permanently
occupied village site in Late Prehistoric times and may have been so since Gypsum times.
State Route 138 Corridor Studies. In 2014 and 2015, ECORP Consulting, Inc. surveyed a 36-mile long
section of State Route 138 between Interstate 5 and State Route 14 in the western and central
Antelope Valley, as part of the SR-138 Northwest Corridor Improvement Project. As a result of this
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
48
07A3822 Task Order 17
study, nine prehistoric-age sites (lithic scatters and temporary camps) were recorded and tested. A
summary of the results of testing for the four largest sites is provided below (see Mason and Blumel
2015). A lithics analysis for these four sites is provided in Attachment B.
CA-LAN-4640 is as a large temporary camp located on top of a steep hill south of Quail Lake near
the western boundary of the Antelope Valley. This site is located within the San Andreas Fault Zone,
west of the Rift Zone, and its northern boundary appears to be truncated by the fault. Twenty-eight
shovel test pits (STPs) and two test units were placed within the site boundary. Artifacts were found
to a depth of one meter with a total of 165 artifacts collected from the site (23 from the surface
collection, 81 from the STPs, and 61 from the test units). The site contained primarily lithic artifacts
along with some ground stone, fire-affected rock, faunal bone, and several small shell fragments. An
analysis of the lithic artifacts indicated that a total of 35.2% of the assemblage are shatter, 62.4% are
flakes, 1.2% are cores, and 1.2% are lithic tools. The lithic assemblage recovered indicates diversity in
raw material type but limited to debitage rather than cores or tools. A wide range of raw materials
including CCS, fine grained volcanic material, obsidian, fused shale, and quartzite were used to
produce or maintain biface cores or tools at the site. Flakes were also produced at the site, mostly
from CCS and obsidian. Pressure flaking was minimal and restricted to CCS and obsidian only. The
lack of diagnostic artifacts or chronometric dates prohibits assignment of chronological period. The
recovery of fused shale from the site has the potential to address research questions involving the
use of this material in the Antelope Valley.
CA-LAN-4632 is a lithic scatter located on a low hill south of State Route 138 near the Community of
Neenach. It was subjected to surface collection and six STP units. The greatest recorded depth for
any artifact is 30-35 cm. A total of 53 artifacts were collected from the site, with 48 found on the
surface, and five from the STPs. A total of 28.3% of the assemblage is shatter, 56.6% are flakes, 11.3%
are cores, 1.9% are lithic tools, and there is one unmodified cobble of vitreous basalt that was
collected as a possible artifact (most likely not an artifact). The lithic assemblage is composed of
three different material types. The most common material is basalt, with 67.9% artifacts. Vesicular
basalt makes up 28.3% of the total assemblage. Chalcedony is relatively uncommon, comprising only
3.8% of the assemblage. Although the assemblage is small and has little diversity, it is likely that the
primary activity at the site was the initial reduction of local basalt and vesicular cobbles into cores,
and the production of some flakes suitable for use as tools, though at least some chalcedony flake
production was also conducted. There is very limited evidence of other activities based on this
assemblage, consisting solely of an expedient-use modified basalt flakes. It is not possible to assign a
chronological period for this site based on the lithic assemblage. Although CA-LAN-4632 has limited
information, it is nonetheless important as one possible source for basalt tools and debitage found
at other sites in the Antelope Valley.
CA-LAN-3723 is a large temporary campsite located approximately one mile northwest of the
Fairmont Butte rhyolite source. What is currently the totality of site P19-003723 was originally
recorded as two separate resources. The portion of the site south of SR-138 was recorded in 2007 as
P19-003723 and the portion of the site north of SR-138 was recorded in 2014 and designated as
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
49
07A3822 Task Order 17
P19-004621. At a later time, the two sites were combined. The site was evidently subject to historic
agricultural activity which resulted in the mixing of the top 20 to 30 cm of soil, and likely resulted in
damage to some of the artifacts. The site is also close to Highway 138 and may have been subjected
to considerable artifact collection.
As originally recorded, P19-003723 (the portion on the south side of SR-138) was identified as a
multi-component site containing a moderately dense surface scatter of lithic artifacts and a sparse
historic-period refuse scatter. Approximately 125 lithic pieces were collected from the surface of the
site as part of a testing program in 2010, and excavations of shovel test pits within this portion of the
site recovered minimal artifacts from the subsurface. A resurvey of this location in 2014 found that
the nature and extent of the archaeological deposit to be consistent with what was recorded in 2010.
Within the portion north of SR-138, thirty-three STPs and three test units were excavated within the
site boundaries. As a result, a low-density artifact deposit was found to a maximum depth of
approximately 70 cm below the surface. Two radiocarbon dates of charcoal samples tentatively place
the site in the Late Prehistoric Period and possibly the Mission Period, although the contextual
integrity of these samples is questionable. A total of 94 artifacts were collected from the site, with 62
resulting from the surface collection, 19 from the STPs, and 13 from the test units. Artifacts collected
from the site include ground stone, lithic debitage, lithic tools, and a small amount of faunal bone
and charcoal. An analysis of the lithics from the site indicated that all lithic artifacts were rhyolite. A
total of 21.3% of the assemblage are shatter, 70.2% are flakes, 4.2% are cores, and 4.2% are lithic
tools. Although the assemblage of lithics from the site is small in numbers and diversity, the analysis
of the debitage, tools, and cores provides useful information. The primary activity at the site was
likely the reduction of local rhyolite cobbles from the nearby Fairmont Butte which had already been
significantly assayed with most of their cortex removed (since the assemblage has few primary flakes,
and most flakes have little cortex). Early stage biface production is suggested by the high percentage
of biface thinning flakes and the presence of one possibly rejected Stage I biface tool. In addition,
the presence of a significant percentage of secondary flakes and exhausted cores suggests that
production of flakes suitable for expedient tools or more finished flake tools was another activity
practiced at CA-LAN-3723. There is very limited evidence of other activities at the site, consisting
solely of a few expedient-use tools, one of the cores, and a small number of tertiary flakes. Though
there are no diagnostic artifacts in the assemblage, the two radiocarbon dates offer modest support
that the site dates to the Late Prehistoric and possibly the Mission Periods. This is an important
finding that supports earlier work by Sutton (1982, 1988) and Scharlotta (2010a, 2010b, 2014) that
argues that the Fairmont Butte rhyolite source was not restricted to early temporal periods such as
the Pinto Period. It also could reflect use of this source by ethnographically known populations in the
region during Late Prehistory and possibly the Mission Period.
CA-LAN-4620 has been identified as a dense prehistoric lithic scatter located approximately 500
meters north of the Fairmont Butte rhyolite source and a major quarry and occupation site (CA-LAN1789/H). The site was previously part of an agricultural field, which resulted in disturbance and
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
50
07A3822 Task Order 17
mixing of the top 20-30 cm of soil within the plow zone. Previous plowing may have damaged some
of the artifacts and the site’s proximity to Highway 138 and may have put the site at risk for looting.
Twelve STPs and two test units were excavated within the site boundary. As a result, the site appears
to contain a low density of artifacts to a maximum depth of approximately 50 cm below the surface.
No intact features were noted on the surface or in the STPs. The total lithic assemblage from CALAN-4620 consists of a total of 388 artifacts, with 262 from the surface, 43 from the STPs, and 43
from the test units. A total of 99.5% of the artifacts were rhyolite, with two sandstone primary flakes
recovered from the surface. The assemblage is comprised of shatter (10.8%), flakes (85.1%), cores
(2.1%), and lithic tools (2.1%). Most of the cores and tools were recovered from the surface. Only one
core and one tool were found subsurface. Because the rhyolite assemblage contains only about 8%
primary flakes, and most flakes have little cortex, the primary activity at the site was likely the
reduction of Fairmont Butte rhyolite cobbles that had already been significantly assayed and reduced
(cortex removed). Early stage biface production is evident by the high percentage of biface thinning
flakes and the presence of several possibly rejected or discarded Stage I biface tools which may have
broken during manufacture. In addition, the recovery of a significant percentage of secondary flakes
and cores suggests that production of flakes suitable for expedient tools or more finished flake tools
was another activity practiced at CA-LAN-4620. Other than a single stage III biface recovered from
the surface, there is essentially no evidence of other lithic reduction activities at the site. Given the
absence of diagnostic artifacts in the assemblage and no chronometric dates, it is currently not
possible to assign a temporal period to the site. The site is one of numerous sites near Fairmont
Butte where rhyolite was being reduced into at least two products: early stages of bifaces and
generalized flakes suitable for modification into other tools, apparently over a long period of time
dating back to at least the Pinto Period.
Tehachapi Mountains and Foothills
Cottonwood Creek Site (CA-KER-303). Archaeological site CA-KER-303 is located on hills that extend
south into the Antelope Valley where Cottonwood Creek comes out of the Tehachapi Mountains.
Extensive excavations of the site were conducted by Roger Robinson between 1972 and 1977,
although a final report was never published. CA-KER-303 is a large village site several acres in extent
with a midden that is two meters deep in some places. Three structure bases (ovoid clay rings with a
hard-packed earthen floor and carbonized posts) were exposed during archaeological investigations
at the site (Sutton 1988b:62). There was a cemetery in the center of the site with burials representing
at least 30 individuals. An adult female burial was accompanied by a total of 1,526 Mytilus disc beads,
1,055 Olivella disc beads, 32 complete and 13 fragmentary Megathura [limpet] rings, 6 Haliotis
ornaments, and 3 steatite beads. The cemetery probably held many more individuals before it was
vandalized. Trade goods found at the site include steatite, obsidian, and shell beads made from
Olivella, mussel, clam (Tivela sp.), abalone, and Dentalium (Sutton 1988b:56). Rose Spring arrow
points (indicating the Rose Spring Period) and Cottonwood Triangular arrow points (indicating the
Late Prehistoric Period) were found at CA-KER-303. Radiocarbon dates indicate the site was occupied
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
51
07A3822 Task Order 17
from 2,400 B.P. (400 B.C.) (during the Gypsum Period) to 300 B.P. (A.D. 1650) (Sutton 1988b:74). The
source report does not indicate whether or not the radiocarbon dates have been calibrated.
San Andreas Rift Zone and San Gabriel Mountains
Barrel Springs Site (CA-LAN-082). CA-LAN-082 was first recorded in 1949 and has been subsequently
updated in 1974, 1977, 1985, 1988, and 1990. The site is centered on Barrel Springs in the San
Andreas Rift Zone, near the mouth of Little Rock Canyon southeast of Palmdale. The site consists of
at least five loci containing hearths, ground stone, burnt bone, midden, lithic tools, debitage, and
Olivella beads. In 1988, Bruce Love conducted limited subsurface testing of the site. Significant
subsurface deposits were identified. Radiocarbon dates from two features at the site indicate that the
site was occupied as early as 5000 BP, indicating that the site likely has considerable antiquity and a
long period of occupation. Objects including abalone shell, chert, and shell beads were imported
from coastal regions; obsidian was sourced to the Owens Valley; and additional lithic materials were
sourced to outcrops within the Antelope Valley up to 50 miles away (Love 1989). The arrow points,
steatite and slate artifacts, ceramics, and Olivella beads indicate a Late Holocene occupation.
Totem Pole Ranch Site. The Totem Pole Ranch Site is located south of Palmdale near the Barrel
Springs Site. This site does not have a trinomial associated with it. Sutton 1988 notes that the site
was exacavated by R. W. Robinson, but no report was ever prepared for the site. Artifacts that are
known from the site consist of steatite and slate artifacts, including arrow points, artifacts, ceramics,
and Olivella beads, which indicate a Late Holocene occupation (Sutton 1988b). The Totem Pole
Ranch Site may be the Mission Period village of Maviayek (Earle et al 1997).
Skelton Ranch Site (CA-LAN-488). Another village site, CA-LAN-488, the Skelton Ranch Site, is located
on the south side of the Antelope Valley at the mouth of King’s Canyon near the San Andreas Rift
Zone. The drainage in King’s Canyon brings water from the mountains to the south and cuts through
the ridge that separates the rift zone from the Valley floor. When excavated in 1970, the site was
about one acre in area; however, prior to a flash flood in 1969, CA-LAN-488 was two to three times
larger. The midden is three meters deep and contains a diverse artifact assemblage. A sample from
the mid-point of the deposit provided a radiocarbon date of 770 ± 90 B.P. (Sutton 1988b:74). Four
burials were found at the site in 1970. One of them was an infant which had more than 5,000 Olivella
shell beads associated with it. Rock art and bedrock mortars are known from nearby site CA-LAN-484
(Sutton 1988b:55). CA-LAN-488 may represent the Mission Period village of Pu’ning.
At Indian Spring (Shea’s Castle) on the north slope of Portal Ridge (about 3.5 miles south of Fairmont
Butte) there is a large habitation site with rock art (CA-LAN-721) (Earle 2015:28). This site may
represent the Mission Period village of Timit or Sranijik.
Cooper Creek Site (CA-LAN-1209/H). CA-LAN-1209/H is a high-elevation seasonal campsite located
along Cooper Creek in the San Gabriel Mountains, near the southern boundary of the Antelope
Valley Study Area. The site contains lithic debitage, tools, ground stone, bedrock mortars, faunal
bone, charcoal, midden, and fire-affected rock. Seasonal occupation of the site has been dated to the
late Gypsum Period, between 4000 BP and 1500 BP. The site was subsequently used seasonally from
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
52
07A3822 Task Order 17
1500 BP to 230 BP. The site was likely occupied by ancestral Serrano groups, who used the site as a
base to exploit pinyon pine nuts, mule deer, and big horn sheep. Trade is evidenced by imported
lithic materials, such as obsidian and fused shale (Milburn 2003). The site was used through the early
historic period by European settlers as a hunting camp.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
53
07A3822 Task Order 17
Geoarchaeological Sensitivity Model
The geoarchaeological sensitivity model for the Antelope Valley is based on the landforms present in
the valley and their potential to contain surface-level or buried archaeological deposits. The
geoarchaeological sensitivity model was developed using geologic and geomorphologic desktop
assessments of the area that included review of existing geologic maps, soil-survey reports, records
search results, and other relevant data sources.
Factors Influencing Buried Geoarchaeological Sensitivity/Potential
Several primary and many ancillary factors can influence the potential for preservation and burial of
archaeological site materials. Primary conditions include the type of geologic deposits associated
with the landform present, the environment and energy of deposition of the deposits, the site
landscape position, and any post-depositional events that may impact the buried deposits.
Within the Antelope Valley region, whether archaeological materials were initially deposited on the
various landforms composed of either igneous, metamorphic, or sedimentary deposits, the overlying
geologic deposits that may bury and preserve the cultural materials are sedimentary in origin. These
clastic deposits may have been derived from the weathering of any number of the surrounding
source rock types and may have undergone very short or extensive transport history prior to burying
the cultural layer.
Landform Age
The age of a landform, duration of active deposition, and stabilized surface exposure are also factors
in geoarchaeological sensitivity. Resistant geologic deposits forming land surfaces that predate
human occupation and have maintained exposure throughout human occupation (e.g., bedrock
outcrops and resistant old alluvial deposits) by definition don't have potential for buried
archaeological deposits. Alluvial fan, valley, and playa margin surfaces with stable exposure during
periods of prehistoric occupation may subsequently be buried by younger sediments and may
preserve potential occupation surfaces and associated archaeological artifacts. The determination of
relative age and surface exposure for landforms and buried landform surfaces is, therefore, an
important part of the geoarchaeological assessment.
Based on the current understanding, the onset of human habitation in the Mojave Desert likely dates
to no earlier than latest Pleistocene to early Holocene times (see Chronology section). Thus, it is safe
to assume geological deposits that predate the late Pleistocene do not have buried archaeological
sites or associated cultural materials. However, it should be cautioned that archaeological materials
can and often do become mixed into and incorporated within the upper soil mantle of existing older
geologic surfaces through natural soil-forming processes (i.e., bioturbation). Given the span of
human occupation in the region, the sensitivity model will concentrate on the landscape setting and
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
54
07A3822 Task Order 17
geologic processes from the late Pleistocene to modern times as the primary control for the
modeling of geoarchaeological potential of sediments.
Lithology and Depositional Setting
Whether the parent material of the source rock is sedimentary, igneous, or metamorphic in origin,
sedimentary deposits are characterized by the assemblage of lithologic sediment types, their size,
and the particle size distribution (size range) of the sediments. The weathering of the parent material
and formation of the sediments and the transport mechanism(s) of the deposits generally control the
size and range of sediments present.
The size of the clastic sediments within a deposit is significant in that it is generally limited by the
energy available for sediment transport. In the case of larger sized sediments such as larger gravels
and cobbles or boulders (occurring within the proximal upper reaches of alluvial fans) the higher
energy of transport necessary for these deposits may scour or erode potential habitation surfaces
and remove or redistribute pre-existing cultural artifacts. Conversely, moderately- or well-graded
deposits that have a range of finer particle sizes including silts and clay present, may produce
deposits that blanket and bury cultural layers with negligible disturbance of the artifacts. Examples of
these deposits are sheet wash and smaller scale ephemeral stream deposition on the medial and
distal lower fan surfaces, as well as playa margin flooding and wind-borne eolian deposition.
Geomorphologic Position
The landscape position of archaeological sites in relation to subsequent geological processes can
influence geomorphologic changes they may experience. Sites located in topographic basins, at the
toe of slopes, or other natural zones of sediment accumulation will more likely be preserved than
those on steep slopes, eroding ridges, or adjacent to other topographic breaks such as channel
margins along stream terrace surfaces. Facing position and topographic elevation may correlate to
soil-influencing biotic communities and average precipitation amounts and thus further influence
site stability and preservation.
Landforms of the Antelope Valley
The Antelope Valley is an interior drainage basin formed by movement along the Garlock and San
Andreas Faults (Ponti 1985). The formation of this basin is a relatively recent event, likely resulting
from the uplift of the San Gabriel Mountains approximately 1 to 2 million years ago. Due to this
geologically recent uplift, the Antelope Valley is almost entirely filled with Quaternary sediments
(Ponti 1985). Landforms in the Antelope Valley that are critical in the assessment of archaeologic
sensitivity include the alluvial fans, fan complexes, and playa shoreline margins; the eolian sand
dunes, sheet sands, and lake bed surfaces in the eastern portions of the valley; and the hard rock
buttes located throughout the valley.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
55
07A3822 Task Order 17
Buried Site Sensitivity Model
When determining the potential for buried sites, the age of sediments is used as the main
discriminator in determining the potential for buried archaeological remains along with other factors
such as geomorphological context and level of sediment distubance. The Antelope Valley is an
enclosed interior drainage basin filled almost entirely by Quaternary (predominantly late Pleistocene
and Holocene) alluvial and lakebed deposits. Based on the various geological formations mapped
within the study area, four categories for buried site potential based on geological age (see the
Chronology section for roughly equivalent cultural periods) were identified:
Negligible
Pleistocene-aged or older (14,000 years BP [12,000 BC] and older)
Low
Latest Pleistocene age (14,000 to 11,000 BP [12,000 BC to 9,000 BC])
Moderate
Early Holocene-age deposits (11,000 to 8,000 BP [9000 to 6000 BC])
High
Deposits from middle Holocene and younger (8000 BP [6000 BC] to present)
Pleistocene‐aged or Older (14,000 years ago or older in age)
Pleistocene-aged and older sedimentary units are considered to be extremely low in potential
archaeological sensitivity due to their deposition prior to human habitation within the region. Within
the Antelope Valley, these are predominantly represented by hard rock deposits and small exposures
of old alluvial fan surfaces near the foothills of the San Gabriel and Tehachapi Mountain ranges.
Latest Pleistocene Age (14,000 to 11,000 years)
Late Pleistocene units are likely low in potential, based on the sparse and isolated nature of fluted
point finds from that time (Sutton 1996). However, the presence of buried early period sites cannot
be ruled out. Within the Antelope Valley, these are predominantly represented by small exposures of
old alluvial fan surfaces near the foothills of the San Gabriel and Tehachapi Mountain ranges.
Early Holocene-age Deposits (11,000 to 8000 years old)
Early Holocene deposits are considered moderate in potential for sensitivity. While the Study Area
was populated during this time frame, the known archaeological record is not as robust as seen
during later periods. This may be an indicator of smaller populations or, as Eerkens et al. (2007)
argue, this may be explained by the small percentage of older landforms that are currently exposed.
The majority of Early Holocene deposits are located along the margins of the valley, near the
Rosamond Hills, and along the ancient shoreline of Lake Thompson, southwest of Rosamond Lake.
Middle Holocene and Younger Deposits (8000 years ago to present)
Deposits from the middle Holocene and younger are considered highly sensitive, depending on
other factors such as landscape position and proximity to major water sources. The majority of the
Antelope Valley surface is made up of these deposits.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
56
07A3822 Task Order 17
Quaternary Sedimentary Units within the Antelope Valley Study Area
The majority of the valley floor is covered with middle and late Holocene alluvial deposits that are
considered sensitive for containing un-recorded prehistoric sites. Table 7 presents the archaeological
sensitivity of sediments within the Study Area based on the Bedrossian et al. (2012) geologic map.
The geoarchaeological sensitivity map (Figure 5) shows the distribution of the deposits within the
Study Area based on buried site sensitivity.
Table 7. Quaternary Sediments within the Study Area.
Name
Map I.D.
Type
af
Artificial Fill
(Surficial
Deposits)
Qsu
Undifferentiated
Surficial Deposits
Qls
Qw
Qf
Landslide
Deposits
Alluvial Wash
Deposits
Alluvial Fan
Deposits
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
Description
Deposits resulting
from human
activity and
development
Colluvium, slope
wash and talus
deposits
Unconsolidated to
moderately
consolidated
sediments from
debris flows and
older landslides
Unconsolidated
sand and gravel
sediment that has
recently been
deposited in active
stream and river
channels
Recently
deposited
unconsolidated
boulders, cobbles,
gravel, sand, and
silt. Typically
deposited in a fan
shaped cone
emanating from a
stream, river, or
canyon
57
Estimated
Age
Buried
Site
Potential
Distribution
within Study
area
Late Holocene
High
Developed areas,
cities, towns,
roads
Late Holocene
High
Late Holocene
High
Late Holocene
High
Late Holocene
High
Base of
mountain and
hill slopes
Small pockets
located within
slopes and in
valleys of the
Tehachapi and
San Gabriel
Mountains
Active stream
and drainage
channels
descending from
the Tehachapi
and San Gabriel
Mountains
Valley floor, fans
emanating from
the surrounding
mountains,
interfingered
with older (Qyf)
fan deposits
07A3822 Task Order 17
Name
Map I.D.
Type
Qa
Alluvial Valley
Deposits
Qt
Terrace Deposits
Ql
Lacustrine, Playa,
and Estuarine
(Paralic) Deposits
Qe
Eolian and Dune
Deposits
Qyw
Young Alluvial
Wash Deposits
Qyf
Young Alluvial
Fan Deposits
(Surficial
Deposits)
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
Buried
Site
Potential
Distribution
within Study
area
Late Holocene
High
Along active
stream and
drainage
channels within
the valley floor
Late Holocene
High
Negligible within
surface of Study
Area
Late Holocene
High
Rosamond Lake,
Rogers Lake,
Buckhorn Lake
Late Holocene
High
Discontinuous
lenses
throughout the
Antelope Valley
floor and
foothills
Early to MidHolocene
Moderate
to High
Marginal parts of
active washes
and river
channels
Early to MidHolocene
Moderate
to High
Valley floor,
interfingered
with younger
(Qf) deposits
Estimated
Age
Description
Unconsolidated
gravel, sand, silt,
and clay. Spread
regionally on
alluvial flats and
large river valleys.
Unconsolidated
thin to thick
bedded gravel
along river
terraces
Unconsolidated
fine-grained sand,
silt, mud and clay
from fresh water
(lacustrine) lakes,
saline dry lakes
that are
periodically
flooded, and
estuaries
Unconsolidated,
well sorted windblown sand, can
occur as dunes or
sand sheets
Unconsolidated to
slightly
consolidated
sandy and gravelly
stream bed
sediments in
marginal parts of
active washes and
river channels
Unconsolidated to
slightly
consolidated and
undissected to
slightly dissected
boulders, cobbles,
gravel, sand, and
silt at the base of a
valley or canyon
58
07A3822 Task Order 17
Name
Map I.D.
Type
Qya
Young Alluvial
Valley Deposits
Qyt
Young Terrace
Deposits
Qyl
Young Lacustrine,
Playa, and
Estuarine (Paralic)
Deposits
Qye
Qow
Buried
Site
Potential
Distribution
within Study
area
Early to MidHolocene
Moderate
to High
Valley Floor,
prevalent in
central portion
of the Antelope
Valley
Early to MidHolocene
Moderate
to High
Negligible within
surface of Study
Area
Early to MidHolocene
Moderate
to High
Margins of
Rosamond Lake
Estimated
Age
Description
Unconsolidated to
slightly
consolidated clay,
silt, sand, and
gravel located in
stream valleys,
alluvial flats, or
rivers
Unconsolidated to
slightly
consolidated
stream terrace
deposits
Unconsolidated so
slightly
consolidated finegrained sand silt
mud and clay from
lake, playa, and
estuarine deposits
of various types
Young Eolian and
Dune Deposits
Unconsolidated to
slightly
consolidated
windblown sands
Early to MidHolocene
Moderate
to High
Valley floor,
prevalent
between
Rosamond and
Rogers Lake and
in the inter-hill
valleys in the
northern portion
of the Study
Area
Old Alluvial Wash
Deposits
Slightly to
moderately
consolidated sand
and gravel
typically elevated
above modern
washes
Late
Pleistocene to
Early
Holocene
Low to
Moderate
Negligible within
surface of Study
Area
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
59
07A3822 Task Order 17
Name
Map I.D.
Type
Qof
Old Alluvial Fan
Deposits
Qoa
Old Alluvial
Valley Deposits
Qot
Old Terrace
Deposits
Qol
Old Lacustrine,
Playa, and
Estuarine
Deposits
Qoe
Old Eolian and
Dune Deposits
Qvof
Very Old Alluvial
Fan Deposits
(Surficial
Deposits)
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
Buried
Site
Potential
Distribution
within Study
area
Late
Pleistocene to
Early
Holocene
Low to
Moderate
Foothills along
the base of the
Tehachapi and
San Gabriel
Mountains,
around
Rosamond Hills
and the base of
several Buttes
Late
Pleistocene to
Early
Holocene
Low to
Moderate
Negligible within
surface of Study
Area
Late
Pleistocene to
Early
Holocene
Low to
Moderate
Negligible within
surface of Study
Area
Late
Pleistocene to
Early
Holocene
Low to
Moderate
Pleistocene Lake
Thompson
deposits in the
Central Antelope
Valley,
southwest of
Rosamond Lake
Late
Pleistocene to
Early
Holocene
Low to
Moderate
Negligible within
surface of Study
Area
Negligible
Foothills along
the base of the
Tehachapi
Mountains and
San Gabriel
Mountains
Estimated
Age
Description
Slightly to
moderately
consolidated and
moderately
dissected
boulders, cobbles,
gravel, sand, and
silt at the lower
end of a valley or
canyon
Slightly to
moderately
consolidated silt,
sand, and clay
along stream
valleys and alluvial
flats
Slightly to
moderately
consolidated
stream terrace
deposits
Slightly to
moderately
consolidated and
moderately
dissected finegrained silt, mud
and clay from lake,
playa and
estuarine
deposition
Slightly to
moderately
consolidated
wind-blown sands
Moderately to well
consolidated
boulder, cobble,
gravel, sand, and
silt deposits
60
Pleistocene
07A3822 Task Order 17
Name
Map I.D.
Type
Qvoa
Very Old Alluvial
Valley Deposits
Qvot
Very Old Terrace
Deposits
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
Buried
Site
Potential
Distribution
within Study
area
Pleistocene
Negligible
Negligible within
surface of Study
Area
Pleistocene
Negligible
Negligible within
Study Area
Estimated
Age
Description
Moderately to well
consolidated clay,
silt, sand, and
gravel along
stream channels
and alluvial flats
Moderately to well
consolidated
stream terrace
deposits
61
07A3822 Task Order 17
Antelope Valley Research Design
Geoarchaeological Map
Sheet 1 of 4
Map Features
Study Area Boundary
Sensitivity For Buried Subsurface Deposits 1
Moderate to High
Low
Location: N:\2015\2015-075.017 Antelope Valley Research Design\MAPS\soils_and_geology\geology\Antelope_Geology_DDP.mxd (AMyers)-amyers 4/6/2018
Negligable
*This map is intended for general reference only. Detailed studies should
be conducted at project locations for more specific geoarchaeological
data.
1
Geologic Formation Base Data Compiled From The California
Geological Survey California Geologic Data Map Series - Geologic
Compilation of Quaternary Surficial Deposits in Southern California 2010
and 2012
Service Layer Credits: S ources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri
Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, E sri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, NGCC, © OpenStreetMap
contributors, and the GIS User Community
M i les
Antelope Valley Research Design 2015-075.017
0
5
I
1
2
3
4
Photo Source: ESRI Service Layer Accessed 02/14/2018
Figure 5. Geoarchaeological Sensitivity Mapp
Map Date: 4/6/2018
Antelope Valley Research Design
Geoarchaeological Map
Sheet 2 of 4
Map Features
Study Area Boundary
Sensitivity For Buried Subsurface Deposits 1
Moderate to High
Low
Location: N:\2015\2015-075.017 Antelope Valley Research Design\MAPS\soils_and_geology\geology\Antelope_Geology_DDP.mxd (AMyers)-amyers 4/6/2018
Negligable
*This map is intended for general reference only. Detailed studies should
be conducted at project locations for more specific geoarchaeological
data.
1
Geologic Formation Base Data Compiled From The California
Geological Survey California Geologic Data Map Series - Geologic
Compilation of Quaternary Surficial Deposits in Southern California 2010
and 2012
Service Layer Credits: S ources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri
Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, E sri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, NGCC, © OpenStreetMap
contributors, and the GIS User Community
M i les
Antelope Valley Research Design 2015-075.017
0
5
I
Photo Source: ESRI Service Layer Accessed 02/14/2018
1
2
3
4
Map Date: 4/6/2018
Antelope Valley Research Design
Geoarchaeological Map
Sheet 3 of 4
Map Features
Study Area Boundary
Sensitivity For Buried Subsurface Deposits 1
Moderate to High
Low
Location: N:\2015\2015-075.017 Antelope Valley Research Design\MAPS\soils_and_geology\geology\Antelope_Geology_DDP.mxd (AMyers)-amyers 4/6/2018
Negligable
*This map is intended for general reference only. Detailed studies should
be conducted at project locations for more specific geoarchaeological
data.
1
Geologic Formation Base Data Compiled From The California
Geological Survey California Geologic Data Map Series - Geologic
Compilation of Quaternary Surficial Deposits in Southern California 2010
and 2012
Service Layer Credits: S ources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri
Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, E sri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, NGCC, © OpenStreetMap
contributors, and the GIS User Community
M i les
Antelope Valley Research Design 2015-075.017
0
5
I
Photo Source: ESRI Service Layer Accessed 02/14/2018
1
2
3
4
Map Date: 4/6/2018
Antelope Valley Research Design
Geoarchaeological Map
Sheet 4 of 4
Map Features
Study Area Boundary
Sensitivity For Buried Subsurface Deposits 1
Moderate to High
Low
Location: N:\2015\2015-075.017 Antelope Valley Research Design\MAPS\soils_and_geology\geology\Antelope_Geology_DDP.mxd (AMyers)-amyers 4/6/2018
Negligable
*This map is intended for general reference only. Detailed studies should
be conducted at project locations for more specific geoarchaeological
data.
1
Geologic Formation Base Data Compiled From The California
Geological Survey California Geologic Data Map Series - Geologic
Compilation of Quaternary Surficial Deposits in Southern California 2010
and 2012
Service Layer Credits: S ources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri
Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, E sri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, NGCC, © OpenStreetMap
contributors, and the GIS User Community
M i les
Antelope Valley Research Design 2015-075.017
0
5
I
Photo Source: ESRI Service Layer Accessed 02/14/2018
1
2
3
4
Map Date: 4/6/2018
Quaternary Stratigraphic Sequence within the Antelope Valley
Although geologic maps show the locations of surficial deposits within the Study Area, they do not
provide an indication of the potential thickness of these deposits. In 1985, Daniel J. Ponti published a
study of the Quaternary stratigraphic sequence within the Antelope Valley. Ponti argues that alluvial
deposition within the Antelope Valley was likely rapid and episodic separated by periods of relative
stability. He also argues that these periods of episodic alluviation correspond to climatic changes
associated with transitions from glacial to interglacial periods (Ponti 1985). Ponti outlined six major
alluvial units that appear throughout the Antelope Valley. Figure 6 shows the six major late
Quaternary climatic events and their associated sedimentary deposits.
Ponti’s stratigraphic units for the Antelope Valley are detailed in Table 8 below with their potential
corresponding sedimentary units as presented in geologic maps of the area by Bedrossian et al.
(2012).
Table 8. Stratigraphic Sequence of the Antelope Valley
Alluvial Unit
Dates
(years BP)
Likely Corresponding
Period
Potential Thickness
unit(s)
Lower Tylerhorse
>300,000
Pleistocene
Middle Tylerhorse
250,000
Pleistocene
Upper Tylerhorse
140,000
Pleistocene
1 to 20 meters
Late Pleistocene
May exceed 20 meters
Lower Palmdale
Upper Palmdale
Post Palmdale
30,000 to
90,000
8,000 to
14,000
0.5 to 2 meters
no thicker than 1.5
meters
Qvof, Qvoa, Qvot
Qvof, Qvoa, Qvot
Qvof, Qvoa, Qvot
Qof, Qol, Qow, Qoa,
Qot, Qoe,
Qof, Qol, Qow, Qoa,
Early Holocene
May exceed 12 meters
Qot, Qoe, Qya, Qyf,
Qya, Qyf, Qyw, Qyl, Qye
8,000 years
Middle to Late
to present
Holocene
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
Bedrossian et al.
Qyf, Qya, Qyf, Qyw, Qyl,
Less than 5 meters
Qye, Af, Qsu, Qt, Ql, Qf,
Qw, Qe, Qa, Qls
66
07A3822 Task Order 17
Lake Mojave
Period
8k to 5k BC
Gypsum
Period
2k BC to 500AD
Medieval
Climatic
Anomaly
Holocene
Maximum
(Altitherma)
2
Dryer
Pinto
Period
5k to 2k BC
R
o
5 0 se S
0 p
t r
La o 1 ing
te 2 0 P e
12 P 0A ri
00 re D od
AD his
t
to oric
C P
on e
ta rio
ct d
Fluted Point
Period
10k to 8k BC
0
Wetter
-2
-4
Neoglacial
(Neopluvial)
Last Glacial
Maximum
(LGM)
Age Ka 18
Little
Ice Age
Younger
Dryas
16
14
12
10
8
4
0
Epoch
Geologic Units(2)
GeoArch.
Sensitivity
late Holocene -
af, Qsu, Qls, Qw,
Qf, Qa, Qt, Ql, Qe
Qyw, Qyf,
Qya, Qyt,
Qye, Qyl
Very High
High
Moderate
Low
Ta, Tb, Ts, Th, Tg, Tp, Tq, Tl, To, Grd, grdp, qm, klg, qd, cqd, hdg, gr, hd, igdb,
q, klqm, di, ms, mql, my, psp, mhs, psq, Gn, mh, mql, cgn, mb, ml, Pms
None
Figure 6. Late Quaternary Climatic Events and Associated Sedimentary Deposits
Tylerhorse deposits date to between 300,000 and 140,000 years BP and predate human occupation
within the Antelope Valley. Tylerhorse deposits tend to be confined to areas adjacent to mountains
and are not prevalent in the valley floor. Tylerhorse deposits exhibit strong soil formation with welldeveloped argillic horizons and reddish-brown hues (7.5YR to 5YR in the Munson Scale) (Ponti 1985).
Palmdale deposits (lower and upper) date to the late Pleistocene and early Holocene, respectively,
and make up large portions of the Antelope Valley floor. Palmdale deposits have moderately welldeveloped soils with weak argillic horizons and lack the red hues of the Tylerhorse deposits. Both the
Lower and Upper Palmdale deposits tend to be thick, regularly exceeding a depth of 10 meters. Of
these, Upper Palmdale deposits are the most commonly exposed on the valley surface. Upper
Palmdale deposits overlie/inter-finger with lacustrine deposits from Pleistocene and Holocene lakes
(Ponti 1985). These deposits date to the early Holocene (8000 to 14,000 years BP) and may contain
evidence of the earliest human occupation of the region.
Post-Palmdale deposits date to the mid- to late-Holocene (8000 years BP to present). Post Palmdale
soils are weakly developed and occur near active stream channels and depositional surfaces (Ponti
1985). Evidence of human occupation within the region is likely to only be found within the Upper
Palmdale and Post Palmdale sediments and is not likely to occur in sediments below 17 meters deep.
Soils within the Antelope Valley Study Area
Fifty-six different soil series have been identified within the Antelope Valley Study Area (USDA 1970,
2019). Several of these are widespread throughout the Study Area, such as Adelanto, Cajon, and
Rosamond series soils. Others have a smaller distribution or are localized in one location or
geographic area. Table 9 shows the characteristics of the 56 soils series within the Study Area.
Soil formation is a complex process that can be influenced by multiple factors including time,
elevation, vegetation density, precipitation, temperature, and parent sediment/source rock
composition. In general terms, the longer a landform is exposed and stable (not eroded), the more
complex and developed the soil will become. Although soil formation is a complex process, soil
development and horizon information can be used as a relative age indicator. Broadly, soils that are
more well developed, particularly those that contain a B Horizon, or subsoil that contains
accumulated mineral deposits, such as salts and calcium carbonate, are older than soils that are
weakly developed, such as those containing only A- and C-Horizons (Holliday 2004:63). In 2018,
Kremkau looked at soils data, including degree of development and sediment age, derived from
geologic maps to develop a buried site sensitivity model for a small project near Lancaster. The
model postulated that Sunrise Series soils likely developed in sediments from the late Pleistocene
and had a low likelihood of containing buried archaeological deposits. Pond and Tray series soils
were considered to have a moderate potential for containing subsurface resources. These soil series
were also formed on sediments that ranged from the late Pleistocene to the Holocene. Hesperia and
Rosamond series soils were categorized as having a high potential to contain buried resources as the
sediments were formed on alluvium dating to the period from 2,000 to 5,000 years ago (Kremkau
2018).
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
68
07A3822 Task Order 17
Table 9. Soil Series in the Antelope Valley
Soil Series
Name
Slopes
(%)
Taxonomic
category
A Horizon
complexity
B Horizon
complexity
A1, AB
A
Horizon
depth
(inches)
0 to 16
B
Horizon
depth
(inches)
16 to 80
C Horizon
complexity
Adelanto
0 to 5
Xeric
Haplargids
Agua Dulce
30 to 50
Anaverde
15 to 75
Mollic
Haploxeralfs
Pachic
Haploxerolls
A1, A3
0 to 3
B2t
A1
0 to 8
Arizo
0 to 15
Typic
Torriorthents
A
Ayar
5 to 75
Typic
Haploxererts
Balcom
5 to 75
Typic
Calcixerepts
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
R
Horizon
present
Distribution
in Study Area
C
C
Horizon
depth
(inches)
80 to 86
No
6 to 20
C1, C2
20 to 48
No
B2
8 to 35
C1, C2
62 to 90
Yes
0 to 8
Bk
8 to 35
C
35 to 62
No
A1, A2, A3
0 to 24
Bss, Bssk1,
Bssk2
24 to 55
C, Cr
55 to
178
No
A
0 to 8
Bk
8 to 23
Cr
23 to 60
No
Widely
distributed
throughout
Antelope
Valley floor
Localized in
mid Valley
Tehachapi and
San Gabriel
Mountains
Sporadically
distributed
throughout
Antelope
Valley floor
Localized in
western
foothills
Sporadically
distributed
within the San
Andreas Rift
Zone
Btk, Bt1,
Bt2, Bt3
69
07A3822 Task Order 17
Soil Series
Name
Slopes
(%)
Taxonomic
category
A Horizon
complexity
B Horizon
complexity
A1, AB
A
Horizon
depth
(inches)
0 to 16
B
Horizon
depth
(inches)
16 to 80
C Horizon
complexity
R
Horizon
present
Distribution
in Study Area
C
C
Horizon
depth
(inches)
80 to 86
Adelanto
0 to 5
Xeric
Haplargids
No
6 to 20
C1, C2
20 to 48
No
B2
8 to 35
C1, C2
62 to 90
Yes
0 to 8
Bk
8 to 35
C
35 to 62
No
A1, A2, A3
0 to 24
Bss, Bssk1,
Bssk2
24 to 55
C, Cr
55 to
178
No
Typic
Calcixerepts
A
0 to 8
Bk
8 to 23
Cr
23 to 60
No
Typic
Torripsamments
A
0 to 2
None
None
C1, C2, C3,
C4, 2C5,
2C6, 2C7
2 to 60
No
Widely
distributed
throughout
Antelope
Valley floor
Localized in
mid Valley
Tehachapi and
San Gabriel
Mountains
Sporadically
distributed
throughout
Antelope
Valley floor
Localized in
western
foothills
Sporadically
distributed
within the San
Andreas Rift
Zone
Widely
distributed
throughout
Antelope
Valley floor
Agua Dulce
30 to 50
Mollic
Haploxeralfs
Pachic
Haploxerolls
A1, A3
0 to 3
B2t
Anaverde
15 to 75
A1
0 to 8
Arizo
0 to 15
Typic
Torriorthents
A
Ayar
5 to 75
Typic
Haploxererts
Balcom
5 to 75
Cajon
0 to 15
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
Btk, Bt1,
Bt2, Bt3
70
07A3822 Task Order 17
Soil Series
Name
Slopes
(%)
Taxonomic
category
A Horizon
complexity
B Horizon
complexity
A1, A2
A
Horizon
depth
(inches)
0 to 16
C Horizon
complexity
None
B
Horizon
depth
(inches)
None
Calleguas
9 to 75
Typic
Xerorthents
Calvista
2 to 30
Lithic
Haplocalcids
A1, A2
0 to 7
Bk
Castaic
2 to 65
Calcic
Haploxerepts
A1
0 to 10
Challenger
0 to 9
Typic
Torriorthents
A1, A2, A3
Chino
0 to 2
Aquic
Haploxerolls
DeStazo
0 to 10
Petronodic
Haplocalcids
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
R
Horizon
present
Distribution
in Study Area
Cr
C
Horizon
depth
(inches)
16 to 24
No
Sporadic
within San
Gabriel
Mountains and
foothills
7 to 16
None
None
Yes
Localized
south of
Edwards Air
Force Base
B2
10 to 28
C1ca, C2
28 to 40
No
Sporadically
distributed
within the San
Andreas Rift
Zone
0 to 35
2Bkn1,
2Bkn2,
2Bkn3
35 to 60
None
None
No
Localized
within Edwards
AFB
A1, A2
0 to 14
None
None
C1, C2, C3
14 to 60
No
Sporadically
distributed
within the San
Andreas Rift
Zone and
Tehachapi
foothills
A1, A2
0 to 11
Bk1, Bk2,
Bk3, Bk4
11 to 65
None
None
No
Sporadically
distributed
northwest of
Edwards AFB
71
07A3822 Task Order 17
Soil Series
Name
Slopes
(%)
Taxonomic
category
A Horizon
complexity
B Horizon
complexity
A1, A2
A
Horizon
depth
(inches)
0 to 10
C Horizon
complexity
None
B
Horizon
depth
(inches)
None
Gaviota
2 to 100
Lithic
Xerorthents
Gazos
9 to 75
Pachic
Haploxerolls
A1, A2
0 to 22
Bw
Godde
15 to 75
Lithic
Haploxerolls
A
0 to 16
Gorman
9 to 50
Pachic
Argixerolls
A11, A12,
A13, A3
Greenfield
0 to 30
Typic
Haploxeralfs
Hanford
0 to 15
Typic
Xerorthents
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
R
Horizon
present
Distribution
in Study Area
None
C
Horizon
depth
(inches)
None
Yes
22 to 29
None
None
Yes
Sporadically
distributed
within the San
Andreas Rift
Zone and San
Gabriel
foothills
Localized in
the San
Andreas Rift
Zone
None
None
None
None
Yes
Localized in
the San
Andreas Rift
Zone
0 to 43
B21t, B22t,
B3t
43 to 78
C
78 to 84
No
Western extent
of the
Antelope
Valley
A1
0 to 23
B1, B2t
23 to 51
C
51 to 72
No
Widespread in
the western
and southern
Antelope
Valley
A1
0 to 12
None
None
C1, C2
12 to 60
No
Widespread in
the western
and southern
Antelope
Valley
72
07A3822 Task Order 17
Soil Series
Name
Slopes
(%)
Taxonomic
category
A Horizon
complexity
B Horizon
complexity
A
A
Horizon
depth
(inches)
0 to 4
B
Horizon
depth
(inches)
4 to 165
C Horizon
complexity
Helendale
0 to 15
Typic
Haplargids
Hesperia
0 to 9
Xeric
Torriorthents
Ap
0 to 4
None
None
Hi Vista
2 to 50
Typic
Haplargids
A
0 to 6
Bt1, Bt2,
Bt3
Jawbone
8 to 75
Typic
Torripsamments
A
0 to 2
Las Posas
5 to 50
Typic
Rhodoxeralfs
Ap, A3
Lavic
0 to 5
Petronodic
Haplocalcids
Lebec
15 to 50
Calcic
Haploxerolls
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
C
Horizon
depth
(inches)
165 to
265
R
Horizon
present
Distribution
in Study Area
No
Localized
within Edwards
AFB
C1, C2, C3
4 to 77
No
Widespread in
the western
and southern
Antelope
Valley
6 to 29
None
None
Yes
Sporadic
within and
Antelope
Valley floor
Bw
2 to 5
Cr
5 to 16
No
Localized in
the Tehachapi
foothills
0 to 12
B21t, B22t,
B3t
7 to 32
Clr, C2r
32 to 54
No
Localized
south of
Palmdale
A
0 to 10
Bw, Bk1,
Bk2, Bk3,
2Bk4,
10 to 60
None
None
No
Localized
within Edwards
AFB
A11, A12
0 to 21
None
None
C1
21 to 39
Yes
Sporadic
within the
Tehachapi
Mountains and
foothills
Bt1, Bt2,
Bt3, Bt4,
Bt5, Bk
73
C
07A3822 Task Order 17
Soil Series
Name
Slopes
(%)
Taxonomic
category
A Horizon
complexity
Leuhman
0 to 2
Typic
Natrargids
A
A
Horizon
depth
(inches)
0 to 2
R
Horizon
present
Distribution
in Study Area
None
C
Horizon
depth
(inches)
None
Machone
2 to 15
A
0 to 3
Merrill
0 to 2
5 to 75
Ap1, Ap2,
A13, A14
A1, A2
0 to 25
Millsholm
Typic
Torriorthents
Aquic
Calcixerolls
Lithic
Haploxerepts
2Btkn1,
2Btkn2,
2Btkn3,
2Bkn1,
3Bkn2, 3Bn
None
No
Localized to
Edwards AFB
None
C1, C2, 2Crt
3 to 45
Yes
None
None
25 to 60
No
0 to 6
Bt
6 to 16
C1ca, C2ca,
C3, C4
None
None
Yes
A1, A2, A3
0 to 15
Bqkm
15 to 27
Crkq
27 to 54
No
Typic
Natrargids
A
0 to 6
6 to 60
None
None
No
0 to 5
Mollic
Haploxeralfs
Ap, A1, A2
0 to 25
2Btn,
2Btkn1,
2Btkn2, 3Bk
Bt, BCt
Localized to
Edwards AFB
Localized west
of Lancaster
Sporadically
distributed
within the San
Andreas Rift
Zone
Localized to
Edwards AFB
and Rosamond
Localized to
Edwards AFB
Muroc
2 to 15
Typic
Haplodurids
Norob
0 to 5
Oakdale
13 to 45
C
45 to 60
No
Oak Glen
2 to 25
Pachic
Haploxerolls
A11, A12
0 to 20
None
None
C
20 to 60
No
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
B Horizon
complexity
74
B
Horizon
depth
(inches)
2 to 60
C Horizon
complexity
Western
Antelope
Valley and
Tehachapi
foothills
Western
Antelope
Valley and
Tehachapi
foothills
07A3822 Task Order 17
Soil Series
Name
Slopes
(%)
Taxonomic
category
A Horizon
complexity
R
Horizon
present
Distribution
in Study Area
C1ca, C2ca
C
Horizon
depth
(inches)
31 to 53
Oban
0 to 2
Typic
Natrargids
A1
No
Localized north
of Lancaster
Pond
0 to 2
0 to 30
A11, A12,
A3
Ap, A12
0 to 15
Ramona
Natric
Haploxeralfs
Typic
Haploxeralfs
15 to 44
C
44 to 58
No
B1, B21t,
B22t, B23t,
B3
23 to 68
C
68 to 74
No
None
None
None
C1, C2, 2C3,
3C4, 4C5
0 to 60
No
A1, A2
0 to 5
Bt
5 to 12
Crk, Crkq
12 to 48
No
Typic
Xerorthents
A1
0 to 15
None
None
C1, C2, C3
15 to 50
No
15 to 50
Pachic
Haploxerolls
A11, A12,
A13, A14
0 to 39
None
None
C1, C2
39 to 57
No
0 to 30
Typic
Xerofluvents
A
0 to 11
None
None
C
11 to 60
No
Localized north
of Lancaster
Widespread in
the western
and southern
Antelope
Valley
Widespread
throughout the
Antelope
Valley floor
Sporadically
distributed
within Edwards
AFB and
Techachapi
foothills
Localized
southeast of
Palmdale
Tehachapi
Mountains and
foothills
Sporadic
throughout the
San Gabriel
foothills
0 to 23
Rosamond
0 to 2
Typic
Torrifluvents
None
Randsburg
2 to 50
Typic
Torriorthents
Saugus
9 to 50
Sheridan
Soboba
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
A
Horizon
depth
(inches)
0 to 4
B Horizon
complexity
B21t,
B22tca,
B3tca
B2t
75
B
Horizon
depth
(inches)
4 to 31
C Horizon
complexity
07A3822 Task Order 17
Soil Series
Name
Slopes
(%)
Taxonomic
category
A Horizon
complexity
A
Horizon
depth
(inches)
0 to 37
B Horizon
complexity
B
Horizon
depth
(inches)
37 to 58
C Horizon
complexity
R
Horizon
present
Distribution
in Study Area
2C3
C
Horizon
depth
(inches)
58 to 74
Sorrento
0 to 15
Calcic
Haploxerolls
Ap1, Ap2,
A, Abk
No
Localized
within
Palmdale
Sparkhule
5 to 50
Lithic
Haplargids
A
0 to 2
Bt1, Bt2,
Bt3
2 to 18
None
None
Yes
Localized to
Edwards AFB
Sunrise
0 to 9
Typic
Haplocalcids
A11, A12
0 to 11
None
None
C1ca, C2ca,
C3ca, C4
11 to 65
No
Sporadic
within the
middle of the
Antelope
Valley
Temescal
30 to 50
Lithic
Haploxerepts
A11, A12
0 to 13
B2
13 to 17
None
None
Yes
Localized in
the
southwestern
Antelope
Valley
Toomes
2 to 75
Lithic
Haploxerepts
A1, A2
0 to 7
Bw
7 to 15
None
None
Yes
Localized
south of
Palmdale
Tray
0 to 2
Typic
Haplargids
A1
0 to 8
B2t, B3
20 to 32
C1, C2ca
32 to 70
No
Typic
Xeropsamments
A
0 to 1.5
None
None
C1, C2, C3,
C4
1.5 to 78
No
Sporadic,
within and
north of
Lancaster
Localized in
the within the
San Andreas
Rift Zone and
San Gabriel
Mountains
Tujunga
0 to 12
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
Bk1, Bk2
76
07A3822 Task Order 17
Soil Series
Name
Slopes
(%)
Taxonomic
category
A Horizon
complexity
B Horizon
complexity
A
A
Horizon
depth
(inches)
0 to 2
C Horizon
complexity
Bw
B
Horizon
depth
(inches)
2 to 18
Tunis
5 to 75
Typic
Haploxerolls
Vernalis
0 to 5
Calcic
Haploxerepts
Ap, A
0 to 20
Bt, Btk
Vista
2 to 85
Typic
Haploxerepts
A1, A2, A3
0 to 19
Voyager
0 to 2
Typic
Haplocambids
A
Wherry
0 to 1
Typic Aquisalids
Wyman
0 to 15
Yolo
0 to 20
Typic
Haploxeralfs
Mollic
Xerofluvents
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
R
Horizon
present
Distribution
in Study Area
Cr
C
Horizon
depth
(inches)
18 to 24
No
20 to 46
C
46 to 62
No
Bw1, Bw2
19 to 35
Cr1, Cr2
35 to 61
No
0 to 6
2Btk1, Btk2
6 to 19
2C
19 to 28
Anz
0 to 3
3 to 60
None
None
Ap, A3
0 to 14
Bnz1, Bnz2,
Bn1, Bn2
B21t, B22t
No but
contains
a buried
B
horizon
below
28 in
No
Localized in
the Tehachapi
foothills
Localized in
the western
Antelope
Valley and
south of
Palmdale
Widespread
throughout the
southern
Valley and San
Gabriel
foothills
Localized to
Edwards AFB
14 to 41
C
41 to 60
No
Ap1, Ap2,
A1, A2
0 to 26
None
None
C1, C2
26 to 41
No
77
Localized to
Edwards AFB
Sporadic south
of Palmdale
Localized in
San Andreas
Rift Zone
07A3822 Task Order 17
In 2010, Meyer et al. conducted a geoarchaeological overview of Caltrans Districts 6 and 9, including
a portion of the northern Antelope Valley, in which they used archival research, soils data, sediment
data, environmental data, and known radiocarbon dates to develop a map showing the age of
individual landforms within Districts 6 and 9. To date, a similar comprehensive geoarchaeological
model involving known radiocarbon dates, environmental variables, and in-field sampling has not
been developed for the Antelope Valley as a whole and is outside the scope of the current research
design.
Hard Rock Units within the Antelope Valley Study Area
Hard rock formations throughout the Study Area are varied and consist of a combination of plutonic,
volcanic, sedimentary, and metamorphic rocks. Although hard rock formations are generally not
factored heavily into geoarchaeological assessments, hard rock formations containing lithic source
materials, rock shelters, caves, and outcrops near food-gathering spots are useful for predicting the
potential for both surface and subsurface sites. Within the Study Area, hard rock formations are most
prevalent in the adjacent San Gabriel and Tehachapi Mountain Ranges. Within the valley floor, hard
rock formations make up the majority of the buttes and hills located throughout the valley. Table 9
presents the major bedrock formations within the Study Area based on a series of geologic maps by
Thomas Dibblee, Jr. (1958-2008).
Table 10. Major Bedrock Formations within the Study Area.
Type
Age
Description
Distribution
within Study
area
Bissell Formation
(Tbc, Tbd, Tbs, Ttb)
Saddleback Basalt
(Tsb)
Sedimentary
rocks
Pliocene
Clay shale, dolomite,
and limestone
Bissel Hills
Volcanic rocks
Pliocene
Basalt
Fiss Fanglomerate
(Tf, Tff)
Sedimentary
rocks
Miocene
Volcanic fanglomerate
including rhyolitic
materials
Gem Hill
Formation (Tgf,
tgh, Tgp, Tgt)
Volcanic Rocks
Miocene
Felsite, silicic tuff, tuff
breccia, and quartz
latite
Name
Tropico
Group
Tropico
Group
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
78
Hills Southwest
of California City
Rosamond Hills,
Soledad
Mountain,
Fairmont Butte
Rosamond Hills,
Antelope Buttes,
Middle Buttes,
Warm Springs
Mountain, Little
Buttes, Fairmont
Butte, Elephant
Butte
07A3822 Task Order 17
Name
Type
Bobtail Formation
(Tlb, Tlf, Tlo, Tlp)
Crowder Formation (Tc)
Horned Toad Formation (Thc,
Ths)
Anaverde Formation (Tab,
Tac, Tar, Tas)
Volcanic rocks
Sedimentary
rocks
Sedimentary
rocks
Sedimentary
rocks
Oso Canyon Formation (Toc)
Sedimentary
rocks
Punchbowl Formation (Tpc,
Tpcg, Tprc, Tps, Tpf)
Sedimentary
rocks
Age
Description
Distribution
within Study
area
Miocene
Quartz latite, Breccia,
felsite, and perlite
obsidian
Rosamond Hills
Miocene
Clay shale
Pliocene
Pliocene
Clay lakebed deposits
and ground stone
Breccia, shale and
sandstone
Miocene
Sandstone, claystone,
conglomerate
Miocene
Clay shale, cobble
conglomerate,
fanglomerate,
sandstone
San Andreas
Fault Zone
Tehachapi
Mountain Range
San Andreas
Fault zone
Western
boundary of the
Antelope Valley
in near foothills
of San Gabriel
Mountains
San Andreas
Fault Zone
Western
boundary of the
Antelope Valley
along foothills
of San Gabriel
Mountains
San Gabriel
Mountain Range
Western
boundary of the
Antelope Valley
along foothills
of San Gabriel
Mountains
Quail Lake Formation (Tql,
Tqs)
Sedimentary
rocks
Miocene
Shale and sandstone
Vasquez Formation (Tvb, Tvt)
Volcanic rocks
Oligocene
to Miocene
Tuff breccia, basalt
Neenach Volcanic Formation
(Tvs, Tna, Tnr, Tva, Tvf, Tvp)
Volcanic rocks
Oligocene
Andesite, felsite,
perlite obsidian
San Francisquito Formation
(Tsf, Tsfs, Tsfc)
Sedimentary
rocks
Paleocene
Clay shale,
conglomerate
sandstone
San Andreas
Fault Zone
QTt
Precipitate
rocks
(calcareous
tuffa from
groundwater
precipitation
along San
Andreas Fault)
Tertiary or
Quaternary
Tufa from
precipitation of
ground water along
fault zones
Southeast of
Roger’s Lake
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
79
07A3822 Task Order 17
Name
Type
Age
Description
Granite, quartz
monzonite, quartz
diorite, leucogranite,
granodiorite,
horneblende,
horneblende dioritic
rocks
Hornfels, meta-quartz
latite, mylonite,
horneblende schist
Grd, grdp, qm, klg, qd, cqd,
hdg, gr, hd, igdb, q, klqm, di
Plutonic rocks
Mesozoic
ms, mql, my, psp, mhs, psq
Metamorphic
rocks
Mesozoic
Gn, mh, mql, cgn, mb, ml,
Pms
Metamorphic
rocks
Paleozoic
Schistic rocks,
metabasalt, marble
Ps, pbs, pcs
Metamorphic
rocks
Precambrian
Schist
sy
Volcanic rocks
Precambrian
Syenite
Distribution
within Study
area
Tehachapi
Mountains, San
Gabriel
Mountains, hills
and buttes
throughout the
study area
Tehachapi
Mountain
ranges
San Gabriel and
Tehachapi
Mountain
ranges
Tehachapi
Mountain range
along the
Garlock fault
and San Gabriel
Mountains
San Gabriel
Mountain Range
Within the Antelope Valley, Tropico Group rocks are of particular importance when discussing the
archaeological sensitivity of the area. The Tropico Group is a grouping of Tertiary-aged (Pliocene to
Miocene) sedimentary, pyroclastic, and volcanic rock formations that form the majority of the buttes
and hills within the interior of the Antelope Valley including: Antelope Butte, Little Buttes, Fairmont
Butte, Middle Buttes, Soledad Mountain, and the Bissell Hills. Tropico Group rocks also make up
Castle Butte to the north of the Study Area and the Kramer Hills to the east of the Study Area
(Dibblee 1967). Tropico Group formations, particularly the Bissell Formation, Gem Hill Formation,
Kramer Hill Formation, and Fiss Fanglomerate, contain outcrops of tool-quality chert, jasper, and
felsite/rhyolite-cobble-containing breccias (Dibblee 1967).
Site Distribution Potential Based on Surface Landform
In order to generate a predictive model for the location and distribution of archaeological sites
across the landscape, certain assumptions about human behavior are made. For the Antelope Valley
area, these assumptions include: people heavily utilized water sources for resource procurement,
settlements tend to be located near water sources, people frequent areas where raw materials for
tools are present, people frequented areas where plant and animal resources were prevalent (these
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
80
07A3822 Task Order 17
may have been seasonal), trade routes likely ran through passes in mountains and hills rather than
over the mountains/hills.
Using these assumptions, the following model for site distribution probability can be made:
High
Sediments along the margins and fluctuating shoreline of Pleistocene Lake
Thompson.
Areas within and near the natural ponds and water reservoirs formed by the playa
and dune deposits on the margins of Rosamond, Buckhorn, and Rogers Dry Lakes.
Terraces and banks along large drainage channels including Amargosa Creek, Old
Creek, Mojave Creek, Big Rock Creek, and Little Rock Creek (in the southern
foothills), and Cottonwood Creek and Oak Creek (in the northwestern foothills),
particularly within the foothills where the creeks were more likely to have flowing
water.
Areas near springs and water seeps. Within the Study Area, these are particularly
prevalent and within the San Andreas Fault Zone, although springs and seeps do
occur near several of the larger buttes and hills within the valley and, prehistorically,
were present at the location of modern Quail Lake.
Areas immediately adjacent to lithic raw material sources. In the Study Area these
include areas within and adjacent to the Rosamond Hills, Bissell Hills, Fairmont
Butte, Little Buttes, Middle Buttes, and Soledad Mountain.
Mountain passes. Within the Study Area, these include the San Andreas Fault Zone
through the Leona Valley and the pass to the current Interstate 5 corridor.
Moderate
Alluvial fans and valleys. These were likely utilized for resource procurement and
expedient processing. They may contain sparse artifact scatters but are less likely to
contain intensive use sites.
Mountain and foothill areas. May have been visited seasonally for juniper, pinyon,
and other high elevation resource procurement.
Low
Developed areas. Top soils have been removed, mixed, and/or paved over in these
areas.
Human behavior is complex and is shaped by multiple natural, cultural, and internal variables. All
predictive models should be taken with a grain of skepticism. Assumptions about prehistoric human
behavior may be heavily influenced by researcher assumptions and sample biases. For example, there
may be more recorded archaeological sites around certain landforms because that is where
researchers expect sites to be and, in turn, is where studies are focused. For the Antelope Valley, by
far the most heavily studied location is in and around Edwards AFB. The three surviving lake beds
(Rosamond, Rogers, and Buckhorn Lakes) are all located within the Base boundaries and intensive
studies of Base properties have been conducted for over 30 years. As a result, sites located near the
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
81
07A3822 Task Order 17
lakeshores may be overrepresented in the archaeological record while sites in the western valley and
foothill areas may be underrepresented. In the Coso Basin, to the northeast of the Antelope Valley,
early Holocene sites do not show any statistical patterning with respect to landforms, and prehistoric
occupants of the region were likely utilizing a wider variety of areas than expected (Eerkens et al.
2007). Thus, while predictive models may be useful, areas considered to have moderate to low
probabilities based on the assumptions above should not be ruled out without further investigation.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
82
07A3822 Task Order 17
Ethnohistoric Period
Introduction
Five language/ethnic groups—the Desert Serrano, Tataviam, Kashtiq Chumash, Kitanemuk, and
Kawaiisu (Nüwa)—are believed to have occupied areas in or near the Antelope Valley at the time of
Spanish contact in the late eighteenth century. Approximate locations of villages occupied by these
ethnic groups at the time of Spanish contact are shown in Figure 7. After native communities in the
southern Antelope Valley were taken to the missions in the early decades of the nineteenth century,
small groups of Chemehuevi/Southern Paiute from the eastern Mojave Desert visited and settled in
the Antelope Valley after about 1830.
Information about Spanish-contact era native settlement of the greater Antelope Valley region is
derived from explorers’ accounts, Franciscan Mission records, and ethnographic research with native
elders in the early twentieth century. Native communities living in the southern Antelope Valley were
removed to the Franciscan missions by the 1820s. Native people from the Antelope Valley who left
the missions after the mid-1830s moved to the vicinity of the Sebastian Reserve and the Tejón
Reservation in the southeastern San Joaquin Valley between the mouths of Tejon Canyon and
Grapevine Canyon by the early 1850s. Later native settlements in the Antelope Valley in the
nineteenth century were composed mostly of in-migrating Chemehuevi/Southern Paiute. Thus,
ethnographic information about contact-era native settlement in the valley was obtained from native
elders living in other regions. This information is thus scattered and sometimes contradictory. A
particular problem is the fact that named communities were frequently not precisely located by
ethnographic consultants. Therefore, a reconstruction of the political geography of the greater
Antelope Valley region is based on limited or fragmentary ethnographic and ethnohistorical
information.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
83
07A3822 Task Order 17
Kawaiisu
Kawaiisu
Location: N:\2015\2015-075.017 Antelope Valley Research Design\MAPS\Meeting_Maps_and_Analysis\2019-02-12 Village Location by Ethnic Group\AV_Village_Locations_20190212.mxd (AMyers)-amyers 3/6/2019
Kitanemuk
Kitanemuk
Shared Seasonal
Residential Base
Shared Seasonal
Residential Base
"
"
Tataviam Tataviam
Serrano
Serrano
Tataviam
Serrano
Serrano
Serrano
Serrano
Serrano
Map Date: 3/6/2019
USGS Topographic Quadrangles
Antelope Valley Study Area
"
Shared Seasonal Residential Bases
Villages by Ethnic Group
Tataviam
Serrano
Miles
Kitanemuk
0
Kawaiisu
Figure 7. Village and Major Residential Base Locations
5
I
2015-075.017 Caltrans Antelope Valley Research
Serrano speakers occupied the southern margin of the Antelope Valley. These communities appear
to have had social ties with Serrano of the San Bernardino Mountains and San Bernardino Valley
regions, as well as with the Desert Serrano of the Mojave River. The Big Rock Creek region and areas
farther to the east were reported to be linked to the Serrano clan of the Amutskupeatam, located at
Cajon Pass. Other communities of Serrano speech were located between Little Rock Creek and Pine
Canyon to the west. The Liebre Mountain region, south of Gorman at the west end of the valley, was
occupied by the Tataviam. The Kashtɨq Chumash had a village at Castac Lake located outside of the
Antelope Valley Study Area to the northwest. Although their village was outside of the Antelope
Valley, they may have gathered resources from a portion of the northwest Antelope Valley margin.
The southern Tehachapi Mountains were occupied by the Kitanemuk, who were based in Tejon
Canyon on the west side of the Tehachapi Mountains outside of the Antelope Valley Study Area. The
Tehachapi Mountains slopes on the northwest side of the Antelope Valley, including the Cottonwood
and Oak Creek drainages, appear to have been used by the Kitanemuk. Further to the northeast, the
Kawaiisu occupied the Tehachapi Valley and the Piute Mountains to the north, outside of the
Antelope Valley Study Area. However, they also gathered resources from the desert floor to the east
of their Tehachapi Valley territory, extending across the northern part of the Antelope Valley Study
Area, as well as into the Fremont Valley. The Kitanemuk and Kawaiisu also occupied the eastern
margin of the southern San Joaquin Valley, but their ability to use San Joaquin Valley floor resources
was constrained to some degree by neighboring Southern Valley Yokuts groups, with whom they
were sometimes in conflict.
The southern Antelope Valley Serrano groups, the Tataviam, the Kashtɨq Chumash, Kitanemuk, and
Kawaiisu exploited upland or foothill food resources to support settlements near the mouths of
canyons at the desert margin that could also take advantage of desert margin or desert floor
resources in the Antelope Valley. Serrano-speaking groups in the southern Antelope Valley and on
the Mojave River represented a desert-margin or desert-oasis adaptation of the montane Serrano.
The Tataviam, Kashtɨq Chumash, and Kitanemuk also depended on oak, pinyon, and juniper tree
resources found in more mesic foothill and upland areas away from the desert floor but could take
advantage of desert resources from villages or camps located on or near the desert margin. The
Kawaiisu, like the Serrano, in pre-Mission times extended their occupation far into the Mojave Desert,
thus creating a true desert division of the group. The Kashtɨq Chumash (located at Castac Lake)
formed part of a northeasterly extension of the inland Ventureño Chumash to the margins of the
southern San Joaquin Valley. Elsewhere in southern and south-central California, a pattern of native
occupation of the desertward margins of the Transverse Ranges and the southern Sierra can be
observed, from interior San Diego County and the Coachella Valley to the Eastern Sierra. The location
of villages at canyon mouths, foothill springs, or adjacent desert floor oases allowed the inhabitants
to take advantage of both upland resources such as acorns, pinyon pine nuts, and upland game, and
foothill and desert floor resources, including hard seeds, juniper berries, and mesquite, and
lagomorphs as game. In both the Mojave River area and the Antelope Valley, pine nuts and acorns
were also transported to camps and settlements located near the desert margin.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
85
07A3822 Task Order 17
The arrival of Chemehuevi/Southern Paiute (who originally occupied the eastern Mojave Desert) in
the Antelope Valley region by the 1830s or 1840s appears to have been initially linked to raiding
stock from ranchos nearer to the coast. However, small groups of Chemehuevi/Southern Paiute
settled for varying periods of time at valley floor oases and at spring sites and canyon mouth sites on
the margins of the Antelope Valley where Serrano people had formerly lived. These newcomers
intermarried with the linguistically closely related Kawaiisu during the course of the nineteenth
century. They were also able to take advantage of the desert margin adaptation.
The Serrano and Desert Serrano
In his 1925 Handbook article on the Serrano, Kroeber recognized that they were divided into a
Mountain and a Desert division, the latter occupying the Mojave River (Kroeber 1925:611-619). He
also recognized that the Kitanemuk were a linguistically closely related group to the Serrano proper.
Due to information he collected from a mixed Chemehuevi/Kawaiisu population at Victorville in
1905, he was not sure if the south side of the Antelope Valley had been occupied in ancient times by
these latter Numic groups (Kroeber 1925:616). He was also uncertain whether their presence in the
south side of the valley was very recent. He also recognized that the Serrano had traditionally been
organized in localized patrilineal clans or sibs.
Gifford (1918:178-186), Harrington (1986:III:101:52,86,344), and Strong (1929:11-29) also collected
information on the Serrano clan system, including clan names and locations for both the Mountain
and Desert divisions of the Serrano. The term clan was defined by Strong to denote a lineage-based
corporate descent group that occupied a local territory, traced membership through the male line,
and recognized the spiritual and ritual unity of the group under its hereditary chief and through its
sacred bundle. The group was also exogamous, meaning that spouses had to be found outside the
group, and also considered totemic, since either Coyote or Wildcat, and other affiliated totemic
animals, were associated with each (moiety system). Strong specified that he used the term clan
rather than lineage for the localized group in order to emphasize that the group identity was as
much religious and ritual in nature as it was genealogical (1929:17).
Harrington worked in 1918 with Santos Manuel and Tomas Manuel of the Yuhaaviatam clan of the
Serrano at the San Manuel Reservation. They provided considerable new information about Serrano
clans and social organization, including the moiety system, and about Serrano occupation of the
southern Antelope Valley as far west as Big Rock Creek. Harrington had already collected a quantity
of scattered information from various consultants at the Tejón Rancheria in 1916, including
Kitanemuk-speakers Eugenia Mendez and Magdalena Olivas, about groups of Serrano-speakers that
had formerly lived on the south side of the Antelope Valley (Harrington 1986:III:98:54-57, 502-503,
521-523,586,674-676). They also provided information about the location of Tataviam settlements
near the west end of the valley, and about named places on the northwest side of the valley.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
86
07A3822 Task Order 17
The ethnographic information collected in the early twentieth century about Serrano clan territories
and their locations, and about Serrano social organization, has been compared by Earle with earlier
information from Spanish colonial era documentation (Earle 1990, 1996, 2004d, 2005; Sutton and
Earle 2017). Key Spanish documents included the expedition diaries of Pedro Fages (1772), Francisco
Garcés (1776), Fr. José María Zalvidea (1806), José Palomares (1808), and Fr. Pascual Nuéz (1819), as
well as Franciscan mission baptismal and other records (Bolton 1935; Cook 1960; Coues 1900; Earle
2010b; Palomares 1808). Because the Antelope Valley and the Mojave River lay beyond the limits of
regular Spanish settlement (limited to the coastward side of the transverse ranges), the desert
margin regions were only sporadically visited by military expeditions. Some of these expeditions did
not leave diary accounts (but are mentioned in other sources), including a number after 1810 that
may have involved pressuring Mojave River and Antelope Valley native villagers to move to Missions
San Gabriel and San Fernando.
For both the Mountain and Desert divisions of the Serrano, the Spanish-era accounts and baptismal
records generally support the ethnographic information indicating the existence of patrilineal
territorial clans or sibs. Usually the places of origin for baptized natives listed in Franciscan baptismal
records appear to correspond to either a principal village within such a clan territory or to the name
of the clan group itself. Sometimes the names of the principal settlement and of the clan group
appear to have been the same. Ethnographic consultants recalled many of the clans mentioned in
Spanish records, and even recalled their boundaries, while others, or their locations, had been
forgotten by particular consultants. This tended to be the case where certain clan villages had been
completely recruited to the missions, and the corresponding clans had not been reconstituted in any
form by mission survivors or holdouts after the end of the mission system. Franciscan baptismal and
marriage records also provided key information about inter-village marriage links. Members of
Serrano clans were required to seek spouses in other clans, and baptismal records at Mission San
Gabriel, beginning in 1810, accurately reflected this practice of exogamy. Thus, ethnographic
information provided details about the Serrano clan or sib system, while Spanish-era documents
have complemented the information from Serrano elders about the locations of clans and villages.
In respect to the Antelope Valley, the 1776 expedition diary of Franciscan Explorer Fr. Francisco
Garcés, analyzed by Earle (1990:94-96), has supported ethnographic information suggesting that the
southern Antelope Valley was occupied by Serrano-speakers (Coues 1900:I:234-308). In addition, the
diary indicates that these Serranos were a distinct group from the Kitanemuk of the Tehachapi
Mountains. After traveling up the Mojave River, and then visiting Mission San Gabriel, Garcés
returned to the edge of the desert at the southwest margin of the Antelope Valley. At the village of
Kwarung at Lake Hughes he noted having returned to the territory of the Beñemé or Desert Serrano,
whom he had met on the Mojave River (Coues 1900:I:267-270). His information about ethnic groups
and boundaries was supplied by his accompanying Mojave guides. At the village of Kwarung were
visitors from the territory of the Kitanemuk, who were clearly treated by his guides as a separate
ethnic group.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
87
07A3822 Task Order 17
Serrano Social Organization and Settlement
Gifford (1918:178-186), Strong (1929:5-29), and Harrington (1986:III:101:52,86,344) collected
information from native elders about Serrano social organization. Strong had also carried out
research with the Cahuilla, Luiseño, and Cupeño, and discussed similarities and differences in the
social organization of these groups (Strong 1929:15-22, 59-62, 163-168). He emphasized that
individual clans (sibs), as independent groups, had a special sacred and supernatural identity as a
group that was embodied in what he called the sacred bundle. This was a collection of sacred objects
(sea grass, yucca fiber, or tule matting) that enclosed sacred items, including magical wands, shell
beads, feathers, rattles, and other ritual paraphernalia. This was kept in the custody of the chief, or
possibly another ritual officer. The clan had a sacred house, within which various ceremonies were
held. Strong believed, from what he was told, that in traditional times the sacred house was occupied
by the chief. While the chief also exercised political functions, including the maintenance of alliances
with other groups, Strong believed the chief's ritual functions were of great importance in
maintaining the identity of the group. Thus, recognition of a particular chief to perform ritual
activities, and recognition of the sacred bundle that he cared for, defined who the family groups or
'lineages' were that might make up a clan or sib. The chief was supported by a ritual assistant or
master of ceremonies, the paha, and a hereditary singer, tcaka, in charge of the singing of sacred
clan songs.
Chiefs were leaders of autonomous patrilineal territorial clans. There is no indication of the existence
of regional chiefdoms or paramount chiefs. Nevertheless, two of the San Bernardino region Serrano
clans, Aturiavatam and the Marengayam, apparently made rival claims about being the senior or
influential clan group in the region. Harrington and other ethnographers collected information about
a moiety system found among the Serrano and Cahuilla, involving the Coyote and Wildcat moiety
divisions. Coyote and Wildcat were the most prominent animal totems for the two moiety divisions,
but other animals were featured in each as well. All clans were classified as belonging to one or the
other of the moiety divisions. A person from a Wildcat division clan was expected to seek a spouse in
a Coyote division clan. Communities that intermarried in this way, or otherwise had close alliance
ties, would assist one another in the holding of ritual activities like the Mourning Ceremony.
A key element in Serrano social organization was the idea of reciprocity between the different
territorial clans. The holding of rituals like the mourning ceremony involved various forms of ritual
reciprocity between the host clan sponsoring the ceremony and allied and guest clans that
participated. This included assistance in carrying out ritual activities and exchanges of gifts and
offerings, including the prestation and counter-prestation of special strings of shell beads. Both
ethnohistorical and ethnographic information also record the importance of resource reciprocity clans lending and borrowing large quantities of food resources, sometimes through lending or
borrowing access to food resource areas between allied clans. In addition, fiestas were also held
where guest clans were invited to gather resources like acorns or pinyon pine nuts, and/or to hunt,
over a period of days, as a part of the fiesta. These alliance relations served to even out access to
food resources between different clans.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
88
07A3822 Task Order 17
Clan or sib groups of the San Bernardino Mountains region often reflected a settlement system
taking advantage of access to upland and lower elevation resources similar to the desert margin
strategy in the Antelope Valley. Residents of winter villages located on lower mountain slopes near
canyons could ascend into the higher elevations of the San Bernardino Mountains during the
summer months where seasonal camps were occupied for hunting and plant foraging. In this yellow
pine forest zone, temporary conically-shaped dwellings of tree branches and pine bark slabs were
constructed. The exact boundaries of clan territories in the high country were recalled by
Harrington's Serrano consultant Santos Manuel. In the spring and summer, mountain slope chaparral
plants such as yucca (spring) and sage (salvia) and other hard seeds (summer) were exploited. The
Serrano gathered acorns, pinyon pine nuts, and islay (holly-leafed cherry) at intermediate elevations
during the autumn. Sometimes special camps were established during the autumn for gathering of
tree crop resources and rabbit and deer hunting to lay away extra stocks of food for hosting an
upcoming winter season mourning ceremony. Thus, clan populations could disperse to temporary
camps in spring, summer, and autumn. During the winter months, when the mountain camps were
snowbound and storms were more common, lower altitude village sites were occupied during and
after the fiesta season. Consultant Santos Manuel noted, for example, that for a clan group living to
the east of Yucaipa, the winter village was better suited for riding out winter storms than the acorngathering camps. This was also a period for craft activities and equipment repair. Winter villages
included the chief's house and associated ramada, an outdoor dancing plaza (often enclosed) a
cemetery, a temescal or sweat lodge, acorn granaries, and other storage features and facilities for
individual households. Individual dwellings were made of saplings tied into a hemispherical
framework that was covered on the outside with tule reed thatching, and on the inside with tule reed
matting. Floors were excavated below grade, and also covered with matting. Winter villages were
considered permanent from year to year, although the resident population varied at different
seasons of the year. Individual dwellings had to be located sufficiently far apart so that a dwelling
could be burned as part of a funeral observance. Over longer periods of time, the exact locus of
habitation of a settlement in some cases appears to have shifted.
Serrano Mortuary Behavior and the Mourning Ceremony
Strong states that it is probable that the Serrano shared with other Takic-speaking groups, such as
the Cahuilla, the custom of cremating their dead (Strong 1929:32). Kroeber (1925:618) also mentions
cremation. The Serrano version of the religious account of the death and cremation of a culture hero
named Kukitat at Big Bear Lake may have provided a cultural charter for the practice of cremation.
The Serrano recalled origin stories that commemorated two brothers, Pakrokitat and his younger
brother Kukitat, who created the human race and quarreled over how humans were to be endowed.
Pakrokitat withdrew from the world of men, and Kukitat divided mankind into warring groups, and
created death. He was then slowly poisoned by disgruntled followers and cremated at a site on Big
Bear Lake. A part of his body was stolen by Coyote during the cremation. The Serrano stories reflect
beliefs which may have been shared with other groups in both the Colorado River region and
southern California coastal areas. Versions of this story are also found among other Takic-speaking
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
89
07A3822 Task Order 17
groups. Strong surmises that after Spanish contact the Serrano interred their dead, a change of
custom which he attributes to missionary influence (Strong 1929:32).
After a person's death, some of his or her personal property was immediately destroyed. The
deceased’s house was burned. An additional ceremony called the mamakwot was held soon after the
death, perhaps a week to a month later (Benedict 1924:382). This was sponsored by the bereaved
family. A feast was held, and the personal property of the deceased, with a few exceptions, was
burned or broken up. It was believed that if this were not done, the deceased could not be left in
peace.
As was the case with other southern California groups, a mourning ceremony was held periodically
by a clan to honor all the clan's members who had died since the last ceremony. The mourning
observance was the major ceremonial event on the ritual calendar. It appears to have been held on a
regular annual basis and involved reciprocal obligations between different clans. A significant
number of clans might be invited to the mourning ceremony. Benedict was told, for instance, that in
former times the hosts of the ceremony she attended might have invited some six other clans
(Benedict 1924). The ceremony was held after the close of the fall acorn and pinyon harvests. It was
important for the harvesting tasks of autumn to be completed so that the investment of time
necessary to host the ceremony could be made. It was also necessary that foodstuffs be available to
underwrite the feasting. It is particularly important to keep in mind that a considerable block of time
in late fall and early winter was taken up almost exclusively with either hosting or attending the
mourning ceremonies, as the various clans held their ceremonies in succession.
Duncan Strong witnessed a joint Serrano-Cahuilla mourning ceremony in the mid-1920s (Strong
1929:122-130). The singing of special songs by the host clan chief and by shamans to verify that the
time was propitious for the ceremony took place on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, along with
singing by host and visitor clans. The latter sang on Wednesday and Thursday. On Friday night, the
sacred bundle was brought out of the inner room in total darkness, prayers said, and then it was
returned to its inner room before fires were relit. On Saturday afternoon the funeral images were
completed, and these were paraded and danced with in public. The evening of Saturday was devoted
to the singing of songs about creation by visiting clans in the dance house, while in the courtyard
game-playing and visiting went on. On Sunday morning food was distributed to all visiting families.
Then the images were paraded again and then taken to the cemetery to be burned. As in the
ceremony witnessed by Benedict, gifts were then thrown to the crowd, and shell bead strings
distributed to visiting clans.
The mourning ceremony was the most important of a number of inter-clan gatherings or fiestas that
linked Serrano clans together. The various clans were bound together through shared ritual activity,
the exchange of food and artisan goods, and cooperative activities such as joint acorn or pine nut
gathering.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
90
07A3822 Task Order 17
The Desert Serrano and Antelope Valley Settlements
Groups within the desert division of the Serrano occupied the Mojave River and also southerly
portions of the Antelope Valley. As discussed in detail elsewhere (Sutton and Earle 2017), settlements
along the Mojave River relied in part on the importation of upland nut and berry foods - acorns, pine
nuts, and juniper berries - along with locally available mesquite, to support village populations along
the Mojave River linear desert oasis. In the southern Antelope Valley, canyon mouth and spring sites
provided settlement locations that could take advantage of nearby upland resources, as well as
foothill and desert floor plant and animal food resources.
Several Antelope Valley region settlements which are named in the mission registers and are
believed to have been of Serrano or Desert Serrano affiliation are listed below. Several of these
settlements, including Kwarung, Maviayek, Puning, Pavuhavea, and Amutskupiat, appear
underrepresented in the Mission San Fernando and San Gabriel sacramental registers. It is not clear
whether members of any of these communities may have been baptized under a linguistically
different version of the corresponding village name. Some inhabitants of these places may have
avoided missionization, and later migrated to the Los Angeles Basin or to the southern San Joaquin
Valley. These named villages have in some cases been at least tentatively located, on the basis of
inferences from expedition accounts or data provided by Harrington consultants.
Amutskupiat. Serrano elder Santos Manuel placed this settlement in Big Rock Creek, approximately
opposite the later Valyermo Post Office. Manuel said that it was affiliated with the Serrano clan based
at Amutskupiabit (Cajon Pass). Sgt. José Palomares reported in 1808 that a village of this name was
located somewhere to the east of Maviayek (Little Rock Creek), corroborating Manuel’s account
(Palomares 1808:232-234).
Maviayek. Maviayek was mentioned by Kitanemuk consultants Magdalena Olivas and Eugenia Mendez
as a community associated with a mountain zone on the south side of the Antelope Valley in the general
vicinity of Soledad Pass and to the west of the mountains in the vicinity of Big Rock Creek (Harrington
1986:III:98:523, 528, 599). Its name refers to an extensive riparian gladed area, and it was said to be
associated with a large marsh and was near where sugar carrizo grass grew (Anderton 1988:385-386).
Maviayek may be associated with the archaeological site of CA-LAN-184 located at the west end of the
Garcia Cienaga (marsh) where there was a cottonwood forest on lower Little Rock Creek. In the fall of
1808 Maviayek was visited by the Palomares expedition, as it had been reported by a chief at Kwarung
that neophyte runaways were being harbored there (Cook 1960:245). Palomares found most of its
inhabitants absent at an acorn gathering fiesta hosted by the chief of the Serrano village of Guapiabit in
Summit Valley, some 40 miles to the east (Palomares 1808:238-241). Inhabitants of this village don’t
appear to have been baptized under this name at Mission San Fernando.
Chivung [Tsivung]. This community and its inhabitants were recalled by Kitanemuk consultants. It was
placed on the south side of the Antelope Valley to the west of Soledad Pass. Given that its name
refers to ‘bitter water’, it has been tentatively placed at the upper end of Amargosa Creek in Leona
Valley (Harrington 1986:III:98:676). Some 33 inhabitants of Tsivung were baptized at Mission San
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
91
07A3822 Task Order 17
Fernando, many of them in 1811 in what appears to have been a military roundup (Huntington Library
2006). Chivung had five marriage ties with the Tataviam village of Kwitsa'ong at Liebre Mountain to the
northwest. It also had marriage links to the Desert Serrano village of Topipabit on the Mojave River.
Around two-thirds of those baptized were adults (aged 15+), suggesting the possibility that epidemic
disease had previously impacted the community’s juvenile population. The original population would
thus have been larger, probably exceeding 50 people. Epidemics of dolor de costado (typhoid fever) and
measles had occurred in southern California in 1801 and 1806, respectively.
Kwarung. This settlement was located at Lake Hughes, probably at a marsh east of the east end of the
modern lake. Harrington’s Kitanemuk notes contain a location for the place at Lake Hughes, and Capt.
Pedro Fages (1772), Fr. Francisco Garcés (1776), and Sgt. José Palomares (1808) all visited the community
(Coues 1900:1:268-269; Cook 1960:245). While King and Blackburn (1978:536) believed that Kwarung
was of Tataviam affiliation, Garcés noted that upon arriving at the place he had returned to the territory
of the Beñemé or Desert Serrano. Thus, it has been identified as of Serrano speech. When Palomares
visited the place in the autumn of 1808, a fiesta of some sort was underway.
Pu’ning. The exact location of Pu’ning is unknown. Pu'ning was placed by Eugenia Mendez somewhere
“back of the mountains of San Fernando” (the transverse range) on the southwest side of the Antelope
Valley (Harrington 1986:III:98:675-676). At least four members of this community were baptized at
Mission San Fernando in 1803, one of which had a marriage link to an unlocated village named
Tomijaibit (Huntington Library 2006). Mendez stated that, “Old Rogerio, captain, of San Fernando, was
Pu'nijam” (Harrington 1986:III:98:676). The settlement was referred to along with Pavuhavea and
Chivung [Tsivung] as ‘nations’ of Serrano speech located in the same general region on the southwest
margin of the Antelope Valley.
Pavuhavea. This village has also not been located. This was described as, “a place over beyond La
Liebre back of the mountains of San Fernando. Used to be a ranchería [village] of cazadores [hunters]
there. It is an aguaje [spring]. In the vicinity of tsivung, pu'ning, etc.” (Harrington 1986:III:98:675). It was
located somewhere in the southwestern Antelope Valley foothills. It was also associated with “lluvidores”
(rainmakers?) and with a story about a man who died and came back to life from the land of the dead
four days later (Harrington 1986:III:98:21).
Timit oSranijik. This locality was described by Magdalena Olivas as “A place a little this way [toward the
Tejón region] from Elizabeth Lake, between Elizabeth Lake and the Ojo de la Vaca” (Harrington
1986:III:98:674). Ojo de la Vaca referred to Pujutsiwaming or Cow Springs, possibly a Tataviam
settlement. The Kitanemuk Serrano name Timit oSranijik was translated as 'La Piedra Pintada' or Painted
Rock. This is obviously a reference to a rock art site. At Indian Springs, on the property of what became
known as Shea's Castle, located midway between Elizabeth Lake to the southeast and Fairmont Butte to
the northwest, is a prominent rock art site. The rock art panels at the site, CA-LAN-721, are associated
with an extensive habitation area. It is possible that Timit oSranijik was associated with CA-LAN-721.
Apavuchiveat. This named place on the Antelope Valley desert floor was either a camp or a more
permanent settlement in proto-historic times. It was described by Serrano elder Santos Manuel, who
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
92
07A3822 Task Order 17
had visited it as a young man. From his description, Harrington believed that it was located at Buckhorn
Springs, between Rogers and Rosamond Dry Lakes on Edwards Air Force Base.
The Tataviam
In the 18th century, the Tataviam occupied an area that included the upper Santa Clara River
drainage in and around the Santa Clarita Valley and adjacent mountain ranges. This included an area
of mountain ridges extending northward from the upper Santa Clara River toward the Antelope
Valley, as well as the headwaters of that river northeast of Santa Clarita. It also included the drainage
of upper Piru Creek. Very limited ethnographic work was carried out with Tataviam-speakers by
Harrington and other ethnographers. Thus, the language remained poorly documented, leading to
some uncertainty among linguists and ethnographers as to the linguistic and cultural relation of the
Tataviam to neighboring groups. However, as noted by Johnson and Earle (1990:191-192) in their
discussion of the Tataviam, Harrington's Kitanemuk consultants provided sufficient information to
confirm the close relationship of Tataviam to other Takic languages.
Tataviam Settlement and Subsistence
In August of 1769, Tataviam villages in the Santa Clarita region were visited by the Portolá
expedition, which made reference to at least five occupied villages (Crespí 2001:358-371). Dwellings
appear to have been generally similar in type to those used by the Serrano. At one of these
settlements, over 100 people were noted (Crespí 2001:362-363). In addition, in the central Santa
Clarita Valley area, the expedition observed a 'corral' like-structure that may have been a ceremonial
dance enclosure. Villages in the area may have averaged 100-120 people in population, although the
village of Tsawayung may have been larger.
Other Tataviam villages were located in the canyons north of the Santa Clarita Valley. This upland
area extended from upper Piru Canyon to Soledad Canyon on the east, and included Liebre
Mountain, near the west end of the Antelope Valley. Major north-south trails reached Tataviam
settlements on upper Piru Creek, and ascended Violin Canyon to reach the village of Pakahung south
of Gorman. These trails provided access to the southern San Joaquin Valley. Further east, another
trail ascended Castaic Creek to reach the Tataviam village of Pi'ing, near modern Pyramid Lake, and,
further north, the village of Kwitsa'ong, on the south slope of Liebre Mountain. North-south trails
also led up Elizabeth Lake Canyon, San Francisquito Canyon, and Soledad Canyon to the east. On the
south side of the Liebre-Sawmill-Sierra Pelona Mountain ridge that fronted the southwest rim of the
Antelope Valley was a transverse fault canyon cutting across north-south canyon trails. This provided
both a travel route and watered camping places for upland foraging. Upper Soledad Canyon and
surrounding areas, including Vazquez Rocks and Acton, have been placed within the territory of the
Tataviam (King and Blackburn 1978:535; Johnson and Earle 1990:194).
In the Santa Clarita Valley region, oaks were formerly abundant. The Portolá expedition accounts
mention acorns, juniper berries, and small hard seeds such as chia being observed in this area.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
93
07A3822 Task Order 17
Stands of juniper in the Camulos area were an ethnographically noted food source. Further north, in
the Soledad Canyon drainage and surrounding hills, the harvesting of Yucca whipplei was a key
activity carried out in the spring. This was one of the first major food resources available during the
year. King et al. (1974) studied prehistoric Yucca harvesting and roasting in the vicinity of Vazquez
Rocks, just northwest of Soledad Canyon. Large quantities of juniper berries would also have been
available for harvest in late summer in this area, and juniper fuel wood was used for yucca roasting.
This area lies below 1,640 ft. (500 m.) and is significantly drier than higher altitude mountain slopes
and canyons further to the west and northwest. There, the more shaded slopes of the narrower
canyons at higher elevations support more robust chaparral, along with scrub oak and canyon live
oak, and pinyon- juniper woodland at higher elevations. Chia (Salvia spp.) and islay (Prunus ilicifolia)
were found in the canyons in this area as well. Oak woodland is also found at high altitude, as on the
crest of Liebre Mountain, where acorns were gathered by ex-neophytes from Mission San Fernando.
The southwesternmost corner of the Antelope Valley along the north-facing slopes of Liebre
Mountain supported dense oak woodland. The base of the north slope of this mountain was
traversed by the San Andreas Fault, which contributed to sag ponding and the availability of water.
Tataviam Social Organization
Franciscan baptismal registers provide information about Tataviam chiefs. They appear to have been
politically independent and to have inherited their position in the male line (Johnson and Earle
1990:198-209). Tataviam villages like Kwitsa'ong and Hwit' ahovea, on the north side of Liebre
mountain, may have had far-reaching political ties, since the Tataviam of the Western Antelope
Valley were listed by a Serrano ethnographic consultant as part of the social or interaction sphere of
the Serrano of the San Bernardino Mountains.
Spanish-era ethnohistorical sources provide some important inferences about social organization.
Marriage ties between Tataviam communities and with non-Tataviam groups were recorded in
baptismal and marriage registers at Mission San Fernando, where most Tataviam neophytes were
baptized. Beginning soon after the founding of nearby Mission San Fernando in 1797, significant
numbers of Tataviam from the Santa Clarita Valley were baptized during the following decade. This
recruitment, voluntary or forced, continued for villages in northern Tataviam territory after 1810,
when renewed efforts were made to bring native people into Missions San Gabriel and San
Fernando. Pre-mission native marriage ties of the Tataviam with the neighboring Fernandeño and
Ventureño Chumash were recorded. The ranchería of Camulos was a mixed Tataviam-Ventureño
Chumash community, for example. The village of Kwitsa'ong on the southern slope of Liebre
Mountain, just over the ridge from the Antelope Valley, intermarried with the Serrano speaking
village of Tsuvung, probably located in Leona Valley, also on the southwest margin of the Antelope
Valley.
Regarding the organization of kin groups into community units, we do not have clear indications of a
system similar to that of the Serrano, who were organized on the basis of exogamous patrilineal
clans with a chief and headquarters village. We also have no indication of the existence of totemic
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
94
07A3822 Task Order 17
moieties. Given the location of the Tataviam, wedged between the Gabrielino and the Ventureño
Chumash, we could consider the possible social organizational alternatives of its neighbors. On the
one hand, large Takic-affiliated coastal communities, such as found among the Luiseño, were made
up of a number of constituent patrilineal kin groups. On the other hand, for the Chumash, María
Solares reported what appear to be non-localized (or non-territorial) patrilineal clans (diffuse
regional clans, rather than localized territorial ones). Given that the size of most Tataviam villages did
not exceed 120-150 people, we do not consider it likely that subsidiary chiefs and their kin groups
existed within these communities, although it cannot be ruled out.
Tataviam Religious Institutions and Mortuary Customs
Blackburn and King (1978:536) suggest an association of the Tataviam with the 'Antap cult of the
Chumash, partly on the basis of their association with the famous cache of ritual paraphernalia found
at Bowers Cave in Tataviam territory. In addition, the Portolá Expedition mentioned seeing what they
interpreted as 'Antap-style ceremonial enclosures. These were reported at an historic Tataviam
village in the mid-nineteenth century (Harrington 1986:III:98:164-165). The Bowers Cave ritual items
and basketry bear similarities to Ventureño Chumash and Kitanemuk paraphernalia and even some
Fernandeño/ Gabrielino materials. Their location, well within historic Tataviam territory and apparent
contact-era date, suggests connection with Tataviam religious ritual. While the 'Antap cult itself was
not found among the Kitanemuk, being considered a coastal phenomenon, a number of other
practices, including interment, the use of grave poles and sun staffs were shared by the Kitanemuk
with the Ventureño Chumash and immediately neighboring Chumash groups. These would thus
likely have been found among the Tataviam, closer to the coast, as well. In addition, the Chumash
'Antap and Gabrielino/Fernandeño Chingichnich cults, of apparent southern California island origin,
were probably shared by at least some Tataviam communities. The Tataviam villages in the general
vicinity of Bowers Cave had close ties with the Ventureño Chumash of the lower Santa Clara River
Valley. It is noteworthy that members of the Portolá expedition observed among the Tataviam both
elaborate beadwork belts and the stone knife-tipped polished rods worn in the hair of chiefs that
were characteristic of Chumash chiefs (Crespí 2001:366-367).
As King et al. (1974:45-46) have noted, even for the Late Prehistoric period the archaeological
evidence suggests a mixed occurrence of inhumation and cremation within and outside of Tataviam
territory. McCawley (1996:157) quotes Harrington’s statement that the “coast Gabrielino both buried
and burned the dead as far south as [the] mouth of [the] Santa Ana River.”
Cremation, therefore, does not appear to have been universally practiced, with coastal Gabrielino
groups and those living in closest contact with the Chumash more likely to practice interment to
some degree. The Ventureño and Castac Chumash and the Kitanemuk, western and northern
neighbors of the Tataviam, however, practiced inhumation rather than cremation. Regardless of
whether cremation or interment was practiced, all of these groups shared the practice of erection of
grave poles decorated with feather wands, baskets, and painted bands.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
95
07A3822 Task Order 17
Both the Chumash and Southern California Takic groups, coastal and interior, also shared different
versions of the periodic mourning ceremony, a memorial fiesta held annually or periodically to honor
all persons who had died since the last ceremony. This ceremony has been described for the Serrano,
and its characteristics for the Gabrielino/Tongva and Tataviam appear to have been somewhat
similar. Arrangements of ritual reciprocity would have been structured between different community
and clan groups in the absence of the Wildcat and Coyote moiety system found in the Southern
California interior.
Named Tataviam Communities on the Antelope Valley Desert Margin
Hwi't ahovea. Hwi't ahovea was located at the site of the historic Liebre Ranch House, located in
Tentrock Canyon on the north side of Liebre Mountain at the west end of the Antelope Valley
(Harrington 1986:III:98:32,672). In the late nineteenth century, a number of house rings were still
visible at the village site, to the southwest of the ranch house (Benson 1997:148). Kitanemuk
consultant Eugenia Mendez had visited the ranchería site, then being used as a temporary campsite,
before the ranch house was built circa 1863 (Harrington 1986:III:95:243, 98:598). She translated Hwi’t
ahovea as “Cueva de la Liebre” in Spanish, or “Cave of the Jackrabbit” in English. At least four people
from this place were baptized at Mission San Fernando in 1811.
A main north-south native trail passed southward from Hwi't ahovea over the top of Liebre Mountain to
reach another important Tataviam settlement called Kwitsa'ong [Cuecchaong] and points further south.
This same trail ran northward from Hwi't ahovea across the west end of the Antelope Valley to climb the
southeast slopes of the Tehachapi Mountains as it entered Kitanemuk territory.
Kwitsa'ong. Directly south of the summit of Liebre Mountain lies the upper northerly end of Cienaga
Canyon, the apparent location of the Tataviam ranchería of Kwitsa'ong. Some thirty- three people from
this village were baptized in late March and early April of 1811 (Huntington Library 2006; Temple
n.d.:Bapts., 49-54). .This was possibly the result of a military roundup. The population of this community
had been larger than indicated by the baptismal totals, as indicated by the age distributions of those
baptized. The native chief of Kwitsa'ong, Alaguo, and his family were baptized as part of the 1811 group.
This community had marriage ties with a number of communities. These included Shuxwiyuxus, a
Chumash village in Hungry Valley to the west, Hwi’t ahovea, the Desert Serrano village of Tsivung,
probably located in Leona Valley, and possibly Pujutsiwaming, at Cow Springs, discussed below. By the
1830s, this site had been re-occupied by a small group of ex-neophytes from Mission San Fernando
Pujutsiwaming. Pujutsiwaming was located at Cow Spring, on the southwest side of the Antelope Valley,
several miles to the east of Hwi't ahovea. It appears to have been a village settlement. Five people
baptized at Mission San Fernando in April of 1811 appear to have originated at this community
(Huntington Library 2006; Temple n.d.:Bapts.,50-53). It was possibly of Tataviam speech, given its
proximity to Hwi't ahovea.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
96
07A3822 Task Order 17
The Kitanemuk
In the late eighteenth century, the Kitanemuk occupied a portion of the Tehachapi Mountains south
and possibly west of the Tehachapi Valley. Their territory included the southeast slopes of the
Tehachapi Mountains, so they may have used adjacent portions of the Antelope Valley on a seasonal
or more permanent basis (King and Blackburn 1978:564). The Kitanemuk spoke a language very
closely related to the Serrano spoken in the San Bernardino Mountains. Due to the linguistic research
of John P. Harrington on Kitanemuk in 1917, and later analysis of the language by Alice Anderton
and other linguists, this well-attested language is technically considered a separate language from
Serrano proper, although very closely related. Kitanemuk speakers told Harrington that their
language and the Serrano of San Bernardino were mutually intelligible. Despite this close linguistic
connection and social interaction with the desert and mountain divisions of the Serrano, the
Kitanemuk appear to have developed some cultural features different from those of the Serrano.
These features may be related to the fact of their having the Kashtɨq Chumash, southern Valley
Yokuts groups, and the Kawaiisu as neighbors.
Kitanemuk Settlement and Subsistence
Kitanemuk settlement in the Tehachapi Mountains and foothills was centered in the Tejón Creek
Canyon and adjacent areas, to the southwest of the Tehachapi Valley. The Tejón Ranchería, a famous
19th century native settlement that included Kitanemuks and people from other tribes, was located
at the mouth of Tejón Canyon on the east side of the southern San Joaquin Valley. Harrington was
told by Kitanemuk consultants that the territory of the group had formerly extended further
downslope and westward, with centers of settlement at El Monte and the Tejón Ranch house
(Harrington 1986:III:98:56). The Kitanemuk were bounded on the west by southern Valley Yokuts
groups with whom their political relations often involved conflict. In contrast to this, their relations
with the Kawaiisu to the north and the Kashtɨq Chumash to the south were said by consultants to
have been more peaceful.
Tejón Creek Canyon formed part of a major route connecting Kitanemuk settlements on the margin
of the San Joaquin Valley with the Antelope Valley. This route ascended the canyon to pass through
the original Tejón Pass and descended the upper end of Oak Creek Canyon to connect to variant
trails leading down into the Antelope Valley. Harrington's research suggested that the Antelope
Valley may have been used seasonally by the Kitanemuk. Consultant Eugenia Mendez thought that
Kitanemuks might have lived at Panukavea (Willow Springs). She was also not sure how far north the
territory of the Tataviam extended at the west end of the Antelope Valley. Camping places on a
major north-south trail descending the southeast slopes of the Tehachapi Mountains on the edge of
the Antelope Valley were recalled, as were several major canyons on that mountain face, but
Kitanemuk settlements in this area, aside from possibly at Willow Springs, were not.
It had traditionally been assumed by archaeologists working in the Antelope Valley that settlements
like those on the southwest side of the Valley were of Kitanemuk cultural affiliation (Robinson
1987:11-13). Harrington's Kitanemuk consultants recalled native groups in the Antelope Valley area
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
97
07A3822 Task Order 17
that spoke a language similar to Kitanemuk or Serrano. Some statements suggested that these were
located towards the south side of the Valley. However, as previously noted, when Fr. Francisco Garcés
visited the Antelope Valley in the spring of 1776, his Mojave guides made clear that the Beñemé
(Desert Serrano) of the southern Antelope Valley and what Garcés recorded as the Cuabajai (Mojave:
"Kuvahaivima"), the Kitanemuk, were separate ethnic entities. When Garcés traveled north across the
Antelope Valley en route to a major Kitanemuk settlement in Tejón Canyon, he passed by a spring,
apparently Willow Springs, that was not reported as a ranchería site (Coues 1900:I:272-278). This
Kitanemuk settlement in Tejon Canyon was known to his Mojave guides due to their traveling to the
southern San Joaquin Valley to trade for shell beads and other goods that were carried eastward to
the Colorado River. The structure that Garcés describes where his party stopped at this settlement
may have been built as a community ceremonial dance house. Although Blackburn and Bean
(1978:569) questioned whether the settlement visited was Kitanemuk, there is little doubt that it was.
A major feature of the Tehachapi Mountains region was an area of highly productive pinyon
woodland in the southwestern portion of the range, overlooking the Antelope Valley on the
northwest. Both the Kitanemuk and the neighboring Kashtɨq Chumash exploited this pinyon
resource, and Harrington consultants recalled harvesting pinyon there themselves. At lower
elevations in the Tehachapi range extensive oak woodland also exists. Complexes of bedrock mortars
were still used in Tejón Canyon for processing acorns and other plant foods in historic times. Hard
seeds, including chia, were also important for Kitanemuk subsistence. Garcés observed abundant
supplies of chia at the settlement he visited (Coues 1900:I:272-273). In the Tehachapi range, deer
were hunted, which provided an important exchange item in the form of deer hides. In addition to
the hunting of lagomorphs in the foothill areas, ground squirrels were common on the San Joaquin
Valley floor and margins and were procured in considerable numbers. Pronghorn antelope were also
hunted on the floor of the San Joaquin Valley using drives and corrals.
Kitanemuk Social Organization
Blackburn and Bean (1978:567) had suggested that a system of patrilineal descent may have existed
among the Kitanemuk because of similarities in the kinship terminologies of the Kitanemuk and the
Cahuilla, who were patrilineally organized in a manner somewhat similar to the Serrano. However,
despite the language link between the Kitanemuk and the Mountain and Desert divisions of the
Serrano, the pattern of exogamous localized patrilineal clans or sibs found among the Serrano was
not attested for the Kitanemuk by Harrington's Kitanemuk consultants. In the first place, there was no
recollection of a moiety system. In addition, exogamous territorial patrilineal clan units per se were
not recalled. As Blackburn and Bean (1978:567) stated it, "lineage affiliations do not appear to have
been of concern to Harrington's (1986) Kitanemuk informants, and they definitely insisted on the
absence of moieties."
Political-ceremonial offices took a form familiar among Takic language groups. In addition to the
chief (Kika?y), there was a ceremonial manager (Paka?) and several messengers (wana?ypats). The
chief presided over funerals and mourning ceremonies, as described below, and over other rituals.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
98
07A3822 Task Order 17
Special ritual paraphernalia are described as having been stored in large baskets rather than in a
sacred bundle, as among the Serrano. Garcés' expedition account mentions that the chief of the
Kitanemuk community that he visited when entering and leaving the southern San Joaquin Valley
had been at war with the Tataviam. Assuming that war leadership was also a function of ritual chiefs,
this leadership probably would have been important for Kitanemuk settlements. Both Garcés’
account and Harrington's ethnographic information make it clear that the Kitanemuk had an
adversarial relationship with the southern Valley Yokuts (Harrington 1986:III:98:87,89). This was the
case despite the fact that the Kitanemuk intermarried with Yokuts groups, as Garcés attested. Given
the propensity for aggressive behavior of some of these Yokuts groups, and the upland resources
that the Kitanemuk controlled, it is possible that the Kitanemuk settlements may have had to be wellorganized militarily to resist raids by valley groups.
Kitanemuk Religious Institutions and Mortuary Customs
The Kitanemuk practiced a Winter Solstice ceremony similar to that of the Ventureño Chumash. They
also recognized a pantheon of six supernatural culture hero siblings, five male and one female
(Kroeber 1925:623; Hudson and Blackburn 1978:226-231). This reflected a religious belief system,
associated with a toloache initiation ceremony that was shared by the Kitanemuk with the Yokuts and
Gabrielino/Tongva. Kitanemuk consultants emphasized that the “religion of the coast” with sacred
enclosures and powerful wizards (both the Gabrielino/Tongva version which featured the deity
Chingichnich and the Ventureño Chumash version) did not extend to the territory of the Kitanemuk
(Hudson and Blackburn 1978:231).
The Kitanemuk traditionally practiced interment rather than cremation. Blackburn and Bean
(1978:566-567) describe Kitanemuk mortuary customs and practices. Among the Kitanemuk, like the
Chumash, elderly females performed the office of mortician (tɨtɨyɨm). This position was inherited.
After death, the body of the deceased person was first taken to the chief's house, where the
morticians prepared it. It was tied and placed in a mat and kept in the chief's house during a nightlong ritual of singing mourning songs and weeping. The morticians then carried the body to the
cemetery, circling it three times in a counterclockwise direction. While the morticians carried out the
work of carrying the corpse, the grave had previously been excavated by men using digging sticks.
At the grave, bits of the brain of the deceased were removed from the skull as an act of
remembrance, which indicates that interment had traditionally been practiced. At the time of burial,
valuables were also put into the grave, and the excavation was then filled. Sometime after the burial,
a burning of property of the deceased took place.
The Kitanemuk also held mourning ceremonies that contained elements shared with interior
southern California groups like the Serrano of the San Bernardino Mountains. This ceremony lasted a
week and was held at a special dance enclosure built for the occasion. Because of the expense
incurred in hosting a mourning ceremony, a community would only sponsor it every four or five
years.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
99
07A3822 Task Order 17
Preparations for the mourning ceremony, the issuing of invitations, and the management of
reciprocal relations with those invited, were in the hands of the chief of the host community. In
addition to the chief, a paka or ritual assistant, helped to conduct the ceremony. The paka was
responsible for taking care of the feeding and housing of ceremony guests. While the invited
attendees were fed by the host community during the entire week of the fiesta, the chiefs of the
invited groups did bring gifts with them. The host chief displayed the bead wealth of the host
community during the ceremony, and this was matched by bead displays of the visiting chiefs.
During the final day of the ceremony, a ritual human effigy or tsahira was made by guests invited to
the ceremony. This was a common feature of the mourning ceremony among Takic groups in
southern California. The effigy or image was later burned along with items donated by members of
the host community - baskets, beads, and so on. At this point gifts were also given to the invited
guests. At the same time, the chiefs of invited communities selected certain of their followers to wash
the ash-covered faces of host community members who had been in mourning. These face washers
were later given gifts.
Like neighboring groups, the Kitanemuk also used grave poles to honor and commemorate
deceased chiefs. This practice was also found among the Chumash and Gabrielino, but not among
the interior groups like the Serrano or Cahuilla.
A Possible Kitanemuk Settlement in the Antelope Valley- Panukavea or Sesevjek
Eugenia Mendez identified the spring at Willow Springs, west of Rosamond, as Panukavea. She stated
that she was sure that it was occupied by Serrano-speaking people. She said that the name of the place
was derived from the term for "tule reed," and that the people who lived there did in fact eat tule reeds,
the roots of which are edible (Harrington 1986:III:98:34,58,675). This place was also referred to as
Sesevjek. It is not clear whether people living at this place may have been of Kitanemuk or Desert
Serrano affiliation. Alternatively, it may have been a seasonal residential base used by both groups.
The Kashtɨq Chumash
The Kashtɨq Chumash were an interior Chumash group who were linguistically closely related to the
Ventureño Chumash. They were based at the settlement of Kashtiq, located on the north side of
Castac Lake in the Tehachapi Mountains near Lebec and about five miles west of the west end of the
Antelope Valley. The Kahstiq community formed part of a larger set of interior Chumash
communities in the region. These included the Emigdiano Chumash villages of Matap'xwelxwel, at
the northern outlet of the Grapevine (modern Tejon Pass) and Ta'cuya, in the next canyon to the west
of it, and another Chumash village, Shuxwiyuxus, in Hungry Valley to the southwest of Kashtiq. Thus,
Kashtɨq formed part of an exchange corridor linking coastal Ventureño Chumash groups with the
Southern Valley Yokuts and groups further to the north and northeast. Chumash Olivella and
clamshell beads, along with steatite items and asphaltum, were traded northward from the coast in
return for Coso obsidian, deer hides, and pinyon pine nuts (Smith 2002:326; Voegelin 1938:50-51).
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
100
07A3822 Task Order 17
The Kashtɨq Chumash probably visited the northwestern Antelope Valley to gather desert resources,
traveling from Kashtiq to the Antelope Valley by way of Oso Canyon. This canyon received its name
based on the large number of grizzly bears in the area, Oso Canyon also had stands of acornproducing oaks at its upper end.
Kashtiq Chumash Settlement and Subsistence
The location of Kashtiq was strategic not only in respect to long-distance exchange from the coast to
the San Joaquin Valley and the southern Sierras, but also in respect to access to pinyon in the higher
altitude uplands of the Tehachapi range. Just to the northeast of Kashtɨq was a southwesterly spur of
the Tehachapi Range, known as SipoSipoS in Ventureño or Kashtɨq in Chumash and Tivang in
Kitanemuk- meaning "pinyon place". It was a well-known pinyon gathering area, where pine nuts
were said to ripen earlier than elsewhere. Due to the high demand for pinyon by other Chumash
groups, it was an important exchange item from the southern Sierras and from the Tehachapis
towards the Ventura County coast (Voegelin 1938:51-52). Kashtɨq was one of the only interior
Chumash settlements with access to a prime pinyon zone.
In addition to the exploitation of pinyon, oak groves were found in the vicinity of the Kashtɨq
settlement. Chia was harvested in the area, and juniper woodland was also abundant. When this
ranchería was visited by Franciscan Father José María Zalvidea in August of 1806, its inhabitants were
largely absent gathering juniper berries in the vicinity (Cook 1960). At least some of the population
of this community appears to have survived at this or some other location through the 1840s, since
three ‘chiefs’ of the native people of ‘Castake’ signed a treaty with U.S. government representatives
in 1851 (Heizer 1972:39).
Kashtiq Chumash Social Organization
For coastal Chumash groups, living in large communities, information on marriage has suggested
that post marital residence was uxorolocal - living in the wife's community. This in turn has
suggested to Johnson (1988) that the coastal Chumash may have had matrilineal descent groups.
Harrington’s Ynezeño Chumash consultant María Solares recalled a system of apparently nonlocalized patrilineal clans (Harrington 1986:III:7:54-55,270).
Social organization in the interior was affected both by smaller village sizes and bicultural contact
with neighboring groups like the different Southern Valley Yokuts groups. Some interior villages may
have had populations of over 100 people, and others less. Reports of houses used in interior
communities further to the west from Kashtiq and San Emigdio indicate that these were also large,
and that interior villages also featured sweat lodges, dance floors, and cemeteries. Franciscan mission
baptismal data indicate that Chumash interior villages were headed by hereditary chiefs. Whether
villages were organized into a single social group, or whether there were subsidiary kin groups, is not
known.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
101
07A3822 Task Order 17
Kashtiq Chumash Religious Institutions and Mortuary Customs
Interior Chumash areas, including the Carrizo Plain, to the northwest of San Emigdio, are famous for
their rock art, including elaborate polychrome paintings apparently done in recent centuries. This art
provides a strong connection to the religious traditions and expressions of coastal Chumash people.
The Ventureño Chumash and other coastal groups were involved in the 'Antap cult, which involved
initiation of ritual adepts into the cult. This cult has suggested a degree of social differentiation in
coastal Chumash society, with members of the cult enjoying special social and ritual status. This cult
was thought of by Harrington's Kitanemuk consultants as a coastal phenomenon, despite the fact
that the Ventureño themselves considered Mt. Pinos and Cuddy Valley, just to the west of Kashtɨq
Chumash territory, as a sacred center for this cult. It was associated with other elements of Chumash
religion, including the hutash harvest fiesta, and winter solstice rituals. It is known that shrines and
prayer banners were found in the interior, along with impressive rock art (Mikkelsen et al. 2014:4748). Harrington’s Kitanemuk Consultants mentioned that this coastal cult or religion was found
among the Kashtiq Chumash (Hudson and Blackburn 1978:231).
The Chumash in the interior established cemeteries close to their villages, as did those on the coast
(Benson 1997:182-206). Like villages on the coast, they practiced inhumation. Like the Kitanemuk, the
Chumash employed special elderly female undertakers. In both the coast and the interior, it was
customary to place grave poles, with baskets that commemorated the dead of either gender.
Cemetery fencing and grave marker slabs and grave coverings of large cobbles are also reported for
coastal cemeteries. Attempts by coyotes in all areas and by bears in the interior to disturb graves
were discouraged by grave coverings and by placing cemeteries next to village sites. Objects buried
with the dead included steatite and other stone bowls, shell and steatite beads, sweat scrapers, deer
bone flutes, and tobacco pipes (Bernard 2008:39).
As was the case elsewhere in Southern California, both coastal and interior Chumash groups held
periodic mourning ceremonies, that included not only burning the possessions of the deceased, but
commemorative offerings of valuables by relatives to be destroyed. In post-mission times in the
nineteenth century, the mourning ceremony was sometimes combined with the autumn harvest
fiesta, that honored hutash, the female earth deity.
The Kawaiisu (Nüwa)
The Kawaiisu (Nüwa) are a group in the Numic branch of the Uto-Aztecan language family that
formerly occupied mountain and desert territories both to the northwest and north of the Antelope
Valley. The Kawaiisu are closely linked linguistically to the Chemehuevi/ Southern Paiute of eastern
California and Southern Nevada. In late prehistoric times they are presumed to have abandoned a
desert foraging way of life in favor of the exploitation of acorns and pinyon in the relatively highaltitude areas of the Tehachapi region.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
102
07A3822 Task Order 17
Kawaiisu (Nüwa) Settlement and Subsistence
Garcés' diary of 1776 and later ethnographic information collected by Harrington (1986:III:98:664670) and Zigmond (1986) indicate that the Kawaiisu of the Tehachapi and southern Sierra regions
were living in the area between Walker Pass and Kelso Creek in the north and Tehachapi and Brite's
Valley in the south at the time of Spanish contact (Garfinkel and Williams 2011:23-68). Garcés
encountered a ranchería inhabited by Kawaiisu women and children, apparently somewhere in the
west center of the Tehachapi Valley (Coues 1900:I:304-305). He indicated that the Kawaiisu, wellknown to his Mojave guides, were involved at that time in long-distance trade with other groups.
This group was noted for its production of wild tobacco, which was an important exchange item. In
fact, an east-west route passing through the Tehachapi Valley was used by Mojave traders traveling
to the San Joaquin Valley from the direction of the Colorado River. The Kawaiisu traditional gathering
territory ranged eastward across the Mojave Desert through the northern part of the Antelope Valley
Study Area to the vicinity of modern Fort Irwin. Mojave Desert camps were maintained by the
Kawaiisu, as has been documented by Steward (1938) and Earle (2004b). This use of the desert
included the exploitation of desert lake salt deposits. It is also considered likely that areas on the
northern side of the Antelope Valley, including within Edwards Air Force Base, were at least
intermittently used by the Kawaiisu. Information from Kawaiisu elder Andy Greene (1995) indicates
that mesquite in the Edwards Air Force Base area was traditionally exploited by Kawaiisu.
The Tehachapi region of Kawaiisu territory was more xeric on the desert side and more mesic on the
San Joaquin Valley side. Western portions of Kawaiisu territory featured vast oak woodland areas,
such as at Comanche Point or on upper Caliente Creek. More easterly upland areas produced pinyon
pine nuts. These mesic conditions were often found in areas of relatively high altitude - the
Tehachapi Valley, for example, lies at an altitude of around 3,900 feet. Thus, winter climate conditions
for Kawaiisu villages were more extreme than was typical for most southern California groups.
Kawaiisu (Nüwa) Social Organization
Like the Kitanemuk, Kawaiisu ethnographic consultants did not emphasize the existence of unilineal
kin groups. In historic times, at least, community leadership appeared to emphasize more of a 'bigman' style informal leadership than the inheritance of hereditary office. The ethnohistorical record,
however, suggests that powerful chiefs may have existed during the era of Spanish rule. A chief
named Quipagui (Kepawish), based at the settlement of Akutuspea, was famous in Southern
California during the period from 1800 through 1820 for harboring native runaways from the
Franciscan missions (Palomares 1808). He also defeated at least one Spanish military attempt to
capture him (Palomares 1808). It is not clear whether the Kawaiisu may have formerly possessed a
system where hunting territories and hunting songs were inherited through the male line, as was
apparently the case among the closely related Chemehuevi. Laird (1976) has described such a system
of what she called ‘song groups’ among the Chemehuevi.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
103
07A3822 Task Order 17
Kawaiisu (Nüwa) Mortuary Practices
Kawaiisu mortuary practices appear similar to those of the Chemehuevi and Southern Paiute in many
respects. Zigmond notes that the body of a deceased was wrapped in a tule reed mat, then was
usually placed in a rock cleft or hollow and covered with a split burden basket (Zigmond 1986:404).
As with the Chemehuevi, sacred stories of the Kawaiisu specify the covering of the dead with the
burden basket (Zigmond 1980:18). The body and basket were then covered with rocks. This was said
to have been performed on the same day as the death. The deceased's house was burned. Personal
property might be either interred with the dead, burned, or abandoned. Some property might also
be retained by relatives or friends, according to Zigmond. He also notes that relatives of the dead
marked the death by abstaining from face washing, burning off their hair, and carrying out mourning
wailing during the morning and evening.
The places where bodies were buried were considered dangerous and were avoided. The interred
property of the dead was apparently occasionally found disinterred, and was avoided, as were
human bones.
The Kawaiisu celebrated a mourning ceremony in a ceremonial enclosure on an intermittent basis. In
historic times a fire was built in the enclosure, and special funerary images of the deceased being
commemorated were burned in the fire. The images were made of clothing of the deceased placed
over a brush and bark framework. The burning of the images was followed by a night of dancing.
The Chemehuevi
The Chemehuevi can be considered a southwesterly branch or division of the Southern Paiute of the
Numic branch of the Uto-Aztecan language family (Earle 2004a; Kelly and Fowler 1986). They were
linguistically closely related to the Kawaiisu of the Tehachapi Valley and Piute Mountain regions and
shared some other features of culture with them. The Chemehuevi originally occupied areas of the
eastern Mojave Desert. After 1830 small groups of Chemehuevi moved into the Western Mojave
Desert, including the Antelope Valley and the San Gabriel Mountains, after the removal of many
residents of Serrano-speaking communities on the Mojave River and elsewhere to the Franciscan
missions. The Chemehuevi were present first as seasonal stock raiders and later as more permanent
family groups carrying out hunting and foraging.
Traditional Chemehuevi Settlement and Subsistence
As of the late eighteenth century, the Chemehuevi occupied areas of the eastern Mojave Desert
around the Kingston, New York, and Providence Mountains. They also ranged in the desert west of
the Colorado River further south. This territory extended southward from the basin and range areas
west of Mojave territory in the Mohave Valley at Needles to the desert region west of the Palo Verde
Valley and east of the Little San Bernardino Mountains.
In their original home territory, the Chemehuevi exploited agave, yucca, pinyon, and juniper in upland
areas and mesquite and screwbean groves on desert floor lake playas. Grass seeds such as Oryzopsis
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
104
07A3822 Task Order 17
and the Lyceum berry were found at lower altitudes. Carrizo grass (Phragmites) and its aphid sugar were
found around springs. They hunted desert bighorn, pronghorn, deer, jackrabbits, cottontail, chuckwalla,
and the desert tortoise (Laird 1976, 1984).
Chemehuevi Social Organization
The Chemehuevi have traditionally been viewed as having a relatively simple social organization
without clans or other descent groups, such as are found among the Serrano or Cahuilla. Mobile
local residential groups, the niwiavi, were thought to be based on the bilateral kindred, the noncorporate and 'double descent' kind of family unit found among the Inuit Eskimo or in modern EuroAmerican society. However, the field research of Harrington, Carobeth Laird, and the testimony of
Laird's Chemehuevi husband, George Laird, revealed a different social organization (Laird 1976:8-29,
1984). The Chemehuevi traditionally had at least two supernaturally sanctioned categories of descent
groups associated with hunting. These were what were called 'song groups', associated with a
specific supernatural animal - deer or mountain sheep - as a sort of totem. The niwiavi, on the other
hand, were not fixed, but moved around the landscape. When Chemehuevi men married, they usually
would move to the niwiavi of their spouse. This meant that groups of unrelated men from different song
groups resided in the same niwiavi with their wives. This was a great advantage, because the men of the
niwaivi group would share access to a number of different fixed hunting territories, and the mobile
niwaivi group could move or rotate through them. Men shared access to these hunting territories with
each other, because hunting was a group activity and men could not hunt alone.
The Chemehuevi Diaspora
After 1828, some Chemehuevi moved into the Colorado River valley below the Mohave Valley, to
become floodwater farmers, after the Mojaves had dislodged the Halchidhoma from the Colorado
River around Blythe. Other Chemehuevi groups gradually dispersed across interior Southern
California, as far west as the Antelope Valley and as far south as the Coachella Valley, Yuma, and San
Diego County. Between 1830 and 1870, some parties of Chemehuevi were involved in stealing stock
from ranchos, and even fighting other Native Americans living closer to the coast. Other groups
combined seasonal wage work with the annual round of foraging and hunting, particularly from
around 1865 onward. They also intermarried with other native groups in the Southern California
interior. When the Chemehuevi occupied the Mojave River area and the Antelope Valley in the
nineteenth century, they filled a void left by the removal of Serrano and other people to the missions
during the period 1800-1830 (Brooks 1977). The Chemehuevi hunting culture reflected the great
challenges posed by hunting in the driest portions of the Mojave Desert. It is thus not surprising that
with the changed conditions after 1830, the Chemehuevi explored different options for increasing their
food security. These options included not only Colorado River farming, but movement into new areas
closer to the coast, including the San Gabriel Mountains, where game was more abundant. In the
Mojave River and Antelope Valley regions, deer, pronghorn, and desert bighorn (mountain sheep)
hunting was combined with other traditional hunting regimes - jackrabbits, rodents, chuckwalla, desert
tortoise, and quail. The gathering of seeds was supplemented with the exploitation of single leaf pinyon
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
105
07A3822 Task Order 17
and juniper berries. One group encountered living in the San Gabriel Mountains in circa 1880 was also
processing acorns and hunting grizzly bears (Vernon 1956:144). This reflected the remarkable and well
documented cultural flexibility of the Chemehuevi in taking advantage of new opportunities within their
traditional way of life (Roth 1977).
At valley floor and foothill spring sites in the Antelope Valley, an overlay of Chemehuevi occupation in
the nineteenth century may be manifested archaeologically. Many localities in the areas were visited or
occupied by Chemehuevi, including Rosamond, Red Hill, Rogers Dry Lake, Lovejoy Springs, Pallett Creek,
Barrel Springs, Vincent, Elizabeth Lake, and Mescal Creek (Gordon 1990:4, 88; Morris n.d.:66-73). One of
the last Chemehuevi settlements in the Antelope Valley was occupied in the hills directly south of
Palmdale as late as 1890. Remnants of a hemispherical framework of juniper poles for a thatched
dwelling were recovered there in 1964 (Rozaire 1990).
Chemehuevi Mortuary Customs
Like other California groups, the Chemehuevi held periodic mourning ceremonies to honor and
commemorate the dead of the community since the last ceremony (Earle 2009b:65-69). These were
usually held in autumn, when pinyon or other food resources were most abundant. Due to their wide
dispersal across the desert, individual Chemehuevi niwaivi received invitations to a mourning
ceremony accompanied by mnemonic calendar devices indicating the date at which a mourning
ceremony would be held. Such gatherings were presided over by regional chiefs. The documentation
of traditional practices related to funeral customs and mourning ceremonies among the Chemehuevi
has involved some uncertainty about the practice of cremation or interment (Earle 2009b:66-68). A
review of ethnographic reports suggests that interment was the usual practice. As was the case
elsewhere in southern California, personal property of the deceased was destroyed at the funeral, as
was the dwelling. After the completion of the mourning ceremony, a person could not mention or be
asked about a deceased relative (Laird 1976:53-54).
Similar to the Mojave, Serrano, and Luiseño, the Chemehuevi used a complex series of sacred songs
involving the recitation of supernatural travel across the desert landscape as part of the mourning
ceremony (Earle 2009b:68-69). These songs identified sacred places on the landscape and stories
from the time of creation that were associated with them. Among the sacred places of the
Chemehuevi were springs, believed to be the abode of supernatural beings that could travel under
the earth from one spring to another (Fowler 2002). Trails were also associated with the supernatural,
and Chemehuevi culture emphasized the art of long-distance and high-speed desert travel (Fowler
2004). Not only were special runners employed to communicate across the desert, but it was
believed that runners could have supernatural powers that would permit them to travel great
distances very rapidly. As in many other respects, the Chemehuevi had thoroughly adapted their
travel to the challenges of the xeric desert environment.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
106
07A3822 Task Order 17
History of Native/Non-Native Relations in the Antelope Valley
Mission Period (1769-1835)
During Spanish colonial rule, the Antelope Valley remained beyond the limits of Spanish settlement
and regular administrative control. During both the Spanish and Mexican periods, transit of the
mountain passes into the Mojave Desert was believed to lead to an extremely unattractive and
dangerous wasteland. Interest in mining in the desert had not yet developed. The Antelope Valley
region was first visited by a European in 1772, when Capt. Pedro Fages passed across the southern
Antelope Valley from east to west while on an expedition in search of deserters (Bolton 1935). He
mentioned seeing villages in the valley and stopped at a native community at Lake Hughes on the
southwest margin of the valley. Four years later, in April of 1776, Fr. Francisco Garcés crossed the
western Antelope Valley from south to north (Coues 1900:268-272). A month later he returned from
the southern San Joaquin Valley and passed from west to east, apparently within sight of Rosamond
and Rogers Dry Lakes on what is now Edwards Air Force Base (Coues 1900:305-306). Garcés had
attempted to find an interior route from Sonora and Arizona to Monterey in California, but his effort
was not successful.
Following these visits, we have no documentary record of Spanish visitors to the area until 1806. In
that year a Spanish military expedition accompanied by Franciscan priest Fr. José María Zalvidea
passed southeastward from the Gorman area into the southern Antelope Valley, following the desert
margin at the base of the San Gabriel Mountains and San Bernardino Mountains, eventually reaching
the Mojave River (Cook 1960:247). Zalvidea mentioned seeing native settlements, possibly camps, in
the vicinity of modern Littlerock and Pearblossom. Two years later, in 1808, Sgt. José Palomares led
two forays through the Antelope Valley with the objective of capturing native neophytes who had
fled from Mission San Fernando (Cook 1960:256-257; Palomares 1808). The first foray also had the
objective of capturing a Kawaiisu chief in the Tehachapi Mountains who was sheltering runaways.
The route of the first foray passed from Kwarung [‘Qariniga’], a native village at Lake Hughes,
northward across the western Antelope Valley to the Tehachapi Mountains. This expedition was
unsuccessful. A month later, Palomares marched from west to east along the southern edge of the
Antelope Valley, visiting several villages, before reaching the Mojave River at the village of
Atongaibit. At nearby Guapiabit, he unsuccessfully attempted to recover additional runaways.
Villages on the southwest margin of the Antelope Valley like Puning and Chivung appear in the
baptismal registers of Mission San Fernando in only a few entries during the decade 1801-1810
(Huntington Library 2006). Sgt. Palomares visited with the chief of Kwarung in the fall of 1808, and
native people from Mission San Fernando had been in contact with this village, but mission registers
indicate its inhabitants were not joining the mission, before or after this date. In addition, villages in
the southern Antelope Valley were reportedly harboring neophyte runaways.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
107
07A3822 Task Order 17
The runaway situation may have become more serious with the arrival of Fr. Zalvidea at Mission San
Gabriel, after his desert expedition, in 1806. Zalvidea developed a reputation for cruelty (Dakin
1939:270-275). He was highly dissatisfied with the rate of recruitment of Serranos and other native
groups, both in the vicinity of Mission San Gabriel and in more remote areas. He complained that
native people were willing to have their children baptized in order to receive gifts from the
Franciscan priests, but they themselves were not anxious to join the missions (Geiger and Meighan
1976:129). In the Los Angeles region, a non-mission ranching economy was slowly developing, and
native people preferred in many cases to work for ranch owners rather than becoming members of
the mission communities. Zalvidea apparently took a more rigorous approach to managing native
people at Mission San Gabriel and to hunting down runaways.
In any regard, a revolt took place at Mission San Gabriel in November of 1810 (Earle 2005:18-21).
This included an effort by Serrano chiefs who had not yet been missionized to enlist the help of the
Chemehuevi and a band of some 600 Mojave warriors from the Colorado River, who almost made it
to Mission San Gabriel to participate in the proceedings. The revolt attempt was eventually brought
to a halt by Spanish military reinforcements. As a consequence, a number of military expeditions
were undertaken in 1811, on the Mojave River and in the Antelope Valley, to curb the independent
chiefs and apparently to round up fresh converts. Given that in 1811 significant percentages of the
total populations of some villages arrived en masse at Missions San Fernando and San Gabriel to be
baptized, it is surmised that the military used force to bring them in. Much of the population of the
villages of Cuechaong and Chivung in the southwestern Antelope Valley were taken to Mission San
Fernando in the spring of 1811 (Huntington Library 2006). The inhabitants of other villages, Maviayek
and Kwarung, for example, did not show up at Mission San Fernando, and may have remained in
place during the decade of the teens. These two villages were referred to by name by Sgt. Palomares
in 1808, but they have not been located under these names in the records of Missions San Fernando
or San Gabriel.
During the years after 1810, as Franciscan mission recruitment increased, the missions entered a
period of crisis on account of the Wars of Independence in Mexico (Earle 1997). Subsidies for the
missions were cut off and plans for expanding the mission system into the San Joaquin Valley were
shelved. In consequence, native people in the missions were forced to work harder to provide
supplies for the military and for civilian settlers (Cutter 1995). An expansion of the southern California
mission populations and livestock herds during 1805-1815 lead to an increase in the neophyte death
rate at the missions, possibly due to crowding and livestock diseases. Eventually it became difficult to
find new converts to replace them, which in turn led to more discontent and more runaways.
In February of 1820, Fr. Payeras, Father President of the Alta California Franciscan Missions, officially
informed his Franciscan superiors in Mexico City about the “horrible and unusual mortality among
the Indians” at the missions that had created population disaster for California’s native people
(Cutter 1995:225-228). He said, “…where we have not penetrated, as is the case of the frontier of the
tulares and on the adjacent islands before conquest, all of that area is fully populated, while the field
or vineyard where we labor [the missions] is depopulated” (Cutter 1995:227). He noted that there had
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
108
07A3822 Task Order 17
been only two significant epidemics, dolor de costado [typhoid fever] in 1801, and measles in 1806; so
it was due to other factors that the priests would baptize the natives, administer the sacraments, and
then bury them, as he put it.
In 1816 and 1819 military expeditions were made down the Mojave River (Earle 2010b). By 1819,
surviving Desert Serranos on the Mojave River were caught in the middle of a conflict between
hostile Mojaves from the Colorado River and their runaway ex-neophyte allies and the Spanish. The
Spanish feared raids from the direction of the desert by both the Mojaves and the Desert Cahuilla.
Nevertheless, some Desert Serranos remained on the Mojave River in the late 1820s, and a few even
later.
Mexican Period (1835-1848)
Mexico had become independent of Spain in September of 1821, and Alta California recognized the
new regime in the spring of 1822, a development that stunned the Franciscan missionaries (Cutter
1995:319). Independence fostered the local hide and tallow trade with foreign merchants, the
consequent expansion of non-mission ranchos, and brought political pressure to turn mission lands
and labor over to the rancheros. The missions were closed by the Mexican government circa 1835.
Stock-raiding from the direction of the southern San Joaquin Valley and the Antelope Valley
increased, as did native flight from the Southern California missions (Phillips 1993). In 1824, Chumash
at Missions La Purisima, Santa Ynez, and Santa Barbara joined a native revolt that involved Chumash
fleeing to Tulamniu at Buena Vista Lake in the southern San Joaquin Valley (Blackburn 1975; Earle
2003). Southern Valley Yokuts chiefs had sheltered mission runaways and participated in the revolt.
Some Mexican troops sent to Buena Vista Lake to retrieve the runaways had apparently passed by
way of the west end of the Antelope Valley.
From the 1820s through the 1840s the Antelope Valley remained beyond the limit of non-native
settlement, despite the expansion of ranching nearer to the coast. In 1826, steps were taken to
emancipate mission neophytes, and in 1833 a Mexican legislative decree called for the secularization
of mission lands, although this process was not immediate (Bancroft 1885:100-107, 339-357). With
few exceptions, these lands were acquired by rancheros rather than native neophytes.
In 1826 the first Euro-American trappers reached southern California, later passing through the
southern Antelope Valley en route to the San Joaquin Valley (Earle 2005). Beginning in 1829-1830,
the so-called Old Spanish Trail, connecting Santa Fe, New Mexico with Los Angeles via the Mojave
River, was inaugurated. New Mexican traders herding California horses and mules back to New
Mexico were glad to purchase stolen stock from native groups in the southern San Joaquin Valley
and the Mojave Desert (Phillips 1993:102-103). Along with native stock raiding, there were also
occasional raids by Euro-American trappers allied with Utes from Utah.
By the 1820s and 1830s, a small number of residents of Kitanemuk and Kawaiisu communities in the
Tehachapis had also been baptized at Mission San Fernando (Earle 2011:71-72; Huntington Library
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
109
07A3822 Task Order 17
2006). Native accounts of movement of people to that mission from Kitanemuk territory do not
appear to jibe completely with baptismal records, so some such individuals or families may have
been resident in the mission region without having been baptized. In respect to the possible
movement of surviving native families living in the Antelope Valley region, it is to be kept in mind
that during the 1820s and 1830s the expansion of the non-mission ranching economy in the Los
Angeles region brought seasonal and longer term native labor migration from more distant
communities that had not been completely missionized (Earle 1997).
There are hints of military or ranchero raids against suspected stock-raiders in the Antelope Valley
and the Tehachapi Mountains between 1825 and 1845 (Barras 1984:9; Jackson and Spence 1970:670).
As the size of the Mexican military establishment in California declined, rancheros themselves
conducted raids across the frontier. These sometimes involved bringing back native captives as
forced labor. There also appear to have been some native families living on the southwestern edge
of the Antelope Valley, at Hwit' Ahovea and Cuechaong at Liebre Mountain and around Elizabeth
Lake, in the 1830s or 1840s. In the case of Cuechaong, at least a few former residents had returned
from Mission San Fernando to re-occupy the place after 1830 (Johnson and Earle 1994:201).
In the spring of 1844 when John Frémont passed through the southern Antelope Valley, he saw no
native people (Jackson and Spence 1970:670-674). It is presumed that the trans-desert traffic of
armed outsiders - Chemehuevi/Southern Paiute stock raiders, as well as native stock raiders from the
Eastern Sierra and the Great Basin, occasional New Mexican traders, and rancheros and military
parties attempting to suppress the raiding - made it imperative for any native families in the area (or
returning to the area) to keep a low profile. However, native people were living in the Tehachapi
region, and they told Fremont about Mojave bead traders who were still traveling from the Colorado
River to the Tehachapi region to trade for shell beads. These traders were noted as following a trail
along the south side of the Antelope Valley in traveling from the Mojave River to the Tehachapi
Mountains (Jackson and Spence 1970:667).
Chemehuevi/Southern Paiute family groups from the east were first observed establishing camps on
the Mojave River in the late 1820s (Earle 2005:24). By the early 1840s they were raiding down into the
current Los Angeles basin and Orange County areas from the adjacent desert. For almost all of the
remainder of the nineteenth century they would have a presence in the Antelope Valley or its
margins. In the modern San Bernardino region, both non-mission Serranos and mission survivors
were present in the 1840s and before, and they had both friendly and armed encounters with
Chemehuevi/Southern Paiute parties visiting that area (Harrington 1986:III:101:178).
By the end of Mexican rule in 1848, efforts were made to establish (or assign) grazing rancho grants
around the west end of the Antelope Valley and in the southern San Joaquin Valley. A portion of the
Santa Clarita Valley had been occupied by Rancho San Francisco, originally a Mission San Fernando
rancho, for decades, but as of 1846 the grants further north existed on paper only. Nevertheless,
some Hispanic traffic and presence beyond the transverse range frontier is suggested by the
recollections of Tejon Ranch foreman Jose Jesus Lopez, whose father had been a mayordomo at
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
110
07A3822 Task Order 17
Mission San Fernando. He recalled that in the early 1840s small Hispanic farming settlements existed
at San Emigdio Canyon, west of the current Grapevine, and on the south shore of Kern Lake in the
southern San Joaquin Valley. His grandfather and father both made carreta journeys from San
Fernando via San Francisquito Canyon and the Antelope Valley to reach the southern San Joaquin
Valley in the 1840s (Latta 1976:57,59,61). This route was called ‘El Camino Viejo’ by Lopez, and he
recalled that it long predated its use as a wagon road by American pioneers in the 1850s. By the
1850s, efforts were made to utilize the Mexican land grants in the area, which became components
of the vast Tejon Ranch that was being run by Edward Beale as of the 1860s.
American Period (1848-Present)
By the Gold Rush era at the beginning of the American Period, the Tejon Canyon region in
Kitanemuk territory had attracted native families from surrounding regions. The Pacific Railroad
Survey visited the Tejon region in 1853 and observed this and nearby native settlements (Blake
1856:38-41). Families were living in traditional native-style hemispherical dwellings- jacales - and
were carrying out a mix of Mexican-style gardening and traditional foraging. Native settlement was
somewhat 'camouflaged' in locations not likely to be visited by outsiders. In this Gold Rush era,
throughout southern and central California, travel was dangerous, as the state was infested with
lawless characters of both local and foreign origin.
In 1851, a treaty was signed between locally resident native groups in the Tejon region, along with
southern Valley Yokuts groups from further afield, and the U.S. Government (Heizer 1972). Native
representatives of the Kastiq Chumash, the Tejon Rancheria (at least partly Kitanemuk), and the
Interior Chumash settlements of San Emigdio and Grapevine Canyon signed the treaty (Heizer
1972:39). The treaty was never ratified due to opposition by California's senators.
In 1853, the Sebastian Reserve was established to the south of Tejon Canyon and the following year
a U.S. Army post, Fort Tejon, was set up in Grapevine Canyon at the southern end of the San Joaquin
Valley (Blake 1856:39; Williamson 1856:21). New residents of the Sebastian Reserve in 1854 included
a group from northern Tataviam territory under a chief named Estanislao, born at Tochonanga
(Newhall), but married to a woman from Cuechaong at Liebre Mountain. Under him was another
chief, Clemente, said to be from Elizabeth Lake on the southwest margin of the Antelope Valley. This
suggests that Clemente led his own contingent. The total population under these chiefs was listed as
100 (Giffen and Woodward 1942:30). These men had apparently previously worked on a ranch in the
Santa Clarita basin, perhaps as shepherds. Clemente appears to have been baptized as an infant at
Mission San Gabriel in November of 1823, and to have been of Desert Serrano affiliation (Huntington
Library 2006). His parents were brought to Mission San Fernando in the spring of 1811 from the
Desert Serrano village of Chivung, located near Elizabeth Lake. He and his group, like that of
Estanislao, were at least partially returnees or refugees from Mission San Fernando. Estanislao’s
group is known to have settled at a place called Poxwi, at the mouth of Pastoría Creek, to the south
of the Tejon Ranchería in the southern San Joaquin Valley foothills (Johnson and Earle 1994:205).
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
111
07A3822 Task Order 17
The first permanent non-native settlement in the Antelope Valley consisted of herders at Elizabeth
Lake and was present by 1854. Later, a mostly Hispanic settlement developed at this lake. The
Antelope Valley briefly formed part of the Overland Stage route in California in the years
immediately before the Civil War.
By the end of the Civil War, Fort Tejon had been abandoned, and Edward Beale absorbed some of
the population of the Sebastian Reserve, also abandoned, into his Tejon Ranch, which also included
the Tejon Ranchería (Latta 1976:191-195).
After the Civil War, southern cattlemen settled in portions of the Antelope Valley, while the west end
was used by the Tejon Ranch and Liebre Ranch. After the Southern Pacific Railroad from San
Francisco to Los Angeles was built through the Antelope Valley in 1876, farming settlement and the
first attempts at irrigation occurred in the 1880s (Earle 2004a, 2004b). During these decades, the
native population of the Antelope Valley consisted mostly of Chemehuevi/Southern Paiute families
coming and going, in later decades mixed with Kawaiisu in the Tehachapi area, with a few people of
Serrano origin included as well. A mixed group of Chemehuevi and Serrano was reported living in the
Valyermo area on Big Rock Creek as late as 1890. A second group lived at the Pallett Ranch, just west
of Big Rock Creek, and later on the Mathis Ranch in the Littlerock area in the mid-1880s (Morris
n.d.:63, 76). These groups were recalled as occupying native camps but may have performed casual
labor for ranchers.
Other Chemehuevi or mixed Chemehuevi and Kawaiisu family groups were living at both desert
springs and on the south side of the Antelope Valley in small traditional camps. These groups tended
to live in traditional dwellings and follow a traditional subsistence regime. They could be found as
late as the decade of the 1890s, which ended with a severe drought that prompted the building of
the Los Angeles aqueduct across the west end of the Antelope Valley. Some of these groups had
moved to Victorville by 1905, when they were interviewed by Alfred Kroeber (1925:602). During the
early 20th century, native presence in the Antelope Valley appears to have been limited to individuals
or single families at different points in time.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
112
07A3822 Task Order 17
RESEARCH CONTEXT
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
113
07A3822 Task Order 17
Theoretical Orientation
In this section, relevant concepts and theoretical frameworks for guiding archaeological research in
the Antelope Valley are presented. Relevant concepts include culture, social relations, collectors and
foragers, travelers and processors, storage and sedentism, and intensification. Theoretical
frameworks include cultural materialism, cultural ecology, optimal foraging theory, evolutionary
archaeology, human behavioral ecology, cultural transmission, landscape archaeology, and
indigenous archaeology. Although the concepts and theoretical frameworks could be discussed in
separate sections, they are instead discussed in the approximate order in which they were adopted
by archaeologists because the discussions of later concepts and theoretical frameworks build on
those of the earlier ones.
Culture
The concept of culture provides a unifying theme for the four fields of anthropology, including
archaeology. Archaeologists have employed two concepts of culture, the normative approach and a
view of culture as a means of adaptation to the environment.
The "normative" approach to culture is characterized by the view that culture is “shared ideas” about
how things should be done and how people should behave. People who participate in the same
culture have similar ideas about how a house should be built, how a pot should be decorated, or
how religious ceremonies should be conducted. Because culture is ideational, culture is manifested in
the physical world through behavior and artifacts. Culture historians use the normative concept of
culture to define archaeological cultures on the basis of ideational unity reflected in the stylistic
relationships among artifacts (Dunnell 1978).
One criticism of normative definitions of culture is that the approach implies homogeneity and thus
underplays or obscures variation within a society. Adopting a normative definition of culture leads to
emphasis on "typical" stylistic characteristics rather than on functional variability which may be a
product of adaptation to variations in the environment. Archaeologists who are culture historians
tend to use stylistic types to define a cultural pattern for a particular time period. They construct a
temporal sequence of typical cultural patterns based on stylistic types, but they cannot explain how
one cultural pattern changed to another or how a cultural pattern interacted with its environment.
The normative approach provides a more descriptive, static, and ideal definition of culture. The
normative view does not, however, point so explicitly to the major function of culture as an adaptive
strategy for man's existence.
Cultural reconstructionists have used the concept of culture as an adaptive strategy through which a
group of people interacts with their environment (Dunnell 1978). Adaptation is the ability of a
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
114
07A3822 Task Order 17
cultural system to react to their environment in a way that is favorable to the continued operation of
the system (Kirch 1980). Cultures adapt in response to the conditions of a culture’s social and
biophysical environment. Cultures which fail to adapt to change will eventually die out, while
societies effective at adaptation will survive.
Binford (1965:205) defined culture as man's extrasomatic means of adaptation. Culture is an adaptive
system composed of subsystems, and the cultural system is employed in the integration of a society
with its natural environment and other sociocultural systems. Binford (1965:205) writes:
In cultural systems, people, things and places are components in a field that consists
of environmental and sociocultural subsystems, and the locus of cultural process is in
the dynamic articulations of these sub-systems.
The concept of culture as an adaptive system that includes both human behavior and the
environment is more useful to archaeologists with a materialist orientation, but it ignores human
agency. The assumption that a specific culture has adapted to its environment emphasizes stability
and equilibrium and makes it difficult to investigate change and variation.
Cultural Materialism
Cultural materialism has a general and a specific meaning. In its general form it is a research strategy
which emphasizes the material, as opposed to the mental or ideational, components of human
behavior. In a materialist research strategy, the interactions of environment, technology, group size,
and labor are assumed to be the most important determinants of group organization. Cultural
materialism can be a productive strategy for formulating research questions which can be addressed
with archaeological data. Such data consist of tools used to procure and process food and carry out
other tasks in which members of groups interact with the environment. Information about the
environment is available from faunal and floral remains found in archaeological sites. Data relevant
to the reconstruction of activities and group size come from the spatial distribution of artifacts and
features (facilities such as hearths, storage pits, and house post holes or foundations).
A specific form of cultural materialism is the strategy for understanding the causes of similarities and
differences among societies and cultures that was articulated by Marvin Harris (1979, 1987). Harris'
cultural materialism is based on the assertion by Marx that the mode of production and other
material processes largely determine other aspects of society and culture.
In Harris' research strategy, cultural materialism identifies the independent and dependent variables
among the various conditions of the human experience in order to formulate questions about the
causes of sociocultural phenomena. The independent variables are considered to be the material
aspects of human existence which include food production and regulation of population size.
Description of the basic strategy is facilitated by reference to the "universal pattern" which partitions
culture into three parts - infrastructure, structure, and superstructure (Harris 1987:17).
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
115
07A3822 Task Order 17
Infrastructure includes modes of production and reproduction. Mode of production includes
subsistence systems, the articulation of a people's technology with their bio-physical environment to
meet food requirements. Mode of reproduction refers to the regulation of population size and
includes the costs and benefits of raising children in particular techno-economic and technoenvironmental settings.
Structure refers to the organization of domestic economies and political economies. Goods and
services are controlled either within domestic units, such as families, between groups within the
larger society, or between societies, hence "political economy." Important aspects of political
economy include the economic integrative factors which describe types of exchange (reciprocity,
redistribution, barter, price market exchange), types of money (all-purpose or non-all-purpose
money), and long-distance trade models.
Superstructure includes the non-material aspects of culture. World view, or ideology (e.g., religion,
magic, political philosophy), artistic expression, and play are components of superstructure.
According to Harris, ideologies, including religion, may help rationalize or justify economic systems
and political institutions.
Cultural materialism gives primacy to the material conditions of life in formulating research
questions. In terms of the categories in the universal pattern, Harris (1979:56) proposes the principle
of infrastructural determinism. This principle means that when formulating theories and hypotheses
to be tested, infrastructural variables are assumed to be independent and causal. Only if hypotheses
involving infrastructural variables cannot be confirmed is explanation sought among structural
variables, and even less priority is given to superstructural variables. However, some amount of
reciprocal causality is acknowledged for the dynamics among infrastructure, structure, and
superstructure. Cultural materialists assume that material conditions control the selective process in
significant culture change. From a materialist viewpoint, if ideas are to be of long-term importance,
they must undergo a selective process through material manifestations or consequences of the
ideas.
Cultural Ecology
Most archaeological cultural reconstruction as defined by Dunnell (1978) has been based on cultural
ecology and ecological anthropology. Cultural ecology was first defined by Julian Steward (1955), to
understand the interactions between people, their technology and economy, and their natural
environments or, in Harris’ terms, between infrastructure and structure.
Ecology is the study of interactions and causal links between living entities and their natural and
physical environments. Cultural ecology looks at the adaptive processes by which human groups and
their culture are affected by adjusting to a given natural environment (Steward 1955). Steward
defined the effective environment as the resources that are available in the local environment that
could be obtained with the available technology of the human group. The effective environment
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
116
07A3822 Task Order 17
consists of the edible foods and places of habitation that are available to humans with a given
technology in a given environment. The organization of labor required for resource acquisition
(intensity, seasonal and spatial distribution, and work group composition) is based on the
combination of effective environment and technology. Social and economic organization and various
other elements of culture are shaped by the work process and other interactions between
technology and effective environment (Bettinger 2001). Steward (1955) termed the interaction
between the effective environment, technology, and socio-economic organization the “culture core.”
Cultural ecology provided the analytical framework that became the foundation of modern hunter–
gatherer studies (Bettinger 2001; Winterhalder 1984). However, two other variables, population and
social relationships, have been found to be important for hunter–gatherer studies.
Population and Optimal Foraging
Because Steward’s information was based on ethnography, his models did not include change over
time, and population was seen as a dependent variable, increasing or decreasing with technological
and environmental change. Beginning in the late 1960s population emerged as an important
independent variable in hunter–gatherer studies based on environmental changes at the end of the
Pleistocene and the beginning of domestication and agriculture in the Old World (Binford 1968;
Flannery 1971).
The development of optimal foraging theory (OFT) in the 1980s contributed to seeing population as
an independent variable. Two models, diet breadth and patch choice, were borrowed from
evolutionary ecology and demonstrate the importance of population growth in hunter–gatherer
studies (Smith 1983). In both models, energy necessary for food procurement includes energy
expended during the time devoted to harvest/hunt the specific food(s) and the energy expended
during the time invested in the search for, and travel to, locations where food resources occur. Highranking resources in the diet breadth model are resources that occur in high densities or require low
energies to procure. High-ranking patches in the patch choice model are those that provide the
greatest amount of energy for the least amount of time invested in obtaining the food (excluding
search or travel). According to OFT, the highest ranked resource or patch is always used and
preferred. However, if the highest-ranked resource or patch is rare, lower ranked resources or
patches may also be used because their greater availability reduces search and travel time (Bettinger
2001).
The diet breadth model was used to explain the role of increasing population in changes in
subsistence at the end of the Pleistocene and in the beginning of agriculture (Bettinger 2001).
Growing populations reduced the abundance of highly ranked large profitable resources, such as big
game, and more abundant lower ranked resources, such as seeds and shellfish, were added to the
diet. Later, increasing population promoted domestication and agriculture, which required increased
handling time and tending (herding of animals or sowing, cultivating, and harvesting). Use of these
lower ranked (because of increased handling time), but more abundant resources, in turn sustained
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
117
07A3822 Task Order 17
population growth. According to the patch choice model, population growth increased the number
of consumers per resource and decreased overall environmental productivity such that travel
between widely spaced rich patches would become less profitable than foraging more intensively
within fewer patches (Bettinger 2001). Increased sedentism led to higher population densities and
decreasing mobility-related infanticide.
While the diet breadth and patch choice models were initially used to discuss the beginning of
agriculture (Barlow 2006), they have been applied to hunter–gatherer studies where population
growth can cause resource stress leading to subsistence change and, potentially, technological and
social change (Bird and O’Connell 2006; Lupo 2007; Nettle et al. 2013; Winterhalder and Bettinger
2010). Hunter–gatherer studies have shown that adaptive change results from resource stress
resulting from population growth (population-resources imbalances) (Bettinger 2001). This is known
as intensification (discussed below).
In the modern view of hunter-gather studies, population and environment are in a system of mutual
feedback that causes population and resources to oscillate inversely (Belovsky 1988; Winterhalder et
al. 1988) so that there is no fixed carrying capacity.
Optimal Foraging Models
Optimal foraging theory is based on the assumption that individuals make rational decisions when
there are limited resources and unlimited needs. That is, among hunter-gatherers, decisions are
made to maximize the net rate of energy gain. Such decisions may include decisions about diet
choices, foraging location and amount of time spent foraging, foraging group size, and settlement
location (Bettinger, Garvey, and Tushingham 2015:92). The most common optimal foraging models
used in hunter-gatherer studies are the diet breadth model and the central place model.
The diet breadth model looks at choices made with respect to kinds of food or prey and their
energetic content. In the diet breadth model, the forager tries to select the combination of food
types that maximizes net energy intake per unit of foraging time (the amount of energy captured
less the amount of energy expended in order to obtain the food). Variables to be considered in
selecting a food include the food type’s abundance, the amount of energy produced by the food,
and the amount of time or energy needed to acquire the energy from the food, including energy and
time expended searching for the food (Bettinger, Garvey, and Tushingham 2015:92).
Central place foraging models add a spatial dimension. Foraging is seen as a round-trip from a given
point of departure to the patch where a particular kind of food is available and return. In simplistic
terms, foragers will travel farther distances (expend more energy and time) if more energy can be
obtained from the food type available there (larger prey or plants with higher caloric yields). Thus,
choices about prey or food types are based on the energy content of the prey relative to both travel
time and handling (processing) time (Bettinger, Garvey, and Tushingham 2015:105-109).
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
118
07A3822 Task Order 17
There are problems with applying optimal foraging models to specific real-world cases. Can the
return rates associated with specific foraging activities be determined? For example, what are the
search and pursuit times applicable to mammoths (Bettinger, Garvey, and Tushingham 2015:105133)?
Social Relations
While Steward saw social relationships as responding to material conditions, the current view sees
social relationships as actions that are independent of material conditions (Bettinger 2001). Cultural
anthropologists assumed that homogeneous individual interests coincided with group interests.
Thus, individual hunters would limit their take of deer so that there would be more deer for the
group as a whole in the future. It was thought that individuals denied their immediate self-interests,
in order to benefit the group as a whole. In cultural anthropology this was termed neofunctionalism.
However, those studying hunter-gatherers have found that individuals following their own selfinterest do make decisions that may not benefit the group. Thus, social relationships can affect or
direct what groups and individuals do with a particular technology and environment (Bettinger
2001).
The concept of adaptive strategy is used in the analysis of the complex relationships between
environment, technology, population, and social relationships:
Adaptive
strategies
are
unified
combinations
of
settlement,
subsistence,
organizational, and demographic tactics that optimize one or more goals (e.g., risk
reduction, time minimzation, energy maximization) that promote hunter–gatherer
success in a wide range of techno-environmental settings (Bettinger 2001:145).
Collectors and Foragers
Binford (1980) proposed a continuum of hunter–gatherer adaptive strategies, known as the collectorforager model, for coping with unfavorable mixes of population and resources in space (too many
people or too few resources at a place) or time (too many people or too few resources in a season).
When resources are fairly abundant everywhere, but can become exhausted in any one location, the
group moves to a new location where resources are more abundant. Thus, foragers move the local
group to the resources (residential mobility). However, if environmental productivity is low and
resources are distributed differentially, task groups go out to collect different kinds of resources at
greater distances from the base camp and bring them back to the base camp. Thus, collectors move
resources to the group.
Foragers operate out of a temporary base camp which is frequently moved as resources around the
base camp are depleted. The forager strategy is successful only if the necessary resources are always
available from each new base camp. If this kind of relatively uniform distribution of resources is not
present, a collector strategy may be more efficient. Collectors occupy relatively permanent base
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
119
07A3822 Task Order 17
camps which may be moved only a few times a year or not at all. Small specially organized task
groups are sent out from the base camp to collect resources. Thus, one task group may go out to
collect one resource, such as fruits or berries, located west of the base camp, while another may
travel east to hunt deer. The age and sex composition of the two collecting task groups will probably
differ. These task groups may stay overnight away from the base camp, establishing field camps, a
site type not found among foragers. Collectors also practice food storage while foragers usually do
not. Large quantities of a seasonally available and storable resource, such as acorns, can be brought
back to the base camp by collectors and stored for later consumption during seasons when fewer
resources are available. Storage promotes maintaining the base camp in the same location (greater
sedentism) in order to access the stored resources and increases even greater reliance on logistical
procurement.
The differences between foragers and collectors should be represented as a continuum, not a
dichotomy. Many groups practiced elements of both strategies. In many cases, the kind of
settlement-subsistence strategy employed by a group varied with the season. When resources were
abundant throughout the area, they may have followed a forager strategy, but when resources of
different kinds were less abundant and were available only in certain dispersed locations or only in a
certain season, they may have pursued a collector strategy.
Thomas (1983) has proposed a simple scheme of three settlement strategy models for the Great
Basin based on ethnographic examples. The first settlement strategy is characterized by fission, small
groups foraging throughout a territory in a seasonal round. This is similar to the forager end of
Binford's logistical continuum. A second strategy is characterized by fission-fusion where the group
maintains a central base for part of the year and breaks up into smaller mobile groups the rest of the
year. This strategy combines collector and forager strategies. The third strategy, fusion, is
characterized by a semi-permanent village to which collector parties bring back resources. The fusion
model is at the collector end of Binford's continuum.
Binford's (1980) causal model for the development of a logistic pattern was based on climate: the
colder the effective temperature, the more a group would have to rely on stored foods during the
less productive part of the year. However, this model does not account for the presence of many
logistically organized societies in the temperate zones of the world. Hayden (1986) contends that
logistic strategies are adaptive for procuring r-selected resources. R-selected resources have short
reproductive cycles and produce large numbers of offspring, each of which individually is a small
food package. Examples are seeds, nuts, fish, birds, and small mammals. This contrasts with kselected resources which have long reproductive cycles and produce few but relatively large
offspring which are protected by their parents. Most k-selected resources are large mammals such as
elk, bighorn sheep, deer, bear, mountain lion, etc. While r-selected resources are abundant and
reliable, they have much higher processing and storage costs. Thus, a logistic settlement system with
storage and a semi-sedentary settlement pattern is an adaptation to expending additional energy to
harvest large amounts of storable r-selected resources on a reliable basis.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
120
07A3822 Task Order 17
Foragers, on the other hand, are opportunists and generalists who exploit limited, scarce, and
unpredictable resources, usually k-selected large mammals in combination with large package plant
foods such as tubers and some r-selected resources which do not require a great amount of
processing time and which are usually not stored.
Travelers and Processors
A model for increasing sedentism among hunter-gatherers in the Owens Valley area of eastern
California has been proposed by Bettinger and Baumhoff (1982) who suggested that instead of
emphasizing settlement and mobility strategies as in the forager-collector continuum, in some cases
it may be more useful for archaeologists to investigate subsistence strategies using concepts from
optimal foraging theory. Bettinger and Baumhoff (1982:487) have defined a traveler strategy and a
processor strategy. The traveler strategy emphasizes resources which provide more calories per
package, such as large game. Costs are greater in travel and search time and lower in extraction and
processing time. In the traveler strategy, as resources around the base camp grow scarce, the group
moves to an area (patch) where the resource being sought is more abundant. The processor strategy
includes more resources which provide fewer calories per package and which require greater
extraction and processing time. However, travel and search time are greatly reduced. In the
processor strategy, procurement is increasingly directed toward low-quality resources with high
processing times. Therefore, it is cheaper to reside and consume resources at the locations of
procurement (Bettinger 2001).
The processor strategy is, in general, a higher cost strategy than the traveler strategy. Although travel
time is reduced, extraction and processing time is much higher. Use of higher cost resources only
comes about when lower cost resources become scarce relative to the human population. Thus, in
situations of human population increase, search time for low cost resources, such as bighorn sheep
or deer, increases. As search time increases, people may be willing to spend more time extracting
and processing higher-cost resources such as grass seeds, pinyon nuts, and acorns.
Bettinger and Baumhoff (1982) suggested that the processor strategy has a competitive advantage
over the traveler strategy. If both kinds of groups were in the same area, population would be higher
and travel/search time for large game would increase for both groups. However, since the processor
group would be competing for the same resources the travelers use, plus exploiting higher cost
resources that the travelers don't use, the processors would have a competitive advantage. Thus,
ethnic spread of a new processor group in an area can take place by the replacement of low cost
strategies with high cost strategies (Bettinger and Baumhoff 1982:488). According to Bettinger and
Baumhoff, this accounts for the spread of Numic-speaking people from the southwest Great Basin
throughout the rest of the Great Basin within the last 1,000 years. The Numic speakers and the
processor strategy probably originated in the Owens Valley of eastern California as a result of
population increase within an environmentally circumscribed area (Bettinger and Baumhoff
1982:497).
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
121
07A3822 Task Order 17
Storage and Sedentism
Hunter-gatherers who store resources live at higher population densities and are more complex
socio-politically. Storage is used where there are reasonably abundant and seasonally predictable
resources and where in other seasons there are resource shortages. Sedentism and territoriality are
favored in environments where resources are abundant and predictable. Population growth is
thought to cause sedentism and territoriality which would otherwise not be adopted because they
are costly and risky. However, population growth leads to sedentism and territoriality only where the
group maximizes energy (Bettinger 2001). Groups that maximize energy production are processors
who maximize the amount of energy extracted from low-quality resources with high processing
times, such as seeds and nuts. People who instead minimize time are mobile travelers who minimize
processing and extraction time by focusing on resources which provide more calories per package,
such as large game. The question is, how do time minimizers become energy maximizers?
A change in use rights and social relationships is needed for a group to become energy maximizers.
Among travelers, all food procured is shared among the group and there is no surplus to store.
Among processors, stored or cached food is private property and can be shared with others in the
group only after it is removed from the cache. This reduces the amount of food that freeloaders can
obtain without having contributed to its extraction and processing. Tolerated theft (sharing) limits
forager willingness to invest in small package resources (seeds and nuts). While storage may be a
response to growing population pressure, that pressure cannot itself result in storage until the social
rules about sharing versus ownership of stored food change. In energy maximizing societies the
social relationships and resource use rights favor storage, sedentism, and territoriality. In timeminimizing societies they do not (Bettinger 2001). The question is how a time-minimizing society
becomes an energy-maximizing society.
Bettinger (2001) has hypothesized that the adoption of the bow and arrow for hunting, a
technological change, was the catalyst for change from a time-minimizing society to an energymaximizing society. The bow and arrow allowed a shift from group hunting to individual hunting and
made hunting more efficient and productive. Individual hunters could then compete for mates based
on their hunting skills. The better hunters could often have more than one wife who could share the
labor of plant food processing. Investment in greater labor in plant food processing was in the selfinterest of women who also competed for mates through their efficiency in plant food processing
and their desire to reduce their plant food processing labor by sharing the labor with another wife.
This could have led to storage of plant foods and changes in the rules about ownership of stored
resources.
Intensification
Intensification has been defined as “the sum of additional material and labor devoted to increasing
the yield of currently available resources” (Beaton 1991:951). Intensification entails adding one or
more lower-ranked resources to the diet which require additional extraction or processing costs.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
122
07A3822 Task Order 17
New technology or organization of labor may be used to more efficiently exploit a lower-ranked
resource. Population and circumscription are seen as driving intensification (Beaton 1991).
Subsistence intensification results from altered production requirements arising from populationresource imbalances which, in turn, can be a result of population increase, deterioration of the
environment with decreased availability of resources, and a need to meet increased social demands
(Basgall 1987). “Subsistence intensification refers to any change in extractive strategies that results in
increased levels of production at the expense of greater time energy or material expenditure”
(Basgall 1987:42). The reasons intensive acorn use in central California began relatively late in time
(indicated by large scale mortar-pestle use after 4,000 to 1,000 BP, depending on the geographic
area) include variability in acorn production by oak trees from year to year and the intensive labor
required for processing acorns, which includes shelling, grinding, and leaching. Acorn use was a
high-cost subsistence orientation that was not used until increased production at the expense of
productivity was necessary due to increasing population size and density (Basgall 1987).
Macrobotanical studies of charred seeds and nuts from archaeological sites in central California
corroborate Basgall’s (1987) study of the timing of acorn use which was based on the appearance of
mortars and pestles. The results of the macrobotanical studies show that acorn use began in the
Middle Period and continued through the Late Period (Wohlgemuth 1996). Small seed use was found
in the Early, Middle, and Late Periods, although small seed use declined during the Middle Period.
During the Middle Period it is possible that people decided to fish for salmon during the spring
instead of collecting small seeds.
Intensification of resource use in California took many forms and was not confined to acorn use. In
the Newport Coast area of Orange County, California, intensification included procurement of a
greater number of smaller animals with less meat per individual, procurement and transport of
resources from greater distances from the residential base, and application of greater labor in
managing the environment, as seen in controlled burning or fire management to promote increased
seed production. All of these intensification techniques were practiced during the Late Prehistoric
Period, but not during the earlier Milling Stone Period. There is also evidence for some of them in the
Intermediate Period (intermediate in time between the Milling Stone Period and the Late Prehistoric
Period) (Mason 2014). There is also evidence for intensification of hunting (a shift to increasingly
smaller vertebrate species) in central California (Broughton 1994), procuring sea mammals in the
Chumash area (Raab 1996), and bird procurement in the San Francisco Bay area (Broughton 2001).
Evolutionary Archaeology
In the 1990s evolutionary archaeology was developed to focus on the explanation of change using
the concepts of Darwinian evolution (O’Brien 1996; O’Brien and Lyman 2000). Modern evolutionary
archaeology focuses not on the evolution of culture itself, but on the evolution of cultural
phenomenon, such as artifact types. Products of technology (artifacts) are active components in the
adaptive process. They are active because of their variation. The “variants represent alternative
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
123
07A3822 Task Order 17
solutions to adaptive problems and have different reproductive consequences for their makers and
users” (O’Brien and Lyman 2000:7). Artifacts, the results of behaviors, are seen as an extension of the
human phenotype (the physical appearance or characteristics of an organism as a result of the
interaction of its genotype and the environment). With that understanding, the Darwinian concepts
of selection and drift can be applied to the variation in the archaeological record. The variation in the
archaeological record is expressed in the artifact types constructed by archaeologists to provide
information about variation in style or function. “Evolutionary archaeology is about constructing
lineages [sequences of change over time] that can be explained in terms of Darwinian theory”
(O’Brien and Lyman 2000:13). It is thought that “individuals producing and using artifacts that better
adapt them to their environment will live longer and produce more offspring, ensuring the
persistence of the artifacts that made that possible” (Bettinger, Garvey, and Tushingham 2015:190).
Evolutionary archaeology is based on selection by individuals acting on variation in artifact types. The
only real-world example of the application of evolutionary archaeology has been to explain the
sequence of change from Clovis points to Dalton points (O’Brien and Lyman 2000:345-375).
Human Behavioral Ecology
Human behavioral ecology pertains to the “study of evolution and adaptive design in an ecological
context” (Winterhalder and Smith 1992:3) and more particularly to the evolution of human behaviors.
While evolutionary archaeology emphasizes the evolution of artifact types, Human behavioral
ecology emphasizes the evolution of behavior. Specific behaviors should affect the genetic fitness of
individuals and when those individuals reproduce, the behaviors are passed on. If behavioral
variability … results in differential genetic fitness and if such behaviors … are transferable from one
individual to another, then this transfer necessarily carries with it the implication of genetic fitness”
(Bettinger, Garvey, and Tushingham 2015:194). Human behavioral ecology has had to deal with the
problem of altruistic individuals who sacrifices self-interest to further the interests (genetic fitness) of
other individuals in the group. Altruistic behavior would seem to contradict the Darwinian concept of
survival of the fittest where each individual competes with others on the basis of self-interest. This
problem led to the consideration of the overall fitness of a group which may contain smaller or
larger proportions of altruistic individuals. Thus, human behavioral ecology takes into account the
costs and benefits of cooperation and sharing to individuals within a group. Group benefits may be
at odds with individual interests. The tension between group and individual interests may account for
the cycles of fissioning and fusing that characterizes the sociopolitical organization of many huntergatherer groups (Bettinger, Garvey, and Tushingham 2015:202).
Optimal foraging theory is a part of human behavioral ecology in the sense that an optimal forager
who, based on objective rationality, makes choices about the combination of food types that
maximizes net energy intake will be more genetically fit. The question is whether foraging efficiency
based on objective rationality is the most important determinant of genetic fitness. Others have
argued that cultural preferences are also important (Bettinger, Garvey, and Tushingham 2015:203).
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
124
07A3822 Task Order 17
These cultural preferences develop as a result of subjective rationality (rather than objective
rationality) and are learned through cultural transmission processes, as discussed in the next section.
An example is hunters who kill more deer in order to “show off” by sharing meat with a wider group
than just his immediate family. The hunter is more interested in acquiring prestige rather than energy
and engages in “costly signaling” in order to attract a mate (Bettinger, Garvey, and Tushingham
2015:222). Thus, the hunter’s goal is not foraging efficiency, but passing on his genetic information.
Cultural Transmission
While neo-Darwinian evolutionary archaeology used a process similar to genetic transmission
(transfer of information from parents to children to form a vertical lineage), more recent neoDarwinian evolutionary theory uses the concept of cultural transmission through learning. Cultural
transmission can impart information both vertically (from parents) and horizontally (from teachers or
peers) through guided variation and content-biased transmission. Guided variation refers to
individual invention and learning while content-biased transmission is the ability to evaluate
alternative cultural behaviors rationally (Bettinger, Garvey, and Tushingham 2015:243). Learning does
not require behavior variability, but through experimentation and errors, produces new behaviors
(behavior variation). Content-biased transmission starts with a range of behavioral variants but works
to eliminate variation (behaviors that are less productive are not selected). Because natural selection
has presumably shaped learning and the development of content biases, both lead “in the long run
to behaviors that result in genetic fitness in accord with Darwinian theory, even though genes are not
involved” (Bettinger, Garvey, and Tushingham 2015:248-249). Neo-Darwinian cultural transmission
has been used to provide a preliminary explanation for the Upper Paleolithic transition (changes in
stone tools, evidence of long distance trade, and organized hunting of migrating herd animals circa
50,000 years ago) and the transition from atlatl to bow and arrow technology in the Great Basin
(Bettinger, Garvey, and Tushingham 2015:265-271).
Landscape Archaeology
Landscape Archeology is the analysis, through material culture, of the spatial
dimension of human activity; in other words, exploring how human communities
have related to a geographic space through time in terms of how they appropriated
this space and/or transformed its appearance through work and its significance
through cultural practices (Parcero-Oubiña, Criado-Boado, and Barreiro 2014).
Landscape archaeology is the study of ways past peoples shaped their landscapes through cultural
and social practices, and how people were influenced, motivated, or constrained by their natural
surroundings. The land may be perceived and shaped based on symbolic processes including sense
of place, memory, history, and legends.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
125
07A3822 Task Order 17
Landscape archaeology integrates philosophical approaches to landscape perception with
anthropological studies of the significance of the landscape in small-scale societies. It includes
examination of the relationship between prehistoric sites and their topographic settings. Neolithic
stone tombs in Europe have been described as a means to focus attention on nearby landscape
features such as rock outcrops, river valleys, and mountain spurs. The Neolithic monuments played
an active role in socializing the landscape and creating meaning in it (Tilley 1997). Critics have
questioned how observations of a contemporary landscape can be used to understand the
perception and meaning assigned to a landscape by prehistoric people.
In response to this problem, landscape archaeology in the United States has focused on historic
period landscapes where historical sources can be used for interpretation (Yamin and Metheney
1996) and on Native American cultural landscapes where oral history can be used to provide
meaning and context.
Areas traditionally occupied by Native American tribal groups are recognized today as containing
both traditional cultural properties and cultural landscapes. Individual places that were and are of
cultural significance to Native American communities are often referred to under federal historic
preservation guidelines as “traditional cultural properties”, which may be found eligible for listing in
the National Register of Historic Places (Parker and King 1998). Within the definition of native places
are included both localities that were of traditional religious significance to Native Americans and
what are called “traditional use areas”. The latter term is applied to areas where native people carried
out important traditional gathering or procurement activities, and where the locations of these
activities were recalled in native oral history.
Where a number of native places and areas are documented for a particular region, these places are
referred to as part of a cultural landscape. As defined by the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation (2011, 2016) and the National Park Service (Page 2009), Native American cultural
landscapes consist of both physical manifestations of the native use of their local habitat (the
remains of habitation sites, trails, quarries, rock art sites, or hunting camps, for example) and of
places and areas that were and are culturally and/or religiously significant to these native inhabitants
and their descendants. Such places of cultural and religious significance were often named.
Individual places and areas of cultural significance fit in to a wider “landscape” or spatialgeographical panorama that had distinctive cultural meaning for native people. This meaning was,
and remains, in part religious and supernatural.
These places or constellations of places may encompass extensive geographical areas, like sacred
mountains. Sacred places and sacred cultural landscapes may contain physical characteristics or
attributes "on the ground" that connect them with Native American groups and their traditional
beliefs. However, a natural landscape feature with supernatural associations as a sacred place, like a
sacred mountain, need not contain within it any tangible imprint of human occupation, activity, use,
or cultural/religious significance in order for it to be considered a sacred place or part of a sacred
cultural landscape. Native beliefs, past and/or present, about the significance and sacred attributes of
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
126
07A3822 Task Order 17
the place are what define its sacred character. Other native places of non-sacred cultural significance
may similarly lack such visible "footprints” of native use or association "on the ground".
Thus, indigenous cultural landscapes also frequently constitute sacred cultural landscapes, based on
religious beliefs about such constellations of sacred places held by Native Americans. These may
have been recorded by ethnographers, be preserved in native oral literature, and may form part of
contemporary Native American cultural heritage and religious belief. Both individual sacred places
and sacred cultural landscapes may be eligible for nomination to the NRHP as Traditional Cultural
Properties, also known as Traditional Cultural Places, as defined and discussed in National Register
Bulletin 38 (Parker and King 1998). Sacred places may also separately be eligible for federal
protection when located on federal lands under Executive Order 13007: Indian Sacred Sites (Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation 2002, 2013). In that case, different criteria for eligibility apply than in
the case of Traditional Cultural Properties, along with a greater level of site protection.
Indigenous Archaeology
Indigenous archaeology has developed in parallel with the participation by indigenous communities
in the United States and elsewhere in the preservation and management of their cultural heritage. It
is also linked to indigenous maintenance or recuperation of cultural identity and political
sovereignty, as well as the implementation of repatriation. This management of cultural heritage
includes work with and evaluation of prior ethnographic research (Warren and Barnes 2018). It is an
archaeological perspective or approach that has developed in response to critiques by indigenous
communities of traditional archaeological attitudes and practices (Colwell-Chanthaphonh et al. 2010,
Ferguson 1996, Nicholas 2008, Smith and Wobst 2004, Watkins 2005). It has become important over
the last thirty years, especially in regions of the world where cultural resource management
archaeology has been supported by laws mandating the protection of archaeological resources and
where laws exist recognizing the rights of indigenous peoples. It has emerged in the context of the
post-modernist critique of the Western cultural view of science as the exclusive vehicle for
understanding the world. It has also developed in the context of the assertion by indigenous
communities of the importance of their right to control disposition of human remains, as well as of
artifacts of special cultural significance and other archaeologically-recovered materials.
Indigenous Archaeology and Processes of Collaboration
This literature treats a number of different aspects of indigenous archaeology. This includes the
integral involvement of native people and communities in the successful undertaking of
archaeological projects and in the development of archaeological knowledge that serves the needs
of native communities. Central to this effort is the crafting of research objectives that reflect native
perspectives and concerns regarding what is important about the native past, and that reflect native
understandings about how that past unfolded and why it is significant to native communities today.
This effort is part of a wider undertaking to broaden the viewpoints of scholarly enterprises in history,
anthropology, and other social sciences that deal with the history and culture of indigenous peoples
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
127
07A3822 Task Order 17
around the world- sometimes referred to as scholarly 'decolonization'. This theme is discussed by
Smith and Wobst (2005).
Community-Oriented Archaeology
Atalay (2012) provides a guide to carrying out archaeological projects through collaboration with
local indigenous or other communities from project inception. An important point she makes is that
indigenous or other community involvement is important for 'sustainable' archaeology, projects and
research programs that receive institutional and public support because they meet community
needs. 'Sustainable' archaeology also means that archaeological resources can be better protected
where local communities have been involved in their study through community archaeology and also
involved in interpreting their importance within the context of local culture and history (Atalay
2012:1-22). In many areas of the world, it is now common for archaeological projects to establish
partnerships with local communities, as with indigenous and other local communities in Latin
America. Atalay (2014) also discusses the issues of maintaining objectivity and methodological rigor
in carrying out community collaboration-based archaeology.
Colwell-Chanthapohn and Ferguson (2008) discuss the dynamics of community collaboration in
working with native communities, moving along a continuum from 'communities of resistance' to
'communities of collaboration', while recognizing the practical challenge that this collaborative ideal
may raise. Atalay, Clauss, McGuire, and Welch (2014) have provided a comprehensive statement on
how archaeology can be retooled as an interpreter of human heritage to serve local communities
and wider non-privileged constituencies. Clauss (2014) discusses archaeological activism and the
challenges and neccessary considerations involved in advocating for native communities as an
activist archaeologist involved in indigenous community-based archaeology.
Archaeological Investigation and Native Interpretation of Cultural Landscapes
Native interpretations of the nature and significance of cultural landscapes studied through
archaeological research are a key element of collaboration in the mode of indigenous archaeology.
Ferguson and Colwell-Chanthaphonh (2006) discuss the example of the San Pedro Valley in Arizona,
significant as a homeland to the Tohono O'odham, Western Apache, Hopi, and Zuñi. There an
ethnohistorical project in support of archaeological work was conducted in collaboration with tribal
research teams and on the basis of tribal review. The project provides a model for multi-tribal
collaboration based on native groups sharing in the direction of the research process. A native
collaborative project in a different environmental setting is described in Ball et al. (2017). Northwest
U.S. native nations- the Makah Tribe, the Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde Community of
Oregon, and the Yurok Tribe- with the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, in documenting and protecting coastal and marine tribal cultural
landscapes. The national and international context of collaborative efforts at documentation and
protection of Traditional Cultural Places and Tribal Cultural Landscapes is also discussed in this
document.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
128
07A3822 Task Order 17
The Archaeology of the Colonial Encounter
Native American archaeologists in California have turned to the examination of the colonial
encounter between Spanish colonial institutions and native communities. Schneider and Panich
(2014) provide a discussion of research on native agency and the rethinking of the colonial
encounter in the Spanish mission system in California and elsewhere. Schneider, a Native American
scholar, has researched the archaeological context of the colonial encounter in the San Francisco Bay
region, in the vicinity of the ancestral territory of his community (Schneider 2010). Schneider's
research has focused on the reconceptualization of the processes of native interaction with and
resistance to the Franciscan mission system and other elements of the Spanish colonial regime. The
Schneider and Panich volume reflects archaeological research interest in native resistance in the form
of mission revolts and native flight to regions of refuge (Bernard, Robinson, and Sturt (2014).
Indigenous Archaeology and Community Access to Archaeological Knowledge
Indigenous archaeology is also linked to a dual tradition within anthropology as a discipline.
Anthropology has traditionally pursued empiricist scientific research objectives focusing on
comparison of human biological and cultural characteristics, while at the same time, in a critique of
colonialist ethnocentric assumptions, describing and demonstrating and, in effect, legitimizing
human cultural diversity and indigenous knowledge and cultural practices. Kroeber pointed out that
anthropology is both a science and a humanity- these two different goals of anthropology is what he
was referring to. Indigenous archaeology attempts to bring together these two traditions of
empirical scientific research and the valuing of indigenous knowledge and culture. Anthropology has
been described as a handmaiden of colonialism, but it has also provided both the data and theory to
discredit it.
Several particular points of emphasis for indigenous archaeology include the participation of
indigenous communities in archaeological practice, as archaeologists, as archaeological monitors, as
reviewers of project reports, and as consultants in the interpretation of archaeological sites, features,
and artifacts. Indigenous archaeology advocates for indigenous communities having not only
participation in the archaeological process but also a voice in what the product will be as well.
Indigenous archaeology undertakes to shift the archaeological narrative from a focus on material
culture analysis and "cultural materialism" (and even a focus on supposedly universally-valid
behaviorist models) to one more user-friendly for indigenous people, where the unique religious and
cultural traditions and values of native cultures are more fully taken into account. Indigenous
archaeology emphasizes that indigenous archaeological sites and artifacts should not simply
represent raw material for the assembling of abstract theories about human behavior and cultural
development. They are an important and tangible part of the history and heritage of specific living
communities. Indigenous archaeology values oral historical traditions, community ethnographic
knowledge, and indigenous interpretations of local history, culture, religion, and the origins of things.
Indigenous archaeology also recognizes that, just as the development of archaeology in the Western
world reflected a European cultural agenda, archaeology at the service of indigenous communities
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
129
07A3822 Task Order 17
can respond to the questions and concerns that these communities themselves have about their past
and their cultural heritage.
Summary
Archaeologists carrying out research in the Antelope Valley generally espouse the major goal of
cultural reconstruction of settlement and subsistence systems through the use of optimal foraging
theory, the collector-forager continuum, traveler-processor strategies, and investigations of storage
and intensification. This focus is understandable given the paucity of information from archaeological
investionations of prehistoric lifeways in the region. As more is understood through continued
studies
in
the
Antelope
Valley,
theoretical
frameworks
for
explanation
of
cultural
adaptations/change, including evolutionary archaeology, human behavioral ecology, and cultural
transmission, should be applied when these theories and models can be better articulated with
archaeological data. Most of the current examples that use these approaches are based on
ethnographic or modern case studies.
Importantly, the empirical and materialist approaches should be supplemented by concepts such as
those from landscape archaeology and indigenous archaeology that will allow researchers to move
beyond cultural reconstructions from a single perspective to more diverse perspectives. Cultural
landscapes can be given meaning and context by using Native American oral history. Indigenous
archaeology focuses on the cultural traditions and values of native cultures and takes into account
indigenous interpretations of local history, culture, and religion.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
130
07A3822 Task Order 17
Archaeological Property Types
Archaeological property types or site types for the prehistoric period in the Antelope Valley were
defined in the Overview of Prehistoric Cultural Resources for Edwards Air Force Base (Earle et al.
1997), and is a very useful starting point for understanding site types in the region. However, as more
investigations are carried out in the Antelope Valley, revisions to this list of site types and what
archaeological remains/features may represent must be considered/undertaken.
Specifically,
researchers should be mindful that the list of site types presented below, along with definitions and
attributes, are in some ways subjective and require continuous refinement.
The number of sites of each type that occur on Edwards Air Force Base have been quantied. As of
1997 there were 465 lithic scatters and flaking stations, comprising 42% of the sites on Base, and
there were 416 temporary camps, comprising 38% of the sites on Base. Other site types present, but
not as common, include hearth and roasting features (9%) milling stations (5%), lithic quarry sites
(1%), rock shelters (less than 1%), residential bases or villages (less than 1%), cremations (less than
1%), rock alignments (less than 1%), pictographs (less than 1%), faunal bone scatters (less than 1%,
and isolated finds (less than 1%).
Villages have “extensive and deep middens, considerable material culture, exotic materials,
cemeteries, and architecture, and are thought to represent more or less permanent
occupation locales” (Sutton 2016:269). All the major classes of cultural material are present
including flaked stone tools, ground stone tools, debitage, fire-affected rock, hearth and
other features that may indicate houses, and subsistence waste. Non-local artifacts can
include trade items such as large quantities of shell beads. Rock art may be present.
Residential Bases are intensively occupied habitation sites (Earle et al. 1997). These complex
sites are characterized by extensive scatters and quantities of cultural material, midden, fireaffected rock, flaked stone tools, lithic debitage, burned bone, milling tools, hearths, rock
rings, and sometimes house structures.
Temporary Camps were occupied by a small number of people for a short period of time
(Earle et al. 1997). They are smaller and less complex archaeologically than residential bases,
but more complex than lithic scatters. They are characterized by flaked stone tools, lithic
debitage, fire-affected rocks (indicating overnight stays), and may have features such as
hearths, but they seldom exhibit midden.
Definitions of the other site types (with slight resivions) are as defined by Earle et al.
(1997:81-92) for use in archaeological investigations at Edwards AFB:
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
131
07A3822 Task Order 17
Utilized Rock Shelters are cultural sites located in rock shelters, caves, or rock
overhangs. They are further subdivided by type of use. Occupation rock shelters are
rock shelters, caves, or rock overhangs that were occupied temporarily or seasonally.
Their cultural deposits are similar to those of base camps, villages, or temporary
camps. Transient rock shelters are rock shelters or overhangs used as temporary
camps. Cultural remains are minimal, not-more than an isolated tool, a few flakes, or
some fire-affected rock. Storage rock shelters are small rock shelters or overhangs
containing cultural remains indicative or storage activities such as tool or food
caches.
Milling Stations are sites where food processing with groundstone tools was the
primary activity. Associated artifacts may include manos, metates, mortars, or pestles.
A few flaked stone tools or fire-affected rocks may be present, but milling activities
must be dominant. This category is further subdivided into bedrock milling slicks,
bedrock mortars, and milling stations. Milling stations are isolated portable metates
or mortars associated with fewer than 10 other items. If the milling station is
associated with more than 10 other items, it is categorized a temporary camp.
Lithic Scatters are sites composed entirely of flaked stone tools and debitage with no
other class of cultural materials and no evidence of occupation. Lithic scatters are
further subdivided by size and density of cultural materials. Large, dense lithic
scatters are over 50 square meters in size and have more than 30 items for every 10
square meters. Large, light lithic scatters are over 50 square meters in size but have
less than 30 items for every 10 square meters. Small, dense lithic scatters are less than
50 square meters in size but have more than 30 items for every 10 square meters.
Small, light lithic scatters are less than 50 square meters in size and have less than 30
items for every 10 square meters.
Flaking Stations consist of one or more cores surrounded by related flakes and
possibly hammer stones. These sites are usually 1 or 2 meters in diameter, but they
may be larger if there are a cluster of flaking stations less than 50 meters apart and
more than 100 meters from another site, in which case the flaking stations may be
recorded as a single site. If a flaking station is associated with other cultural materials,
it is assigned another site type.
Quarry or Lithic Sources are places where naturally occurring lithic material has been
utilized to make flaked stone tools. The quarry or source may be a primary source
such as a bedrock outcrop or a secondary source such cobbles in a drainage that
have washed down from a bedrock outcrop. Quarries or lithic sources are
characterized by flakes, cores, occasional hammer stones, preforms, rejected stones,
and flaking stations. This category has three subtypes: exploited bedrock (in situ)
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
132
07A3822 Task Order 17
lithic sources, exploited float lithic source, and sources with no evidence of
exploitation.
Ceramic Scatters consist of scatters of ceramic sherds or broken ceramic vessels with
relatively few, if any, other artifacts or features present. Small concentration of sherds
may represent pot drops.
Cemeteries are concentrations of Native American human interments (inhumations
and/or cremations). Cemeteries usually occur near habitation sites.
Cremations are burial features consisting of charred human bone fragments with or
without associated funerary items. They may be found in small cavities in rock
outcrops, in dunes, in utilized rock shelters or caves, cemeteries, or in base camp or
village sites.
Intaglios are large animal, human, or geometric figures produced on the desert floor
by scraping away the desert pavement.
Miscellaneous Rock Alignments arid Features are constructed of cobbles and
boulders and include simple lines or walls, isolated rock rings, and complex abstract
or geometric designs.
Petroglyphs are pecked or incised pictures on boulders, rock outcrops, or rock shelter
walls.
Pictographs are paintings on the walls of sheltered caves, boulders, or rock outcrops.
Trails are faint linear impressions or clearings in desert pavement or slight shelves
along hillsides or canyon slopes that mark prehistoric travel routes.
Roasting Pits or Hearths are sites consisting of fire-affected rock features with few or
no other cultural remains. If the site has more than 10 items in addition to fireaffected rock, another category should be used. This site type has two subtypes:
single features and multiple features.
Prehistoric Cairns are piles of cobbles or boulders that sometimes mark trails, shrines,
or burials. They may occur singly or in dusters. There are two subtypes of cairns:
single features and multiple features.
Non-Human Bone Scatters are clusters of non-human bone. Sites are only assigned
to this category when there are no artifacts or features associated with the bone
scatter.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
133
07A3822 Task Order 17
RESEARCH THEMES, QUESTIONS, AND DATA NEEDS
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
134
07A3822 Task Order 17
Theme: Paleoenvironmental Reconstruction
This chapter provides an overview of the Late Pleistocene and Holocene paleoenvironment for the
Mojave Desert and the Antelope Valley. This overview is based on a combination of paleoclimate
models, geological studies, paleovegetation studies, and archaeological studies. Unfortunately, few
studies have been specifically undertaken for the Antelope Valley. The few studies that have focused
on the Antelope Valley tend to be focused on Edwards Air Force Base (AFB) in the eastern portion of
the Valley with little research conducted on the central and western portions of the Valley. Therefore,
the reconstructions completed for the larger Mojave Desert and Great Basin regions are used in this
review and when present specific Antelope Valley data is incorporated.
The Antelope Valley had a wetter, cooler environment than today at the end of the Pleistocene, but
during the Middle Holocene the climate was hotter, more arid than today. More specifically, six major
climatic periods have been identified from the end of the Pleistocene through the present. The Late
Pleistocene in the Mojave Desert was marked by a period of a pluvial lake stands and low-elevation
woodland covering the valley areas. The shift to a hotter, drier climate was accompanied by
desiccation of the pluvial lakebeds and an upward shift of woodland environments from the valleys
to the foothills and mountains, along with the establishment of desert scrub in the valley areas. These
changes are discussed in greater detail in the sections below.
Paleoenvironment of the Mojave Desert
Proxy vegetation records such as those of pollen, microfossils, pack rat middens, and tree rings;
radiocarbon dating of shell and other organic material in drill cores from ancient lake sediments;
geomorphology; and modern distributions of plant species have been used to provide insight and an
understanding of what appears to have been a complex and variable climate since the Late
Pleistocene. Most scholars agree that regional differences and climatic conditions during the last
8,000 years of prehistory (the Middle and Late Holocene) have been variable and witnessed
oscillations in temperature and precipitation (Earle et al. 1997; Minnich 2007). Since the Last Glacial
Maximum (LGM), circa 21,000-18,000 years ago, researchers have posited at least six major
worldwide climatic episodes, each of which manifested itself in the Mojave Desert and likely had a
significant effect on its environment.
The vegetation of the Mojave Desert has changed dramatically since the Wisconsin Glacial Episode
(maximum about 18,000 years ago) in response to changes in the environment (fluctuations between
wet and dry periods, and temperature variation). Scholars have reconstructed vegetation changes
using plant remains from pack rat midden contexts (Rhode 2001; Spaulding 1990; Spaulding et al.
1994; Thompson and Mead 1982; Wigand and Rhode 2002). For example, using pack rat midden
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
135
07A3822 Task Order 17
data from the Silurian Valley and the Granite Mountains northeast of the Antelope Valley Study Area,
Koehler and Anderson (1998) provided a nearly 8,800-year reconstruction of vegetation history for
the central Mojave Desert which can also be applied to the Study Area.
Last Glacial Maximum, circa 21,000-18,000 BP
The Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) has been characterized by a mean temperature approximately 7
degrees centigrade cooler than it is now, with continental ice sheets covering much of western North
America. Sea level along the Pacific Coast was about 120 meters lower than today, with a coastline
30- to 40-kilometers farther west. Inland in the Mojave Desert, the cooler temperatures and greater
precipitation of this period resulted in extensive alpine glaciers in the Sierra Nevada and increased
snowfall in the Tehachapi, San Gabriel, and San Bernardino Mountain ranges bordering the valley
floor (now part of the Mojave Desert). Snow and ice melt, as well as rain runoff, from these
mountains flowed to the valley floor along numerous drainages, including the Mojave and Owens
Rivers, and filled valley basins with deep perennial lakes, some of which covered hundreds of square
kilometers (Enzel et al. 1992, 2003; Orme and Yuretich 2004; West et al. 2007). Coniferous trees,
primarily pinyon pine and juniper woodland, covered large expanses of the valley floor (Jones and
Klar 2007; Sutton et al. 2007; West et al. 2007).
Pleistocene/Holocene Transition, circa 18,000-10,000 years BP, and Younger Dryas, circa 12,90011,400 years BP
After the LGM, research indicates that the climate gradually began to warm, sea level began to rise,
and glaciers in the Sierra Nevada slowly began to melt. However, oscillations between cooler stadial
and warmer interstadial climates appear to have marked an 8,000-year period between the end of
the LGM and the end of the Pleistocene around 10,000 years BP. The most severe of the cooler
stadial periods may have been the Younger Dryas (ca. 12,900-11,400 years BP), which brought a
return to near-glacial conditions for more than a millennium during the Pleistocene/Holocene
Transition.
During the Late Pleistocene and Pleistocene-Holocene transition, between 18,000 and 12,000 years
ago, woodlands were found at lower elevations compared to modern distribution and covered much
of the Mojave Desert. Only the lowest elevations, in Death Valley, were too low to contain woodlands
(Minnich 2007). During this time, the Mojave Desert appears to have had Utah juniper woodland
thriving below 1,000 meters above mean sea level (AMSL) (Spaulding et al. 1994). McCarten and Van
Devender (1988) analyzed pack rat midden plant remains from Scodie Mountains in Kern County
(north of Antelope Valley) which revealed that vegetation during this period was dominated by Pinus
monophylla (pinyon), Juniperus californica (California juniper), and Ceanothus greggii (desert
ceanothus). For the central Mojave Desert valley floor, Koehler et al. (2005) analyzed 47 pack rat
midden samples and concluded that prior to ca. 11,500 BP the valley floor vegetation included Pinus
monophylla (pinyon), Juniperus osteosperma (Utah juniper), Purshia mexicana (bitterbush),
Cercocarpus ledifolius (mountain mahogany), and Prunus fasciculata (desert almond) woodland
above 1,000 meters. This Pinyon–Juniper woodland was widespread in the southern and central
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
136
07A3822 Task Order 17
Mojave Desert. Juniper woodland graded into juniper and pinyon woodland (1,000-1,800 meters
AMSL), which in turn graded into subalpine woodland of limber pine and bristlecone pine at the
highest of elevations (Spaulding 1990; Wigand and Rhode 2002).
As the climate emerged from the Younger Dryas, it continued a warming trend during the early
Holocene, and it is likely that coniferous woodland in the Mojave Desert gradually retreated to
higher (cooler and wetter) elevations in the surrounding mountains, giving way to xeric desert
vegetation, and some of the large pluvial lakes began to shrink or dry up (Jones and Klar 2007; West
et al. 2007).
Vegetation changed during the Late Pleistocene-Early Holocene transition, after 12,000 years ago,
when the conifer woodland was replaced by desert scrub at lower elevations (Koehler and Anderson
1998; West et al. 2007). By about 8,300 years ago, juniper disappeared from the lower slopes of hills
and mountains in the Mojave Desert. Koehler et al. (2005) argue that the northward migration of
desert thermophiles began in the southernmost Mojave Desert by the end of the Wisconsin
Glaciation as the temperature increased and precipitation decreased. In response to the changes in
paleoclimate, the pinyon and juniper moved upslope several thousand feet (Thompson and Mead
1982; Van Devender and Spaulding 1979). During this transition, the composition of the desert scrub
vegetation shifted from relatively cooler species, such as Artemisia tridentata (sagebrush), Ericameria
nauseosa (rabbitbrush), and Atriplex confertifolia (shadescale); to arid species, such as Ephedra viridis
(Mormon tea), Gutierrezia californica (matchweed), Lycium californicum (desert thorn), cacti, and
Yucca brevifolia (Joshua tree); to very arid species (such Ambrosia dumosa [white bur-sage], Larrea
tridentata (creosote bush), and other desert thermophiles (Spaulding 1990).
Holocene Maximum, circa 8000-4000 years BP
By around 8000 years BP, higher temperatures and a reduction in rainfall resulted in a hotter and
drier period known as the Holocene Maximum (also known as the Altithermal and Mid-Holocene
Optimum), which may have continued for about 4,000 years. Unlike the Younger Dryas cooling
period, which came and went relatively abruptly, the Holocene Maximum is seen as a more gradual
continuation of the post-Pleistocene warming trend that slowly reached a high point, then just as
gradually ameliorated (Jones and Klar 2007). Studies of the Great Basin and Mojave Desert are
suggestive of great changes in the physical environment of this time for these regions. Most of the
pluvial lakes had dried completely, although evidence exists for shallow lake stands during this arid
period at Thompson, Owens, and Silurian Lakes (Bacon et al. 2006; Jones and Klar 2007; Orme 2008;
Orme and Yuretich 2004; Sutton et al. 2007; West et al. 2007).
The decreased precipitation during the Holocene Maximum further resulted in the reduction of the
Pinyon-juniper woodlands on the Mojave Desert valley floors. Any remaining coniferous woodland in
the Mojave Desert was replaced entirely by desert scrub during this period. In the northern part of
the desert where there was more moisture, this retreat upslope was less pronounced. According to
Lanner (1983), after 8,000 years ago, the woodlands completely disappeared from the valley floors,
and drought tolerant plants (from the south) took over the desert. There were micro-regional
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
137
07A3822 Task Order 17
variations to these patterns; for example, Juniperus woodland was lost in the Granite Mountains in
the eastern Mojave Desert between ca. 9000 and 7900 years BP (Koehler et al. 2005), however it
persisted in the Lucerne Valley (in western Mojave Desert) until after circa 7800 years BP. During the
Middle Holocene, the vegetation changed to include Larrea tridentata (creosote bush) starting
around 6,910 years ago in the Silurian Valley, 5,960 years ago in Granite Mountains, and by 5,960
years ago in the Nelson Basin (all northeast of Antelope Valley). By 6,800 years ago, Ambrosia spp.
(bur-sage) was present on the desert floor. Creosote bush was established by 4760 BP, and it appears
that although it arrived early in the Silurian Valley, it took several thousand years to dominate the
central Mojave Desert (Koehler et al. 2005). Atriplex confertifolia (shadescale) appeared at the end of
the Middle Holocene in the Granite Mountains.
West el al. (2007:32) state that by 5,000 years ago, the primary characteristics of the Mojave Desert
vegetation as observed today were established, with modern associations developing over the next
several thousand years. However, Koehler and Anderson (1998:283) suggest that the “modern
composition of dominant vegetation was completed about 4500 B.P.”
First Neoglacial (Neopluvial), circa 4000-2000 BP
A milder climatic episode began around 4000 BP, bringing the Holocene Maximum to an end. The
First Neoglacial, or Neopluvial episode was marked by cooler temperatures, slightly increased rainfall,
the proliferation of more mesophylic desert plant species, and the return of shallow lake stands at
some of the playas that had been desiccated for most of the past four millennia, including
Rosamond, Owens, Searles, Lucerne, Silver, Soda, and Ivanpah Lakes (Bacon et al. 2006; Enzel et al.
1992, 2003; Jones and Klar 2007; Orme 2008; Orme and Yuretich 2004; Robinson et al. 1999; West et
al. 2007).
Medieval Climatic Anomaly (MCA) circa 1300-700 BP
Relatively stable and benign climatic conditions in the Mojave Desert were interrupted when warm,
dry conditions began to return around 1300 BP. There is little evidence of perennial lake stands
existing in this period, and frequent, severe droughts are thought to have occurred. This climatic
episode, known as the Medieval Climatic Anomaly (MCA) (also known as the Medieval Warm Period,
the Little Climatic Optimum and the Little Altithermal), may have been more severe and abrupt in its
onset than the earlier Holocene Maximum (Moratto 1984; Sutton et al. 2007).
Overall, there is little data on how vegetation responded to climatic changes during the MCA. Basgall
(2008) reports that paleoenvironmental studies do not suggest any significant vegetation changes in
response to the droughts and wet periods of the MCA. Koehler and Anderson’s (1995) studies of rat
pack middens did not note any notable shifts in distribution or composition of vegetation
communities during the MCA.
Little Ice Age (LIA), ca. 600-150 BP
As the climate emerged from the MCA, it returned to cooler, wetter conditions and signalled the
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
138
07A3822 Task Order 17
beginning of the most recent significant climatic episode, known as the Little Ice Age (LIA) or Second
Neoglacial. Globally, this period was characterized by sudden decadal climate fluctuations, generally
cold temperatures, advancing continental sheet ice in the extreme northern latitudes, increased
rainfall, and expansion of alpine glaciers (Sutton et al. 2007; West et al. 2007). In the Mojave Desert,
the LIA was accompanied by a return of cooler conditions that allowed some desert plant
communities, including juniper woodland, to increase their range to somewhat lower elevations.
There were also periodic shallow lake stands at many of the desert playas (Budinger and Spinney
2004; Moratto 1984; Sutton et al. 2007).
Today, the lowlands of the Mojave Desert and Western Mojave Desert are characterized by
saltbush/creosote vegetation with mixed desert scrub defining the intermediate elevation slopes
(Spaulding et al. 1994). Sheep grazing in the Western Mojave Desert during the last 100 years has
had a measurable effect on the vegetation and soils (Web and Stielstra 1979). Notable reduction in
above-ground biomass under creosote bushes was observed where heavy grazing has occurred. In
addition, there was considerable decrease in inter-shrub densities due to sheep trampling.
The Effect of Variations in Aridity on West-East Movement of Plant Communities in the Mojave
Desert
An important characteristic of the floral composition of the floor of the Antelope Valley in modern
times is the variation in plant communities, particularly on an east-west axis, on account of variations
in rainfall. This variation in rainfall is reflected in the east to west transition from creosote and
shadscale scrub communities grading into Joshua tree woodland, and then into extensive areas of
Joshua tree – juniper woodland on the western floor of the valley. This vegetation community grades
into juniper woodland, contacting oak woodland in the foothills at the west end of the valley.
This pattern in the distribution of vegetation communities has important implications for Holocene
paleovegetation distributions in the Antelope Valley. A reconstruction of longer-term variations in
rainfall at Edwards AFB indicated that between circa 7700 BP and 1000 BP, average annual
precipitation would have oscillated between approximately 185 mm [7.28 in.] and 145 mm [5.7 in]
(Earle et al. 1997:31). These longer-term variations in average annual rainfall could be seen as
possibly involving a displacement or movement of vegetation communities on the floor of the
Antelope Valley some kilometers to the westward or eastward in response to long-term trends of
more mesic or xeric conditions, rather than creating region-wide floristic “turnover”. At the west end
of the Antelope Valley there may have been plant communities that produced useful food resources
for human populations, even during the most arid periods of the Holocene Maximum.
Reconstruction of Paleoenvironment of the Antelope Valley
Few Antelope Valley-specific paleoenvironmental studies are available in the present literature. The
majority of these Antelope Valley studies have been prepared for Edwards AFB in the eastern portion
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
139
07A3822 Task Order 17
of the valley. For other portions of the Antelope Valley, inferences have to be drawn from the
Edwards AFB data and from larger regional studies of the Mojave Desert.
In 1997, Earle et al. used climate modeling techniques to recreate probable Quaternary paleoclimatic
shifts within Edwards AFB and the Antelope Valley. The resulting climate model for the Antelope
Valley looks similar to that discussed above for the greater Mojave Desert with several significant
variations. These variations between the models may be the result of differences in the modeling
methods or may indicate that the effects of large climatic shifts can vary significantly on a local level.
Overall, the Antelope Valley model shows a pattern of increasing temperatures with associated
decreasing precipitation stretching from the Late Pleistocene to the middle Holocene followed by a
cooling period of increased precipitation in the First Neoglacial period and variable, net decreasing
precipitation and rising temperatures in the Late Holocene. The results of the Antelope Valley climate
model along with other Antelope-Valley specific information are presented below.
Late Pleistocene 17,750 to 14,750 BP
The Antelope Valley model indicates that there was a period of decreasing rainfall between 17,750
and 14,750 BP that resulted in a precipitation decrease of 10% on Edwards AFB, 16% in the San
Gabriel Mountains and 12% in the Tehachapi Mountains. This was followed by a period of high
variability between 14,750 and 12,100 BP that resulted in a net precipitation decrease of 3% on
Edwards AFB, 8% in the San Gabriel Mountains and 8% in the Tehachapi Mountains (Earle et al. 1997).
This decrease in precipitation corresponds to the overall warming trend seen in the Mojave Desert
model following the Last Glacial Maximum in the Late Pleistocene.
In the Late Pleistocene, Lake Thompson dominated much of the eastern Antelope Valley between at
least 30,860 and 17,600 BP. At its peak, the lake stretched from Rogers Dry Lake in the north of the
valley (current Edwards AFB) to Lancaster in the south (Figure 8). Lake Thompson was fed by seasonal
runoff from the San Gabriel and Tehachapi Mountains. Runoff was transported in drainages that are
still in existence today including Big Rock, Little Rock, Amargosa, Los Alamos, Cottonwood, Oak, and
Mohave Creeks. At its highest point, the lake reached 710 meters AMSL and occasionally spilled over
into the Fremont Valley to the North. The peak levels were between 24,000 and 17,000 years ago
(Mehringer 1977; Orme and Yuretich 2004), and there may have been several high water stands that
have not been defined for Lake Thompson. By 17,000 BP, Lake Thompson began a final desiccation
and appears to have been completely dry within a few millennia, although the exact date of
desiccation is unknown. There is evidence that during the time period between the Last Glacial
Maximum and the Pleistocene/Holocene Transition, a shallow perennial Lake Thompson appears to
have persisted, until around 12,600 BP. (Orme 2008; Orme and Yuretich 2004).
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
140
07A3822 Task Order 17
Location: N:\2015\2015-075.017 Antelope Valley Research Design\MAPS\Meeting_Maps_and_Analysis\2018-04-09 Lake Thompson Digitizing\LakeThompsonPDF_Digitized.mxd (AMM)-amyers 4/9/2018
0
M i l es
I
2.5
Map Date: 4/9/2018
Base Source: USGS
Orme 2004
1
5
Map Contents
Pleistocene Lake Thompson Boundary1
Figure 8. Pleistocene Lake Thompson Regional Location
Pleistocene-Holocene Transition (12,100 to 10,100 BP)
Between 12,100 and 10,100 BP, the Antelope Valley climate model indicates that temperature
increased dramatically and another, more drastic drop in precipitation took place. During this time
period, precipitation dropped by 31% at Edwards AFB, 47% in the San Gabriel Mountains, and 30% in
the Tehachapi Mountains (Earle et al. 1997). This differs from the greater Mojave Desert model,
which, among oscillating temperatures following the Last Glacial Maximum, saw a general cooling
trend and a return to near glacial conditions during this period associated with the Younger Dryas.
Vegetation in the Antelope Valley during this period transitioned from woodland to desert scrub.
Based on pack rat midden plant data from Searles Lake, China Lake, and Las Vegas Valley (in areas to
the north and east of Antelope Valley), woodlands were replaced by creosote bush and desert scrub
after 12,100 years ago in the eastern Antelope Valley (Rhode and Lancaster 1996).
Early Holocene (10,100 to 8,100 BP)
The early Holocene was marked by mild temperature and rainfall variability and an overall
precipitation drop of 5% on Edwards AFB, 4% in the San Gabriel Mountains, and 1% in the Tehachapi
Mountains (Earle et al. 1997).
Middle Holocene (8,100 to 4,300 BP)
The Middle Holocene, between 8100 and 4300 BP, once again saw fluctuating precipitation and
temperatures with an abrupt temperature spike around 7900 BP and a precipitation spike around
6300 BP. Overall this period saw a 24% loss of precipitation on Edwards AFB, a 43% loss in the San
Gabriel Mountains, and a 23% loss in the Tehachapi Mountains (Earle et al. 1997). This net decrease
in precipitation corresponds with the general warming trend in the Holocene Maximum. Based on
data from other parts of the Mojave Desert, the modern plant communities of the Antelope Valley
were likely established during this time period, between 5,000 and 4,500 years ago (Koehler and
Anderson 1998; West et al. 2007). Creosote was fully established by 5,500 years ago on Edwards AFB
(Rhode and Lancaster 1996).
The Lake Thompson basin likely had periodic infill events throughout the early and middle Holocene
although the number and levels of these are unknown. The Lake Thompson desiccation moved
eastward as the climate warmed and precipitation decreased, eventually breaking up into Rogers,
Rosamond, and Buckhorn Lakes around 8,000 years ago (Thompson 1929). At least one partial infill
event of the Lake Thompson basin may have occurred during the Mid-Holocene as evidenced by
barrier beach ridge deposits west of Rosamond Lake dated to 6830 BP (Orme and Yuretich 2004).
Late Holocene (4,300 BP to Present)
The Late Holocene is marked by periods of temperature and rainfall variability. The Antelope Valley
model shows a cool and moist period between 4300 to 1900 BP (Earle et al. 1997). During this period
the precipitation increased by 17% at Edwards AFB, 43% in the San Gabriel Mountains, and 17% in
the Tehachapi Mountains. After 1900 BP, temperatures warmed and precipitation was reduced to pre4300 BP levels, reaching a low during a hotter and dryer period circa 300 BP (Earle et al. 1997).
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
142
07A3822 Task Order 17
According to the model, peaks in precipitation occurred around 3900 and 1900 BP. The climate
model for the Antelope Valley varies from that of the greater Mojave Desert. The model for the
Mojave Desert shows a high degree of variability within the Late Holocene, as does the Antelope
Valley model. Both models show a wetter cooling period between 4,000 and 2,000 BP associated
with the First Neoglacial followed by a hot dry period associated with the Medieval Climatic
Anomaly. However, the larger Mojave Desert model includes a cooler, wetter period between 600
and 150 BP associated with the Little Ice Age; in contrast the Antelope Valley model indicates a
precipitation drop around 300 BP.
Vegetation in the Antelope Valley was similar to that seen today. Mesquite was established in the
Antelope Valley around 4300 years ago (Schroth 1987). Later in time, during the ethnohistoric period
(later part of Little Ice Age), Joshua tree and Prosopis spp. (mesquite) were important food plants.
Based on data from Edwards AFB, it is assumed that there were no major changes in vegetation of
Antelope Valley from Middle Holocene to present day (Rhode and Lancaster 1996).
During the Late Holocene through modern era, the remnants of Pleistocene Lake Thompson,
consisting of Rosamond, Buckhorn, and Roger’s Lakes, intermittently filled with seasonal water runoff
during heavy rain years and major flood events. During this period small playa basins and stable
dunes along the margins of Rosamond and Rogers dry lakes provided natural catch basins for water
runoff and rainfall from areas throughout the Antelope Valley. These small ponds were able to retain
water for relatively long lengths of time, attracting birds and sustaining plant growth (Norwood
1989). In addition, prior to the arrival of Europeans, the water table was high within the Antelope
Valley, leading to multiple springs, seeps, and marshes throughout the valley (Sutton 1988b).
Research Questions and Data Needs
Paleoclimate of the Antelope Valley
The following three questions and data requirements pertain to reconstructions of the
paleoclimate of the Antelope Valley.
Questions
1) What are the number, timing, and extent of the various infill events associated with Lake Thompson
and its residual lakes, Rosamond, Rogers, and Buckhorn?
Lake Thompson began its final desiccation following the LGM around 17,000 BP and there is
evidence of a shallow perennial lake until around 12,600 BP. In the fluctuating climatic conditions
that followed the LGM, Lake Thompson likely experienced intermittent infill events that may have
persisted for up to several hundred years before drying again. There was likely at least one partial
infill event of the Lake Thompson basin around 6830 BP. However, evidence of additional infill
events, their depth, shorelines, and timing, is lacking from the known record.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
143
07A3822 Task Order 17
2) How did the six major Late Pleistocene and Holocene climatic events affect the Antelope Valley? Do
the effects of these regional and global climatic shifts vary significantly on a local level?
The two climatic models reported here, for the greater Mojave Desert and the Antelope Valley, have
several discrepancies. One important difference is the precipitation during the Little ice Age because
the Antelope Valley model shows a precipitation low during the global cooling trend associated with
the Little Ice Age, but the Mojave Desert model does not. Are these discrepancies an effect of
differing methods used to derive the models or do they indicate that regional and global climatic
changes did have variable effects at the local level? If the differences are proven to be accurate, these
regional variations have important implications for settlement patterns in the Mojave Desert in
general.
3) How did climatic changes affect the availability of resources (e.g., water, vegetation, and fauna)
within the Antelope Valley? Did the presence of the high water table, perennial springs, and seeps
during pre-contac times buffer the effects of the climatic shifts?
Climate studies have indicated that climate in the Antelope Valley has fluctuated between cooler,
wetter periods and hotter, dryer periods. These have been accompanied by an upland shift in
woodland vegetation and intermittent lake infill events. The high water table and presence of
perennial springs may have helped buffer the effects of these shifts, allowing plants, animals, and
humans to occupy otherwise uninhabitable portions of the valley during dryer periods.
Data Needs
Identifying lake stand and infill events will require trenching, coring, and other geological studies
tailored toward identifying and dating individual laminated lakebed surfaces, and lakeshore
formations (i.e., creek delta deposits and beach deposits). Additional paleoclimate studies can be
used to identify the specific effects of major climatic events on the Antelope Valley and, in turn, to
predict the availability of resources within the Valley through the Late Pleistocene and Holocene.
Determining the effects of springs and seeps on the inhabitability of the valley during dry periods
will require determining the periods that springs were active and researching their use through time.
Dating tufa rocks deposited by springs (where present) using uranium or radiocarbon dating
techniques may be able to indicate the time period and duration that the springs were active. In
addition, archaeological evidence from spring sites may be used to indicate whether or not areas
around the springs/seeps were occupied during drier climatic periods. Studies of pollen, phytolith,
and macrobotanical specimens can be used to provide insight into vegetation communities.
Vegetation in the Antelope Valley
All reconstruction of past vegetation is based on data from the Central Mojave, Northern Mojave and
Eastern Mojave Desert areas. There is little or no paleo-vegetation data from the Antelope Valley.
Therefore, it is imperative that future archaeological and paleoenvironmental studies in the Antelope
Valley should include investigations tailored to address research questions about the paleoclimate
with a focus on the paleovegetation.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
144
07A3822 Task Order 17
4) Is piñon-juniper woodland vegetation the primary vegetation prior to 12,000 years ago in the
Antelope Valley, including the playas and foothills? If so, how did the geo-topography of the Antelope
Valley (a basin that slopes slightly from west to east) affect the vegetation? How did changing lake
levels in Lake Thompson and its successor remnant lakes affect vegetation in the eastern Antelope
Valley?
Paleobotanical remains from pack rat middens outside Antelope Valley have revealed that much of
the Mojave Desert, north and east of the Antelope Valley, had piñon-juniper woodland vegetation
prior to 12,000 years ago. However, no such studies have taken place in the Antelope Valley.
Antelope Valley has playas and foothills and it would be critical to understand if this part of the
western Mojave Desert also had similar vegetation. For example, Koehler et al. (2005) have suggested
that woodland vegetation may have been present in the southwestern part of the Mojave Desert as
late as 7,800 years ago (Altithermal), followed by a transition to desert shrub vegetation.
Lake Thompson had peak water levels between 24,000 and 12,000 years ago (Mehringer 1977). After
12,000 years ago when the climate became drier and warmer, there were some high lake stands
(between 14,500 and 8000 years ago) that could have occurred at Lake Thompson (based on data for
Lake Mohave). Research should address if and how these periodic higher lake levels affected the
vegetation in the Antelope Valley.
5) Given that the elevation of the Antelope Valley is somewhat higher than the Central Mojave Desert,
does the reconstruction of the evolution of vegetation for the Central Mojave Desert apply to the
Antelope Valley? Did the Pleistocene vegetation associations persist for a longer period into the
Holocene in the Antelope Valley?
This research issue is related to the previous question, in that all reconstructions for paleovegetation
in the Antelope Valley are based on data from outside the area, despite the valley being at a high
elevation.
6) Data from Edwards AFB in the northeastern part of the Antelope Valley indicate that woodlands
were replaced by creosote bush and desert scrub after 12,000 years ago, and that creosote bush was the
dominant vegetation by 5,500 years ago. Was the timing of these changes in vegetation similar in
other portions of the Antelope Valley?
As dry conditions increased in the Mojave Desert with the Late Pleistocene-Early Holocene transition,
the piñon-juniper woodlands retreated to the uplands and mountains, and more arid vegetation
replaced the woodlands. This reconstruction has been applied generally to the Antelope Valley;
however, there have been no investigations to document this change in the Antelope Valley, and
also no data on the pace of this change in the valley foothills versus the playas. The variation and
pace would have important implications to human settlement and adaptations.
7) Based on data from Edwards AFB, and from the Northern and Central Mojave Desert, it is assumed
that there were no major changes in vegetation of Antelope Valley from middle Holocene to present
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
145
07A3822 Task Order 17
day. Can this be confirmed with studies in the valley? Or are differences expected based on differences
in elevation?
Several scholars (Mehringer 1977; Rhode and Lancaster 1996; West el al. 2007) have concluded that
the Mojave Desert vegetation became similar to that of today during the Middle Holocene, although
there are regional differences. However, very little is known about vegetation during the MCA and
Little Ice Age. Future research should address the character of vegetation during the MCA and Little
Ice Age specifically in the Antelope Valley. Furthermore, it should examine how changes may have
been different, depending on variations in elevation in the Antelope Valley. Micro-climatic changes in
the Antelope Valley would have a profound effect on changes and continuity of vegetation.
8) What is the timing of initial establishment of historically identifiable plant communities?
Today, Antelope Valley is primarily characterized by saltbush scrub and creosote bush scrub
vegetation on the valley floor and lake bed, with juniper/yucca/ on the foothill slopes that frame the
valley. It would be important for archaeological interpretations to have a fine-grained reconstruction
that defines the precise timing of when the saltbush and creosote bush scrub vegetation dominated
the valley floors (after the movement of juniper woodland to higher elevations).
9) What effects from variations in aridity are discernable on the west-east movement of plant
community ecotones?
Piñon juniper woodland that covered much of the Mojave Desert in the late Pleistocene-Early
Holocene was replaced by desert thermophiles; furthermore, the piñon and juniper moved upslope
as the temperatures increased. This pattern has not been specifically studied in the Antelope Valley.
Research should focus on collecting data to investigate if and at what pace the westward movement
of piñon and juniper occurred in the valley; and the timing of the disappearance of the woodlands
from the valley floor.
10) What resources were available to hunter-gatherer populations through time as a result of changes
in ecosystems?
Fine-grain analysis of vegetational changes in the Late Holocene is needed to study the range of
plant resources that would have been available to human populations and to see if there were
vegetation changes in micro-niches in the Antelope Valley that would have had a direct effect on
human adaptation. The fine-grain vegetational reconstruction for the Late Holocene in the Antelope
Valley also has implications for which animals would have been supported in the environment.
11) What possible effects or influence did human populations have on ancient ecosystems?
Humans have unintentionally and/or intentionally have had an often-irreversible influence on ancient
ecosystems. For example, Spanish colonization of California resulted not only in devastating cultural
change to the Native Americans, but also had immense effects on the native vegetation which in turn
had an effect on how some animal populations changed their grazing areas and migration patterns.
The introduced plants replaced native grasses and ultimately imbalanced the ecosystem (Minnich
2008). The effect of such colonizing plants on Antelope Valley vegetation as a result of EuroArchaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
146
07A3822 Task Order 17
American contact will provide valuable insight into how the change in vegetation could have
impacted the adaptations of the Native Americans. In addition, some plants like Filaree (Erodium
circutarium) came into California prior to the colonial period, and current understanding is that they
may have been brought in by migratory birds and animals (Scott and Byrne 1998).
Data Needs
Very specific paleovegetation data is needed to address the research questions identified above.
These data include paleobotanical samples from pack rat middens with good chronological control,
and pollen samples from sediment cores from preserved cut banks with deep and well-distinguished
stratigraphy. In addition, these samples should be obtained from a variety of settings: valley floors,
playas, and foothills, to best reconstruct changes in vegetation by elevation over time.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
147
07A3822 Task Order 17
Theme: Settlement Patterns and Social Organization
Theoretical orientions and methods for studdying settlement patterns are presented in the
approximate order they were developed, followed by a reconstruction of possible settlement
patterns and social organization by time period for the Antelope Valley.
Settlement Patterns and Settlement Systems
One of the earlier definitions of settlement pattern studies was offered defined by Willey (1953:1) in
the introduction to the report of a survey of the Viru Valley, Peru. He defined such studies as the way
in which humans occupied and exploited the physical landscape. Settlement pattern studies refer to:
dwellings, to their arrangement, and to the nature and disposition of other buildings
pertaining to community life. These settlements reflect the natural environment, the
level of technology on which the builders operated, and various institutions of social
interaction and control which the culture maintained.
As with the Viru Valley study, most settlement pattern studies undertaken during the 1950s and
1960s were conducted in areas previously occupied by agricultural societies and which included the
remains of structures and dense surface distributions of ceramics. Parsons (1972) discussed the
problems of sampling, refining chronology, and paleoenvironmental reconstruction in settlement
pattern studies. Adequate sampling was necessary in order to “measure the full range of regional
variation in a number of key variables, including both archaeological and environmental features”
(Parsons 1972:146). In order to study settlements, it is necessary to demonstrate the
contemporaneity of archaeological features. Paleoenvironmental reconstruction is necessary in order
to study the distribution of past settlements in relation to the distribution of available resources.
The concept of settlement system emerged from studies in economic geography in Germany during
the 1930s. The goal of these studies was to explain locational patterns and functional
interdependence between towns and surrounding areas. Settlement systems in archaeology were
first discussed by Howard D. Winters in his dissertation on the Riverton Culture of Illinois, later
published as a monograph (Winters 1969). Winters distinguished between settlement pattern and
settlement system. Settlement patterns refer to "the geographic and physiographic relationships of a
contemporaneous group of sites within a single culture" (Winters 1969:110). However, in order to
describe a settlement system, "the functional relationships among the sites contained within the
settlement pattern" must be specified (Winters 1969:110). Winters (1969:111) noted that information
on seasonality ("degree of permanence in habitation"), technology, features, and subsistence pattern
are necessary to begin to describe the settlement system.
A more detailed discussion of the settlement system concept has been provided by Parsons
(1974:83) who, following Winters (1969), defined a settlement system as "functional relationships of
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
148
07A3822 Task Order 17
sites within a region." Parsons (1974:83) provides an example of a simple settlement system which
might consist of:
a large base camp, where all the population of an area spends much of its time
during an annual cycle, together with a series of smaller camps where small groups of
people from the main base camp live for shorter periods while they are away from
the main camp on seasonal hunting expeditions, etc.
Parsons (1974:83) defines four parameters which must be specified in order to adequately
reconstruct a settlement system. These are:
1. the limits of the settlement system;
2. the spatial distribution of occupation (settlement pattern);
3. the contemporaneity of occupational remains; and
4. the functions of occupational loci.
In most cases, the limits of the system are difficult to establish but are likely to correspond to a
group’s territory. The spatial distribution of occupation refers to the location of sites with respect to
topographic features (e.g., near mouths of canyons) and resources (e.g., acorn gathering areas).
The third parameter, contemporaneity of occupational remains, refers to the span of time that each
site was occupied. Ideally, the goal is to reconstruct the settlement system at specific points in time.
Reconstruction of settlement and subsistence requires the development of a detailed and
comprehensive chronology of sites and activity areas within sites to determine if sites were
contemporary and could have functioned as part of the same system. At a more detailed level, it is
also necessary to determine whether activity areas within sites were in use at the same or different
times. Related to this is the problem of seasonality. Some sites were probably occupied only for a
season or part of a season during any specific yearly cycle and, therefore, were not occupied at the
same time of the year as other sites used during other seasons.
One of the most challenging problems in archaeological research is determining the function of
occupational loci, the fourth parameter listed previously. This problem "lies at the very heart of
settlement systems analysis" (Parsons 1974:83). At each site or occupational locus within a complex
site, certain activities were performed. Reconstructing these activities is a major goal of settlement
systems analysis.
Foragers and Collectors
Binford (1980) proposed a continuum of hunter–gatherer adaptive strategies, known as the foragercollector model, for coping with unfavorable mixes of population and resources in space (too many
people or too few resources at any given place) or time (too many people or too few resources in a
season). When resources are fairly abundant everywhere, but can become exhausted in any one
location, the group moves to a new location where resources are more abundant. Thus, foragers
move the local group to the resources (residential mobility). However, if environmental productivity
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
149
07A3822 Task Order 17
is low and resources are distributed differentially, task groups go out to collect different kinds of
resources at greater distances from the main settlement (residential base) and bring them back to
the group. Thus, collectors move resources to the group (logistical mobility).
According to Binford (1980), these differing strategies of resource procurement should produce
distinct patterns in the archaeological record with regard to site types. For foragers (residentially
mobile groups), at least two associated site types are expected: the residential base and the location.
Residential bases were defined as places where a wide range of activities occurred associated with
everyday living, and included “most processing, manufacturing, and maintenance activities” (Binford
1980:9). Locations were nearby sites where specific resources would have been obtained but
minimally processed. For collectors (logistically mobile groups), Binford identified three additional
site types in addition to residential bases and locations: field camps (or temporary camps), stations,
and caches. Field camps (temporary camps hereinafter) were defined as temporary encampment
areas located where the distance from the residential base required overnight stays by the task
groups that used them. Stations were information-gathering sites (mostly used by hunters), and
caches were temporary storage localities for large bulk items. (See below for more information on
these site types.)
Foragers typically operate out of a residential base which is frequently moved as resources around
the residential base are depleted. The forager strategy is successful only if the necessary resources
are always available from each new residential base. If this kind of relatively uniform distribution of
resources is not present, a collector strategy may be more efficient. Collectors occupy residential
bases which may be moved only a few times a year or not at all. Small specially organized task
groups are sent out from the residential base to collect resources. Thus, one task group may go out
to collect one resource located in one direction from the residential base, while another may travel in
the opposite direction to collect another. These task groups may stay overnight away from the base
camp, establishing field camps (temporary camps), a site type not found among foragers. Collectors
also practice food storage while foragers usually do not. Large quantities of a seasonally available
and storable resource, such as acorns, can be brought back to the residential base by collectors and
stored for later consumption during seasons when fewer resources are available. Storage promotes
maintaining the residential base in the same location (greater sedentism) in order to access the
stored resources and increases even greater reliance on logistical procurement.
The differences between foragers and collectors should be represented as a continuum, not a
dichotomy. Many groups practiced elements of both strategies. In many cases, the kind of
settlement-subsistence strategy employed by a group varied with the season. When resources were
abundant throughout the area, the group may have followed a forager strategy (residential mobility),
but when resources of different kinds were less abundant and were available only in certain
dispersed locations or only in a certain season, they may have pursued a collector strategy (logistical
mobility).
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
150
07A3822 Task Order 17
Binford's (1980) causal model for the development of a logistic pattern was based on climate: the
colder the effective temperature, the more a group would have to rely on stored foods during the
less productive part of the year. However, this model does not account for the presence of many
logistically organized societies in the temperate zones of the world. Hayden (1986) contends that
logistic strategies are adaptive for procuring r-selected resources. R-selected resources have short
reproductive cycles and produce large numbers of offspring, each of which individually is a small
food package. Examples are seeds, nuts, fish, birds, and small mammals. This contrasts with kselected resources which have long reproductive cycles and produce few, but relatively large,
offspring which are protected by their parents. Most k-selected resources are large mammals such as
elk, bighorn sheep, deer, bear, mountain lion, etc. While r-selected resources are abundant and
reliable, they have much higher processing and storage costs. Thus, a logistic settlement system with
storage and a semi-sedentary settlement pattern is an adaptation to expending additional energy to
harvest large amounts of storable r-selected resources on a reliable basis.
Foragers, on the other hand, are opportunists and generalists who exploit limited, scarce, and
unpredictable resources, usually k-selected large mammals in combination with large package plant
foods such as tubers and some r-selected resources which do not require a great amount of
processing time and which are usually not stored.
Thomas (1983) proposed a simple scheme of three settlement strategy models for the Great Basin
based on ethnographic examples. The first settlement strategy is characterized by fission, small
groups foraging throughout a territory in a seasonal round. This is similar to the forager end of
Binford's forager-collector continuum. A second strategy is characterized by fission-fusion where the
group maintains a central base for part of the year and breaks up into smaller mobile groups the rest
of the year. This strategy combines collector and forager strategies. The third strategy, fusion, is
characterized by a semi-permanent village to which collector parties bring back resources. The fusion
model is at the collector end of Binford's continuum.
The three settlement strategies proposed by Thomas (1983) are influenced by resource distribution.
The storable resource available in the Great Basin region studied by Thomas is pinyon pine nuts. The
degree of sedentism is directly related to the abundance and spatial relationship of this resource to
other resources. Groups practicing a fission strategy have sparse dispersed pinyon groves located at
a distance from other resources. At the other extreme, groups practicing a fusion strategy, such as in
the Owens Valley, have dense stands of pinyon directly adjacent to Valley resources, such as seeds.
Thomas (1983:76-81) has provided a detailed set of expectations for sites generated by collectors in
the Great Basin. Residential bases established by collectors are located near food, water, and fuel,
and have characteristic structures, facilities, and artifact assemblages. Structures and facilities include
houses (usually randomly distributed), sweat houses, cache or storage features, cemeteries, public
space, a debris disposal area, and food procurement facilities such as dams and weirs. The artifact,
floral, and faunal assemblage includes:
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
151
07A3822 Task Order 17
1. food preparation and consumption tools;
2. food preparation and consumption by-products (hearths, faunal and floral remains);
3. tools for making and repairing other tools, raw materials, and by-products;
4. stored and cached food and raw materials;
5. children’s toys; and
6. luxury, ceremonial, recreational items.
Residential bases have evidence for intentional planned tool production. All lithic production stages
are represented for local raw materials. Tool production debris and food waste are usually so
abundant such that they are disposed of in secondary refuse areas. Floral and faunal remains exhibit
higher richness (more species) compared to other site types.
Field camps or temporary camps are "temporary centers of operation for special purpose task
groups" (Thomas 1983:79). They are usually established to obtain either plants or animals, but not
both. Temporary camps are task specific and usually occupied for a short period of time varying from
one or two nights to two to three weeks. Caves and rockshelters are often used as temporary camps
(Thomas 1983:80). The artifact assemblage consists of specialized implements for resource
procurement and extraction. The initial stages of tool production are usually not represented. Food
consumption may consist of "snacking" on less desirable faunal parts which are not transported back
to the residential base. It should be expected that temporary camps would exhibit little internal
structure since these locations were likely used for short periods and for specific purposes. The
remains at these camps should represent a relatively narrow range of activities, likely focused on the
procurement of very specific resources (Binford 1980).
Other site types associated with collectors include caches and locations. Caches are where food or
artifacts are stored for use in another season or for the next time that environmental zone will be
visited. Items for trade may also be cached, which reduces the transport cost. Locations are where
food and other resource procurement activities take place. They may include hunting blinds, fishing
weirs, and places where seeds and nuts are collected.
The logistic strategy has characteristic concentric bands of activities centered on the residential base
(Thomas 1983:88). The campground radius extends out about 1 km from the residential base and is
the zone in which firewood, water, raw material for manufacturing, and plants for medicine are
collected. The foraging radius extends about 10 km from the residential base and is systematically
exploited by task groups from the residential base. Locations are found within the foraging radius.
Temporary camps are established in the logistic radius beyond 10 km where specialized task groups
stay overnight instead of returning to the base camp because of the distance involved.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
152
07A3822 Task Order 17
Internal Site Structure
Archaeologists have tried to study internal site structure of hunter-gatherer sites by looking at the
spatial
distribution
of
functional
artifact
types
to
reconstruct
activity
areas.
However,
ethnoarchaeological studies have shown that assumptions made by archaeologists in defining
activity areas may be in error (Kroll and Price 1991). Ethnoarchaeological studies have shown that it
should not be assumed:
•
•
•
that sites are divided into activity-specific areas
that artifacts reflecting particular activities were produced in proportion to the frequency
with which particular activities were performed, or
that refuse is deposited at or near where it was produced.
Thus, it cannot be inferred that “objects found together in archaeological context, however
consistently, were used together in the same activity in the past” (O’Connell 1987:105).
An ethnoarchaeological study of the Alyawara, mobile hunter-gatherers in Australia, found that most
activities conducted by a household took place in household activity areas in and around a house.
Some activities took place in peripheral areas when shade or other variables were better at those
locations. When an Alyawara residential base is seen as an archaeological site, several large clusters
of refuse are present, each marking the location of a household area with their adjacent specialactivity areas and secondary refuse areas. The refuse clusters, which mark the remains of these
household areas, display little internal structure and most clusters contain similar artifacts and food
waste. While site structure appears to be simple and undifferentiated among mobile foragers, site
structure may be more complex among semi-sedentary collectors who practice food storage
(O’Connell 1987:105).
An ethnoarchaeological study of the modern Basarwa of southern Africa showed that as residential
mobility decreased, the abundance and diversity of debris left in a site increased, as did site size and
the number of storage features (Kelly 1992). In addition, the sedentary Basarwa used secondary trash
dumps located farther from houses, rather creating refuse deposits in and around household areas
which is characteristic of the mobile Alyawara.
Study of CA-ORA-662, a Late Prehistoric site in the San Joaquin Hills of Orange County (Mason
2008), provides confirmation that residential bases of collectors have a more complex internal site
structure. Large amounts of food waste consisting of animal bone and shell are distributed around
fire-affected rock features in the southern part of the site which indicates that food processing and
general residential activities took place there. A location for secondary refuse dumping was in the
central part of the site. High counts of lithic debitage and lithic and shell manufacturing tools and
artifacts were found to the north of the refuse dump, suggesting a work area. This provides
archaeological corroboration from a site in southern California that residential bases of collectors
have a more complex, internally differentiated site structure compared to those of mobile foragers.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
153
07A3822 Task Order 17
Mobility
The study of hunter-gatherer settlement systems includes looking at mobility strategies which refer
to “the nature of the seasonal movements of hunter-gatherers across a landscape” (Kelly 1983:277).
The mobility strategies discussed by Kelly (1983, 1992, 2007) are mostly based on ethnographic
studies of modern hunter-gatherers. Hunter-gatherer mobility strategies are related to the
distribution of food resources in the environment and are based on Binford’s (1980) discussion of
residential mobility (foragers) and logistical mobility (collectors). There are different variables to
consider for residential mobility strategies versus logistical mobility strategies (Kelly 1983:278-279).
The key variables for residential mobility are:
1. number of residential moves per year;
2. average distance per residential move;
3. total distance covered through residential mobility per year;
4. total area covered per year; and
5. length of occupation of a winter (or rainy season) site.
The key variables for logistical mobility are:
1. the average one-way distance covered between a residential base and a field camp
(temporary camp); and
2. the average total duration for a round-trip from a residential base to a field camp.
The residential mobility variables, such as number of residential moves per year and average distance
per residential move, are influenced by the distribution of food resources which are affected by
environmental variables including primary biomass, effective temperature, and rainfall. Resource
accessibility is based on resource dispersion, size, and location.
Because many plant and animal resources are only available during particular seasons or for limited
periods of time, resource monitoring is often necessary to determine where and when a resource is
most abundant. Resource monitoring may include the availability of water, especially in desert
environments. When foragers decide to move their residential base, the location to which they
decide to move may be based on the results of resource monitoring (Kelly 1983).
Long-term mobility refers to variations in mobility strategy over many years or decades. As the
availability and distribution of resources change due to environmental change (a period of drought,
for example), mobility strategies can change as groups exploit other nearby areas and different
resources (Binford 1983; Kelly 1992).
Optimal foraging theory provides a framework for understanding the relationship between the
degree of hunter-gatherer mobility and subsistence strategies. Foragers move their residential base
to a new location when the availability of resources within the foraging radius around the residential
base reaches a point of diminishing returns. This occurs when the amount of food available near the
residential base declines and people have to travel greater distances from the residential base to find
food. At this point, it is easier to move the residential base to a new location where resources are
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
154
07A3822 Task Order 17
more abundant or less costly to obtain. However, as the cost of moving the residential base increases
relative to the benefit of foraging in a new location, foragers will remain longer in the current
residential base. Thus, the decision to move is based on the costs of foraging around the residential
base (including travel time to the resource and transport time to bring the resources back) versus the
cost to move the residential base to the new location, as well as the perceived benefits of the greater
availability of resources at the planned new residential base location (Kelly 1992). If it is not certain
that resources will be more abundant at the new location, the risks involved with moving to the new
location increase the cost of moving and the group may stay longer at the original residential base.
Variables other than obtaining food can affect foragers’ decisions to move. In a desert environment,
water availability is an important factor in deciding when to move. A group may decide to stay near a
known water source longer rather than moving to a different water source where the availability of
water is uncertain (Kelly 2007:145). Other variables can include gaining access to firewood or lithic
raw materials, to avoid annoying insects, or moving for social or political reasons, such as to seek
spouses, allies, or shamans, or to move in response to sorcery or death (Kelly 1992).
Collectors move their residential base less often than foragers and may be entirely sedentary
(remaining in the same residential base or village year-round). Sedentism may be seen as a process
in which human groups reduce their mobility, making fewer and fewer residential base moves within
a year until they reach a point where they remain residentially stationary year-round. However,
sedentary settlement systems may include those in which only part of the population remains at the
same location throughout the entire year (Kelly 1992). Hunting or foraging parties may leave the
residential base and return later with procured resources.
Two contrasting hypotheses have been proposed for the causes of sedentism, known as the “pull”
hypothesis and the “push” hypothesis (Kelly 1992). In the pull hypothesis it is assumed that if
resources are abundant in a particular location, the result will always be sedentism. It was assumed
that sedentism was a more efficient means of resource procurement because it saves the cost of
moving. The localized abundant resources which acted as a pull to sedentism were thought to be
marine resources, wetlands resources, and agricultural resources. However, there are many examples
of groups that relied on agriculture but were still mobile. For sedentary hunter-gatherers in
California, the localized abundant resources were plant foods which could be stored. The pull
hypothesis may not be a good explanation for sedentism because abundant localized resources may
not reduce mobility (Kelly 1992).
In the "push" hypothesis hunter-gatherers are forced into sedentism by subsistence stress (a
shortage of food supply relative to population size) which results in intensification of resource
procurement, taking a greater range of foods and spending more time in harvesting and processing
them. Often the harvested foods are then stored, which provides abundant food at a single location,
resulting in sedentism. Intensification may be caused by population increase, climatic change, and
territorial constriction. For mobile groups, costs are associated with moving the residential base. For
sedentary groups costs are associated with intensification. The costs of moving may increase
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
155
07A3822 Task Order 17
unacceptably if regional population density is high and if, in order to move to a new location, it is
necessary to displace another group (Kelly 1992).
Hunter-Gatherer Settlement and Social Organization in California
Bettinger (2015) suggests that “hunter-gatherer [resource] intensification is as much a social
phenomenon as a subsistence phenomenon” (Bettinger 2015:30). A well-documented regional
sequence of settlement systems (mobility strategies) and subsistence systems (interaction between
technology and food resources) is necessary to develop models for the shift to greater intensification
(more intensive use of resources). Bettinger (2015) uses the well-documented regional sequence for
the Owens Valley of eastern California in his discussions.
Intensive hunting and gathering developed in the Owens Valley after circa A.D. 450 based on
intensification of green cone pinyon (pine nuts) (Eerkens et al. 2004). Based on this hypothesis,
population growth did not cause intensification (contra Basgall 1987 and Beaton 1991); population
growth was a result of intensification. The trigger for the intensification of pine nuts among Owens
Valley groups was the adoption of the bow and arrow circa A.D. 450.
Prior to A.D. 450 groups were primarily mobile hunters using atlatls (spear throwers). Atlatls are
inaccurate and can only be used at close range. The element of surprise is lost after the first shot.
Therefore, multiple shots from a group of hunters are needed to take down a mountain sheep or
even a deer. According to Bettinger (2015), group size was relatively large among hunters using
atlatls, and meat was shared among the group (resource pooling to decrease subsistence risk). The
uncertainty of large game procurement using an atlatl resulted in resource pooling (sharing) within
large groups to reduce risk. Although the size of each group was relatively large, the regional
population that could be supported by large game hunting was small, only about 13% of the
ethnographic population (Bettinger 2015:41).
Because the bow and arrow is silent, one person can take multiple shots without losing the element
of surprise. The bow and arrow is also more accurate from a longer distance and can hit smaller prey.
An individual hunter can be successful using a bow and arrow, and group size can be reduced to
perhaps an extended family (a bilateral family band) with reduced mobility. Mobility can be reduced
because an individual hunter with a bow and arrow can take large numbers of smaller game from a
smaller area, instead of having to travel long distances with a group to hunt mountain sheep. In the
Owens Valley the number of rabbits, hares, and marmots double in faunal assemblages after A.D.
600. With greater hunting success using a bow and arrow in the local area, there was less incentive to
move. Archaeologically, this is reflected in a decreased number of temporary hunting camps after
A.D. 600 (Bettinger 2015).
With the decrease in residential mobility, plant procurement increased around the residential base.
With the decreased availability of big game and the increased use of small mammals there was less
fat in the diet. Fat and additional carbohydrates were instead obtained from plants. Thus, the
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
156
07A3822 Task Order 17
decrease in residential mobility led to intensified plant procurement and an increase in population
after A.D. 600 (Bettinger 2015).
The shift from larger groups to smaller groups of closely related people (likely a bilateral family
band) made it possible to share within the small group plant foods that required more processing
time compared to animals. In large groups “freeloaders” would want to take some of the plant foods
after a great deal of labor was invested in processing them. It is likely that the freeloader would not
be closely related to the individual who processed the food. In smaller groups of closely related
people it is less likely that there would be freeloaders since everyone was closely related and the
results of intensive plant food processing could be shared only among the members of the closely
related group. Because of the freeloader problem, in large groups it is not likely that labor would be
invested in intensive plant food processing when the products of that labor would have to be shared
with others who did not work as hard. In smaller groups of closely related family members, people
were more likely to invest labor in intensive plant food processing (Bettinger 2015). The transition
from large groups of hunters to smaller groups of plant food processors initiated the change from
travelers to processors originally described by Bettinger and Baumhoff (1982).
By A.D. 1250 pinyon nuts were being stored in the Owens Valley. The social rules of food sharing
changed so that stored food became private property. There would be no reason to store plant
foods that required major processing work if the stored foods had to be shared outside the small
group that processed the food. Storage of pinyon began relatively late in the cultural sequence
because pinyon production was unreliable from year to year. Only 20% of pinyon groves were
productive in a given year. Intensification of small seed use with private storage of seeds began
about A.D. 1200 in Owens Valley. The combination of both intensive pinyon and seed processing and
private storage of pinyon and seeds led to population increase and the establishment of Valley floor
villages (sedentism) (Bettinger 2015).
Because oak groves produce acorns more reliably and in greater quantities, privatized storage of
acorns began earlier in central California compared to storage of pinyon in Owens Valley. Intensive
acorn use in central California began between 2,000 B.C. and A.D. 1000, depending on the
geographic area (Basgall 1987). Privatized storage of acorns probably began about A.D. 1000 in
central California. The greater reliability of production of individual oak groves also led to private
ownership of oak groves as well as the stored acorns. Intensification and storage of small seeds also
took place (Bettinger 2015).
The change in social rules regarding ownership of stored intensively processed plant foods and
ownership of oak groves led to the need to defend them. The development of defended territories
led to a change in social organization. The bilateral family band, which was composed of relatives of
both the father and mother, changed into a small patrilineal exogamous band where only the males
were closely related. A small group of related males using the bow and arrow could defend a
territory of privately owned oak groves. As population grew, competition increased which increased
the need for territorial defense, leading to the development of larger patrilineal exogamous sibs (a
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
157
07A3822 Task Order 17
patrilineage with great time depth) or clans (the term used among the Serrano) which could defend
larger territories. The sib or clan was composed of a single lineage. The group of related males
defended the products of female subsistence labor (the gathered and processed plant foods that
were stored) and defended the territory against raiding by neighboring groups which may have had
food shortages or whose water source (usually a spring) dried up (Bettinger 2015).
Among most Takic-speaking groups in southern California, social organization stayed at the level of
patrilineal sib or clan. However, among the Gabrielino and in central California, tribelets, composed
of more than one sib or patrilineage, developed. Following Murdock (1949:208), Bettinger (2015:121)
believes that changes in subsistence organization led to changes in social organization. In other
words, privatization of stored foods and ownership of oak groves caused competitive pressures that
led to the development of patrilineal descent groups (sibs). Thus, according to Bettinger (2015:124),
southern California sibs or clans were the result of resource competition fueled by population
growth.
As an alternate to the model presented by Bettinger (2015), it is possible that the social organization
based on exogamous patrilineages seen in the Mission Period was already present among the Takicspeaking groups when they arrived in the southern Antelope Valley. This type of social organization
may have been a cultural characteristic of Takic-speaking groups. Each exogamous patrilineage (clan)
may have established a territory upon arrival. Subsistence for these early Takic groups may already
have been focused on small seeds. As population grew within the territory, seeds were stored. As
population further increased, acorns, which produced large energy yields and could be stored, but
also required large amounts of processing time (intensification), were added to the diet. Note that if
exogamous patrilineages (clans) existed from the beginning, there would be no freeloader problem
because the clan consisted entirely of a group of closely related males, so that sharing and storage
would not cause conflict.
In the first model, changes in the organization of settlement and subsistence (intensification and
storage within a permanent residential base or village) led to changes in social organization
(development of exogamous patrilineages or clans), as proposed by Murdock (1949) and Bettinger
(2015). In the alternate model, territorial exogamous patrilineages are present from the beginning (in
other words, this type of social organization was a cultural characteristic of Takic groups) and this led
to population increase and circumscription, leading to subsistence changes (intensification and
storage of plant foods). So, the question is, do changes in the organization of subsistence lead to
changes in social organization, as proposed by Murdock and Bettinger, or does a specific kind of
pre-existing social organization lead to changes in settlement and subsistence?
Forager Versus Collector Settlement Organization: Archaeological Expectations
The mobility strategies discussed by Kelly (1983, 1992, 2007) and others are mostly based on
ethnographic studies of modern hunter-gatherers. It has been difficult to apply these
ethnographically derived mobility strategies using archaeological data. In order to test hypotheses
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
158
07A3822 Task Order 17
about mobility and sedentism, the nature, distribution, and availability of both used and unused
resources must be documented. Some archaeologists have argued that bifacial tools or cores are
generally associated with frequent residential moves, while expedient flake tools and bipolar
reduction are associated with infrequent residential moves. Others have suggested that a greater
diversity of tools is associated with collectors. However, these relationships between stone tool
technology and mobility have not been demonstrated and are seen by Kelly as “subjective, intuitive,
and sometimes contradictory” (Kelly 1992:56). Based on the discussion above, three different
variables may be used to distinguish degree of mobility/settlement organization of hunter-gatherer
populations: (1) settlement organization and site structures, (2) food remains, and (3) artifact
assemblages.
Settlement Organization and Site Structures
It has been hypothesized that the longer a location is inhabited, the more structurally complex it will
be (O’Connell 1987:99–102). For residential bases, discrete clusters of features and associated
middens within a site area are likely to represent the remains of household units. It is also assumed
herein that the greater the size of individual household units and their distance from neighboring
households are indicative of the length of time an area was occupied. Specifically, sites containing
relatively large discrete clusters of household remains located relatively distant from other clusters
within the site area would suggest longer periods of occupation when compared to sites with smaller
and closely-spaced household clusters (O’Connell 1987). A wide range of activities are also expected
to be represented in the archaeological assemblages of residential bases, as these are the principal
settlements where groups are expected to have carried out most social, economic, and political
activities. It is also assumed that secondary refuse areas, as well as resource storage areas, are more
likely to be associated with longer-term occupation of a residential base. It is likely that there will be
greater differentiation of internal site structure in residential bases of collectors compared to those
of foragers, as indicated by the ethnoarchaeological studies of the Alyawara and Basarwa discussed
previously.
The presence of temporary camps may be particularly important in distinguishing between forager
(residential mobility) and collector (logistical mobility) settlement systems. Temporary camps are
characteristic of collector (logistical mobility) settlement systems of collectors and are usually not
found in forager settlement systems. Temporary camps have little internal structure as they were
used for short periods, and the remains at these camps should represent a narrow range of activities
that are focused on the exploitation of specific resources (Binford 1980).
Food Remains
Optimal foraging theory indicates that as a hunter-gatherer group exploits the food resources
surrounding a settlement, a point is reached in which there are diminishing returns from the optimal
set of resources (higher-ranked food items) within the diet breadth (Kelly 1992). At this point, the
group may choose to stay put and expand the foraging range to greater distances and add non-local
as well as lower-ranked food items. This strategy is generally associated with logistically-mobile
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
159
07A3822 Task Order 17
populations (collectors). The strategy of a residentially-mobile group, on the other hand, would be to
move the residential base to a more productive resource patch. Bettinger and Baumhoff (1982:487)
suggest that broadening the diet (increasing diet breadth) is a higher-cost strategy that would make
the most sense under conditions of high population density in relation to resources, when mobility
would most likely be restricted. In contrast, moving to a new resource patch where more higherranked food resources are available would be the optimal choice when population density is low in
relation to resource abundance, such that mobility would not be restricted.
Archaeologically, this would mean that settlements associated with residentially-mobile groups
should contain a low diversity of high-ranking resources and that would have been available in the
immediate vicinity of the residential base. For logistically-mobile groups, residential bases should
contain a high diversity of both higher- and lower-ranked resources. Some of these resources would
also be non-local, i.e., obtained from areas outside of the group’s expected foraging radius (Kelly
1995).
Artifacts
Artifact assemblages from residential bases associated with populations practicing logistical or
residential mobility should be varied and representative of activities associated with social, economic,
subsistence, and political pursuits. Artifacts and features should be classified functionally in order to
reconstruct activities (hunting, animal food processing, plant food processing, food preparation and
cooking, shelter and sleeping, manufacturing or maintaining tools, storage, and other activities) and
site types (village, residential base, temporary camps, locations [including lithic scatters], and other
site types). There should be both a greater diversity of functional tool types and a higher density of
tools in the residential bases of collectors compared to those of foragers.
Antelope Valley Settlement Systems
Settlement systems in the Antelope Valley are discussed by time period in the following sections.
Because few studies of settlement systems have been conducted for the Valley, only a general
discussion can be provided. Nevertheless, the hypotheses provided can be used to guide future
research.
Clovis Period (Fluted Point Complex) (12,000 to 9500 BC)
The Clovis Period was an era of environmental transition between the late Pleistocene and early
Holocene. The Clovis Period within the Mojave Desert is, thus far, represented exclusively by the
Fluted Point Complex, big game hunters who used Clovis-style spear points (fluted projectile points,
hafted to the end of a spear). These fluted projectile points include both Clovis points and Great
Basin Corner-Notched points. Fluted points have been discovered along the shores of former pluvial
lakes at China Lake Naval Weapons Station and Edwards Air Force Base. There are two sites at Lake
China with Clovis points, along with Lake Mojave points. Thus, it is not known if the other artifacts at
these sites are associated with Clovis or Lake Mojave. All other Clovis points in the Mojave Desert
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
160
07A3822 Task Order 17
occur as isolated surface finds (Sutton 2018). It is thought that the Clovis settlement system
consisted of small mobile bands of hunters who followed big game herds (residential mobility).
Lake Mojave Period (9,500 to 7,000 B.C.)
During the warmer and drier Early Holocene Great Basin Stemmed series projectile points including
Lake Mojave and Silver Lake points were used as darts with a spear-thrower (atlatl) for hunting
artiodactyls (deer and mountain sheep). Ground stone implements occur in small numbers during
this time (Warren 2002) and may indicate the addition of hard seeds in the diet. The Lake Mojave
groups gradually adapted to a desiccating environment, resulting in shifts in technology and
subsistence, with exploitation of additional ecozones.
Sites along a beach ridge overlooking Rosamond Lake (a part of former Lake Thompson) appear to
have been locations used by hunters during the Lake Mojave Period. Each site contains the same
group of formed flaked stone tools which include projectile points, bifaces, and crescents. There was
also a Lake Mojave Complex temporary camp or small residential base near Rosamond Lake
(Chandler et al. 2010).
The Lake Mojave settlement system appears to have consisted of small mobile groups of foragers
(residential mobility) who hunted the smaller animals (deer and mountain sheep) present after the
extinction of the Pleistocene megafauna, supplemented by a small amount of plant foods. In the
central Mojave Desert around the Mojave Sink it has been suggested that small family bands moved
throughout a large territory (up to 9,100 square miles) opportunistically (no fixed seasonal round).
Occupation of any specific place was probably short-term and sporadic. Resource monitoring to
determine the availability of food and water was likely necessary to decide where and when to move
the residential base (Sutton 2018). In this large area there may have been only 500 people with a
population density of 1 person per 18 square miles (Altschul et al. 1998:128).
Pinto Period (8250 to 2500 BC)
The Pinto Period was a time of increasing aridity during the Altithermal. Sites associated with this
period are usually found in open settings, in relatively well-watered locales representing isolated
oases of high productivity such as stream channels and springs. Increasing amounts of ground stone
tools suggest increasing use of small seeds. Artiodactyl (deer and mountain sheep) hunting
continued, but increasing aridity likely reduced the number of deer available. Small animals such as
rabbit, rodent, reptile, and fresh water mussel resources are present in significant quantities. The
artifact assemblage is similar to the Lake Mojave assemblage except that Pinto projectile points
replaced Lake Mojave points and Silver Lake points, and crescents and engravers were no longer
used. Drills were added to the assemblage and the number of ground stone tools increased (Warren
2002). Warren (2002:139) sees the shift in projectile point types and the increasing use of plant foods
during the Pinto Complex as resulting from decreasing numbers of artiodactyls (deer and mountain
sheep) during this warm, dry period.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
161
07A3822 Task Order 17
In the Antelope Valley there was a Pinto occupation (based on two Pinto points and obsidian
hydration measurements in excess of 10 microns) at the Lovejoy Springs site (CA-LAN-192) located
about 15 km north of the mouth of Big Rock Canyon in the southern margin of the Antelope Valley
(Price et al. 2009). Some 41 sites in the Antelope Valley region (including CA-KER-303, CA-LAN-82,
and -298) were identified as having what appeared to be a Pinto Complex component, based on
projectile point types or other temporally diagnostic data (Earle et al. 1997:127-129).
There is little indication of occupation in most areas of the Mojave Desert during the latter part of
the Pinto Complex (Warren 2002; Sutton et al. 2007) and Sutton (2018:50) hypothesizes that the
Mojave Desert was abandoned after 5,000 BP (3,000 BC). However, the western and southern fringes
of the Antelope Valley were likely somewhat less arid than the rest of the Mojave Desert at this time
(see Paleoenvironment section) and these areas may have been occupied during the last 500 to
1,000 years of the Pinto Complex.
Pinto Period site distribution appears to represent a continuing transitory pattern related to
fluctuating and dispersed resources. Settlement systems may have consisted of small, mobile groups
of foragers that moved among water sources (such as Lovejoy Springs) where they established
residential bases for hunting or trapping small mammals and obtaining plant foods. Because water
sources decreased during this warm dry period, the number of places where base camps could be
established were limited and bands stayed longer at each residential base near a water source.
Resource monitoring to determine the availability of food and water was likely necessary to decide
where and when to move the residential base. The Pinto Period site distribution indicates the
continuation of a forager settlement system with residential mobility.
Gypsum Period (circa 2500 B.C. to A.D. 225)
The Gypsum Period corresponds to the First Neoglacial Period (2,000 – 1 BC) when precipitation
increased and temperatures decreased. This appears to correlate with increasing trade and social
complexity (Sutton et al. 2007). The use of dart points (Elko and Gypsum points) with spear-throwers
continued during the Gypsum Period. Increasing plant food use is indicated by numerous ground
stone milling tools. The subsistence pattern included generalized hunting activities (large, medium,
and small mammals and desert tortoise) and seed processing. Mesquite, an important resource
throughout the Late Holocene, was established in high water table areas in the Antelope Valley by
about 2,300 BC (early Gypsum Period).
During the early part of the Gypsum Period settlement was likely characterized by residential
mobility (foragers). Groups may have established residential bases in the foothills and rift zone, the
mountains, and on the desert floor, and moved among them in a seasonal round. The CA-KER-303
site complex (near the mouth of Cottonwood Creek along the northwestern desert margin below the
Tehachapi Mountains) and other sites (in and near the rift zone along the southern edge of the
Antelope Valley) which have been characterized as sedentary major residential bases in later periods
(villages in the Mission Period), were first occupied during the late Gypsum Period. These
developments suggest an increase in population and occupation of the area by collectors (logistical
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
162
07A3822 Task Order 17
mobility) who established permanently occupied major residential bases along the desert margin in
late Gypsum Period times. The occupants of these major residential bases probably sent task groups
to obtain resources in the mountains and on the valley floor where they established temporary
camps. The establishment of this collector pattern during late Gypsum times may coincide with the
arrival of Takic-speaking populations in the Antelope Valley (see the Population Movements section).
Sutton (2017) suggests that, during the Gypsum Period, the Mojave Desert valley floor was a
“common pool resource zone,” i.e., resources on the valley floor were exploited by groups with
residential bases located in the surrounding foothills (south and northwest of the Antelope Valley
floor). Three archaeological sites (CA-LAN-1777, -1780, and -3873) from this time period and located
on the valley floor appear to represent temporary camps associated with principal settlements
located elsewhere. Data recovery excavations at the sites uncovered fire-affected rock features that
were interpreted as roasting pits. Charcoal from Joshua trees were found in the features indicating
use of Joshua tree wood for fuel. However, macrobotanical and pollen studies did not indicate what
foods were cooked in the features. Protein residue analysis of the numerous ground stone tools
recovered from the features failed to produce any results. Only a few small mammal bones were
recovered and some of these may have been non-cultural (burrow deaths) (Kremkau et al. 2013).
Rose Spring Period (circa AD 225 to 1100)
There were major changes in cultural systems at the beginning of the Rose Springs Period. These
include changes in artifact assemblages, a major population increase, and the appearance of welldeveloped middens (Sutton 2016). The bow and arrow were introduced in the Antelope Valley at the
beginning of the Rose Spring Period circa AD 225. Arrow points include Rose Spring and Eastgate
points, as well as Cottonwood Triangular points after A.D. 900. Other artifacts include stone knives
and drills, bone awls, and ground stone tools. Manufacture of chlorite schist beads and steatite
artifacts was being carried out in the southern Antelope Valley by this time and Olivella shell beads
were traded in from the coast.
Based on the presence of large residential bases around the western and southern peripheries of the
Antelope Valley during the Rose Spring Period, a collector pattern (with major residential bases and
temporary camps used by task groups) was likely present during this period. This pattern may have
been established by the end of the Gypsum Period,
The Medieval Climatic Anomaly (MCA) (AD 650 to 1250) with warmer drier conditions, including
short periods of drought, began in the later Rose Spring Period and extended into the early Late
Prehistoric Period. As a result of increasing aridity during the MCA, it is likely that the number of
jackrabbits on the valley floor declined and juniper retreated to somewhat higher elevations in the
northwestern Mojave Desert (Gardner 2007). There is a marked decrease in the number of
lagomorph bones found in early Late Prehistoric sites compared to Rose Spring sites according to
Gardner (2007). There is also a decrease in plant food use as indicated by a decrease in the number
of ground stone tools in Late Prehistoric sites compared to Rose Spring sites. Ground stone tool use
was also more intensive in the Rose Spring Period compared to the Late Prehistoric Period. Ground
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
163
07A3822 Task Order 17
stone tools were fragmented and burned, indicating re-use, in Rose Spring sites, but were whole and
not burned in Late Prehistoric sites (Gardner 2007:242). During the MCA there was a reduction in
both the size and number of residential sites.
Late Prehistoric Period (AD 1100 to AD 1769)
The archaeological material from the Late Prehistoric Period resulted from the activities of the
ancestors of the ethnographic groups around the edges of the Antelope Valley region including the
Kitanemuk, Tataviam, Serrano, and Kawaiisu. The use of the bow and arrow (with Desert SideNotched and Cottonwood Triangular arrow points) continued during the Late Prehistoric Period,
along with most of the rest of the Rose Spring artifact assemblage. Intensive acorn use is indicated
by the presence of numerous bedrock mortars, which were also used to process other plant foods,
including pinyon nuts, chia, mesquite, buckwheat, and juniper berries. Small animals were also
pulverized in bedrock mortars.
The Little Ice Age (LIA) (AD 1350 to 1600), a cooler wetter period, occurred during the Late
Prehistoric Period. The LIA likely had little effect on settlement and subsistence, other than to make
plant food resources slightly more productive as a result of the increase in rainfall.
Late Prehistoric archaeological sites that are major residential bases, and which are described as
villages in the subsequent Mission Period, are located on the northwestern margin and the southern
margin (rift zone) of the Antelope Valley. Major residential bases on the margins of the Antelope
Valley include CA-KER-303 (Cottonwood Creek Site), CA-LAN-488 (Skelton Ranch Site), CA-LAN-82
(Barrel Springs), CA-LAN-192 (Lovejoy Springs), and the Totem Pole Ranch Site (Sutton 2016) (see the
Previous Investigations section). CA-KER-303, CA-LAN-192, and CA-LAN-82 are known to have been
occupied as early as the Gypsum Period. Fairmont Butte sites (including CA-LAN-298) also feature
habitation sites with extensive, deep midden associated with the Fairmont Butte rhyolite quarry
complex. Most of these large major residential bases probably became villages by Late Prehistoric
times, if not before. Villages have “extensive and deep middens, considerable material culture, exotic
materials, cemeteries, and architecture, and are thought to represent more or less permanent
occupation locales” (Sutton 2016:269). The large major residential bases or villages were “persistent
places” (continuously occupied places over many generations) based on cultural tradition, as well as
the continuing availability of water and of plant and animal resources. The logistical mobility pattern
established in previous periods continued and may have become more complex in the Late
Prehistoric Period.
Mission Period (AD 1769 to AD 1835)
Mission records and other ethnohistorical resources indicate the presence of Desert Serrano and
Tataviam villages located in or near the rift zone along the south side of the Antelope Valley during
the Mission Period. Each independent Desert Serrano settlement was led by a clan chief and each
exogamous patrilineal clan controlled the resources within a defined territory (Earle 2004, 2015) (see
the Ethnohistory section). Thus, each village in the rift zone would have been near the center of a
long narrow rectangular territory that extended from mountain uplands to the south across the rift
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
164
07A3822 Task Order 17
zone and out onto the floor of the Antelope Valley. Temporary camps would have been occupied
while obtaining resources in the mountains (including acorns, pinyon pine nuts, and juniper berries)
and on the Valley floor (including mesquite, Joshua trees, pronghorns, and jackrabbits). Although
Sutton (2017) postulates that the Mojave Desert valley floor was also a “common pool resource
zone” in the Rose Spring and Late Prehistoric Periods, this is not likely in these time periods, given
the territoriality of Serrano groups at Spanish contact. Each Serrano clan probably claimed a strip of
land that extended onto the valley floor, although the northern extent of these territories is
unknown. This territoriality may have been established as early as the Rose Spring Period.
Resources from the territories of other clans were obtained through marriage ties. Clans that
intermarried would develop long-term relationships of material, ritual, and political reciprocity. Ritual
reciprocity included holding ritual fiestas during which resources were exchanged. A clan would also
host other clans with which it was intermarried in foraging and hunting activities within their own
clan territory. The clans had bounded and defended territories and would give permission to
members of allied clans to access resources within their own territory (see the Conveyance and
Exchange section).
Research Questions and Data Needs
As the discussion in this chapter demonstrates, there have been few studies of hunter-gatherer
settlement systems for the Antelope Valley, and reconstruction of settlement organization is based
on ethnographic analogies and speculation. It is critical that future investigations in this region
employ appropriate archaeological methods and theories for reconstructing the settlement systems
in the valley through time. The following research questions and data requirements provide some
guidance for such future investigations.
Questions
1) What is the nature of hunter-gatherer settlement systems during the Clovis, Lake Mojave, and Pinto
Periods in the Antelope Valley? Are residential bases dating to these periods situated in variable
ecological zones or in a narrow range of environments? Is there evidence for human abandonment of
the valley during the latter part (last 1,000 to 500 years) of the Pinto Period?
Chronological sequences for the Mojave Desert, and specifically for the Antelope Valley, characterize
early settlement systems in the region as being associated with residentially mobile hunter-gatherer
populations. Population densities were likely low during the Clovis Period, and it is speculated that
the sparse settlements of this time may have been concentrated around pluvial lakes, with big game
hunting as the principal subsistence strategy. With increasing aridity during the Lake Mojave and
Pinto Periods, subsistence strategies are suggested to have included exploitation of smaller game as
well as plant foods from pluvial lake environments as well as upland areas. This suggests that
settlements may also have been established at higher elevations in the valley. Finally, some scholars
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
165
07A3822 Task Order 17
have posited that the Antelope Valley was completely abandoned during the last 1,000 to 500 years
of the Pinto Period as a result of the increase in aridity in the region.
However, there are sparse archaeological data to support (or refute) these hypotheses as there are
few sites identified for these periods. Identifying and investigating a large sample of sites dating to
the early occupation periods of the valley is essential to defining the nature of early settlement
systems.
2) Do settlement strategies in the Gypsum Period reflect a transition from a forager strategy to a
collector strategy with the establishment of major residential bases occupied year-round by the end of
the period? Could both residentially- and logistically-mobile populations have occupied the Antelope
Valley at the same time during the Gypsum Period? Did the collector strategy with major residential
bases in the desert margin and temporary camps for resource collection in the mountains and desert
floor zones continue and become more complex in the later Rose Spring and Late Prehistoric Periods,
culminating in the settlement system seen in the Mission Period? Is there evidence of internally
differentiated site structure in the major residential bases (with structure bases and floors indicating
houses, cemeteries, bedrock mortars, and other activity areas) that would indicate use by collectors?
The presence of substantial middens dating to the late Gypsum Period has led to speculation that
populations may have been more sedentary than in previous periods, with this pattern continuing
during later periods and into Mission times. However, the build-up of midden at a site could also be
a result of repeated use of the location by a residentially mobile population, rather than occupation
year-round by a sedentary group. Using diversity and density measures may be a better way to
distinguish residential bases of foragers from those of collectors, as discussed below,
There is also the possibility that populations could have adopted a mixed settlement strategy over
time, depending on ecological conditions (as well as social and/or political variables). Kelly (1983:301)
notes that because “environments change their resource composition from year to year as a result of
climatic fluctuations, we may expect to find different mobility strategies being used from year to year
by a given group of hunter-gatherers.” Kelly (1983:301) also notes that with “increasing
environmental heterogeneity we expect to find increased diversity within a group’s mobility strategy,
such that the seasonal use of a given region could be accomplished through one form of mobility,
and the use of another region through a different form.” Thus, researchers should consider the
possibility of differing settlement strategies over time, e.g., populations becoming less sedentary, as
well as seasonal differences.
Another hypothesis to consider is that not all populations in a given area would adopt the same
settlement strategy. Again, Kelly (1992:50) notes that even “when sedentary settlement systems
develop, they do not necessarily involve all of a region’s people. As some people reduce their
residential mobility, others may continue to be residentially mobile, perhaps developing a mutualistic
relationship with the sedentary villages.”
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
166
07A3822 Task Order 17
Data Needs
To address the research questions pertaining to ancient settlement systems in the Antelope Valley, a
large sample of sites must be compiled and studied. Data sets that need to be considered in
settlement studies include chronology, location, site structure, food remains, and artifact assemblage.
Chronology
Critical to this effort is placement of archaeological sites under investigation within chronological
sequences, which should be done via the use of reliable chronometric dating techniques coupled
with relative dating methods using temporally diagnostic artifacts. Most studies in the Antelope
Valley have relied on projectile point typologies to date sites. However, radiocarbon dating of
organic materials (e.g., carbonized plant remains, bone, shell), as well as obsidian hydration
measurements, is critical. Materials used for these analyses must be collected from undisturbed
contexts and in association with cultural deposits, and multiple dates should be obtained for each
context (e.g., feature) being studied.
Location
Information on the paleoenvironment and the locations of settlements over time vis-à-vis ecological
zones will be important to understand possible changes in mobility strategies as a result of climate
changes. It will be important to compile a sample of sites from different topographic regions in the
valley, and from all time periods.
Site Structure
Defining site structures will be an important part of determining the kind of settlement strategy
represented at archaeological habitation sites. Data needed include dimensions of site areas,
presence or absence of discrete midden concentrations and associated features within sites, and
dimensions of middens and their distance from neighboring midden clusters. Also important to
identify is the presence or absence of secondary refuse deposits and storage areas. Site structure is
usually analyzed in the horizontal dimension with the assumptioon that site features were used
contemporaneously. However, this should be verified through study of the chronological sequence
of the site. There may be different vertical components within the site and it is possible that some of
the site features belong to different vertical site components.
Food Remains
Data on animal and plant taxa represented in archaeological assemblages is another critical aspect of
settlement studies. As discussed earlier, residential bases associated with foragers should exhibit low
species diversity in food remains, and these should be of high-ranking resources. Residential bases
associated with collectors should contain a high species diversity in food remains and include both
high- and low-ranked resources. Type and quantity of both animal and plant remains should be used
to estimate species richness and evenness for sites under investigation. Richness refers to the
number of different animal taxa represented in an assemblage, and evenness to the uniformity of
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
167
07A3822 Task Order 17
their abundance/distribution (Kintigh 1989). The Shannon-Weaver Index should then be used to
calculate the values for richness (H’) and evenness (V’). For richness, the higher the H’ value is, the
higher the relative species diversity of an assemblage. Evenness or V’ can range from 0 to 1; the
closer to 1 a value is, the closer it is to representing an even distribution of animal taxa. Only
relatively large samples should be chosen for such analyses.
Artifact Assemblage
Information on the types and quantities of artifacts recovered from habitation sites is another
element required in the analysis of settlement systems. Because most of the social, economic, and
political interactions within the group are expected to occur at the residential base, artifacts
recovered from such sites should reflect these various activities and interactions.
Artifacts and features should be classified by function in order to reconstruct activities (hunting,
animal food processing, plant food processing, food preparation and cooking, shelter and sleeping,
manufacturing or maintaining tools, storage, and other activities). Site types (village, residential base,
temporary camp, location [including lithic scatters], and other site types) should be defined based on
(but not limited to) the types, quantity and distribution of artifacts and features present. The spatial
relationships of activity areas and features will help to assess differentiation of internal site structure.
Glassow (2013:68) suggested there should be a dearth of artifacts used for processing nonlocal food
items at residential bases of logistically-mobile groups since such food items would have been
processed at temporary camps. However, this would only apply to front-loaded resources. Backloaded resources would have been taken back to the residential base for processing (see the
Subsistence section). In addition, it may be difficult to distinguish artifacts used for processing
nonlocal food items from artifacts used to process locally obtainable items. Temporary camps should
contain a narrow range of artifacts, most of which would be tools necessary to process resources to
be transported to the residential base.
It may be possible to define site type using various statistical measures, including diversity measures.
In the Newport Coast Archaeological Project major residential bases, minor residential bases
(frequently used temporary camps), and specialized activity loci (locations) used by collectors (Late
Prehistoric Period) were differentiated from residential bases used by foragers (Milling Stone Period
or Encinitas Tradition) using multivariate analysis (correspondence analysis and canonical
discriminant analysis) of the distribution of the proportions of functional artifact types (Mason and
Peterson 1994; Koerper, Mason, and Peterson 2002). Density measures were also used to distinguish
between residential bases used by foragers and collectors. It was found that residential bases of
collectors had at least 3.5 tools per cubic meter while residential bases of foragers had a lower
density of tools (based on excavated material that was water-screened through 1/8-inch mesh).
Densities of debitage and animal bone were also significantly different (Mason and Peterson 1994).
In order to adequately carry out statistical analyses and compare densities among sites, the
excavation methods must be comparable (same unit sizes, excavation in 10-cm levels, and same
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
168
07A3822 Task Order 17
screen size). It is recommended that when excavating sites in the Antelope Valley all units should be
1 x 1 meter in size, arbitrary 10-cm levels should be used, and all excavated material should be
passed through 1/8-inch mesh. It should be noted that results from water-screening versus dryscreening are not comparable.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
169
07A3822 Task Order 17
Theme: Subsistence
An integral component of interpreting the dynamic relationship between humans and the
environment in the Antelope Valley is to discern the relationship between subsistence systems and
foods. Use of plant and animal foods by ancient populations is delineated through the study of
macrobotanical remains, microbotanical remains, and faunal remains.
Paleoethnobotany and Plant Use
In this section, the discussion identifies four themes of importance to understanding the role of
plants in archaeological subsistence settlements systems in Western Mojave Desert, with specific
reference to the Antelope Valley. The four themes include resource intensification, human behavioral
ecology, prehistoric diet, and ethnohistoric documentation of plant use. Before examining the four
thematic issues pertaining to plant use, a synthesis of the current theoretical and analytical methods
in paleoethnobotany is presented.
Paleoethnobotany is the study of cultural plant remains from archaeological contexts, and past
human-plant interactions (Hastorf and Popper 1998; Pearsall 1989, 2000; Marston et al. 2015).
Paleoethnobotany is distinct from paleobotany which is the study of plant fossils from geological
contexts.
Another
term
used
synonymously
for
paleoethnobotany
is
archaeobotany.
Paleoethnobotanical studies provide the theoretical bridge between the botanical remains in the
archaeological record that reflect cultural practices as expressed through food consumption. When
recovered from discrete cultural contexts archaeological botanical remains provide valuable
signatures of ancient subsistence systems and consumption practices. In addition, they also provide
insight into how people organized themselves within their built and natural environment.
Paleoethnobotanical data include micro- and macrobotanical data. Macrobotanical remains are
those botanical remains that can be seen through a light-magnifying scope and/or naked eye, and
include complete, or fragments of, carbonized seeds, nuts, nutshell, corms, wood charcoal, leaves,
stems, plant parts, and plant impressions. Macrobotanical remains are most often the direct
remnants of plants consumed as food; although seed bearing plants used as fuel, fodder and
building materials could also be part of the collection depending on the context.
Microbotanical remains are visible only through a high-magnification microscope and include pollen,
phytoliths, residue analysis (including lipid and protein), and starch grains. Pollen data provide
information on vegetation; phytoliths are often associated with parts of plants that are closely
associated with habitation, while lipid residues and starch grains provide insight into perishable
foods not represented in the macrobotanical remains (Marston et al. 2015). Starch grain and lipid
residue analysis includes collecting residue washes from artifacts recovered in-situ and from
associated sediments.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
170
07A3822 Task Order 17
Processual archaeology formed the theoretical foundation of paleoethnobotanical studies until the
early 1990s (Hastorf and Popper 1988; and others). However, paleoethnobotanical data have been
used in a variety of interpretive approaches including post-processual gender theory (Hastorf 1991;
Atalay and Hastorf 2006; Morell-Hart 2015), human behavioral ecology (Gremillion 2015; Marston
2011; Wohlgemuth 2002, 2010, 2016), niche construction theory (Reddy 2017; Smith 2015),
evolutionary approaches (Rindos 1984), and ethnoarchaeological applications (Hillman 1981; Reddy
2003).
Sampling
The aim of paleoethnobotanical sampling for archaeological interpretation is to help address
questions related to spatial patterns and specialized activity areas and is particularly relevant when
research issues are related to food procurement, preparation, consumption, and disposal. Therefore,
the sampling methods should be tailored to the research questions being asked in an investigation.
Guedes
and
Spengler
(2015)
identify
five
variables
to
consider
when
sampling
for
paleoethnobotanical remains: research questions of the study, number of samples that can be
feasibly analyzed by project (i.e., budget), number of samples that can be stored for future
investigation (curation costs), contexts that have archaeological significance, and number of samples
that will provide data for intra-site and regional comparison.
All paleoethnobotanists insist that intensive sampling and strong contextual information are
necessary for a paleoethnobotanical study to be effective. A rigorous and manageable sampling
strategy is essential to providing a thorough understanding of the variation and similarity in activities
related to food procurement, consumption, and disposal at a site (or series of sites). The challenge is
determining an adequate sample; and typically “adequate” sampling comprises sampling of
sufficiently large numbers of contexts as opposed to large samples from a few contexts. As such, the
sampling could be bulk sampling (samples from single contexts like features) (Lennstrom and Hastorf
1992), pinch or scatter sampling (small sized samples are collected from a large context and then
combined into a bag) (Lennstrom and Hastorf 1992), or column sampling (samples from column of
soil which bisects stratigraphic levels at a site) (Pearsal 2000). For example, if the investigation
examines depositional history, contextual richness, and temporal occupation, the sampling should
include bulk and column sampling and samples from both habitation and non-habitation contexts. If
the investigation is focused on landscape reconstruction and changing vegetation as pertaining to
what plant foods were available for exploitation by site occupants, pinch grab sampling would be
more appropriate. All three types of sampling can be implemented at the same site and project.
Sampling for microbotanical remains (pollen, phytoliths, and starches) is largely similar to those of
macrobotanical remains with two exceptions. First, burnt contexts which are ideal for macrobotanical
remains are not productive for pollen (Bryant and Holloway 1983). Second, open air sites are not
good contexts to sample for pollen (due to poor preservation and disturbance). Pollen and phytolith
sampling require control methods of collection, and all sample collection should be done by
individuals who are familiar with the process. Similarly, sampling for starch (from soils and artifacts) is
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
171
07A3822 Task Order 17
a precise technique and collection should be done by an experienced individual. The specifics of
sample collection techniques for pollen, phytoliths, and starches are provided by Guedes and
Spengler (2015) and Pearsall (2015).
Recovery Methods
Recovery of paleoethnobotanical remains involves several techniques. This discussion is focused only
on macrobotanical recovery, and the goal of the recovery is to isolate the carbonized plant remains
from the sediment in an effective and efficient manner. The technical method used is dependent on
the organic preservation at the site, number and size of the samples, and budgetary restraints. The
methods include dry screening and wet screening (see Lawlor 1996; White and Shelton 2015; among
others). Dry screening is done with sediments from very arid areas when there is a potential of
carbonized remains being destroyed by contact with water. The technique involves screening the
sample sediment through fine mesh screens into different size categories (geological sieves are often
used; for example, 4.0, 2.0, 1.0 and 0.425 mm). The larger size categories can be sorted easily by
picking out the carbonized remains from the rest of the sediment, but the smaller size categories will
need to be sorted under a microscope. The advantage of this method is that there will be minimal
loss of carbonized remains exploding or melting when put in water. The drawback is that the sorting
is time-consuming.
The wet screening method involves flotation of the cultural sediments to retrieve carbonized remains
and there are two main flotation methods: bucket/hand and machine flotation. The bucket/hand
method is the least expensive, and this involves using large buckets to submerge the sediment in
water and agitate the mixture to release the carbonized remains from the sediment. The carbonized
remains float to the top and are captured in a mesh skimmer or decanted/poured out into a mesh
catcher. The machine flotation includes constructing a machine that brings water to the flotation
system and sprays the water upwards on the sediment which is poured in and through the water
under pressure and agitation. The carbonized materials are then released and caught. White and
Shelton (2015) have detailed discussions of the different methods with illustrations. Regardless of
which method is chosen, it is important to do a recovery rate test (done typically using poppy seeds)
so that the investigator has a control on how well the recovery is working.
Analysis
Regardless of which recovery method is being used, the recovery process results in a light and a
heavy fraction from each sample. All light and heavy fractions are sorted using a similar method.
Typical steps in the sorting include sieving each light and heavy fraction through nested geological
sieves (for example 4.0, 2.0, 1.0 and 0.425 mm). Such presorting is an effective way to remove
modern rootlets and leaves and to isolate small flakes, bones, and shell. If the sample size is large
(>10 liters), a subsample representing 10 liters of sediment should be taken immediately from each
sieve size. Each fraction is then sorted under a binocular microscope (5×–15×). Charcoal should be
collected from as many sieves as possible. Carbonized seeds should be removed from all sieves and
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
172
07A3822 Task Order 17
stored in vials. When all sorting is completed, the charcoal should be weighed, and the sorted light
fractions made ready for curation and/or repatriation. Identification of the carbonized seeds should
be through comparison with comparative materials and identification manuals (for example Martin
and Barkley 1973; Musil 1963).
Unless the site(s) has exceptional preservation, the macrobotanical analysis should only include
carbonized seeds. In general, when uncarbonized (uncharred) plant parts are recovered from
archaeological sites, it is important to determine whether they were associated with cultural activities
in the past or whether they entered the site through natural processes in more recent times.
Paleoethnobotanists typically consider the carbonization of plant seeds to be the most reliable and
conservative indication of antiquity. In other words, uncharred plant materials at archaeological sites
are generally considered unrelated to prehistoric human use of plants, because they would not be
expected to have been preserved in typical open-air sites (Minnis 1978) (Note that cave sites are an
exception to this). Charred specimens, on the other hand, are often assumed to be related to
intentional or unintentional prehistoric human use of fire (usually food preparation). Of course, there
are situations when such a dichotomy is not possible; for example, consider ChenopodiumAmaranthus–type seeds. It takes a highly trained eye to discern charring on these naturally black
seeds, especially when they are not swollen or broken open for an interior view. Care should be
taken so that only carbonized seeds are included in the analysis and interpretation.
Post-depositional disturbance should be measured in the analysis by adopting a qualitativecategorical method. It is crucial to note post-depositional disturbance in paleoethnobotanical studies
so that association of low densities of particular taxa can be explained effectively as cultural or
biological. For example, although only carbonized seeds should be recovered from the light
fractions, the presence of uncarbonized seeds should be noted, along with other organic materials
such as rodent fecal matter, insect parts, worms, land snails, etc. These data will be integral to
determining post-depositional disturbance in each sample, which will be critical for interpretation.
Data analysis of macrobotanical data can be done through different tools. For example, patterns in
the macrobotanical data can be discerned through the use of density, percentage, and taxonomic
richness (Marston et al. 2015). At the basic level, a presence/absence or ubiquity approach can used
to provide summary information for comparing how common each taxon was in each
sample/context/period. Analysis should measure the intensity with which a plant resource was used,
not just the mere use of the specific resource(s), because it is important in understanding
competitive replacement of adaptive strategies. In this sense, densities, percentages, and taxonomic
richness indices are instrumental for such measurement. Charcoal densities are used to define
varying preservation contexts at and between the sites and also the intensity of activities involving
plants and fire. Seed densities define the intensity of plant usage. Percentages of different taxa
reflect the relative abundance of a specific taxon in a collection. Ubiquity or presence analysis (each
taxon is scored as present or absent in a sample and then given a frequency measure) provides
information on the relative importance of taxa. Ubiquity measures the number of accidents (incidents
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
173
07A3822 Task Order 17
when there was accidental spillage or disposal during processing, preparation and consumption)
associated with the taxon and, therefore, the degree of usage.
Taxonomic richness is a qualitative measure of plant-taxa diversity (high diversity suggests a
generalized assemblage; low diversity is indicative of a specialized assemblage; both are used to
define plant-exploitation strategies).
Sources of Seeds
When examining the roles of plants in prehistoric subsistence economies, it is very important to
define which plants represented in the macrobotanical collection are associated with the occupation
of the site and which are non-cultural, intrusive contaminants. As such, the original sources of the
seeds are critical to define and what parts of plants were used is important, because their
representation in the archaeological record can be biased, depending on whether they survive or
not. Leafy parts of the plant, roots and tubers, and very dry or very oily parts all have a low chance of
surviving carbonization. As such, there is an inherent bias in the archaeological record toward seedbearing parts of the plants.
Seeds enter the archaeological deposits through a variety of pathways (Bush 2004; Keepax 1977;
Miksicek 1987; Miller and Smart 1984; Minnis 1978; Reddy 2003). A carbonized-seed collection from
a single site could represent plants used as food and medicine, as well as for fuel and building. Seeds
could become part of the site midden from wildfires and natural seed rain during site occupation
that became carbonized in hearths. Logically, seeds that were used as food would be less likely to be
recovered, because the majority of them would have been consumed. Therefore, what is recovered
from the archaeological sediments are those seeds from accidental spills and intentional discards
during food processing, preparation, and consumption, and perhaps in proximity to hearths and
other contexts that involved plant foods and fire. Reddy (2003) has documented that intentional
discards were typically undesired seeds, which may have been immature, worm infested, or otherwise
unpalatable. Similarly, fruit pits and nutshell may also have been discarded into hearths as trash
disposal.
Summary
Paleoethnobotanical studies have played a major role in archaeological investigations in general
since the late 1980s in the United States and Europe. Before the late 1980s, most
paleoethnobotanical studies focused on environmental reconstruction (pollen data) and providing
plant lists for archaeological interpretations. This trend changed dramatically starting in the 1990s
with scholars addressing a wider range of research issues in archaeological and also in
paleoethnobotanical contexts. Some of the trends include greater insights into formation and
depositional processes involving plant remains, sampling strategies, new and improved
quantification methods and digital technologies, integration of plant data with other environmental
data, and integrating paleoethnobotanical data into mainstream archaeological interpretations
(Marston et al. 2015).
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
174
07A3822 Task Order 17
Paleoethnobotanical research in California has several recurring research themes: intensity of plant
use over time, defining the nature of plant exploitation over time, the importance of acorns in the
diet, and the use of annual grasses (Hammett and Lawlor 2004; Popper 2002; Reddy 1999, 2004,
2015, 2016; Wohlgemuth 1996, 2002, 2010, 2016). In general, there is a dearth of
paleoethnobotanical studies in the Mojave Desert relative to the coast (Reddy 2016; Reddy and
Wohlgemuth 2016). This is due to two main reasons: scholars working in the area have not
recognized the importance and interpretive potential of paleoethnobotanical data, especially
macrobotanical data and, due to this inherent bias, there have been few studies that have collected
and incorporated micro- and macrobotanical data. Furthermore, paleoethnobotanical data has been
primarily used in paleoenvironmental reconstructions, and rarely in prehistoric subsistence
reconstructions. Some exceptions are Klug and Popper (1994), Lawlor (1995), Reddy (1996, 2013),
Sutton (1984), and Sutton, Robinson, and Gardner (2006).
Resource Intensification
Resource intensification is measured through the relative proportion of high-ranked versus lowranked taxa where there is an increase in the low-ranked resources (such as small seeds) compared
to earlier time periods, resulting in a broadening of diet breadth. Resource intensification requires
greater labor costs (measured in terms of time or energy/calories) associated with procurement
(harvesting/gathering) or processing prior to consumption (leaching, milling, cooking) for lowranked plant resources. However, the application of increased labor to procure and process these
high cost resources, results in higher yields/production per unit of land. Initially, plant intensification
may result in a broadening of the diet breadth as more low-ranked resources are added to the diet;
subsequent increased intensification of resources already being used results in even greater reliance
on low-ranked taxa already being used.
Basgall (1987) was one of the first scholars who discussed resource intensification in California
(acorns). Macrobotanical data have been used to argue for resource intensification in central
California (Wohlgemuth 1996; 2016) and coastal southern California (Mason and Peterson 2014;
Reddy 2004, 2016), but no such interpretations have been made for the Western Mojave Desert plant
use. Using return rate data (energy yield when consumed) from the Great Basin, Bettinger and
Wohlgemuth (2006, 2011:125) have ranked commonly exploited plant resources in order from
highest to lowest rank as follows: terrestrial roots, nuts and acorns, small seeds, and aquatic roots.
However, acorns are a low-ranked resource when taking into account the processing time necessary
prior to consumption (Codding, et al. 2012). Such work provides important baseline data to
operationalize resource intensification theoretical expectations. Discerning the causal factors behind
resource intensification have been widely discussed, and among the factors that have been
considered are over-exploitation of high ranked resources and/or decreasing efficiency in their
procurement over time due to greater search time or decreased encounter rates (Bettinger 2008;
Broughton 2001; and others) or population growth and territorial circumscription (Beaton 1991).
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
175
07A3822 Task Order 17
In the context of resource intensification, histories of species-specific exploitation are of importance
because they provide insight into broad changes in diet and the impacts of human exploitation. For
example, plants of interest in Western Mojave Desert, Antelope Valley and the adjacent mountain
slopes include acorns (Quercus spp.), bur-sage (Ambrosia dumosa), cactus, Joshua tree (Yucca
brevifolia), juniper (Juniperus spp.), mesquite (Prosopis sp.), piñon (Pinus spp.), saltbush (Atriplex sp.),
and yucca (Mojave yucca) (Yucca schidigera). The exploitation of these plant foods can be identified
primarily through regional data. Intensity of plant use can be measured through ratios, while reliance
on particular plants can be measured by frequencies and ubiquity. There is also an upland-lowland
dichotomy on where some of the plants would have been available that also needs to be considered.
Junipers grow on lower slopes, mesquite needs a high water table on the valley floor, oaks are on
slopes and in canyons, piñon would be at higher elevations in the mountains, and small seeds would
be on the valley floor. Knowing how far certain resources are located from a particular settlement
allows for consideration of transportation costs in assessing the degree of resource intensification.
Basgall (1987) argued that acorns were not intensively used in central California until the Middle
Period because of the time and energy necessary to process them prior to consumption. The reason
intensive acorn use in central California began relatively late in time (indicated by large scale mortarpestle use after 4000 to 1000 BP, depending on the geographic area) is the intensive labor required
for processing acorns, which includes shelling, grinding, and leaching. Using acorns requires “a truly
spectacular investment of female labor” (Bettinger 2015:110). Acorn use was a high-cost subsistence
orientation that was not used until increased production at the expense of productivity was
necessary due to increasing population size and density (Basgall 1987). While Basgall’s (1987) study
of the timing of acorn use was based on the appearance of mortars and pestles, macrobotanical
studies of charred seeds and nuts from archaeological sites in central California corroborate the
timing of the beginning of acorn use. The results of the macrobotanical studies show that acorn use
began in the Middle Period and continued through the Late Period (Wohlgemuth 1996).
Intensification of piñon collection in the mountains should be considered, but whether piñon should
be considered to be a low- or high-ranked resource may be related to when it is harvested: brown or
green cone (Eerkens et al. 2004). Brown cone harvesting requires less energy because the
procurement is done when the pine cones are open and the nuts can be easily knocked out, but
overall productivity varies depending on competition with birds and rodents. In contrast, green cone
harvesting requires more energy (involved caching and elaborate processing) and results in lower
yields per unit of time relatively. However, there is little competition with rodents and birds. Some
scholars have questioned the remarkable ranking difference between brown and green cone
harvesting, because brown cones can be carried great distances and stored, while green cones
cannot be stored, nor can they be transported long distances (Hildebrandt and Ruby 2006).
Therefore, distribution of resources, proximity to residential camps and whether the plants grow in
dense patches or not, all play important roles in determining whether resources should be ranked as
low or high. Using data from Owens Valley in the Great Basin, Bettinger (1976) has argued that piñon
was largely ignored as an important food source until sometime between AD 600 and AD 1000. The
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
176
07A3822 Task Order 17
change in exploitation was because other resources decreased and population increased. It would be
interesting to explore whether a similar pattern of exploitation also occurred in the mountains
around the Antelope Valley.
While it is likely that there was intensification of foothill and mountain resources such as acorns and
piñon, intensification of valley floor resources, such as mesquite, has not been investigated.
Another type of resource intensification is cultivation and/or agriculture; indeed it can be considered
the final stage in the trajectory of increasing effort in plant exploitation. Byrd et al. (2011) state that
agriculture was practiced along the Colorado River, but there is no evidence of cultivation or
agriculture by Native Americans in the Antelope Valley.
In summary, research issues in paleoethnobotanical investigations of resource intensification include
defining regional variation in plant use, localized histories of plant food use and exploitation, timing
of species-specific intensification, the role of scheduling conflicts in resource choice.
Human Behavioral Ecology
Human behavioral ecology (HBE) in an archaeological context consists of interactions between daily
subsistence activities and environmental variability. Success of decisions dynamically alters future
foraging. HBE can be described as a “field that studies behavioral adaptation without making the
claim that all behavior is adaptive” (Gremillion 2015:340). HBE uses models to connect theory and
data. Aspects of optimal foraging theory such as central place, diet breadth, risk minimization, and
prey choice, have particular value to interpreting plant use using HBE. For example, the central place
foraging model is useful in examining logistical and non-logistical foraging factors for plant
resources. Diet breadth was discussed earlier, as an aspect of resource intensification, and its HBE
application lies in that a food is added to the diet only if the net return is greater than the
procurement and processing costs.
Central place foraging can be applied to plant resource exploitation in terms of logistics of foraging
for specific plants. The travel and transport costs will place constraints on how much food is collected
and therefore, determine the food choice. Field processing versus transporting to a residential base
also plays a role in the food choice. Research in the Great Basin on transportation, field processing,
and travel costs has demonstrated that if the travel distances are great, the resources procured
should have a higher energy yield (Barlow and Metcalf 1996; Jones and Madsen 1989; Metcalf and
Barlow 1992; Rhode 1990). Gremillion (2015:351) proposes that field processing is, in particular, of
importance to paleoethnobotany because field processing takes time away from gathering, but also
results in a cleaner product being taken back to camp. The question is, how much time should be
spent to bring back a clean basket of plant foods? Metcalf and Barlow (1992) argue that how much
time is spent field processing and cleaning the plant foods at the collection area is dependent on
travel time/distance from the residential camp. Search costs are another aspect of HBE that have big
implications for choice of food. Some plant foods that produce nuts or pods, such as acorns, piñon,
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
177
07A3822 Task Order 17
and mesquite, have lower search costs compared to small seeds. Handling costs also vary by plant;
for example, handling costs of yucca are higher than acorns and piñon.
Recent research on foraging range and patch choice has employed GIS analysis of least-cost path
distances between residential camps, resource patches and storage features (cache areas). For
example, Morgan (2008) has examined Late Prehistoric Mono foraging radii in the southern Sierra
Nevada using least-cost analysis techniques and his results reveal a different distance limit for
caching versus foraging. Such data are useful to model complex social and economic factors
involved in subsistence-related behavior.
Forager sensitivity to risk is another aspect of HBE that has been explored in California prehistory,
but with particular focus on animal exploitation. The basic tenet is that the goal of foraging is to
maximize its net energy acquisition; but risk minimizing (avoiding starvation or food shortage) also
plays an important role (Winterhalder 1986). Winterhalder (1986) and Winterhalder and Goland
(1997) proposed a Z-score model for food choice which differs from the diet breadth model in that it
is stochastic and assumes that decisions have variable outcomes and are not pre-determined.
Gremillion (2015:352) explains this as “A bird in the hand may be worth two in the bush – but not if
one bird is not enough to keep you alive.”
The use of food in general to signal group identity has been well discussed (for example Rozin and
Fallon 1981). Using macrobotanical data, preferences for certain plant foods have been discussed
recently for coastal and central California by Reddy and Wohlgemuth (2016). Diet choice is a complex
theme to explore, and specifically for plant resource exploitation, because HBE methodologies have
not been as well developed for plants (relative to animals) (Gremillion 2015).
Tushingham and Bettinger (2013) have proposed that whether a resource is front-loaded or backloaded determines when it is exploited. Front-loaded plant resources, such as seeds, roots/corms,
and yucca, require more energy and effort in procurement and processing before they can be stored;
however, they do not take a lot of time to prepare afterwards. In contrast, back-loaded plant
resources, such as acorns and piñon nuts, require less energy to procure and no processing is
needed before storage. However, greater processing costs and efforts are involved to process the
stored nuts before consumption. In applying this model, a forager has to decide which type of
resource will be more efficient in terms of the subsistence needs – immediate food need, processing
costs and labor, and need for storage. Tushingham and Bettinger (2013) argue that if ample frontloaded resources are available, early foragers would have chosen them; and back-loaded resources,
which could be stored, became important as groups became more sedentary.
The Prey Choice Model (PCM) seeks to explain whether an individual should pursue a resource when
encountered or ignore it and seek more easily attained items (Codding et al. 2012:120-121). It is
based on ranking resources by post-encounter profitability, defined as expected energetic return,
divided by expected handling expenditures. Handling includes pursuit (all activities involved in
acquiring the resource) and processing (all activities to render the resource edible such as butchering
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
178
07A3822 Task Order 17
and cooking). High-ranking resources, such as deer, would ideally be pursued whenever encountered
and low-ranked resources (such as rabbits) added only when the abundance of high-ranked items
declines. Codding et al. (2012:124) suggest that for most terrestrial animals, prey body size is
analogous to energy and that prey mobility is analogous to pursuit cost. Based on this argument,
large, slow animals would be ranked higher than small, fast animals.
Ideal Free Distribution (IFD) assumes that people will choose to live in areas that will meet their
subsistence needs (Codding et al. 2012:116-117). It predicts that the highest-ranking habitats should
be inhabited first and that lower-ranking habitats should only be occupied when population density
inhibits subsistence success. Thus, higher-ranking habitats should have a higher population density.
In summary, outstanding research issues in paleoethnobotanical investigations of human behavioral
ecology include central place/foraging place as it pertains to what is harvested and brought back to
the camp versus resources processed at procurement locations; defining the diet breadth over time;
how risk was minimized (presence of storage; back and front-loaded resources); and patch choice
(which plant resources were specifically targeted).
Role of Plants in the Prehistoric Diet
In defining prehistoric plant use by California Native Americans, scholars have either emphasized
similarities across California by focusing on primary plant resources or emphasized the wide array of
resources that were exploited (Anderson 2005; Baumhoff 1963; Heizer and Elsasser 1980; Kroeber
1925; Powers 1877; Bean and Lawton 1976; Jacknis 2004; Lightfoot and Parrish 2009). Reddy (2016)
expressed concern that much of the reconstructions of plant use are drawn from the ethnographic
and ethnohistoric record (Ball 1962; Clarke 1977; Ebeling 1986; Merrill 1918; Moerman 2010; Strike
1994; Timbrook 2007), rather than being built from direct paleoethnobotanical evidence. To
accurately and effectively model prehistoric plant use and interpret diachronic changes in
subsistence strategies in the Mojave Desert, it is imperative to obtain paleoethnobotanical data. The
nature and characteristics of plant use should be investigated by obtaining information about range
of taxa exploited, processing methods, storage, and seasonality, among others. Information about
the range of taxa exploited provides an insight into whether there is resource intensification (as
discussed earlier) and changes or continuity in patch choices. Contextual analysis can provide insight
into processing methods:
•
Were plants processed at the residential base?
•
Were they processed at the gathering site and brought to the residential base as a cleaned
product (for example see Reddy 2003, 2017)?
•
Which plant foods were stored (Eerkens 2003a)?
Using data from the Owens Valley, Eerkens (2003) examined how storage of plant foods was integral
in the development of sedentism during the early Haiwee period (ca 1350-650 BP). Storage of plant
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
179
07A3822 Task Order 17
foods is an important marker of intensification of plant exploitation. Some of the plant foods in
Antelope Valley that can be stored include small seeds, and piñon and acorn nuts.
Available Food Plants in and Around the Antelope Valley
The dominant prehistoric plants of the Western Mojave Desert that could have been used as food
resources included acorns (Quercus spp.), bur-sage (Ambrosia dumosa), cactus, juniper (Juniperus
spp.), Joshua tree (Yucca brevifolia), mesquite (Prosopis sp.), Pine (Pinus spp.), saltbush (Atriplex sp.),
and yucca (Spanish bayonet/common yucca [Hesperoyucca whipplei spp. – formerly Yucca whipplei]).
Some of these occur on the foothill and mountain slopes around Antelope Valley, while others occur
on the valley floor. In addition, screwbean (Prosopis pubescens), mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa) and
Indian ricegrass (Stipa hymenoides) were also present on the valley floor and were likely exploited.
Fowler (1986) described how different technologies are needed for the collection and processing of
these plants and, based on these differences, he has defined different plant complexes based on
tools needs for procurement and processing. Three plant groups are relevant to the Antelope Valley
study area: yucca; piñon; and mesquite and screwbean. In addition, supplemental plant foods such as
small seeds and berries were also important.
Yucca. The yucca family of plants includes Joshua tree (Yucca brevifolia), Mojave yucca (Yucca
schidigera), banana yucca Yucca baccata), and beargrass (Nolina spp.). Traditionally, yucca fruit and
seeds of Joshua tree and Mojave yucca were consumed as food after being roasted and parboiled
(Ball 1962; Bean and Saubel 1972; Clarke 1977; Ebeling 1986; Knack 1980; Moerman 2010; Strike
1994). Joshua tree (Yucca brevifolia) is a high desert plant which grows on gentle slopes and has a
wide distribution range. It is found in the foothills and on the valley floor of the Study Area. It is
found in the Joshua tree woodland community in the foothills and foothill canyons at elevations of
3,000 feet or below (Earle et al. 1995). In addition to Joshua tree, this vegetation community includes
juniper and a range of small seeded plants (chia, buckwheat, boxthorns, and saltbush). Joshua tree is
also found in the lower elevation ranges of the sagebrush scrub (3,500 and 7,000 feet AMSL), desert
chaparral (3,000 and 6,000 feet AMSL) and pinyon-juniper (3,000-6,500 feet AMSL) communities.
Joshua tree is also found on the Antelope Valley floor (below 3,000 feet AMSL), but in lower
frequencies (Sutton 1988b). In the study area, yucca became a part of the vegetation from about
8,300 years ago and continued to be a part of the vegetation through time. Louderback et al. (2013)
provide a synthesis of yucca use in the Mojave Desert and macrobotanical remains from sites in the
eastern Mojave Desert that indicate spring gathering and processing. In the central Mojave Desert,
agave is also part of the yucca complex; however, agave does not occur in the Antelope Valley.
According to the ethnographic and ethnohistoric documentation from the Kawaiisu, Kitanemuk, and
Serrano, edible parts of Joshua tree (Yucca brevifolia) – stalks, basal hearts, buds, fruits and seeds were collected as food in the spring (Harrington 1986:III:98; Walker 1931:15; Zigmond 1981:69). The
Chemehevi ate the fruit of Mojave Yucca (Yucca schidigera), and Earle et al. (1995) explain that
Hesperoyucca whipplei (Spanish bayonet) was also harvested in the foothills in the spring. They
report that “roasting ovens used to prepare the stocks are frequently encountered in the foothill
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
180
07A3822 Task Order 17
areas where sufficient quantities of fuel were available” (Earle 2015:25). Earle et al. (1995) reported
that the roasting of yucca buds (and also piñon cones) would have to be done where there was
ample fuelwood available; and they reference King et al. (1974:15) who states that the Tataviam
roasted the yucca buds where the yucca was in close proximity with juniper plants so that juniper
wood could be used as fuel. Yucca whipplei was often the first food available in the Antelope Valley
foothills in the spring (Earle et al. 1995). The basal hearts are available early in spring, while the
blossom stalks could be harvested through early summer. The stalks, basal hearts, buds, and fruits
were boiled or roasted before consumption. Kitanemuk and the Cahuilla roasted the whole stalk
before eating them; the Cahuilla ate the flowers fresh, boiled or dried (Timbrook 2007: 229). Bean
and Saubel (1972) report that mature flowers were boiled while immature flowers were eaten raw.
The roasting was done in ovens that could be as large as eight feet across and four feet deep and
sometimes were rock-lined (Bean and Saubel 1972; Timbrook 2007). The yucca parts to be cooked
would be placed in the pit and covered with sand (Bean and Saubel 1972). The cooking could take as
long as two days. The roasting ovens used to prepare the stocks are frequently encountered in the
foothill areas where sufficient quantities of fuel were available (Earle et al 1995). Use of agave in
archaeological contexts is documented by ring middens which are “elevated rings of stone and soil,
between five and twenty meters in diameter, surrounding a ground-level central area.” (Schneider et
al. 1996:29).
Piñon Nuts. Piñon would be available on the mountain slopes around the Antelope Valley, and
particularly on the San Gabriel Mountain slopes where oak-piñon-juniper woodland is present. The
elevation range for piñon ranges from 3,000 to 6,500 feet AMSL (Earle et al. 1995:1-11). Pine nuts
would have been the focus of intensive gathering and collecting during years of abundance (typically
in 3- to 7-year cycles, according to Lanner [1981]). Pine nuts were obtained from the single-leafed
pinyon pine (Pinus monophylla) growing on the foothills and lower mountain elevations, in late
summer and early fall. After harvest they are stored immediately or first parched and then stored
followed by considerable processing before consumption (Bean 1972; Knack 1981). If green cone
harvesting occurred (as discussed earlier), the harvesting would occur in mid-summer before the
cones are fully ripened. The piñon cones and nuts were stored at the residential base or village within
rock rings (Bean Saubel 1972), baskets, or granaries.
Pine nut gathering was often a community event, and Earle et al. (1995) reported that on occasion
different clans were invited into another clan’s territory to gather piñon cones and nuts. Referring to
Harrington’s notes (Harrington 1986:Reel 101:Fr. 15,326), Earle et al. (1995) noted Serrano clan
leaders invited other Serrano and Cahuilla clans to pine nut gathering forays. Depending on the
distance between the piñon groves and the villages, on occasion the entire village would move to
the piñon grove(s) area to camp during the gathering season. The pine cones were harvested by
pulling them down from trees with crooked poles, and then the cones were processed in the
temporary camps. The processing involved heating the cones on fire to open them up to remove the
partially parched nut. Nuts were then removed from the cone. These nuts were either transported
back to permanent settlements for storage without being hulled or were cached locally. Before
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
181
07A3822 Task Order 17
consumption, the nuts were hulled (nut shells removed) by rolling a handstone over them and then
winnowing them in a basket before they were eaten or made into a mush by cooking the nuts
(Barrows 1967; Bean and Saubel 1972; Timbrook 2007). Green piñon cone processing is front-loaded;
while brown cones can be front- or back-loaded.
Acorns. The role of acorns in the pre-contact diet of the Antelope Valley inhabitants is unclear. Earle
et al. (1995) argue that the lack of archaeological focus on acorns as an important food source in this
region is a byproduct of using Great Basin models of subsistence which emphasizes small seeds.
Alternatively, it is important to incorporate the role of return rates on acorns compared to pine nuts
which were readily available.
Oaks such as interior live oak (Quercus wislizenii) and canyon live oak (Quercus chrysolepis) are found
up to 7,000 feet on the northern side of the San Gabriel Mountains. For example, the Liebre
Mountain Range ridge on the southwestern side of the Antelope Valley was an important acorn
gathering area during the ethnohistoric period, as documented by Harrington (Harrington
1986:98:98). Clans with abundant acorns in their territory could invite other clans with which they had
good relations to gather acorns in their territory.
Acorn gathering in the oak groves was done in the fall. Minimal processing was done at the
gathering location, except drying. The nuts were transported to the villages and stored for future use.
Intensive labor investment was necessary in order to make acorns ready for consumption. The
processing involved pulverizing with a mortar and pestle (bedrock mortars were often used),
leaching with water (therefore limiting where the processing could have occurred), and cooking the
resulting acorn-meal. Acorns are back-loaded resources.
Mesquite and Screwbean. Mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa) and screwbean (Prosopis pubescens) grow in
the Mojave Desert where the water table is high. Antelope Valley did have a high water table until
historical times, and mesquite is found on the Antelope Valley floors and playas (below 3,000 feet
AMSL) (Earle 2015; Sutton 1988b). Sawyer (1944) described mesquite “forests” at Edwards AFB which
occur in areas of higher subsurface water typically in the vicinity of springs and/or lakes, including
Buckhorn Springs.
Bean and Saubel (1972:108-109) summarized the seasonal use of the three main mesquite foods
among the Cahuilla: blossoms in the spring, green pods in early summer, and mature dried pods in
the early fall. The blossoms were picked, roasted, and made into balls for consumption. They were
also used to make tea. The entire family was involved in the harvest of mesquite pods which could
span several weeks. Similar to green cone piñon harvesting, the mesquite and screwbean pods could
be harvested before they are completely ripened to minimize competition with birds and rodents.
The green pods were dried and then prepared (similar to the dried pods); or they were prepared
immediately by pounding with water to produce a pulpy drink. The mature pods could be stored
whole or processed as flour and cakes (Bean and Saubel 1972). The mesquite bean pods and beans
were pounded and consumed fresh or formed into cakes and dried for use later (Barrows 1967; Bean
and Saubel 1972; Earle et al. 1995). Sometimes the pods (before being pounded) and flour/cakes and
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
182
07A3822 Task Order 17
nuts were stored in baskets or granaries (Bean and Saubel 1972). Dried mesquite is a back-loaded
resource, while the blossoms and green pods are front-loaded resources.
Juniper Berries. Several plant foods served as secondary but important food sources for the Antelope
Valley prehistoric populations. These include juniper berries, islay berries, and small seeds. Juniper
berries were a consistent prehistoric food source throughout California; although their contribution
to the Western Mojave prehistoric diet is debated. Based on their work among the Cahuilla, Bean and
Saubel (1972:81-82) suggest that the berries were not a major food source but were eaten in large
quantities when available in the summer months. In contrast, Zigmond (1981), using information
collected by Harrington, argues that juniper berries were a staple. Harrington’s information is derived
from San Gabriel Mission records from 1813 in which juniper berries along with acorns, yucca stalks,
and pine nuts were listed as being staples for the Native Americans (Geiger and Meighan 1976:81).
Earle et al. (1995) note that juniper is found on the lower foothills and upper valley floor from the
southern Antelope Valley eastward to the Mojave River and beyond, and westward on the San
Gabriel Mountains foothills. In particular, they refer to the area between Victorville and the Cajon
Pass which was known for juniper berry gathering in the nineteenth century. As part of the pinyonjuniper woodland, juniper occurs at elevations between 3,000 and 6,500 feet AMSL, but it also occurs
at lower elevations. Joshua tree-juniper woodland is intermixed with saltbush scrub in the desert
margin (around 2,400 feet [731 m] and above) on the south side of the valley. Juniper woodland is
extensive at higher altitudes in the canyons, foothills, and ridge slopes south of the Antelope Valley.
Earle (2015) notes Joshua tree-juniper woodland was noted in the western part of the Antelope
Valley floor, especially along today’s SR-138, by pioneer travelers. These woodlands were heavily
impacted by twentieth-century agriculture. Isolated juniper trees are currently found on the Antelope
Valley floor (below 3,000 feet AMSL) (Sutton 1988b). The study area could have had two types of
juniper trees: the more common California juniper (Juniperus californica) and the closely related and
rarer Utah juniper (Juniperus utahensis) (Earle et al. 1995). Juniper berries were collected for food and
wood was collected for fuel. Earle et al. (1995) note that glaucophane schist metates are found in the
juniper-dominated areas of the Antelope Valley foothills, and they may have been used to process
juniper berries and small seeds. As such, the authors propose an association between the distribution
of glaucophane schist metates in juniper zone foothill camps and the processing of juniper berries.
The berries are available in the summer months, and they can be consumed in several ways: eaten
raw, dried and ground into flour and made into bread, or boiled and consumed (Timbrook 2007;
Zigmond 1981:35). Juniper berries are front-loaded resources.
Islay Berries. Islay berry or holly-leafed cherry (Prunus ilicifolia) was another significant nut food
resource on the southern margin of the Antelope Valley and the San Gabriel Mountains foothills. The
Islay nut, tasting much like an almond, was a favorite food item (Harrington 1986:III:98:112,186191,363). The berries were ready for harvest in late summer months. It is not clear whether the
berries were consumed raw. Bean and Saubel (1972:120) report that the berries may have been too
astringent for immediate consumption, and they had to be leached well before consumption. The
processing involved several steps, including an initial step of drying the berries in order to extract the
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
183
07A3822 Task Order 17
fruit pits. These pits were then boiled and then dried again. Subsequently, the softened pits were
cracked open with a rock and the kernels were removed. At this point, the pits could be stored for
future use (Timbrook 2007:152). Whether or not they had been stored, the kernels had to be leached
before they were ready for consumption. After leaching, the kernels were boiled in stone bowls and,
once they were cooked, the resulting mashed islay product was molded into cakes or balls which
could keep for as long as a week. Given the substantial processing required before storage, islay
berries are front-loaded resources.
Small Seeds. Small seeds were abundant in the Antelope Valley floor and adjacent foothills before the
twentieth-century changes in plant geography. Earle et al. (1995) proposed that these native plants
were likely much more abundant in pre-contact times before the introduction of non-native plants,
livestock grazing, and agriculture. Originally, the Antelope Valley playa and valley floor had
grassland, shadscale, and saltbush scrub. Plants with small seeds included, but were not limited to,
grasses (Carrizo grass - Phragmites sp.; Indian ricegrass -Stipa hymenoides; and desert needle grass Stipa speciose), bulrush (Scirpus sp.), bur-sage (Ambrosia dumosa), California buckwheat (Eriogonum
fasciculatum), California pigweed (Amaranthus sp.), Chia (Salvia spp.), creosote (Larrea tridentata),
fiddleneck (Amsinckia tessellate), Mojave monardella (Monardella exilis), pepper grass (Lepidium sp.),
purslane (Sesuvium verrucosum), rabbitbrush (Ericameria nauseosa), rush (Juncus sp.), saltbush
(Atriplex sp.), sagebrush (Artemisia tridentate), spurges (Euphorbia sp.), and thornbush berries
(Lyceum andersonii). Most of these small seeds were available in the summer months. Their
contribution to the daily diet of the pre-contact residents of the Antelope Valley is unclear because,
compared to nuts, berries, yucca/agave and mesquite, there is relatively little information in the J. P.
Harrington notes on small seed exploitation, with the exception of chia. This could suggest that small
seeds may not have been staple items or, alternatively, as argued by Reddy (2009), the importance of
the small seeds may have been deemphasized by these early ethnohistoric informants to focus on
foods which had higher cultural value. In other words, nuts and berries were culturally perceived as
more prestigious foods relative to small seeds; therefore, they were emphasized in the Spanish
accounts. Alternatively, the lack of information on small seeds could also be a reflection of limitations
in the ethnohistoric accounts which were informal and subjective.
Small seeds were typically collected by beating them into baskets. Most of these native plant seeds
have hard seed coats and need processing before consumption. These same hard seed coats helped
their storage. Harrington’s (1986:98:98) informants described gathering chia in the Liebre Mountains
on the southwestern edge of the Antelope Valley and caching the seeds in dry caves for months or
years. The processing of small seeds with hard coats includes separating the seed coats by pounding
and winnowing, and then grinding to make flour. Small seeds typically are front-loaded resources.
Seasonality
There was a pronounced seasonality in the plant diet of the prehistoric populations of the Antelope
Valley. Typically, springtime was lean with mainly Yucca spp. available in the foothills. Summer
months were more productive with islay and juniper berries on the hill slopes, and
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
184
07A3822 Task Order 17
mesquite/screwbean and seeds on the desert floor and playas. During the fall (October and
November) pinyon and acorns were exploited. Seasonality of site use can be assessed by examining
seasonal availability/abundance of plant foods: small seeds (generally spring/summer), berries
(summer), and nuts (late summer/fall). The challenge with plant resources is that some of them can
be stored, including acorns, piñon, and most small seeds. Therefore, their recovery from site deposits
does not necessarily imply the season of their procurement. This is further complicated if the
resource in question, for example, piñon or acorn nuts, are not locally available within the daily
foraging range. This would imply that either the site occupants procured these foods through
seasonal forays or through trade/exchange.
Engendering Plant Exploitation
Studies of changes and continuity in plant use trends have the potential to address issues related to
gender. Nelson’s (2008) discussion of how resource intensification went beyond dietary needs in the
Owens Valley is an excellent example of engendering plant intensification. Nelson’s (2008)
arguments stem largely in response to the emergence of “prestige hunting” as theorized by
Hildebrandt and McGuire (2012) wherein a significant portion of game was acquired from remote
and upland locations which were part of logistical forays by males and not chance encounters by
family units. Nelson (2008:169) considers how such participation of men in prestige hunting would
give women “opportunities to play a larger role in family provision and perhaps settlement choice.”
In such instances, when women began provisioning for the group, the resources were not shared as
much as previously. Nelson (2008) suggests that post-3000 BP, women began to include marginal
resources (such as small seeds) and new technologies (seed beads, pottery). If something like this
occurred in the Western Mojave Desert and Antelope Valley, it would be expressed in the increased
use of small seeds and yucca.
Ethnohistoric Documentation of Plant Use
There is considerable data on the ethnographic and ethnohistoric use of plants by Native Americans
in California (Ball 1962; Clarke 1977; Ebeling 1986; Merrill 1918; Moerman 2010; Strike 1994;
Timbrook 2007). The discussion in the previous section on plant use has been gleaned from these
ethnographic and ethnohistoric documentation resources. In the absence of paleoethnobotanical
data, archaeologists have often turned to these data to speculate on what plants were used
prehistorically as food and for non-food needs. Bean (1972), Bean and Saubel (1972), Drucker (1937),
Fowler (1986), Knack (1980), Laird 1976, Lanner (1981), Kelly (1932), Kroeber (1925), and others have
excellent ethnographic information on plant procurement, processing, and consumption. See Table 2
in the Prehistoric Landscape section for plants used by the Serrano and their uses according to the
Cahuilla.
Ethnohistoric and ethnographic documentation indicates that piñon trees were important resources
to some Native American groups, and occasionally groves of trees were considered family property
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
185
07A3822 Task Order 17
(Steward 1938). Similarly, Kelly (1932) wrote about family ownership of mesquite groves among
Southern Paiute groups. Bean and Smith (1978b) have discussed how acorn and mesquite gathering
involved several lineages under one lineage leader’s leadership. These are interesting aspects of
Native American culture that need to be incorporated in archaeological interpretation. However, the
specific paleoethnobotanical signatures of these behaviors need to be identified.
In using and applying these data to archaeological contexts, it is critical to consider vegetation and
culture change as it pertains to plant use. There has been significant change in vegetation with the
arrival of the Spanish in California and the introduction of non-native plants and domesticates. If the
plant remains do not meet the expectations of the ethnographic and ethnohistoric plant use
patterns, it is imperative to consider cultural preference (a difficult aspect of culture to measure and
quantify). Studies of prehistoric plant use in California have been held captive to the region's rich
ethnohistoric record. Although modeling past human adaptations using ethnohistoric information is
one effective avenue to understanding prehistoric behavior, ethnographic analogies are limiting and
often one-dimensional.
Faunal Analysis
Identification
Identifications of faunal remains are typically made by comparison to a reference collection of
specimens, often at one or more museums. A wide variety of references are available that detail
diagnostic features for specific animals. For example, identifications of diagnostic features of deer
versus pronghorn are provided by Lawrence (1951) and Ford (1990). However, differentiating rabbit
from jackrabbit is far more problematic because the only morphologically diagnostic feature is the
lower third premolar (Baxter 2004:166) which is highly crenulated in Lepus californicus (black-tailed
jackrabbit or hare) and moderately crenulated (anterior reentrant with at least two inflections) in
species of Sylvilagus (rabbits) (Barnosky and Hopkins 2004:170). Many analysts use perceived size to
differentiate; however accurate use of this technique requires knowledge of the natural range of
variation in the local area. When no measurements or assessment of chronological age and gender
are mentioned in the methods section, accuracy should be considered dubious.
Quantification
Most faunal studies quantify using number of identified specimens (NISP) and minimum number of
individuals (MNI). While both tend to numerically over-represent rare species within a fauna and are
subject to aggregation issues, relative frequency data are the most direct way to quantify faunas
(Gifford-Gonazalez and Hildebrandt 2012:107). Due to the long history of studies using NISP and
MNI, new quantification methods need to be utilized in addition to the standards, not replacing
them.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
186
07A3822 Task Order 17
A technique to utilize weight of archaeological specimens and convert them to meat weight was
promoted by Glassow and Wilcoxon (1988) of the University of California at Santa Barbara for shell
middens and later extended to vertebrate faunas. However, this method is fraught with problematic
assumptions (Mason et al. 1998) and studies have demonstrated that intertaxonomic differences in
processing, transport, and post-depositional preservation are significant factors that dramatically
affect the utility of one-step conversion (Gifford-Gonazalez and Hildebrandt 2012:97). In addition,
bone weight to meat weight conversion has been shown to be statistically invalid (Jackson 1998).
Heat Modification
Three classifications of heat-affected bone are commonly used: bone color-changed to brown/gray
has been cooked and is often called heat-altered; blackened bone which has been burned; and
white/light gray bone which is calcined. These differences can be significant in archaeological sites,
but must be carefully considered as current evidence indicates that complex factors affect the color
of heat-affected bone.
Studies in open air (oxygen-rich) environments have shown that blackening does not occur on bone
until the temperature of the fire reaches 450 degrees and calcining does not appear until the
temperature reaches 800 degrees. Natural grassfires move very quickly, consuming the fuel as they
go, and have relatively low temperatures of about 400 degrees. However, deliberate fires, made in
one place and using wood for fuel, allow a bed of coals to form and may reach temperatures of 9001,700 degrees (Sillien and Brain 1990).
Studies of human cremation practices have demonstrated that different results are obtained in
closed (oxygen-starved) environments (Mayne Correia 1997). In a closed environment (covered with
dirt) bone turned completely black at temperatures of 300-500 degrees and is calcined to white at
temperatures in excess of 600 degrees (Wheeler et al. 1989).
Heating bone to the level of calcining tends to cause shrinkage (5-20%) and cracking of bone
(Mayne Correia 1997). Temperature, water exposure, soil chemistry, micro-organisms, and other
factors have been shown to have dramatic decompositional effects on bone in a long-term
experiment (Nicholson 1996).
Taphonomy
The process by which faunal materials are integrated into the depositional history of site is critical to
the interpretation of assemblages. However, rarely are a comprehensive suite of taphonomic
characters recorded or analyzed (Madgwick and Mulville 2014:255). Analysis of detailed recording of
weathering, gnawing, and trampling can assist in separating depositional strata even when
sediments appear uniform (Madgwick and Mulville 2014:261-262). In certain sites, non-human
deposition may also impact the faunal deposition, which requires archaeologists to be thoughtful in
their interpretation of the faunal assemblage. Owls, for instance, can play a large role in the
deposition of leporid and rodent bones (Hocket 2005:715).
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
187
07A3822 Task Order 17
Organization of Animal Hunting
Individual/Small Group Animal Hunting
Animals taken for pelts such as carnivores, animals that require stealth to acquire such as deer, and
animals that are solitary, such as chuckwalla, were hunted by individuals or small groups.
Ethnographic information in conjunction with archaeological evidence indicates that hunting large
animals was an adult male activity (Hildebrandt and McGuire 2012). Individuals used constructed
rock or naturally-occurring rock formations as blinds along known animal trails for hunting deer and
bighorn sheep. Hunters also used large brush to conceal themselves during individual or small group
pronghorn hunts (Lubinski 1999:161). Brush concealment while hunting pronghorn was effective, as
pronghorn lack visual acuity from a distance and are naturally curious, so they will approach anything
new in their territory as long as it does not alarm them by scent or sudden movement (Lubinski
1999:160). Although pronghorn were most often hunted in communal groups, opportunist hunting
by individuals or small groups may have occurred as well. Some ethnographic records indicated that
pronghorn were desired more for clothing, as their light hides were preferred by various tribes for
shirts, leggings, and moccasins (Lubinski 1999:161).
Deer were sometimes hunted in small groups by driving them along trails where slip noose traps
were placed (Heizer and Elsasser 1980:101). Both deer and bighorn sheep were sometimes driven
down trails toward concealed hunters, where they would be killed using a bow and arrow at close
range. Deer were also hunted using a deer head decoy on a human to get close enough to fire a
projectile point efficiently (Heizer and Elsasser 1980:101). Although less common, deer and bighorn
sheep were also hunted using pits, nets, and driving with dogs (Whitaker et al. 2017:3). Bighorn could
also be attracted to hunters by banging a rock loudly to mimic the sounds of male sheep in combat.
In contrast to men-only hunting practices, many smaller game species were likely exploited by
children or those socially prohibited from hunting during scarcity of larger game species
(Schollmeyer and Driver 2013: 449). Small lizards like chuckwalla can effectively be hunted by an
older child or any adult using a sharpened stick since they do not flee for defense; they enlarge their
bodies with air in an attempt to make it hard to retrieve them from rock crevices.
Cottontail rabbits were hunted using a rabbit stick, nets, or blunt projectile point to stun them long
enough for the animals to be collected and killed by snapping the neck to avoid damaging the pelt.
Game birds were taken using small projectile points and possibly crescentics. Quail were taken using
traps.
Communal Animal Hunting
Mass capture techniques give the highest return on investment. Information below indicates these
methods were used for mammals, birds, and insects listed in decreasing order of processing
investment.
Pronghorn were often hunted by larger groups of people taking advantage of the natural curiosity of
the animals. Heizer and Elsasser (1980:101-102) report that a banner on a long pole was constructed
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
188
07A3822 Task Order 17
a few miles from where herds were grazing. When the animals moved in the direction of the banner,
they were driven into a brush enclosure. Pronghorn, deer, and mountain sheep were also driven by
use of shouting and fire along defined pathways into brush corrals. Once the pronghorn were inside,
a large net made of cordage, which they unknowingly passed over while entering the trap, would
close the entrance (Wilke 2013:83). The pronghorn could then be killed at close range using a bow
and arrow, spear, or be bludgeoned using clubs (Lubinski 1999:165; Whitaker et al. 2017:4).
Group drives were often used to capture jackrabbits. Multiple birds could be captured by use of
baskets and nets (Whitaker 2012:59). Flying birds were captured by stretching nets across flyways.
Seasonal lakes and ponds that attracted waterfowl were exploited by using decoys to lure birds
within range of slings or thrown nets and by placing a net below the surface of the water to capture
diving birds (Whitaker 2012:60).
Small food items such as fairy shrimp were captured using fine nets or baskets. These small food
items, such as crustaceans and insect larvae, are invisible in the archaeological record.
Role of Animals in Prehistoric Diet
Based on archaeological collections, the mountainous fringe of the western Mojave Desert was home
to black bear, bighorn sheep, deer, and chuckwalla. The valley floor was home to pronghorn, kit fox,
jackrabbit, rabbit, squirrels, vole, rats, desert tortoise, iguana, and quail. Lynx, coyote, gray fox, and
some others were found both in the mountains and valley floor. Seasonal lakes and ponds were
home to ducks, geese, egret, heron, and fairy shrimp.
Artiodactyls
Pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra americana), deer (Odocoileus hemionus), and bighorn sheep (Ovis
canadensis) were the artiodactyl species available within range of the Western Mojave Desert.
Pronghorn antelope were known in prehistoric and historic times in the Antelope Valley. Large
populations were known as late as the 1890s. However, a fish and game census in 1934 located only
four females in the valley (Anderson 1934). By the 1950s the statewide population was so low that
translocation efforts began (Brown et al. 2006). Pronghorn are most active in the daytime and their
primary defense mechanisms are being a member of a herd and fast locomotion. The animals are
known to be very curious and both prehistoric and modern hunters use a flag or pendant tied to
vegetation to attract individual animals into range. Pronghorn were also hunted communally. Deer
and bighorn sheep were hunted individually and likely did not leave the mountain areas. Local travel
was probably needed to hunt these animals.
An increase in large-game hunting in the San Francisco Bay area has been discussed using concepts
from optimal foraging theory and intensification. As hunters depleted game around the large semipermanent villages near the Bay, they began to hunt further away in previously under-used habitats.
With greater distance from the village, prey selection favored higher ranked species (large game,
usually deer) that produced high return rates to offset the greater search and transport costs
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
189
07A3822 Task Order 17
(Broughton 1999; Hildebrandt and McGuire 2002). Another explanation for increased large-game
hunting is based on costly signaling theory where prestige (non-food benefits) gained by the hunter
is more important than provisioning (Hildebrandt and McGuire 2012). Non-food benefits include
display of leadership, strength, and stamina and perception of prestige based on sharing food within
a group. These qualities would attract both mates and supporters. This theory seems to require
larger group size because within small groups these qualities are already well known by all group
members. Big horn sheep bones have been identified in Late Holocene residential sites in the Owens
Valley, far from where big horn sheep could be hunted. Hunters from these sites would have to travel
long distances to hunt big horn sheep in the White Mountains. This great amount of energy
expenditure is often more than the caloric return obtained from the meat from the big horn sheep
when it is brought back to the residential base. The caloric return is actually higher if the hunters stay
near the residential base in the lowlands and hunt small game (Hildebrandt and McGuire 2012:137).
The explanation for this is that the increase in prestige was more important to the hunter than the
net caloric return. Success in hunting big horn sheep may have been a costly signal indicating the
hunter’s physical endurance, technical prowess, ecological knowledge, leadership ability, and
generosity, to other members of the group. Advertising these characteristics may have resulted in
higher social standing, greater mating opportunities, and higher reproductive success (Hildebrandt
and McGuire 2012:137).
Leporids
Jackrabbit or hare (Lepus californicus) and cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus sp.) comprise the leporids of
the area. Jackrabbits are known to be active during the late afternoon and night and spend most
daylight hours resting. Resting spots tend not to be reused and are most often are located in shade
during hot months. In the Mojave Desert resting spots are sometimes extended into shallow burrows
when no other shade is available (Costa 1976). Jackrabbits evade their natural predators by having
no scent, protective coloration, and fast movement. Reproduction can occur year-round but tends to
be most common in the first half of the year. Jackrabbits are known to travel to areas with more
vegetation during winter months and travel distances of 5 km are common. Jackrabbits are also
known to be attracted to seasonal water features in the Mojave Desert (Simes 2015). Communal
drives were used to capture jackrabbits. By contrast, rabbits typically live in burrows and venture out
to feed mostly at night. Rabbits were taken individually using a rabbit stick, nets or snares, or a blunt
projectile point. Sometimes a hooked stick was used to pull them out of their burrows.
Rodents
Species of rodents identified in archaeological sites include woodrat (Neotoma spp.), vole (Microtus
californicus), Mohave ground squirrel (Otospermophilus mohavensis), Antelope ground squirrel
(Ammospermophilus leucurus), kangaroo rats (Dipodomys spp.), pocket mice (Perognathus spp.), deer
mice (Peromyscus sp.), grasshopper mice (Onychomys torridus), and western harvest mice
(Reithrodontomys megalotis). Numbers of rodents identified even to genus from archaeological sites
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
190
07A3822 Task Order 17
are usually low, and analysts sometimes have a difficult time distinguishing archaeological rodents
from intrusive burrowing rodents.
Other Mammals
Other mammals known from archaeological sites include the bobcat (Felis rufus), coyote (Canis
latrans), kit fox (Vulpes macrotis), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), and badger (Taxidea taxus).
Other animals probably available include black bear (Ursus americanus) and likely domestic dog
(Canis domesticus). The use of bear and dog as food animals is generally considered unlikely,
although pelts may have been taken.
Birds
The only bird ethnographically mentioned consistently as a food item was quail (Calipepla
californicus). Raptors and colorful birds were likely hunted for feathers, but not used for food.
Reptiles
Desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) and pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata) were both identified
archaeologically. Lizards as a group were identified, but not to genus or species. Both colubrid
(Colubridae) snakes and rattlesnakes (Crotalus spp.) have been identified in archaeological sites.
Marine Resources
Small amounts of marine shell and shark present archaeologically (Earle et al. 1997:48-49) were likely
items obtained in trade from the coast for decorative or utilitarian purposes.
Insects
Use of insects by Native peoples is well known ethnographically but not archaeologically, due to
fragmentation and poor preservation.
Known types of insects consumed include grasshoppers,
crickets, flies, cicadas, mesquite beetles, ants, bees, yellow jackets, and lice. Larval caterpillars of
Pandora moth, white-winged sphinx moth, and probably other types of lepidoptera, were consumed
along with grubs and earthworms. Native populations had demonstrated knowledge of the seasonal
and geographic availability of these resources. Roasting was a typical method of preparation, but
insects were also boiled and then dried to be stored for later use (DeFoliart 1991; Skinner 1910;
Sutton 1988c).
Broad Trends in Subsistence Strategies in the Western Mojave Desert and Antelope Valley
To aid in the identification of research questions, a brief summary of broad trends in the Native
American prehistoric use of the Western Mojave Desert and Antelope Valley is presented below by
cultural period (see the Chronology section). The discussion focusses on macrobotanical and faunal
remains recovered from archaeological sites.
The faunal discussion identifies trends and utilizes zooarchaeological resources recovered from
Antelope Valley sites to define local expression. For this discussion, data from 23 sites with more
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
191
07A3822 Task Order 17
than 500 faunal remains in and near the Study Area are considered (Table 11). The proportion of
specimens identified below the family level was exceptionally small in samples under 500 total
specimens and thus they did not have the potential to contribute useful information. Sites were
categorized by chronological component as reported by sources and by habitat as mapped by the
California Department of Fish and Game (2013).
To maximize the data available for chronological comparisons, animals identified as Leporidae, Lepus
californicus and Sylvilagus sp. were combined as the Leporid Group. Animals identified as
Artiodacytla, Ovis canadensis (bighorn sheep), Odocoileus hemionus (deer) or Antilocapra americana
(pronghorn) were combined into the Artiodactyl Group. The Leporid Group varies from 46% to 100%
of the identified faunal sample. The Artiodactyl Group represents from zero to 7% of the identified
faunal sample. Bone that was affected by fire varies from zero to 86%, when reported, and does not
appear to include unidentified fragmentary bone.
Clovis Period (12,000 to 9500 BC)
Sites of this period are known only from the northern Mojave Desert near China Lake. It is assumed
that subsistence was based on group hunting of megafauna around pluvial lake margins. Low plant
usage is assumed primarily because no milling tools have been found (Sutton 1996). There is no
macrobotanical evidence of plant use by Paleoindian peoples in the Antelope Valley. Plants around
lake margins would have included tules (Scirpus sp.), cattail (Typha sp.), and rushes (e.g., Phragmites
sp.). No sites of this period are known in Antelope Valley.
Lake Mojave Period (9500 to 7000 BC)
Lake Mojave peoples practiced a generalized foraging economy that included use of lakeshores but
was not limited to them (Sutton 2018:38). Diet would have diversified relative to the Clovis Period
because multiple habitats and niches were exploited in addition to lakeshores. Nonetheless, Sutton
(1996) states that virtually nothing is known about plant use during the Lake Mojave Period.
However, the small numbers of ground stone tools recovered from Lake Mojave sites indicate some
use of plant foods. Sutton et al. (2007) conclude that the use-wear on these tools suggest hard seed
grinding. In Antelope Valley, there is no macrobotanical evidence to indicate which plants were
exploited for food. Juniper, sagebrush (Artemisia tridentate), rabbitbrush (Ericameria nauseosa),
Joshua tree (Yucca brevifolia), bur-sage (Ambrosia dumosa), and creosote (Larrea tridentata) could
have been exploited during this period.
Faunal subsistence data for this period indicate reliance on small game such as leporids and rodents
with occasional use of large game. Protein residue studies also support this. Sutton (2018:38) notes
that this contrasts with the flaked stone technology of this period which appears to be focused on
large game (artiodactyls).
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
192
07A3822 Task Order 17
Table 11. Faunal Data from 23 Sites in the Study Area
Site
CA-KER2821/H
LAN-1296
(LOCUS E only)
Period
Lake Mohave –
Late Prehistoric
Habitat
Leporids %
Artiodactyls %
Birds %
Fish %
Reference
woodland
73
7
18
0
0
2
0
Way 2009a
Gypsum
alkaili scrub
99
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
1
0
0
Christenson 1990
Horne & McDougal
2005
CA-KER-1175
Mid-Gypsum
alkali schrub
92
1
CA-KER-526
Gypsum, early
desert scrub
95
CA-LAN-1208
Gypsum
alkali schrub
86
0
3
0
1
0
0
Byrd 1994
0
0
0
14
0
0
Campbell 1992a
CA-KER-2131
Gypsum
alkali schrub
94
CA-KER-2121
alkali scrub
100
alkali schrub
97
alkali scrub
CA-LAN-192
Pinto/Gypsum
Late Gypsum/
Early Rose Spring
Gypsum/
Rose Spring
Gypsum/
Late Prehistoric
0
0
0
6
0
0
Campbell 1992a
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
Valdez 1995
Horne & McDougal
2005
81
0
10
0
6
3
0
Byrd 1996
CA-KER-1881
Rose Spring
grassland
94
1
4
1
0
0
0
Price et al. 2009
alkali schrub
47
2
42
0
9
0
0
Holmes et al. 2004
CA-KER-6106
CA-KER-226
Rose Spring
riparian
98
0
1
0
0
0
0
Williams 2009
Rose Spring
73
3
18
1
4
1
0
Cowie 2014
67
6
19
8
0
0
0
Cowie 2014
Rose Spring
desert scrub
pinyon/
juniper
woodland
pinyon/
juniper
woodland
CA-KER-7432
Rose Spring
CA-KER-7442
CA-KER-500
CA-KER-2816/
CA-KER-2817
70
6
21
1
1
0
0
Cowie 2014
Late Prehistoric
alkali scrub
62
0
31
0
6
1
0
Byrd 1996
CA-LAN-2399
Late Prehistoric
alkali schrub
97
2
0
0
0
0
1
York 1991
Late Prehistoric
alkali schrub
71
0
25
0
2
2
0
Holmes et al. 2004
CA-KER6047
Late Prehistoric
alkali schrub
75
0
3
0
18
4
0
Holmes et al. 2004
CA-KER-229
Late Prehistoric
66
32
2
0
0
0
0
Sutton 2010
CA-KER-733
Late Prehistoric
rocky
pinyon/
juniper
woodland
94
3
2
0
0
0
0
Sutton 1984
CA-LAN-1329
CA-KER-1189
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
193
Rodents %
Carnivores %
Reptiles %
07A3822 Task Order 17
The only site with faunal data from a Lake Mojave component is Bean Springs (CA-KER-2821/H) (Way
et al. 2009). The site is in Joshua tree woodland in the northwestern part of the Study Area. The
Leporid Group represented 74% of the identified fauna and the Artiodactyl Group only 7%. Rodents
and bird were also present.
Pinto Period (8250 to 2500 BC)
Pinto Period sites were used during a period of more arid conditions and were commonly located on
lake basins, waterways, springs, and in upland areas. Some residential bases had middens and there
were a variety of simple, small resource extraction locations (Sutton 2018:39).
An increase in ground stone tools likely indicates an increase in the exploitation of small and hard
seeds (Sutton et al. 2007). As in the case of the Lake Mojave deposits, macrobotanical data for
addressing plant food consumption are rare; instead scholars rely on ground stone tool assemblages
to argue for plant processing and consumption. For example, according to Basgall (2000), ground
stone is abundant in these deposits, and Sutton et al. (2007) suggest that access to plant resources
may have determined site location.
Macrobotanical data for the Pinto Period is very limited for the Mojave Desert. Sutton (1996) reports
possible evidence of piñon exploitation based on recovery of piñon hulls from hearth features at the
Surprise Spring Site (circa. 6500 BP). There is no macrobotanical data from sites in the Antelope
Valley. Sutton et al. (2007:141) and Sutton (2007:24) have suggested that the Mojave Desert was
abandoned at the end of the Pinto Period. However, whether this also applies to the western
Antelope Valley is not clear. If the western and southern margins of the Antelope Valley Study Area
were wetter than the rest of the Mojave Desert, it is likely that some plant foods such as juniper,
yucca, pinyon, etc. would have been available for exploitation.
Fauna used by Pinto groups in the Mojave Desert included leporids, artiodactyls, some rodents and
some reptiles, including tortoise. Freshwater mussels may also have been utilized. Over the period,
artiodactyl remains decreased while small game mammals increased (Sutton 2018:39). The only site
in the Antelope Valley with a Pinto component (reported as Pinto/Gypsum) is CA-KER-2121 (Valdez
1995). The site is located in the east central part of the Study Area in alkali scrub. The Leporid Group
constituted 100% of the identified faunal specimens. No artiodactyls were represented.
Gypsum Period (2500 BC to AD 225)
Resource productivity improved significantly in the Gypsum Period, compared to earlier times, and
large areas of the Mojave Desert may have hosted large game, with piñon in the surrounding
mountains and mesquite on the valley floor. The increased availability of food resources would have
led to reduced mobility compared to the Pinto Period. Warren (1984) and Byrd et al. (2011)
speculated that the residential stability of the Gypsum Period was due to the highly productive
vegetation zones which would have served as residential bases from which logistical forays to more
distant resource patches would have occurred. For much of the central Mojave Desert, piñon-juniper
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
194
07A3822 Task Order 17
and mesquite would have been the major plant resources exploited, while small seeds and agave
would have been used on occasion, but not the major focus (Byrd et al. 2011).
The Gypsum Period in the Antelope Valley is characterized by large permanent villages or seasonally
occupied residential bases around the valley margins with smaller temporary camps on the valley
floor for specialized activities (Sutton 1980; Warren 1986). A greater quantity of milling equipment is
associated with Gypsum period sites, and the mortar and pestle were introduced during this period.
Some of the plant resources that may have been used include mesquite, small seeds, and acorns and
piñon from the foothills of the mountains to the south and west.
Six midden samples from CA-LAN-1304 located in the Little Rock Canyon area south of Palmdale
yielded a range of macrobotanical remains. The site has dates indicating occupation in the Gypsum
and Rose Spring periods (1800-3920 cal BP and post-1350 cal BP) (Wohlgemuth 1995). The samples
from Gypsum period contexts yielded piñon nutshell, manzanita berries (Arctostaphytos glauca),
juniper berries (Juniperus californica), and wild cucumber (Marah sp.).
Recent excavations in Antelope Valley by Kremkau and colleagues (2013) included macrobotanical
analysis of eight samples from CA-LAN-1777, -1780 and -3873. Recovery was poor and included the
recovery of only six carbonized seeds (including two saltbush seeds) (Reddy 2013). The eight features
were roasting pits which most likely were used to cook animal foods that were wrapped in plant
materials (i.e., the primary use of the features was not for plant processing). The low charcoal density
(0.03 g per liter) from these features also attests to lack of carbonization during the use of the
features.
Five sites with prior faunal studies (CA-LAN-1208, Valdez 1992; CA-LAN-1296 Locus E, Christenson
1990; CA-KER-526, Hudson 1994; CA-KER-1175, Horne and McDougal 2003; CA-KER-2131, Valdez
1992) were entirely from this period. All were located in the east central or central portion of the
Study Area with one in desert scrub and four in alkali scrub. Two of these five sites had one
artiodactyl each and the others had none. Representation of the Leporid Group varied from 86 to
100% of the identified fauna and the Artiodactyl Group from zero to 1%. Other animals identified in
order of abundance included rodents, lizards, snakes, desert tortoise, and birds.
Rose Spring Period (AD 225 to 1100)
The Rose Spring Period in the Mojave Desert is characterized by population increase (as indicated by
increase in number of sites and site complexity) and an increase in plant use based on increase in the
numbers of milling equipment and bedrock milling features (including mortar cups and slicks)
(Sutton 1988a).
Sutton and Jackson (1993) recovered burned resin of what they believe to be mesquite (Prosopis sp.)
at CA-KER-2450 located near Rosamond and dating to the later part of the Rose Spring Period. The
Rose Spring Period samples from CA-LAN-1304 yielded acorn nutshell, piñon nutshell, manzanita
berries (Arctostaphytos glauca), juniper berries (Juniperus californica), and chia seeds (Salvia sp.). A
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
195
07A3822 Task Order 17
limited macrobotanical study at CA-LAN-1702 (with dates of 1205-1400 cal AD; 405-670 AD; 415-40
BC) on Edwards AFB yielded single carbonized seeds of cactaceae and Cheno/Amaranthus embryo,
and pollen of Artemisia sp., Chenopodium sp., Pinus sp., and Prosopis sp. (Titus et al. 1997). Ten
samples from three sites (EAFB-2014, EAFB-3128, and EAFB-3209) on Edwards Air Force Base yielded
macrobotanical remains (Popper 2004). Samples from EAFB-3128 (dating to 1235-1201 cal BP and
1184 to 986 cal BP) yielded 36 carbonized seeds of Larrea tridentate and carbonized Yucca brevifolia
fragments (23.60 g). EAFB-2014 samples yielded only a single seed of Atriplex sp.; and the samples
from EAFB-3209 (dating to 937-743 cal BP), yielded carbonized seeds of Atriplex sp. (n=3); Larrea
tridentata (n=17); and Yucca brevifolia (n=4).
Only one site with a prior faunal study within this period is within the east-central Study Area (CAKER-1881, Pritchard Parker and Puckett 2004). Four additional sites are outside the study area to the
north. One is located at Freeman Springs (CA-KER-6106, Williams 2009) in a Joshua tree woodland.
Three are located in Sage Canyon, one in desert scrub (CA-KER-226, Cowie 2014) and two at higher
elevations in pinyon/juniper woodlands (CA-KER-7432 and -7442, Cowie 2014). Each of these sites
had one to five artiodactyls represented, and the percentage of the Artiodactyl Group varied from
2% to 6%. Representation of the Leporid Group varied from 47% to 98%. The relatively increased
artiodactyl presence could suggest increased success in big game hunting with the introduction of
bow and arrow technology. However, larger samples from well-dated sites would be needed to
confirm. Other animals identified in order of abundance included rodents, lizards, coyote, snakes,
and birds.
Late Prehistoric Period (AD 1100 to AD 1769)
Subsistence and settlement during the Late Prehistoric Period was probably similar to those of the
ethnic groups seen at Spanish contact. Plant resource exploitation is marked by the introduction of
ceramics for storage and the increased use of milling equipment (mortars, pestles). In the Antelope
Valley and surrounding area, information about plant resource utilization by prehistoric populations
can be gleaned from macrobotanical studies at a few sites. Sutton (1988b:73) reported recovery of
fiddleneck (Amsinckia tessellate) from CA-KER-341, a dry cave site located near Rosamond. Matting
made from tule (cf. Scirpus sp.) was also recovered from the site. Although there is no radiocarbon
data from the site, Sutton suggests that it might have been occupied within the last several hundred
years. Juniper berries (Juniperus cf. occidentalis) were recovered from CA-KER-733 (460+/-75 RCYBP)
located in Antelope Valley (Sutton 1984, 1988:73). He states that juniper berries found at sites such
as this may have been either included in hearths as part of fuel (berries attached to firewood) or as
residues of food.
In the northwest part of Antelope Valley on Edwards AFB, analysis of sediments from CA-KER-490
and CA-KER-2379 (dating from Rose Spring through Late Prehistoric Periods) by Reddy (1996)
resulted in the recovery of small seeds only (Amaranthus sp., Erodium sp., Lepidium sp., Sesuvium
verrucosum, and Stipa speciosa). Pollen analysis of samples from CA-KER–526 by Smith and Anderson
(1994) did not reveal any evidence of cultural utilization of any particular taxa; instead, the taxa
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
196
07A3822 Task Order 17
represented in the sample are likely wind-blown. A single sample from a Late Prehistoric hearth at
Site C1-M-1, north of the city of Rosamond and near the community of Mohave, yielded carbonized
Allium bulb fragments and Erodium seed (n=1) (Kovacik et al. 2015).
The role of plants in the Late Prehistoric Period diet can also be informed by data on plant use by
contemporary societies. Some of the plant procurement and processing information discussed above
is still known and practiced by living communities. See Table 2 in the Prehistoric Landscape section
for plants used by the Serrano, along with their uses according to the Cahuilla.
Four sites with prior faunal studies are located in the east-central part of the Study Area in alkali
scrub (CA-LAN-2399, Pritchard Parker and Puckett 2004; CA-KER-500, Hudson 1996; CA-KER2916/17, Christenson 1991; and CA-KER-6047, Pritchard Parker and Puckett 2004) are entirely within
this component. A fifth site is present in the pinyon/juniper woodland in the northwestern Study
Area (CA-KER-733, Yohe 1984). Representation of the Leporid Group varies from 62% to 97% and the
Artiodactyl Group varies from zero to 3%. Other animals identified in order of abundance included
rodents, birds, snakes, lizards, fish, and birds.
Mission Period (AD 1769 to AD 1835)
There are no known macrobotanical data from sites dating to this time range. What is known about
plant use in the Antelope Valley during this time period is gleaned exclusively from ethnohistoric
resources. There are no faunal sites of this period known in the Antelope Valley.
Summary
A general pattern of plant use over time in western Mojave Desert and Antelope Valley can be
summarized based on the meager macrobotanical data from archaeological sites. Direct evidence of
plant use is present only from the last 1,000 or so years (beginning in the Rose Spring Complex).
Plant use in the Clovis, Lake Mojave, Pinto, and Gypsum Periods is derived from indirect evidence
(ground stone tool assemblages). Increase in ground stone tools in the Pinto and Gypsum Periods
has led scholars to speculate that it indicates increased plant use; however, it is unknown whether it
represents an increase in seed, nuts, or root foods. Starting with the Rose Spring Period, there is
evidence of juniper, mesquite, and small seed exploitation; and evidence of piñon exploitation is not
observed until the Late Prehistoric Period. Typically, reconstruction of plant use, in the absence of
macrobotanical data, during the Late Prehistoric Period is based directly on ethnohistoric records (for
example, Basgall and Waugh 2006; Sutton 1988a, 1991).
While an abundance of flaked stone tools (projectile points and scrapers) suggests that artiodactyl
hunting was important in all time periods, the limited faunal data indicates an abundance of leporids
in all time periods with little or no evidence for artiodactyl hunting. It is likely that artiodactyl hunting
was important, but that the artiodactyl bones did not become part of the archaeological deposits
because they were burned for use as fuel. Some deer bones were used to make bone tools, including
awls used to make baskets.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
197
07A3822 Task Order 17
Research Questions and Data Needs
The previous research summary clearly demonstrates the dearth of paleoethnobotanical and faunal
studies in the Antelope Valley and western Mojave Desert. Reconstruction of past plant use is either
speculated, based on inference from recovery of ground stone, or direct analogy with ethnohistoric
documentation. Archaeological investigations in the Mojave Desert are lagging behind
archaeological research in other areas of California in regard to regular collection of
paleoethnobotanical data and inclusion of such data in reconstructions and interpretations of past
human lifeways. Faunal studies suffer from inconsistent methodologies and lack of regional
comparisons.
As such, it is imperative that future archaeological investigations in the Antelope Valley be designed
to recover data with which to address research questions about prehistoric plant and animal
exploitation.
Questions
1) What is the nature of plant usage, including changing intensity of plant use over time? Can plant
exploitation over time be characterized as a generalized or a specialized strategy?
Given the sparse macrobotanical data available from archaeological sites in the Antelope Valley, a
critical part of every archaeological testing and data recovery project should include
paleoethnobotanical investigation designed to address plant use. Our knowledge of plant use during
the earlier cultural periods (Clovis, Lake Mohave, Pinto and Gypsum) is non-existent. If indeed there
was change in the intensity of plant use over time, especially from generalized to specialized
(resource intensification), this would have important implications for social, political, and economic
aspects of the cultures.
2) Are there contextual associations between plant resources and features?
The use of a specific plant can be discerned by the context of its disposal, and understanding the
contextual associations of plant remains provides insight into the role of the specific plant(s) in the
diet and subsistence system. For example, the recovery of high densities of carbonized Atriplex sp.
ubiquitously from generalized midden, and high densities of mesquite only from features, indicate
that these two plants had different roles. The ubiquitous recovery of Atriplex sp. indicates it was a
plant that was highly used throughout the residential area, perhaps as fuel, fodder, and building
materials, as well as food, and throughout the duration of the occupation. In contrast, the localized
recovery of mesquite from features such as hearths suggests that it was used selectively (only as
food) and perhaps only on occasion. Similarly, recovery of particular plant taxa from only ritual or
mortuary contexts suggests plant use in association with religion and cosmology. As such, it is
imperative that multiple samples are collected from every type of feature and generalized midden,
because the context provides different insights into plant use.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
198
07A3822 Task Order 17
3) What are the sources of seeds, and are there varying roles of plants in different contexts?
An important issue in macrobotanical studies is discerning the source of seeds recovered from the
archaeological contexts. The carbonized seeds recovered from cultural contexts can come from
several sources, both cultural and natural in origin. Discerning the source is critical for archaeological
interpretation because the source ultimately is the deciding factor on whether the plant was a food
resource or not. For example, the recovery of carbonized saltbush (Atriplex sp.) seeds from a cultural
midden could indicate its use as food, but it also could suggest that the seeds were incorporated
into the site midden by a natural fire (depositional or post-depositional). Similarly, recovery of
juniper berries from a hearth could indicate that the berry pits were tossed into a fire after
consumption, or that they were part of the firewood used. Determining the source of seeds can be
done by examining off-site sediments, and also by sampling multiple contexts at the site.
4) What is the timing of the beginning of mesquite exploitation in the Antelope Valley based on
paleoethnobotanical data from archaeological contexts? Is there a relationship between mesquite
exploitation and increased sedentism in the valley (Earle et al. 1997; Campbell 1996)?
It is speculated that mesquite would have been an important food source starting in the Gypsum
Period. Mesquite would have been available in the Antelope Valley beginning around 4,300 years
ago (Schroth 1987). It has also been suggested that mesquite was important during the end of the
Late Prehistoric Period (later part of Little Ice Age). There are no paleoethnobotanical data to support
this hypothesis. The earliest mesquite macrobotanical remains were recovered from Rose Spring
contexts; the interpretation of the importance of mesquite through the cultural sequence is
based on ethnohistoric direct analogies.
5) What is the timing of intensive piñon and acorn use in the western Mojave Desert and Antelope
Valley? How does it correlate with small seed intensification? Was there a shift to increased acorn use
circa 1000 BC (Gypsum Complex) as suggested by use of mortars and pestles in foothill residential
bases and desert floor temporary camps? What is the nature of the subsistence settlement system once
intensive piñon and acorn exploitation are important components of the diet? How did juniper berry
exploitation fit into the seasonal logistics with piñon and acorn exploitation?
Based on recovery of piñon hulls from hearth features at the Surprise Spring Site (ca. 6500 BP),
Sutton (1996) reported possible evidence of piñon exploitation during the Pinto Period in the Mojave
Desert. Similarly, Byrd et al. (2001) have theorized that piñon-juniper and mesquite would have been
important plant resources during the Gypsum Period. In addition, small seeds and agave would have
been used on occasion, but probably were not the major focus during the Gypsum Period (Byrd et al.
2011). Warren (1986) argued that increased plant exploitation was one of the contributors for the
establishing of large villages and specialized sites for plant procurement and processing during the
Gypsum Period. None of these arguments are based on macrobotanical data; instead an increased
frequency of ground stone tools and milling features are used as indicators of increased plant use. In
the Antelope Valley, acorn, piñon and juniper occur around the valley margin along the slopes and
foothills and could have been easily exploited seasonally by the valley inhabitants. Earle et al. (1995)
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
199
07A3822 Task Order 17
have used the distribution of glaucophane schist metates to argue for juniper berry and small seeds
exploitation; however, this is not based on paleoethnobotanical data. Earle et al. (1995) and King et
al. (1974) have argued that yucca buds, piñon cones and juniper berry processing would have to be
done where there was ample fuelwood available, perhaps in close vicinity with juniper plants so that
their wood could be used as fuel. This needs to be tested through paleoethnobotanical data. In
addition to the question of when these resources first contributed to increasing diet breadth, it is
also important to determine when intensive use and storage of these plant food resources began.
6) Can human occupation along water resources be determined based on recovery of wetland taxa and
tubers? Were root foods important during the periods of increased wetness?
The role of root foods, such as Brodiaea type complex, is difficult to discern because they often have
elusive macrobotanical remains; yet, they would be valuable food resources when available. They
were used by prehistoric populations in coastal and central California, but there is no evidence of
their use in the Mojave Desert. Interestingly, Anderson (1997) has reported that ethnographic Native
American groups of the Mojave Desert are not among those who consume roots of the Brodiaea
complex. Ugan and Rosenthal (2016) argue that Brodiaea plants are present in the Mojave Desert
seasonally, as observed during their survey of Pilot Knob Valley, Naval Air Weapons Station, China
Lake, between January and March. Based on this recent research, it is plausible that root plants may
have been available along water resources and during wet periods in prehistory. Depending on the
density of their distribution and ease of harvest, root foods can fall on either end of the spectrum of
low or high return rate foods.
7) Is brown or green cone piñon harvesting present in Antelope Valley prehistory? If so, is there
diachronic change? Did subsistence intensification, including the beginning of green piñon cone
processing and first use of mesquite and screwbeans, occur during the Rose Spring Period?
Eerkens et al. (2004) proposed that piñon could have been harvested as brown cone or green cones.
With brown cones less energy was required for harvesting, but the energy yield was also less. With
green cones greater energy was required for harvesting but there was also a higher energy yield.
Whether piñon is harvested brown or green also has bearing on caching (green cones have to be
processed before storage), distance to residential camps (brown cones can be carried long distances
and stored immediately), and group size and density of the resource patch. If Bettinger’s (1976)
model for the Great Basin is applicable to Western Mojave and Antelope Valley, then piñon will
become important only when other resources decrease, and piñon exploitation is necessary to
increase the amount of food available. There is currently no evidence of piñon use by Antelope
Valley prehistoric populations, and the earliest evidence for it elsewhere in the Mojave Desert is from
Surprise Springs (ca. 6500 BP) (Sutton 1996).
8) Can resource intensification be identified through macrobotanical data in the cultural sequence of
Antelope Valley? If plant resource intensification did occur, and is supported with macrobotanical data,
did increasing intensification during the Late Prehistoric Period include transporting acorns to desert
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
200
07A3822 Task Order 17
temporary camps at springs for processing with mortars and pestles to provide food while obtaining
desert resources? What is the role of small seeds in this potential intensification?
Resource intensification is measured through the relative proportion of high-ranked versus lowranked taxa wherein there is an increase in the low-ranked resources (such as small seeds) compared
to previous time periods. Plants foods that are low-ranked in Western Mojave and Antelope Valley
include (but are not limited to) bur-sage (Ambrosia dumosa) and saltbush (Atriplex sp.), while highranked plant food would include Joshua tree (Yucca brevifolia), juniper (Juniperus spp.), mesquite
(Prosopis sp.), pine (Pinus spp.), and yucca (Hesperoyucca whipplei). Although acorns have a high
caloric yield, the major amount of processing time required prior to consumption makes them a lowranked resource (Codding et al. 2012) that was added only when necessary to support larger
numbers of people and when storage was possible. Continued and/or changing focus on
procurement of these groups of foods provides insight into resource intensification (use of foods
that require more processing effort to produce more energy from plant foods for the group) over
time. In addition to intensification, there is an upland-lowland dichotomy in Antelope Valley based
on where specific plants are available. As such, intensification would also be indicated where acorns,
piñon, and juniper are found at sites that are beyond the daily foraging range. If these foods are
found at sites outside the daily foraging range, it indicates that these plant foods are being collected,
potentially processed (fully or partially) at procurement locations and brought back to the residential
bases or villages for additional processing and consumption. Such a strategy has implications for
settlement systems, logistical planning, and socio-political interactions. Least-cost path analysis
would also be useful in identifying patches/areas that would be logically more attractive for
exploitation.
9) Do the archaeological features associated with plant processing according to ethnohistoric
documentation, such as rock rings and roasting pits, have paleoethnobotanical data (macrobotanical
and residue) which indicate they were used for this purpose?
Rock features, earthen fire pits and roasting pits excavated at archaeological sites have been
interpreted as plant processing activity areas (see for example Kremkau et al. 2013). The type of plant
processing is distinct at each of these features (see Milburn et al. 2009). Correlating plants processed
at different types of these food processing features would provide insight into intensification (labor
invested in procurement and processing), seasonality, and continuity and/or change in processing
methods, among other subsistence issues.
10) How can ground stone assemblages be used in modeling plant use in the Antelope Valley?
Ground stone assemblages have been used by archaeologists to imply plant processing in the
absence of paleoethnobotanical studies and lack of macrobotanical remains. The question remains,
however, whether tools can be appropriate auxiliary data for plant remains to explain and interpret
plant food procurement and consumption. First, ground stone tools can be used to process both
animals and plants. These tools can be and have been used to pulverize small animals and extract
marrow from mammal bone. Residue studies (lipids and starches) can discern what type of resource,
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
201
07A3822 Task Order 17
or a combination of resources, was processed by individual tools. Hand stones (manos) could have
been used for small seed processing or for acorn and pinyon processing. Similarly, mortars and
pestles can be used to process acorns, piñon, and small seeds. Only macrobotanical data can address
this question.
11) Do changes in ground stone tools reflect changes in plant food use?
11a) Do the frequency and intensity of ground stone tool use change over time?
If plant resource intensification is observed in the macrobotanical data, this change in subsistence
should be expected to be reflected in the frequency and intensity of use of ground stone tools. With
plant intensification comes the need for increased time spent on processing plants: parching,
dehusking, and pounding and grinding seeds to make flour; shelling, pounding and leaching acorns,
cracking and roasting piñon nuts, etc. This change should be reflected in both the frequency and
intensity of use of ground stone tools.
(11b) Do ground stone tool material, forms, and function change over time?
Related to the question of frequency and intensity, with plant intensification comes the need to
process plant foods for consumption and storage. Depending on the plant that is intensively
collected/targeted, there would be an expected increase in the tools needed to process the plant.
For example, if bedrock milling mortars and basins increase, but there is no increase in acorn
nutshells, there is a lack of fit between these two data sets, and one has to look at alternative
resources being used in these mortars. Similarly, if there is an increase in small seeds, but no change
in ground stone tools, it may indicate lack of raw material to make manos and metates.
(11c) What are the implications of changes in ground stone tool use for understanding the evolution of
desert margin and desert subsistence systems?
The prehistoric populations of the western Mojave Desert and Antelope Valley could have exploited
three plant groups: yucca; piñon and acorns; and, mesquite and screwbean. Yucca processing
requires few ground stone tools because the fruits, stalks and other plant parts were roasted in
roasting pits (Louderback et al. 2013). Therefore, if there is intensification of yucca, this would be
reflected in increased roasting pits and macrobotanical remains. Piñon and acorn nut processing
would need cracking stones and ground stone (hand stone, mortar and pestle and/or bedrock
milling basins and mortars) to make flour. Acorn and piñon intensification would be reflected in
increased hand stones, mortar/pestle and bedrock milling features, accompanied by macrobotanical
remains. If these resources are being processed at the procurement locations, such as seasonal
camps on the slopes, this would be reflected in the material culture. Mesquite and screwbean
processing requires cracking stones and ground stone (hand stone, mortar and pestle, and/or
bedrock milling basins and mortars) to make flour, similar to piñon and acorn processing. In addition
to these three main plant groups; small seeds of Carrizo grass –Phragmites sp.; Indian ricegrass Stipa hymenoides; and desert needle grass - Stipa speciosa), bulrush (Scirpus sp.), bur-sage (Ambrosia
dumosa), California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), California pigweed (Amaranthus sp.), chia
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
202
07A3822 Task Order 17
(Salvia spp.), creosote (Larrea tridentata), fiddleneck (Amsinckia tessellate), Mojave monardella
(Monardella exilis), Pepper grass (Lepidium sp.), purslane (Sesuvium verrucosum), rabbitbrush
(Ericameria nauseosa), rush (Juncus sp.), saltbush (Atriplex sp.), sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata),
spurges (Euphorbia sp.), and thornbush berries (Lyceum andersonii ). In addition, juniper (Juniperus
spp.) and islay berries (Prunus ilicifolia) were also collected for food. These seeds and berries were
likely secondary food sources to the three main yucca, piñon, and mesquite foods.
12) Did hunting focus on artiodactyls in early time periods as indicated by hunting technology? Was
there an increase in exploitation of artiodactyls concurrent with the advent of bow and arrow
technology? Did hunting focus on smaller animals in later time periods? Was this shift gradual or
abrupt?
Based on toolkits, early peoples were hunting megafauna and shifted to artiodactyls about 11,000
years BP when megafauna extinctions occurred (Sutton 2018:44). There is no known association of
tools directly with megafauna in the state (Jones and Kennett 2012:44). Paleontological materials
should be carefully inspected for cut marks, patterned breaks and stages of combustion.
Archaeological faunas should be fully identified, rather than sampled, to provide adequate statistical
samples.
The Antelope Valley data indicate an average presence of artiodactyls in the fauna of 7% in the Lake
Mojave Period, 0.24% during the Gypsum, 3.3% during the Rose/Saratoga Spring Period and 1.09%
in the Late Prehistoric Period. This is consistent with toolkit information, although the underlying
samples are very small. Leporids have averages of 73% during the Lake Mojave Period, 93% during
the Gypsum Period, 71% during the Rose Spring Period and 96% in the Late Prehistoric Period.
Rodents by contrast have averages of 17% during the Lake Mojave Period, 2% during the Gypsum
Period, 20% during the Rose Spring Period and 11% in the Late Prehistoric Period. The rodent
samples have the highest likelihood to be confounded by intrusive, non-dietary animals. To address
these questions, archaeological material should be separated by site component with associated
radiocarbon dates.
13) What accounts for the sparse presence of artiodactyls in faunal assemblages? Is the high degree of
fragmentation of bone and resulting sparse number of identified animals due to bones being used as
fuel due to limited wood availability?
Artiodactyl bone was utilized for tools like awls, scoops, and skin scrapers, yet these limited uses
would not have affected all parts of the skeleton. Dogs could potentially have entirely eaten bones
like vertebrae, but not longbone shafts. Even if longbone shafts were cracked for marrow, longbone
shaft fragments should still be identifiable. Studies indicate that fresh terrestrial mammal bone, when
added to fires started with dried wood or dried grass, produced consistent heat whether the
percentage of bone was 25% or 50% and these partially bone- fueled fires burned for a longer time
and produced more light than wood-only fires (Glazewski 2006:17-25; Vaneeckhout et al. 2013:129133). Experimental results showed that a single humerus in this type of combustion fragmented into
162 pieces, most less than 2 cm. Calcined fragments have been determined to rapidly deteriorate
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
203
07A3822 Task Order 17
and be underrepresented, but the amount of unburned bone is low (Costamagno et al. 2005:58-61).
Both a high ratio of bone to charcoal and a high ratio of burned to unburned large mammal bone
fragments are important evidence of use of bone as fuel (Aldeis 2017:195-196). Microarchaeological
analysis can provide analysis of fuels used in hearths, including bone, and can evaluate maximum
heating temperatures represented (Mentzer 2014).
14) Leporids appear to be very important at every desert site in the Mojave. Were leporids exploited all
year long or seasonally? Can large numbers of leporids (especially jackrabbits) be associated with
winter communal hunts associated with mourning ceremony clan gatherings? Do concentrations of
leporids reflect local ecology rather than specialized site function? Is there evidence of change in use
over time?
Seasonality information for rabbits and jackrabbits is limited to presence of age classes through data
on epiphyseal fusion (signaling end of bone growth in length). Both rabbits and jackrabbits breed
year-round; however, both also exhibit a marked breeding season from January to June with young
born in the summer and fall (Chapman and Harman 1972; Haskell and Reynolds 1947; Lechleitner
1959; Orr 1940). The most precise information available is from Lechleitner’s study (1959:67-68) in
which extensive year-round trapping was done in northern California and the age and reproductive
status of the animals determined. Young-of-the-year were scarce from January to April; numbers
rose dramatically through the summer and then declined over fall. This was supported by
investigations of the reproductive status of females captured which showed the percentage of
animals pregnant to be highest in the late winter and early spring (Lechleitner 1959:74-76). In faunal
samples from the Antelope Valley, few juveniles or subadults have been documented. At CA-RIV-399
a very large faunal collection contained sufficient juveniles to demonstrate late fall to winter use and
dates indicated the site was revisited for hundreds of years (Gust 1991). In combination with lack of
midden and other habitation features, but presence of human remains, the site was interpreted as an
annual mourning ceremony location.
In the past, large numbers of leporids in archaeological sites have been interpreted as specialized
procurement sites (Christenson 1990; Yohe 1984). However, review of all available reports
demonstrates the dominance of leporids in all Mojave sites. Biological information indicates
jackrabbits are abundant in every habitat of the Western Mojave Desert (Mitchell et al. 1993), so local
ecology is an unlikely reason for concentrations.
Average percentages do vary across time with 73% during the Lake Mojave Period, 93% during the
Gypsum Period, 71% during the Rose Spring Period and 96% in the Late Prehistoric Period.
15) Can resource intensification be identified through zooarchaeological data in the cultural sequence
of Antelope Valley? Can residue analysis contribute useful information?
Faunal resource intensification is measured by increased use of a greater number of smaller animals
in spite of greater labor expenditure (Mason and Peterson 2014:122). There is currently no evidence
of intensification, but this is due in large part to insufficient chronology and faunal sample size.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
204
07A3822 Task Order 17
Residue analysis of projectile points might contribute useful information by showing what animals
were hunted using the points.
16) Do the archaeological features associated with cooking according to ethnohistoric documentation,
such as rock rings and roasting pits, have zooarchaeological data that indicates they were used for this
purpose? Are faunal materials widely or narrowly distributed within a site? What are the stages of
combustion observed?
Rock features, earthen fire pits, and roasting pits excavated at archaeological sites have been
interpreted as cooking features (Aldeias 2017; Kremkau et al. 2013). The type of cooking is distinct at
each of these features (see Milburn et al. 2009). Correlating plants processed at different types of
these food processing features would provide insight into intensification (labor invested in
procurement and processing), seasonality, and continuity and/or change in processing methods,
among other subsistence issues.
Correct characterization of cooking features (Milburn et al. 2009) is necessary to evaluate this.
Microarchaeological analysis can provide analysis of fuels used in hearths and can evaluate maximum
heating temperatures represented (Mentzer 2014). This can be used to determine amount of heat
applied to bones.
17) Do sites vary by ecological zone within the Antelope Valley? Are pronghorn found only in open
valley areas? Are deer and bighorn found primarily in the Tehachapi and southern Sierra Mountains?
Do small mammals and reptiles indicate local habitats? Do any animal foods indicate trade?
All types of artiodactyls, including pronghorn, were recovered mostly in pinyon/juniper woodland
sites (79%) in the Antelope Valley sites cited above. Other habitats with artiodactyls were alkali scrub
(9%), desert scrub (7%) and grassland (3%). As discussed above, leporids do not appear to vary by
site habitat. Few rodents or reptiles were identified to specific enough levels to evaluate this, but, for
example, pond turtle and desert tortoise were found in alkali scrub and desert scrub sites, but not in
woodland or grassland sites. No animals identified had restricted enough distributions to be solely
trade items. An example of this would be softshell turtle which would have been imported from the
Colorado River area.
Data Needs
Botanical Data
Paleoethnobotanical data needed to address the above research questions pertaining to prehistoric
plant use and diet include obtaining an adequate number and volume of samples for microbotanical
and macrobotanical analyses.
Some of the microbotanical analysis that would be valuable includes lipid and protein residue and
starch analysis. Pollen and phytolith analysis, although useful for paleoenvironmental studies, often
do not provide conclusive information about plant use by humans. Lipid residue and starch analysis
can be conducted on artifacts and associated sediments. Artifacts such as projectile points and
formed ground stone tools (hand stones, pestles, mortars, and basins) should be carefully wrapped,
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
205
07A3822 Task Order 17
preferably prior to washing, along with some associated sediment for lipid residue analysis. Lipids are
collected from these tools and sediment to provide insight on what the tool(s) were used to process
(Buonasera 2012). To do a rigorous study of lipid analysis, multiple tool types and associated
sediment from different contexts should be included in the sampling. This will provide potential
variability in tool use and perhaps also temporal use. Starch grain samples can be collected in the
field or in the lab through the use of portable starch grain sample collection kits (Wisely 2016).
Diagnostic features of starch grains are identified using cross-polarized and transmitted light, and
morphological features of the grains are used to make identifications (Scholtz 2011; Wisely 2016).
Starch grain can be recovered from artifacts (ground stone), milling features and soil samples. Again,
as in the case of the lipids, multiple types of ground stone (pestles, hand stones, mortars, and basins)
and associated sediment from different contexts should be included in the sampling.
Macrobotanical data is obtained from the flotation of sediments, preferably unscreened sediment
from cultural contexts. There are three important aspects of sample collection that have a direct
relationship with the success of the study. First, the sample sizes should include a minimum of 10
liters of sediment per sample. This is particularly important for the western Mojave Desert sites which
are typically shallow and have poor organic preservation. As discussed in the methods section above,
the sampling should include a combination of bulk, pinch, and column samples. Bulk and pinch
samples should be taken from features or occupation surfaces/lens. At least one column sample
should be taken per site along the wall of a unit with the least post-depositional disturbance and
best stratigraphy. The size of the column should be a minimum of 40 cm by 40 cm by 10 cm (if the
site is being excavated in 10-cm arbitrary levels) along the best unit wall. To ensure that each 40 cmby-40 cm-by-10 cm sample is at least 10 liters, it would be advisable to first determine the actual
volume before excavating the column. For a site with multiple components which are horizontally
defined, a column sample should be taken at each of the signature units (units that define the
components).
The second factor, that has a defining effect on success of the study, is the number of contexts
sampled for macrobotanical remains. Archaeological studies in the Mojave Desert tend to limit
sampling for macrobotanical studies to a single or low number of contexts. This highly limits
recovery rate and interpretative potential. Sampling for macrobotanical remains should have the
same priority and importance as sampling for lithics (debitage and tools) and faunal remains.
The third factor is the flotation recovery method employed and ensuring that trained individuals are
responsible for recovery of the macrobotanical remains. Contamination is a very important issue to
consider during flotation, as is adequately processing the sediment and ensuring that all organic
material has floated. Often this requires multiple decanting and an experienced person who can
estimate when the water processing can be terminated.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
206
07A3822 Task Order 17
Zooarchaeological Data
Zooarchaeological data needed to address the above research questions pertaining to prehistoric
animal use and diet include obtaining adequate numbers of specimens for analyses from welldefined components. Principal investigators need to correctly classify cooking features and take
samples for microarchaeological analysis.
After sample size, the most important data need is for rigorous identification protocols. As
mentioned above, a single tooth is the only defined morphological difference between jackrabbits
and rabbits. Use of relative size without the basis of a study of local species cannot be justified and
likely results in misidentification of subadult jackrabbits as rabbits. The basis of identifications needs
to be clearly stated. Use of groups like leporids and artiodactyls is preferable to misidentifications.
References can help by pointing out differentiating characters, but there is no substitute for use of a
comparative collection when identifying. Qualified personnel should conduct identification and data
collection and specialists should be used whenever appropriate.
Fragmented faunal samples are typical, not unusual, in the Mojave Desert. A well-defined protocol
should be established for classification of fragments and combustion status should be part of the
data collected. Identifiable (to at least family level) fragments should be closely inspected for
patterned breaks and cut marks.
Samples for microarchaeological analysis should be collected from cooking features to allow
determination of fuel type and maximum heat of that feature. Samples of bone outside of cooking
features, especially if combustion is evident, are also important to submit for analysis. Faunal analysts
need access to information like amount of charcoal collected from cooking features to evaluate
whether bone was used as fuel.
Knowledge of the habitat of sites is critical to evaluating whether animal foods were transported or
used locally. Faunal analysts need access to relevant information on habitat for each chronological
component.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
207
07A3822 Task Order 17
Theme: Exchange and Conveyance
Items of Exchange
Items that were exchanged or conveyed by native groups in the Antelope Valley region are discussed
in this section. Non-perishable exchange items that are encountered archaeologically are discussed
first. Shell beads and other types of beads, lithic raw materials and artifacts, ceramics, asphaltum, and
pigments are types of artifacts associated with inter-regional conveyance. There then follows a
discussion of subsistence resources that were exchanged locally or regionally. These different items
of exchange were associated with several major modalities of conveyance: direct access, conveyance
through marriage and other social ties, and conveyance by specialist traders. These types of
conveyance are discussed in a subsequent part of this section.
Lithic Materials
Information about the conveyance of lithic materials is summarized from the Lithics Sources section.
Obsidian is one of the few types of raw lithic material that was not locally available. Obsidian was one
of the most important lithic materials for making flaked stone tools in western North America during
prehistory (Shackley 2005). Obsidian was not locally available in the Antelope Valley and was
obtained from the Coso Range sources, located some 120 km north of the center of the Antelope
Valley, likely a four- to five-day trip on foot (somewhat longer for an encumbered traveler).
During the Lake Mojave and Pinto Periods, obsidian was not commonly used as a material for
projectile points but was used to make flake tools and sometimes bifaces. During the Gypsum
Period, obsidian was frequently employed to make dart projectile points as well as bifaces for use as
both cutting and slicing tools. With the transition to the bow and arrow during the Rose Spring
Period, smaller obsidian flakes were modified into arrow points. Obsidian continued to be used to
make arrow points during the Late Prehistoric Period.
Other non-local materials found in archaeological assemblages for the Antelope Valley include fused
shale and its chemical cousins, which may have been imported from Monterey Formation sources in
Ventura County (Grimes Canyon) and Santa Barbara County. Fused shale is a metamorphic rock that
is semi-vitreous and was an important stone tool material for coastal southern California, particularly
when obsidian was not easily accessible. Relatively little fused shale has been identified in Antelope
Valley sites, but in some cases it may have been misidentified as obsidian.
Rhyolite was locally available in the Antelope Valley from sources at Fairmont Butte and Rosamond
Hills. It was used to make projectile points during the Lake Mojave and Pinto Periods. It was also
used to make projectile points in later time periods, but possibly with less frequency. It was
consistently used throughout all time periods for flake tools and bifaces.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
208
07A3822 Task Order 17
Basalt is a fine-grained volcanic material that is more common in the central and eastern Mojave
Desert where there is evidence of more volcanic activity. However, it was probably also locally
available in the Antelope Valley. Like rhyolite, basalt was mostly desirable as a durable and strong
material for tasks which did not require precise slicing or cutting. However, during the Lake Mojave
Period and the Pinto Period, it was widely employed for crude projectile points that might have
functioned as stabbing spear tips and atlatl darts. It was occasionally used for bifaces in later time
periods.
Cryptocrystalline silicates (CCS) (chert, chalcedony, jasper) are the most common lithic material used
to make flaked stone tools in the western Mojave Desert. These materials are locally available
throughout the Mojave Desert and can be viewed as one of the region’s key resources for exchange
with other areas (Davis 1961). CCS sources are common at the east end of the Antelope Valley and in
the Rosamond Hills (Sutton 1988b:15, 1993:1). CCS was used extensively for a wide variety of tool
types throughout the entire prehistoric sequence of the Mojave Desert, including projectile points,
bifaces, unifaces, and retouched and utilized flakes.
Steatite (talc schist) and schist were utilized for a variety of ground stone tools and ornaments. An
important source of both materials is found at a quarry in the Sierra Pelona Mountains located south
of Leona Valley on the southern edge of the Antelope Valley. Steatite was commonly used for the
production of stone bowls and mortars, as well as for stone beads, effigies, charmstones, pipes, and
other artifacts. Schist was also used to make stone beads (see below). Steatite, and perhaps schist,
from this quarry was an important raw material for both local consumption and trade outside of the
Antelope Valley.
Sources of lithic material in and around the Antelope Valley are shown in Figure 9.
Asphaltum and Pigments
Asphaltum is occasionally encountered at sites in the Antelope Valley (Kern County Museum n.d.;
Sutton 1988b:43-45). Coastal groups generally used this material for waterproofing baskets,
sometimes with the use of tarring pebbles. It was also used for attaching basketry collars to portable
or bedrock mortars (Hudson and Blackburn 1981:112-117, 1986:166-167). Portable mortars with this
asphaltum adhesive have been recovered in Antelope Valley sites (Kern County Museum n.d.; Sutton
1988b:43-44,58). In addition, it was often used as an adhesive and black background for the
attachment of Olivella shell beads to objects, such as a wooden handle of a stone knife.
Among the well-known sources of asphaltum are coastal deposits in the Goleta region and at
Carpinteria, in Santa Barbara County. These were mined by the Chumash and are known to have
been used by groups in the southern California interior (Hudson and Blackburn 1986b:165-166). Early
ethnographer Erminie Vogelin was told by Tubatulabal of the Southern Sierra about trips to the
Ventura coast in the nineteenth century, when asphaltum was brought back (Hudson and Blackburn
1986b:165). In mountain areas, both near the coast and in the interior, pine pitch was also gathered
to be used as an adhesive and to coat the inside of water bottles. Pine pitch was also combined with
asphaltum to make an adhesive (Hudson and Blackburn 1986b:163).
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
209
07A3822 Task Order 17
Map Features
Antelope Valley Study Area
Coso Range (Obsidian)
Prehistoric Lithic Source - Material
Location: N:\2015\2015-075.017 Antelope Valley Research Design\MAPS\Meeting_Maps_and_Analysis\2018-05-01 Lithic Sources\AVRD_LithicSources_20180501.mxd (AMM)-amyers 2/28/2019
# Fairmont Buttes - Rhyolite
# Rosamond Hills - Rhyolite and CCS
# Sierra Pelona Mountains - Steatite
# Kramer Hills - CCS
# Grimes Canyon - Fused Shale
Rosamond
Hills
#
Kramer Hills
#
Fairmont
Buttes
#
Sierra
Pelona
Mountains
#
Grimes Canyon
#
I
Miles
0
5
Map Date: 2/28/2019
Base Source: National Geographic (ESRI Service Layer)
Figure 9. Prehistoric Lithic Sources
2015-075.017 Antelope Valley Research Design
Asphaltum was also sometimes used as a pigment for face painting during mourning (Campbell
2007:74; Latta 1999:332). Cinnabar was used as a body paint as well in southern California, and
sources were found in what was later the Calico Mining District near Barstow (Koerper and Strudwick
2002:3). A source of the principal body-painting pigment, red ochre (hematite), has been reported to
be located in the Tejón region (Hudson and Blackburn 1986b:181). It is not known if there has been
on-the-ground confirmation of this red ochre source. Mojave traders also brought red ochre with
them as they traveled to the Antelope Valley, the southern San Joaquin Valley, and the Chumash
region on the coast (Hudson and Blackburn 1986b:180-183). In 1774, Fr. Francisco Garcés visited the
Colorado River and described Yavapai traders who were providing red ochre to Colorado River native
people (Bolton 1930:381-382). This may have been one of the sources of the red ochre brought
westward by Mojave travelers/traders. Both red ochre (hematite) and yellow ochre (limonite) have
been recovered at CA-KER-303 in the northwest Antelope Valley (Kern County Museum n.d.). Red
ochre was reported in a burial at CA-LAN-192 (Price et al. 2009:20; Sutton 1988b:52-53).
Manganese pigment was also obtained by Mojaves at sources near Topock on the Colorado River
and in Owlshead Canyon on Ft. Irwin (Campbell 2007:73; Drover 1979). The Chemehuevi also had
quarries where manganese was mined (Laird 1976:131). There is no evidence for use of manganese
pigments in the Antelope Valley. However, use of manganese pigment has been reported for the
Gabrielino/Tongva and the Barbareño Chumash (Campbell 2007:73), which indicates that Mojave
traders carried manganese pigment through the western Mojave Desert.
Shell Beads
In prehistoric California, shell beads figured prominently in economic activities as a medium of
exchange, as well as in religious rituals and circuits of ceremonial prestation. In Southern California,
beads manufactured from Olivella biplicata as well as Tivela and other clam species were particularly
prominent. Strings of beads were possessed as a form of wealth, were given away or destroyed at
mourning ceremonies, and/or were left at shrines as offerings to supernatural entities. The
manufacturing of shell beads was especially associated with the territory of the Chumash in coastal
areas of Ventura and Santa Barbara counties and especially in the northern Channel Islands.
Kennett (2005:202-209) has reviewed the development of shell bead production in the northern
Channel Island region, based in part on work by Arnold (1987, 2001). During the middle Holocene in
this region, there is evidence that shell beads (modified whole shells) were used, but there is no
evidence that they were locally manufactured. Kennett points out that significant evidence of shell
bead manufacture is found only after 3000 BP, with a major increase in production between 1300
and 800 BP. This he associates with the development of microlith production on eastern Santa Cruz
Island. This scenario suggests that the production and conveyance of Olivella shell beads underwent
a transition from an earlier emphasis on the modification of whole shells (e.g., spire chipped, spire
lopped, and barrel beads) ca. 8000 BP or earlier, to the later fabrication of smaller disc-shaped cup,
lipped, and wall disc beads, that required drilling, beginning about 3200 BP. This conforms with
Chester King’s (1990) typology for Southern California beads, which places a Middle Period
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
211
07A3822 Task Order 17
chronological unit at 3200-1000 BP that corresponds with the development of normal saucer and
ground saucer beads and reflecting the shift to drilled beads.
Most authors have suggested that shell bead production and conveyance in California began circa
7000-8000 BP. The shell bead typology developed by King (1990) for southern California commences
chronologically with an Early Period spanning 8000-3200 BP (King 1983:68, 1990:28-30). King’s
typology was based on burial-associated bead lots from the Santa Barbara Channel region,
commencing with a Santa Rosa Island cemetery component dated at circa 7870 BP. He included
spire-lopped Olivella biplicata whole shells in his initial Early Period bead inventory. He noted that he
did not yet know what the earliest bead type phases might be for his Early Period, anticipating that
earlier bead type dates for the Channel region might later be identified. Bennyhoff and Hughes
(1987:160) note that Olivella biplicata spire-lopped beads are found in the western Great Basin as
early as 7000 BP. Orange County Olivella barrel and cap beads dating from 4000-6000 BP have been
found in Orange County, while Olivella spire-chipped beads date as early as 7000 BP (Gibson and
Koerper 2000). Modified whole shell Olivella beads were prominent during King’s Early Period. In
addition, clamshell disc beads are reported for as early as 8000 BP. Thus, it appears that modified
whole shell beads could have been conveyed to the Antelope Valley as early as circa 7000 BP while
drilled beads were conveyed after 3200 BP.
However, much earlier dates for the conveyance of modified whole coastal southern California
Olivella shell beads into the interior comes from four spire-lopped Olivella biplicata beads found at
Fort Irwin in the central Mojave Desert. AMS dating of these beads yielded radiocarbon ages of
11,000-10,000 BP (Fitzgerald et al. 2005) during the Lake Mojave Period. These dates for whole shell
beads in the Mojave Desert push back the antiquity of long-distance exchange in the region several
thousand years. Nothing is known about where the beads were made or how they were conveyed to
the central Mojave Desert during the Lake Mojave Period.
Bennyhoff and Hughes (1987:155) have definitively shown long-distance conveyance of Olivella and
other shell beads from the Channel Islands and southern California coast northward to Owens Valley
and eastward across the Mojave Desert and into the southwestern and western Great Basin during
their Early Period (4000-2200 BP). This approximate time period in the Antelope Valley (referred to as
the Pinto Complex) is characterized by the presence of Pacific coast Olivella beads, but in limited
quantities in comparison to later periods. The subsequent Gypsum Complex in the Antelope Valley
and Mojave Desert dates to ca. 2000 cal BC – cal AD 200 [4000-1800 BP]) and appears to be
characterized by population increases and broadening economic activities that may be a result of the
movement of Takic speakers into the region (Sutton et al. 2007; also see the Social Differentiation
section of this research design). A number of foothill and valley floor archaeological sites, including
CA-LAN-192 (Lovejoy Springs), CA-KER-303 (Cottonwood Creek), and CA-LAN-488 in the
southwestern foothills, have yielded elaborate interments dating from the late Gypsum Period and
later periods. These featured large quantities of shell beads, including one case at CA-KER-303 of
thousands of beads associated with an adult burial, and others at CA-LAN-192 and CA-LAN-488
involving child burials containing thousands of shell beads (Sutton 1988b:51-53, 55).
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
212
07A3822 Task Order 17
In addition to shell beads made from Pacific coastal shell, beads made from Olivella dama from the
Gulf of California have been found at Antelope Valley sites. King (1983) noted small O. dama spire
and base ground beads as being exchanged into southern California, including Orange County, as
early as his Early Middle Period (1200 BC - AD 300). Gibson and Koerper (2000:50-51) note that O.
dama shells were being imported to Orange County to locally manufacture barrel and cap beads
during the last thousand years or so.
King (1990:137) described Dentalium neohexigonum beads found in the Santa Barbara Channel
region in Middle Period and Late Period contexts. He also noted beads of this species dating from
his M4 and M5 time periods (AD 700-1150) having been found at Oro Grande on the Mojave River.
Earle et al. (1997:171) listed seven Dentalium beads as having been reported for Antelope Valley sites
as of that date. An additional Dentalium pretiosum bead fragment was recovered at CA-LAN-192.
Additional Dentalium beads, not yet identified as to species, have been excavated at CA-KER-303
(Kern County Museum n.d.).
Other shell genera and species identified as utilized to fabricate beads include Tivela stultorum
(Pismo clam), Haliotis (abalone) spp., Mytilus californianus (mussel), Megathura crenulata (keyhole
limpet), and Dentalium spp.
King (1990:184-192) discussed the use of Tivela stultorum, Haliotis, and Mytilus beads, along with
Olivella biplicata wall beads, among southern California Takic groups and the Yokuts during the Late
Prehistoric and Protohistoric Periods. He suggested that all of these classes of beads tended to be
larger in size in these latter areas, raising the possibility of some non-Chumash local manufacture. He
noted the occurrence of Pismo clam disc, cylinder, and tube beads in the Antelope Valley area, along
with abalone epidermis disc beads. Clam disc beads, along with abalone epidermis disc beads and
mussel disc beads have been recovered at CA-KER-303, in the northwestern Antelope Valley (Kern
County Museum n.d.). King also proposed that the dark-colored mussel disc beads had been
developed by the Late Prehistoric Period to be strung with white Olivella wall disc beads to provide
color contrast, and that clam shell wall beads were a late spinoff of Olivella wall beads, useful
because of their greater thickness when strung on a necklace. He saw the late development of
abalone epidermis disc beads as a sort of improvement on mussel shell beads, because they
provided enhanced red or green color contrast when strung with white Olivella or clam shell wall
beads. He treated these multicolor bead necklaces as relatively rare and indicating reciprocal
prestations of high value gifts between members of the political elite.
Within California, clam shell disc and cylinder beads were made from the shell of the Pismo clam
(Tivela stultorum) and other clam species, including Saxidomus. King (1990) has described Tivela
stultorum disc beads made in the Santa Barbara Channel region dating from his Early Period and
Phase 1 of the Middle Period, and cylinder and tube beads at the beginning of his Middle Period.
After a hiatus, all of these types reappear in the Late Period (King 1990). These types of clam shell
beads were rare outside of the Santa Barbara Channel region during the Early and Early Middle
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
213
07A3822 Task Order 17
Periods King's observations on use and distribution of Tivela clam shell beads in Southern California
have been reviewed above.
Clam shell disc beads were very commonly used in central California, as a medium of value in the
Protohistoric Period and after the arrival of the Spanish. Von Der Porten et al. (2014) observe that
clam shell disc beads become common in central California around AD 1500. They note that during
earlier times elite-based trade networks conveyed Olivella beads while in later times (circa AD 1500)
clam shell beads were used as a medium of exchange in a more 'monetized' system of movement of
goods (Frederickson 1994; Hughes and Milliken 2007; Rosenthal 2011).
Relevant to the Antelope Valley region are ethnohistorical indications that the southern Valley Yokuts
and the Tubatulabal of the southern Sierra shared in this use of clam shell 'currency', an alternative to
the Chumash use of Olivella disc beads and, in historic times, rough disc beads, for the same
purpose. Yokuts consultants of Latta (1999:318-324) described the use, value, and origin of what
were described as Pismo clam (Tivela stultorum) disc beads. These were recalled as having been
mainly obtained from the Chumash by way of the Cuyama Valley, although some fabrication may
have been carried out locally. Voegelin (1938:52) noted the accumulation and use by the Tubatulabal
of clam shell disc beads as a form of wealth, and that these were obtained from the Chumash. She
stated that the Tubatulabal knew about Olivella shell beads but did not use them as 'money'. This
raises the question as to whether some groups or communities in the Antelope Valley region may
have used significantly larger quantities of clam shell beads than others during the Late Prehistoric
Period.
In summary, from Gypsum Period times to the end of the Late Prehistoric Period, drilled shell beads
which originated in Chumash areas are recovered from sites in the Antelope Valley in considerable
quantity. Olivella and other bead types have been important as archaeological markers for longdistance conveyance, as indicators of political and economic evolution in native California, and as
chronological markers within site deposits. The testing of the chronological typologies that make
beads so important is a key goal of any regional research design involving bead analysis. As Milliken
and Schwitalla (2012:6) emphasize, “naming beads is no substitute for metrics”. In other words,
measurement and description of local specimens is always necessary to test the received wisdom of
standard chronological typologies. Dahdul (2002:60-63) provides a relevant object lesson on this
from another desert area, the Coachella Valley. There she found that her independent dating of
beads revealed chronological discrepancies with standard dating typologies. Thus, the necessity of
testing the local applicability of typologies derived from archaeological data in other regions.
Stone Beads
The appearance of chlorite schist stone beads in cemetery contexts in the Chumash region was dated
by King (1990:133) as beginning at around 200 BC. He noted that from this time, the use of this type
of bead was more frequent among Uto-Aztecan speakers to the east of the Chumash. During his late
Middle Period, equivalent to the Rose Spring Period, relatively large globular, cylinder, and tube
beads of black chlorite schist were common burial furnishings (King 1990:133-144). During the Late
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
214
07A3822 Task Order 17
Prehistoric Period, he observed a decrease in the size, and some decrease of abundance, of these
bead types.
In the Antelope Valley stone beads are present, but less abundant than shell beads (Earle et al.
1997:166, 167-168; Price et al. 2009:104). These are frequently fabricated from chlorite schist, found
in deposits in the Sierra Pelona region on the south side of the Antelope Valley. Sites located along
Amargosa Creek, in the San Andreas Fault rift zone in the foothills to the west of Palmdale and to the
north of the Sierra Pelona ridge, served as workshops for the making of beads, pendants. and other
schist objects (Padon et al. 1998). Sites of this kind in that area, dating to the Rose Spring Period and
later, include CA-LAN-948, CA-LAN-951, CA-LAN-953, and CA-LAN-954 (Price et al. 2009:3, 21).
These chlorite schist beads are found widely distributed in the valley. King (1990:178) mentioned that
at CA-KER-303, in the northwest valley, both globular and disc types of black chlorite schist beads
were found. King noted a similar Middle Period presence of chlorite schist beads on the Mojave River
at the Oro Grande site (King 1983:80-81).
Glass Beads
Glass beads made in Venice were used by the Spanish in southern California during the early colonial
period, between 1769 and circa 1805, as gifts to non-missionized native people. Both military
commanders and Franciscan missionary fathers used gifts of beads as an inducement for native
cooperation, especially in the case of native chiefs. Two classes of beads, cane beads and wire-wound
beads, were used during this period (King 1990:194-195). Common cane beads were copper blue,
cobalt blue, and copper green. Wire-wound beads, more expensive, included translucent red beads.
Expeditions visiting native communities during the colonial period often distributed glass beads. It is
possible that when Capt. Pedro Fages passed through the southern Antelope Valley in 1772, he
provided native people at the village of Kwarung with glass beads. When Fr. Francisco Garcés visited
the community in 1776, he noted "signs" that Fages had passed that way (Coues 1900:I:267-270).
King (1990:194-195) noted that in the period of final recruitment of native people to the Franciscan
missions in the Chumash region, around 1805, there was a marked decline in the circulation of glass
beads. At this time, there was a revival in the manufacture of shell beads and their use as a form of
wealth. This fabrication occurred at missions such as San Buenaventura. In the nineteenth century,
non-missionized native groups living on the interior fringes of Spanish/ Mexican society sometimes
received glass beads, including as payment for seasonal casual labor on coastal ranchos. Thus, trade
beads reached interior desert areas like the Coachella Valley and the lower Colorado River.
In the Antelope Valley, the numbers of trade beads recovered at archaeological sites has been
limited. Although 920 glass beads were mentioned for the greater Antelope Valley region in Earle et
al. (1997:171), these were actually recovered from a single site located beyond the eastern boundary
of the Antelope Valley Study Area. One or a few glass beads have been found at CA-LAN-298, CALAN-184, and CA-LAN-192 (Price et al. 2009:106). None had been found at Edwards AFB as of the
late 1990s. Because of the limited number of glass beads recovered archaeologically, Sutton (1988)
had speculated that settlements in the valley might have been abandoned prior to the arrival of the
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
215
07A3822 Task Order 17
Spanish in California. However, accounts of Spanish exporers show that this was not the case (see
Ethnohistory section). Identifying glass beads within bead assemblages at Antelope Valley sites is
important for two reasons. In the first place, it provides evidence for site occupation in the late
eighteenth century. In addition, the presence of glass beads as a stratigraphic marker may be useful
in helping to determine whether the uppermost strata of local sites had been damaged or removed
through earthmoving or other modern activities. Sites located on ranch properties are often subject
to varying degrees of such surface disturbance.
Shell Ornaments (Other than Beads)
Keyhole limpet (Megathura crenulata) ring ornaments are described by King (1990:124-127, 250-255).
He dates their presence at Southern California sites as spanning a period from circa 200 BC to AD
1650, with their being much more frequently found during the period from circa 200 BC to AD 1100
than after that date. Earle et al. (1997:171) list nine whole rings or fragments reported for Antelope
Valley sites at that time, and Price et al. (2009:102) report one from CA-LAN-192. However, a number
of these ornaments were also recovered at CA-KER-303 (Kern County Museum n.d.).
Ceramics
Ceramics generally are not a common component of prehistoric sites in the Antelope Valley,
especially in the western portion of the valley. Ceramic types that have been found at sites in or
adjacent to the greater Antelope Valley region include Owens Valley [Great Basin] Brown Ware,
Southern California (Tizon) Brown Ware (also known as Tizon Brown Ware), Intermediate Desert
Wares made in the Mojave Desert, and buff ware ceramics originating on the Lower Colorado River,
as well as those from the Southwest.
Owens Valley Brown Ware was produced by Numic populations in the Eastern Sierra region after
circa AD 1350-1400 (Eerkens 2003b:20; Griset 2013:17). Southern California Brown Ware may have
originated at a relatively early date in the California Transverse Ranges after AD 700, according to
Griset (2013). It became more common during the Late Prehistoric Period, and was produced by the
Cahuilla and Serrano, among other groups. A variant of this ware was also made in the nineteenth
century by Kitanemuk potters living beyond the northwest margin of the Antelope Valley (Earle and
Wiewall 2011). In analyzing ceramics recovered in the Antelope Valley, Griset has introduced the
concept of the Intermediate Desert Ware (Griset 2013:7; Price et al. 2009). These intermediate
characteristics include use of Mojave Desert clays intermediate between clays of sedimentary origin
and residual clays (surface clays as found in lake and river beds, usually quite plastic) and with clays
that have colors between buff and brown when fired.
In a study of 263 sites in the Antelope Valley where test excavations were carried out (126 of these
were within Edwards AFB). It was found that 55 sites contained ceramic fragments (Earle et al. 1997).
The majority of these were located in the eastern and southeastern portions of the valley. The most
common ceramic sherd types (over 90%) at these sites were identified in site reports as Tizon Brown
Ware and Brown Ware. The Griset (2013) typology, which depends on clay anlysis, was not used and,
therefore, it is not clear whether these sherds would be classified as Southern California Brown Ware
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
216
07A3822 Task Order 17
or Intermediate Desert Ware. In addition to these brownwares, a small percentage of the sherds
(n=20) are identified as Lower Colorado (Buff) Wares. One Anasazi Black-on-Gray piece from the
Southwest was identified.
A detailed analysis was also carried out for ceramic materials recovered from CA-LAN-192,
Lovejoy Springs, on the floor of the Antelope Valley south of Edwards AFB (Griset 2013; Price et al.
2009:109-137). The analysis identified 58 sherds of Southern California (Tizon) Brown Ware, 16
sherds of Desert Intermediate Ware and Cronese Red-on-Brown, and 39 sherds of various Lower
Colorado Red, Red-on-Buff, Buff, and Stucco Wares. In addition, a single sherd of Hohokam Buff
was also identified. Of this total, five of the sherds had been re-ground into discs (three of them
perforated), and two others had been shaped for use as scraping or grinding tools. Many of the
Southern California Brown Ware and Lower Colorado sherds, as well as the Hohokam sherd, had
been recovered on the surface of the site, indicating a relatively recent date for these. The analysis
concluded that the Southern California Brown Ware and the Lower Colorado River ceramics were
non-local in origin (Griset 2013:7-8; Price et al. 2009:132-136). The clays used to produce the
Desert Intermediate Ware, however, were likely obtained locally within an 80-mile (E-W) by 60mile (N-S) area encompassing the Antelope Valley.
The materials examined in Price et al. (2009:124-126) appear to have come from relatively widemouth vessels, possibly appropriate for cooking, rather than from narrow-necked vessels appropriate
for storing or transporting water. It is possible that the primary purpose for the non-exotic locally
produced brown ware vessels was for slow cooking or simmering. In the case of the historic-era
fabrication of ceramic vessels by Kitanemuk women, the objective was to create vessels (i.e., vessels
that could substitute for traditional stone cooking ollas) for cooking nutlets from islay or holly-leafed
cherry (Prunus ilicifolia) berries (see the Subsistence section) and other foods that required extended
cooking (Earle and Wiewall 2011). Among the Chemehuevi of the Mojave Desert, ceramic vessels
were used for a similar purpose. They were very scarce, valuable, and subject to breakage, which
helps explain their scarcity (Kelly 1953). It was ethnographically reported that such vessels were
sufficiently scarce and sufficiently important and valuable that different local Chemehuevi bands
would lend and borrow a single vessel back and forth between them. Such bands also preferred to
avoid camping in rocky places in order to reduce the risk of breaking these fragile ceramic vessels.
Such a scenario, and the specific cooking use that such vessels might be put to, might explain why
they were important, despite the possible exchange or importation of these vessels in relatively small
numbers and their use in relatively small numbers. If these vessels were also an alternative to stone
cooking pots used for slow cooking, the local availability of steatite for bowl manufacture might offer
an alternative to the use of such ceramic vessels. In the foothills and outlying canyons of the
southwestern Antelope Valley (particularly Sierra Pelona), steatite sources and stone bowls made
from this material are common, while ceramic materials are not.
Local production of indigenous ceramic wares in Southern California appears to have begun at a
relatively late date, within 400-500 years or less prior to Spanish contact. However, for desert areas
located on routes of travel and exchange from the direction of the lower Colorado River and the
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
217
07A3822 Task Order 17
Southwest, it is possible that ceramics of an earlier date may have been conveyed from those regions
(Sutton 1988b:46; Warren 1984:390-391,401,403). Of particular interest for the Antelope Valley
region is the evidence of occupation of sites by the Anasazi at Halloran Springs, east of Baker,
California in the eastern Mojave Desert beginning circa AD 700 in the Rose Soring Period and
extending into the early Late Prehistoric Period (Sutton et al. 2007). Thus, the possibility exists that
ceramic wares culturally associated with the Southwest may have been conveyed to the Antelope
Valley region during this time. It is possible that Anasazi Gray Ware was being exchanged for shell
beads from the Pacific Coast at this time (Leonard and Drover 1980:252-253; Rogers 1929; Smith
2002:21). The Lower Colorado River Ware sherds at CA-LAN-192, Lovejoy Springs, identified by Price
et al. (2009), do not provide firm dates for their conveyance to the Antelope Valley. They initially
appear in ceramic chronologies circa AD 700-1000 but continued to be made through historic times.
Their appearance in surface contexts may indicate a late date of arrival in the Antelope Valley.
The Mojave River was an important part of the route from the Colorado River to the Pacific Ocean
used by long-distance traders. Evidence of movement of ceramics along the river as early as AD 900
is mentioned in Price et al. (2009). However, it is noted that extensive excavations at the upper
Mojave River site of Oro Grande, occupied during circa AD 850-1300, did not yield ceramic materials
(Rector et al. 1983). As of the late 1700s, Desert Serrano occupied the length of the Mojave River, and
hosted long-distance shell bead traders from the Mojave villages on the Colorado River. Residents of
those Colorado River villages produced Yuman-style ceramics for exchange to neighboring
Chemehuevi desert groups. Nevertheless, there are no ethnohistorical testimonies about Mojave
ceramics being carried across the desert toward coastal California by these Mojave traders. The
ceramics found along the Mojave River identified by Price et al. (2009) as Southern California (Tizon)
Brown Ware may possibly have originated in other areas of Southern California, including among the
Mountain Serrano and the Cahuilla.
Travel Routes and Trails
The following section outlines the network of trails that linked different areas of the Antelope
Valley and connected the Valley with other regions. These have been documented for the Mission
Period, but given the regional topography, were probably used in earlier times. Routes of major
trails are shown in Figure 10.
A major northwest-southeast trail extending the length of the Antelope Valley linked the upper
Mojave River with villages on the south side of the Antelope Valley, and with trails connecting to
the southern San Joaquin Valley. This trail ran from the west end of the valley, in the vicinity of Quail
Lake, southeastward along the south side of the floor of the Valley, crossing Little Rock Creek and
Big Rock Creek to reach the village of Atongaibit on the upper Mojave River. This route appears to
have been followed by Friar Zalvidea and his expedition in 1806. Testimony from the 1840s indicates
that this trail was used by Mojave shell bead traders to reach the trails in the western Antelope Valley
that led to the Tehachapi Mountains and Kitanemuk and Kawaiisu territory (Jackson and Spence
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
218
07A3822 Task Order 17
1970). This trail was also a major route for travel and conveyance between the Serrano of the San
Bernardino Mountains and of the Mojave River and the Serrano-speaking villages of the southern
Antelope Valley. It is possible that an additional trail, further north, may have run due eastward
toward the Mojave River (General Land Office 1855).
A variant of this trail ran southeastward from Lake Hughes along the San Andreas rift zone past
Elizabeth Lake and through Leona Valley, along Amargosa Creek, then through Anaverde and Alpine
Springs and Barrel Springs to reach Little Rock Creek and rejoin the main South Valley trail. This trail
connected a number of villages in the rift zone area. Portions of it were used by Fages in 1772,
Palomares in 1808, Frémont in 1844, and the Pacific Railroad Survey in 1853 (Palomares 1808;
Jackson and Spence 1970; Blake 1856).
Several trail systems linked the Western Antelope Valley with the Tehachapi Mountains (the territory
of the Kitanemuk and Kawaiisu) and the southern San Joaquin Valley. Two trails linked up to pass
through the original Tejon Pass and reach the Kitanemuk settlement at Tejon Canyon in the foothills
of the southern San Joaquin Valley. One of these trails linked to a third trail that reached the
Tehachapi Valley. Mojave and Yokuts long-distance traders use these routes of conveyance, and the
Kawaiisu may have done so as well (Latta 1999).
From Lake Hughes, on the southwest side of the Antelope Valley, a major north-south trail crossed
the Valley to reach Willow Springs, west of Rosamond Hills. From here one trail ran northward to Oak
Creek Pass and Tehachapi Valley in the territory of the Kawaiisu. A second trail from Willow Springs
headed northwest to reach Twin Lakes and the old (not the modern) Tejon Pass, to reach the
territory of the Kitanemuk. Friar Garcés followed this latter route from Lake Hughes to Tejon Pass and
the territory of the Kitanemuk in 1776 (Coues 1900).
At the west end of the valley, the main trail passing Quail Lake intersected further west with a south
to north trail running from the direction of the Santa Clara River drainage and the territory of the
Ventureño Chumash. The trail passed northward past Frasier Park and Kashtiq Chumash territory at
Castac Lake to descend the Grapevine to reach the floor of the southern San Joaquin Valley, where
another Interior Chumash village was located (Harrington 1986; Blake 1856). This trail was part of a
major Chumash exchange and travel corridor linking coastal Ventureño Chumash with Interior
Chumash of the southern edge of the San Joaquin Valley.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
219
07A3822 Task Order 17
Map Features
Antelope Valley Study Area
Location: N:\2015\2015-075.017 Antelope Valley Research Design\MAPS\Meeting_Maps_and_Analysis\2018-10-01 Pre_Contact_Trails\AVRD_Trails_20180928.mxd (AMM)-amyers 2/22/2019
Pre-Contact Trail
I
Miles
0
8
Map Date: 2/22/2019
Photo Source: ESRI Service Layer
Figure 10. Native Trails Discussed in Text
2015-075.017 Antelope Valley Research Design
Another important north-south trail branched off from the trail connecting Tejon Pass with Willow
Springs, to descend the slopes of the Tehachapi Mountains on the northwest side of the Antelope
Valley. It angled downslope to the southwest to reach the west end of the valley, climb Liebre
Mountain to the south, and head south to the Santa Clarita Valley region. In the historic era this trail
provided communication between native settlements in the Tejon Canyon region and the Santa
Clarita Valley and Mission San Fernando further south. This trail was described by Kitanemuk
consultant Maria Solares to ethnographer John Harrington, and a part of it was mapped by the
Wheeler Survey in the late 1870s (Harrington 1986; Wheeler 1879).
To the southeast of Liebre Mountain another trail ran southward from the village of Kwarung
(Quiriniga) at Lake Hughes to descend Elizabeth Lake Canyon in the direction of the Santa Clarita
Valley. This trail was used by José Palomares during an 1808 military expedition that visited the
Antelope Valley (Palomares 1808).
Another trail descended San Francisquito Canyon from the east end of Elizabeth Lake towards the
Santa Clarita Valley. During the era of Mexican rule, this trail was reportedly used by ox carts to reach
the southern San Joaquin Valley, and it was the main 'road' from Los Angeles to San Francisco in the
1850s (Latta 1976:57-58). Further to the southeast, on the east side of Leona Valley, another trail to
the Santa Clarita area descended Bouquet (Buque) Canyon.
South of Palmdale, a major trail route passed southward through Soledad Pass and descended the
headwaters of the Santa Clara River to reach the Santa Clarita region. The Soledad Pass trail was
described by the Pacific Railroad Survey in 1853, and a portion of it was mapped by General Land
Office surveyors in 1855 (General Land Office 1855; Williamson 1856).
Further east, another south-to-north trail appears to have passed from the canyon of Big Rock Creek
northward across the floor of the valley past Lovejoy Springs to Buckhorn Springs, as described by
Serrano consultant Santos Manuel (Harrington 1986:III:101). Another trail ran westward, probably
from Buckhorn Springs, along the north side of Rosamond Dry Lake past the Indian Water Spring,
then past a spring on the north side of Rosamond, then westward past Tropico to reach Willow
Springs. Part of this route was traveled by members of the Pacific Railroad Survey in 1853 (Blake
1856:53-54).
In 1776, Friar Garcés could not persuade his Mojave guides to provide him with a possible route
to get to the Tehachapi region from the vicinity of Barstow or immediately upstream. Garcés did
return to the Mojave River from the Tehachapi region by passing through the general vicinity of
modern Edwards AFB (Coues 1900:I:243-244, 306). It is thus possible that some travel routes from
the springs on the base, described above, may have connected with the Mojave River.
Another trail from the center of Edwards AFB appears to have headed northwesterly to Desert
Spring at Cantil in Fremont Valley, before heading north via Red Rock Canyon towards Indian
Wells Valley. The trail from Edwards to Desert Spring was traveled southbound by William Manly
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
221
07A3822 Task Order 17
in 1849, and he described evidence of its use as a route for natives conveying stolen rancho stock
to the north (Manly 1894:164-166, 236-237, 241).
Conveyance Mechanisms
A number of mechanisms for conveyance of goods (raw materials, finished items, and perishable
items including food) were used by native groups in Southern California and the Antelope Valley,
including direct access, inter-group exchange, and specialized traders.
Direct Access
The first category would include long-distance conveyance through direct access. Such direct
access modes of conveyance would have included, in desert areas, the possibility of accessing
resources in areas that were not occupied by a particular group. Both Sutton (2016) and Eerkens
(1999) have proposed that in the Mojave Desert, even in the Late Prehistoric Period, there were
extensive areas that were shared in this way between different groups. No particular group would
have exercised domain over the shared areas, and different groups could have directly extracted
resources from these areas. The extent to which such resource areas would have been shared in
the Late Prehistoric and Mission Periods depended on population levels, settlement patterns, and
other factors. However, it is likely that native groups in the desert or along the desert margin may
have claimed control of and granted permission for use of areas where their actual occupation
was rather nominal. This was the case with Mountain Serrano clans that claimed extensive desert
territories around the Mojave River in the nineteenth century (Sutton and Earle 2017). Parties from
groups occupying the margins of the Mojave Desert, like the Kawaiisu of the Tehachapi region,
gathered salt from desert playas that were not occupied by either group, but may have been claimed
as part of their territory by one group or another. Nevertheless, it is likely that resources in such
remote desert areas may have been accessed by multiple groups and conveyed under this scenario.
If archaeological sites at the locations of these resources indicate the ephemeral presence of
different ethnic groups, a sharing scenario would appear more likely.
A second kind of direct access that has been documented ethnographically is the requesting of
permission to access resources in the territory of another group, or the invitation by a host group for
an ally to access resources in its territory. There is ethnographic documentation of the occupation of
defined territories by named kin/community groups in south central and southern California. Kroeber
(1925:617, 830-831) identified the territorial nature of local groups in both central and southern
California, and subsequently available material from Strong (1929) and Harrington (1986) has added
to our knowledge about territorial groups and their boundaries in southern California. Sutton and
Earle (2017:13-17), for example, refer to the tracing of Serrano clan (sib) boundaries on the ground in
Serrano ethnographic testimony. Similar information on clan (sib) boundaries exists for the Cahuilla,
especially in the Palm Canyon area and the surrounding region (Bean et al. 1991:18, 19, 21; Patencio
1943:90). Entering the territory of another group to use its resources without permission was a
serious offense (Bean and Smith 1978a:547; McCawley 1996:89).
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
222
07A3822 Task Order 17
This mechanism of access to resources with permission is known to have operated within a
framework of long-term reciprocity that was also expressed in other forms of political and ritual
reciprocity between allied groups. Marriage ties between groups helped to structure this reciprocity.
In the case of the Serrano, a specific allied clan (sib) of opposite moiety affiliation assisted a host clan
in performing the rites that made up the mourning ceremony (Strong 1929:32). For the Mountain
and Pass Cahuilla, Strong (1929:122-130, 180-181) describes the ceremonial participation of visiting
clans in the mourning ceremony. This included reciprocal ritual exchanges of special strands of shell
beads that linked the Cahuilla and Serrano with the Gabrielino/Tongva (Strong 1929). McCawley
(1996:112-114) has discussed similar ritual-political institutions for the Gabrielino/Tongva, and he
referred to them as “ritual congregations” - allied communities that assisted with each other's
mourning ceremonies and other religious fiestas. These ceremonial gatherings of multiple
communities provided a venue for the exchange of food, craft goods, and special strings of shell
beads.
Archaeologists have focused on the study of feasting in pre-industrial societies in recent decades.
Hayden (2001:39-41) discusses the archaeology of feasting and provides a list of possible crosscultural archaeological indicators of feasting events. These include distinctive food remains, special
preparation and serving vessels, special facilities for preparing or disposing of festive foods, and
feasting locations or facilities. He also lists prestige items and paraphernalia associated with feasting
rituals, and appropriately scaled food storage facilities, as indicators of feasting. He notes, as well, the
importance of mortuary data indicating the presence in communities or social groups of political
leaders.
Hull et al. (2013) have identified ten sites in Ventura, Los Angeles, and Orange counties containing
archaeological features related to communal mourning fiestas. They propose an innovative
reconstruction of mourning fiesta cultural processes through the analysis of archaeological data from
these features. They identify property disposal pits or lithic platforms associated with plaza spaces
and note the recurrence at various sites of "pit clusters and secondary inhumation of selected
portions of the body around a central platform cairn" (Hull et al. 2013:27). Their analysis of these and
other sites aims to find archaeological indications of mourning fiesta preparations, preliminary
treatment and then disposal of mourning offerings and property of the dead, and other indications
of mourning processes and behaviors.
An example of direct access by permission or invitation is provided by the hosting of acorn gathering
by the Serrano community of Guapiabit on the upper Mojave River. For the Serrano of the upper
Mojave River and an allied Desert Serrano village near Palmdale, this relationship of alliance took the
form of invitations extended to various villages from the chief at Guapiabit, at the headwaters of the
Mojave River, to attend a fiesta at his village where all the attending communities gathered black oak
acorns in the territory of Guapiabit (Palomares 1808; Earle 2004, 2005; Sutton and Earle 2017). Such a
fiesta context would involve dancing, the singing of sacred songs, and the consumption of festive
foods. This acorn-gathering fiesta appears to have been at least one of the mechanisms used to
convey acorns down the Mojave River, reaching at least as far as the Barstow region. In 1776 Friar
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
223
07A3822 Task Order 17
Garcés' exploration party was fed acorn porridge and greeted with the ritual gift of acorns in that
area, and was also presented with acorns further upstream (Coues 1900:I:243-244). In 1826, Jedediah
Smith observed imported pine nuts and acorns being consumed in the Victorville area where these
plant foods are not locally available (Brooks 1977:92). Archaeological indicators of the antiquity of
this conveyance include the recovery of portable mortars and pestles and acorn remains at a site
north of Victorville which dated to the beginning of the Late Prehistoric Period (McCarthy and Wilke
1983:103-104).
Serrano ethnographic consultants also discussed with J. P. Harrington the sharing of pinyon
gathering areas between allied groups, where the owner group would hold a group fiesta for invited
allied groups to gather pine nuts. The invitees provided the host with a gift of a portion of the pine
nuts that they harvested (Harrington 1986:III:101:227,325). Strong (1929:33) also mentions a multicommunity rabbit hunt held in the territory of the host group sponsoring the mourning ceremony
preliminary to that ceremony. Harrington (1986:101:227, 325) was also told about a kind of rabbit
hunt held independently of the mourning ceremony that was hosted by a community and attended
by its allies, this in the context of a fiesta that included dancing and the singing of sacred songs.
Direct access to a specific resource through alliance relations may have provided a means to alleviate
shortages of that resource by obtaining more of the resource from another group. In addition,
communities located in different environments and resource zones would have been able to obtain
from each other what they themselves did not produce.
Direct access to resources in the territory of another group is presumed to have involved:
•
a reciprocal lending of access to the host group at a later time;
•
a counter-gift of a portion of the resource procured to the host group at the time of the
procurement; and
•
provision of some other good or resource to the host group, either at the time or later.
Direct procurement means that goods are procured directly from areas outside the territory of the
group by the members of the group. This is different than exchange between two groups that
remain in their own territories or carriage of goods by specialist long-distance traders. It is less likely
that higher weight or volume or lower value goods would have been transported over long distances
by specialist traders. In addition, for goods that require considerable labor in procurement and
transport, direct access by a group would be an advantageous solution. Thus, for procuring acorns or
pine nuts, direct access would appear to have advantages. In addition, if goods and resources are
found at their place of destination in an unprocessed state, like lithic raw materials, this would
appear to make it less likely that these items had been conveyed by community to community longdistance exchange or by specialist long-distance traders. Gilreath and Hildebrandt (2011), for
example, note a shift at the Coso Volcanic Field away from local workshop lithic reduction by the
Late Prehistoric Period, raising the possibility of direct access of lithic raw materials by outside
groups.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
224
07A3822 Task Order 17
The identification of possible direct access and procurement in the archaeological record may be
related to the following factors:
•
recovery of goods or resources that appear to be of non-local origin;
•
evidence of quantities of relatively high-weight or low-value goods, like foodstuffs, having
been conveyed; and
•
evidence for procurement and processing of goods by their ultimate users.
Exchange Between Groups Through Marriage Ties
Moratto (2011:245) emphasized the importance of the role of females in the conveyance of goods. In
southern California, this had to do in part with marriages between exogamous clan (sib) communities
that resulted in inter-group linkages through marriages with women from outside the community.
Among Takic-language groups, a female moved to the clan (sib) community of her husband upon
marriage. This practice is attested ethnographically and was also recorded at Mission San Gabriel
(Earle 2004:181-183; Kroeber 1925:617). This created the link for movement of female-produced or
utilized goods like basketry between communities. In addition, among the Cahuilla, these affinal links
were activated by hunting rules that specified that unmarried hunters would provide game meat to
the family and clan group of their in-married mothers (Strong 1929:77-78). Once married, a man was
obliged to alternate in providing game meat to his own clan and to the clan of his wife.
Marriage ties also commonly occurred between different ethnic/language groups. It was common for
clan communities located in the boundary regions between ethnic/language groups to be rather
multi-ethnic and multi-lingual. This is evident in mission register information on personal names for
these communities (Huntington Library 2006).
Archaeological inferences about inter-ethnic marriage ties would depend in part on identifying the
presence of ethnically distinctive items made by in-marrying females or brought by them from their
area of origin. Basketry would be the most obvious material culture marker of ethnic origin of inmarrying females. Thus, for example, the presence of three-rod willow foundation and willow
sewing-strand basketry in Serrano or Cahuilla communities in historic times could be, and often was,
an indicator of in-marriage by Chemehuevi females (Earle 2010a). However, the archaeological
recovery of basketry is limited to caves and shelters, pack rat middens, and rare cases of carbonized
basketry from mortuary contexts. It is also possible that if ceramics could be identified as to specific
localities of production (clay sources), within the Mojave Desert, for example, movement of ceramics
between particular places might be associated with marriage ties linking these places.
Conveyance Through Specialist Traders
Another major possible modality of conveyance in southern California is that of long-distance
trading specialists. The concept of specialization is used here to indicate long-distance travel by
individuals carrying goods to and from pre-established remote destinations, interacting with preexisting trade partners, and following pre-existing networks that included intermediate hosts. Earle
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
225
07A3822 Task Order 17
(2005) has described long-distance exchange carried out by parties of Mojave traders who traveled
from the Colorado River to the southern San Joaquin Valley or the Pacific Coast in the vicinity of
Santa Barbara and Ventura. They exchanged goods brought from the Colorado River region for shell
beads, and sometimes other items, such as Apocynum sp. (Indian hemp) textiles obtained in the
southern San Joaquin Valley. They formed part of a network of conveyance that linked the Pacific
Coast and the Colorado River with Pueblo groups of northeastern Arizona and New Mexico. Other
traders of this kind carried goods from the western Pueblos to the Colorado River. Friar Francisco
Garcés was told in 1776 that these latter long-distance traders operated under a safe conduct
arrangement (Bolton 1930:381-382). Mojave traders appear to have stayed at known host villages
during their travels, as indicated by Fr. Garcés (Coues 1900; Earle 2005).
Arkush (1993) has argued that the Southern Valley Yokuts carried out the conveyance of goods
through use of such specialist traders. This is also suggested by information collected by Frank Latta
(1999:305-312) from Southern Valley Yokuts consultants. The latter had older relatives who had been
long-distance traders, and they indicated that this activity had been a family specialty. Yowlumne
Yokuts territory around modern Bakersfield had been a hub of such long-distance trade, as indicated
by Friar Zalvidea in 1806 and other sources (Cook 1960). Latta was told that trails from Yowlumne
territory led across the Tehachapi Mountains into the Antelope Valley and also via both Walker Basin
and the South Fork of the Kern River to reach the Coso obsidian source. These traders carried loads
of approximately 50 pounds. Thus a 50-pound load of deer hides would be carried across the
southern Sierra to reach the Mojave Desert to exchange for obsidian, and on the return trip a 50pound load of obsidian would be carried.
An important characteristic of this system of conveyance mentioned by the Yokuts consultants was
the trader's use of standard commodity units or bundles (Latta 1999:306-307, 309). Thus, pigments
or deer hides, for example, were made into standard-sized units for conveyance and exchange.
Therefore, the archaeological recovery of such standard units, such as pigment balls, would suggest
such long-distance trader activity. This could include standard-sized woven fiber containers to carry
items such as carrizo grass sugar or salt.
Conveyance of Subsistence Items
This section discusses research strategies regarding identification of possible conveyance of
subsistence resources between communities in the Antelope Valley region, as well as into the region
from elsewhere. It focuses on conditions that prevailed after the shift from a mobile foraging
adaptation to a more sedentary settlement system with food storage and longer-distance
conveyance of food resources between groups. This shift is presumed to have been under way by the
Gypsum Period (see the Settlement Systems Theme).
For village groups occupying local territories in the Antelope Valley, identifying the movement of
food resources within or between local group territories will help define the importance of local
inter-group food conveyance. This issue is relevant to the local procurement of acorns, islay (hollyleafed cherry), and mesquite beans, for example. As discussed in the section dealing with Settlement
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
226
07A3822 Task Order 17
Systems Theme known village sites in the Antelope Valley in the Protohistoric Period were located in
the desert margin at the base of the mountain foothills and the desert floor on the northwest and
south sides of the Valley. At least two additional places were located at springs on the desert floor
(Lovejoy Springs and Buckhorn Spring) that were or may have been village sites.
With respect to the conveyance of subsistence resources used at specific sites, it is important to
identify whether such resources were obtained locally and directly by those inhabiting the sites or
were obtained from other groups. The second case, the conveyance of resources from other groups,
as noted above, may have taken the form of procurement from the territory of another (allied) group
with permission or receipt of the food resources from the hands of the group of origin of the
resources, or from an intermediary. The distinction, of course, has to do with which group was
collecting the resource on the landscape. In the case of the movement of acorns and pine nuts down
the Mojave River, alluded to above, it is known that downriver groups did gather acorns in the
groves of a river headwaters group in the mountains. Food resources may also have been moved
‘down the line’ through exchange between groups along the length of the river.
A number of sources of inference are available for assessing the occurrence of inter-group food
conveyance through one or the other of the above modes. In the first place, as described in the
Subsistence Theme section, archaeological indicators of food processing and food use at a
habitation site are derived from identifying types of processing tools, performing tool use wear and
residue analysis, studying macrobotanical remains, and carrying out microbotanical analyses. This will
indicate what was processed and consumed at a particular period of time in the past. Second,
identifying localities where collecting and field processing activities may have taken place may
provide indications about who performed the collecting and processing, and the degree of
transformation of the items being processed, contributing to its greater or lesser portability.
In addition, identifying the locations of possible village sites, temporary camps, and procurement and
processing localities can contribute to the reconstruction of a temporally-relevant cultural landscape.
An element of this reconstruction is an attempt to determine, for major settlement loci, equivalent to
the winter village in Late Prehistoric and Mission Periods, the areal extent and environmental
characteristics of the territory and resources habitually used by such a settlement. For the Mission
Period, ethnohistorical data and inferences about community population size, resources exploited,
and marriage and other alliance ties can help orient this reconstruction of group territory and
cultural landscapes. It is emphasized that even approximate estimates of community population size,
based on both archaeological and ethnographic inference, can be very helpful to this reconstruction
(Earle 2004).
An important question to consider is the possible presence of 'exogenous' or foreign-origin
subsistence resources within given settlements or inferred community groups. However, given that a
group’s territory likely included multiple habitats and rsource zones, it may not have been necessary
to obtain foreign-origin subsistence resources. Inferences from ethnohistorical and ethnographic
information for the Protohistoric Period in the Antelope Valley region indicates that local winter-
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
227
07A3822 Task Order 17
village based groups occupied defined and bounded local territories. Based on the location of
ethnohistorically known settlements, these territories appear to have often encompassed areas of
both upland and valley floor resources that were adjacent to these settlements. Thus, upland and
foothill food resources such as canyon live oak (Quercus chrysolepis) and other oak species, yucca,
holly-leafed cherry, and juniper berries, along with desert margin annual small seed resources (chia,
atriplex, and wild buckwheat, for example) provided a floral resource base supplemented by desert
floor hard seeds, Joshua tree blossoms, and mesquite pods and beans (in the center of the valley). If
all these subsistence items occurred in a group’s territory, there may have been little need to obtain
resources from outside the territory unless there was a shortage of a particular resource within the
territory.
It can be questioned how far into the past such a territorial settlement model can be projected. Two
important archaeological indices of stability over time in practices of territorial occupation would be
a) long-term continuity of occupation of a core settlement, and b) long-term continuity of the
archaeological characteristics of satellite camps and procurement locations (Garfinkel 2007).
In addition, Sutton (2017) has raised the question, for the Antelope Valley, of whether resource zones
such as the mesquite woodland found in the center of the valley may have been shared among
different groups. This follows Eerkens (1999) stressing the importance of shared resource zones in
the Mojave Desert. The archaeological characteristics of procurement sites occupied roughly
contemporaneously in possible 'joint use areas’ can also provide inferences about shared versus
territorially claimed resource areas.
Ultimately, a reconstructed layout of settlements and their territories within the Antelope Valley
region should suggest when food resources may have been conveyed from one territory to another
through either procurement by an allied group from outside the terrritory which then conveyed the
resource back to their own territory, or through conveyance or exchange between groups. Thus, if a
village site at the southwest margin of the Antelope Valley displays archaeological indices of
processing mesquite pods and beans (which can only be obtained from areas around springs or high
water table areas), a relatively long distance conveyance of this food by one or the other of these
modalities can be suspected.
A major case of movement of foodstuffs, at least during the Late Prehistoric Period, is the
conveyance of acorns to habitation sites on the floor of the Antelope Valley. Whether this was mostly
carried out by desert margin communities provisioning their own camps on the desert floor, or
whether independent desert floor settlements obtained acorns through alliances with desert margin
settlements, is not completely clear. A permanent desert floor settlement existed at Lovejoy Butte
(CA-LAN-192) and others may have existed at Buckhorn Spring on Edwards AFB, and at Tropico, west
of Rosamond.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
228
07A3822 Task Order 17
Research Questions and Data Needs
Lithics and Minerals Conveyance and Exchange
Sections in this research design on the themes of ‘Lithic Technology’ and ‘Lithic Material Sources for
Flaked Stone Tools and Other Artifacts’ contain questions and data requirements on changes in
availability of both local and imported lithic materials that are relevant to the theme of conveyance
of lithic materials. In addition, the following questions (and embedded data needs) also refer to
specific topics within this broader theme.
Obsidian and Steatite
1) Is there evidence, for sites in various localities within the Antelope Valley, of importation of
obsidian from sources other than the Coso volcanic field?
So far, only obsidian from the Coso source has been found in Antelope Valley sites. However, it is
possible that obsidian from other sources was used. Determing whether other sources of obsidian
were used would depend on chemical sourcing of obsidian samples, as is discussed in the section on
the theme of ‘Lithic Material Sources for Flaked Stone Tools and Other Artifacts’. This would clarify
the extent of dominance of the Coso volcanic field as an obsidian source in various localities of the
Antelope Valley.
2) What are the chronologies for production of steatite bowls, as indicated by presence in Antelope
Valley sites? Are there indications of export of stone bowls throughout the Antelope Valley or to
other regions?
Answering these questions would require the dating of the occurrence of these classes of lithic
artifacts in Antelope Valley sites and determining the source of schist and steatite (using
petrographic sourcing) and obsidian (using chemical sourcing) artifacts found in Antelope Valley
sites.
Asphaltum Conveyance and Exchange
3) Can asphaltum-treated objects (such as basketry and tarring pebbles) or raw asphaltum found in
archaeological contexts in the Antelope Valley be chemically sourced to indicate region of origin? Is
asphaltum found in standard-sized lumps or balls indicating conveyance by specialist long-distance
traders?
Principal sources of asphaltum in southern California include the Ventura-Santa Barbara coast and
the McKittrick region of western Kern County. The extent to which the Kern County sources, as
opposed to coastal sources, were used in different areas of the Antelope Valley is currently unknown.
Chemical sourcing of asphaltum (Brown et al. 2014) from datable archaeological contexts in the
Antelope Valley would help to answer these questions.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
229
07A3822 Task Order 17
Pigments Conveyance and Exchange
4) Can a differential spatial distribution of either ochre or manganese pigments in lump form,
pigments that appear to have been conveyed from distant sources, be identified in Antelope Valley
sites?
The discussion of pigments indicated that red ochre was obtained in the Tejon Ranchería area of the
southern San Joaquin Valley and carried by the Mojave from the Colorado River region. Evidence of
differences in the frequency of recovery of these pigments in different areas of the Antelope Valley
might indicate paths of conveyance and exchange of these pigments. Identification of ochre or other
mineral pigments in lump form would also be needed.
5) Is there evidence of an increase in importation and use of ochre or other pigments over time?
The use of these pigments was especially important because of the cultural and ritual significance of
body painting. This means that the obtaining of these pigments was necessary on a constant basis.
Indications of the frequency of lump ochre in different archaeological strata could provide an index
of intensity of importation and use during different prehistoric time periods. The presence of
quantities of ochre might be considered one indicator of winter village ceremonial activity, for
instance. To answer this question, recovery of ochre or other mineral pigments in stratified and dated
archaeological contexts would be necessary.
Shell Bead Conveyance and Exchange
6) What changes can be observed over time in the quantities of different types of beads and other
shell ornaments being imported into the region?
The discussion above has referred to a general pattern of long-distance conveyance or exchange of
spire-ground Olivella, Olivella barrel, or whole Olivella shell beads from the southern California coast
to the Antelope Valley prior to the Gypsum Period. During the Gypsum Period, Olivella saucer and
wall beads become more common. The analysis of such shifts in the quantities of specific types of
beads being exchanged into the region may reflect changes in types being fabricated (Arnold and
Graesch 2001) and/or changes in demand at destination locations. Stylistic chronologies for the
fabrication of Olivella and other shell beads have long been available and have been successively
refined. In recent years, sophisticated application of AMS radiometric dating to shell samples has
allowed cross-checking of these chronologies (Groza 2002; Milliken and Schwitalla 2012). The
chronologies provide a means of developing analyses of temporal shifts in the intensity of utilization
of specific bead types at archaeological sites of destination. This research problem permits the
profiling of the emergence and maintenance of long distance conveyance and exchange systems for
shell beads. A general trend of increase in rates of conveyance over time might be predicted, but
variations in this rate would provide insights into the development of such long-distance movement
of shell beads.
7) Given information available for the areas of fabrication regarding changes in bead types and styles
over time at the localities of origin (Arnold and Graesch 2001; Milliken and Schwitalla 2012), are there
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
230
07A3822 Task Order 17
any apparent shifts in frequency for different kinds of beads in local archaeological sites that could
be plausibly related to changes in the functions of specific types of beads?
Change in the rates of fabrication of specific types of beads, for example on the Channel Islands,
reflects changes in fabrication technology and, presumably, changes in demand for specific types of
beads over time. For the Antelope Valley region, there may be changes in how shell beads are used in other words, changes in demand for specific kinds of beads. A shift from the use of spire-ground
whole Olivellas to tiny saucer Olivella beads during the Gypsum Period would represent this kind of
shift. It could be hypothesized that over time, functional specialization of specific types of beads - as
objects of personal adornment, as objects of ceremonial prestation and counter-prestation, as
mortuary goods, as objects destined for routine economic exchange, and as objects used for longterm storage of value - would tend to increase. The history of such developing specialization at the
local level may be reflected in the local archaeological record.
8) What changes can be observed over time in the identifiable sources of different types of beads
being imported into the region?
For the Antelope Valley region, the Channel Islands and coastal southern California provide the
principal source of Olivella, clamshell, Mytilus, and other shell beads and ornaments. The Gulf of
California is also a possible source of Olivella dama beads. Importation of Olivella shell beads across
the deserts from the Gulf of California would be important to document as an element of
Mojave/Colorado Desert long-distance conveyance (Dahdul 2011).
9) Is there evidence that Antelope Valley sites participated in long-distance conveyance of coastal
shell beads into the Great Basin or the Colorado River and the Southwest during various periods in
the past?
Antelope Valley native communities are known to have participated in such long-distance
conveyance during the protohistoric period. Specifically, members of trading/traveling parties from
the direction of the Colorado River, especially groups of young Mojave men, engaged in a trek
taking approximately 15 days one way from the Colorado River to the southern California coast, and
10 days to the southern San Joaquin Valley (Earle 2005). Chemehuevis are also reported to have
engaged in this kind of long-distance exchange. Such traders were dependent on the hospitality of
host villages along the way. The amassing of bead wealth by Serrano-speaking chiefs along the
Mojave River suggests that they benefited materially from their roles as hosts (Earle 2005:8).
Identification of a similar pattern during earlier periods would involve several research strategies:
first, the identification of an unusual abundance of specific types of beads that were being
exchanged on the long-distance basis; and second, a comparison with other regions in Southern
California in respect to different measures of general abundance of beads of different types at
various time periods in habitation sites. In addition, it is possible that the presence of exotic items
originating in the Colorado River region or the Southwest might provide an indication of such longdistance travel and exchange. Southwestern ceramics are known to have been imported into
southern California from the Southwest, along with in exchange for shell beads (Earle 2005:13,15,32;
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
231
07A3822 Task Order 17
Ruby 1970). This type of exchange obviously has different social characteristics from an alternative
type of 'down-the-line' exchange system where quantities of beads gradually move from hand to
hand.
10) Are there variations within the Antelope Valley in the relative frequency of use of Olivella as
opposed to clamshell beads?
It is possible that the relative frequency of these two types of beads might contribute to
distinguishing between populations based in the southern Sierras, Including the Tehachapi
Mountains, and the south side of the Antelope Valley. Clamshell beads enjoyed some popularity
among native people in the southern San Joaquin Valley and in the southern Sierras (Voegelin 19381940:50). This may have extended to the northern margins of the Antelope Valley.
Shell beads from dated contexts identified using standard bead typologies. Beads should be
measured to aid in identification.
Stone Beads and Ornaments Conveyance and Exchange
11) What is the chronology for first appearance and later use of stone beads in the Antelope Valley?
Can time periods be identified when these types of beads are particularly abundant?
a) Are there differences in frequency of stone beads at sites in different areas within the
Antelope Valley?
b) What lithic raw materials were being used for fabrication of stone beads found at sites in the
Antelope Valley?
c) Is there archaeological evidence for stone bead manufacture at sites within the Antelope
Valley?
d) Chester King (1990) has suggested an association or co-occurrence of certain kinds of shell
beads and stone beads in the Santa Barbara Channel region and hypothesized that the two types
of beads were used together to make up bead strings. Is there evidence for a similar functional
co-occurrence in the Antelope Valley?
e) Is there evidence for the conveyance of stone beads from the Antelope Valley to other
regions?
To answer these questions, stone beads and pendants should be classified by material type and
form. Chronological questions can be addressed if stone beads are recovered from dated
stratigraphic contexts during site excavation in the Antelope Valley. Access to stone bead and
ornament collections from areas outside of the Antelope Valley would be needed to answer
questions about export of these artifacts from the Antelope Valley. In addition, identification of the
chemical and physical characteristics of local stone sources (schist, for example) would be needed for
identification of exported specimens.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
232
07A3822 Task Order 17
Glass Beads Conveyance and Exchange
12) What does the possible presence, abundance, and chronological placement of glass beads as a
temporal marker at sites in the Antelope Valley suggest about the chronology of occupation of these
sites?
a) What do both the possible presence of glass beads at sites in the Antelope Valley and their
type suggest about the timing and intensity of Spanish or other European contact with native
communities in the area?
b) Does the possible presence of certain temporally late types of glass beads at archaeological
sites in and around the perimeter of the Antelope Valley suggest that certain sites were occupied
at late dates during the nineteenth century?
Glass beads classified by form, color, and size. Chronological questions can be addressed if stone
beads are recovered from dated stratigraphic contexts during site excavation in the Antelope Valley.
Ceramics Conveyance and Exchange
13) What is the spatial and temporal distribution of specific types of ceramics within the Antelope
Valley?
In analyzing site collections in the Antelope Valley, it is assumed that ceramic materials will be scarce,
especially in the southwestern part of the valley, and will be of Late Prehistoric date. Those
assumptions need to be continually tested, particularly in respect to the appearance of ceramics of a
Southwestern style at earlier dates. The question of distribution is related to the problem of
identifying imported as opposed to locally made wares, as is discussed below.
14) Through analysis of ceramic technique and style, and through petrographic analysis of
constituent clays, what exogenous localities of origin can be identified for ceramic materials found in
the Antelope Valley region, possibly including Desert Cahuilla or Lower Colorado River sources?
Scarce presence of ceramic materials at sites in the region has provoked the question of exotic
origin. It is noted that ceramic materials appear to be more abundant in the eastern as opposed to
the western Antelope Valley. It is known that the Desert Serrano of the Mojave River used ceramics
during Late Prehistoric times. It is also assumed that some ceramics were locally fabricated by the
Serrano, although ethnographic accounts or collections documenting this are unfortunately lacking.
For the Desert Cahuilla, southeastern neighbors of the Serrano, ceramic production in Late
Prehistoric and historic times is well attested, and workshop samples were collected from potters in
the nineteenth century (Schumacher 1880). The Cahuilla wares reflected some similarities with those
produced on the lower Colorado River by Yuman-speaking groups such as the Mojave and Quechan
in Late Prehistoric times. Researchers interested in the cultural history of the Mojave Desert, such as
Claude Warren (1984), have attempted to identify the timing and distribution of lower Colorado River
origin ceramics as far west as the Antelope Valley (the Patayan influence). A concern driving this
interest is the scenario of a possible occupation of the lower Mojave River and desert areas to the
east by the so-called Desert Mojaves in Late Prehistoric times. Such an occupation may have been
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
233
07A3822 Task Order 17
reflected by the movement of lower Colorado River ceramics up the Mojave River and across the
western Mojave Desert.
15) Where in the Antelope Valley region can Numic-style ceramics, brownwares and graywares, be
found, and what dates can be assigned to these? Can these be identified petrographically as
imported or locally made?
This category of ceramics is found in late prehistoric contexts, especially on the north side of the
valley. It would appear to have some utility as an ethnic marker for the presence of Numic-speaking
groups. The archaeology and ethnohistory of Numic ceramic production in the southern Sierra
region during the late prehistoric period has recently received research attention (Garfinkel 2007;
Moratto 2011).
16) Can ceramic types stylistically linked to areas of production elsewhere in Southern California or
to the east (Tizon brownwares or the Lower Colorado River wares) be identified as actually locally
made?
Suzanne Griset has discussed petrographic analysis aimed at differentiating between imported
ceramics and items of similar style that were, in fact, locally made (Intermediate Desert Wares). This
has been based on comparison of the characteristics of clays that were used. Of particular interest
here would be the identification of ceramic craft specialization in the western Mojave Desert. Griset's
identification of locally made, or relatively locally made, ceramics at Lovejoy Springs (CA-LAN-192)
raises the question as to whether there were Serrano ceramics producers, on the upper Mojave River,
for example, who may have been involved in producing relatively locally made ceramics.
17) Do we have evidence of the exchange or transport of Anasazi or other Southwestern ceramics
into the Antelope Valley?
As previously discussed, Anasazi or other Southwestern ceramic sherds have been found at sites in
the Antelope Valley, for example, on Edwards AFB, at CA-LAN-192, and apparently at Barrel Springs
(CA-LAN-82). Apparent Anasazi use of a turquoise mine at Halloran Springs, to the east of the Sinks
of the Mojave River, indicates their presence in the central Mojave Desert region. This has pointed to
the significance of Anasazi ceramics at Antelope Valley sites as possible indicators of exchange with
Anasazi present in the Mojave Desert.
Identification and analysis of ceramics from sites in the Antelope Valley. Recovery of ceramics from
dated stratigraphic contexts will assist with chronological questions. Classification should be based
on style, form and function, and analysis of ware and temper. Petrographic analysis will assist with
questions about the source of clays used to make ceramics.
Direct Access to Resources
18) What archaeological evidence exists in Antelope Valley sites for direct access to distant resources
by inhabitants of these sites?
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
234
07A3822 Task Order 17
Evidence of direct access involves identifying non-local resources that may have been conveyed to
Antelope Valley sites by this means. Direct access to resources can be seen as an efficient means of
obtaining items of lower unit value, higher unit weight, or requiring higher investment in
procurement or processing skills and labor. It is an extension of the fundamental family labor
strategy of local collecting to more distant resources, rather than a procurement specialist strategy.
The conveyance of high weight or volume resources, like food products, from distant places of origin
implies a semi-sedentary settlement and social regime, such that distant bulk resources are carried to
where groups reside (logistical mobility), rather than such groups moving to the resources
(residential mobility). It also implies a ramping up of the intensity of application of family labor to
meeting subsistence needs. This is presumably associated with population growth and consequent
intensification of resource exploitation.
Archaeological indicators of direct access in resource procurement may include evidence of use of
craft or food resources that a) are of non-local-community origin (e.g., obsidian, acorns, pinyon pine
nuts), b) are consumed on a large scale (like acorns), and c) are more effectively procured and
conveyed through family labor rather than specialist labor.
19) Are conveyance items (e.g., acorns, lithic raw materials, etc.) found archaeologically at the point
of destination in the Antelope Valley in the unprocessed state? These are possible indicators of direct
access. Do we find evidence of such items or products at sites in the Antelope Valley region?
Large amounts of craft or food resources of non-local origin (from outside the local community) that
could be conveyed to the residential base through family labor. Some of the food items may be in an
unprocessed state (back-loaded resources as described in the Subsistence section).
Inter-Group Marriage and Exchange
20) Can we find archaeological evidence of inter-group exchange based on marriage ties?
Such exchange may have linked both nearby and more distant communities in and outside the
Antelope Valley. Such exchange may be difficult to distinguish from direct access with permission
except that it might involve smaller quantities of goods or products and sometimes goods of higher
value or of greater prestige. Non-local goods found at a particular habitation site originating in the
habitat of an adjacent or nearby community might indicate exchange and social ties involving
marriage links. In addition, inter-ethnic marriage links may be more visible in the archaeological
record, due to the presence of artifacts and implements in sites of residence of in-marrying women
that have ethnically different characteristics.
Non-local goods found at a particular habitation site originating in the habitat of an adjacent or
nearby community. Artifacts and implements in sites of residence of in-marrying women that have
characteristics that are ethnically different from the site where the artifacts were found.
Social Contexts of Direct Access with Permission and Inter-Group Exchange
21) Is there evidence in Antelope Valley archaeological sites for ritual mourning practices indicating
ritual congregations of allied groups where direct access with permission may have taken place?
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
235
07A3822 Task Order 17
Archaeological indicators of feasting and ritual mourning behavior residential bases and villages,
according to Gamble (2008), Hull et al. (2013), and Hayden (2001), may include:
a) ritual plaza areas used for mourning ceremonies, including fire pits or platforms
b) evidence of ritual destruction of property, perhaps through burning and subsequent pit burial
c) shell beads that may be high-value or prestige items of non-local origin (possibly indicative of
inter-group ritual exchange) recovered in the context of apparent mourning ceremonies or ritual
destruction of property
d) special steatite or other cooking vessels that may have been used in food preparation
associated with ritual feasting
Artifacts and features from excavation of residential bases or villages that have the characteristics of
indicators of feasting and ritual mourning behavior (as indicated above).
Conveyance by Long Distance Traders
22) What archaeological evidence exists for conveyance of goods by long-distance traders?
Long-distance conveyance by traders is a specialist activity, involving higher-value items being
conveyed. These may have been conveyed in units of standardized size and/or value. They also may
have taken the form of 'finished goods’ that display already processed conventional characteristics,
like asphaltum balls, finished obsidian bifaces, or shell beads. It is not expected that long-distance
traders would have frequently conveyed lower-value bulk items like subsistence products. Items
conveyed by long-distance traders would have the following characteristics:
a) items of non-local origin;
b) items with a standardized unit size or value; and
c) items with the characteristics of 'finished objects' of relatively high value.
23) Does the possible geographical distribution of non-local high-value items that may have been
conveyed by long distance traders at sites in the greater Antelope Valley region shed light on the
spatial patterns and routes of conveyance that may have existed?
Items from excavation of residential bases or villages that have the characteristics of goods conveyed
by long-distance traders (as indicated above) and their spatial distribution.
Local Conveyance of Subsistence Items
As previously noted, local or intergroup conveyance of subsistence resources is archaeologically
detectable where there is evidence of use of subsistence items that were obtained from outside the
immediate territory of the local group. Either subsistence remains or residues themselves are
detectable (see the Subsistence Theme section) or associated food processing or preparation
implements are recovered for such subsistence items that can be inferred to be exogenous to a local
community or group.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
236
07A3822 Task Order 17
24) What archaeological evidence exists for inter-community or other local conveyance of specific
subsistence resources, such as acorns or mesquite beans, for example?
Answering this question involves identifying the presence of subsistence resources not obtainable
within the territory of the local community.
25) What archaeological evidence exists for local processing of subsistence items imported from
outside the local community? Based on the available archaeological evidence, what inferences can be
made regarding relative quantities of imported and local subsistence resources being used, and
about possible changes in these relative amounts over time?
Evidence needed to answer these questions would include both the state of food remains and the
presence of food-processing tools and implements. Such local processing may indicate direct
procurement rather than conveyance through inter-community exchange.
26) Do changes in the relative importance of subsistence resources conveyed into local communities,
such as acorns, for example, correlate with archaeological indicators of population increase over
time?
These indicators might include numbers of sites occupied or increases in artifact density or site size
at habitation sites characterized by long term occupation. Subsistence remains (animal bone and
macrobotanical remains) or residues on food processing tools, and the food processing tools
themselves is also required to answer this question as well as others presented above.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
237
07A3822 Task Order 17
Theme: Lithic Technology
The culture history and chronology of the Mojave Desert and the rest of the Great Basin relies heavily
on changes in projectile point style and inferred technological change (Coombs 1979; Stickel et al.
1980; Sutton 1996, 2016, 2017; Sutton et al. 2007; Wallace 1962; Warren 1984). While projectile
points figure prominently in any attempt to examine culture history in the Great Basin, other forms of
flaked stone tools provide key components as well. These include bifaces, unifaces, retouched flake
tools, utilized flakes, and unmodified debitage including both flakes and shatter. The first section of
this theme review describes each of these artifact categories, as well as relevant analytical
approaches. The second section synthesizes the current understanding of how lithic technology
varied over time in the Mojave Desert, and in the Antelope Valley in particular.
Flaked Stone Tools and Debitage in the Western Mojave Desert
Projectile Points
Projectile points are commonly used as diagnostic artifacts in all regions of the Great Basin, with a
consistent morphological classification system (Bettinger et al. 1991; Bettinger and Eerkens 1999;
Flenniken and Wilke 1989; Messoudi and O’Brien 2008; Simms 2008; Sutton 1996; Sutton et al. 2007;
Wallace 1962; Warren 1984). Attributes of projectile point morphological and stylistic composition
lend themselves readily to analysis. Such characteristics as size, material, weight, stem treatment,
hafting position, and shoulder angle are common variables examined in projectile point analyses.
Projectile points are nearly universally viewed as key parts of weapons systems instrumental in
hunting and sometimes conflict. Recent interpretations of projectile point technology have begun to
also consider how these artifacts can reveal social reproduction and technological transmission
(Bettinger 2015; Bettinger and Eerkens 1999, Bettinger et al. 1991; Flenniken and Wilke 1989; Walsh
2011), as well as climatic adaptation (Sutton et al. 2007; Sutton et. al 2010). Such approaches examine
morphological change in variables such as projectile mass and length through time (Mesoudi and
O’Brien 2008).
Bifaces
Bifaces were used by nearly all stone-tool using societies. Andrefsky (1998:172) defines bifaces as
tools with “two sides that meet to form a single edge that circumscribes the entire artifact … both
sides are called faces and both show evidence of previous flake removals.” Their most likely functions
are cutting or chopping, but they frequently were used for multiple purposes. Bifaces often serve as
cores as well. Some were hafted to a wooden or bone handle or shaft. Technically, projectile points
are usually bifaces as well, but in the Great Basin projectile point styles are well known and consistent
and are thus usually analyzed separately. Bifaces are often distinguished by the degree to which they
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
238
07A3822 Task Order 17
have been transformed from a core to a finished tool. This can be viewed as a continuum or as a
series of stages (Andrefsky 1998:180). The stage concept is probably the most common analytical
approach to bifaces among western Mojave archaeologists, with schemes of both four and five
different stages of completion. Early stages (Stage I or II) on the continuum have fewer flakes
removed from the edges and can have considerable cortex. Middle stage (Stage II, III, or IV) examples
have been thinned significantly, with flakes removed across the center of the artifact, with some
cortex possible, and nearly all edges worked. Late stage (IV or V) bifaces are considered final or
nearly final products with refined flaking (usually pressure flaking) on all surfaces. Importantly, biface
morphology is not diagnostic, as their forms are consistent across the long millennia of Great Basin
prehistory. It is possible, however, that preferred material types or functions do change through time
and or space.
Unifaces
Unifaces are stone tools that have only had smaller flakes removed on one side of a flake or core
edge. Generally, they are thought to represent a more casual tool that is produced with less effort
than bifaces. Even more so than bifaces, unifacially worked tools appear to be consistent in
morphology over the entire span of prehistory in the Great Basin, though changes in material type
do appear to change according to age and location.
Cores
Cores and core tools other than bifaces are commonly found in archaeological sites in the western
Mojave, but seldom are present in large numbers. Cores are usually divided into two types:
unidirectional and multidirectional. It is very rare to find cores of high quality material far from lithic
sources. For example, obsidian cores are rarely found in the Mojave Desert.
Debitage
Debitage provides invaluable insights into stone tool technologies and economic systems (Andrefsky
1998, 2001; Sullivan and Rozen 1985). Intentionally produced flakes and pieces of angular shatter
often reveal more detail about technology and economic behavior than can be recovered from
finished, broken, or exhausted tools. Debitage has several inherent advantages over other classes of
artifacts. First, it generally provides reliable sample sizes. This data set is also less likely to be
compromised by artifact collectors. Another advantage is that debitage analysis can be performed
quickly without expensive or destructive specialized analyses. Modified flakes, often referred to as
expedient tools (Andrefsky 1998: 30, 213-214; Binford 1979; Parry and Kelly 1987), were likely
produced for short-term use only.
Debitage material can also shed light on the degree of mobility of prehistoric social groups. In
general, a homogenous and local assemblage of lithic debitage suggests a high degree of sedentism,
while greater mobility is likely indicated by varied resources that were imported over some distance
(Parry and Kelly 1987). Debitage material can thus reveal long-distance procurement and conveyance
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
239
07A3822 Task Order 17
strategies based on either direct travel to lithic sources or through exchange systems (Hughes and
Milliken 2007; Hughes 2011).
Effective debitage analysis requires an appropriate classification system that will generate data
relevant to research objectives. For the western Mojave Desert, important research questions include
how raw material (cobbles or cores) was obtained and how raw material was transformed into
desired blanks or tools.
One such debitage classification system has a long history in the southern eastern Sierra and the
western Mojave Desert. It was pioneered in the region in an early study of the Coso obsidian quarries
by Elston and Zeier (1983, 1984), based on earlier work by Muto (1971). The typology was further
developed by Allen (1986) in a study of the debitage at the Coso Junction Ranch Site (CA-INY-2284)
just west of the Coso quarries. These were all attempts to distinguish stages of lithic production.
Andrefsky (1998:111-114) has since categorized this approach as a triple cortex typology. Allen
(1986:19) describes three stages of biface tool production: “first, the creation of a regular edge on a
blank to permit controlled thinning; second, controlled longitudinal thinning; and third, the creation
of final elements and final edge treatment.” Typically, such a stage concept distinguishes the
production of primary, secondary, and tertiary flakes corresponding to three production stages.
Primary flakes are large flakes removed in the initial reduction of a core and the preparation of
regular edges suitable for more precise flaking. Secondary reduction can include the production of
two kinds of flakes: secondary flakes suitable for further modification into tools and biface thinning
flakes removed to create bifaces. Tertiary reduction represents final tool production and
maintenance.
In a study of two western Mojave archaeological landscapes, Allen further defined this classification
system:
Primary flakes are defined as having less than four flake scars on the dorsal surface
and containing from 50% to complete cortex on the dorsal side of the flake, as well
as greater thickness compared with length. Secondary reduction flakes have more
than four flake scars on the dorsal surface. Secondary flakes could contain some
dorsal cortex but comprising less than half of the surface. Also, secondary flakes can
have a striking platform or a bulb of percussion. Biface thinning flakes are specialized
forms of secondary flakes that are struck when producing bifacial tools. These flakes
are mainly recognized by the longitudinal curvature, a feathering termination, a lip, a
bulb of force, and thin lateral and distal edges. As with secondary flakes, biface
thinning flakes can have little or no dorsal cortex. Unlike the other flakes that are
made by percussion flaking, tertiary flakes are created by pressure flaking, and are
often referred to as pressure flakes. Tertiary flakes are characterized by thin, almost
parallel edges, few dorsal scars, no dorsal cortex, and small size. One other type of
debitage used in this typology is shatter, the incidental pieces that result from less
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
240
07A3822 Task Order 17
controlled percussion, or with poor-quality material. These are usually angular and
blocky (Allen 2013:91).
There are other possible approaches to debitage analysis. The technological typology “refers to a
debitage typology that separates detached pieces into groups based on some characteristic(s) of
stone tool technology” (Andrefsky 1998:118). Examples of technological debitage types include
biface thinning flakes, retouched scraper flakes, bipolar flakes, striking platform preparation flakes,
and notching flakes (Andrefsky 1998:118). Attribute approaches seek to minimize analytical bias by
relying on objective measurements of flakes (Railey and Gonzalez 2015; Sullivan and Rozen 1985).
Aggregate analysis of debitage is another common approach (Andrefsky 1998:126-134; Hall and
Larson 2004). In this form of analysis, a debitage assemblage is stratified by an attribute criterion
such as weight or size, and then each subset is analyzed in comparison to the others by relative
frequency.
Lithics analyses conducted as part of future archaeological investigations in the Antelope Valley
should utilize the triple cortex typology system modified by Allen (2013) from earlier typologies
developed for the Coso volcanic field by Elston and Zeier (1984, 1985), as these are deemed most
appropriate for answering the research questions at the end of this section. Use of this typology will
also permit direct comparison with previous analyses of large debitage assemblages in the western
Mojave Desert. See Attachment B for an example of the application of this typology system for a
lithics analysis of four archaeological sites tested during the SR-138 Northwest Corridor
Improvement Project.
Lithic Technology in the Western Mojave Desert through Time
This section reviews the current understanding of lithic technology through time in the western
Mojave Desert and, more specifically, the Antelope Valley region (see the Chronology section).
Pre-Clovis Period
The earliest proposed cultural period, the Pre-Clovis Period (> 12,000 cal BC), is a hypothetical one.
Thus far, no archaeological site has conclusively been assigned this age anywhere in the Mojave
Desert. However, since early sites that date to this period are now fairly accepted elsewhere in North
America and South America, it is certainly possible that one or more sites dating to this time period
in the Mojave Desert will be identified in the future. If so, we might expect tool and flake
assemblages like those of Paleocoastal Tradition sites on the Channel Islands or the Pacific coast, as
there is evidence supporting the model that early coastal populations with stemmed projectile points
migrated eastwards into the interior to exploit pluvial lakes, the so-called Western Pluvial Lakes
Tradition (Beck and Jones 2010).
Paleo-Indian Period
The Paleo-Indian Period or Fluted Point Complex (12,000 to 9500 BC) is represented in the region by
a few isolated fluted projectile points, mostly recovered from surface contexts near Pleistocene lakes
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
241
07A3822 Task Order 17
(Glennan 1971; Sutton 1988b, 1996; Sutton et al. 2007; Warren 1984). Clovis points have been found
at China Lake in the western Mojave Desert, but a lack of other associated archaeological material
means that our knowledge of human activity during the late Pleistocene in the region is minimal.
Surface finds of fluted projectile points are found as isolates and in sites in the western Mojave
Desert, but there is not yet a firmly dated Paleo-Indian site. The potential for such a site must be
considered high, however, given the presence of several large Pleistocene lakes in and near the
Antelope Valley, including Koehn Lake in the Fremont Valley to the north, Harper Lake to the east,
and Rosamond Lake and Rogers Lake in the central Antelope Valley. Moreover, it has been
postulated that these lakes may have at times been united as Lake Thompson (Dibblee 1960, 1967;
Sutton 1988b:13-14; Thompson 1929). This would have been an attractive environment for PaleoIndian populations. Fluted points are usually interpreted as effective weapons for large game, likely
launched as darts with atlatl spear throwers.
Lake Mojave Period
It is not until the Early Holocene geological period that archaeologists have identified definite
archaeological evidence of human occupation in the western Mojave Desert. The Lake Mojave Period
(9500 to 7000 BC) is identified by stemmed projectile points, flaked crescents, bifaces, and limited
amounts of ground stone and cobble-core flaked stone tools. Lake Mojave and Silver Lake are two
common types of stemmed points from this period, often categorized as part of the Great Basin
stemmed series associated with the Western Pluvial Lakes Tradition found across the Great Basin
(Warren 1984). Most archaeologists agree that this period had small populations of mobile foragers
who moved throughout large ranges and had social networks across large areas, as indicated by
shell beads and lithics found far from their point of origin (Beck and Jones 2010, 2011). Many sites
dating to this period have been found around the playas of former Pleistocene and Early Holocene
lakes, such as those on the Fort Irwin and China Lake Naval Air Weapons Station military installations,
but with additional examples at Lake Mojave in the eastern Mojave, Twenty-Nine Palms, and
Rosamond Lake in the Antelope Valley (Sutton et al. 2007:234-238).
The stemmed points of the Lake Mojave Period lack regular edges or symmetry, have weak
shoulders, and usually exhibit large flake scars. They were likely used as dart or spear points launched
with atlatls, and were frequently resharpened, often resulting in short lengths at the end of their
utility. In contrast to Late Holocene periods, a high percentage of flaked stone artifacts of the Lake
Mojave Period are basalt or rhyolite rather than cryptocrystalline silica (e.g., chert, chalcedony, jasper,
quartzite) or obsidian. The selection of less glasslike material suggests a preference for durability and
long-term tool curation, congruent with high degrees of mobility (Sutton et al. 2007:237-238).
Crescents represent an unusual tool type often interpreted as functioning in aquatic environments
since they are commonly found along Late Pleistocene or Early Holocene shorelines. Lake Mojave
flaked stone tool assemblages are usually interpreted as large-game hunting and butchering
technology, but this is at odds with existing faunal profiles and protein residue analyses that indicate
small or medium-sized animals were most frequently hunted. Interestingly, while projectile points are
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
242
07A3822 Task Order 17
often made of strong materials like basalt and rhyolite, unifacial tools, such as scrapers, that could
have been used for butchering, were commonly made from cryptocrystalline materials.
Pinto Period
The lithic technology of the Pinto Period (8250 to 2500 BC) appears to overlap temporally with the
Lake Mojave Period, and quite a few archaeological sites have evidence of both types of diagnostic
artifacts. While Pinto sites first appear during the Early Holocene, the majority date to the MidHolocene. Pinto sites are much more common than Lake Mojave sites in the Mojave Desert
(especially the central Mojave Desert) and they are found in a wide range of settings, including both
lakeshores and uplands. The use of higher elevations is likely one response to increasing aridity and
desiccation in the Middle Holocene. The biggest technological change seems to be increased use of
ground stone tools, presumably reflecting a greater dependence on seed processing and decreased
emphasis on hunting. This might explain the crudeness of many clearly finished specimens of Pinto
points that have stemmed and indented bases. They are even less symmetrical than those of the
Lake Mojave Period, perhaps functioning only as tips for thrusting spears rather than as atlatl darts
(Sutton et al. 2007:238). However, it is likely that atlatl technology did not completely disappear
during the Pinto Period as it certainly was well established during the early Gypsum Period. Perhaps
more so than in the Lake Mojave Period, preferred materials for Pinto points and other flaked stone
tools were fine-grained volcanic materials such as basalt and rhyolite, suggesting the importance of
tool curation and durability, as these are strong tool materials (difficult to flake, but not brittle,
resulting in less breakage). Retouched flakes, however, were often cryptocrystalline materials.
It has been posited that local rhyolite sources in the Antelope Valley, especially Fairmont Butte in the
southern part of the Antelope Valley, were most heavily exploited during the Pinto Period (Glennan
1970, 1971; Sutton 1988b), with the possibility of an early “Rhyolite Tradition” that nearly exclusively
produced stone tools out of this strong material. Glennan (1970, 1971) based his interpretations
mostly on surface materials at a large quarry site (CA-LAN-898) and a nearby habitation site (CALAN-298) at Fairmont Butte, with a heavy reliance on a single obsidian hydration reading from a
surface collected Pinto point. Large early-stage (i.e., Stage I or II) ovoid rhyolite bifaces from Fairmont
Butte were interpreted by Glennan as crude, but complete tools from the Middle Holocene (Sutton
1982a). Subsequent work, however, has suggested that these were preform tools or blanks, and that
Antelope Valley rhyolite was mostly consumed during the Late Prehistoric Period (Scharlotta 2014;
Sutton 1982a). This finding, however, does not preclude the possibility of a Pinto Period (or earlier)
presence in the Antelope Valley which relied heavily on local rhyolite sources (Sutton 1982a, 1988,
1993). Clearly, the Fairmont Butte sites and other rhyolite sources in the western Mojave Desert, such
as Rosamond Hills in the central Antelope Valley (Sutton 1993), are important for better
understanding the earlier occupations of the Antelope Valley and the rest of the western Mojave
Desert and adjacent regions.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
243
07A3822 Task Order 17
Gypsum Period
Major technological changes were introduced in the Gypsum Period (2500 BC to AD 225).
Significantly more effort and time were invested in production of projectile points, and
cryptocrystalline silica and obsidian were much preferred over stronger basalt and rhyolite. Three
styles of typically well-crafted projectile points are characteristic of the period: Gypsum series (with
well-shouldered contracting stems), Elko series (with corner-notched bases), and Humboldt series
(with concave bases). These projectile points likely functioned as darts thrown with atlatls. Large
bifaces used both as cores and as core tools are also much more common than in preceding periods.
Small Gypsum Period sites are extremely common, ranging throughout the Great Basin. In the
Mojave Desert, they are found far more often in the western and northern parts of the Mojave
Desert, than in the eastern or southern areas of the Desert. The presence of sites in higher elevations,
investment in well-made pressure-flaked projectile points, extensive use of bifaces, and the ubiquity
of artiodactyl faunal remains during the Gypsum Period all indicate increased reliance on large-game
hunting (Allen 2013; Hildebrandt and McGuire 2002; Sutton et al. 2007:241). This likely explains why
sites from the Gypsum Period are more common in the western and northern areas of the Mojave
Desert, as higher mountain ranges with better artiodactyl habitat are found in these areas.
During the Gypsum Period there was an increased reliance on obsidian for projectile points and
bifaces. Extensive research at and near the Coso obsidian quarries (Allen 1986; Elston and Zeier 1983,
1984; Gilreath and Hildebrandt 1997, 2011; Yohe 1992, 1998) shows that obsidian production for
tool-making and trade increased dramatically during the Gypsum Period. In the western and
northern Mojave Desert, several large residential bases or villages were established along the easiest
line of travel from north to south along the eastern edge of the southern Sierra Nevada through the
western Mojave Desert, sometimes referred to as the “Obsidian Highway.” The most important
export product from this area during the Gypsum Period was obsidian biface preforms (Stage I or II
bifaces). These were produced mostly at habitation sites in the region for exchange with groups in
the Sierra Nevada, the Central Valley, and Southern California. Posited nodes in this production and
exchange system include the Rose Spring Site (CA-INY-372) (Lanning 1963; Yohe 1992, 1998), the
Coso Junction Ranch Site (CA-INY-2284) (Allen 1986), a large site on Koehn Lake (CA-KER-875) in
Fremont Valley (Sutton 1991), and several large sites in the Antelope Valley (Sutton 1988b:74-76).
These sites seem to reflect village-like sites situated to take advantage of the social and economic
opportunities afforded by the growing importance of producing Coso obsidian artifact production
and exchange. They may well reflect substantial sociopolitical transformations generated from the
production of artifacts for exchange and other social purposes (Allen 1986, 2011, 2013; Bettinger
1982, 2015; Ericson 1977, 1981, 1982, 1984; Gardner 2007; Sutton 1988b, 1996, 2017; Sutton et al.
2007). Comparison of the frequency and sources of obsidian debitage assemblages across different
areas of the eastern Sierra, the Mojave Desert, and Southern California is an effective means to
examine exchange and direct procurement strategies and connections among various populations at
different times (Allen 2013; Bettinger 1982, 1999; Scharlotta 2014).
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
244
07A3822 Task Order 17
Rose Spring Period
The Rose Spring Period (AD 225 to 1100) saw the introduction of the bow and arrow at the
beginning of the period. The Sutton et al. (2007) chronological framework has pushed the onset of
this period a few centuries earlier than most previous schemes (i.e., Coombs 1979; Sutton 1996;
Wallace 1962; Warren 1984), which usually set it as lasting from about 1,500 to 700 years ago. Rose
Spring sites are the most common prehistoric sites in the western Mojave Desert.
Probably the most significant prehistoric technological transformation of the Great Basin was the
introduction of the bow and arrow at the outset of the Rose Spring Period, or shortly thereafter. It is
generally accepted in the Great Basin that the appearance of smaller Rose Spring projectile points
indicates the introduction of bow and arrow technology which replaced use of the atlatl. It is also
common for specialists in the region to posit significant economic and social changes that were at
least partially set in motion by this technological innovation, thus accelerating social and economic
changes that began in the late Gypsum Period. Bettinger (2015:44-49) notes the superiority of bow
and arrow technology over atlatl weapons systems led to profound changes in eastern California in
hunting capability (success rate, increased range of prey), group size (requires fewer hunters and less
meat sharing) and reduced residential mobility. These changes played a central role in the
diversification of the Numic family of Uto-Aztecan languages, and increased plant procurement to
offset greater sedentism and reliance on smaller game with less fat.
Analyses of obsidian quarries along the eastern Sierra were used by Ericson (1977, 1981, 1982, 1984)
to argue that the introduction of the bow and arrow in this area led to consequential shifts in both
lithic production and exchange systems, including the transition from producing large bifaces for
exchange to generalized flakes suitable for modification into arrow points. However, debitage studies
conducted near the Coso obsidian quarries by both Allen (1986) and Yohe (1998) suggest that this
new weapon system did not affect the obsidian and production system as drastically as Ericson
posited. Still, there is no doubt that the bow and arrow was a transformative technology that
reduced high quality lithic material needs and greatly enhanced the effectiveness of hunters and,
possibly, warriors. It is commonly argued by archaeologists in the region that the bow and arrow had
an immediate impact on populations of bighorn sheep and other artiodactyls, and that this led to a
shift towards small game for most of the period’s time span (Allen 2013; Bettinger and Eerkens 1999;
Gardner 2007; Yohe 1998). Rose Spring corner-notched projectile arrow points are considerably
smaller than those of earlier pre-bow and arrow temporal periods and, further, they may have
diminished in size through time as a conservation measure (Acebo and Allen 2012).
Sutton and others have developed a model that postulates significant social, settlement, and
economic changes in the western Mojave Desert due to the onset of the Medieval Climatic Anomaly
around 1,000 years ago (Allen 2011, 2013; Gardner 2002, 2007; Jones et al. 1999; Sutton 1996; Sutton
et al. 2007). A period of warmer and drier conditions might have been a major factor in the near
collapse of the Coso obsidian production and exchange system. At Sage Canyon on the western
edge of the Mojave Desert, an assemblage of obsidian Rose Spring projectile points indicates lower
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
245
07A3822 Task Order 17
mass and size through time (Allen 2013; Acebo and Allen 2012). Even more convincing, several
regional obsidian hydration databases reveal that the Coso obsidian production and exchange
systems were at their maximum during the early Rose Spring Period, followed by a precipitous
contraction around 1,000 years ago (Allen 2013; Gilreath and Hildebrandt 1997; Sutton et al. 2007).
Late Prehistoric Period
In the subsequent Late Prehistoric Period (AD 1100 to AD 1769) archaeological sites are smaller with
shallow middens. Diagnostic Desert Series points (Cottonwood Triangular and Desert Side-Notched)
are considerably more conservative in terms of material. There is evidently an even greater focus on
plant processing over hunting compared to earlier periods. One other key technological addition in
this period is the use of ceramic vessels for cooking and storage. It is conceivable that this new
technology had an impact on lithic tool production or use, though this has yet to receive much
consideration.
Sutton and colleagues have noted that regional differences developed across the Mojave Desert
during the Late Prehistoric Period and have argued that these patterns may correspond to the
boundaries among the ethnographically documented Takic and Numic groups in the region
(Bettinger 2015; Bettinger and Baumhoff 1982; Earle 2004, 2005; Sutton 1991, 1994, 1996, 2009,
2010, 2017; Sutton et al. 2007). It is posited that Cottonwood Triangular projectile points are
predominant in the western and southern Mojave Desert, possibly serving as a Takic ethnic marker,
while Desert Side-Notched points are more frequent in the northern and eastern Mojave Desert, and
are perhaps associated with Numic people (Sutton 1996). If this model is correct, Cottonwood
Triangular points should be far more common than Desert Side-Notched points during the Late
Prehistoric Period in the central and southern Antelope Valley. It would also be instructive to
consider projectile point styles compared to cultural groups in adjoining areas such as Southern
California and the Central Valley.
Mission Period
The Mission Period (AD 1769 to AD 1835) in the Mojave Desert and adjoining areas is woefully
understudied (Arkush 1990; Allen 2010). For example, it is not addressed in the most authoritative
synthesis of the region (Sutton et al. 2007). Access to new materials and artifacts no doubt preceded
more direct impacts on the societies of the region that intensified after the establishment of the
Spanish mission system. While glass beads are common in archaeological sites in the adjacent
mountains and the western Mojave Desert (Allen 2013; Sutton et al. 2010), other European artifacts
or materials are much rarer. Glass and metal are both possible materials that may have been
introduced into the Antelope Valley and other parts of the western Mojave Desert during the Mission
Period. It is possible that such materials had an impact on lithic technological systems.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
246
07A3822 Task Order 17
Research Questions and Data Needs
Questions
1) Was there specialized production of large fine-grained volcanic (rhyolite, basalt) bifaces during the
Lake Mojave and Pinto Periods in the Antelope Valley?
2) Was there specialized production of cryptocrystalline silicate (chert, chalcedony, jasper) flake tools
for activities such as butchering and plant processing during the Lake Mojave and Pinto Periods in the
Antelope Valley?
3) Was there specialized production of large cryptocrystalline silicate bifaces, especially dart points, for
hunting large and medium mammals during the Gypsum Period in the Antelope Valley?
4) Was there a reduction of biface production and an increase in the production of smaller flakes
suitable for use as smaller arrow projectile points during the early Rose Spring Period in the Antelope
Valley?
5) Did projectile point size continue to decrease during the late Rose Spring and Late Prehistoric
Periods due to conservation of high-quality materials such as obsidian and/or changes to hunting
smaller mammals in the Antelope Valley?
Previous research in the western Mojave Desert and other areas of the southwest Great Basin has
suggested changing patterns of specialized lithic production from the early Holocene to the Late
Prehistoric Period. Specialized production can be detected by the preponderance of a tool or
debitage type, such as the ubiquity of biface thinning flakes and the widespread distribution of large
well-made atlatl spear points during the Gypsum Period which together point to specialized biface
production. Another possible pattern is to find restricted production sites with unusually high
frequencies of a debitage type or possible broken and rejected blank tool “preforms.” Such sites
would likely be located in proximity to source material.
6) Do lithic reduction strategies become more efficient over time in the Antelope Valley?
In addition to changes in specialization of types of tool production, it is likely that there were
accompanying changes in lithic reduction strategies to more efficiently produce desired types of
tools in the Antelope Valley. Increased efficiency could be discerned through less waste of material,
less costly production techniques, or new approaches that generate products with less time or other
cost. These could include changes in material selection, as well as the techniques used to reduce
cobbles and cores into finished products. This would include changes such as direct versus indirect
percussion, hard vs. soft hammers, and the use of bipolar reduction to exploit denser material such
as fine grained volcanic rock or granite, or heat treating cryptocrystalline silicate material to make it
easier to pressure flake. Related to this would be the degree to which lithic material was conserved.
In general, bipolar reduction and biface production utilize far more raw material than production of
flake tools from secondary flakes.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
247
07A3822 Task Order 17
Data Needs
The research questions provided above can be addressed through analyses of lithic tools and
debitage assemblages from the Antelope Valley. Diagnostic artifacts such as projectile points directly
reflect changes in technology and specialization through time. Unfortunately, these are often not
present in large numbers at many sites in the region, particularly at lithic production sites located
close to quarry or lithic sources. They are also the most commonly collected surface artifacts.
Question 1E can only be answered by adequate samples of recovered projectile points.
Biface and uniface tools provide another means to address the research questions as they reflect
either preforms of projectile points or tools used for other functions such as cutting and chopping.
While not as readily assigned to temporal period, because they are not diagnostic, artifacts found in
context with dateable deposits can be used to assess specialization through time. Bifaces are
particularly useful as they reflect stages of production of tools or preforms.
Debitage assemblages have the highest potential for addressing the research questions, given their
ubiquity and large sample sizes. The key challenge is temporal context. The debitage classification
system developed by Allen (2013) for western Mojave Desert sites readily distinguishes production of
bifaces from secondary flakes suitable for modification into expedient flake tools, more specialized
flake tools, or smaller projectile points. It also permits the classification of flakes and shatter to reflect
both early and later stages of tool production. Cores are important indicators of tool production sites
and can often distinguish between the production of flake tools or large bifaces.
Datasets of debitage and tools can also be combined to produce indices and ratios that can be
compared to measure changes in lithic production. Changes in biface production through time or
across different sites can be readily measured through a biface production index derived from the
ratio of biface thinning flakes to secondary flakes (Allen 1986, 2013). Higher ratios reflect greater
production of bifaces compared to flake tools. It is also possible to assess the production of biface
blanks for exchange versus local consumption through a biface exchange index of dividing the
number of biface thinning flakes by number of bifaces from a site.
Changes in lithic reduction strategy can be reflected in debitage. Hammer stones, cores, primary
flakes, large biface thinning flakes, shatter, and flakes with cortex are expected to be more common
in quarries or initial production sites near quarries where conservation of raw material would not
have been a concern. In contrast, reduction strategies favoring the conservation of material should
be reflected in sites far from sources. Tertiary or pressure flakes and secondary flakes should be more
common in such contexts.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
248
07A3822 Task Order 17
Theme: Lithic Material Sources for Flaked Stone Tools and Other Artifacts
Obsidian
Obsidian was one of the most prized resources of western North America during prehistory (Shackley
2005). Based on geographic proximity and previous archaeological research on obsidian artifacts in
the western Mojave Desert, the Coso Range sources provided almost all of the obsidian utilized by
prehistoric populations in the Antelope Valley. These sources are located some 120 km north of the
center of the Antelope Valley, likely a four to five-day trip on foot (somewhat longer for an
encumbered traveler). Early studies of the Coso Volcanic Field were conducted by Elston and Zeier
(1983, 1984), but the most authoritative archaeological analysis to date is that of Gilreath and
Hildebrandt (1997). They have also produced a more recent study of production and exchange of
Coso obsidian (Gilreath and Hildebrandt 2011). Other important studies focused on Coso Volcanic
Field subsources were conducted by Hughes (1988) and Eerkens and Rosenthal (2004).
The Coso Volcanic Field is described by Gilreath and Hildebrandt (1997:7) as:
characterized by numerous explosion craters, rhyolitic domes, debris flows, and
pyroclastic deposits, most originating from volcanic events that occurred between 1.5
million and 33,000 years B.P. ... naturally occurring obsidian is abundantly present
throughout ... and available from a variety of contexts ... these include several primary
outcrops of glass flowing from the sides of steep rhyolitic domes, with high quality
obsidian often occurring as large boulders and slabs ... secondary quarries occur as
obsidian float in major debris flows or in concentrations of air fall sporadically
scattered across the land during volcanic eruptions ... the amount of useable obsidian
in the most extensive secondary deposits, however, seems inconsequential when
compared to the amount at extensive primary quarries. These secondary quarries
occur on ridgetops, exposed as lag after fine-grained sediments have eroded away.
Hughes (1988) examined ratios of rubidium (Rb) and zirconium (Zr) across the field and distinguished
four major subsources: Sugarloaf, West Sugarloaf, West Cactus Peak, and Joshua Ridge. While these
are chemically distinct, it appears that their hydration rates do not vary significantly (Gilreath and
Hildebrandt 1997:11). This is important as it makes obsidian hydration values from different
assemblages of Coso obsidian nonetheless comparable. Gilreath and Hildebrandt (2011:173-174)
point out that, “the widespread distribution of Coso glass throughout southern California has led to
much interest in determining a reliable hydration rate for it … for that reason it has the dubious
distinction of having more hydration-rate formulations than any other geochemically distinct glass in
the world ... no fewer than 20 rates have been proffered for Coso obsidian over the years.” The most
accepted hydration rate is that of Basgall (1990), who accounted for effective temperature rates.
More recent studies include those of King (2004) and Rogers (2007). Eerkens and Rosenthal (2004)
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
249
07A3822 Task Order 17
argue that of the four major subsources, West Sugarloaf was most suitable for trade as it was both
accessible and readily provided large pieces suitable for biface blanks.
Other major obsidian sources are located to the north of Coso along the eastern Sierra. Ericson
(1977, 1981, 1982, 1984) compared these sources and analyzed their distributions. These include Fish
Springs, Casa Diablo, Mono Glass Mountain, Mono Crater, and Bodie Hills, among others. His work
would suggest that at least a small amount of obsidian from these more distant quarries penetrated
the Coso region and was distributed into the Antelope Valley and other areas of the western Mojave
Desert and adjoining regions. While Coso Range sources provided almost all of the obsidian found in
archaeological sites in the Antelope Valley, small amounts of obsidian found on Edwards AFB have
been positively sourced to Casa Diablo and the Queen source in the northern Owens Valley (Earle et
al. 1997).
Obsidian Butte material from the south end of the Salton Sea in the Colorado Desert is present
within some archaeological sites in the Antelope Valley (Sutton 1989, 2009). Obsidian from this
source is found in many sites in the Colorado Desert, but it was periodically unavailable due to
episodic filling of Lake Cahuilla (Wilke 1978). There are other obsidian sources in Baja California
(Panich et al. 2017), but obsidian from these sources does not appear to have been found in the
Antelope Valley.
Finally, small and relatively unknown sources of obsidian elsewhere in the Mojave Desert in California
or Nevada may have also been minor suppliers to the Antelope Valley region, as might obsidian from
sources east of California. Amounts from such sources should be minimal, and perhaps even nearly
undetectable (Hughes and Milliken 2007).
Obsidian is common in archaeological sites in the Antelope Valley, but in much more limited
frequencies than in western Mojave Desert sites further to the north (Allen 2013; Kaldenberg et al.
2009; Sutton 1991). One robust study of obsidian sources for a site (CA-KER-7055) in the northern
Antelope Valley that dates to the Gypsum and Rose Spring Periods was conducted by Scharlotta
(2014:230). One hundred percent of 29 sourced artifacts were from the West Sugarloaf subsource of
the Coso Volcanic Field. Given higher degrees of mobility in the earlier temporal periods of the
Mojave Desert, and the peak use of the Coso sources during the Gypsum and early Rose Spring
Complexes, it might be predicted that earlier sites in the Antelope Valley are more likely to exhibit
more variable obsidian sources than later ones. Obsidian can be non-destructively sourced through
portable x-ray fluorescence (PXRF), and this technique should be applied consistently in the Antelope
Valley to better understand obsidian use through time.
Obsidian evidently saw considerable changes through time in its desirability for particular tool types
in the Mojave Desert region. In the Early and Middle Holocene Lake Mojave and Pinto Periods, it was
not commonly used as a material for projectile points, but it is present in many sites as flake tools
and sometimes bifaces. With the emphasis on hunting during the Gypsum Period, obsidian was
frequently employed for large and carefully made projectile points and bifaces which served as both
cutting and slicing tools as well as cores for flakes. With the transition to the bow and arrow during
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
250
07A3822 Task Order 17
the Rose Spring Period, smaller flakes were modified into arrow points and the frequency of obsidian
biface cores decreased. Obsidian continued to be a material of choice during the Late Prehistoric
Period, though point sizes decreased markedly.
Rhyolite
Rhyolite is frequently present in lithic assemblages from archaeological sites in the Mojave Desert
and adjoining areas, though it is often argued that it is somewhat more common in deposits from
the Early and Middle Holocene (during the Lake Mojave and Pinto Periods). Like basalt and other
similar fine-grained volcanic materials, rhyolite is not very brittle (and is thus relatively difficult to
flake) but is strong (and thus durable). Many archaeologists have postulated that it was particularly
attractive for more mobile populations that moved at times far from lithic sources.
The Fairmont Butte rhyolite source is one of the more well-known lithic material sources within the
Antelope Valley (Glennan 1970, 1971; Scharlotta 2010a, 2010b, 2014; Sutton 1982a, 1988, 1989,
1993). The volcanic formation is located to the west of the city of Lancaster in the southern Antelope
Valley. Dozens of recorded archaeological sites near the butte, particularly a large quarry site (CALAN-898), are part of a continuous distribution of rhyolite debitage and artifacts that extends several
kilometers. Archaeological interest in this production center focused for a time on the model for an
early Pinto Complex “Rhyolite Tradition” (Glennan 1970, 1971; Sutton 1982a, 1988). The focus was
the possible antiquity of the quarrying activity or whether it was mostly conducted during the late
Holocene. While much of it seems to date to late prehistory, there is evidence that rhyolite was
exploited there at least as early as the Pinto Complex. Later, investigations in the Rosamond Hills in
the northern Antelope Valley by Sutton (1993) documented a second major rhyolite source for the
region. Smaller rhyolite quaries have been documented at Little Buttes in the central Antelope Valley,
Red Hill on Edwards AFB, and Opal Mountain and Black Canyon to the east of the Study Area (Peck
1949; Giambastini et al. 2007: 212).
Recent innovative research by Scharlotta (2010a, 2010b, 2014) has focused on the production and
exchange of Antelope Valley rhyolite. His first major contribution (2010a, 2010b) was to develop a
method for sourcing this material, “by microsampling the groundmass of rhyolite using laser
ablation-time of flight-inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry” (Scharlotta 2014:224).
Samples analyzed with this technique from four Antelope Valley archaeological sites were
determined to be from Rosamond Hills (nearly 82%), Fairmont Butte (nearly 11%), and unknown
sources (roughly 7%). Fairmont Butte exploitation, then, is somewhat exaggerated in the
archaeological literature, with Rosamond Hills the more intensively utilized source of rhyolite.
Scharlotta (2014) then examined available archaeological data and ethnographic and historical
accounts to develop a model of stable resource procurement systems across the western Mojave
Desert that lasted at least from 1500 to 300 BP. Scharlotta’s research provides an excellent means to
investigate how sites in the Antelope Valley relate to long-term production and exchange systems, as
well as dynamic ethnic boundaries and affiliations. The Fairmont Butte rhyolite source may have been
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
251
07A3822 Task Order 17
within the territory of a Serrano clan during the Late Prehistoric and Mission Periods (see the
Ethnohistory section). This may have limited the distribution of rhyolite from the Fairmont Butte
source to other areas of the Antelope Valley.
Rhyolite was desirable as a material for projectile points during the Lake Mojave and Pinto Periods
but was rarely chosen for later projectile points. It was more consistently used throughout all cultural
complexes for flake tools and bifaces.
Basalt
Basalt is another potentially fine-grained volcanic material used for flaked stone tools in the Mojave
Desert and adjacent regions that shares many of the characteristics and patterns of use with rhyolite.
Basalt is more ubiquitous across the region, though its quality (i.e., grain size) for use as stone tools
varies considerably. In general, basalt is more common in the central and eastern Mojave Desert than
the western given the prevalence of more recent volcanic activity in these areas (Dibblee 1954, 1960,
1967; Noble 1954; Smith 1964; Troxel 1962). Like rhyolite, basalt was mostly desirable as a durable
and strong material for tasks which did not require precise slicing or cutting. However, during the
Lake Mojave Period, and especially the Pinto Period, it was widely employed for crude projectile
points that might have functioned as stabbing spear tips (Sutton et al. 2007:238) in addition to atlatl
darts or spears. It was occasionally used for bifaces in later time periods, but these are limited to
early-stage bifaces since it is extremely difficult to remove small pressure flakes from basalt tools.
Unfortunately, little progress has been made in identifying the sources of basalt tools and debitage
within the central or western Mojave Desert. This would require a large program of research, given
the ubiquity and diversity of basalt sources, each of which would have to be adequately sampled. At
a larger scale, Jones et al. (2003), however, have mapped finegrained volcanic “conveyance zones”
across the entire Great Basin.
Cryptocrystalline Materials
The grouping of materials known as cryptocrystalline silicates (CCS) (chert, chalcedony, jasper) is the
most common lithic material for flaked stone tools and usually for debitage in the western Mojave
Desert. These materials are locally available throughout the Mojave Desert and can be viewed as one
of the region’s key resources for external exchange (Davis 1961). It is important to note that
archaeological and geological taxonomies of CCS materials are often not congruent, but
archaeologists frequently do share “folk categories” that are standardized within regions (Luedtke
1992:6). Generally, in the Mojave Desert most archaeologists can readily distinguish chert from
chalcedony (usually translucent) and jasper (homogenous deep red and mustard colors), even if
geologists would find considerable fault with the classification system. However, in this case, it is
likely that the archaeological system is better attuned to the emic systems of past flintknappers than
the geological one. Still, it is common for archaeologists to eschew the perceived differences among
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
252
07A3822 Task Order 17
silicates and simply lump them together as CCS. Luedtke (1992:8) notes that even this system is
inaccurate, as most cherts defined by archaeologists have quartz grains so large they are technically
microcrystalline (larger than 2µ and less than 50µ in diameter). Nevertheless, CCS is standard
archaeological nomenclature, and it is used here.
Unfortunately, sourcing CCS material in the region with accuracy is not yet possible. Attempts to do
so essentially rely on macroscopic variables such as color and homogeneity. CCS sources are also
extremely common in the Mojave Desert, and frequently particular sources are characterized by
variation in material. To date, no attempts have been made to develop a comprehensive survey of
available CCS sources in the region. Such a project would entail using geological maps and surveys
(Dibblee 1954, 1960, 1967; Noble 1954; Smith 1964; Troxel 1962) to identify potential deposits with
subsequent inspections. While the CCS sources are poorly documented thus far, there is little doubt
that they were numerous in the Antelope Valley and adjacent regions. Sutton (1988:15) states,
“sources appear to be located on the eastern fringe of the Antelope Valley ... these silicates include
jasper, chert, chalcedony, and quartzite, and come in a variety of colors.” CCS sources are also
common in the Rosamond Hills, Bissell Hills, Brown Butte, North Edwards Hills, Castle Butte north of
the Study Area, and in the Kramer Hills east of the Study Area (Sutton 1993:1; Giambastini et al. 2007:
212). CCS was used extensively for a wide variety of tool types throughout the entire prehistoric
sequence of the Mojave Desert, including projectile points, bifaces, unifaces, and retouched and
utilized flakes.
Macroscopic attempts to source CCS artifacts in the Antelope Valley have relied on color, luster, and
homogeneity of the material to try and pinpoint quarries or outcrops. Each source contains material
with a variety of colors and translucencies making macroscopic sourcing difficult (Earle et al. 1997).
Despite this, various researchers have attempted to develop generalities for this process, but no
chemical analyses have been conducted to verify the accuracy of these assertions. CCS categorized
as a red to brown jasper is often attributed to the Kramer Hills CCS source to the east of the Study
Area, although the Kramer Hills also contain a white/tan chert with vitreous to chalky luster (Perry
1989; Wessel 1990; Giambastini et al. 2007: 212). The Bissell Hills chert has been described as
translucent to opaque and can be off-white to brown in color (Perry 1989; Wessel 1990).
Heat treatment or thermal alteration of CCS “involves the intentional heating of chert to bring about
desired changes, usually to improve its flaking properties . . . heat-treating also produces dramatic
color changes, which in some cherts may have been a secondary, or even a primary goal . . . this
process was used rather commonly by prehistoric people, at least in North America” (Luedtke
1992:91). Wood fires can easily generate temperatures sufficient to thermally alter chert, but thermal
shock is possible if temperatures are too high, if the material being heated is too large (such as a
cobble), or if the temperature changes are too rapid. Given these considerations, heat treatment of
chert in the Mojave Desert would most likely be employed on flakes rather than large bifaces or
cores. From a functional perspective, the most likely reason to heat treat chert is that it makes it “less
tough, more elastic, and therefore much easier to knap, and that it responds especially well to
pressure flaking” (Luedtke 1992:96). Since pressure flaked CCS projectile points and bifaces become
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
253
07A3822 Task Order 17
common starting in the Gypsum Period, heat treatment of CCS should have been more common in
the last few thousand years in the Antelope Valley.
Quartz
Quartz is ubiquitous in both the Mojave Desert and surrounding mountain ranges (Dibblee 1954,
1960, 1967; Noble 1954; Smith 1964; Troxel 1962). Although quartz does not flake well, there is
usually a small percentage of quartz debitage in the assemblages of archaeological sites, often with a
high percentage of shatter rather than flakes. There are also small numbers of tools produced from
quartz, including early stage bifaces, unifaces, cores, and even projectile points. The strength and
durability of this material would have made it desirable, perhaps most often when finer-grained lithic
materials were difficult to access. It is also possible that it was desirable as a material for aesthetic or
other reasons since it usually exhibits marked translucence. Quartz crystals have been identified as
serving a variety of functions including as pressure flakers for tool production, and as important
items with ideological significance.
Fused Shale and Related Materials
Fused shale, a metamorphic rock that is semi-vitreous due to heat and pressure, was an important
stone tool material for coastal southern California, particularly when obsidian was not easily
accessible. It is often mistakenly identified by archaeologists as obsidian from Obsidian Butte in the
Colorado Desert (Hughes and Peterson 2009). Firmly identified source areas are limited so far, with
most coming from Monterey Formation sources in Ventura County (Grimes Canyon) and Santa
Barbara County. Differences in trace elements permit fused shale to be sourced with x-ray
fluorescence analysis (Hughes and Peterson 2009). The peak of use of fused shale seems to be
during late prehistory and the protohistoric period, perhaps because available material is usually of
small size, meaning that it was not as desirable until the advent of smaller projectile points after the
development of the bow and arrow. Fused shale does not seem to have been commonly imported to
the Mojave Desert, but given the proximity of the Antelope Valley to its source areas and trade
routes through passes in the Transverse Ranges, it is possible that it exists in the region in limited
quantities. Given its similarity to obsidian, it is quite possible that previous archaeological
investigations failed to recognize fused shale at sites in the western Mojave Desert.
Steatite and Schist for Groundstone
Although it is unlikely that steatite (talc schist) or schist were utilized as flaked stone tools, they were
utilized for a variety of ground stone tools and ornaments. An important source of both materials is
found at a quarry in the Sierra Pelona, mountains located south of Leona Valley on the south side of
the Antelope Valley (Eddy 2013; Landberg 1980; Rosenthal and Williams 1992; Sutton 1982a). Sutton
(1982:15) describes it as “a large outcropping exposed in a cliff” ranging “from a poor-quality schist
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
254
07A3822 Task Order 17
to an excellent steatite.” Steatite was commonly used for the production of stone bowls and mortars,
as well as for stone beads, effigies, charmstones, pipes, and other artifacts. Eddy (2013) pioneered
research on conducting trace element analysis of talc schist sources and artifacts in southern
California and the Mojave Desert, and his work shows that artifacts made from Sierra Pelona material
are widely distributed. Steatite, and perhaps schist, from this quarry was an important raw material
for both local consumption and trade outside of the Antelope Valley. Schist was often used to make
flat ground stone artifacts that could serve as comals (griddles for cooking over open fires). It was
more widely available than talc schist, and so might not have been exported to any extent.
Hematite and Other Materials for Pigments
Hematite, a red colored anhydrous iron oxide, is a major component of red ochre. Red ochre has a
long use, dating back to the earliest art styles of the Paleolithic in the Old World. It was widely used
for body painting, to decorate artifacts, and as a material for making pictographs. Red is not just a
primary color, it is also commonly symbolically associated with themes such as life, blood, fertility,
and power across human societies in the Old World, New World, and the Pacific. Hematite is
common in areas with volcanic material, so it might be expected in the volcanic buttes of the
Antelope Valley, as well as in geological formations in the adjacent mountains and the central and
eastern Mojave Desert. Hematite has been identified within Anaverde Formation sedimentary rock
units in the San Andreas Rift Zone (Padon 1997). Little archaeological research has yet been directed
towards sourcing hematite or similar minerals in the western Mojave Desert, though these are known
to be important materials through ethnographic accounts. Even the study of rock art, common in the
region, neglects much discussion of the minerals used as pigments in the production of pictographs
or other applications. More effort should be directed towards identification of sources, uses, and
exchange networks of hematite and similar minerals in the study region.
Research Questions and Data Needs
Questions
1) Can the results of Scharlotta’s (2010a, 2010b, 2014) work in the region to source rhyolite and
examine its distribution be confirmed through further application of laser ablation-time of flightinductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry analysis?
2) Does the distribution of Antelope Valley rhyolite support Scharlotta’s findings of “stable populations
and trade networks for more than 1,500 years, with possible disruptions during the Late Prehistoric
Period around 300 BP.” (Scharlotta 2014:240)?
The local abundance of rhyolite sources in the Antelope Valley (especially Fairmont Butte and the
Rosamond Hills), and the prevalence of rhyolite in archaeological sites in the region should be a
central focus of research.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
255
07A3822 Task Order 17
3) Was fused shale an important alternative to obsidian in the Antelope Valley, and if so what were its
sources and when was it used?
Given its proximity to regions that utilized fused shale to a significant extent, its presence or absence
in the Antelope Valley is of interest.
4) Did the use of CCS vary significantly through time in the Antelope Valley and to what extent were
variations in its use due to availability of other materials such as obsidian?
CCS was the most important material used to produce formal tools and expedient flake tools in the
western Mojave Desert throughout prehistory.
5) In the Antelope Valley was there a peak of obsidian use during the late Gypsum and early Rose
Spring Periods followed by a significant decline?
Obsidian production and exchange has been subjected to far more analysis by archaeologists in the
southwest Great Basin than any other lithic material. Archaeological research in the Antelope Valley
can contribute significantly to these discussions.
6) Is obsidian from sources other than Coso restricted to certain time periods or certain geographic
areas within the Antelope Valley Study Area?
Obsidian from sources other than Coso is rare in the Antelope Valley. As more obsidian artifacts are
sourced, patterns in their temporal and geographic distribution may become apparent.
7) Did residents of the Antelope Valley favor certain CCS sources over others?
CSS can be found in a variety of locations throughout the Valley. The material varies in color,
transparency, and luster within individual source locations making sourcing through macroscopic
analysis difficult.
Data Needs
Chemical investigations of lithic materials found at archaeological sites are required to address most
of the research questions posed here. Obsidian is the most understood material, and the sources of
obsidian found in archaeological sites can be readily accomplished through x-ray fluorescence (XRF)
or PXRF analyses to identify trace element composition. Each documented obsidian source has a
different trace element signature. Obsidian also has the distinct advantage of also providing a time
period of use through obsidian hydration measurements. Scharlotta’s (2010a, 2010b, 2014) analysis
of Antelope Valley rhyolite sourcing and exchange networks suggest that these methods can be
employed on this fine-grained volcanic material as well. Other more ubiquitous fine-grained volcanic
materials such as andesite or basalt are not yet well enough documented to allow similar analyses.
Fused shale has been shown by Hughes and Peterson (2009) to be another prehistoric and
protohistoric lithic material that can be sourced through XRF analysis in southern California.
Unfortunately, CCS sources are far more varied and to date no successful attempts to identify
chemical signatures for these in the region are available.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
256
07A3822 Task Order 17
Chemical investigations are not required for analysis of the relative importance of lithic material
sources through time. These questions can be assessed through comparison of counts and
frequencies of artifacts from surface collections and test excavations.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
257
07A3822 Task Order 17
Theme: Prehistoric Population Movements
The study of prehistoric population movements has historically depended on both archaeological
and linguistic inference, and more recently on genetic analysis of population cladistics. The internal
analysis of linguistic data in particular gleans clues about the patterns of dialectical and linguistic
divergence between related languages that would provide indications about how long ago specific
languages had diverged from a common ancestor, and thus inferences on population movement.
Archaeological analysis of population movements has focused on evidence for the geographical
displacement over time of the distinctive material culture signatures of cultural groups. Genetic
analysis has attempted to identify cladistics relationships between living members of cultural groups,
or between their ancestors - via work with archaeological genetic samples - to elucidate population
relationships and population movements in the past.
With respect to California and the Great Basin, because of the nature of the archaeological record
generated by hunter-gatherer societies, the tracking of population movements has been a particular
challenge. The relationship between long-term continuity in material culture features related to
exploitation of the environment and an inferred history of population movements has not been easy
to sort out. In addition, the nature of both the linguistic and archaeological analyses used in looking
at population movement has tended to emphasize arrival rather than departure; specifically, a focus
on time of arrival for indigenous populations in the region that were present at Spanish contact,
rather than seeking an understanding of previous populations and what happened to them.
In addition, the archaeological time scale developed for southern California and adjacent regions is
fairly immense by the standards of some other archaeological regions in the world. The fact that the
region has a continuous shell bead stylistic typology that commences at 8000 BP is an example of
this deep-time archaeological continuity. Attempting to deal with population movements in this kind
of prehistoric time scale is a challenge, in part because of the time depth limitations on the
reconstruction of linguistic relationships between languages having a common origin.
The discussion herein focuses on several presumed episodes of population movement into southern
California, and consequently the Antelope Valley region, during the Middle and Late Holocene (after
8000 BC). These episodes are derived primarily from linguistic inferences, with some support from
the few available studies of the archaeological record and genetic analysis. This is followed by a
discussion of archaeological correlates that may possibly be used to track (or identify) such
population movements through time.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
258
07A3822 Task Order 17
Uto-Aztecan Speakers
Theories on Origins of Uto-Aztecan Speakers
Golla (2011) classifies Uto-Aztecan as one of five primary language families represented in aboriginal
California, along with three linguistic isolate groups. It is one of the most geographically extensive in
North America (Golla 2007). This language family consists of two divisions that generally correspond
with the distribution of prehistoric human populations in the western United States (Northern UtoAztecan) and Mexico (Southern Uto-Aztecan). Specific to this discussion, the Northern Uto-Aztecan
branch is further subdivided into east and west divisions known as Numic and Takic/Californian
language groups, respectively.
Linguists have disagreed about the origin and development of Uto-Aztecan populations found in the
western United States. Hill (2003) has proposed that this language family originated in Mexico, at a
place of origin where some of Uto-Aztecan groups had acquired agriculture and was transferred
through population migration to the southwestern United States. This scenario was based on a
theory developed by an archaeologist, Bellwood (2003), who had promoted the concept of ancient
farming populations in different parts of the world simultaneously spreading agriculture and
language families into new areas, driven by population pressure. The Mesoamerica origin theory has
been critiqued by Merrill et al. (2009). They assert that Hill’s claim of true cognate terms related to
maize existing for Southern Uto-Aztecan and Northern Uto-Aztecan languages is faulty, that the
Southwestern sites where maize was first introduced were occupied by local foragers and not by inmigrating farmers, and that maize’s early Mesoamerican companion, squash, arrived in the
Southwest much later than maize (Merrill et al. 2009:21023, 21024). They also criticize the argument
that Uto-Aztecan farmers in northern Mesoamerica 4,000 years ago would have been compelled to
migrate by population pressure.
Other researchers have argued along with Merrill et al. (2009) that Uto-Aztecan speakers originated
in the western United States, with some of the population subsequently migrating southward and
southeastward towards Mesoamerica (Fowler 1983; Nichols 1981; Golla 2007, 2011). Fowler (1983)
noted that the botanical lexicon of proto-Uto-Aztecan contained terms that located the Uto-Aztecan
homeland in the western United States. This second scenario appears to be more accepted within the
archaeological community based on the evidence gleaned from studies to date (see discussion
below).
Nichols (1981) placed the origin of proto-Uto-Aztecans in the territory of the Northern Paiute in the
Great Basin. Nichols claimed, on linguistic grounds, that there was evidence of ancient linguistic
borrowing between Hokan speakers—ancient Californians—to the west of the Sierra Nevada and the
proto-Uto-Aztecans. He advanced the proposal that the Uto-Aztecans had come to occupy portions
of the Sierra Nevada and the Central Valley before being pushed south by a movement of Penutian
speakers in more recent times who were moving from Northern to Central California. Thus, the
presence of Takic speakers in Southern California as part of this Uto-Aztecan community might be
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
259
07A3822 Task Order 17
seen in Nichols’ scenario as the result of them having been pushed southward and southeastward
from the Central Valley.
Sutton (2010) has also proposed that at around 3500 BP (1500 BC) Takic speakers were pushed out
of the Central Valley by Penutian speakers and entered Southern California and the Study Area
(Figure 11). There has been little archaeological support or further linguistic research bolstering this
proposal.
Fowler (1983) proposed a homeland for proto-Uto-Aztecans in an area encompassed somewhere
between the eastern Mojave Desert and the Sonora and Chihuahua deserts to the south (Figure 12).
Here, a linguistic antiquity time depth for the Uto-Aztecan language family has been placed on the
order of about 5,000 years, similar to the time depth for Indo-European. According to this scenario,
proto-Uto-Aztecans would have diversified into a western branch that would include seed-gathering
foragers who would come to occupy portions of south-central and Southern California, and an
eastern branch that would include agricultural populations such as the Hohokam and the Anasazi.
According to this scenario, Yuman speakers later moved north up the lower Colorado River into the
proto-Uto-Aztecan homeland area, creating a sort of split between the western and eastern divisions
of this proto-Uto-Aztecan language family (Takic and Numic). This model involves the presence of
Uto-Aztecan speakers in desert California at a relatively early date, although the exact scenario and
timing for their expansion from the desert interior to the coast is open to interpretation. The notion
that Tubatulabal speakers have been in place in the southern Sierra for thousands of years, appears
to support a scenario for an early presence of Uto-Aztecans in interior California (Golla 2007:74) (also
see below).
Linguistic Interpretations of Diversification and Movement of Uto-Aztecan Groups
Golla (2007, 2011) presents a reconstruction of the diversification and development of Uto-Aztecan
that builds on Fowler’s (1983) interpretation of its origin. This reconstruction is adopted herein and is
focused on the Mojave Desert and Antelope Valley. It includes discussion of when and where protoUto-Aztecan developed, the circumstances of the divergence between the Takic and Numic
languages, and how long ago Serrano/Kitanemuk was established in place as a distinct language.
However, many linguists recognize that the assumption basic to historical linguistics, that the rates of
divergence of related languages are consistent, frequently does not hold true (Blust 2000; Gray et al.
2011). Thus, such estimates for the time scales of language divergence, if not corroborated by other
lines of evidence, are open to debate.
As of circa AD 1800, the southern Antelope Valley, southeast and northwest of Palmdale, was
occupied by members of a desert division of the Serrano, a Takic-speaking population. A portion of
the northwest side of the valley also corresponded to the territory of the Kitanemuk, who spoke a
dialect of Serrano. The Numic-speaking Kawaiisu occupied the Tehachapi Valley and used desert
areas to the east, on the north side of the Antelope Valley. Analysis of the process of divergence
between the Takic and Numic languages, and of the development of Serrano, is key for
understanding population movements in the Antelope Valley.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
260
07A3822 Task Order 17
Location: N:\2015\2015-075.017 Antelope Valley Research Design\MAPS\Meeting_Maps_and_Analysis\2018-04-19 Population Movements\101_0396_Proto_TakicHomelandtoDesert.mxd
(AMyers)-amyers 4/20/2018
0
Map Features
Antelope Valley Study Area
10
Proto-Takic Homeland
M i les
I
Map Date: 4/20/2018
USGS Topographic Quadrangles
Figure 11 Proto-Takic Homeland and Movement to Desert Margin
Location: N:\2015\2015-075.017 Antelope Valley Research Design\MAPS\Meeting_Maps_and_Analysis\2018-04-19 Population Movements\Proto_Uto_AztecanHomeland.mxd
(AMyers)-amyers 4/20/2018
0
Map Features
Antelope Valley Study Area
40
Proto-Uto-Aztecan Homeland
M i les
I
Map Date: 4/20/2018
ESRI Service Layer
Figure 12. Proto-Uto-Aztecan Homeland
Golla (2007, 2011) has provided a scenario for the presence of Uto-Aztecans in the Mojave Desert
and the Antelope Valley. He proposed that between 3,500 and 2,500 years ago, emerging dialectical
groups of proto-Uto-Aztecans were ranged between the southern Sierra and the Colorado River
across the Mojave Desert. One of the locations of this range of emerging Uto-Aztecan languages
would have been the Kern River drainage occupied by the Tubatulabal. The Tubatulabal language
was treated in 2007 by Golla as a linguistic isolate in relation to both the Takic and Numic branches
of Uto-Aztecans. In 2011, he tended to classify Tubatulabal as being more similar to most of the
Takic languages than Serrano/Kitanemuk was. Under this scenario of the occupation of the Mojave
Desert between the Colorado River and the southern Sierra, Golla treats the Tehachapi Pass area and
the territory of the Kitanemuk just to the south of it, as an original homeland for the Takic languages.
If this is indeed the case, then it can be assumed that this original location for what may be referred
to as proto-Takic would include portions of the immediately adjacent Antelope Valley.
In his 2007 discussion, and also in 2011, Golla treats the process of diversification of the Takic
languages as taking about 2,000 years. He states that it is clear that the northern Takic languages,
particularly Serrano/Kitanemuk in respect to Gabrielino, are the most highly diversified. That would
mean that Gabrielino and Serrano/Kitanemuk had first diverged from one another. He notes that
Jane Hill (2003) had proposed abandoning the Takic label altogether and creating a California branch
of Uto-Aztecans that would consist of Serrano/Kitanemuk as a separate group and would lump
Tubatulabal, Gabrielino, and Cupan together as languages that were more similar to one another
than to Serrano. Golla states that the diversification of the Cupan languages, including Luiseño,
Cupeño, and Cahuilla had occurred at a much more recent date, possibly within the last thousand
years or so. This would suggest a late date for the merging or melding of Takic and Yuman cultural
features among the Luiseño in Riverside and San Diego counties.
Golla (2007:74) also notes that Moratto’s (1984) date of 3500-2500 years BP for the Uto-Aztecan
arrival on the coast appears to him to be too early. It is noted that the relatively late dates for the
spread of the Cupan languages to the south may fit with some archaeological findings for the San
Luis Rey area (see discussion below).
For the Antelope Valley region, the idea of proto-Takic speakers being in place in the western
Antelope Valley as early as 3,500-2,500 years ago would suggest that whatever innovations in
material culture were seen archaeologically after the middle Gypsum Period, circa 2,700 years ago,
would not be indicators of the initial arrival of Takic-speakers. This would therefore call into question,
for the Antelope Valley area, the validity of the late arrival scenarios associated with the introduction
of the bow and arrow or Cottonwood Triangular points (circa AD 600 to 900).
As discussed below with respect to theories about Yuman presence in the Mojave Desert, Golla also
proposes a relatively shallow time depth for the diversification of the Yuman languages. His
interpretation of the diversification of the Takic and Yuman languages as being relatively recent
could be viewed as frustrating for archaeologists seeking to understand the distribution and
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
263
07A3822 Task Order 17
displacement of language groups within the deep time scale of Southern California prehistory. Golla
limits the time scale of Yuman-Takic interaction to 1,000-1,200 years BP, and of Takic diversification
to 2,000 years BP. This raises the question of whether linguistic analysis can shed any light on the
interaction and displacement of language groups before those dates. It is noteworthy that the region
where Golla’s language analysis is most friendly to archaeology in terms of maximally pushing back
the dates for an in-situ presence of Proto-Takic is the region surrounding the Antelope Valley.
The Numic Homeland and the Numic Expansion
The geographic area where the split between the Takic and Numic branches of Uto-Aztecan occurred
appears may have included the northernmost reaches of the Antelope Valley. Golla (2011:256) places
the original Numic homeland in the eastern Sierra between Mono Lake in the north and Owens Lake
in the south. The well-known theory of the Numic expansion proposes a radiation of Numicspeaking foragers eastward and northward across the Great Basin as early as 1,000 years ago. For the
Antelope Valley region, the key issue has been how close the original Numic homeland may have
been to the northern margin of the valley. This raises the question of whether the Kawaiisu of the
Tehachapi region and desert areas to the north of the Antelope Valley were already there before the
Numic expansion, or whether their arrival there was part of this process or even postdated it.
Sutton has proposed that the occupation of the Tehachapi region by the historic Kawaiisu postdated the early Rose Spring/Saratoga Springs Period, and was a response to drought around AD
1000 displacing this group out of the Mojave Desert. It is not clear, however, that the arrival of the
Kawaiisu in the region may not have dated to earlier Rose Spring/Saratoga Springs times. For the
Late Prehistoric Period, Sutton (1989, 1991) referred to what he saw as archaeological evidence of a
newly created ethnic boundary:
A regional boundary of some sort, separating the southern Sierra Nevada/Fremont
Valley and the Antelope Valley, appears to be reflected in the archaeological record
(Sutton 1989).
This boundary is delineated by the presence of considerable obsidian, brownware
ceramics, and Desert Side-Notched projectile points in the north with less obsidian,
fewer ceramics, and predominantly Cottonwood Triangular points to the south (Sutton
1991:23).
It has been suggested (Sutton 1991) that the relative decline in Coso obsidian importation and the
appearance of both Desert Side-Notched points and Owens Valley Brown Ware and other ceramics
may be locally associated with Numic population movements in some way connected to the socalled Numic expansion or spread out of southeastern California. Sutton suggests, as noted above,
that the archaeological evidence for a possible Numic presence, as defined by ceramics and Desert
Side-Notched points, is stronger for the northern portion of the western Mojave Desert and
Antelope Valley environs than for valley areas further south. This argument has yet to be fully
confirmed archaeologically.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
264
07A3822 Task Order 17
Movement of Hokan-Speakers/Yuman-Speakers in the Mojave Desert
It had formerly been presumed that the arrival of Uto-Aztecan speakers in coastal Southern
California displaced populations of Hokan-speakers, who represented a more ancient language
family in central and southern California. Historic groups such as the Salinan and Esselen located to
the south and west of the Central Valley, and Yuman-speakers in southern and southeastern
California, the lower Colorado River, and Western Arizona, are recognized as having derived from this
ancient Hokan linguistic stock. Chumash was also formerly classified as Hokan, although it is
currently classified as an ancient isolate.
It had also been proposed that a quite widely distributed proto-Yuman language community was in
place in coastal San Diego County and in interior deserts further north at or before 3000 BP (Foster
1996:86-87). Hale and Harris (1979:174) suggested that the inhabitants of the Mojave Desert that
created the Pinto Basin Complex belonged to the Yuman branch of the Hokan language family.
Under these scenarios, Yuman-speakers were thought to have migrated to the east at the time of
their displacement by Uto-Aztecans, reaching the lower Colorado River in the vicinity of modern
Mojave territory, and migrating southward between 3000 and 2000 BP.
However, Golla (2011:248) has provided a very different scenario for the movement of Yumanspeaking populations. He proposes a maximum time depth for Yuman linguistic differentiation of
2,000 years. He believes that this group of languages originated in Northeastern Baja California, and
that the differentiation of the Yuman languages and a corresponding movement up the Colorado
River dates from circa AD 700-1000. He emphasizes that this late movement included a presence in
the Coachella Valley and in the Mojave Desert, and thus interaction with Takic and Numic groups
during the Late Period. He further states:
The Coachella Valley and the adjacent Santa Rosa Mountains are likely to have been
occupied by Yuman speakers before the Cahuilla and Cupeño entered this area from
the north and west, and River Yuman influences on Serrano and Kitanemuk testified
to the presence of early Mohave or Maricopa speakers in the Mojave Desert as far
west as Antelope Valley and the Tehachapi Mountains (Golla 2011:248).
This intriguing statement may be related to a series of facts that could account for the linguistic
influence cited here without the implication of a substantial occupation of the Antelope Valley or the
Tehachapi Mountains by the Mojave. In the first place, in protohistoric and historic times, young
male Mojave long-distance trader/travelers constantly visited both the Antelope Valley and the
Tehachapi region, while engaged in the conveyance of shell beads from the Southern California coast
to the Colorado River. It is known, in addition, that the Mojave claim, according to their traditional
historical accounts, to have had a group of Mojaves living on the upper Mojave River for a time
(Kroeber 1951). This account may or may not be connected to other native testimony, Chemehuevi
and Mojave, about groups of so-called Desert Mojave occupying the Providence Mountains, the Old
Woman Mountains, the Sinks of the Mojave River, and other central Mojave Desert localities at some
recent time, apparently prior to the 1770s. The Mojave of the Colorado River also recognized Double
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
265
07A3822 Task Order 17
Peak, Avi Hamoka, south of the Tehachapi Valley, as one of their most sacred places, and Rogers Dry
Lake at Edwards AFB is also a Mojave sacred place (Earle 2009a).
The last Desert Serrano inhabitants of the Mojave River area were captured by Mojaves, circa 18351840, and taken to the Colorado River before some of them later went to settle with linguisticallyrelated Kitanemuk-speakers living southwest of the Tehachapi Valley. Kroeber and Harrington were
given hints about some connection between the Mojave and the Tejón/Tehachapi area, apparently
linked to the Mojave captives who moved to the latter region. These hints may form part of the basis
of Golla’s statement about a Mojave presence in the Antelope Valley and the Tehachapi area.
However, the Mojaves constantly visited these areas in historic times, recognized sacred places in
them, and were hosted by local villagers. Thus, it is possible that there may have been episodes of
longer-term presence. While the Colorado River Mojaves followed a flood-farming regime not
adaptable to the desert, the so-called Desert Mojaves were claimed to have adopted the buckskin
dress and hunting techniques of the neighboring desert Chemehuevi. That settlements of such
Desert Mojaves would thus be easy to differentiate archaeologically from local settlements is open to
question.
Population Movements Westward to the Mojave River - the Anasazi
Golla (2007, 2011) notes the possibility of a re-contact between the eastern and western divisions of
the Uto-Aztecans after around AD 500. This would correspond to the expansion of the Anasazi into
southern Nevada and, as Golla notes, as far westward as Halloran Springs and Soda Lake in the
Mojave Desert of California. Also, as previously stated, there is evidence for Anasazi occupation of
the Cronise Lake area even further west along the lower Mojave River. Golla believes that this spread
of the Anasazi to the west may have involved some cultural transmission of Southwestern or Anasazi
cultural characteristics to Takic-speaking groups in Southern California.
This is supported by evidence that shows the presence of Anasazi or Anasazi-like groups living in
southern Nevada, mining turquoise at Halloran Springs east of the Sinks of the Mojave, and even of
carrying out horticulture in the vicinity of the lower Mojave River at Cronise Lakes (Lyneis 1995).
Spindle whorls for spinning cotton thread were recently recovered at the latter location, and it is
known that maize farming was also carried out there. The Anasazi cultural presence has been
detectable archaeologically because the material technologies used by this group have been so
distinctive and different in comparison to those of desert foraging cultures. Nevertheless, this
archaeological evidence may either represent an Anasazi presence or the presence of local groups
that adopted Anasazi material culture traits. To this latter point, it is important to keep in mind that
this area of eastern California including the lower Mojave River was an important prehistoric route of
communication with Yuman groups on the river in later times and may have been very important as
a route of exchange and cultural communication at this earlier time as well.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
266
07A3822 Task Order 17
The Chemehuevi Diaspora
A late population movement bearing on the Antelope Valley, itself, is the arrival of Chemehuevi
groups (Numic speakers) from the northeast during the early and mid-nineteenth century. Earle
(2004, 2005) has described Chemehuevi movements southward and westward from their late
eighteenth-century homeland in the deserts to the northwest and southwest of Colorado River
Mojave territory. Their settlement on portions of the Colorado River to the south of Mojave territory
is well known. The characteristics of the migration of small bands as far as the southwestern
Antelope Valley foothills, the San Gabriel Mountains, the Coachella Valley, Yuma, and San Diego
County is less well known. By the late nineteenth century, their camps on the north and south side of
the Antelope Valley, at Lovejoy Springs (CA-LAN-192), Barrel Springs, Indian Water, Harold Foothills,
and elsewhere, were the last manifestations of a purely traditional native way of life in the valley.
Nevertheless, the archeological analysis of one of these Chemehuevi camps did not yield strikingly
different material culture remains, including projectile point types, than what would be expected
inseasonal camps of Takic-speakers prior to their removal from the Valley to the Franciscan missions
before 1820.
Applying Mitochondrial DNA Data to the Study of the Migration of Takic Populations
Eshleman and Smith (2007) presented information about research on mitochondrial DNA clades of
California Native Americans. Among other issues, they discussed research with samples of ancient
human remains from the California Channel Islands that aimed to identify whether clades associated
with Chumash ancestors and those associated with other populations, presumably ancient Takic UtoAztecans could be clearly distinguished. That turned out to be the case. They discussed a sample
population on San Clemente Island dating from about 3,000 years ago that was clearly distinct from
ancient Chumash and shared some characteristics with modern Takic populations. This information
hinted at the possibility of a relatively early Takic presence on the coast, although internal genetic
diversity among Takic populations makes the identification of a standard set of characteristic
haplogroups difficult. They also discuss a Takic genetic marker found among living Takic populations
by Johnson and Lorenz (2006) and in a Late Period, presumably Takic, burial near Palmdale (Kemp et
al. 2005). In regard to the cladistic diversity of Takic populations, they also caution that human
linguistic and cultural attributes cannot be treated as identical to human genetic inheritance. In other
words, not all people who are affiliated to a group of closely related languages are going to enjoy
relative genetic homogeneity. Thus, the mitochondrial DNA research as an approach is helpful, but
not conclusive in elucidating ancient population movements in this case.
Archaeological Correlates for Population Movements of Distinct Language Groups
Identification of "ethnic markers" – archaeological features that could permit the identification of
distinct language-ethnic groups and their movements through time –obviously has to do with
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
267
07A3822 Task Order 17
parsing out culture-specific objects and practices from those that are widely shared between
different language/culture groups. The ethnography and ethnohistory of native Southern California
provides a guide to potentially culture-specific objects and practices that have existed in Late
Prehistoric times.
The concept of a Uto-Aztecan intrusion in southern California figures prominently in the
archaeological literature for the region in several different manifestations. First, there is the concept
of the so-called Shoshonean wedge that refers to the initial arrival on the southern California coast
of “Shoshoneans” or Uto-Aztecans. True (1966:291) suggested an association between the
development of acorn processing after around 4000 to 3000 BP and the first appearance of
cremations in coastal northern San Diego County, on the one hand, and the arrival of
Shoshoneans/Uto-Aztecans. This “wedge” was viewed as splitting the formerly contiguous
Millingstone Horizon cultures of coastal southern California, the Oak Grove Millingstone to the north,
and the La Jolla Millingstone to the south. This version of the Shoshonean arrival on the coast was
dated from 1500 to 1200 BC (3500-3300 BP). This scenario was based in part on Chester King
identifying shell beads from the Terminal Early Period and Phase I Middle Period associated with
cremations in northern Takic areas—the territory of the modern Tataviam, Gabrielino, and northern
Serrano (Moratto 1984:165). Thus, Moratto places the Uto-Aztecan arrival on the coast in the 35002500 BP range.
A key assumption made here was that cremations were a hallmark of the culture of the Takicspeaking groups at the time of their arrival. This cannot be assumed for a number of reasons. Among
these is the fact that while linguistic evidence has been presented to suggest that Serrano speakers
and/or other Takic speakers have been present in the southern Antelope Valley region at least for
the last 1,500 years or so, interments postdating that date occur in the area. It is noteworthy that
historically Numic groups of the southern Great Basin frequently did not practice cremation, but
rather interment. In addition, the practice of cremation among the Cahuilla and Serrano, and its
religious justification, appear to have links to late prehistoric Yuman cultures of the lower Colorado
River.
A second model of the timing of the ‘Shoshonean wedge’ involves a late coastal arrival—after AD
500, or even much later—with cremations, pottery, and small triangular arrow points. In the San Luis
Rey River drainage this “Shoshonean intrusion” is placed at circa AD 500-1400 (Moratto
1984:158,161-162). This concept of a late date for a Shoshonean arrival, coeval with or following the
introduction of the bow and arrow, is reflected in the former use of the term Shoshoni for the Late
Period (post-AD 1200) in some Mojave Desert archaeological chronologies. Warren (1984:423-424,
426), for example, had rejected Bettinger and Taylor’s (1974) late date for the Cottonwood Triangular
series at post-AD 1300 and the arrival of Takic-speakers in southern California at approximately the
same date.
In general terms, the search for archaeological continuities and discontinuities in settlement and in
economic and social activities can provide solid inference about population movements. An
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
268
07A3822 Task Order 17
interesting comparative test of archaeological continuity and discontinuity evaluation was carried out
by Alan Garfinkel (2007) at the very southern end of the eastern Sierra, north of the Antelope and
Fremont Valleys. He compared sets of sites that had been occupied by the ancestors of the historic
Tubatulabal in the Kern Plateau area, with sites further east at the eastern base of the southern Sierra
around and south of Ridgecrest. His hypothesis was that the ancestors of the Tubatulabal had been
living in place for at least 3,000 years. Thus, he could expect to find archaeological continuity in site
occupation, in cultural ecological adaptations, in material culture inventories, in ideology as
expressed in rock art, and so on. He also hypothesized that the inhabitants of the desert floor and
foothills at the eastern base of the Sierra had undergone a "turnover", previous inhabitants having
been replaced by Numic-speakers who had expanded southward from a homeland north of the Coso
Mountains during the Numic Expansion. Garfinkel presented archaeological data that appear to
confirm that the Tubatulabal occupation of the Kern Plateau reflected long-term occupational and
cultural continuity, with discontinuity further east on the desert margin. He presented information
supporting the idea that there had been population movement and replacement through the arrival
of Numic speakers. This study is of particular interest for the Antelope Valley region because the
archaeological variables that he analyzed are to a considerable extent applicable to the Antelope
Valley case.
Other archaeological studies of movements of native population in California to new locations
highlight the challenges inherent in archaeologically identifying population movements or
migrations by language/cultural groups. Morgan (2006, 2010) has studied the late prehistoric
movement of the Western Mono across the Sierra Nevada from the Owens River region to the San
Joaquin Valley foothills. Morgan notes the presumption (Bettinger and Baumhoff 1982) that
migration entails competition between groups. He was able to archaeologically reconstruct
distinctive features of western Mono adaptation to their Sierra environment. He noted that the
dispersed distribution of upland summer camps was ethnically distinctive. This included the use of
small bedrock milling features at camps above 7,000 feet. In addition, the use of distinctive acorn
caches, key to the western Mono subsistence system, was a marker of the group ethnic identity and
territorial occupation. Details of basketmaking, which combined both Yokuts and Numic features, are
also an ethnic marker. The production of both sinew-backed bows and snowshoes, that were traded
to San Joaquin Valley groups were also distinctive group traits. Thus, both cultural landscape features
and cultural artifacts existed that identified the presence of the group. But Morgan also pointed out
that the western Mono had also borrowed cultural and technological features from their new
neighbors. Their movement across the Sierra from the Great Basin to the Sierra Nevada and eastern
margin of the San Joaquin Valley entailed a shift in economic adaptation and, thus, a shift in cultural
organization.
The generalization can be drawn that cultural landscape features can serve as ethnic markers for the
presence or movement of cultural groups. Technology and material culture also serve as cultural
markers, but in the California context these markers are very frequently perishable. This leads to a
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
269
07A3822 Task Order 17
dependence on a fairly narrow range of imperishable artifacts, or on the layout of sites, camps, and
activity areas as cultural landscape features, as indicators of cultural affiliation.
Summary
Linguists have debated the location of the original homeland of proto-Uto-Aztecan speakers. Victor
Golla and others have argued for a location in interior California and the Southwest. Golla has further
developed a scenario for a divergence between proto-Takic and Proto-Numic elements of the UtoAztecan language family in interior California, with a proto-Numic homeland located between Mono
and Owens Lakes, and a proto-Takic homeland in the Tehachapi Pass region. Golla dates the
establishment of Proto-Takic speakers in the Tehachapi region, bordering the northwest edge of the
Antelope Valley, as between 3,500 and 2,500 years ago. He views the diversification of Takic
languages as requiring about 2,000 years, with Serrano emerging first as a distinctive language
within the northern branch of this language group. The diversification of Southern Takic languages
he treats as a rather more recent process, within the last 1,500- 1,000 years.
The proposed Tehachapi Pass location for the initial development of the Takic language group
suggests an early date - soon after 3,500-2,500 years ago - for occupation of the nearby Antelope
Valley by Takic-speakers. Golla also suggests a recent movement of Yuman-speakers upstream on
the Colorado River during the last 1500 years. In the context of a discussion of traditional scenarios
for the presumed arrival of Uto-Aztecan speakers in Southern California, Golla's reconstructions of
Uto-Aztecan language divergence suggest a significantly later occupation of more southerly and
coastal areas than of the Western Mojave Desert.
Scenarios for the 'Numic spread' after 1,000 BP and a related Numic arrival at the northern margin of
the Antelope Valley, as opposed to an earlier Numic presence there, have also been discussed. This
section also reviews evidence for the reach of Anasazi settlement and influence westward to the
lower Mojave River at circa 1500 years ago, and historic-era movement of groups of Chemehuevis
into the Antelope Valley itself. It also discusses several cases of identification of archaeological
material culture ethnic markers that may be useful in reconstructing prehistoric population
movements.
In this section, the importance of historical linguistic scenarios has also been emphasized. Proposed
historical linguistic reconstructions for the movement of prehistoric populations depend on both
spatial and temporal inferences. These inferences should be validated with archaeological
corroboration. Reconstructing the sequence of geographical locations for language groups in the
past depends ultimately on applying scenarios of language divergence to modern linguistic
geography. This involves applying conservative assumptions about the frequency and scope of
group movements over time. In addition, the assumption of an identifiable and constant rate of
language diversification is essential to reconstructions such as Golla's, and these assumptions
continue to be controversial for linguists. The analysis of language diversification and of population
movements, becomes more difficult as the prehistoric timescale extends further into the past. Golla's
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
270
07A3822 Task Order 17
reconstructions for Takic and Yuman language diversification emphasize the relative recency of these
developments. These interpretations by linguists diverge from the ideas of some archaeologists and
some Native Americans about the antiquity of occupation of historic-era ethnic group territories in
Southern California.
It has been suggested that certain cultural features reflected in the archaeological record may be
used to distinguish areas of occupation for Takic, Numic, or Chumash native ethnic groups in the
greater Antelope Valley region in the Late Prehistoric and Mission Periods. Suggested ethnic markers
for different groups include projectile point types, use of ceramics and certain ceramic types, rock art
styles, basketry styles, mortuary treatments, and relative use of certain shell bead types or of raw
materials like obsidian. With respect to the presumed initial occupation of the Antelope Valley by
Takic speakers at 3,000-2,500 years ago, archaeologists have assumed that the transition from the
mobile foragers of the Pinto complex to a more sedentary village-based settlement system by the
end of the Gypsum Period reflects the arrival of Takic speakers. Thus, the presence of cemeteries, of
permanent dwellings similar to those found at CA-KER-303, of elaborate assemblages of shell bead
mortuary offerings, the use of the portable mortar and pestle, the development of a steatite and
schist craft industry, and production of ornaments, as well as ground stone implements, are possible
markers of Takic-speaking populations. The timing of the appearance of these cultural characteristics
requires more archaeological study.
Research Questions and Data Needs
Questions
1) Do the archaeological characteristics of contact period or protohistoric sites in the Antelope Valley
differ between regions or putative ethnic territories?
In other words, for the protohistoric period, does the proposed geographic distribution of ethnic
territories within the Antelope Valley region appear to correspond to differences in archaeological
characteristics of settlements occupied by different ethnic groups? These differences might include
different characteristics of rock art, differences in mortuary customs, different subsistence regimes,
differences in types of shell beads being used, or differences in chipped stone tool types or materials.
2) Do archaeological characteristics of specific sites indicate long-term continuity of prehistoric cultural
practice, and possibly of ethnic occupation?
Robinson (1987) proposed that Antelope Valley sites exhibited marked cultural continuity from circa
500 BC to protohistoric times. Thus, from the middle of the Gypsum Period onward, the
archaeological record would reflect a continuity in cultural practices, possibly associated with Takicspeaking ethnic groups. Principal characteristics that would have continued through these time
periods include hard seed processing with handstones and millingstones, rhyolite and obsidian
chipped stone tools, use of circular thatched dwellings, the use of imported shell beads, basketry, the
fabrication of steatite and schist artifacts, and the persistent practice of inhumation. The evaluation
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
271
07A3822 Task Order 17
of continuity in cultural practices would obviously be an important objective in analyzing
archaeological data from stratified sites.
3) Can a characteristic set of archaeological cultural markers be associated with the presence of Takicspeakers as opposed to Numic-speakers in the Antelope Valley in the Late Holocene?
Sutton (1989) suggested that the presence of Cottonwood series projectile points, relative absence
of ceramics, and use of lithic materials other than obsidian would help to distinguish areas of
occupation of the Antelope Valley by Takic-speakers during the Late Prehistoric Period. He believed,
on the other hand, that Desert Side-Notched points, brownware ceramics, and an abundance of
obsidian would characterize sites occupied by Numic-speakers. In addition, analysis of basketry
remains and identification of Late Period distribution of pictographic and other rock art can clearly
differentiate presence of Takic and Numic speaking populations.
4) Does the possible identification of sites or site components associated with Numic-speakers shed
light on the antiquity of their presence in the Antelope Valley region, as well as on the relationship of
their presence to the chronology of the Numic Expansion?
The issues of where the Numic homeland may have been situated in relation to the Antelope Valley,
and how long the Kawaiisu had been occupying the Tehachapi region, are relevant to the history of
Numic presence on the north side of the Antelope Valley. Alternative scenarios have been suggested
for the Numic presence, including the presence of the ancestors of the Kawaiisu in the Tehachapis
long before the Numic Expansion, or a later Numic arrival in the northern Antelope Valley at the time
of the Numic Expansion (circa AD 1000).
5) Will the analysis of prehistoric mortuary practices in the Antelope Valley shed light on continuity or
change in the relative distribution of ethnic groups?
The attribution of both cremation and inhumation to Numic groups creates a confused picture about
their mortuary customs, both ethnohistorically and prehistorically. In addition, the frequent
presumption by archaeologists that Takic-speaking groups universally practiced cremation can be
questioned. Some Takic groups, like those resident on the Pacific coast of Los Angeles County,
practiced both cremation and inhumation. The interpretation of mortuary behavior in the Antelope
Valley context presents a number of difficulties, but it also suggests some degree of continuity in the
practice of inhumation, including by desert Serrano groups.
6) Can the characteristics of settlements in the southern Antelope Valley in the late Gypsum Period be
treated as markers for the arrival of Takic-speakers?
The presence at Antelope Valley sites of cemeteries and of permanent dwellings; the presence of
elaborate assemblages of shell bead mortuary offerings; the use of the portable mortar and pestle;
the development of a steatite and schist craft industry, producing ornaments as well as ground stone
implements; and a significantly increased use and exchange of shell beads, are possible cultural
markers for the arrival and establishment of Takic-speakers in the region. In addition, evidence of the
utilization not only of acorns, associated with use of the mortar and pestle, but of mesquite and
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
272
07A3822 Task Order 17
juniper berries, would possibly signal a shift to a broader diet associated with the presence of more
sedentary Takic populations. Mesquite processing is indicated by distinctively shaped stone pestles
used with wooden mortars. Carbonized juniper berries are found frequently in Antelope Valley
habitation sites with developed midden. These cultural characteristics are associated with habitation
sites whose initial occupations appear to date to around 2,500 years ago. The appearance of these
cultural features 2,500 years ago matches the time of the expansion of Takic speakers from the
Southern Sierra through the southern Antelope Valley proposed by linguists. However, radiocarbon
dating from archaeological investigations of sites with these proposed Takic cultural markers is
needed to determine when these characteristics first appear in the southern Antelope Valley or in
other regions of the valley.
Data Needs
Future archaeological research, including survey of archaeological landscapes and testing of sites
using appropriate sampling strategies, should address the following data needs related to continuity
or change in the ethnic/cultural affiliation of sites in the Antelope Valley region.
•
Analysis of both chipped stone and ground stone assemblages to identify continuity or
change in tool type raw material, form, and function, including projectile points and ground
stone food-processing tools.
•
Analysis of ceramics, including clay composition and source, form and decoration, and
possible origin.
•
Analysis of the origin, form, and possible date range of shell beads, and analysis of form of
schist and other stone beads and their temporal context.
•
Analysis of composition of plant and animal remains, and plant and animal processing tools,
as noted above, indicating shifts in environmental adaptation related to population
movements.
•
Identification of shifts in the frequency of imported items like asphaltum and mineral
pigments.
•
Recovery of remains of basketry - including fragments preserved by charring, coating with
asphalt, or caching in sheltered locations - providing useful information on cultural/ethnic
identity.
•
Radiocarbon dating of shallow site deposits and site components of stratified sites.
•
Analysis of indicators of culturally distinct mortuary customs.
•
Identification of the distribution of both pictographic and petroglyphic rock art.
•
Analysis of assemblages of different classes of artifacts would permit quantitative intra-site
temporal comparisons and comparisons between sites.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
273
07A3822 Task Order 17
Theme: Social Differentiation
The anthropological and archaeological literature, and consequent theoretical underpinnings, on
mortuary practices and/or social differentiation in ancient societies is extensive and varied. This
chapter, however, focuses specifically on the issue of mortuary analyses and the interpretation of
associated shell beads as markers of social differentiation, particularly of social status. This narrow
focus is deemed necessary in order to critically assess the validity of the repeated (and what appears
to be exclusive) application of such an approach to mortuary studies in southern California.
Mortuary Features and Associated Funerary Items: Cases from the Antelope Valley
Several cases of inhumations involving significant quantities of mortuary goods, including shell
beads, have been reported for the Antelope Valley region. These include human remains from
cemetery contexts at five sites and two isolated burials at two additional sites in the Antelope Valley
(Robinson 1987, Sutton 1988b:50-61). All of these were inhumations. As with cemetery contexts
elsewhere in southern California, there is a contrast between typical inhumations featuring few or no
accompanying grave goods, and a minority of cases where individuals, including females, children,
and infants, are accompanied by large quantities of what might be called bead wealth.
At CA-LAN-192 (Lovejoy Springs), five individuals, four adults and a child aged 6-8, were apparently
buried together in a cemetery area. A double loop necklace of 2,135 Olivella saddle beads or tiny
disc beads was placed around the neck of the child. The beads were likely accumulated (before being
strung into a necklace and placed on the child) over time because some of the beads appeared to
have been freshly drilled, while others had indications of string grooves worn in the center of the
beads. The child had also been partially covered by a 10-string shroud composed of 1,101 spirelopped Olivella shells. An inverted milling slab was found with this burial group, but shell beads were
not associated with the adults. Radiocarbon dating of human remains from this mass burial yielded
the date of circa 2,700 BP. An adult male skeleton in this mass burial had a dart point characteristic of
the Gypsum period embedded in one of its ribs. These date attributions for the mass burial were
used to support the contention that CA-LAN-192 possessed a cemetery and was occupied as a
village site during the Gypsum Period.
Another site, CA-LAN-488, on the southwest margin of the Antelope Valley, contained a 3 m deep
midden deposit. A radiocarbon date midway down in this deposit yielded a date of 770 +/- 90 BP
(Sutton 1988b:55). Four burials were recovered during excavations at the site in 1969-1970. The
burials of two adults and a child yielded only a few associated artifacts. The fourth burial was of an
infant, and it contained over 5,000 tiny beads which were recovered using 1/16th inch screen.
At CA-KER-303, an extensive village site on the northwest side of the Antelope Valley, a cemetery
was excavated that had previously been vandalized (Sutton 1988b:58-60). Over 30 burials were
recovered through controlled excavation, and the cemetery is believed to have contained a much
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
274
07A3822 Task Order 17
larger number of individuals. Excavation of the site also yielded the remains of three dwelling
structures, which dated to the late Gypsum Period.
One group burial yielded a flint-knapping kit. One unusual burial (Burial 24) included an adult female
interred with her head down and her hips up. In addition, her legs had been severed at the knees
and placed on top of her body. This burial was accompanied by a total of 1,526 Mytilus disc beads,
1,055 Olivella disc beads, 32 complete and 13 fragmentary Megathura [limpet] rings, 6 Haliotis
ornaments, and 3 steatite beads.
An isolated burial was also reported by Sutton (1988:60) that was found in the foothills of the
Tehachapi Mountains on the northwestern edge of the Antelope Valley. The burial contained a
middle-aged male with several strands of beads, including 886 Olivella wall disc beads, and a second
strand of 236 beads of Mytilus, Tivela, Haliotis, Olivella, Columella, and stone.
Shell Beads as Status Markers in Southern California
The occurrences described above of notable differences in the quantity and quality of shell beads
and other grave goods accompanying inhumations has been noted for various prehistoric cemeteries
excavated in southern California, and have been attributed by some researchers to social
differentiation within hunter-gatherer societies.
Cemeteries in the Channel Islands have yielded infant and child inhumations. Arnold (1987:234-235),
for example, described a late-period burial from CA-SRI-2, apparently the Santa Rosa Island village of
Niaqla, where large quantities of tools and shell materials of bead-making specialists were interred
with a six-year-old child (Rick et al. 2004). This settlement was part of a region in the northern
Channel Islands where shell beads were produced by specialists (Arnold and Graesch 2001).
Linda King (1969, 1983) analyzed the Medea Creek Cemetery in the territory of the Ventureño
Chumash in order to investigate Chumash social organization. This was attempted, in part, based on
the analysis of the type, quantity, quality, spatial distribution, and accompanying burial characteristics
of shell bead lots found in the cemetery. It was concluded that the distribution of bead ‘wealth’ in the
cemetery supported the idea that Chumash society was ranked or stratified in terms of differences in
wealth and social status.
More recently, Gamble et al. (2001) analyzed another Chumash cemetery at Malibu State Park. They
also emphasized the concept of Chumash mortuary behavior reflecting the existence of a wealthy
hereditary elite; an elite in both the sociopolitical and the economic senses of the word. Membership
in this elite class was viewed as an ascribed status, inherited through membership in high-status
kinship groups. The ascribed status of membership in such a group was contrasted with the kind of
achieved status and achieved wealth associated with Big Men, where wealth and political power were
not inherited.
Gamble et al. described a distribution of funerary goods at the cemetery where some men, women,
and children were accompanied by considerable funerary goods or offerings, often including shell
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
275
07A3822 Task Order 17
beads as well as fragments of plank canoes. Other individuals interred in the cemetery, accounting
for the majority of burials, lacked this array of funerary goods. It was thus concluded that this
inequality in funerary furnishings reflected a social and economic inequality in Chumash society that
these researchers claimed had been ethnographically documented. For them, a key aspect of
funerary behavior was the provision of elaborate funerary furnishings to females and also to children
and young children. Their argument was that only with the existence of elite kin groups inheriting
wealth and social position would females and especially young children have been provided with
unusual quantities of grave goods. The investment of valuables in the funerary furnishings of young
children in this case would be seen as a symbolic re-assertion of the prestige and authority of the
elite kin groups to which the children belonged.
Cannon (2016) has discussed the occurrence of shell beads at sites excavated as part of the Playa del
Rey project, focusing especially on mortuary contexts. She compared the Playa del Rey project
mortuary bead data for Gabrielino/ Tongva burials with those from cemetery contexts at several
other sites in southern California, including the Malibu and Medea Creek cemeteries discussed by
Gamble et al (2001). She also discussed a cemetery at the protohistoric Gabrielino/ Tongva village of
Yaangnaˀ, near downtown Los Angeles (Goldberg 1999). At CA-LAN-62 at Playa del Rey, as at Malibu
and Medea Creek, there were a minority of burials that contained much larger than average
quantities of shell beads. This was not the case at the Yaangnaˀ cemetery, where interred beads were
limited in quantity or absent for the range of burials recovered.
The cemetery or burial ground excavated at CA-LAN-62, within the Playa del Rey Project area,
included 307 burial features, many of which contained the remains of multiple individuals. The
majority of the burials appeared to postdate 1769, although a number appeared to date from the
Late or Proto-Historic Periods. Thus, inhumation rather than cremation was clearly practiced there
prehistorically. A slight relative tendency was observed for infants and young children to have a
greater frequency of large bead inventories in their burials than other age groups. It was reported
that a small minority of burials had very abundant bead inventories- over 1,000 beads. In contrast to
what was proposed for Medea Creek - that large burial lots of beads were restricted to a few typeslarge bead inventories found with inhumations at CA-LAN-62 were not limited to a narrow range of
bead types. In addition, Chester King (1990) had hypothesized for the Medea Creek cemetery that
high-value beads would be found mostly in elaborate or high-status burials. However, the analysis of
burials and associated beads from CA-LAN-62 showed that this was not the case. High-value beads
were relatively widely distributed among all burial types. In contrast, high-value shell beads do
appear to be a marker for high status burials in coastal Gabrielino/Tongva cemeteries (Reddy et al.
2016).
For both prehistoric Southern California, and California in general, archaeological evidence of
"wealth"- its generation, its retention, and its display and prestation, especially in ritual settings,
presents problems of interpretation. As previously noted, Gamble et al. (2001) believe that among
the Chumash a hereditary economic and political elite retained wealth over many generations, in part
through plank canoe ownership. However, in other foraging societies of California, the accumulation
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
276
07A3822 Task Order 17
of goods as wealth and the development of political elites were often constrained by social and
cultural practices that discouraged the inter-generational retention of wealth. Important here was the
widespread practice in California of destruction or disposal of property of the dead at funerals,
wakes, and the periodic community mourning ceremonies. Some Chumash researchers have
followed Chester King's (1990) argument that such destruction promoted economic and social
stability by restricting the supply of valued goods like shell beads.
The native California ethnographic record attests to various stages of a process of ‘ramping up’ of
productive activities, including both food procurement and craft production, in part related to both
destruction of goods and their prestation in the context of the annual and longer-term cycles of
religious fiestas. Such a scenario has sometimes been referred to as the ritual mode of production,
where household production is increased to underwrite the hosting of religious ceremonies and
fiestas (Earle 2017, Spielmann 2002). This hosting involved ritual display and generosity to guests, as
well as the maintenance of economic and political alliances between host and guest groups.
Important in this social and religious context is the idea of disposal of wealth through gift or
destruction as a conversion of wealth into prestige and alliance maintenance, rather than retention of
material wealth over generations.
Coastal Chumash communities that were dependent on marine resources, which supported
populations of as many as 700 people or more, were among the most productive in California with
respect to both food supply and craft goods. Nevertheless, while Harrington’ ethnographic
information, especially from Fernando Librado, suggested the existence of political and religious
elites among the Chumash, it is not clear to what extent these elites were based on a continuous
generation and conspicuous disposal, circulation, or destruction of wealth, including ritual
generosity, as opposed to long-term multi-generational retention of wealth, including bead wealth,
through inheritance. It is also not clear whether inheritance was based on truly unilineal descent
groups. Gamble (2007:55), for example, has indicated that our data on the actual organization of
Chumash descent groups is limited. At issue here is the relative importance of accumulated wealth
per se, as opposed to the occupation of political and economic ‘offices’ that themselves would have
been inherited and that generated both economic wealth to be circulated and political and religious
authority.
Mortuary Practices and Social Differentiation in the Antelope Valley
For the Antelope Valley, the ethnographic record on native mortuary customs and practices includes
cremation and inhumation. The mountain Serrano arereported to have practiced cremation in protohistoric times. The Desert Serrano are believed to have also practiced cremation, although Benedict
(1925) was told that only inhumation had been practiced since the early 19th century (Strong
1929:32). Kitanemuk consultants reported having practiced inhumation and to have used grave
poles. These practices are similar to those of the Chumash and the Kastiq Chumash of the Castac
Lake region were immediate southern neighbors of the Kitanemuk. Neighboring Southern Valley
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
277
07A3822 Task Order 17
Yokuts groups also practiced inhumation. The Kawaiisu and Chemehuevi are also believed to have
practiced inhumation (Earle 2004, 2009). In the case of the Kitanemuk, we know that chiefs were
accorded special treatment, including the use of grave poles, in their burials. These groups were not,
however, described by native consultants or by ethnohistorical accounts as possessing a distinctive
sociopolitical elite rank or class.
In the case of the Mountain Serrano, cremation was associated with a funeral ceremony and
mortuary ceremonies that involved destruction of personal property through burning. Such burning
would usually include, for adult males at least, the house of the deceased, which was a widespread
practice in southern California. This was followed by a periodic mourning ceremony commemorating
all of the deaths of community members that had occurred since the last mourning ceremony. This
ceremony was intended to provide an opportunity for the destruction of the remaining personal
property of the deceased. In addition, kinfolk of the deceased would often contribute additional
items of value to be destroyed - basketry or beads, for example - as an expression of their mourning.
There may have been an element of status rivalry in the amassing of valuables for destruction by
mourning families. Sometimes such items were reportedly given away rather than being destroyed.
These cultural practices tended to limit the accumulation of inheritable wealth over generations
within families or by chiefly family lines.
Burial Treatment: Occurences of Inhumation and Cremation
The mortuary practices reported for a number of Antelope Valley sites suggest that inhumation was
practiced from Gypsum Period times or before until a relatively late date in the Antelope Valley. The
implications of this regarding possible changes in ethnic affiliation of populations in the valley is
unclear because of the assumption that Takic language affiliation groups had exclusively cremated
their dead from the time of their arrival in Southern California. However, this assumption does not
appear to be substantiated by the archaeological evidence. The assumption that Takic people
cremated is based on Chester King’s proposition that cemeteries containing cremated remains came
to predominate in historically Takic-speaking areas of Southern California after circa 1000 BC (King
and Blackburn 1978:535). He has elsewhere dated this efflorescence of cremation among the
Gabrielino at circa 700-500 BC (King 1994).
Even at the time of Spanish contact, the practice of cremation appears to have been much more
strongly established in interior southern California, as among the Cahuilla, for example, than among
the Gabrielino, closer to the Pacific coast. Gamble and Russell (2002:118-124) provide an overview of
thirteen cemetery sites in western Los Angeles County in Gabrielino territory mostly dating to the last
2,500 years. Nine sites reportedly contained both inhumations and cremations, three had
inhumations only, and one had cremations only. Gamble and Russell note the relative distribution of
inhumation and cremation in the region as complex. Cannon’s (2016) analysis for Playa Vista on the
Los Angeles County coast also suggests the continued importance of inhumation there.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
278
07A3822 Task Order 17
Mortuary Offerings
The ethnographic record for southern California for Takic groups is not especially helpful in
interpreting the social meaning of significant differences in mortuary goods in interments. For the
Gabrielino/ Tongva we do have statements suggesting that traditionally it was desired to place some
valued goods in the graves of the deceased, and that chiefs and shamans were interred with the
largest quantities of grave goods (Geiger and Meighan 1976:97, McCawley 1996:157, Reid:1968:31).
It can be concluded, as Cannon did, that in that social context some individuals or families were more
capable of amassing and investing mortuary bead ‘wealth’ than others. But we can ask whether some
ritual or mortuary displays involve a daunting sacrifice of property for the sake of either prestige or
some valued religious objective rather than an affirmation of inherited status and wealth. In other
words, there was likely an investment in mortuary goods independent of elite status.
Binford (1971), T. King (1970), and others proposed that the presence of presumed status markers
such as shell bead wealth with juvenile or infant burials would mark membership in a hereditary elite.
Milliken and Baumhoff (2007:334-336) noted that objections had been made to this presumption,
and alternative scenarios were proposed where non-elite groups would ‘invest’ in burial goods for
juveniles and infants. They noted that only where a tiny minority of burials displayed great wealth
could ascribed status be assumed. They assembled grave goods data on 46 sites in central California,
finding that the percentage of burials collectively containing at least 90% of all cemetery bead wealth
increased from four percent in the Early Middle Period to 20% in the second phase of the Late
Period. In other words, the trend was for less concentration of wealth over time, rather than more.
This ran counter to the presumption of a markedly increased concentration of bead wealth and social
hierarchy over time. They also noted a surprising lack of difference between the total average size of
juvenile and adult male mortuary bead lots, varying between approximately 1:2 and 1:1 (Milliken and
Baumhoff 2007:334-336).
As discussed earlier, southern California cases where 'ascribed status' burials, like those of juveniles
and infants, appear associated with families or groups that were craft specialists. Arnold's (1987)
bead-maker child burial is of that type. The bead-rich burials associated with canoe parts discussed
by Gamble et al. (2001) can be argued as reflecting both economic specialization and elite social
status.
However, in the case of the Antelope Valley inhumations, it does not seem especially plausible to
assume that ’wealthy’ child or infant burials are a sign that a separate economic elite class existed in
a community of 60-100 foragers 2,000 years ago. We could alternatively propose that such mortuary
treatment a) reflected economic specialization, as in regional bead exchange by a family group, b)
reflected the political and ritual ascribed status of village hereditary chiefs, a status supported by the
entire community, or c) reflected a major long-term effort by a particular non-chiefly family group to
amass bead wealth for ritual purposes. The fact that, under either scenario, the amassing of such
wealth was possible appears to be an indicator of a more sedentary village-based way of life. It also
suggests that bead trading specialists and even hereditary chiefs may have been involved as
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
279
07A3822 Task Order 17
intermediaries in long-distance bead exchange from the southern California coast to the Southwest
and the Great Basin. Earle (2005:12-17) has described, for the proto-historic period, the involvement
of Mojave River Serrano chiefs in this kind of long-distance shell bead exchange. This allowed them
to accumulate large quantities of beads that were used by them for ritual displays. Thus, even in
communities with relatively small populations, the existence of hereditary political leadership based
on descent could account for marked differences in mortuary wealth without the creation of a
separate economic elite class.
Research Questions and Data Needs
Questions
1) Does the relative distribution of inhumations within or between sites during specific prehistoric time
periods suggest differences in mortuary treatment (inhumation versus cremation, for example) due to
a) occupation of different sites by different ethnic/groups, or b) occurrence of different mortuary
practices for different categories of people within a given ethnic/cultural group?
The relative occurrence of inhumation as opposed to cremation at sites within the region occupied
by Takic-speakers in the protohistoric presents a rather complex picture. For example, some
cemetery contexts attributed to the Gabrielino/Tongva involve inhumations rather than the
cremations that some researchers might have anticipated from the ethnographic record. In the
Antelope Valley, for the protohistoric period, it might be anticipated that some groups (Desert
Serrano) practiced cremation and others (Kitanemuk) inhumation. Nevertheless, unless the arrival of
the ancestors of the modern Serrano divisions - Mountain and Desert- in their respective areas of
occupation was really recent, it is possible that cremation was not in fact an ancestral cultural marker
for the Serrano. Inhumations are documented for the southern portion of the Antelope Valley with
dates within the last thousand years. Thus, in evaluating what inhumations and their mortuary goods,
including shell beads, can tell us about prehistoric social organization, we first have to consider how
this particular mortuary practice fits into the bigger picture of treatment of the dead. Was the
practice of inhumation in fact a cultural/ ethnic marker for specific groups and communities, or did
different kinds of people receive different kinds of mortuary treatment? There are examples within
the prehistoric Western United States where some people were subjected to inhumation and others
were cremated within a given cultural group. For Numic groups, there are reports of inhumation as a
standard practice, with cremation reserved for disposal of the bodies of witches or sorcerers. In other
words, was the very fact of the use of inhumation, as opposed to cremation, a statement about the
social status of the individual? Key in this regard is the identification of cases where inhumation and
cremation appear to be practiced in the same communities during roughly contemporaneous time
periods.
2) In analyzing the distribution of mortuary goods with specific inhumations, what evidence do we find
that bead wealth is unevenly distributed in the cemetery population, and, if so, is that uneven
distribution spatially organized within the cemetery?
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
280
07A3822 Task Order 17
As we have noted in our discussion of the analysis of native cemeteries in southern California, this is
a fundamental question that investigators have posed. The characteristics of this uneven distribution
include the degree of clustering of bead wealth among a relative minority of the population, and
whether differences in distribution of wealth apply to the complete range of age and sex
characteristics of the cemetery population. In other words, if we have a difference in bead wealth
distribution among adult males, does this difference also apply to adult females, as well as juveniles
and infants? Differential distribution suggests, of course, differential behavior by families of the
deceased, if everyone has not been treated the same. Interpretation of this differential behavior is
referred to in another question below.
Analyses of differences in mortuary wealth in Southern California have usually attempted to
determine whether burials containing abundant mortuary goods have tended to spatially cluster in
certain parts of the cemetery. It is argued that such clustering would be a strong indicator of
differences in social and economic status within the cemetery population. Obviously, the evaluation
of both the distribution of bead wealth between different categories of burials and its spatial
distribution in cemeteries is constrained in its significance by small sample size.
3) In analyzing bead wealth in mortuary contexts, can we determine whether it expresses elite status,
reflected in immediate access to large lots of beads, on the one hand, or a gradual economic
accumulation for ritual purposes by non-elites, on the other?
A differential distribution of such wealth between individual burials could possibly reflect one of
several scenarios. First, the capacity of 'wealthy' or 'elite' members of a community to routinely
provide such mortuary goods, and their willingness to do so as an affirmation of their long-term elite
economic/social standing. Second, the willingness of individuals or groups, not necessarily of elite
economic status, to make an effort, even involving economic sacrifice, to provide substantial bead
wealth or other mortuary goods. This effort would reflect a particular desire to honor the deceased,
and thus also accrue associated prestige. Differentiating between these two scenarios
archaeologically presents obvious difficulties. However, two lines of investigation that have been
used in the past are relevant here.
The first is the analysis of the characteristics of individual shell beads and classes of beads found as
grave goods. Gamble et al. (2001) have argued that such shell bead assemblages that originate with
elite families would reflect their procurement in large lots at one time from the fabricators. We could
think of this as mass acquisition of bead lots. In contrast, we do have some ethnographic accounts of
non-elite individuals saving up bead wealth and other items of value over long periods of time for
use as mortuary goods. The concept here is that the items were not acquired as a lot, but
painstakingly accumulated over many years, often reflecting previous use wear as well as greater
variation in bead types, given the more fortuitous nature of their having been collected.
Second, it would appear more probable that cases of the second type - long-term accumulation of
wealth by non-elites for mortuary purposes - would be associated with adults rather than juveniles
and infants. This would particularly appear to be the case given that in ethnographic descriptions of
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
281
07A3822 Task Order 17
this kind of long-term accumulation, adult males and females play a prominent role in promoting
this accumulation for their own funerals. Thus, it is more clearly associated with adults. Infant burials
associated with prominent bead wealth would appear less likely to have resulted from a long-term
process of setting aside of bead wealth by non-elite people or families, and more likely to be
associated with short-notice provision by families with more immediate access to wealth.
In addition, King (1990) argued that bead wealth associated with elite groups should contain types of
beads that were the most valuable in respect to the difficulty of their fabrication or in terms of their
attractiveness as ornaments. Whether such apparently high value bead types can be identified as
associated with conspicuously large bead assemblages (possibly indicating elite status) or whether
they are broadly distributed as a mortuary good should be checked as part of a grave goods
analysis.
4) What variations in the characteristics of bead wealth can be identified between different prehistoric
time periods?
Both within and between cemeteries, comparison of mortuary bead characteristics between
inhumations dating from different time periods would shed light on the postulated development of
social differentiation. The temporal data comparisons of Milliken and Baumhoff (2007) discussed
above provide examples of this. They pointed out that such comparisons are constrained by sample
size, since this requires a set of sufficiently large burial lots dating from different time periods.
5) In the Antelope Valley context, is there evidence of political elites (chiefs) or specialists like bead
traders accessing bead wealth on account of long-distance exchange networks?
In the case of the Antelope Valley, the availability of shell beads may have been enhanced by the
area’s position as a link in long-distance exchange networks for shell beads, as previously discussed.
A comparison of the quantities and types of shell beads from different time periods recovered at
Antelope Valley sites, as compared with other regions of central and southern California, could
illuminate the potential role that such exchange circuits played in increasing the availability of beads
for mortuary use, especially by chiefs.
Data Needs
Any archaeological analysis of native human remains requires the approval and involvement of
affected native communities and nations. Archaeological disturbance of human remains and burial
contexts can be anticipated as occurring when no feasible alternative exists, and only after
consultation with affected native parties. Thus, such work can be considered essentially of an
emergency nature. In the event that such an archaeological contingency may arise, the research
issues raised above regarding the interpretation of shell bead mortuary goods may be helpful in
dealing with the resulting analytical tasks. However, other theoretical orientations should also be
considered, particularly (and most importantly) approaches that incorporate perspectives from
affected Native American communities.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
282
07A3822 Task Order 17
Theme: Rock Art in the Antelope Valley Study Area
Rock Art Types and Styles
The concept of Native Californian rock art as a category of cultural or archaeological resources has
been influenced by Euro-American ideas and cultural traditions regarding ‘artistic expression’ in
painted or sculpted form. This characterization of rock art does not necessarily take into account a
range of specifically Native Californian cultural/religious elements that might share either the
outdoor landscape setting of rock art or its figurative or other symbolic features. These other
elements, along with rock art itself, formed an interconnected sacred symbolic vocabulary for native
religious ideas and ritual. These other elements included rock formations with visual features linked
to supernatural events, ‘bell rocks’ used to create ritual sounds during ceremonies, caves used as
offering and prayer shrines, and rock features related to solar observations. The creation of symbols,
designs, or figures associated with rock art, was also found in other contexts, such as ritual face
painting and sand paintings used as part of community rituals, for example, as described by Fr.
Boscana for the Juaneño/Luiseño (Boscana 1933:38, 46).
Rock art and rock art sites are important to Native Californians as expressions of native culture and
religion and have been considered by them to be sacred places. California archaeologists have
attempted to construct chronological frameworks for the temporal placement of rock art and
interpretive frameworks for understanding its purpose in native culture. Analyses of both chronology
and function have presented difficulties for some classes of rock art, especially rock art types not
clearly associated ethnographically with late prehistoric native cultures. One prominent approach to
the study of rock art in native North America and Native California has been to interpret rock art as
the creation of ritual specialists or shamans transacting with the supernatural realm at locations
removed from everyday activities. This shamanic practice has sometimes been viewed as involving
personal pursuits of supernatural power, possibly involving altered states of consciousness such as
shamanic trances (Whitley 2000). Thus, a fundamental question is posed as to whether specific types
and cases of Native Californian rock art may reflect such personal shamanic activity as opposed to
community ritual.
The interpretation of native rock art in Southern California has been shaped by the fundamental
differences between the archaeological and cultural contexts of painted pictographic and carved
petroglyph rock art. Pictographic rock art was frequently created in relatively unsheltered locales,
where its survival was likely to be relatively limited due to natural processes of weathering.
Petroglyphic rock art in Southern California has tended to be much more durable, surviving in some
places for many millennia. Thus, much of the surviving pictographic rock art of relatively recent date
could be studied and appreciated in the context of living native cultural traditions and modern
ethnographic information. Petroglyphic rock art present a greater challenge in understanding its
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
283
07A3822 Task Order 17
native cultural and religious context given the frequent linkage of such rock art with native groups
occupying territories in Southern California as early as 5,000 or 6,000 years ago or more.
The study of native rock art, including pictographs, petroglyphs, and cupules, in southern California,
received considerable impetus in the late 1960s and early 1970s with the work of Campbell Grant,
Robert Heizer, and Ken Hedges. Grant pioneered the systematic study of the polychrome
pictographs of Chumash-speaking groups (Grant 1965). Heizer attempted a statewide survey of
California rock art genres and styles (Heizer and Clewlow 1973) and defined a pictographic stylistic
type - the Southern Sierra Curvilinear Style - that included interior Chumash, Yokuts, and other local
styles. Ken Hedges, who headed a rock art research effort at the Museum of Man in San Diego,
defined the so-called Southern California Rectilinear Abstract Style, a pictographic style believed to
have been widely found among Takic-speaking groups such as the Serrano, Cahuilla, Gabrielino, and
Luiseño (Hedges 1973).
The Southern Sierra Curvilinear and Southern California Rectilinear Style classifications, as originally
defined, generated some controversy as additional rock art sites were subsequently recorded. As
knowledge of the full range of variation of southern California rock art grew, the original typologies
were questioned, given the frequent presence of additional motifs. Thus, for example, it has been
questioned whether pictographs from sites in protohistoric Gabrielino and Fernandeño territory are
expressions of the Southern California Rectilinear Abstract Style (Knight 1993). Variations and
inconsistencies could also be found in the Southern Sierra style, possibly attributable to differences
between motifs and style used by different language groups in the region.
Early stylistic comparisons were made as a mode of archaeological research without reference to
ethnographic information about both pictographs and petroglyphs in Southern California collected
by ethnographers which were not widely available to archaeologists and rock art researchers in the
1960s and 1970s. More recently, access to the field notes of John P. Harrington, Carobeth Laird, and
Isabel Kelly, for example, has provided information about native religion, sacred places, rock art sites,
and the creation of rock art in southern California.
Rock art researchers sometimes encountered pictographic rock art sites located in places remote
from native settlement and cited ethnographic information that suggested that these places were
used as ritual locations which may have included the creation of rock art and the performing of
astronomical observations by shamans. Thus, an interpretation of rock art sites as places for the
deployment of esoteric knowledge and ceremonial by shamans developed. This focus included the
interpretation of rock art motifs themselves as reflecting altered states of consciousness on the part
of shamans or ritual specialists.
It is possible that the more frequent long-term survival of pictographic rock art in cave sites that
were sometimes spatially removed from native villages helped to stimulate the perception that
painted rock art was usually found in remote and esoteric settings commanded by individual
shamans. Ethnographic information for Southern California Takic language groups suggests, on the
other hand, that a frequent setting for the creation of rock art was community initiation ceremonies
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
284
07A3822 Task Order 17
that were held in or near villages. The rock art associated with these ceremonies was often created
on unsheltered rock surfaces, and was thus, from an archaeological standpoint, extremely
impermanent. These possibly different cultural contexts for the creation of rock art are considered
below in a review of currently available information about rock art in the Antelope Valley region.
Pictographic Rock Art Styles and Culture in the Antelope Valley Region
Ethnographic information about the religious and cultural context of rock art in Southern California
suggests that several different pictographic rock art configurations and cultural traditions may have
been found in different areas of the Antelope Valley. As noted previously, two major types of
pictographic rock art in the region have been referred to as the Southern California Rectilinear Style
and the Southern Sierra Curvilinear Style. The Southern California Rectilinear Style has been
associated with southern California Takic groups. This is due not only to its late date and
geographical distribution, but also on account of direct ethnographic testimony about this
pictographic style. The Southern Sierra Curvilinear Style appears to have been related to an inland
expression of a rock art style that originated among a number of Chumash language groups in
south-central California. The two styles are quite distinct, and both styles are found within the
Antelope Valley.
Rock Art Traditions of Takic Groups
A number of ethnographic sources for Takic language groups refer to the creation of pictographs as
part of the ceremonial cycles of both male and female initiation. This is most fully documented in the
case of the Luiseño, although there are also ethnographic references to females creating rock art as
part of initiation ceremonies among the Cahuilla and Serrano.
Luiseño initiation of boys into adulthood involved the drinking of a toloache or Jimson weed
decoction, followed by ritual dancing, passage through a special ritual sand painting on the ground,
and the imparting of instructions from elders. After further ritual activity, Du Bois (1908) states that
the boys raced to a designated rock to create paintings. This was followed by an ant ordeal, which
involved the initiate being covered by biting ants. After this ordeal was completed, the initiates
passed through another sand painting. So-called 'bell rocks', large rock masses that rang or
resounded when struck by a percussion rock, were then struck as songs were sung. Then the male
initiates raced to nearby rocks, where the winner would paint a rock face with red and black paint.
Female initiation involved being placed in a special pit with plant matting and warm rocks for several
days. At the conclusion of the initiation ceremony, their faces were painted. Either at this point or a
month later the face was painted with a particular geometric design, and the girls or adults painted
corresponding designs on rock faces located near to the native settlements. Luiseño consultants
provided the following information to Sparkman (1908):
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
285
07A3822 Task Order 17
At the conclusion of the period during which the girl remained in the pit, her face was
painted, and a similar painting was also made on a rock. At the end of a month the
girl's face was painted in a different manner, and a similar painting was added to the
first painting made on the rock. This was repeated every month for a year, each
month a different painting being placed on the girl's face, and a similar one added to
the original one on the rock (Sparkman 1908:225).
Kroeber (1908:174-176) noted that, “these paintings, some of which can still be seen especially near
the old village sites, consist of geometrical arrangements of red lines…”.
Cahuilla elder Katherine Saubel provided information about her grandmother having painted rock art
as a young woman in connection with female initiation. J. P. Harrington's Serrano ethnographic
consultant, Santos Manuel, also made reference to his female relatives (girls and women) painting
rock art at sites in the San Bernardino Mountains (Harrington 1986:III:101:260). Benedict (1924:390)
also stated that when both boys and girls were initiated among the Serrano, they used a red paint to
create drawings on rocks.
Pictographic Rock Art in the Antelope Valley
Knight, Milburn, and Tejada (2009) list nine known pictograph sites within the Antelope Valley. One
additional site at CA-LAN-192 (Lovejoy Springs) has been obliterated by weathering since the 1920s,
and another reported for Piute Butte may also have been altered or destroyed. Five of these sites
contain Southern California Rectilinear Abstract motifs. These include sites at Big Rock Creek (CALAN-447), Folgate Butte (CA-LAN-2368) (southeast of Lake Los Angeles and east of Lovejoy Buttes),
Edwards AFB (CA-LAN-2200), Ritter Ranch (CA-LAN-947), (west of Palmdale), and Fairmont Butte
(CA-LAN-298) (fourteen miles west of Lancaster). Two adjacent sites in the Tehachapi Mountains
foothills west of Rosamond (CA-KER-273 and CA-KER-1193) contain pictographs that are of the
Southern Sierra Curvilinear Style. A site at Shea’s Castle, several miles to the southeast of Fairmont
Butte, contains pictographs of the Southern Sierra Curvilinear Style or a possibly related Tataviam
style. One additional pictograph site in the Kern County portion of the Valley was too faded or
damaged to classify.
Southern California Rectilinear Style Pictographic Rock Art in the Antelope Valley
The pictographic rock art sites within the Antelope Valley that appear to contain Southern California
Rectilinear Style elements are briefly described below.
Big Rock Creek – CA-LAN-477/723
This pictograph site consists of an exposed vertical panel containing pictographic elements painted
in red paint. The panel is located at the base of a rocky ridge adjoining a small habitation site at the
mouth of a relatively narrow canyon. California Rectilinear Abstract Style elements appear on the
panel, including diamond chains. The site is known to have been associated with the territory of a
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
286
07A3822 Task Order 17
contact-era village called Amutskupeat, located further downstream on Big Rock Creek. This village
appears to have been affiliated with the clan territory of Amutskupiabit, further east in Cajon Pass.
Folgate Butte – CA-LAN-2368
This site is located approximately three miles [4.8 km] east-southeast of the large village site at
Lovejoy Springs. Several different locations at the site contain pictographs. The most important array
of pictographs is located in a shallow east-facing cave at the top of the Butte. This locus features
classic red-pigment motifs associated with the Southern California Rectilinear Abstract Style. Traces
of black and white pigment can also be seen. A shallow cave above ground level on the west side of
the butte also contains vertical red line pictographs. On the east side of the butte at ground level,
adjacent to a small habitation site, another shallow cave contained pictographs that were obscured
during the last half-century by smoke from a bonfire built at the mouth of the cave.
Ritter Ranch – CA-LAN-947
A panel of faded red pigment pictographs on a rock outcrop were found at this Transverse Range
foothill site, at a spring in the Anaverde Valley, just to the west of Palmdale. Habitation sites are
located in this general area. Knight, Milburn, and Tejada (2009:13) identify the pictographs as painted
in the Southern California Rectilinear Abstract Style.
Fairmont Butte - CA-LAN-298
Faint traces of white and red pigment pictographs, including a red pigment rayed disk, have been
observed on an exposed rock face overlooking the habitation site at Fairmont Butte. This particular
pictograph has been assigned to the Southern California Rectilinear Abstract Style by Knight
(1993:57).
Edwards Air Force Base - Ca-KER-2200
Red pigment pictograph elements have been found on the ceiling of a rock shelter on Edwards Air
Force Base. They are rendered in red paint. A vertical diamond chain and irregular rectangularrectilinear elements, several large red dots, and an oblong circle were observed. This shelter was
apparently not associated with a village site. These elements have been tentatively identified as
related to the Southern California Rectilinear Abstract Style.
The Southern Sierra Curvilinear Style Pictographs
As previously noted, the Southern Sierra Curvilinear Style shares similarities with a pictographic style
found in inland Chumash areas. Chumash-style rock art sites such as Painted Cave, Swordfish Cave,
Burro Flats, the Sisquoc Creek sites, and interior Chumash sites in the San Emigdio region feature
densely packed polychrome fields containing anthropomorphs, supernatural animals, and elaborate
wheel-like ‘sunbursts’. The combination of colors in complex curvilinear forms is distinctive. The
Southern Sierra Curvilinear Style is found in Kitanemuk, Kawaiisu, and Tubatulabal areas and appears
to have been influenced by the Chumash style (Knight 1993, 2016; Knight, Milburn, and Tejada 2009;
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
287
07A3822 Task Order 17
Knight, Sprague, and Garfinkel 2011). The Tataviam appear to have had a pictograph style related to,
but not identical to, the Southern Sierra Curvilinear Style.
In the Southern Sierra Curvilinear Style, the similarities to the Chumash style are evident. The design
elements are more elaborate than in the Southern California Rectilinear Abstract Style. Individual
figures are often curvilinear and sometimes polychrome. Both anthropomorphic and animal figures
appear, as well as abstract designs have curving shapes involving fine details. Sometimes multiple
colors are used on a single figure. One can find, for example, stylized figures where red, white, and
black outlining are all used in the same figure. Animal-like figures or sunbursts are more elaborate in
their design elements than in the Southern California style. There is also a relative absence of the
diamond chain and diamond net designs of the Southern California style.
The Takic Kitanemuk of the Tehachapi Mountains region were clearly influenced by the culture of
neighboring interior Chumash groups, including in their ritual and mortuary practices. The Tataviam,
whose territory extended southward from the far western Antelope Valley, also borrowed cultural
features from their Ventureño Chumash neighbors to the west. This cultural borrowing occurred
within a zone of culture contact that formed part of what Hudson and Blackburn (1986a) called the
Chumash Cultural Interaction Sphere (Knight 2016).
Direct ethnographic testimony about the creation and religious associations of pictographs within
the Chumash Cultural Interaction Sphere is not very abundant. Chumash Cruzeño/Ventureño
consultant Fernando Librado did provide limited information on techniques of painting as well as on
the meaning of several motifs. He mentioned painted representations of the "eight winds" and also
the painting of sun disks (Steinberg 1994:74-75). Librado also mentioned some kinds of painting as
being done by members of the 'antap? cult sodality. The ritual function and motif interpretation of
painted panels in Chumash territory has continued to be a subject of some speculation. It is known
that Chumash shaman Rafael Solares and another Chumash, Joaquín Ayala, were involved in
traveling to the mountains behind Santa Barbara to make rock paintings at the time of the winter
solstice (Hudson and Underhay 1978:58). Pictograph sites found in interior Santa Barbara County in
the San Rafael Wilderness region may be associated with astronomical observatories connected with
the Winter Solstice. This was the time of a major Chumash religious festival aimed at restoring the
power of the sun.
Among the Chumash, the Gabrielino/Tongva, and the Kitanemuk, cleared plaza spaces equipped
with feathered prayer poles were used as shrines to leave offerings and direct prayers for community
well-being. Such shrine spaces were found both in and adjacent to villages and at more remote
landscape features such as mountaintops and springs. It is not clear to what extent rock art sites may
also have served as shrines within this tradition of religious practice. For the Chumash and
Kitanemuk, ethnographic information does not provide information on the creation of rock art as a
regular part of collective community rituals such as initiation ceremonies.
In the Tehachapi-Southern Sierra region there is rock art in the Southern Sierra Curvilinear Style at
locations that were considered to be portals to an underworld where supernaturals would be
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
288
07A3822 Task Order 17
encountered. A cave containing rock art (CA-KER-508) located near Nettle Springs in the Cache
Creek drainage (east of Tehachapi Valley) was considered to be such a supernatural portal and was
associated with ‘Creation’ (Knight, Sprague, and Garfinkel 2011:112-113). Another cave rock art site
in the vicinity (CA-KER-93) was also a place of ‘Creation’ associated with ‘the first people’. Another
rock art site portal was located in Back Canyon (CA-KER-2412) further north in the Southern Sierras
near Piute Mountain (Garfinkel et al. 2009). The CA-KER-508 and CA-KER-2412 ‘portals’ were
believed to be linked by a supernatural subterranean passageway. It is significant that both Kawaiisu
and Kitanemuk elders provided sacred stories and other information describing in some detail the
religious significance of these rock art sites.
Two sites, one in the southwest Antelope Valley and the other in the Tehachapi Mountains foothills
west of Rosamond and Willow Springs, have Southern Sierra Curvilinear Style elements. These are
described below.
Temet Osraniek (Shea's Castle) - CA-LAN-721
Near a spring and habitation site located near the historic site of Shea's Castle, about twelve miles
west of Lancaster on the southwest margin of the Antelope Valley, are several rock art panels.
Geologist William Blake visited the place and described the rock art in 1853. Knight (1993) has
suggested that these motifs could be associated with the Southern Sierra Curvilinear Style. At least
one element clearly belongs to this style. It is possible that this motif may have been connected to
use of the site or visits to it by Kitanemuk or Tataviam from the northwest and southwest margins of
the Antelope Valley, respectively.
Burham Canyon (CA-KER-273 and CA-KER-1193)
Neighboring pictograph sites are located in a canyon on the southeastern slopes of the Tehachapi
Mountains bordering the northwestern Antelope Valley. Elements painted in black, white, and red are
found in a sheltered area underneath an overhanging boulder. This site also includes three rock
outcroppings better covered with large and small circular pits, some of which appear to be large
enough to have been used as bedrock mortars, while others are of cupule size. Sutton (1982b:29)
and Knight and Sprague (2008:113) assigned the rock art of these sites to the Southern Sierra
Curvilinear Style.
The idea has been entertained by researchers writing on the rock art of the region that the Southern
Sierra Curvilinear Style was associated with ethnic groups of the Southern Sierra and Tehachapi
regions, and possibly the Tataviam, and that its presence could be used as a prehistoric ethnic
marker. Further research regarding its spatial and temporal distribution, its internal stylistic variability,
and its connection to ritual and religious practices, is needed to test the validity of this assumption.
The relation of this type of rock art to ritual and religious practice has to do with whether the focus
of this rock art was the activities of shamans as individual supernatural operatives or whether the
creation of this rock art reflected the performance of community ritual. The remembered
mythological associations of some rock art sites in the Tehachapi region hint at the possible
importance of shared community religion and ritual in the creation of this type of rock art. However,
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
289
07A3822 Task Order 17
such community ritual contexts would appear to be distinct from those found among Takic groups,
where elaborate initiation ceremonies are directly linked to the creation of pictographic rock art.
Pitted-Rock Petroglyphs and Cupules
Pitted Rock Petroglyphs are widely found in California and the Great Basin, having been reported for
over 500 sites in Southern California alone (Meighan 2000:17). These consist of rock outcroppings,
blocks, or boulders on which circular depressions or dimples have been excavated. Occasionally
larger diameter cupules may be found located in the midst of a field of smaller ones. While an
isolated cupule on a boulder may sometimes be encountered, it is typical to find a rock surface
containing many of them relatively evenly spaced. On approximately horizontal surfaces of softer
rock the diameters of the cupules may be larger. Vertical surfaces of harder rock may be covered
with smaller-diameter cupules. Horizontal, vertical, and angled rock surfaces may be covered with
cupules. In Southern California, cupules are often found on isolated rock outcroppings located near
springs or habitation sites. Occasionally, cupules may also be located inside rock shelters or on cave
walls (Smith and Turner 1975:10-11).
The cupules tend to be uniformly circular and are shallow in depth in relation to their diameter.
Cupules are often only a few centimeters in diameter, but scattered individual cupules may be as
large as 15 cm across. The individual cupules may be scattered across a rock surface at random or
may be aligned in linear or circular patterns.
Individual cupules may also be connected by linear incisions, either deep or shallow, cut into the
intervening rock surface. Deep grooves between cupules may require substantial removal of rock,
while shallow ones may be created by superficial pecking of the rock surface. The linking of
individual cupules by grooves may create complex curvilinear patterns within the cupule field. In
addition, grooves may be incised on rock surfaces adjacent to cupule fields, but that do not connect
individual cupules.
Meighan (2000) has suggested that the creation of cupules involved acts of personal prayer:
It is reasonably well documented that cupule rocks are places of supplication for
some desired event, the pits being made as accompaniment to individual prayers.
Repeated use may lead to covering the entire surface of the boulder with pits,
sometimes arranged in circles or lines. This form of decorating the rocks must be
considered a practice of the common people, rather than sacred or esoteric, since
cupule rocks are usually in the middle of village middens and not in isolated or
special locations (Meighan 2000:17).
Serrano elder Manuel Santos related how Serrano hunters who wished to achieve success in the
hunting of rabbits undertook rock carving as part of ritual to obtain supernatural aid (Bean et al.
1981:48-49, 78-79, 114-116). The creation of cupules on rock outcrops as an element of rain-making
magic has also been suggested for other areas of California (Parkman 1993). It has also been
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
290
07A3822 Task Order 17
suggested that cupule boulders were markers delineating the routes of foot trails (Smith and Lerch
1984). Bean, Vane, and Young (1991:53) mention Cahuilla sacred story material making reference to
rocks with small circular marks on them indicating trails. Cupules have also been described as
associated with promotion of female fertility (Barrett 1952), as providing star maps for astronomical
observations (Hedges 1980), and demarcation of territorial boundaries (DuBois 1908). Sutton et al.
(2009) suggested that cupules were at least sometimes used as containers. Arguments have also
been made that cupules were ‘functional’ rather than religious or ideological in origin on account of
their having been used for sharpening personal implements.
Cupules in the Antelope Valley
Knight, Milburn, and Tejada (2009) list fourteen sites in the Antelope Valley where cupules on rock
surfaces occur. Some seven of these sites consist only of cupule boulders and outcrops. These sites
tend to be found in foothill areas along the southern and southwest margin of the Antelope Valley.
Cupules have been recorded at the Big Rock Creek pictograph site (CA-LAN-447), and at sites CALAN-767, -768, and -3343 in the Ana Verde Hills just west of Palmdale on the north edge of Sierra
Pelona ridge. In the Sierra Pelona ridge area to the southwest, Knight, Milburn, and Tejada (2009:14)
report some 30 cupule sites. Cupules are also found at Fairmont Butte (CA-LAN-298 and 1789/H).
Regarding the setting where cupule boulders were found in the Anaverde Hills area, Knight, Milburn,
and Tejada (2009:14) comment:
The Anaverde Hills cupule sites are all located on small knolls at the mouths of fairly
small canyons that contain much greater native plant density and diversity than
found at nearby areas. The plant species, which include elderberry, desert plum, and
mariposa lily, are more robust than plants growing even short distances away. Many
bird species are also present, which suggests that other kinds of animals would likely
be attracted to the thickets of plants.
These areas associated with the San Andreas Fault rift zone were favorable for human habitation at
spring and creek sites along the fault, and sometimes featured relatively soft metamorphic rock
associated with the fault system, such as steatite. Cupules have not received the archaeological
research attention that they deserve because of the persistence of problems of interpretation of their
cultural context and function.
Petroglyphs in the Antelope Valley
As indicated by Knight, Milburn, and Tejada (2009), petroglyphs are rare, as they identify only five
clear cases of pecked, incised, or otherwise worked petroglyphs in the Antelope Valley area. Two of
these (CA-LAN-3343 and a Forest Service site without a trinomial) have serpentine motifs, while a
third is an apparent isolated example of a Great Basin Curvilinear style petroglyphs boulder, lacking
any additional archaeological context. The contrast between this lack of petroglyphs in the Antelope
Valley area and their greater frequency in the southern Sierra region as well as in other regions of the
Mojave Desert is noteworthy.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
291
07A3822 Task Order 17
Summary
Both pictographic and petroglyphic rock art occur in the Antelope Valley Study Area. Two styles of
pictographic rock art are found in the Antelope Valley area, the Southern California Rectilinear Style
and the Southern Sierra Curvilinear Style. Possible cultural and ritual contexts for the creation of
these types of rock art are discussed, based in part on ethnographic sources. The differences in styles
may be related to different ethnic or cultural affiliations of native populations in different areas of the
valley, although this remains only a hypothesis. The occurrence and characteristics of rock outcrop
cupules, especially along the southern margin of the Antelope Valley, is also discussed. The scarcity
of non-cupule petroglyphic rock art is noted, a situation which contrasts with that found in other
regions of the Mojave Desert.
Research Questions and Data Needs
Research Questions
1) To what extent does the repertoire of pictographic motifs from Antelope Valley sites,
conventionally classified as conforming to the Southern California Rectilinear Style, differ from motifs
similarly classified that have been recorded from sites further south in Southern California?
2) Are the pictographic motifs in the Southern California Rectilinear Style found in the Antelope
Valley similar to motifs found in areas occupied by various Serrano clan groups in and around the
San Bernardino Mountains?
3) Is it possible to identify distinctive pictographic motifs found only in the Antelope Valley area,
along with a choronological sequence and possible variation through time?
4) Does the hypothesis that Southern California Takic groups created pictographic rock art at
locations proximate to village settlements, where initiation ceremonies were held, appear to be
supported by the distribution and association of Antelope Valley rock art sites?
5) Will further documentation of pictographic rock art sites in and around the Antelope Valley
support or contradict the concept that the geographical distribution of the Southern California
Rectilinear Style and the Southern Sierra Curvilinear Style reflect cultural or ethnic differences
between local groups in and around the Antelope Valley?
6) Based on their context and associations, are there pictographic rock art sites in the Antelope
Valley that appear to have been used by ritual specialists such as shamans, rather than having been
created as a result of community rituals?
7) Is there evidence that any Antelope Valley pictographic rock art sites were used as solstice or
other astronomical observatories?
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
292
07A3822 Task Order 17
8) Is there archaeological evidence that Antelope Valley pictographic or cupule rock art sites were
also being used as shrines where offerings such as beads were being placed?
9) Do the distribution, environmental setting, archaeological setting, and material characteristics of
cupule rock art sites offer further insights into the cultural or religious motives for their creation?
10) Can the paucity of non-cupule petroglyph sites in the Antelope Valley be placed in a wider
context of regional cultural prehistory in the Mojave Desert? How can regional variations in the
occurrence of petroglyphic rock art in the Mojave Desert and adjacent regions (the Southern Sierra)
be accounted for?
Data Needs
Data for these research questions consists of rock art classified by type and style. In addition, the
distribution, environmental setting, and archaeological setting (type of site and location of the rock
art within the site) must be recorded. More difficult will be to place sites with rock art into a
chronological sequence. Reliable methods for dating rock art have yet to be fully developed.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
293
07A3822 Task Order 17
REFERENCES
A
Acebo, Nathan, and Mark W. Allen
2012 Getting to the Points of the Medieval Climatic Anomaly: An Analysis of Projectile Point
Assemblages from Sage Canyon. Paper presented at the 46th Annual Meeting of the
Society for California Archaeology Annual Meeting, San Diego.
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
2002 Executive Order No. 13007: Indian Sacred Sites (1996). Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation, Washington, D.C.
2011 Native American Traditional Cultural Landscape Action Plan. Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation, Washington, D.C. http://www.achp.gov/pdfs/native-american-traditionalcultural-landscapes-action-plan-11-23-2011.pdf
2013 The Relationship Between Executive Order 13007 Regarding Indian Sacred Sites and
Section 106. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Washington, D.C.
http://www.achp.gov/eo13007-106.html
2016 Information Paper on Cultural Landscapes: Understanding and Interpreting Indigenous
Places and Landscapes. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Washington, D.C.
http://www.achp.gov/docs/Information%20on%20Cultural%20Landscapes.pdf
Aldeias, Vera
2017 Experimental Approaches to Archaeological Fire Features and their Behavioral Relevance.
Current Anthropology 58 (Supplement 16):S191-S205.
Allen, Mark W.
1986 The Effects of Bow and Arrow Technology on Lithic Production and Exchange Systems: A
Test Case Using Debitage Analysis. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of
Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles.
2010 A Protohistoric House in the Argus Range, Naval Air Weapons Station, China
Lake. Pacific Coast Archaeological Quarterly 43:14-25
2011 Of Earth and Stone: Landscape Archaeology in the Mojave Desert. California
Archaeology 3(1):11-30.
2013 Living on the Edge: The Archaeology of Two Western Mojave Desert Landscapes.
Maturango Museum Publication No. 24. Ridgecrest, California.
Allen, Mark W.
2013 Living on the Edge: The Archaeology of Two Western Mojave Desert Landscapes.
Maturango Museum Publication No. 24. Ridgecrest, California.
Altschul, Jeffrey H., Carla R. Van West, and Patrice A. Teltser
1998 A Paleoclimatic-Archaeological Model of Prehistoric Settlement in the Mojave Desert. In
Springs and Lakes in a Desert Landscape: Archaeological and Paleoenvironmental
Investigations in the Silurian Valley and Adjacent Areas of Southeastern California, edited
by Brian F. Byrd, pp. 79-136. Report on file at the South Central Coastal Information
Center, California State University, Fullerton.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
294
07A3822 Task Order 17
Anderson, H. T.
1934 The Pronghorn Antelope in Los Angeles County. California Fish and Game 20:91-92.
Anderson, Marion Kat
2005 Tending the Wild: Native American Knowledge and the Management of California’s
Natural Resources. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Anderton, Alice
1988 The Language of the Kitanemuks of California. Doctoral Dissertation, Department of
Linguistics, University of California, Los Angeles.
Andrefsky, William J.
1998 Lithics: Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
2001 Lithic Debitage: Context, Form, Meaning. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Arkush, Brooke S.
1990 The Protohistoric in the Western Great Basin. The Journal of California and Great Basin
Anthropology 12(1):28-36.
1993 Yokuts Trade Networks and Native Culture Change in Central and Eastern California.
Ethnohistory 40(4):619-640.
Arnold, Jeanne E.
1987 Craft Specialization in the Prehistoric Channel Islands, California. University of California
Publications in Anthropology 18. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles.
Arnold, Jeanne E. (editor)
2001 The Origins of a Pacific Coast Chiefdom: the Chumash of the Channel Islands. University of
Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Arnold, Jeanne E. and Anthony P. Graesch
2001 The Evolution of Specialized Shellworking Among the Island Chumash. In The Origins of a
Pacific Coast Chiefdom: the Chumash of the Channel Islands, edited by Jeanne E. Arnold,
pp. 71-120. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Atalay, Sonya
2012 Community-Based Archaeology: Research With, By, and For Indigenous and Local
Communities. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles.
2014
Engaging Archaeology: Positivism, Objectivity, and Rigor in Activist Archaeology. In
Transforming Archaeology: Activist Practices and Prospects, edited by Sonya Atalay, Lee
Rains, Randall H. McGuire, and John R. Welch, pp. 45-59. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek,
California.
Atalay, Sonya and Christine A. Hastorf
2006 Food, Meals, and Daily Activities: Food Habits at Neolithic Catalhoyuk. American Antiquity
71(2):283-319.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
295
07A3822 Task Order 17
Atalay, Sonya, Lee Rains, Randall H. McGuire, and John R. Welch
2014 Transforming Archaeology. In Transforming Archaeology: Activist Practices and Prospects,
edited by Sonya Atalay, Lee Rains, Randall H. McGuire, and John R. Welch, pp. 7-28. Left
Coast Press, Walnut Creek, California.
B
Bacon, Steven N., Raymond M. Burke, Silvio K. Pezzopane, and Angela S. Jayko
2006 Last Glacial Maximum and Holocene Lake Levels of Owens Lake, Eastern California, USA.
Quaternary Science Reviews 25:1264-1282.
Ball D., R. Clayburn, R. Cordero, B. Edwards, V. Grussing, J. Ledford, R. McConnell, R. Monette, R.
Steelquist, E. Thorsgard, J. Townsend.
2017 Characterizing Tribal Cultural Landscapes, Volume I: Project Framework. National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries; Makah Tribe;
Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde Community of Oregon; Yurok Tribe; National
Marine Sanctuary Foundation. US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management, Pacific OCS Region, Camarillo, Caliofrnia. OCS Study BOEM 2017-001.
Ball, Edward
1962 Early Uses of California Plants. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Bancroft, Hubert Howe
1885 History of California, Vol. III, 1825-1840. A. J. Bancroft & Co., San Francisco.
Barlow, Renee K., and Duncan Metcalf
1996 Plant Utility Indices: Two Great Basin Examples. Journal of Archaeological Science 23(3):
351-371.
Barnosky, Anthony D. and Samantha S. B. Hopkins, Colleen N.
2004 Identification of Miscellaneous Mammals from the Pit Locality. In Biodiversity Response to
Climate Change in the Middle Pleistocene: The Porcupine Cave Fauna from Colorado,
edited by Anthony D. Barnosky, Chapter 16. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Barras, Judy
1984 Their Places Shall Know Them No More. Sierra Printers, Bakersfield.
Barrett, Samuel A.
1952
Material Aspects of Pomo Culture. Bulletin of the Public Museum of the City of Milwaukee
No. 20. Milwaukee.
Barrows, Davis P.
1967 Ethno-botany of the Coahuilla Indians. Malki Museum Press, Banning, California.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
296
07A3822 Task Order 17
Basgall, Mark E.
1987 Resource Intensification Among Hunter-Gatherers: Acorn Economics in Prehistoric
California. Research in Economic Anthropology 9:21-52.
1990 Hydration Dating of Coso Obsidian: Problems and Prospects. Paper presented at 24th
Annual Meeting of the Society for California Archaeology, Foster City.
2000 The Structure of Archaeological Landscapes in the North-Central Mojave Desert. In
Archaeological Passages: A Volume in Honor of Claude Nelson Warren, edited by Joan S.
Schneider, Robert M. Yohe II, and Jill K. Gardner, pp. 123-138. Western Center for
Archaeology and Paleontology, Publications in Archaeology No. 1, Hemet, California.
2008 An Archaeological Assessment of Late Holocene Environmental Change in the
Southwestern Great Basin. In From Avocados to Millingstones: Papers in Honor of Delbert
L. True, edited by Georgie Waugh and Mark E. Basgall, pp. 251-267. Monographs in
California and Great Basin Anthropology Number 5. California State University,
Sacramento.
Baxter, Colleen N.
2004 Leporidae from the DMNH Velvet Room Excavations and Mark’s Sink. In Biodiversity
Response to Climate Change in the Middle Pleistocene: The Porcupine Cave Fauna from
Colorado, edited by Anthony D. Barnosky, Chapter 15. University of California Press,
Berkeley.
Bean, Lowell
1972 Mukat’s People: The Cahuilla Indians of Southern California. University of California Press,
Berkeley and Los Angeles.
Bean, Lowell J. and Katherine S. Saubel
1972 Temalpakh: Cahuilla Indian Knowledge and Usage of Plants. Malki Museum Press,
Banning, California.
Bean, Lowell John and Charles R. Smith
1978a Gabrielino. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8: California, edited by R. F.
Heizer, pp. 538-549. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
1978b Serrano. In Handbook of North American Indians. Volume 8: California; edited by R. F.
Heizer, pp. 570-574. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Bean, Lowell John, Sylvia B. Vane, Michael K. Lerch, and Jackson Young
1981 Native American Places in the San Bernardino National Forest, San Bernardino and Riverside
Counties, California. Cultural Systems Research, Menlo Park, California. Submitted to the
USDA Forest Service, South Zone Contracting Office, Arcadia, California.
Bean, Lowell John, Sylvia Brakke Vane, and Jackson Young
1991 The Cahuilla Landscape: The Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains. Ballena Press
Anthropological Papers No. 37. Ballena Press, Menlo Park, California.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
297
07A3822 Task Order 17
Beaton, J. M.
1991 Extensification and Intensification in Central California Prehistory. Antiquity 65(249):946952.
Beck, Charlotte, and George T. Jones
2010 Clovis and Western Stemmed: Population Migration and the Meeting of Two
Technologies in the Intermountain West. American Antiquity 75:81-116.
Bedrossian, T. L., P. Roffers, C. A. Hayhurst, J. T. Lancaster, and W. R. Short
2012 Geologic Compilation of Quaternary Surficial Deposits in Southern California. California
Geological Survey Special Report 217.
Bellwood, Peter
2003 The Farming/Language Dispersal Hypothesis. In Examining the Farming/Language
Dispersal Hypothesis, edited by Peter Bellwood and Colin Renfrew, pp. 1-24. Mc Donald
Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge, UK.
Benedict, Ruth
1924 A Brief Sketch of Serrano Culture. American Anthropologist, 26(3):366-392.
Bennyhoff, J. A. and R. E. Hughes
1987 Shell Bead and Ornament Exchange Networks between California and the Western Great
Basin. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History 64:79-175. New
York.
Benson, Arlene
1997 The Noontide Sun: The Field Journals of the Reverend Stephen Bowers, Pioneer California
Archaeologist. Ballena Press Anthropological Papers, No. 44. Ballena Press, Menlo Park,
Ca.
Bernard, Jacqueline, David Robinson, and Fraser Sturt
2014 Points of Refuge in the South Central California Colonial Hinterlands. In Indigenous
Landscapes and Spanish Missions: New Perspectives from Archaeology and Ethnohistory,
edited by Lee M. Panich and Tsim D. Schneider, pp. 154-171. University of Arizona Press,
Tucson.
Bernard, Julienne Lorraine
2008 An Archaeological Study of Resistance, Persistence, and Culture Change in the San
Emigdio Canyon, Kern County, California. Doctoral Dissertation, Department of
Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles.
Bettinger, Robert L.
1982 Aboriginal Exchange and Territoriality in Owens Valley, California. In Contexts for
Prehistoric Exchange, edited by Jonathan E. Ericson and Timothy K. Earle, pp.103-127.
Academic Press, New York.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
298
07A3822 Task Order 17
2001
2015
Holocene Hunter-Gatherers. In Archaeology at the Millennium, edited by G. Feinman and
T. D. Price, pp. 137-195. Kluwer/Plenum, New York.
Orderly Anarchy: Sociopolitical Evolution in Aboriginal California. University of California
Press, Oakland, California.
Bettinger, Robert L. and Martin Baumhoff
1982 The Numic Spread: Great Basin Cultures in Competition. American Antiquity 47:485-503.
Bettinger, Robert L., and Jelmer W. Eerkens
1999 Point Typologies, Cultural Transmission, and the Spread of the Bow and Arrow
Technology in the Prehistoric Great Basin. American Antiquity 64:231-242.
Bettinger, Robert L., Raven Garvey, and Shannon Tushingham
2015 Hunter-Gatherers: Archaeological and Evolutionary Theory, Second Edition. Springer, New
York.
Bettinger, Robert L., James F. O’Connell, and David H. Thomas
1991 Projectile Points as Time Markers in the Great Basin. American Anthropologist 93:166-172.
Bettinger, Robert L. and R. E. Taylor
1974 Suggested Revisions in Archaeological Sequences of the Great Basin and Interior
Southern California. Nevada Archaeological Survey Research Papers 5:1-26. Reno.
Bettinger, Robert L. and Eric Wolhgemuth
1976 The Development of Pinyon Exploitation in Central Eastern California. Journal of California
Anthropology 3(1):81-95.
2006 California Plant Use. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 3: Environment,
Origins, and Population, edited by D. Ubelacker, pp. 274-283. Smithsonian Institution,
Washington, D.C.
2008 Resource Ranking Among Hunter-Gatherers. In From Avocados to Millingstones: Papers in
Honor of Delbert L. True, edited by Georgie Waugh and Mark E. Basgall. Monographs in
California and Great Basin Anthropology Number 5. California State University,
Sacramento.
2011 Archaeological and Ethnographic Evidence for Indigenous Plant Use in California. In
Subsistence Economies of Indigenous North American Societies, edited by B. D. Smith, pp.
113-129. Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press, Washington, D.C.
Binford, Lewis R.
1965 A Consideration of Archaeological Research Design. American Antiquity 29:425-441.
1968 Post-Pleistocene Adaptations. In New Perspectives in Archaeology, edited by S. R. Binford
and L. R. Binford, pp. 313–341. Aldine, Chicago.
1971 Mortuary Practices: Their Study and Their Potential. In Approaches to the Social
Dimensions of Mortuary Practices, edited by J. A. Brown. Society for American
Archaeology Memoir No. 25, Society for American Archaeology, Washington, D.C.
1979 Organization and Formation Processes: Looking at Curated Technologies. Journal of
Anthropological Archaeology 35:255-273.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
299
07A3822 Task Order 17
1980
1983
Willow Smoke and Dogs’ Tails: Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems and Archaeological
Site Formation. American Antiquity 45:4-20.
Long Term Land Use Patterning: Some Implications for Archaeology. In Working at
Archaeology, edited by Lewis R. Binford, pp. 379-386. Academic Press, New York.
Bird, D. W. and J. F. O’Connell
2006 Behavioral Ecology and Archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Research 14:143-188.
Blackburn, Thomas
1975 The Chumash Revolt of 1824: A Native Account. Journal of California Anthropology
2(2):223-227.
Blackburn, Thomas C. and Lowell J. Bean
1978 Kitanemuk. In Handbook of North American Indians. Volume 8: California, edited by
Robert F. Heizer, pp. 564-569. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Blake, William P.
1856 Geological Report by William P. Blake, Geologist and Mineralogist of the Expedition.
Reports of Explorations and Surveys, to Ascertain the Most Practicable and Economical
Route for a Railroad from the Mississippi River to the Pacific Ocean, Volume V, Part 2:
Routes in California, to Connect with the Routes near the Thirty-Fifth and Thirty-Second
Parallels, Explored by Lieutenant R. S. Williamson, Corps of Topographical Engineers, in
1853. United States War Department, Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C.
Blust, R.
2000
Why Lexicostatistics Doesn't Work: The ‘Universal Constant’ Hypothesis and the
Austronesian Languages. In Time Depth In Historical Linguistics, edited by C. Renfrew, A.
McMahon, and L. Trask, pp. 311–332. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research,
Cambridge, UK.
Bolton, Herbert E.
1930 Anza’s California Expeditions, Vol. II. University of California Press, Berkeley.
1935 In the South San Joaquin Ahead of Garcés. Kern County Historical Society, Bakersfield,
California.
Bornyasz, Margaret
2014 Federal Jurisdiction Delineation for the SR 138 Northwest Corridor Improvement Project,
Interstate 5 to State Route 14, Los Angeles County, California. Prepared by ECORP
Consulting, Inc. for California Department of Transportation Environmental Planning,
District 7, Los Angeles.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
300
07A3822 Task Order 17
Boscana, Fr. Gerónimo
1933 Chinigchinich: a revised and annotated version of Alfred Robinson's translation of Father
Gerónimo Boscana's historical account of the belief, usages, customs, and extravagancies of
the Indians of this mission of San Juan Capistrano called the Acagchemem Tribe. With
annotations by J. P. Harrington. Fine Arts Press, Santa Ana, California.
Brock, James
1994 Test Excavation and Surface Collection on the Southern Portion of CA-KER-302, Hidden
Valley Area of the Rosamond Hills, Kern County, California. On file at the Southern San
Joaquin Valley Information Center, California State University, Bakersfield.
Brooks, George R. (ed.)
1977 The Southwest Expedition of Jedediah S. Smith: His Personal Account of the Journey to
California, 1826-1827. Arthur H. Clark Co., Los Angeles.
Brooks, George R., editor
1977 The Southwest Expedition of Jedediah S. Smith: His Personal Account of the Journey to
California, 1826-1827. Arthur H. Clark Co., Los Angeles.
Brostoff, W. N., J. G. Holmquist, J. Schmidt-Gengenbach, and P. V. Zimba
2010 Fairy, Tadpole, and Clam Shrimps (Branchiopoda) in Seasonally Inundated Clay Pans in
the Western Mojave Desert and Effect on Primary Producers. Saline Systems 6:11.
Broughton, Jack M.
1994 Late Holocene Resource Intensification in the Sacramento Valley, California: The
Vertebrate Evidence. Journal of Archaeological Science 21(4):501-514.
1999 Resource Depression and Intensification During the Late Holocene, San Francisco Bay:
Evidence from the Emeryville Shell Mound Vertebrate Fauna. Anthropological Records vol.
32. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles.
2001 Resource Intensification and Late Holocene Human Impacts on Pacific Coast Bird
Populations: Evidence from the Emeryville Shellmound Avifauna. In Posing Questions for a
Scientific Archaeology, edited by Terry L. Hunt, Carl P. Lipo and Sarah L. Sterling, pp. 251278. Bergin & Garvey Publishers, South Hadley, Massachusetts.
Brown, David, Jorge Cancino, Kevin Clark, Myrna Smith and Jim Yoakum
2006 An Annotated Bibliography of References to Historical Distributions of Pronghorn in
Southern and Baja California. Bulletin of the Southern California Academy of Sciences
105(1):1-16.
Brown, Kaitlin M., Jacques Connan, Nicholas W. Poister, René L. Vellanoweth, John Zumberge, and
Michael H. Engel
2014 Sourcing Archaeological Asphaltum (Bitumen) from the California Channel Islands to
Submarine Seeps. Journal of Archaeological Science 43:66-76.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
301
07A3822 Task Order 17
Bryant, Vaughn, M., Jr. and Stephen A. Hall
1993 Archaeological Palynology in the United States: A Critique. American Antiquity 58(2): 277286.
Budinger, Fred E., Jr. and Harriot Spinney
2004 Prehistory of Cultural Resources Management Region 2 at Edwards Air Force Base, Kern
and Los Angeles Counties, California. Prepared by Tetra Tech, Inc., San Bernardino, CA for
Environmental Management Office, Conservation Branch, Edwards Air Force Base.
Buonasera, Tammy Y.
2012 Expanding Archaeological Approaches to Ground Stone: Modeling Manufacturing Costs,
Analyzing Absorbed Organic Residues, and Exploring Social Dimensions of Milling Tools.
Doctoral dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson.
Bush, Leslie L.
2004 Boundary Conditions: Macrobotanical Remains and the Oliver Phase of Central Indiana,
A.D. 1200–1450. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Byrd, Brian F., Jerome King, William Hildebrandt, and Kelly McGuire
2011 Prehistoric Archaeological Overview and Research Design, Mojave National Preserve, San
Bernardino County, California. Prepared by Far Western Anthropological Research Group,
Inc. Prepared for Mojave National Preserve.
C
California Department of Fish and Game
2013 Land Cover/Natural Vegetation Communities, West Mojave and Eastern Slopes, DRECP.
https://databasin.org/datasets/a36c61389d0f43aa85a45e6e6248507b
Campbell, Paul D.
2007 Earth Pigments and Paint of the California Indians: Meaning and Technology. Paul
Douglas, La Crescenta, California.
Cannon, Amanda C.
2016 Shell Beads and Other Worked-Shell Artifacts. In People in a Changing Land: The
Archaeology and History of the Ballona in Los Angeles, California. Volume 3: Material
Culture and Subsistence Practices, edited by Seetha N. Reddy and John G. Douglass, pp.
153-250. Submitted to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District, Los Angeles,
California. Technical Series 94, Statistical Research, Inc., Tucson, Arizona and Redlands,
California.
Castillo, Edward D.
1978 The Impact of Euro-American Exploration and Settlement. In Handbook of North
American Indians, Volume 8, California, edited by R. F. Heizer, pp. 99-127. Smithsonian
Institution, Washington D.C.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
302
07A3822 Task Order 17
Chandler, Evelyn N., Roger D. Mason, Cary Cotterman, Sara Bholat, Sara Hale, Alfredo Aguirre,
Jennifer Howard, and Melanie Knypstra
2010 Prehistoric Themes Study for Cultural Resources Management Region 2, Edwards Air
Force Base, California. Prepared for Tetra Tech, Inc., San Bernardino, and Environmental
Management Office, Edwards Air Force Base, California.
Chapman, J. A. and A. L. Harman
1972 The Breeding Biology of a Brush Rabbit Population. Journal of Wildlife Management
36:816-823.
Cheatham, N. H., and J. R. Haller
1975 An Annotated List of California Habitat Types. Unpublished manuscript on file at
University of California Natural Land and Water Reserve System, Oakland, California.
Christenson, Lynn
1990 Western Mojave Subsistence: Faunal Analysis at the Farm Drop Zone Site, LAN-1296 &
1158. Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology 3:365-380.
1991 Subsistence Activities at KER-2817 and KER-2817, Edwards AFB, California. Appendix 2 in
Final Report Archaeological Investigations at CA-KER-2816 and CA-KER-2817, Edwards
Air Force Base, California. On file at South San Joaquin Valley Archaeological Information
Center.
Clarke, Charlotte Bringle
1977 Edible and Useful Plants of California. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Clauss, Lee Rains
2014 Betwixt and Between: Archaeology’s Liminality and Activism’s Transformative Promise. In
Transforming Archaeology: Activist Practices and Prospects, edited by Sonya Atalay, Lee
Rains Clauss, Randall H. McGuire, and John R. Welch, pp. 29-44. Left Coast Press, Walnut
Creek, California.
Codding, Brian F., Douglas W. Bird and Terry L. Jones
2012 A Land of Work: Foraging Behavior and Ecology. In Contemporary Issues in California
Archaeology, edited by T. L Jones and J. E. Perry, pp. 113-131. Left Coast Press, Walnut
Creek, California.
Colwell-Chanthaphonh, Chip and T. J. Ferguson
2008 Introduction: The Collaborative Continuum. In Collaboration in Archaeological Practice:
Engaging Descendant Communities, edited by Chip Colwell-Chanthaphonh and T.J.
Ferguson, pp. 1-32.
Colwell-Chanthaphonh, Chip, T. J. Ferguson, Dorothy Lippert, Randall H. McGuire, George R.
Nicholas, Joe E. Watkins, and Larry J. Zimmerman
2010 The Premise and Promise of Indigenous Archaeology. American Antiquity 75(2):228-238.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
303
07A3822 Task Order 17
Cook, Sherburne F.
1960 Colonial Expeditions to the Interior of California: Central Valley, 1800-1820. University of
California Anthropological Records 16(6):239-292. Berkeley.
Coombs, Gary B.
1979 The Archaeology of the Western Mojave. Cultural Resources Publications, Archaeology.
Bureau of Land Management, California.
Costa, W. R., K.A. Nagy and V. Shoemaker
1976 Observations of the Behavior of Jackrabbits (Lepus californicus) in the Mojave Desert.
Journal of Mammalogy 57(2): 399-402.
Costamagno, Sandrine, Isabelle Thery-Parisot, Jean-Philip Brugal and Rapahele Guibert
2005 Taphonomic Consequences of the Use of Bones as Fuel. In Biosphere to Lithosphere: New
Studies In Vertebrate Taphonomy, edited by Terry O’Connor, pp. 52-63. Oxbow Books,
Oxford.
Coues, Elliott, editor
1900 On The Trail of a Spanish Pioneer: The Diary and Itinerary of Francisco Garcés, Missionary
Priest, in His Travels Through Sonora, Arizona, and California 1775- 1776. 2 vols. Francis P.
Harper, New York.
Cowie, Laura C.
2014 Faunal Analysis of Sage Canyon in the Western Mojave Desert. Master’s thesis,
Department of Anthropology, California State University, Fullerton.
Crespí, Fr. Juan
2001 A Description of Distant Roads: Original Journals of the First Expedition into California,
1769-1770, edited by Alan K. Brown. California State University – San Diego Press, San
Diego, California.
Cunningham, Robert, Wendy Blumel, Kristina Lindgren, Elizabeth Denniston, and Evelyn Chandler
2013 Phase I Cultural Resources Inventory for the Oro Verde Solar Project, Near the Town of
Mojave, Kern County, California and within Management Region 1, Edwards Air Force
Base, California. Prepared by ECORP Consulting, Inc., Redlands, California. Prepared for
the United States Air Force, Edwards Air Force Base, California.
Cutter, Donald, editor
1995 Writings of Mariano Payeras. Translated and edited by Donald Cutter, Ph.D. Bellerophon
Books, Santa Barbara, California.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
304
07A3822 Task Order 17
D
Dahdul, Mariam
2002 Beads and Pendants from the Coachella Valley, California. Pacific Coast Archaeological
Society Quarterly 38(2-3):47-64.
2011 Origins of Olivella Beads in the Coachella Valley, Alta California. Journal of California
Archaeology 3(2):177-198.
Dakin, Susana Bryant
1939 A Scotch Paisano in Old Los Angeles: Hugo Reid’s Life in California, 1832-1852, Derived
from His Correspondence. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Davis, James T.
1961 Trade Routes and Economic Exchange among the Indians of California. University of
California Archaeological Survey Reports No. 54.
DeFoliart, Gene R.
1991 Insects formerly Used as Food by Indigenous Populations of North America North of
Mexico. http://labs.rusell.wisc.edu/insectsasfood/files/2012/09/Book_Chapter_2.pdf
Dibblee, Thomas W., Jr.
1954 Geology of the Red Rock Canyon-Last Chance Canyon Area, Kern County, California.
California Division of Mines Bulletin No. 170.
1958 Geologic Map of the Boron Quadrangle, Kern and San Bernardino Counties, California.
United States Geological Survey National Geologic Map Database. Electronic Document.
https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/ngm-bin/pdp/zui_viewer.pl?id=21454. Accessed December 15,
2017.
1959a Preliminary Geologic Map of the Mojave Quadrangle. United States Geological Survey
National Geologic Map Database. Electronic Document. https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/ngmbin/pdp/zui_viewer.pl?id=21456. Accessed December 15, 2017.
1959b Geology of the Rosamond Quadrangle, California. United States Geological Survey
National Geologic Map Database. Electronic Document. https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/ngmbin/pdp/zui_viewer.pl?id=21441. Accessed December 15, 2017.
1959c Geologic Map of the Alpine Butte Quadrangle, California. United States Geological Survey
National Geologic Map Database. Electronic Document. https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/ngmbin/pdp/zui_viewer.pl?id=21381. Accessed December 15, 2017.
1960a Preliminary Geologic Map of the Shadow Mountains Quadrangle, Los Angeles and San
Bernardino Counties, California. United States Geological Survey National Geologic Map
Database. Electronic Document.
https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/ngm-bin/pdp/zui_viewer.pl?id=21460.
1960b Geology of the Rogers Lake and Kramer Quadrangles, California. United States Geological
Survey
National
Geologic
Map
Database.
Electronic
Document.
https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/ngm-bin/pdp/zui_viewer.pl?id=21376. Accessed December 15,
2017.
1967 Aerial Geology of the Western Mojave Desert, California. United States Department of the
Interior Geological Survey Professional Paper 522, Washington D.C.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
305
07A3822 Task Order 17
2002
Geologic Map of the Lake Hughes and Del Sur Quadrangles, Los Angeles County,
California. United States Geological Survey National Geologic Map Database. Electronic
Document. https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/ngm-bin/pdp/zui_viewer.pl?id=34315. Accessed
December 15, 2017.
2006 Geologic Map of the Frazier Mountain & Lebec Quadrangles, Los Angeles, Ventura, and
Kern Counties, California. United States Geological Survey National Geologic Map
Database. Electronic Document.
https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/ngm-bin/pdp/zui_viewer.pl?id=34474.
2008a Geologic Map of the Neenach & Willow Springs 15 Minute Quadrangles, Kern and Los
Angeles Counties, California. United States Geological Survey National Geologic Map
Database. Electronic Document.
https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/ngm-bin/pdp/zui_viewer.pl?id=34680.
2008b Geologic Map of the Cross Mountain & Saltdale 15 Minute Quadrangles. United States
Geological Survey National Geologic Map Database. Electronic Document.
https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/ngm-bin/pdp/zui_viewer.pl?id=34704.
2008c Geologic Map of the Randsburg 15 Minute Quadrangle, Kern & San Bernardino Counties,
California. United States Geological Survey National Geologic Map Database. Electronic
Document. https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/ngm-bin/pdp/zui_viewer.pl?id=34705.
Drover, Christopher E.
1979 The Late Prehistoric Human Ecology of the Northern Mohave Sink, San Bernardino County,
California. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Riverside.
DuBois, C. G.
1908 The Religion of the Luiseño Indians of Southern California. University of California
Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 8:69-186.
Dunnell, Robert C.
1978 Style and Function: A Fundamental Dichotomy. American Antiquity 43:192-202.
1980 Evolutionary Theory and Archaeology. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory
3:35-99. Academic Press, New York.
E
Earle, David D.
1989 Ethnohistory of the Barrel Springs Site (LAN-82). Antelope Valley History 2(1):75-86.
1990 New Evidence on the Political Geography of the Antelope Valley and Western Mojave
Desert at Spanish Contact. In Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Antelope Valley and
Vicinity, edited by Bruce Love and William H. DeWitt, pp. 87-104. Antelope Valley
Archaeological Society, Occasional Papers No. 2. Lancaster, California.
1996 Ethnohistoric Overview of the Edwards Air Force Base Region and the Western Mojave
Desert. Prepared by Brian Mooney and Associates, San Diego, for Environmental
Management Office, Edwards Air Force Base, California.
1997 The Colonial Latin American Native Labor Context and the Evolution of Native Labor
Relations in Spanish and Mexican Southern California. Paper presented at the 31st
Annual Meeting of the Society for California Archaeology, Rohnert Park, March 27-30,
1997.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
306
07A3822 Task Order 17
2003
Overview of the Buena Vista Lake Region, Ethnogeography and Ethnohistory. Prepared for
Far Western Anthropological Group, Davis, California and California Department of
Transportation, District 6, Fresno, California.
2004a Chemehuevi Population Movements and the Numic Frontier in the Western and Central
Mojave Desert After European Contact. In Papers in Antelope Valley Archaeology and
Anthropology, edited by Roger W. Robinson, pp. 135-146. Antelope Valley
Archaeological Society, Occasional Papers 4. Lancaster, California.
2004b Ethnohistorical and Ethnographic Overview and Cultural Affiliation Study of the Fort Irwin
Region and the Central Mojave Desert. Prepared for TRC Solutions, Windsor, Connecticut,
and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, CERL Laboratory, Champaign, Illinois. Earle and
Associates, Palmdale, California.
2004c Desert Frontier Settlement and Land Use in the Antelope Valley Region, 1850- 1950. In The
Human Journey and Ancient Life in California's Deserts: Proceedings of the 2001
Millennium Conference, Barstow, California, May 9-12, 2001, edited by Mark Allen and
Judyth Reed, pp. 283-298. Maturango Museum Press, Publication No. 15, Ridgecrest,
California.
2004d Native Population and Settlement in the Western Mojave Desert in the Eighteenth and
Nineteenth Centuries. In The Human Journey and Ancient Life in California's Deserts:
Proceedings of the 2001 Millennium Conference, Barstow, California, May 9-12, 2001,
edited by Mark W. Allen and Judyth Reed, pp. 173-186. Maturango Museum Publication
No. 15. Maturango Museum Press, Ridgecrest, California.
2005 The Mojave River and the Central Mojave Desert: Native Settlement, Travel, and Exchange
in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries. Journal of California and Great Basin
Anthropology 25(1):1-38.
2009a Ethnographic Overview and Native Cultural Affiliation Study of the Chocolate Mountains
Aerial Gunnery Range and Surrounding Region in Southeastern California. Prepared for
EDAW, Inc., San Diego, California. Earle and Associates, Palmdale, California.
2009b Ethnohistorical Overview and Cultural Affiliation Study of the Mojave National Preserve.
Prepared for Applied Earthworks, Fresno, California, and Mojave National Preserve,
National Park Service, Barstow, California. Earle and Associates, Palmdale, California.
2010a Coiled Baskets from the Morongo Collection. San Bernardino County Museum Quarterly
55(2&3):1-23.
2010b Fray Joaquín Pascaul Nuez’s Account of the Mojave River Expedition of 1819. Journal of
California and Great Basin Anthropology 30(2):184-192.
2011 Ethnohistory. In Handbook of the Kawaiisu, edited by Alan Garfinkel and Harold Williams,
pp. 69-76. Wa-hi Sina'avi Press, Tehachapi, California.
2015 Ethnohistoric and Ethnographic Overview for SR-138 Northwest Corridor Improvement
Project, Antelope Valley, California. Prepared for the California Department of
Transportation, District 7, Los Angeles. Prepared by ECORP Consulting, Inc., Santa Ana.
2017 The 'Ritual Mode of Production' in the Antelope Valley. Manuscript on file, Department of
Anthropology, Antelope Valley College, Lancaster, California.
Earle, David, Barry Boyer, Reid Bryson, Robert Bryson, Mark Campbell, James Johannesmeyer, Kelly
Lark, Cole Parker, Matthew Pittman, Luz Ramirez, Margaret Ronning, and Jackson
Underwood.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
307
07A3822 Task Order 17
1997
Cultural Resources Overview and Management Plan for Edwards AFB, California, Volume
1: Overview of Prehistoric Cultural Resources. Environmental Management Office,
Edwards Air Force Base. On file at the South Central Coastal Information Center,
California State University, Fullerton.
Earle, David D., Judy McKeehan, and Roger D. Mason
1995 Cultural Resources Overview of the Little Rock Watershed, Angeles National Forest,
California. Technical report prepared by Chambers Group, Inc., Irvine, California for
Angeles National Forest. On file at the South Central Coastal Information Center,
California State University, Fullerton.
Earle, David D. and Darcy L. Wiewall
2011 Nineteenth-Century Kitanemuk Ceramic Production. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society
Quarterly 48(1-2):97-107.
Ebeling, Walter
1986 Handbook of Indian Fibers of Arid America. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los
Angeles.
Eddy, John
2013 The Early Middle Period Stone Bead Interdependence Network. Unpublished Master’s
thesis, Department of Anthropology, California State University, Northridge.
Eerkens, Jelmer W.
1999 Common Pool Resources, Buffer Zones, and Jointly Owned Territories: Hunter-Gatherer
Land and Resource Tenure in Fort Irwin, Southeastern California. Human Ecology 27(2):297318.
2003a Sedentism, Storage and the Intensification of Small Seeds: Prehistoric Developments in
Owens, Valley, California. North American Archaeologist 24(4): 281-309.
2003b Towards a Chronology of Brownware Pottery in the Western Great Basin: A Case Study
from Owens Valley. North American Archaeologist 24(1):1-27.
Eerkens, Jelmer W., Jerome King, and Eric Wohlgemuth
2004
The Prehistoric Development of Intensive Green-Cone Pinyon Processing in Eastern
California. Journal of Field Archaeology 29(1-2):17-27.
Eerkens, Jelmer W., and Jeffrey S. Rosenthal
2004 Are Obsidian Subsources Meaningful Units of Analysis?: Temporal and Spatial Patterning
of Subsources in the Coso Volcanic Field, Southeastern California. Journal of
Archaeological Science 31:21-29.
Eerkens, Jelmer W., Jeffery S. Rosenthal, D. Craig Young, and Jay King
2007 Early Holocene Landscape Archaeology in the Coso Basin, Northeastern Mojave Desert,
California. North American Archaeologist 28(2): 87-112.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
308
07A3822 Task Order 17
Elston, Robert G., and Charles D. Zeier
1983 The Sugarloaf Obsidian Quarry: What It Is and What To Do About It. Report submitted by
Intermountain Research to Philip Brandt Reddick (Irvine, CA).
1984 The Sugarloaf Obsidian Quarry. Naval Weapons Center Administrative Publication No.
313, China Lake, California.
Enzel, Yehouda, William J. Brown, Roger Y. Anderson, Leslie D. McFadden, and Steven G. Wells
1992 Short-Duration Holocene Lakes in the Mojave River Drainage Basin, Southern California.
Quaternary Research 28:60-73.
Enzel, Yehouda, Steven Wells, and Nicholas Lancaster (editors)
2003 Paleoenvironments and Paleohydrology of the Mojave and Southern Great Basin Deserts.
The Geological Society of America, Special Paper 368.
Ericson, Jonathan E.
1977 Egalitarian Exchange Systems in California: A Preliminary View. In Exchange Systems in
Prehistory, edited by Timothy K. Earle and Jonathan E. Ericson, pp. 109-126. Academic
Press, New York.
1981 Exchange and Production Systems in California Prehistory: The Results of Hydration Dating
and Chemical Characterization of Obsidian Sources. BAR International Series No. 110.
Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.
1982 Production for Obsidian Exchange in California. In Contexts for Prehistoric Exchange,
edited by Jonathan E. Ericson and Timothy K. Earle, pp.129-148. Academic Press, New
York.
1984 Toward the Analysis of Lithic Production Systems. In Prehistoric Quarry and Lithic
Production, edited by Jonathan E. Ericson and Barbara D. Purdy, pp. 1-9. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Eshleman, Jason A. and David G. Smith
2007 Prehistoric Mitochondrial DNA and Population Movements. In California Prehistory:
Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, pp.
291-298. Altamira Press, Lanham, Maryland.
F
Ferguson, T. J.
1996 Native Americans and the Practice of Archaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology 25:
63–79.
Fitzgerald, R. T., T. L. Jones, and A. Schroth
2005 Ancient Long Distance Trade in Western North America: New AMS Radiocarbon Dates
from Southern California. Journal of Archaeological Science 32:423-43.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
309
07A3822 Task Order 17
Flannery, Kent V.
1971 The Origins and Ecological Effects of Early Domestication in Iran and the Near East. In The
Domestication and Exploitation of Plants and Animals, edited by S. Struever, pp. 50–79.
American Museum Sourcebooks in Anthropology. Natural History Press, Garden City,
New York.
Flenniken, Jeffery J., and Philip J. Wilke
1989 Typology, Technology, and Chronology of Great Basin Dart Points. American
Anthropologist 91:149-158.
Ford, Pamela
1990 Antelope, Deer, Bighorn Sheep, and Mountain Goats: a Guide to the Carpals. Journal of
Ethnobiology 10(2):169-181.
Foster, Michael
1996 Language and the Culture History of North America. In Handbook of North American
Indians Vol. 17: Languages, edited by Ives Goddard, pp. 64-110. Smithsonian Institution,
Washington, D.C.
Fowler, Catherine S.
1983 Some Lexical Clues to Uto-Aztecan Prehistory. International Journal of American
Linguistics 49(14):224-257.
1986 Subsistence. In The Smithsonian Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 11, Great
Basin, edited by W. L. D’Azevedo, pp. 64-97. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington,
D.C.
2002 What's in a Name? Some Southern Paiute Names for Mojave Desert Springs as Keys to
Environmental Perception. In Conference Proceedings: Spring-Fed Wetlands: Important
Scientific and Cultural Resources of the Intermountain Region, 2002. Desert Research Institute,
Reno and Las Vegas, Nevada. http:www.wetlands.dri.edu
2004 Southern Paiute - Chemehuevi Trails Across the Mojave Desert: Isabel Kelly’s Data, 19321933. Paper Presented at the 2004 Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological
Association, Atlanta, Georgia.
Fowler, Don D.
1986 History of Research. In The Smithsonian Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 1,
Great Basin, edited by W. L. D’Azevedo, pp. 15-30. Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington, D.C.
Frederickson, David A.
1994 Changes in Prehistoric Exchange Systems in the Alamo Locality, Contra Costa County,
California. In Towards a New Taxonomic System for Central California Archaeology: Essays
by James A. Bennyhoff and David A. Frederickson, edited by R. E. Hughes, pp. 57-63.
Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility No. 52.
Berkeley.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
310
07A3822 Task Order 17
G
Gamble, Lynn H.
2008 The Chumash World at European Contact: Power, Trade, and Feasting among Complex
Hunter–Gatherers. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Gamble, Lynn, and Glenn Russell
2002 A View from the Mainland: Late Holocene Cultural Developments Among the Ventureño
Chumash and the Tongva. In Catalysts to Complexity: Late Holocene Societies of the
California Coast, edited by Jon M. Erlandson and Terry L. Jones, pp. 101-126. Cotsen
Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.
Gamble, Lynn, Philip Walker, and Glenn Russell
2001 An Integrative Approach to Mortuary Analysis: Social and Symbolic Dimensions of
Chumash Burial Practices. American Antiquity 66(2): 185-212.
Gardner, Jill K.
2002 Testing a Regional Model of Changing Settlement and Subsistence Patterns in the Western
Mojave Desert: Results from the Coffee Break Site. Coyote Press Archives in Great Basin
Prehistory No. 6. Salinas, CA.
2007 The Potential Impact of the Medieval Climatic Anomaly on Human Populations in the
Western Mojave Desert. Coyote Press Archives of Great Basin Prehistory Number 7.
Coyote Press, Salinas, California.
Garfinkel, Alan P.
2007 Archaeology and Rock Art of the Eastern Sierra and Great Basin Frontier. Maturango
Museum, Ridgecrest, California.
Garfinkel, Alan and Harold Williams
2011 Handbook of the Kawaiisu. Wa-hi Sina'avi Press, Tehachapi, California.
Garfinkel, Alan P., Donald R. Austin, and Harold Williams
2009 Myth, Ritual and Rock Art: Coso Decorated Animal-Humans and the Animal Master. Rock Art
Research 26(2):179-198.
Geiger, Maynard and Clement W. Meighan
1976 As the Padres Saw Them, California Indian Life and Customs as Reported by The Franciscan
Missionaries 1813-1815. The Santa Barbara Bicentennial Series, Number 1. Santa Barbara
Mission Archive Library, Santa Barbara.
General Land Office
1855 Township Survey Plat of Township 5 North, Range 12 West, San Bernardino Base and
Meridian, Surveyed by Henry Hancock. General Land Office, San Francisco.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
311
07A3822 Task Order 17
Giambastiani, Mark, Sinead Ni Ghabhlain, Micah Hale, Andrea Catacora, Dave Iversen, Mark Becker,
and Susan Hogan-Conrad
2007 Phase II Cultural Resource Evaluaitons at 21 Sites along the Northwestern and West
Boundaries, Edwards Air Force Base, Kern and Los Angeles Counties, California. Report on
File at the South Central Costal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton.
Gibson, Robert O. and Henry C Koerper
2000 AMS Radiocarbon Dating of Shell Beads and Ornaments from CA-ORA-378. Journal of
California and Great Basin Anthropology 22(2).
Giffen, Helen and Arthur Woodward
1942 The Story of El Tejon. Dawson's Book Shop, Los Angeles.
Gifford, Edward W.
1918 Clans and Moieties in Southern California. University of California Publications in
American Archaeology and Anthropology 14(2):155-219. Berkeley.
Gifford-Gonzalez, Diane and William R. Hildebrandt
2012 If Mussels Weighed a Ton: Problems with Quantifying Santa Barbara Channel
Archaeofaunas. In Exploring Methods of Faunal Analysis: Insights from California
Archaeology, edited by Terry L. Joslin and Michael E. Glassow. UCLA Cotsen Institute of
Archaeology, Los Angeles, pp. 97-107.
Gilreath, Amy J., and William R. Hildebrandt
1997 Prehistoric Use of the Coso Volcanic Field. Contributions of the University of California
Archaeological Research Facility, No. 56.
2011 Current Perspectives on the Production and Conveyance of Coso Obsidian. In
Perspectives on Prehistoric Trade and Exchange in California and the Great Basin edited by
Richard E. Hughes, pp. 171-188. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Glassow, Michael
2013 Contemporary Issues in California Archaeology. The Journal of Island and Coastal
Archaeology 8(3):448-449.
Glassow, Michael A. and Larry R. Wilcoxon
1988 Coastal Adaptations near Point Conception, California, with Particular Regard to Shellfish
Exploitation. American Antiquity 53:36-51.
Glennan, William S.
1970 Preliminary Investigations into Subsistence and Settlement Patterns in the Antelope
Valley between 3,000 and 5,000 B.C. Report on file at Antelope Valley College, Lancaster,
CA.
1971 A Glimpse at the Prehistory of Antelope Valley: Archaeological Investigations at the
Sweetster Site (Ker-302). Kern-Antelope Historical Society, Rosamond, CA.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
312
07A3822 Task Order 17
Goldberg, Susan K. (editor)
1999 The People of Yaangaˀ: Archaeological Investigations at CA-LAN-1575/H. Manuscript on
file, Applied Earthworks, Hemet, California.
Golla, Victor
2007 Linguistic Prehistory. In California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity,
edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, pp. 71-82. Altamira Press, Lanham, Maryland.
2011 California Indian Languages. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Gordon, J. Shelton
1990 Incredible Tales, Stories, Letters, and Reminiscences of Some of the South Antelope
Valley Pioneers. Antelope Valley History 3(1):1-167.
Grant, Campbell
1965 The Rock Paintings of the Chumash. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Gray, Russell D., Quentin D. Atkinson, Simon J. Greenhill
2011 Language Evolution and Human History: What a Difference a Date Makes. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society, Biology, Vol. 366, pp. 1090-1100
Gremillion, Kristen J.
2015 Human Behavioral Ecology and Paleoethnobotany. In Method and Theory in
Paleoethnobotany, edited by John M. Marston, Jade D’Alpoim Guedes, and Christina
Warinner, pp. 339-354. University Press of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado.
Griset, Suzanne
2013 Ceramics from Lovejoy Springs, a Western Mojave Desert Waterhole. Pacific Coast
Archaeological Society Quarterly 47(3-4):1-24.
Groza, Randall G.
2002 AMS Chronology for Central California Shell Beads. MA Thesis, Department of
Anthropology, San Francisco State University, San Francisco.
Guedes, Jade d’Alpoim and Robert Spengler
2015 Sampling Strategies in Paleoethnobotanical Analysis. In Method and Theory in
Paleoethnobotany, edited by John M. Marston, Jade D’Alpoim Guedes, and Christina
Warinner, pp. 77-95. University Press of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado.
Gust, Sherri M.
1991 Animal Bones Recovered from CA-RIV-399. In Cultural Resource Investigation: Inland
Feeder Project, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California by John M. Foster, James
J. Schmidt, Carmen A. Weber, Gwendolyn R. Romani and Roberta S. Greenwood. Report
on file at Eastern Information Center.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
313
07A3822 Task Order 17
H
Hale, Kenneth, and Dale Harris
1979 Historical Linguistics and Archaeology. In Handbook of North American Indians Vol. 9:
Southwest, edited by A. Ortiz, pp. 170-177. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Hall, Christopher T., and Mary Lou Larson (editors)
2004 Aggregate Analysis in Chipped Stone. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Hammett, Julia and Elizabeth Lawlor
2004 Paleoethnobotany in California. In People and Plants in Ancient Western North America,
edited by Paul E. Minnis, pp. 278-366. Smithsonian Books, Smithsonian Institute,
Washington, D.C.
Harrington, J. P.
1986 The Papers of John Peabody Harrington in the Smithsonian Institution, 1907-1957, Vol.3:
Native American History, Language, and Culture of Southern California/Basin. Kraus
International Publications, White Plains, New York.
Harris, Marvin
1979 Cultural Materialism: The Struggle for a Science of Culture. Vintage Books, a division of
Random House, New York.
1987 Cultural Anthropology. Second edition. Harper and Rowe, New York.
Haskell, H. S. and H. G. Reynolds
1947 Growth, Developmental Food Requirements, and Breeding Activity of the California Jack
Rabbit. Journal of Mammalogy 28(2):129-136.
Hastorf, Christina A.
1991 Gender, Space, and Food in Prehistory. In Engendering Archaeology: Women and
Prehistory, edited by Joan M. Gero and Margaret W. Conkey, pp. 132-159. Blackwell Press,
Oxford.
Hastorf, Christine and Virginia S. Popper
1988 Current Paleoethnobotany: Analytical Methods and Cultural Interpretations
Archaeological Plant Remains. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.
of
Hayden, Brian
1986 Resource Models of Inter-Assemblage Variability. Lithic Technology 15:82-89.
2001 Fabulous Feasts: A Prolegomenon to the Importance of Feasting. In Feasts: Archaeological
and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and Power, edited by Michael Dietler and
Brian Hayden, pp. 23–64. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
314
07A3822 Task Order 17
Hedges, Ken
1973 Rock Art in Southern California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 9(4):1–28.
1980 Cupule Sites in San Diego County, California. Appendix C in Final Report: Archaeological
Reconnaissance of a Portion of Santa Ysabel Indian Reservation, Santa Ysabel, California,
by C. V. F. Taylor and R. L. Carrico. Westec Services, Inc., San Diego.
Heizer, Robert F.
1972 The Eighteen Unratified Treaties of 1851-1852 Between the California Indians and the
United States Government. University of California Archaeological Research Facility,
Berkeley.
Heizer, Robert F., and C. W. Clewlow, Jr.
1973 Prehistoric Rock Art of California. 2 volumes. Ballena Press, Ramona, California.
Heizer, Robert F. and A. B. Elsasser
1980 The Natural World of the California Indians. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Hickman, J. C. (editor)
1993 The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California. University of California Press.
Hildebrandt, William R. and Kelly R. McGuire
2002 The Ascendance of Hunting During the California Middle Archaic: An Evolutionary
Perspective. American Antiquity 67(2):231-256.
2012 A Land of Prestige. In Contemporary Issues in California Archaeology, edited by T. L Jones
and J. E. Perry, pp. 133-151. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, California.
Hildebrandt, William R. and Allika Ruby
2006 Prehistoric Piňon Exploitation in the Southwestern Great Basin: A View from the Coso
Range. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology Vol. 26(1): 11-32.
Hill, Jane
2003
Proto-Uto-Aztecan Cultivation and the Northern Devolution. In Examining the
Farming/Language Dispersal Hypothesis, edited by Peter Bellwood and Colin Renfrew, pp.
331-340. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge, UK.
Hillman, Gordon
1981 Reconstructing Crop Husbandry Practices from Charred Remains of Crops. In Farming
Practice in British Prehistory, edited by R. J. Mercer, pp. 123–162. Edinburgh University
Press, Edinburgh.
Hockett, Bryan S.
2005 Middle and Late Holocene Hunting in the Great Basin: A Critical Review of the Debate
and Future Prospects. American Antiquity 70(4):713-731.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
315
07A3822 Task Order 17
Horne, Melinda and Dennis McDougall
2005 A Phase II Evaluation of 25 Prehistoric Archaeological Sites located in Management
Region 3, Edwards Air Force Base, California. Prepared by Applied Earthworks and Earth
Tech for Environmental Management Office, Edwards Air Force Base.
Hudson, Jean
1994 Vertebrate Remains from KER-526, KER-533, KER-1180, KER-1765, KER-3377 and KER3379. In Prehistoric Settlement along the Eastern Margin of Rogers Dry Lake, Western
Mojave Desert, pages 134-152. On file at South San Joaquin Valley Archaeological
Information Center.
1996 Vertebrate Remains. In Camping in the Dunes: Archaeological and Geomorphological
Investigations of Late Holocene Settlements West of Rogers Lake, pages 245-272. On file
at South San Joaquin Valley Archaeological Information Center.
Hudson, Travis and Thomas C. Blackburn
1978 The Integration of Myth and Ritual in South-Central California: The Northern Complex.
Journal of California Anthropology 5(2):26-50.
1981 The Material Culture of the Chumash Interaction Sphere, II: Food Preparation and Shelter.
Ballena Press Anthropological Papers No. 31. Ballena Press and Santa Barbara Museum of
Natural History, Menlo Park and Santa Barbara.
1986a The Material Culture of the Chumash Interaction Sphere, Volume 4: Ceremonial
Paraphernalia, Games, and Amusements. Ballena Press / Santa Barbara Museum of Natural
History Cooperative Publications.
1986b The Material Culture of the Chumash Interaction Sphere, Volume 5: Manufacturing
Processes, Metrology, and Trade. Ballena Press Anthropological Papers No. 31. Ballena
Press and Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, Menlo Park and Santa Barbara.
Hudson, Travis, and Ernest Underhay
1978 Crystals in the Sky: an Intellectual Odyssey Involving Chumash Astronomy, Cosmology, and
Rock Art. Foreword by Anthony F. Aveni. Ballena Press Anthropological Papers, No. 10.
Ballena Press, Socorro, New Mexico.
Hughes, Richard E.
1988 The Coso Volcanic Field Reexamined: Implications for Obsidian Sourcing and Hydration
Dating Research. Geoarchaeology3:253-265.
Hughes, Richard E. (editor)
2011 Perspectives on Prehistoric Trade and Exchange in California and the Great Basin.
University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Hughes, Richard E., and Randall Milliken
2007 Prehistoric Material Conveyance. In California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and
Complexity, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, pp. 259-271. Altamira Press,
Lanham, Maryland.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
316
07A3822 Task Order 17
Hughes, Richard E., and Polly A. Peterson
2009 Trace Element Analysis of Fused Shale: Implications for Revised Understanding of
Obsidian Source Shifts in Southern Coastal Alta California. California Archaeology 1:29-54.
Hull, Kathleen, John G. Douglass, Andrew L. York
2013 Recognizing Ritual Action and Intent in Communal Mourning Features on the Southern
California Coast. American Antiquity 78(1):24-47
Huntington Library
2006 Early California Population Project Database [California Franciscan Mission Sacramental
Register Database]. http://www.huntington.org/information/ecppmain.htm
J
Jackson, Donald and Mary Lee Spence
1970 The Expeditions of John Charles Fremont, Volume I: Travels From 1838 to 1844. University
of Illinois Press, Urbana.
Jackson, H. Edwin
1998 The Trouble with Transformations: Effect of Sample Size and Sample Composition on
Meat Weight Estimates Based on Skeletal Mass Allometry. Journal of Archaeological
Science 16(6):601-610.
Johnson, John R.
1988 Chumash Social Organization: An Ethnohistoric Perspective. Doctoral Dissertation,
Department of Anthropology, University of California, Santa Barbara.
Johnson, John R. and Dinah Crawford
1999 Contributions to Luiseño Ethnohistory Based on Mission Register Research. Pacific Coast
Archaeological Society Quarterly 34(4):79-102.
Johnson, John R. and David D. Earle
1990
Tataviam Geography and Ethnohistory. Journal of California and Great Basin
Anthropology 12(2):191-214.
Johnson, John R. and J. G. Lorenz
2006 Genetics, Linguistics, and Prehistoric Migrations: An Analysis of California Indian
Mitochondrial DNA Lineages. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology
26(1):33-64.
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 68:5-38.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
317
07A3822 Task Order 17
Jones, Kevin T. and David B. Madsen
1989 Calculating the Cost of Resource Transportation: A Great Basin Example. Current
Anthropology 30(4): 529-524.
Jones, Terry L., Gary M. Brown, Mark Raab, Janet L. McVickar, W. Geoffrey Spaulding, Douglas J.
Kennett, Andrew L. York, and Phillip L. Walker
1999 Environmental Imperatives Reconsidered: Demographic Crises in Western North America
During the Medieval Climatic Anomaly. Current Anthropology 40(2):137-170.
Jones, Terry L. and Douglas Kennett
2012 A Land Impacted? The Younger Dryas Boundary Event in California. In Contemporary
Issues in California Archaeology, edited by T. L Jones and J. E. Perry, pp. 37-48. Left Coast
Press, Walnut Creek, California.
Jones, Terry L. and Kathryn A. Klar
2007 Colonization, Culture, and Complexity. In California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and
Complexity, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, pp. 299-315. Altamira Press,
Lanham, Maryland.
K
Kaldenberg, Russell L., N. Nelson Leonard III, and Judyth E. Reed
2009 Blackwater Well (CA-SBR-2322/H): A Summary Report on Surveys and a Test Excavation
at a “Heck of a Good Site” in the Northwestern Mojave Desert. In Something Resembling
an Anthropologist, Papers in Memory of Paul H. Ezell, edited by Russell L. Kaldenberg, pp.
159-208. San Bernardino County Museum Quarterly, Vol. 54, No. 4. San Bernardino
County Museum, Redlands, California.
Keepax, C.
1977 Contamination of Archaeological Deposits by Seeds of Modern Origin with Particular
Reference to Flotation Machines. Journal of Archaeological Science 4:221–229.
Kelly, Isabel
1932 Surprise Valley Paiute. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and
Ethnology 31(3), Berkeley, California.
1953 Notebooks of Las Vegas Band, Southern Paiute and Chemehuevi Field Notes. University of
California Archives No. 138.1m, Anthropology Documents, 17-18.
Kelly, Isabel T. and Catherine S. Fowler
1986 Southern Paiute. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 11, Great Basin, edited by
Warren L. d'Azevedo, pp. 31-50. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
318
07A3822 Task Order 17
Kelly, Robert L.
1983 Hunter-Gatherer Mobility Strategies. Journal of Anthropological Research 39(3):277-306.
1992 Mobility/Sedentism: Concepts, Archaeological Measures, and Effects. Annual Review of
Anthropology 21:43-66.
2007 The Foraging Spectrum: Diversity in Hunter-Gatherer Lifeways. Percheron Press, Clinton
Corners, New York.
Kemp, B. M., J. A. Eshleman, and R. S. Malhi
2005 Report on the Extraction of DNA from the LAN-949 Burial #4 Tooth. Trace Genetics,
Richmond, Virginia.
Kennett, Douglas J.
2005 The Island Chumash: Behavioral Ecology of a Maritime Society. University of California
Press, Berkeley.
Kern County Museum
n.d.
CA-KER-303 archaeological collection catalogue. Kern County Museum, Bakersfield,
California.
King, Chester D.
1983 Beads and Selected Ornaments. In Archaeological Studies at Oro Grande, Mojave Desert,
California, edited by Carol H. Rector, James D. Swenson, and Philip J. Wilke, pp. 68-87. San
Bernardino County Museum Association, San Bernardino, California.
1990 Evolution of Chumash Society: A Comparative Study of Artifacts Used for Social System
Maintenance in the Santa Barbara Channel Region Before A.D. 1804. Garland Publishing,
Inc., New York.
1994 Prehistoric Native American Sites in the Santa Monica Mountains. Santa Monica
Mountains and Seashore Foundation and National Park Service.
King, Chester and Thomas C. Blackburn.
1978 Tataviam. In Handbook of North American Indians. Volume 8: California, edited by Robert
F. Heizer, pp. 535-537. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
King, Chester, Charles Smith, and Tom King
1974 Archaeological Report Related to the Interpretation of Archaeological Resources Present
at Vasquez Rocks County Park. Report prepared for Los Angeles County Parks
Department, Los Angeles. Report # L-835 on file at South Central Coastal Information
Center, CSU-Fullerton.
King, Jerome
2004 Re-Examining Coso Obsidian Hydration Rates. Proceedings of the Society for California
Archaeology 14:135-142.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
319
07A3822 Task Order 17
King, Linda B.
1969 The Medea Creek Cemetery (LAn-243): An Investigation of Social Organization from
Mortuary Practices. Archaeological Survey Annual Report 11:23-68. University of
California, Los Angeles.
1982 Medea Creek Cemetery: Late Inland Chumash Patterns of Social Organization, Exchange
and Warfare. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
King, Tom F.
1970 The Dead at Tiburon: Mortuary Customs and Social Organization in the Northern San
Francisco Bay. Northwestern California Archaeological Society Occasional Paper No. 2.
Kintigh, Keith W.
1989 Quantifying Diversity in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Kirch, Patrick V.
1980 The Archaeological Study of Adaptation: Theoretical and Methodological Issues.
Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 3:101-156. Academic Press, New York.
Klug, Lisa and Virginia Popper
1994 Paleoethnobotanical Analysis of Sediment Samples from KER-533 and KER-3379. In
Prehistoric Settlement Along the Eastern Margin of Rogers Dry Lake, Western Mojave
Desert, California, edited by Brian F. Byrd, Drew Pallette and Carol Serr, pp.128-131.
Anthropological Technical Series 2, Brian F. Mooney Associates, San Diego.
Knack, Martha
1980 Ethnographic Overview of the Amargosa-Mojave Basin Planning Units. In A Cultural
Resource Overview of the Amargosa-Mojave Basin Planning Units, edited by Claude N.
Warren, Martha Knack and E. von Till Warren, pp. 137-174. Cultural Resources Publication
Anthropology-History. Bureau of Land Management, Riverside, California.
Knight, Albert
1993 Rock Art of the Western Mojave Desert: A Reevaluation. Kern County Archaeological
Society Journal 4:41-60.
2016 Rock Art of Mainland Los Angeles County. https://www.academia.edu/33470696/
rock_art_of_mainland_los_angeles_county_california
Knight, Albert, Douglas Milburn, and Barbara Tejada
2009 Rock Art of the Western Mojave Desert: A View from the First Decade of the 21st Century.
Kern County Archaeological Society Journal 10:3-24.
Knight, Albert and Jack Sprague
2008 Rock Art of the Tehachapi Area. Kern County Archaeological Society Journal 10:99-118.
Knight, Albert, Jack Sprague, and Alan Garfinkel
2011 Prehistory and Rock Art. In Handbook of the Kawaiisu, edited by Alan Garfinkel and
Harold Williams, pp. 97-124. Wa-hi Sina'avi Press, Tehachapi, California.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
320
07A3822 Task Order 17
Koehler, Peter A., and R. Scott Anderson
1998 Reconstructing Holocene Vegetation Dynamics in the Silurian Valley and Vicinity, Mojave
Desert, California. In Springs and Lakes in a Desert Landscape: Archaeological and
Paleoenvironmental Investigation in the Silurian Valley and Adjacent Area of Southwest
California, Volume 1, edited by Brian F. Byrd, pp. 265-284. Prepared by ASM Affiliates, Inc.
for USACOE, Los Angeles.
Koehler, Peter A., R. Scott Anderson, and W. Geoffrey Spaulding
2005 Development of Vegetation in the Central Mojave Desert of California during the Late
Quaternary. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 215(3-4):297-311.
Koerper, Henry C., Roger D. Mason, and Mark L. Peterson
2002 Complexity, Demography, and Change in Late Holocene Orange County. In Catalysts to
Complexity: Late Holocene Societies of the California Coast, edited by J. M. Erlandson and
T. L. Jones, pp. 63-81. Perspectives in California Archaeology, Volume 6. Cotsen Institute
of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.
Kovacik, Peter, Jennifer L. B. Milligan, and Linda Scott Cummings
2015 Macrofloral Analysis and AMS Radiocarbon Dating of a Hearth Feature Fill Sample from
Site C1 -M-1, Kern County, California. In Archaeological and Paleontological Monitoring
Report for the Camelot Solar Project, Appendix E, edited by R. Ramirez, D. Daitch, and K.
Hunt. Rincon Consultants Job No. 12-00548. Report on file at the Southern San Joaquin
Valley Information Center, Bakersfield, California.
Koerper, Henry C. and Ivan H. Strudwick
2002 Native Employment of Mineral Pigments with Special Reference to a Galena Manuport
from an Orange County Rock Art Site. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly
38(4).
Kremkau, Scott
2018 Archaeological Resources Survey of the SR-14 (SR-138)/Avenue J Interchange
Improvements Project, City of Lancaster, California. Report on File at Caltrans District 7.
Kremkau, Scott H., Mark Q. Sutton, and Michael K. Lerch, editors
2013 Rhyolite and Roasting Pits: Archaeological Data Recovery in the Antelope Valley, AV Solar
Ranch One Project, Los Angeles County, California. Prepared for First Solar, Inc., San
Francisco. Prepared by Statistical Research, Inc., Redlands, California. Report No. LA12495
on file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University,
Fullerton.
Kroeber. Alfred L.
1908 Notes on the Luiseños. Appendix II in The Religion of the Luiseño Indians of Southern
California by C. G. DuBois. University of California Publications in American Archaeology
and Ethnology, Vol.8, pp. 174-186.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
321
07A3822 Task Order 17
1925
1951
Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78.
Washington.
A Mohave Historical Epic. University of California Anthropological Records 11(2).
Kroll, Ellen M. and T. Douglas Price, editors
1991 The Interpretation of Archaeological Spatial Patterning. Plenum Press, New York.
L
Laird, Carobeth
1976 The Chemehuevis. Malki Museum Press, Banning, California.
1984 Mirror and Pattern: George Laird's World of Chemehuevi Mythology. Malki Museum Press,
Banning, California.
Landberg, Leif C.W.
1980 Relocation of an Aboriginal Steatite Quarry Reported by Richard F. Valkenburgh to be in
the Sierra Pelona Range, Los Angeles County, California. In Inland Chumash
Archaeological Investigations, edited by David S. Whitley, Ellen L. McCann, and C. William
Clewlow, Jr., pp. 11-42. UCLA Institute of Archaeology Monograph 15.
Lanner, Ronald M.
1981 The Piňon Pine: A Natural and Cultural History. University of Nevada Press, Reno, Nevada.
1983 The Expansion of Singleleaf Pinon in the Great Basin. In The Archaeology of Monitor
Valley, 2: Gatecliff Shelter, edited by D. H. Thomas, Anthropological Papers of the
American Museum of Natural History, 59(1):169-171.
Lanning, Edward P.
1963 The Archaeology of the Rose Spring Site, INY-372. University of California Publications in
American Archaeology and Ethnology 49(3):237-336. University of California Press,
Berkeley.
Latta, Frank
1976 The Saga of Rancho El Tejon. Bear State Books, Santa Cruz, California.
1999 Handbook of Yokuts Indians. 3rd edition. Bear State Books, Santa Cruz, California.
Laudenslayer, W. F., K. B. Buckingham, and T. A. Rado
1995 Mammals of the California Desert. In The California Desert: An Introduction to Natural
Resources and Man’s Impacts, edited by J. Latting and P. Rowlands, pp. 373-394. June
Latting Books, Riverside.
Lawlor, Elizabeth
1995 Archaeological Site Formation Processes Affecting Plant Remains in the Mojave Desert. PhD
Dissertation, University of California, Riverside.
1996 Analysis of Plant Remains. In Archaeological Laboratory Methods; An Introduction, edited
by Mark Q. Sutton and Brooke S. Arkush, pp. 266-281. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company,
Dubuque, Iowa.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
322
07A3822 Task Order 17
Lawrence, Barbara
1951 Post-cranial Characters of Deer, Pronghorn, and Sheep-Goat with notes on Bos and
Bison, Part II. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology,
Harvard University 35(3): 1-16.
Lechleitner, R. R.
1959 Sex Ratio, Age Classes, and Reproduction of the Black-tailed Jack Rabbit. Journal of
Mammalogy 40(1):63-81.
Lee, Jeff (editor)
1997 Geomorphorum 2. Newsletter of the Geomorphology Specialty Group of the Association
of American Geographers.
Lennstrom, H. A., and C. A. Hastorf
1992 Testing Old Wives’ Tales in Paleoethnobotany: A Comparison of Bulk and Scatter
Sampling Schemes from Pancan, Peru. Journal of Archaeological Science 19:205–229.
Leonard, N. Nelson III and Christopher E. Drover
1980 Prehistoric Turquoise Mining in the Halloran Springs District, San Bernardino County,
California. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 2(2):245-256.
Lightfoot, Kent G. and Otis Parrish
2009 California Indians and their Environment. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Louderback, Lisbeth A., Bruce M. Pavlik and Amy M. Spurling
2013 Ethnographic and Archaeological Evidence Corroborating Yucca as a Food Source,
Mojave Desert, USA. Journal of Ethnobiology 33(2): 281-297.
Love, Bruce
1989 Barrel Springs Archaeology, Antelope Valley, Southern California. On file at the South
Central Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton.
Love, Bruce, De Witt, and Lillard
1989 Department of Parks and Recreation Archaeological Site Record for CA-LAN-1789/H. On
file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton.
Lubinski, P. M.
1999 The Communal Pronghorn Hunt: A Review of the Ethnographic and Archaeological
Evidence. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 21:158–181.
Luedtke, Barbara
1992 An Archaeologist’s Guide to Chert and Flint. Institute of Archaeology, University of
California, Los Angeles, Archaeological Research Tools No. 7.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
323
07A3822 Task Order 17
Lupo, K. D.
2007 Evolutionary Foraging Models in Zooarchaeological Analysis: Recent Applications and
Future Challenges. Journal of Archaeological Research 15:143-189.
Lyneis, Margaret M.
1995 The Virgin Anasazi: Far Western Puebloans. Journal of World Prehistory 9:199-241.
M
Madgwick, Richard and Jacqui Mulville
2014 Reconstructing Depositional Histories through Bone Taphonomy: Extending The Potential
of Faunal Data. Journal of Archaeological Science 53:255-263.
Manly, William L.
1894 Death Valley in '49. Pacific Tree & Vine Co., San Jose.
Marston, John M.
2011 Archaeological Markers of Agricultural Risk Management. Journal of Anthropological
Archaeology 30(2): 190-205.
Marston, John M., Jade D’Alpoim Guedes, and Christina Warinner
2015 Method and Theory in Paleoethnobotany. University Press of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado.
Martin, Alexander and William Barkley
1973 Seed Identification Manual. The Blackburn Press.
Mason, Roger D.
2008 The Spatial Organization of Activities at Ca-Ora-662 on Pelican Hill in the Newport Coast
Area, Orange County, California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 40(2):1540.
Mason, Roger and Wendy Blumel
2015 Archaeological Evaluation Report, SR-138 Northwest Corridor Improvement Project,
Antelope Valley, Los Angeles County. Prepared for Caltrans District 7, Los Angeles. On file
at the South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton.
Mason, Roger D. and Mark L. Peterson
1994 Newport Coast Archaeological Project: Newport Coast Settlement Systems, Summary and
Discussion. Prepared for Coastal Community Builders, The Irvine Company, Newport
Beach. The Keith Companies, Costa Mesa. Report on file at the South Central Coastal
Information Center, California State University, Fullerton and Government Documents,
Langson Library, University of California, Irvine.
2014 Subsistence Remains and Intensification on the Newport Coast, Orange County,
California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 49(1&2):106-125.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
324
07A3822 Task Order 17
Mason, Roger D., Mark L. Peterson, and J. A. Tiffany
1998 Weighing vs. Counting: Measurement Reliability and the California School of Midden
Analysis. American Antiquity 63:303-324.
Mayne Correia, P. M.
1997 Fire Modification of Bone: A Review of the Literature. In: Forensic Taphonomy: the
Postmortem Fate of Human Remains, edited by W. D. Haglund and M. H. Sorg. CRC Press,
Boca Raton, Florida.
McCarthy, Daniel and Philip Wilke
1983 Plant Remains Recovered by Flotation and Screening. In Archaeological Studies at Oro
Grande, Mojave Desert, California, edited by Carol H. Rector, James D. Swenson, and
Philip J. Wilke, pp. 98-108. San Bernardino County Museum Association, San Bernardino,
California.
McCarten, N. and T. R. Van Devender
1988 Late Wisconsin Vegetation of Robber’s Roost in Western Mojave Desert, California.
Madrono 35: 226-237.
McCawley, William
1996 The First Angelinos: The Gabrielino Indians of Los Angeles. Malki Museum Press/Ballena
Press Cooperative Publication, Menlo Park, California.
McGuire, Kelly R. and William R. Hildebrandt
2005 Rethinking Great Basin Foragers: Prestige Hunting and Costly Signaling During the
Middle Archaic Period. American Antiquity 70:693-710.
McGuire, Kelly R., Kimberly L. Carpenter, and Jeffrey Rosenthal
2012 Great Basin Hunters of the Sierra Nevada. In Meetings at the Margins: Prehistoric Cultural
Interactions in the Intermountain West, edited by David Rhode, pp. 124-141. University of
Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Meighan, Clement W.
2000 Rock Art on the Channel Islands of California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society
Quarterly 36(2):15-29.
Mehringer, Peter J.
1977 Great Basin Late Quaternary Environments and Chronology. In Models and Great Basin
Prehistory: A Symposium. Desert Research Institute Publications in the Social Sciences,
edited by D.D. Fowler, 12: 113-167.
Mensing, Scott, and Roger Byrne
1998 Pre-Mission Invasion of Erodium circutarium in California.
25:757-762.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
325
Journal of Biogeography
07A3822 Task Order 17
Mentzer, Susan M.
2014 Microarchaeological Approaches to the Identification and Interpretation of Combustion
Features in Prehistoric Archaeological Sites. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory
21(3): 616-668.
Merrill, Ruth Earl
1918 Plants Used in Basketry by the California Indians. University of California Libraries.
Merrill, William L., Robert J. Hard, Jonathan B. Mabry, Gayle J. Fritz, Karen R. Adams, John R. Roney
and A. C. MacWilliams
2009 The Diffusion of Maize to the Southwestern United States and its Impact. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S.A. 106(50):21019-21026.
Messoudi, Alex, and Michael J. O’Brien
2008 The Cultural Transmission of Great Basin Projectile-Point Technology: An Experimental
Simulation. American Antiquity 73:3-28.
Metcalfe, Duncan, and K. Renee Barlow
1992 A Model for Exploring the Optimal Trade-Off between Field Processing and Transport.
American Anthropologist 94(2):340-356.
Meyer, Jack, D. Craig Young, and Jeffrey S. Rosenthal
2010 Volume I: A Geoarchaeological Overview and Assessment of Caltrans Districts 6 and 9. Far
Western Anthropological Research Group, Davis, California.
Meyer, R.W. and James C. Bowers
2002 Flood-Prone Areas and Waterways, Edwards Air Force Base, California. Open File Report
No. 00-183. United States Geological Survey, Sacramento, California.
Mikkelson, Patricia, Paula G. Carr, Shelly Tiley, Julia Costello, Nathan Stevens, and John R. Johnson
2014 The Long Road Traveled: Archaeology, Native Americans, and Europeans in Cuyama Valley.
Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Davis, California.
Miksicek, Charles
1987 Formation Processes of the Archaeobotanical Record. Advances in Archaeological Method
and Theory 10: 211–247.
Milburn, Douglas H.
2003 Archaeological Investigation oat CA-LAN-1209/H, Cooper Creek Site, Northern San
Gabriel Mountains, Los Angeles County, California. On file at the South Central Coastal
Information Center, California State University, Fullerton.
Milburn, Douglas, H., U.K Doan, and Joanna Huckabee
2009 Spatial and Temporal Distributions of Archaeological Heated-Rock Cooking Structures in
the Transverse Mountain Ranges: Proposed Markers of Land-Use Shifts since the Early
Holocene. Society for California Archaeology Proceedings 22:1-21.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
326
07A3822 Task Order 17
Miller, Naomi F. and T. L. Smart
1984 The Use of Dung as Fuel: An Ethnographic Example and an Archaeological Application.
Paleo-Orient 10(2):71-79.
Milliken, Randall T. and James A. Bennyhoff
1993 Temporal Changes in Beads in Prehistoric California Grave Goods. In There Grows a Green
Tree: Papers in Honor of David A. Frederickson, edited by G. White, P. Mikkelsen, W.
Hildebrandt, and M. E. Basgall, pp. 381-395. Center for Archaeological Research at Davis
No. 11. University of California, Davis.
Milliken, Randall and Al W. Schwitalla
2012 California and Great Basin Olivella Shell Bead Guide. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek,
California.
Minnich, Richard A.
1973 Vegetation of the San Bernardino Mountains. In Plant Communities of Southern
California: Symposium Proceedings, edited by June Latting, pp. 65-76. Special Publication
No. 2, California Native Plant Society.
2007 Climate, Paleoclimate, and Paleovegetation. In Terrestrial Vegetation of California, Third
Edition, pp. 43-70. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Minnis, Paul
1978 Paleoethnobotanical Indicators of Prehistoric Disturbance: A Case Study. In The Nature
and Status of Ethnobotany, edited by Richard Ford, M. Brown, M. Hodge and W. L. Merril,
pp. 347–366. Anthropological Papers No. 67. University of Michigan, Museum of
Anthropology, Ann Arbor.
Mitchell, Donald R., Kathryn E. Buesher, James R. Eckert, David M. Laabs, Mark L. Allaback, Stephen J.
Montgomery and Randall C. Arnold, Jr.
1993 Biological Resources Environmental Planning Technical Report Prepared in Support of the
Programmatic Environmental Assessment for Basewide Implementation of the Installation
Restoration Program at Edwards Air Force Base, California. Prepared by Tetra Tech for
Environmental Management Office, Edwards Air Force Base.
Moerman, Daniel E.
2010 Native American Food Plants: An Ethnobotanical Dictionary. Timber Press.
Moratto, Michael J.
1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, Orlando.
2011 Material Conveyance in Prehistoric California: Cultural Contexts and Mechanisms. In
Perspectives on Prehistoric Trade and Exchange in California and the Great Basin, edited
by Richard E. Hughes, pp. 242-252. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Moratto, Michael J., Thomas F. King, and Wallace B. Woolfenden
1978 Archaeology and California’s Climate. In The Journal of California Archaeology 5(2).
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
327
07A3822 Task Order 17
Morell-Hart, Shanti
2015 Paleoethnobotanical Analysis, Post-Processing. In Method and Theory in
Paleoethnobotany, edited by John M. Marston, Jade D’Alpoim Guedes, and Christina
Warinner, pp. 371-390. University Press of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado.
Morgan, Christopher
2006 Late Prehistoric Territorial Expansion and Maintenance in the SouthCentral Sierra
Nevada, California. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Davis.
2008 Reconstructing Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherer Foraging Radii: A Case Study from
California’s Southern Sierra Nevada. Journal of Archaeological Science 35: 247-258
2010 Numic Expansion in the Southern Sierra Nevada. Journal of California and Great Basin
Anthropology 30(2):157–174.
Morris, Lucie
n.d.
Interviews of Pioneer Residents of Antelope Valley and Surrounding Areas, circa 19351937. Typescript. Local History Collection, Lancaster Branch Library, Los Angeles County
Library System, Lancaster, Ca.
Munz, Phillip A.
1959 A California Flora. University of California Press. Berkeley.
1968 Supplement to a California Flora. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Murdock, George P.
1949 Social Structure. Macmillan, New York.
Musil, Albina
1963 Identification of Crop and Weed Seeds. Agriculture Handbook No. 219. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
Muto, Guy R.
1971 A Technological Analysis of the Early Stages in the Manufacture of Chipped Stone
Implements. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Idaho State
University.
N
Nagy, K., V. Shoemaker, and W. Costa
1976 Water, Electrolyte, and Nitrogen Budgets of Jackrabbits (Lepus californicus) in the Mojave
Desert. Physiological Zoology pp. 351–363.
Nelson, Wendy J.
2008 Beyond Diet: Engendering Intensification. In From Avocados to Millingstones: Papers in
Honor of Delbert L. True, edited by Georgie Waugh and Mark E. Basgall, pp. 165-174.
Monographs in California and Great Basin Anthropology Number 5. California State
University, Sacramento.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
328
07A3822 Task Order 17
Nettle, D. M., A. Gibson, D. W. Lawson, and R. Sear
2013 Human Behavioral Ecology: Current Research and Future Prospects. Behavioral Ecology
24:1031-1040.
Nicholas, George
2008 Native Peoples and Archaeology (Indigenous Archaeology). The Encyclopedia of
Archaeology, Volume 3, edited by D. Pearsall, pp. 1660-1669. Elsevier, Oxford.
Nichols, Michael J. P.
1981 Old California Uto-Aztecan. In Survey Reports 1, 1981, edited by Alice Schlichter, Wallace
C. Chafe, and Lee Ann Hinton, pp. 5-41. Survey of California and other Indian languages.
Department of Linguistics, University of California, Berkeley.
Nicholson, R. A.
1996 Bone Degradation, Burial Medium, and Species Representation: Debunking the Myths, an
Experiment-Based Approach. Journal of Archaeological Science 23:513-533.
Nobel, J.A.
1954 Geology of the Rosamond Hills, Kern County. In Geology of Southern California, edited by
R.H. Jahns. Division of Mines Bulletin 170, Map Sheet No. 14.
Norwood, Richard H.
1989 Overview of Archaeology at Edwards AFB, California: 1984 to 1989. Edwards Air Force
Base, California.
O
O’Brien, Michael J. (editor)
1996 Evolutionary Archaeology: Theory and Application. University of Utah Press.
O’Brien, Michael J. and R. Lee Lyman
2000 Applying Evolutionary Archaeology: A Systematic Approach. Kluwer Academic/ Plenum
Press, New York.
O’Connell, J. F.
1987 Alyawara Site Structure and Its Archaeological Implications. American Antiquity 52(1):74108.
Orme, Antony R.
2008 Lake Thompson, Mojave Desert, California: The Late Pleistocene Lake System and its
Holocene Desiccation. In Late Cenozoic Drainage History of the Southwestern Great Basin
and Lower Colorado River Region: Geologic and Biotic Perspectives. The Geological Society
of America, Special Paper 439: 261-278.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
329
07A3822 Task Order 17
Orme, Antony R. and Richard Yuretich
2004 Lake Thompson, Mojave Desert, California: A Desiccating Late Quaternary Lake System.
Cold Regions Research and Development Laboratory, Engineering Research and
Development Center, Hanover, New Hampshire.
Orr, R. T.
1940
The Rabbits of California. Occasional Papers of the California Academy of Science 19:1227.
P
Padon, Beth
1997 Archaeological Assessment of CA-LAN-2311 and CA-LAN-2552 for Elizabeth Lake Road
Realignment Los Angeles County, California. Report on File at the South Central Costal
Information Center, California State University, Fullerton.
Padon, Beth, Patricia Jertberg, Jana Rosenthal, and Fran Govean
1998 Archaeological and Paleontological Assessment for Elizabeth Lake Road Improvement
Project, Los Angeles County, California. Report on File at the South Central Costal
Information Center, California State University, Fullerton.
Page, Robert R.
2009 Cultural Landscapes Inventory Professional Procedures Guide. National Park Service. U.S
Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, D.C.
Palomares, José
1808 Diary of José Palomares. Provincial State Papers, Missions and Colonization, Vol. I, pp.
232-242. California State Archives, Sacramento.
Panich, Lee M. and Tsim D. Schneider
2014 Indigenous Landscapes and Spanish Missions: New Perspectives from Archaeology and
Ethnohistory. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Panich, Lee M., M. Steven Shackley, and Antonio Porcayo Michelini
2017 A Reassessment of Archaeological Obsidian from Southern Alta California and Northern
Baja California. California Archaeology 9:53-78.
Parcero-Oubiña C., Criado-Boado F., Barreiro D.
2014 Landscape Archaeology. In Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology, edited by C. Smith.
Springer, New York.
Parker, Patricia and Thomas F. King
1998 National Register Bulletin 38: Guidelines for Documenting and Evaluating Traditional
Cultural Properties. National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, U.S.
Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
330
07A3822 Task Order 17
Parkman, E. Breck
1993 Creating Thunder: The Western Rain-Making Process. Journal of California and Great
Basin Anthropology 15(1):91-110.
Parry, William J., and Robert L. Kelly
1987 Expedient Core Technology and Sedentism. In The Organization of Core Technology,
edited by J.K. Johnson and C.A. Morrow, pp. 285-304. Westview Press, Boulder.
Parsons, Jeffrey R.
1972 Archaeological Settlement Patterns. Annual Review of Anthropology 1:127-150.
1974 The Development of a Prehistoric Complex Society: A Regional Perspective from the
Valley of Mexico. Journal of Field Archaeology 1:81-108.
Patencio, Francisco
1943 Stories and Legends of the Palm Springs Indians, edited by Margaret Boynton. Times
Mirror Co., Los Angeles.
Pearsall, Deborah
1989 Paleoethnobotany: A Handbook of Procedures. First Edition, Academic Press, San Diego,
California.
2000 Paleoethnobotany: A Handbook of Procedures. Second Edition, Academic Press, San
Diego, California.
Peck, S.L.
1949
Archaeology Site Survey Record for CA-LAN-76. Report on File at the South Central
Costal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton.
Perry, Michael E.
1989 Test and Evaluaiton of CA-KER-564. Report on File at the South Central Costal
Information Center, California State University, Fullerton.
Phillips, George Harwood
1993 Indians and Intruders in Central California, 1769-1849. University of Oklahoma Press,
Norman.
Ponti, Daniel J.
1985 The Quaternary Alluvial Sequence of the Antelope Valley, California. Geological Society of
America, Special Paper 203: 79-96.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
331
07A3822 Task Order 17
Popper, Virginia S.
2002 Analysis of Plant Remains from Emeryville Shellmound (CA-ALA-309 and CA-ALA-310),
Alameda County, California. Report on file at the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma
State University, California.
2004 Macrobotanical Analysis of Soil Samples from EAFB-2014, EAFB-3 128, EAFB-3209,
Edwards Air Force Base, Kern County, California. In A Phase II Evaluation of 94
Archaeological Sites Located Along Roads Throughout Edwards Air Force Base, California,
Volume II: A Report of Finding for 56 Prehistoric Sites, Appendix G: Macrobotanical
Analysis, by Mari A. Parker Pritchard, and Heather R. Puckett. Earth Tech, Colton,
California.
Price, Barry, Alan Gold, Barbara Tejada, David Earle, Suzanne Griset, Jay Lloyd, Mary Baloian, Nancy
Valente, Virginia Popper, and Lisa Anderson
2009 The Archaeology of CA-LAN-192: Lovejoy Springs and Western Mojave Desert Prehistory.
Prepared by Applied Earthworks, Inc., Fresno. Prepared for the County of Los Angeles
Public Works Department, Alhambra, California. On file at the South Central Coastal
Information Center, California State University, Fullerton.
Pritchard Parker, Mari A., and Heather R. Puckett
2004 A Phase II Evaluation of 94 Archaeological Sites Located Along Roads Throughout
Edwards Air Force Base, California, Volume II: A Report of Findings for 56 Prehistoric Sites.
Prepared by EarthTech for the US Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District.
R
Raab, L. Mark
1996 Debating Prehistory in Coastal Southern California: Resource Intensification Versus
Political Economy. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 18(1): 64-80.
Railey, Jim A., and Eric J. Gonzalez
2015 The Problems with Flake Types and the Case for Attribute Analysis of Debitage
Assemblages. In Works in Stone: Contemporary Perspectives on Lithic Analysis edited by
Michael J. Schott, pp. 11-32. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Ramon, Dorothy and Eric Elliot
2000 Wayta’ Yawa’: Always Believe. Malki Museum, Banning, California.
Rector, Carol, James D Swenson, and Philip J Wilke
1983 Archaeological Studies at Oro Grande, Mojave Desert, California. San Bernardino County
Museum Association, Redlands, California.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
332
07A3822 Task Order 17
Reddy, Seetha N.
1996 Paleoethnobotany and Macrobotanical Remains from KER-490 and KER-2378 on Edwards
Air Force Base. In Camping in the Dune: Archaeological and Geomorphological
Investigations of Late Holocene Settlements West of Rogers Dry Lake, edited by Brian F.
Byrd, pp. 233-244. ASM Affiliates, Inc. Technical Report Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, L.A. District, CA. Report # KE 02318 on file at Southern San Joaquin Valley
Information Center, California State University, Bakersfield.
1999 Plant Usage and Prehistoric Diet: Paleoethnobotanical Investigations on Camp Pendleton,
Southern California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 35(3): 25-44.
2003 Discerning Palates of the Past: An Ethnoarchaeological Study of Crop Cultivation and Plant
Usage in India. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ethnoarchaeological Series 5.
2004 Opportunistic Gathering to Logistically Planned: Changes in Prehistoric Plant Usage in
Coastal Southern California In Results of NSF-Funded Archaeological and
Paleoenvironmental Investigations at San Elijo Lagoon, San Diego County, California,
edited by Brian F. Byrd, Kevin Pope, and Seetha N. Reddy. National Science Foundation
Archaeology Program Grant BCS-0004392. Report on file at the Southern California
Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego.
2009 Seeds of Change: Intensive Plant Exploitation in Protohistoric Coastal Southern California.
Talk presented at the Society for American Archaeology Annual Meetings, April 2009.
2013 Macrobotanical Remains. In Rhyolite and Roasting Pits: Archaeological Data Recovery in
the Antelope Valley, AV Solar Ranch One Project, Los Angeles County, California, edited
by Scott Kremkau, Mark Q. Sutton, and Michael K. Lerch, p. 54. Prepared for First Solar,
Inc., San Francisco. Prepared by Statistical Research, Inc., Redlands, California. Report No.
LA12495 on file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, California State
University, Fullerton.
2015 Feeding Family and Ancestors: Persistence of Traditional Native American Lifeways during
the Mission Period in Coastal Southern California. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology
37: 48-66.
2016 Changing Palates and Resources: Regional and Diachronic Trends in Plant Use in
Prehistoric California. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 36 (2):227-244.
2017 Prehistoric Plant Use and Intensification in the Ballona Lowlands. In People in a Changing
Land: The Archaeology and History of the Ballona in Los Angeles, California, Volume 3,
Material Culture and Subsistence Practices, edited by S. N. Reddy, and J. G. Douglass, pp.
649-764. Statistical Research Incorporated, Redlands, CA, and Tucson, AZ.
Reddy, Seetha N., John G. Douglass, Richard Ciolek-Torello, Donn R. Grenda, and Patrick Stanton
2016 Mortuary, Mourning, and Feasting Practices in the Ballona. In Gabrielino/Tongva Origins
and Development: A View from Guaspet by J. G. Douglass, S. N. Reddy, R. Ciolek-Torello,
and D. R. Grenda. People in a Changing Land: The Archaeology and History of the Ballona
in Los Angeles, California, vol. 5, Chapter 6. Donn R. Grenda, Richard Ciolek-Torello, and
Jeffrey H. Altschul, series editors. Statistical Research, Inc.Technical Series 94, Volume 5.
Reddy, Seetha N. and Wohlgemuth, Eric
2016 Plant Use by Complex Hunter-Gatherers: Paleoethnobotanical Studies in California.
Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 36(1):1-4.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
333
07A3822 Task Order 17
Reid, Hugo
1968 The Indians of Los Angeles County: Hugo Reid’s Letters of 1852, edited and annotated by
Robert F. Heizer. Southwest Museum Papers 21. Southwest Museum, Los Angeles.
Rhode, David E.
1990 On Transportation Costs of Great Basin Resources: An Assessment of the Jones-Madsen
Model. Current Anthropology 31(4):413-419.
2001 Packrat Middens as a Tool for Reconstructing Historic Ecosystems. In The Historical
Ecology Handbook: A Restorationist’s Guide to Reference Ecosystems, edited by Dave Egan
and Evelyn A. Howell, pp. 257-293. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Rhode, David, and Nick Lancaster
1996 Past Environments of Edwards Air Force Base, California: Geological and Paleoecological
Evidence. Report on file, Base Historic Preservation Office, Edwards Air Force Base,
California.
Rhode, David and Nicholas Lancaster
1994 Past Environments of Edwards Air Force Base, California: Geological and Paleoecological
Evidence. Quaternary Sciences Center, Desert Research Institute, Reno, Nevada. Report on
file at the Base Historic Preservation Office, Edwards Air Force Base, California.
Rick, Torben C., Jon M. Erlandson, René L. Vellanoweth and Todd J. Braje
2005 From Pleistocene Mariners to Complex Hunter-Gatherers: The Archaeology of the
California Channel Islands. Journal of World Prehistory 19:169–228.
Rindos, David
1984 The Origins of Agriculture: An Evolutionary Perspective. Academic Press, Orlando, Florida.
Robinson, Mark C., Sandra Flint, and W. Geoffrey Spaulding
1999 Molycorp Mountain Pass Mine Cultural Resources Investigations: Testing an Evaluation
Report for CA-SBR-9387, CA-SBR-9388, and CA-SBR-9389/H, Ivanpah Dry Lake, San
Bernardino County, California. Prepared by Applied Earthworks, Inc., Hemet, and Dames
& Moore, Inc., Las Vegas.
Robinson, Roger W.
1987 A Salvage of an Alliklik Cemetery in Green Valley, California. In Prehistory of the Antelope
Valley, California: An Overview, edited by Roger W. Robinson, pp. 29-37. Antelope Valley
Archaeological Society Occasional Paper, No. 1.
Rogers, Alexander K.
2007 Effective Hydration Temperature of Obsidian: A Diffusion-Theory Analysis of TimeDependent Hydration Rates. Journal of Archaeological Science 34:656-665.
Rogers, Malcolm J.
1929 Report of an Archaeological Reconnaissance in the Mohave Sink Region. San Diego
Museum of Man Archaeological Papers 1(1). San Diego.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
334
07A3822 Task Order 17
Rosenthal, Jane, and Stephen L. Williams
1992 Some Southern California Soapstone Sources. Proceedings of the Society for California
Archaeology 5:219-228.
Rosenthal, Jeffrey S.
2011 The Function of Shell Bead Exchange in Central California. In Perspectives on Prehistoric
Trade and Exchange in California and the Great Basin, edited by Richard E. Hughes, pp.
83-113. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Roth, George
1977 The Calloway Affair of 1880: Chemehuevi Adaptations and Chemehuevi-Mohave
Relations. Journal of California Anthropology 4(2):273-286.
Rozaire, Charles
1990 Aboriginal Houses Near Palmdale, Los Angeles County. In Archaeology and Ethnohistory
of Antelope Valley and Vicinity, edited by Bruce Love and William H. DeWitt, pp. 43-52.
Antelope Valley Archaeological Society, Occasional Papers No.2. Lancaster, California.
Rozin, P., and A. E. Fallon
1981 The Acquisition of Likes and Dislikes for Foods. In Criteria of Food Acceptance: How Man
Chooses What He Eats, edited by J. Solms and R. L. Hall, pp. 35–48. Forster Verlag, Zurich.
Ruby, Jay
1970
Culture Contact Between Aboriginal Southern California and the Southwest. Ph.D.
Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles.
S
Sawyer, Eugene and William H. Collins
1944 The Life and Career of Tiburcio Vasquez, California Stage Robber. Biobooks, Oakland.
Scharlotta, Ian
2010a Groundmass Microsampling using Laser Ablation Time-of-Flight Inductively Coupled
Plasma Mass Spectrometry (LA-TOF-ICP-MS): Potential for Rhyolite Provenance Research.
Journal of Archaeological Science 37:1929-1941.
2010b LA-TOF-ICP-MS Analysis of Rhyolite Artifacts from Site AP3-132, Kern County, California.
Report on file at the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center, California State
University, Bakersfield.
2014 Trade Routes and Contradictory Spheres of Influence: Movement of Rhyolite Through the
Heart of the Western Mojave Desert. California Archaeology 6(2):219-246.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
335
07A3822 Task Order 17
Schneider, Joan, Elizabeth J. Lawlor, and Deborah L. Dozier
1996 Roasting Pits and Agave in the Mojave Desert: Archaeological, Ethnobotanical, and
Ethnographic Data. In Punctuated Chaos in the Northeastern Mojave Desert, edited by
Robert E. Reynolds and Jennifer Reynolds, pp. 29-34. San Bernardino County Museum
Association Quarterly 43(1-2). Redlands, California.
Schneider, Tsim D.
2010 Placing Refuge: Shell Mounds and the Archaeology of Colonial Encounters in the San
Francisco Bay Area, California. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University
of California, Berkeley.
Schneider, Tsim D. and Lee M. Panich
2014 Native Agency at the Margins of Empire: Indigenous Landscapes, Spanish Missions, and
Contested Histories. In Indigenous Landscapes and Spanish Missions: New Perspectives
from Archaeology and Ethnohistory, edited by Lee M. Panich and Tsim D. Schneider, pp.
5-22. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Schollmeyer, Karen and Jonathan Driver
2013 Settlement Patterns, Source-Sink Dynamics, and Artiodactyl Hunting in the Prehistoric
U.S. Southwest. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 20(3):448-478.
Schroth, Adella
1987 The Use of Mesquite in the Great Basin. In Papers on the Archaeology of the Mojave
Desert, edited by Mark Q. Sutton, pp. 53-78. Archives of California Prehistory 10, Coyote
Press, Salinas, California.
Schumacher, Paul
1880 The Methods of Manufacturing Pottery and Baskets Among the Indians of Southern
California. Twelfth Annual Report of the Peabody Museum, pp. 521-525. Harvard
University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Shackley, M. Steven
2005 Obsidian: Geology and Archaeology in the North American Southwest. University of
Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona.
Sillen, Andrew and C. K. Brain
1990 Old Flame: Burned Bones Provide Evidence of an Early Human Use of Fire. Natural History
April 1990:6-10.
Simes, Matthew T., Kathleen M. Longshore, Kenneth E. Nussear, Greg L. Beatty, David E. Brown and
Todd C. Esque
2015 Black-tailed and White-tailed Jackrabbits in the American West: History, Ecology,
Ecological Significance, and Survey Methods. Western North American Naturalist
75(4):491-519.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
336
07A3822 Task Order 17
Simms, Steven R.
2008 Ancient Peoples of the Great Basin and Colorado Plateau. Left Coast Press, Inc., Walnut
Creek.
Skinner, Alanson
1910 The Use of Insects and Other Invertebrates as Food by the North American Indians.
Journal of the New York Entomological Society 18:264-267.
Smith, Bruce D.
2015 Documenting Human Niche Construction in the Archaeological Record. In Method and
Theory in Paleoethnobotany, edited by John M. Marston, Jade D’Alpoim Guedes, and
Christina Warinner, pp. 335-370. University Press of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado.
Smith, Claire and H. Martin Wobst
2004 Indigenous Archaeologies: Decolonizing Theory and Practice. One World Archaeology, No.
47. Routledge, Oxford.
Smith, Eric A.
1983 Anthropological Applications of Optimal Foraging Theory: A Critical Review. Current
Anthropology 24(5):625-651.
Smith, G. I.
1964 Geology and Volcanic Petrology of the Lava Mountains, San Bernardino County,
California. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper No. 457.
Smith, Gerald A. and Michael K. Lerch
1984 Cupule Petroglyphs in Southern California. San Bernardino County Museum Association
Quarterly 32(1&2):1-17.
Smith, Gerald A. and Wilson G. Turner
1975 Indian Rock Art of Southern California with Selected Petroglyph Catalog. San Bernardino
County Museum Association, Redlands, California.
Smith, Susan and Scott Anderson
1994 Pollen Analysis of Sediment Samples from KER-526. In Prehistoric Settlement Along the
Eastern Margin of Rogers Dry Lake, Western Mojave Desert, California, edited by Brian F.
Byrd, Drew Pallette and Carol Serr, pp. 127-128. Anthropological Technical Series 2, Brian
F. Mooney Associates, San Diego, CA. Report #KE 01230 on file at Southern San Joaquin
Valley Information Center, California State University, Bakersfield.
Smith, William H.
2002 Trade in Molluscan Religiofauna Between the Southwestern United States and California.
Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Oregon.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
337
07A3822 Task Order 17
Sparkman, Philip S.
1908 The Culture of the Luiseño Indians. University of California Publications in American
Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 8, pp. 187-234.
Spaulding, W. Geoffrey
1990 Vegetational and Climatic Development of the Mojave Desert: The Last Glacial Maximum
to the Present. In Packrat Middens: The Last 40,000 Years of Biotic Change, edited by J. L.
Betancourt, T. R. Van Devender, and P. S. Martin, pp. 166-199. University of Arizona Press,
Tucson.
Spaulding, W. Geoffrey, Peter A. Koehler and R. Scott Anderson
1994 A Late Quaternary Paleoenvironmental Record from the Central Mojave Desert. In Offlimits in the Mojave Desert, edited by B. Reynolds. San Bernardino Museum Association
Special Publication 94-1:53-55.
Spielmann, Katherine A.
2002 Feasting, Craft Specialization, and the Ritual Mode of Production in Small-Scale Societies.
American Anthropologist 104: 195-207.
Steinberg, Lisa
1994 Harrington’s Notes Regarding Chumash Indian Cave Paintings. In Rock Art Papers 11,
edited by Ken Hedges, pp. 73–86. San Diego Museum of Man, San Diego.
Steward, Julian H.
1938 Basin-Plateau Aboriginal Socio-Political Groups. Bureau of American Ethnology,
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
1955 The Theory of Culture Change. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.
Stickel, E. Gary, Lois J. Weinman-Roberts, Rainer Berger, and Pare Hopa
1980 An Overview of the Cultural Resources of the Western Mojave Desert. Cultural Resources
Publications, Anthropology-History. Desert Planning Program, Bureau of Land
Management, Riverside, California.
Stickel, Gary and Lois Weinman-Roberts
1979 An Overview of the Cultural Resources of the Western Mojave Desert. On file at the South
Central Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton.
Strike, Sandra
1994 Ethnobotany of the California Indians, Vol. 2: Aboriginal Uses of California’s Indigenous
Plants. Koeltz Scientific Books, USA/Germany.
Strong, William Duncan
1929 Aboriginal Society in Southern California. University of California Publications in American
Archaeology and Ethnology 26(1)1-358. Berkeley.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
338
07A3822 Task Order 17
Sullivan, Alan P., III, and K. C. Rozen
1985 Debitage Analysis and Archaeological Interpretation. American Antiquity 50:755-779.
Sutton, Mark Q.
1980 Some Aspects of Kitanemuk Prehistory. Journal of California and Great Basin
Anthropology 2(2):214-225.
1982a Archaeology of the Fairmont Buttes. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly
18(4):1-16.
1982b The Rock Art of the Western Mojave Desert. In Pacific Coast Archaeological Society
Quarterly 18(4):27-38.
1984 Archaeological Investigations at KER-733: A Special Purpose Site in the Antelope Valley.
Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 20(4):33-55.
1987 Prehistory of the Antelope Valley, California: An Overview. Antelope Valley Archaeological
Society Occational Paper 1: 83-89.
1988a On the Late Prehistory of the Western Mojave Desert. In A Symposium on Mojave Desert
Prehistory, edited by Mark Q. Sutton and Claude N. Warren, pp. 22-29. Pacific Coast
Archaeological Society Quarterly 24(1).
1988b An Introduction to the Archaeology of the Western Mojave Desert, California. Coyote Press
Archives of California Prehistory 14.
1988c Insects as Food: Aboriginal Entomophagy in the Great Basin. Ballena Press Anthropological
Papers No. 33. Menlo Park, California.
1989 Late Prehistoric Interaction Spheres in the Mojave Desert, California. North American
Archaeologist 10(2):95-121.
1991 Archaeological Investigations at Cantil, Fremont Valley, Western Mojave Desert,
California. Museum of Anthropology, California State University, Bakersfield, Occasional
Papers in Anthropology, No. 1.
1993 Archaeological Studies in Rosamond, Western Mojave Desert, California. Museum of
Anthropology, California State University, Bakersfield, Occasional Papers in Anthropology,
No. 3.
1994 The Numic Expansion as Seen from the Mojave Desert. In Across the West: Human
Population Movement and the Expansion of the Numa, edited by David B. Madsen and
David Rhode, pp. 130-140. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
1996 The Current Status of Archaeological Research in the Mojave Desert. Journal of California
and Great Basin Anthropology 18(2):221-257.
2009 People and Language: Defining the Takic Expansion into Southern California. Pacific
Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 41(2&3):31-93.
2010 A Reevaluation of Early Northern Uto-Aztecan Prehistory in Alta California. California
Archaeology 2(1):3-30.
2016 Evolving Patterns of Villages in the Southwestern Mojave Desert, California. In Late
Holocene Research on Foragers and Farmers in the Desert West, edited by Barbara J. Roth
and Maxine E. McBrinn, pp. 265–284. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
2017 Chasing Ghosts? Rethinking the Prehistory of the Late Holocene Mojave Desert. Pacific
Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 53(1):2-78.
2018 From the Late Pleistocene to the Middle Archaic in the Mojave Desert: A Past Evolving. In
The Archaic Southwest: Foragers in an Arid Land, edited by Bradley J. Vierra, pp. 31-51.
University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
339
07A3822 Task Order 17
Sutton, Mark Q., Mark W. Allen, Gregory R. Burns, and Blendon Walker.
2010 Archaeological Investigations at CA-KER-229. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society
Quarterly 43(3):19-64.
Sutton, Mark Q., Mark E. Basgall, Jill K. Gardner, and Mark W. Allen
2007 Advances in Understanding Mojave Desert Prehistory. In California Prehistory:
Colonization, Culture and Complexity, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn Klar, pp. 229245. Altamira Press, Lanham, Maryland.
Sutton, Mark Q. and David D. Earle
2017 The Desert Serrano of the Mojave River. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly
53(2&3):1-61.
Sutton, Mark Q. and Jill K. Gardner
2010 Reconceptualizing the Encinitas Tradition of Southern California. Pacific Coast
Archaeological Society Quarterly 42(4):1-64.
Sutton, Mark Q. and Scott R. Jackson
1993 Archaeolgoical Investigations at CA-KER-2450, Rosamond, Kern County, California. In
Archaeological Studies in Rosamond, Western Mojave Desert, California, edited by Mark Q.
Sutton, pp. 10-15. CSU-Bakersfield, Museum of Anthropology Occasional Papers No. 3.
Sutton, Mark Q., D. W. Robinson, and Jill K. Gardner
2006 Excavations at the Red Rock Canyon Rockshelter (CA-KER-147), Western Mojave Desert,
California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 42 (2 and 3):17-90.
Sutton, Mark Q., David W. Robinson, Gail Grasse-Sprague, and Jack Sprague
2009 Cupules as Containers: A Hypothesis. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 45(34):91-97
T
Tausch, Robin J., Peter E Wigand, and J. Wayne Burkhardt
1993 Viewpoint: Plant Community Thresholds, Multiple Steady States, and Multiple
Successional Pathways: Legacy of the Quaternary? Journal of Range Management 46: 439447.
Temple, Thomas Workman
n.d.
Extracts from Mission San Fernando's Baptismal, Marriage, and Burial Registers. The
Thomas Workman Temple Collection. Chancery Archives of the Archdiocese of Los
Angeles, Mission San Fernando.
Tetra Tech, Inc.
2009 Large Mammal Survey, Edwards Air Force Base, California. Air Force Flight Test Center,
Environmental Management Office, Edwards AFB, California.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
340
07A3822 Task Order 17
Thomas, David H.
1983 On Steward’s Models of Shoshonean Political Organization: a Great Bias in the Basin? In
The Development of Political Organization in Native North America, edited by Elisabeth
Tooker, pp. 59-68. 1979 Proceedings of the American Ethnological Society.
Thompson, David G.
1929 The Mojave Desert Region – California: A Geographic, Geologic, and Hydrologic
Reconnaissance. United States Department of the Interior, Geological Survey WaterSupply Paper 578. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Thompson, Robert S. and Jim I. Mead
1982
Late Quaternary Environments and Biogeography in the Great Basin. Quaternary
Research 17:39-55.
Tilley, Christopher
1997 A Phenomenology of Landscape: Places, Paths, and Monuments. Berg, Oxford.
Timbrook, Jan
2007 Chumash Ethnobotany: Plant Knowledge Among the Chumash People of Southern
California. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, Santa Barbara, California. Heyday
Books, Berkeley, CA.
Titus, Jan, Evelyn Chandler, Cary Cotterman, Kevin Doyle, Jule M. Guerrero, Edward J. Knell, Dena S.
Komporlides, Annie Retamal and Ayse Taskiran
1997 The Evalaution of Five Archaeological Sites Along 140th Street, Edwards Air Force Base,
California. Tetra Tech, Inc., San Bernardino, California.
Troxel, Bennie W.
1962 Mines and Mineral Resources of Kern County, California. San Francisco: California Division
of Mines and Geology.
True, D. L.
1966 Archaeological Differentiation of Shoshonean and Yuman Speaking Groups in Southern
California. PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology. University of California, Los
Angeles.
Tushingham, S. and R. L. Bettinger
2013 Why Foragers Choose Acorns Before Salmon: Storage, Mobility, and Risk in Aboriginal
California. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 32:527-537.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
341
07A3822 Task Order 17
U
Ugan, Andrew and Jeff Rosenthal
2016
Brodiaea Return Rates and their Ethnographic and Archaeological Implications for
Occupation of the Northwestern Mojave Desert of North America. Journal of Great Basin
and California Anthropology 36(1).
V
Valdez, Sharynn-Marie
1992 An Analysis of the Vertebrate Faunal Remains from Sites CA-LAN-1157, CA-KER-1874,
CA-LAN-1208 and CA-KER-2131. Appendix C in Phase II Cultural Resources Evaluation for
the Abandoned Prime Base Emergency Engineering Force (Prime BEEF) Facility, Edwards
AFB, Kern County, California. On file at South San Joaquin Valley Archaeological
Information Center.
1995
An Analysis of the Vertebrate Faunal Remains from Sites CA-KER-2084 and CA-KER212/H. Appendix G in Phase II Evaluation of Two Sites as Part of Cultural Resources
Protection Measures, Edwards AFB, Kern County, California. On file at South San Joaquin
Valley Archaeological Information Center.
Van Devender, Thomas R. and W. Geoffrey Spaulding
1979 Development of vegetation and climate in the southwestern United States. Science 204:
701–710.
Vaneeckhout, Samuel, Anna-Kaisa Salmi, and Juho-Antti Junno
2013 Archaeological Refuse Fauna in Finland: Understanding The Role Of Bone Combustion.
Anthropozoologica 48(1):125-134.
Vernon, Charles Clark
1956 A History of the San Gabriel Mountains. Historical Society of Southern California Quarterly
38(1):39-60; 38(2):141-166; 38(3):263-296; 38(4):373-384.
Voegelin, Erminie
1938 Tubatulabal Ethnography. University of California Anthropological Records 2(1):1-90.
University of California Press, Berkeley.
Von der Porten, Peter, Katherine Dixon, and Alex DeGeorgey
2014 Seriation of Clam Shell Disk Beads in Central California. Society for California Archaeology
Proceedings 28:267-281. Society for California Archaeology, Chico, California.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
342
07A3822 Task Order 17
W
Walker, Edwin F.
1931 Introduction. In An Archaeological Survey of the Twenty Nine Palms Region, by Elizabeth
Crozer Campbell. Southwest Museum Papers 7. Southwest Museum, Los Angeles.
Walker, M. J. C., M. Berkelhammer, S. Bjorck, L. C. Cwynar, D. A. Fisher, A. J. Long, J. J. Lowe, R. M.
Newnham, S. O. Rasmussen, and H. Weiss
2012 Formal Subdivision of the Holocene Series/Epoch: a Discussion Paper by a Working
Group of INTIMATE (Integration of ice-core, marine and terrestrial records) and the
Subcommission on Quaternary Stratigraphy (International Commission on Stratigraphy).
Journal of Quaternary Science 27(7):649–659.
Wallace, William J.
1962 Prehistoric Cultural Development in the Southern California Deserts. American Antiquity
28(2):172-180.
Walsh, Michael R.
2011 The Children of Rogers Lake: Knap Time as a Clue to Site Function in the Western Mojave
Desert. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 31(2):121-134.
Warren, Claude N.
1984 The Desert Region. In California Archaeology, by Michael J. Moratto, pp. 339-430.
Academic Press, Orlando.
1986 Early Holocene Cultural Adaptation in the Mojave Desert. In The Pleistocene Perspective,
Volume 2, pp. 1-27. Allen and Unwin, London.
2002 Time, Form, and Variability: Lake Mojave and Pinto Periods in Mojave Desert Prehistory.
In Essays in California Archaeology: A Memorial to Franklin Fenenga, edited by William J.
Wallace and Francis A. Riddell, pp. 129-141. Contributions of the University of California
Archaeological Research Facility, No. 60. Berkeley.
2010 Subsistence Strategies, Focusing, and Women in Prehistory. SAA Archaeological Record
10(2):20-22, 30.
Warren, Stephen and Ben Barnes
2018 Salvaging the Salvage Anthropologists: Erminie Wheeler-Voegelin, Carl Voegelin, and the
Future of Ethnohistory. Ethnohistory 65(2): 189-214.
Watkins, Joe
2005 Artifacts, Archaeologists, and American Indians. Public Archaeology 4(2-3):187–192.
Way, Ross, Thomas Jackson and Kari Jones
2009 Results of the Evaluation of Eligibility of Archaeological Site Ca-Ker-2821/H (Bean Spring)
for Listing in the California Register of Historical Resources and Data Recovery Program
for Mitigating Unavoidable Impacts to the Site That May Result From Activities
Associated with Construction of Segment 3 of the Tehachapi Renewable Transmission
Project. Prepared by Pacific Legacy for Southern California Edison. On file at the Southern
San Joaquin Valley Information Center, California State University, Bakersfield.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
343
07A3822 Task Order 17
Webb, Robert H. and Steven S. Stielstra
1979 Sheep Grazing Effects on Mojave Desert Vegetation and Soils. Environmental
Management 3 (3):517-529.
Wessel, Terri Caruso
1990 CA-KER-1830 Test and Evaluation Technical Report. Report on File at the South Central
Costal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton.
West, James G., Wallace Woolfenden, James A. Wanket, and R. Scott Anderson
2007 Late Pleistocene and Holocene Environments. In California Prehistory: Colonization,
Culture and Complexity, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn Klar, pp. 11-36. Altamira
Press, Lanham, Maryland.
Wheeler, Lt. George M.
1879 Land Classification Map of Part of Southern California, Atlas Sheet 73(C). U.S.
Geographical Surveys West of the 100th Meridian, 1875-1878. Washington, D.C.
Wheeler, T. L., P. L. Walker, E. Honeysett and W. Sisura
1989 Report and Analysis of Cremated Human Remains from CA-LAN-840. Report on File,
Cultural Heritage Section, California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento.
Whitaker, Adrian
2012 Mass Capture in Prehistoric Northwestern California, Energy-Maximizing Behaviors and
the Tyranny of the Ethnographic Record. In Exploring Methods of Faunal Analysis: Insights
from California Archaeology, edited by Terry L. Joslin and Michael E. Glassow, pp. 53-64.
UCLA Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles.
White, Chantel E. and China P. Shelton
2015 Recovering Macrobotanical Remains: Current Methods and Techniques. In Method and
Theory in Paleoethnobotany, edited by John M. Marston, Jade D’Alpoim Guedes, and
Christina Warinner, pp. 95-114. University Press of Colorado, Boulder, CO.
Whitley, David S.
2000 The Art of the Shaman – Rock Art of California. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Wigand, Peter E. and David Rhode
2002 Great Basin Vegetation History and Aquatic Systems: The Last 150,000 Years. In Great
Basin Aquatic Systems History, edited by Robert Hershler, David B. Madsen, and Donald R.
Curry, pp. 309-367. Smithsonian Contributions to the Earth Sciences No. 33. Smithsonian
Institution Press, Washington D.C.
Wilke, Philip J.
1978 Late Prehistoric Human Ecology at Lake Cahuilla, Coachella Valley, California.
Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility No. 38.
Berkeley.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
344
07A3822 Task Order 17
2013
The Whiskey Flat Pronghorn Trap Complex, Mineral County, Nevada, Western United
States: Preliminary Report. Quaternary International 291:79-92.
Willey, Gordon R.
1953 Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the Viru Valley, Peru. Bureau of American Ethnology
Bulletin 155.
Williams, Audrey
2009 Archaeological Investigations in the Western Mojave Desert at Freeman Spring, CA-KER6106. Master’s thesis, Dept. of Sociology and Anthropology, California State University,
Bakersfield.
Williamson, R. S.
1856 Report, Part 1: Explorations in California for Railroad Routes, to Connect with the Routes
near the 35th and 32nd Parallels of North Latitude, by Lieutenant R.S. Williamson, Corps
of Topographical Engineers. In Reports of Explorations and Surveys to Ascertain the Most
Practicable and Economical Route for a Railroad from the Mississippi River to the Pacific
Ocean, Volume 5. Made under the direction of the Secretary of War in 1853-1854. A.O.P.
Nicholson, Washington, D.C.
Winterhalder, Bruce
1984 Reconsidering the Ecosystem Concept. Reviews in Anthropology 11:301-313.
1986 Diet Choice, Risk, and Food Sharing in a Stochastic Environment. Journal of
Anthropological Archaeology 5:369-392.
Winterhalder, Bruce, W. Baillargeon, F. Cappelletto, I. R. Daniel, Jr., and C. Prescott
1988 The Population Ecology of Hunter-Gatherers and Their Prey. Journal of Anthropological
Archaeology 7:289-328.
Winterhalder, Bruce and Robert L. Bettinger
2010 Nutritional and Social Benefits of Foraging in California. California Archaeology 2:93-110.
Winterhalder Bruce and C. Goland
1997 An Evolutionary Ecology Perspective on Diet Choice, Risk, and Plant Domestication. In
People, Plants, and Landscapes: Studies in Paleoethnobotany, edited by K. J. Gremillion, pp.
123-160. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama.
Winterhalder, Bruce and Eric A. Smith
1992 Evolutionary Ecology and the Social Sciences. In Evolutionary Ecology and Human
Behavior, edited by E.A. Smith and B. Winterhalder, pp. 3-23. Aldine de Gruyter,
Hawthorne, New York.
Winters, Howard D.
1969 The Riverton Culture: A Second Millennium Occupation in the Central Wabash Valley. The
Illinois State Museum and the Illinois Archaeological Society, Springfield, Illinois.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
345
07A3822 Task Order 17
Wisely, Justin
2016 Starch Grain Analysis of Bedrock Mortars in the Sierra Nevada Mountains: Experimental
Studies to Determine Their Function. Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology,
California State University, Chico.
Wohlgemuth, Eric
1995 Archaeological Impact Assessment Investigations at CA-LAN-1304, Littlerock Canyon, Los
Angeles County, California. Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc., Davis, CA.
1996 Resource Intensification in Prehistoric Central California: Evidence from Archaeobotanical
Data. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 18(1):81–103.
2002 Late Prehistoric Plant Resource Intensification in the Eastern San Francisco Bay Area: Plant
Remains from ALA-42 and ALA-555, Pleasanton, California. In Hunter-Gatherer
Archaeobotany: Perspectives from the Northern Temperate Zone, edited by Sarah L. R.
Mason and Jon G. Hather, pp. 28 – 43. London: Institute of Archaeology, University
College London.
2010 Plant Resource Structure and the Prehistory of Plant Use in Central Alta California.
California Archeology 2(1):57–76.
2016 Regional Variation in Antiquity of Intensive Acorn and Small Seed Use. In Research Design
and Treatment Plan for Native American Archaeological Resources in the San Francisco
Bay-Delta Region, edited by Brian F. Byrd and Adrian Whitaker, pp. 146 –150. Report on
file at the Office of Cultural Resources Studies, Caltrans District 4, Oakland, California.
Woolfenden, Wallace B.
1996 Quaternary Vegetation History. Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final Report to Congress
2(4):47-70.
Y
Yamin, R. and K. B. Metheny (editors)
1996 Landscape Archeology: Reading and Interpreting the American Historical Landscape.
University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.
Yohe, Robert M., II
1984 A Report on Faunal Remains from a Special Purpose Site in the Western Mojave Desert.
Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 20(4): 56-72.
1992
1998
A Reevaluation of Western Great Basin Cultural Chronology and Evidence for the Timing of the
Introduction of the Bow and Arrow to Eastern California Based on New Excavations at the Rose
Spring Site (CA-INY-372). Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of
California, Riverside.
The Introduction of the Bow and Arrow and Lithic Resource Use at Rose Spring (CA-INY372. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 20(1):26-52.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
346
07A3822 Task Order 17
Z
Zigmond, Maurice L.
1980 Kawaiisu Mythology, An Oral Tradition of South-central California. Ballena Press
Anthropological Papers No. 18.
1981 Kawaiisu Ethnobotany. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
1986 Kawaiisu. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 11, Great Basin, edited by Warren
L. d'Azevedo, pp. 398-411. Washington: Smithsonian Institution.
Archaeological Research Design
for the Antelope Valley Study Area
347
07A3822 Task Order 17
Attachment A
Cultural Resources Management Reports
For the Antelope Valley Obtained from Records Searches
Information
Center
Report
Number
Authors
Year
KE-00028
Petersen, Jill
and Torres,
John
KE-00038
Getchell, Barbie
Stevenson and
Atwood, John E.
1997
KE-00121
Laura Barrett
Silsbee and
Norwood, R.H.
1996
KE-00196
Valdez,
Sharynn-Marie
1992
1995
Title
Cultural Resource
Assessment: Phase I
Survey and Phase II
Testing of Site CA-KER3065 and the Sand Pit
Claim Area, Near Boron,
Kern County, California
Archaeological Testing
at CA-KER2575, CAKER-4424, CA-KER4425, and CAKER04426H on Tentative
Parcel Map No. 10157 in
the City of Rosamond,
Kern County, California
Phase II cultural
resource evaluation of
site CA-KER-2083,
Precision Impact Range
Area (PIRA) West Range,
Kern County, Edwards
AFB, California
Phase II Evaluation of
Two Sites as Part of the
Cultural Resource
Protection Measures,
Edwards AFB, Kern
County, California
Publisher
Report Type
Resources
Counties
Archaeological
Research Unit,
University of
California,
Riverside
Archaeological,
Evaluation, Field study
15-003065
Kern
Pacific
Archaeological
Sciences Team
Archaeological,
Evaluation
15-002572,
15-004783,
15-004784,
15-004785
Kern
Edwards Air
Force Base
Architectural/Historical,
Evaluation, Excavation
15-002083
Kern
Environmental
Engineering
Department,
Computer
Sciences
Corporation
Archaeological,
Excavation
15-002084,
15-002121
Kern
Information
Center
Report
Number
KE-00197
Authors
York, Andrew L.
and Hull,
Kathleen
KE-00198
Perry, Michael
E.
KE-00200
Perry, Michael
E., Ronning,
Margaret R.,
Wessel, Richard
L., Campbell,
Mark M., and
Torres, John A.
Year
Title
Publisher
1991
Final Report:
Archaeological
investigations at CAKER-2816 and CA-KER2817, Edwards Air Force
Base, California
Dames & Moore
Archaeological,
Evaluation, Excavation
15-002816,
15-002817
Kern
1991
Test and Evaluation for
KER 1248, Edwards Air
Force Base, California
Environmental
Sciences Section,
Computer
Sciences
Corporation
Archaeological,
Evaluation, Excavation
15-001248
Kern
1996
Phase II Cultural
Resources Test and
Evaluation of Site CAKER-2136, Edwards AFB,
Kern County, California
Environmental
Engineering
Department,
Computer
Sciences
Corporation
Archaeological,
Evaluation, Excavation
15-002136
Kern
2
Report Type
Resources
Counties
Information
Center
Report
Number
KE-00201
KE-00202
KE-00203
Authors
Boyer, Barry L.,
Underwood,
Jackson,
Alexander,
Molly, Earle,
David, Torres,
John, Valdez,
Sharynn-Marie,
Klug, Lisa,
Popper,
Virginia,
Silsbee, Laura
Barrett, and
Jackson,
Thomas
Parker, Cole J.,
Underwood,
Jackson,
Alexander,
Molly, Boyer,
Barry, Valdez,
Sharynn-Marie,
and Ronning,
Margaret
Sutton, Mark Q.
Year
Title
Publisher
Report Type
Resources
Counties
1995
Phase II cultural
resource evaluation of
the Rich Road Area,
Edwards AFB, Kern
County, California
Volume I
Environmental
Engineering
Department,
Computer
Sciences
Corporation
Archaeological,
Evaluation, Excavation
15-001752,
15-001827
Kern
1996
Phase II Cultural
Resource Evaluation for
the Core Area of the
Combat Arms Range,
Edwards AFB, Kern
County, California
Environmental
Engineering
Department,
Computer
Sciences
Corporation
Evaluation, Excavation
15-002692,
15-002693
Kern
1988
Data Recovery at Two
Quarry Sites in
Rosamond, Kern
County, California
Cultural
Resource Facility,
California State
University,
Bakersfield
Archaeological,
Excavation
15-002314,
15-002330
Kern
3
Information
Center
Report
Number
Authors
KE-00205
Campbell, Mark
M., Valdez,
Sharynn-Marie,
and Torres,
John
KE-00206
Campbell, Mark
M., Boyer, Barry
L.,
Johannesmeyer,
James J.,
Ronning,
Margaret R.,
Way, K. Ross,
and Wessel,
Richard L.
Year
Title
Publisher
1996
Phase II Cultural
Resource Evaluation for
the Abandoned Prime
Base Emergency
Engineering Force
(Prime Beef) Facility,
Edwards AFB, Kern
County, California
Environmental
Services
Department,
Computer
Sciences
Corporation
Archaeological,
Evaluation, Excavation
15-001874,
15-002131
Kern
1994
Phase II Cultural
Resource Evaluation for
the Emplacement of an
Underground Natural
Gas Transmission
Pipeline and Waterline
Between Boron and the
Phillips Laboratory,
Edwards AFB, Kern
County, California
Environmental
Engineering
Department,
Computer
Sciences
Corporation
Archaeological,
Evaluation, Excavation
15-002053,
15-003361,
15-003362
Kern
4
Report Type
Resources
Counties
Information
Center
Report
Number
Authors
Year
Title
Publisher
Report Type
KE-00636
Marvin, J and
Costello, G
1995
Historic Property Survey
Report for the Mojave
Bypass Project
California
Department of
Transportation
Archaeological,
Architectural/historical,
Evaluation
KE-01184
R. Greenwood
and M.
McIntyre
1980
Cultural Resources
Overview for Edwards
Air Force Base, Volume I
Greenwood and
Associates
Other research
1993
Preliminary Report of
Archaeological Testing
and Evaluation Along
Mercury Boulevard,
Edwards Air Force Base
KE-01229
Byrd, Brian F.
Brian F. Mooney
Associates
5
Archaeological,
Evaluation, Excavation
Resources
15-003366,
15-003549,
15-003558,
15-003559,
15-003927,
15-003928,
15-003929,
15-003930,
15-003931,
15-003932,
15-004112,
15-004113,
15-004114,
15-004115,
15-004116,
15-007596,
15-007597,
15-007598,
15-007735,
15-007736,
15-007737
Counties
Kern
Kern
15-000526,
15-000533,
15-001180,
15-001765,
15-003377,
15-003379
Kern
Information
Center
Report
Number
KE-01230
Authors
Byrd, Brian F.,
Pallette, Drew,
and Serr, Carol
KE-01240
Perry, Michael
E.
KE-01243
Wessel, Terri
Caruso and
McIntyre,
Michael
KE-01545
Osborne,
Richard and
Sutton, Mark
Year
1994
Title
Prehistoric Settlement
along the Eastern
Margin of Rogers Dry
Lake, Western Mojave
Desert, California
1989
Test and Evaluation of
CA-KER-564
1990
Preliminary Evaluation
of KER-1822H, Edwards
Air Force Base,
California
1991
KE-01546
Parr, Robert
1990
KE-01625
Sutton, Mark Q.
1990
Archaeological Data
Recovery at Two Sites in
Rosamond, Kern
County, CA
Archaeological
Investigation at CA-KER2546 in Rosamond, Kern
County, CA
Two Small Quarry Sites
Near Rosamond, Kern
County, California
Publisher
Report Type
Resources
Counties
Archaeological,
Evaluation, Excavation
15-000526,
15-000533,
15-001180,
15-001765,
15-003377,
15-003379
Kern
Evaluation
15-000564
Kern
Architectural/Historical,
Evaluation
15-001822
Kern
Cultural
Resource Facility,
CSU Bakersfield
Archaeological,
Excavation, Field study
15-002568,
15-002570
Kern
Cultural
Resource Facility,
CSU Bakersfield
Archaeological,
Excavation, Field study
15-002546
Kern
Individual
Consultant
Other research
15-002314,
15-002330
Kern
Brian F. Mooney
Associates
Computer
Sciences
Corporation,
Edwards Air
Force Base
Environmental
Sciences Section,
Computer
Sciences
Corporation
6
Information
Center
Report
Number
KE-01838
KE-01839
KE-01872
Authors
Brock, James
Brock, James
Everson, G.
Dicken and
Sutton, Mark Q.
Year
1994
1993
1990
Title
Test Excavation and
Surface Collection on
the Southern Portion of
CA-KER-302, Hidden
Valley Area of the
Rosamond Hills, Kern
County, California
Test Excavation and
Subsurface Collection at
CA-KER-3817,
Rosamond Hills Area of
Kern County, California
Archaeological
Investigations at Eleven
Sites in Rosamond, Kern
County, California
Publisher
Report Type
Resources
Counties
Archaeological
Advisory Group
Archaeological,
Excavation, Field study
15-000302
Kern
Archaeological
Advisory Group
Archaeological,
Evaluation, Excavation,
Field study
15-003817
Kern
Archaeological,
Evaluation, Excavation,
Field study
15-002489,
15-002760,
15-002761,
15-002762,
15-002763,
15-002764,
15-002765,
15-002766,
15-002767,
15-002768,
15-002769,
15-002770,
15-002771,
15-002772,
15-002773,
15-002850,
15-002851
Kern
Cultural
Resource Facility,
California State
University,
Bakersfield
7
Information
Center
Report
Number
Authors
KE-01875
Jackson, Scott
R. and Yohe II,
Rboert M.
KE-01876
Jackson, Scott
R. and Yohe II,
Robert M.
KE-01878
Osborne,
Richard H. and
Sutton, Mark Q.
KE-01879
Osborne,
Richard H. and
Sutton, Mark Q.
KE-01885
Robert Parr
KE-01889
Parr, Robert E.
and Jackson,
Scott R.
Year
1991
1992
1990
Title
Archaeological Testing
at CA-KER-2990,
Rosamond, Kern
County, California
Archaeological Testing
at CA-KER-3033 and 3052/H, Rosamond,
Southeastern Kern
County, California
Archaeological
Evaluation (Collection
and Testing) at Four
Sites in Rosamond, Kern
County, California
Publisher
Cultural
Resource Facility,
California State
University,
Bakersfield
Cultural
Resource Facility,
California State
University,
Bakersfield
Cultural
Resource Facility,
California State
University,
Bakersfield
Cultural
Resource Facility,
California State
University,
Bakersfield
Report Type
Resources
Counties
Archaeological,
Evaluation, Excavation
15-002990
Kern
Archaeological,
Evaluation, Excavation
15-003033,
15-003052
Kern
Archaeological,
Evaluation, Excavation
15-002567,
15-002568,
15-002569,
15-002570
Kern
Archaeological,
Evaluation, Excavation
15-002567,
15-002568,
15-002569,
15-002570
Kern
1991
Archaeological Data
Recovery at Two Sites in
Rosamond, Kern
County, California
1990
Archaeological
Investigation at CA-KER2546 in Rosamond, Kern
County, California
Cultural
Resource Facility,
CSU Bakersfield
Archaeological,
Evaluation, Excavation
15-002546
Kern
1990
Archaeological Testing
at Site CA-KER-2450 in
Rosamond, Kern
County, California
Cultural
Resource Facility,
California State
University,
Bakersfield
Archaeological,
Excavation
15-002450
Kern
8
Information
Center
Report
Number
KE-01896
KE-01901
KE-01915
Authors
Scott, David J.
Whitley, David
S. and Simon,
Joseph M.
Scott, David J.
Year
Title
Publisher
1991
Archaeological
Investigation at CA-KER2852 in Rosamond, Kern
County, California
Cultural
Resource Facility,
California State
University,
Bakersfield
Archaeological,
Evaluation, Excavation
15-002852
Kern
1996
Phase II Test Excavation
and Determination of
Significance at CA-KER4694, Soledad
Mountain, Kern County,
California
W&S
Consultants
Archaeological,
Evaluation, Excavation
15-005383
Kern
1993
Archaeological Data
Recovery at CA-KER3033, Rosamond, Kern
County, California
Cultural
Resource Facility,
California State
University,
Bakersfield
Archaeological,
Excavation
15-003033,
15-003052
Kern
Individual
Consultant
Archaeological,
Excavation
15-000733
Kern
Cultural
Resource Facility,
CSU Bakersfield
Archaeological,
Evaluation, Excavation,
Field study
15-002450
Kern
Archaeological
Associates
Archaeological,
Evaluation, Excavation,
Field study
15-002714
Kern
KE-01918
Sutton, Mark Q.
1984
KE-01934
Sutton, Mark,
Parr, Robert,
and Jackson,
Scott
1990
KE-01938
Van Horn,
David
1993
Archaeological
Investigations at KER733, Western Mojave
Desert, California
Archaeological
Investigations CA-KER2450, Rosamond, Kern
County, CA
Surface Collection &
Test Excavation Program
at KER-2714, a Milling
Station in the WestCentral Antelope Valley,
Kern County, CA
9
Report Type
Resources
Counties
Information
Center
Report
Number
Authors
KE-01944
Wessel, Terri
Caruso
KE-02247
Rosen, Martin
D., Christenson,
Lynne E., and
Gross, G.
Timothy
KE-02318
Byrd. Brian F.
Year
Title
Publisher
Report Type
1990
CA-KER-1830 Test and
Evaluation:
Management Report
Computer
Sciences
Corporation,
Environmental
Sciences Section
Archaeological,
Evaluation, Excavation
1990
Proceedings of the
Society for California
Archaeology: Papers
Presented at the Annual
Meeting of the Society
for California
Archaeology
Individual
Consultants
Other research
1996
Camping in the Dunes:
Archaeological and
Geomorphological
Investigations of Late
Holocene Settlements
West of Rogers Dry Lake
ASM Affiliates,
Inc.
10
Archaeological,
Evaluation, Excavation
Resources
15-001830
Counties
Kern
Kern
15-000490,
15-000500,
15-000501,
15-001189,
15-001813,
15-002378,
15-002482,
15-002966,
15-002967,
15-002968
Kern
Information
Center
Report
Number
Authors
KE-02942
Holmes, Amy
KE-02957
Green, Terisa,
Walsh, Michael,
Vam Wyke,
April, and
Clewlow, C.
KE-03147
Orfila, Rebecca
S. and Gardner,
Jill K.
Year
Title
Publisher
Report Type
Resources
Counties
2004
Final: A Phase II
Evaluation of 22
Archaeological Sites
Located Within
Management Region 1
Edwards AFB, Kern
County, CA
Earth Tech
Evaluation
15-001168,
15-001177,
15-001482,
15-001771,
15-002009,
15-005604,
15-005606,
15-005658,
15-005659,
15-005673,
15-005783,
15-005796,
15-005798,
15-005877,
15-005878,
15-005879,
15-005883,
15-005885,
15-009527
2003
Cultural Resource
Testing and Phase II
Evaluation for the
Protection of Six Sites at
Edwards AFB, CA
Ancient
Enterprises
Evaluation
15-001844
Kern
2005
A Phase II
Archaeological
Assessment of CA-KER2529, Rosamond, Kern
County, California
Center for
Archaeological
Research,
California State
University,
Bakersfield
Archaeological,
Evaluation, Field study
15-002529
Kern
11
Kern
Information
Center
Report
Number
Authors
KE-03243
Horne, M.C.
and McDougall,
D.P.
KE-03820
Horne, Melinda
C. and
McDougall,
Dennis P.
Year
Title
Publisher
Report Type
2005
Final: A Phase II
Evaluation of 25
Prehistoric
Archaeological Sites
Located in Management
Region 3, Edwards Air
Force Base, California
Environmental
Management
Office,
Conservation
Branch, Edwards
Air Force Base
Archaeological,
Evaluation
2007
A Phase II Evaluation of
25 Prehistoric
Archaeological Sites
Located in Management
Region 4 Edwards Air
Force Base, California
Applied
Earthworks, Inc.,
Hemet, CA
Excavation
12
Resources
15-000549,
15-001161,
15-001168,
15-001175,
15-001176,
15-001185,
15-001811,
15-001878,
15-002234,
15-005412,
15-006515,
15-006801
15-001834,
15-003077,
15-003426,
15-003430,
15-003433,
15-003441,
15-005365,
15-005381,
15-005388,
15-005390,
15-005395,
15-005400,
15-006643,
15-007243
Counties
Kern
Kern
Information
Center
Report
Number
KE-03878
KE-04237
Authors
Giambastiani,
Mark,
Ghabhláin,
Sinéad Ní, Hale,
Michah,
Catacora,
Andrea, Iversen,
Dave, Becker,
Mark, and
Hogan-Conrad,
Susan
Way, Ross,
Jones, Kari, and
Jackson,
Thomas
Year
Title
Publisher
Report Type
Resources
2007
Phase II Cultural
Resource Evaluations at
21 Sites Along the
Northwestern and West
Boundaries, Edwards Air
Force Base, Kern and
Los Angeles Counties,
California
ASM Affiliates,
Inc. ; Eart Tech,
Inc.
Archaeological,
Evaluation
15-002290,
15-002481,
15-002558,
15-011462,
15-011464,
15-011737,
15-011738,
15-011740,
15-011742,
15-011744,
15-011746,
15-011748,
15-011749,
15-011750,
15-011757,
15-011760,
15-011761,
15-011762
2009
California Register of
Historical Resources
Evaluation of
Archaeological Site AP3132 for the Southern
California Edison
Company Tehachapi
Renewable Transmission
Project Segment 3B,
Kern County, California
Pacific Legacy,
Inc.
Archaeological,
Evaluation
15-012513
13
Counties
Kern
Kern
Information
Center
Report
Number
Authors
Year
Title
2002
Phase II Cultural
Resource Evaluation for
Five Sites, Management
Region 5, Edwards Air
Force Base, California
KE-04487
Walsh, Michael
R. and Wells,
Helen
KE-04488
Walsh, Michael,
Green, Terisa,
Crosby, Debora,
Johnson,
Wendy, and
Clewlow,
William
2002
KE-04649
Ramirez,
Robert, Daitch,
David, and
Hunt, Kevin
2015
KE-04665
Walsh, M.R.,
Clewlow, C.W.,
and Van Wyke,
A.J.
2001
Phase II Cultural
Resource Evaluation for
Twenty-Seven
Archaeological Sites,
Management Regions 3
and 4, Edwards Air Force
Base, California
Archaeological and
Paleontological
Monitoring Report for
the Camelot Solar
Project, Mojave, Kern
County, California
Cultural Resource
Testing and Phase II
Evaluation of Seven
Archaeological Sites
Along the Edwards Air
Force Base Research
Laboratory (AFRL)
Waterline, Kern County,
California
Publisher
Report Type
Resources
Counties
Ancient
Enterprises for
Tetra Tech
Archaeological,
Excavation
Kern
Ancient
Enterprises for
Tetra Tech
Archaeological,
Excavation
Kern
Rincon
Consultants
Archaeological,
Monitoring
15-018170,
15-018171,
15-018172
Kern
Archaeological,
Evaluation, Excavation,
Field study
15-000525,
15-002307,
15-002308,
15-008955,
15-008956,
15-008957
Kern
Ancient
Enterprises
14
Information
Center
Report
Number
Authors
Year
KE-04667
Clewlow,
William and
Flenniken,
Jeffrey
KE-04668
Pritchard, Mari
and Puckett,
Heather
1999
KE-04720
Campbell, Mark
and Crabtree,
Evan
2015
1998
Title
Phase II Archaeological
Test Evaluation of Six
Cultural Resource Sites
at Edwards Air Force
Base, Kern County,
California
Phase II Cultural
Resource Evaluation of
Five Archaeological
Sites In the Rogers Lake
Management Area,
Edwards AFB, Kern
County, California
Cultural Resource Study
for a Proposed Lot Split
of a 40-Acre Parcel
Located Northwest of
the Intersection of
Sweetser Road and
Tropico Road Near the
Community of
Rosamond, Kern
County, California
Publisher
Report Type
Resources
Counties
Archaeological,
Evaluation, Excavation
15-003988,
15-004664,
15-004842,
15-005459,
15-005461,
15-006191
Kern
Earth Tech
Archaeological,
Evaluation, Excavation
15-001179,
15-001755,
15-001758,
15-001763,
15-001764
Kern
Campbell
Anthropological
Research
Archaeological,
Excavation
US Army Corps
of Engineers
15
Kern
Information
Center
Report
Number
Authors
Year
KE-04887
Way, K. Ross,
Jackson,
Thomas L., and
Jones, Kari
2009
LA-00385
Sutton, Mark Q.
and R. W.
Robinson
1977
LA-00731
Toney, James T.
1968
Title
Results of the Evaluation
of Eligibility of
Archaeological Site CAKER-2821/H (Bean
Spring) for Listing in the
California Register of
Historical Resources and
Data Recovery Program
for Mitigating
Unavoidable Impacts to
the Site That May Result
from Activities
Associated with
Construction of
Segment 3 of the
Tehachapi Renewable
Transmisison Project
Final Report on the
Mitigation Procedures
for the Cultural
Resources on the Space
Shuttle Transport Road
Archaeological Salvage
of Site 4-LAN-192, Los
Angeles County,
California
Publisher
Pacific Legacy
University of
California, Los
Angeles
Archaeological
Survey
16
Report Type
Resources
Counties
Archaeological,
Excavation
15-002821
Kern
Archaeological, Field
study
19-000714,
19-000716
Los
Angeles
Excavation
19-000192
Los
Angeles
Information
Center
Report
Number
Authors
Year
LA-00769
Sutton, Mark Q.
1979
LA-00770
Sutton, Mark Q.
1978
LA-00772
Sutton, Mark Q.
1978
LA-01544
Gumerman,
George, IV and
Mark Allen
1986
LA-01843
Love, Bruce,
William De
Witt, David
Earle, Neal
Kaptain, and
Robert Yohe
1989
LA-01967
Wade, Sue A.
and Susan M.
Hector
1989
LA-02207
Sutton, Mark Q.
1987
Title
Rhyolite Revisted; Test
Excavations at LAN-298,
a Site in Antelope
Valley, California.
Excavations at LAN-298:
a Preliminary Analysis
Relationships Between
Artifactual and
Unmodified Lithics at
LAN-771
An Archaeological Test
and Salvage of CA-LAN1263 and CA-LAN-1264,
Palmdale, Los Angeles
County, California
Barrel Springs
Archaeology, Antelope
Valley, Southern
California
Archaeological Testing
and National Register
Evaluation of Site LAN1316 Edwards Airforce
Base California
An Overview of the
Archaeology of the
Fairmont Buttes Area
California
Publisher
Report Type
Resources
Counties
Mark Q. Sutton
Excavation
19-000298
Los
Angeles
Mark Q. Sutton
Excavation
19-000298
Los
Angeles
Archaeological, Other
research
19-000771
Los
Angeles
Excavation
19-001263,
19-001264
Los
Angeles
Pyramid
Archaeology
Archaeological,
Excavation, Field study
19-000082
Los
Angeles
Recon
Excavation
19-001316
Los
Angeles
Antelope Valley
Archaeological
Society
Other research
19-000296,
19-000297,
19-000298
Los
Angeles
17
Information
Center
Report
Number
LA-02315
LA-02387
Authors
Love, Bruce
Padon, Beth
Year
Title
Publisher
1991
Cultural Resources
Evaluation Phase Ii
Testing Program Parcel
Map 22625 Juniper Hills,
Los Angeles County
Pyramid
Archaeology
Excavation
1991
Phase II Archaeology at
Ritter Ranch Tentative
Parcel Map No. 22833
Palmdale, California.
LSA Associates,
Inc.
Archaeological, Field
study
18
Report Type
Resources
19-000302,
19-001120,
19-001964,
19-001965,
19-001966
19-000039,
19-000163,
19-000405,
19-000947,
19-000953,
19-000959,
19-001035,
19-001219,
19-001220,
19-001279,
19-001280,
19-001335,
19-001626,
19-001627,
19-001628,
19-001629,
19-001630,
19-001631,
19-001633,
19-001634,
19-001635,
19-001636,
19-001637,
19-001638,
19-001639,
19-001642
Counties
Los
Angeles
Los
Angeles
Information
Center
Report
Number
LA-02487
LA-02574
Authors
Year
Sutton, Mark Q.
1982
Sutton, Mark Q.
LA-02647
Bissell, Ronald
M.
LA-03055
Rosenthal, E.
Jane, William H.
Breece, Beth
Padon, and
Richard Cerreto
Title
Archaeology of the
Fairmont Buttes
Publisher
Pacific Coast
Archaeological
Society Quarterly
1988
An Introduction to the
Archaeology of the
Western Mojave Desert,
California
1992
Test Excavation and
Documentaion of
Archaeological Sites on
the Santa Fe Hills
Property, Palmdale, Los
Angeles County,
California
RMW Paleo
Associates, Inc.
1988
Test Level Investigations
at CA-LAN-1295
Edwards Air Force Base,
California
LSA Associates,
Inc.
Coyote Press
19
Report Type
Resources
Counties
Excavation
19-000298
Los
Angeles
Other research
19-000192,
19-000298,
19-000487,
19-000488,
19-000765,
19-000767,
19-000828,
19-001103
Los
Angeles
19-000767,
19-001576,
19-001577,
19-001578,
19-001595
Los
Angeles
19-001295
Los
Angeles
Archaeological, Field
study
Information
Center
Report
Number
Authors
LA-03074
Norwood,
Richard H.
LA-03262
Wohlgemuth,
Eric
LA-03894
Stickel, Gary E.
and WeinmanRoberts, Lois J.
Year
1993
1995
1979
Title
Phase Ii Cultural
Resource Investigation
for Sites A-LAN-2099/h
and CA-LAN-2091h
Tentative Tract No.
49830 Lancaster, Los
Angeles County
California
Archaeological Impact
Assessment,
Investigations at CALAN-1304 Littlerock
Canyon, Los Angeles
County, California
Publisher
Report Type
An Overview of the
Cultural Resources of
the Western Mojave
Desert
20
Counties
19-002091,
19-002099
Los
Angeles
Excavation
19-001304
Los
Angeles
Literature search
19-000077,
19-000192,
19-000239,
19-000296,
19-000297,
19-000298,
19-000305,
19-000483,
19-000484,
19-000485,
19-000486,
19-000488,
19-000679,
19-000714,
19-000716,
19-000720,
Los
Angeles
RT Factfinders
Far Western
Anthropological
Research Group,
Inc.
Resources
Information
Center
Report
Number
Authors
Year
Title
Publisher
Report Type
Resources
Counties
19-000721,
19-000764,
19-000765,
19-000767,
19-000770,
19-000771,
19-000772,
19-000787,
19-000788,
19-000828
LA-04066
Titus, Jan and
Evelyn Chandler
LA-07082
Milburn,
Douglas H.
1997
2003
The Evaluation of Five
Archaeological Sites
Along 140th Street,
Edwards Air Force Base,
California
Archaeological
Investigation at CALAN-1209/h, Cooper
Creek Site, Northern San
Gabriel Mountains, Los
Angeles County,
California
Tetra Tech, Inc.
Excavation
19-001184,
19-001196,
19-001198,
19-001589,
19-001702
Angeles National
Forest
Archaeological,
Excavation, Field study,
Other research
19-001209
21
Los
Angeles
Los
Angeles
Information
Center
Report
Number
LA-08981
Authors
Parker, Mari
Pritchard,
Natasha
Tabares, Sherri
Gust, Albert
Knight, and
Vanessa Mirro
Year
2004
Title
Data Recovery, Testing
and Monitoring Report
and Recommendations
for Phase I of the
Anaverde Project,
Palmdale, California
Publisher
Cogstone
Resource
Management,
Inc.
22
Report Type
Excavation, Monitoring
Resources
19-000164,
19-000298,
19-000305,
19-000362,
19-000363,
19-000365,
19-000366,
19-000367,
19-000374,
19-000375,
19-000381,
19-000445,
19-000447,
19-000484,
19-000538,
19-000540,
19-000558,
19-000655,
19-000656,
19-000721,
19-000723,
19-000857,
19-000947,
19-000949,
19-000959,
19-001035,
19-001068,
19-001132,
19-001169,
19-001171,
19-001172,
Counties
Los
Angeles
Information
Center
Report
Number
Authors
Year
Title
Publisher
Report Type
Resources
19-001213,
19-001247,
19-001279,
19-001281,
19-001302,
19-001335,
19-001442,
19-001443,
19-001462,
19-001576,
19-001628,
19-001630,
19-001632,
19-001633,
19-001634,
19-001635,
19-001636,
19-001731,
19-001746,
19-001747,
19-001748,
19-001749,
19-001750,
19-001751,
19-001752,
19-001753,
19-001754,
19-001755,
19-001756,
19-001757,
19-001758,
23
Counties
Information
Center
Report
Number
Authors
Year
Title
Publisher
Report Type
Resources
19-001759,
19-001760,
19-001761,
19-001762,
19-001763,
19-001764,
19-001765,
19-001766,
19-001767,
19-001768,
19-001769,
19-001770,
19-001771,
19-001772,
19-001773,
19-001774,
19-001878,
19-001956,
19-001957,
19-001958,
19-001962,
19-001963,
19-001967,
19-002368,
19-003175,
19-003176,
19-003177,
19-003178,
19-003179
24
Counties
Information
Center
Report
Number
LA-09084
Authors
Price, Barry A.,
Jay B. Lloyd,
Sandra S. Flint,
Mary Clark
Baloian,
Michael Mirro,
Randy Baloian,
David Earle,
and Alan
Garfinkel
Year
2005
Title
Final Eligibility and
Effects Assessment at
CA-LAN-192 Stephen
Sorensen Park, Los
Angeles County,
California
Publisher
Applied
EartWorks, Inc.
25
Report Type
Archaeological,
Excavation, Field study,
Other research
Resources
19-000192
Counties
Los
Angeles
Information
Center
Report
Number
LA-09730
Authors
Earle, David D.,
Judy
McKeehan, and
Roger D.
Mason
Year
1995
Title
Cultural Resources
Overview of the Little
Rock Watershed,
Angeles National Forest,
California.
Publisher
Chambers
Group, Inc.
26
Report Type
Management/planning
Resources
19-000818,
19-001032,
19-001033,
19-001209,
19-001254,
19-001301,
19-001303,
19-001304,
19-001312,
19-001332,
19-001457,
19-001458,
19-001459,
19-001509,
19-001513,
19-001514,
19-001515,
19-001516,
19-001616,
19-001974,
19-001975,
19-001976,
19-001977,
19-001978,
19-002128,
19-002129,
19-002130,
19-002137,
19-002188,
19-002221,
19-002222,
Counties
Los
Angeles
Information
Center
Report
Number
Authors
Year
Title
Publisher
Report Type
Resources
19-002223,
19-002224,
19-002225,
19-002226,
19-002227,
19-002228,
19-002229,
19-002230,
19-002231,
19-002232,
19-002250,
19-002251,
19-002252
27
Counties
Information
Center
Report
Number
Authors
Year
LA-10077
Campbell, Mark
M.
1996
LA-10418
Hale, Micah,
Giambastriani,
Mark, Iverson,
Dave, Richards,
Michael, and
StringerBowser, Sarah
2009
LA-10520
Pritchard
Parker, Mari A.
and Heather R.
Puckett
2004
Title
Phase Ii Cultural
Resource Evaluation for
the Abandoned Prime
Base Emergency
Engineering Force
(prime Beef) Facility,
Edwards Afb, Kern
County, California
Phase II Cultural
Resource Evaluations at
51 Archaeological Sites
in Management Regions
1a, 1b, 2b, 2c, and 3e,
Bissell Hills and Paiute
Ponds Edwards Air
Force Base Kern and Los
Angeles Counties,
California
Final - A Phase II
Evaluation of 94
Archaeological Sites
Located Along Roads
Throughout Edwards Air
Force Base, California
Publisher
Report Type
Resources
Counties
Computer
Sciences
Corporation
Edwards Flight
Test Center
Evaluation, Excavation,
Other research
Los
Angeles
ASM Affiliates
Archaeological, Field
study
Los
Angeles
Earth Tech
Archaeological,
Evaluation, Excavation,
Field study, Other
research
28
19-001590,
19-002295,
19-002301,
19-002399
Los
Angeles
Information
Center
Report
Number
LA-10529
LA-10534
Authors
Earle, David D.,
Barry L. Boyer,
Reid A. Bryson,
Robert U.
Bryson, Mark
Campbell,
James J.
Johannesmeyer,
Kelly A. Clark,
Cole J. Parker,
Matthew D.
Pittman, Luz M.
Ramirez,
Margaret R.
Ronning, and
Jackson
Underwood
Padon, Beth
Year
Title
Publisher
1997
Cultural Resources
Overview and
Management Plan for
Edwards AFB, California,
Volume 1: Overview of
Prehistoric Cultural
Resources
Computer
Sciences
Corporation
Literature search,
Management/planning
1997
Archaeological
Assessment of CA-LAN2311 and CA-LAN-2552
for Elizabeth Lake Road
Realignment, Los
Angeles County,
California
Petra Resources,
Inc.
Excavation
29
Report Type
Resources
Counties
Los
Angeles
19-002311,
19-002552
Los
Angeles
Information
Center
Report
Number
LA-10610
LA-11866
Authors
Budinger, Fred
E., Mark M.
Campbell, and
Harriot E.
Spinney
Armstrong,
Matthew, Way,
K. Ross, and
Jackson,
Thomas
Year
Title
2003
Final - The prehistory of
cultural resources
management region 5
at Edwards Air Force
Base, Kern, Los Angeles,
and San Bernadino
Counties, California
2010
California Register fo
Historical Resources
Evaluation of
Archaeological Site
CT34A at Structure 34
for the Southern
California Edison
Company Tehachapi
Renewable Transmission
Project Segment 2, Los
Angeles County, CA
Publisher
Report Type
Resources
Counties
Tetra Tech, Inc.
Archaeological,
Excavation, Field study,
Management/planning
19-000863,
19-001184,
19-001185,
19-001186,
19-001187,
19-001188,
19-001189,
19-001191,
19-001192,
19-001193,
19-001194,
19-001201,
19-001202,
19-001204,
19-001702,
19-001798,
19-001876,
19-002219,
19-002925
Los
Angeles
Pacific Legacy
Archaeological,
Architectural/historical,
Evaluation, Field study
19-004156
Los
Angeles
30
Information
Center
Report
Number
LA-12495
Authors
Kremkau, Scott,
Sutton, Mark,
and Lerch,
Michael
Year
Title
2013
Rhyolite and Roasting
Pits Archaeological Data
Recovery in the
Antelope Valley, AV
Solar Ranch One
Project, Los Angeles
County, California
Publisher
Statistical
Research, Inc
31
Report Type
Excavation
Resources
19-001777,
19-001780,
19-003873
Counties
Los
Angeles
Attachment B
Analysis of Four Lithic Assemblages from
Archaeological Sites in the SR-138 Northwest Corridor
Improvement Project
Antelope Valley, Los Angeles County
Prepared by:
Mark W. Allen, Ph.D.
April 2018
Lithic artifacts from four archaeological sites that were tested and evaluated as part of the SR
138 Northwest Corridor Improvement Project were re-analyzed following the research
framework described in the Lithics Technology theme and the Lithic Material Sources theme of
the research design. The sites were originally described and evaluated in the Archaeological
Evaluation Report for the Project (Mason and Blumel 2015).
Lithics Analysis of SR-049 (P19-004620, CA-LAN-4620)
SR-049 (P19-004621, CA-LAN-4620) has been identified as a dense prehistoric lithic scatter
located approximately 500 meters north of the Fairmont Butte rhyolite source and a major
quarry and occupation site (CA-LAN-1789/H). The site was likely disturbed by historic
agricultural activity which potentially mixed the top 20-30 cm of soil, which may have resulted
in damage to some of the artifacts. It is also close to Highway 138 and may have been
subjected to considerable artifact collection. Artifacts were surface collected and 12 shovel test
pits (STPs) were placed within the site during Extended Phase I investigations in 2014. Eight of
the STPs yielded artifacts and/or charcoal, with low density of artifacts to a maximum depth of
approximately 50 centimeters (cm) below the surface. No intact features were noted on the
surface or in the STPs. During Phase II testing, two 1x1 meter test units were excavated in 10
cm levels to 1 meter in depth with all removed deposits screened through 1/8-inch mesh. Test
Unit 1 was sterile was terminated because of a sterile hard pan at 40 cm. Test Unit 2 was
excavated to 60 cm after excavating into the hard pan for 5-20 cm. Three flakes were found in
this unit in the 50-60 cm level.
Recovered Lithic Assemblage
The total lithic assemblage from the investigations of SR-049 is presented in Table 1. There is a
total of 388 artifacts, with 262 resulting from the surface collection, 43 from the STPs, and 43
from the test units. A total of 99.5% of the artifacts were rhyolite, with 2 sandstone primary
flakes (catalog# 35 and 51) recovered from the surface. A total of 10.8% (42/388) of the
assemblage is shatter, 85.1% (300/388) are flakes, 2.1% (8/388) are cores, and 2.1% (8/388)
are lithic tools. Most of the cores and tools were recovered from the surface with a total of one
each from the subsurface.
2
Table 1. Lithics from SR-049.
Shatter
Primary
Flakes
Secondary
Flakes
Biface
Thinning
Flakes
Surface
Surface %
STPs
STP %
22
8.3
9
20.9
31
11.8
2
4.7
47
17.9
6
14
148
56.5
25
58.1
0
0
0
0
7
2.7
0
0
7
2.7
1
2.3
262
Test Units
Test Units %
Total
Total %
11
13.3
42
10.8
0
0
33
8.5
13
15.7
66
17
57
69.7
230
59.3
1
1.2
1
0.3
1
1.2
8
2.1
0
0
8
2.1
83
Context
Tertiary
Flakes
Cores
Tools
Total
43
388
Debitage Analysis
Following the debitage classification system developed by Allen (2013) for archaeological sites
in the western Mojave Desert, the 300 flakes were classified as primary, secondary, biface
thinning, or tertiary. Biface thinning flakes are the most common, comprising 76.7% (230/300)
of all flakes and 59.3% of the entire lithic assemblage. Secondary flakes were the next most
common with 22.0% (16/66) of all flakes and representing 17% of the entire lithic assemblage.
Primary flakes (11.0% of flakes, 33/300) and tertiary flakes (0.3%, 1/300) were less frequent
with the latter nearly absent from the assemblage. This strongly suggests that the primary lithic
reduction activity at the site was the reduction of rhyolite cobbles into bifaces and other blanks.
There was very little initial decortication going on at the site; this likely occurred at the source
itself. There was also very little tool manufacture or maintenance at the site, as indicated by the
low frequency of tertiary flakes.
Table 1 also presents the frequency for each type by context (surface, STPs, test units). Shatter
is most common in the STPs. Primary flakes comprise a significantly higher percentage of the
surface artifacts than the subsurface contexts. Secondary flakes and biface thinning flakes are
fairly consistent among the contexts. As noted above, tertiary flakes are nearly absent from the
assemblage, even in the deposits screened with 1/8-inch mesh.
The interpretation that the site was predominantly a locus for producing bifaces for exchange or
use elsewhere is supported by calculation of a biface production index based on the ratio of
biface thinning flakes to secondary flakes (230/66 = 3.48 biface thinning/secondary flakes).
Lithic Tools
Eight lithic tools were recovered from SR-049 (Table 2). Seven of the recovered tools in the
assemblage are rhyolite bifaces, seven from the surface and one from the 20-40 cm level of
STP 3. One of the surface bifaces is a relatively finished tool (stage III), but the other seven are
early stages of manufacture (stage I). A biface exchange index for the entire assemblage (total
3
number of biface thinning flakes/total number of recovered bifaces) is 37.5:1. While the sample
size is small, and bifaces could have been removed from surface contexts by collectors, this is
nonetheless suggestive of modest levels of biface production for use elsewhere or for exchange.
The other recovered lithic tool is a rhyolite uniface (catalog # 42). It is a blade modified on both
lateral edges, a rather rare artifact type for the western Mojave Desert.
Table 2. Lithic Tools Recovered from SR-049 (All artifacts are rhyolite).
Artifact
Cat. #
9
12
20
Type
Mass (g)
Surface
Surface
Surface
Depth
(cm)
NA
NA
NA
Biface
Biface
Biface
12.4
9.2
21.6
Dimensions
(cm)
3.5 x 3.3 x 1.2
2.7 x 3.3 x 1.0
3.5 x 3.8 x 1.4
42
Surface
NA
Uniface
12.7
6.0 x 2.1 x 0.7
46
174
206
283
Surface
Surface
Surface
STP 3
NA
NA
NA
20-40
Biface
Biface
Biface
Biface
4.1
9.0
9.5
17.4
2.1
2.6
2.5
4.4
Unit
x
x
x
x
2.4
2.9
3.3
2.2
x
x
x
x
0.7
1.2
1.0
1.3
Comments
Stage I, medial frag.
Stage I, distal frag.
Stage I, proximal frag.
Blade with modification on
both lateral edges
Stage III, distal frag.
Stage I, proximal frag.
Stage I, medial frag.
Stage I, medial frag.
Cores
Eight rhyolite cores were recovered from SR-049 (Table 3). Seven were from the surface, and
included two unidirectional and five multidirectional cores. A single multidirectional core was
recovered from subsurface context, from the 30-40 cm level of Test Unit 2. Cores at the site,
though few, do suggest that flakes suitable for use as tools were being produced at the site,
along with bifaces.
Table 3. Cores Recovered from SR-049 (All artifacts are rhyolite).
Artifact
Cat. #
2
16
24
48
91
125
135
335
Unit
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
TU 2
Depth
(cm)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
30-40
Type
Mass (g)
Unidirectional
Unidirectional
Multidirectional
Multidirectional
Multidirectional
Multidirectional
Multidirectional
Multidirectional
180.3
32.8
51.3
106.7
34.0
32.6
164.0
83.4
Dimensions
(cm)
7.4 x 6.3 x 3.6
4.9 x 3.5 x 1.8
4.9 x 3.2 x 4.0
5.8 x 5.3 x 2.9
5.7 x 3.4 x 1.8
3.9 x 4.2 x 2.2
5.9 x 5.7 x 4.1
9.0 x 4.8 x 2.4
Interpretation
Because the rhyolite assemblage contains only about 8% primary flakes and most flakes have
little observed cortex, the primary activity at SR-049 was likely the reduction of Fairmont Butte
4
rhyolite cobbles that had already been significantly assayed and reduced (cortex removed).
Early stage biface production is suggested by the high percentage of biface thinning flakes and
the presence of several possibly rejected or discarded stage I biface tools which may have
broken during manufacture. In addition, the presence of a significant percentage of secondary
flakes and cores suggests that production of flakes suitable for expedient tools or more finished
flake tools was another activity practiced at SR-049. Other than a single stage III biface
recovered from the surface, there is essentially no evidence of other lithic reduction activities at
the site. Since there are no diagnostic artifacts in the assemblage and no chronometric dates, it
is currently impossible to assign a temporal period to the site. The site is one of numerous sites
near Fairmont Butte where rhyolite was being reduced into at least two products: early stages
of bifaces and generalized flakes suitable for modification into other tools, apparently over a
long period of time dating back to at least the Pinto Period.
Lithics Analysis of SR-051 (P19-004621, CA-LAN-4621)
SR-051 (P19-004621, CA-LAN-4621) has been identified as a large temporary campsite with a
low density of artifacts. It is located near the Fairmont Butte rhyolite source. The site was likely
disturbed by historic agricultural activity which likely mixed the top 20-30 cm of soil, and which
likely resulted in damage to some of the artifacts. It is also close to Highway 138 and may have
been subjected to considerable artifact collection. Artifacts were surface collected and 33 STPs
were placed within the site during Extended Phase I investigations in 2014. Fifteen of the STPs
yielded artifacts and/or charcoal, with a low density of artifacts to a maximum depth of
approximately 70 cm below the surface. No intact features were noted on the surface or in the
STPs. During Phase II testing, three 1x1 meter test units were excavated in 10 cm levels to 1
meter in depth with all removed deposits screened through 1/8-inch mesh. Test Unit 1 was
sterile at 70 cm, Test Unit 2 was sterile after 50 cm and Test Unit 3 had a single artifact in the
70-80 cm level and only charcoal in the last two levels. Two radiocarbon dates of charcoal
samples tentatively place the site in the Late Prehistoric Period and possibly the Mission Period,
though context of these samples is not solid.
Recovered Lithic Assemblage
The total lithic assemblage recovered from the investigations of SR-051 is presented in Table 4.
There is a total of 94 artifacts, with 62 resulting from the surface collection, 19 from the STPs,
and 13 from the test units. All artifacts were rhyolite. A total of 21.3% (20/94) of the
assemblage are shatter, 70.2% (66/94) are flakes, 4.2% (4/94) are cores, and 4.2% (4/94) are
lithic tools.
5
Table 4. Lithics from SR-051.
Context
Shatter
Primary
Flakes
Secondary
Flakes
Surface
STP
15
3
5
0
13
1
Biface
Thinning
Flakes
23
11
Test Units
Total
Total %
2
20
21.3
1
6
6.4
2
16
17
6
40
42.6
Tertiary
Flakes
Cores
Tools
Total
0
3
3
0
3
1
62
19
1
4
4.2
1
4
4.2
0
4
4.2
13
94
Debitage Analysis
Following the debitage classification system developed by Allen (2013) for archaeological sites
in the western Mojave Desert, the 66 flakes were classified as primary, secondary, biface
thinning, or tertiary. Biface thinning flakes are the most common comprising 60.6% (40/66) of
all flakes and 42% of the entire lithic assemblage. They were the most common type of flake in
all three recovery contexts (surface collection, STPs, and test units). Secondary flakes were the
next most common with 24.2% (16/66) of all flakes and representing 17% of the entire lithic
assemblage. Primary flakes (9.1% of flakes, 6/66) and tertiary flakes (6.1%, 4/66) were less
frequent. This strongly suggests that the primary lithic reduction activity at the site was the
reduction of rhyolite cobbles into bifaces and other blanks. There was very little initial
decortication going on at the site; this likely occurred at the source itself. There was also very
little tool manufacture or maintenance at the site as indicated by the low frequency of tertiary
flakes.
The interpretation that the site was predominantly a locus for producing bifaces for exchange or
use elsewhere is supported by calculation of a biface production index based on the ratio of
biface thinning flakes to secondary flakes (40/16 = 2.50 biface thinning/secondary flakes).
Lithic Tools
Four lithic tools were recovered from SR-051 (Table 5). Three of these were utilized flakes and
a single uniface collected from the surface, and one was a biface recovered from STP 29 at a
depth of 50-53 cm. None of the surface artifacts were extensively modified, all three likely were
for expedient use only. The biface was stage I, representing a very early stage of reduction. It
was likely found to be an unpromising specimen and discarded. A biface exchange index for the
entire assemblage (total number of biface thinning flakes/total number of recovered bifaces) is
40:1. While the sample size is small, and bifaces could have been removed from surface
contexts by collectors, this is nonetheless suggestive of modest levels of biface production for
use elsewhere or for exchange.
6
Table 5. Lithic Tools Recovered from SR-051. (All artifacts are rhyolite.)
Artifact
Cat. #
35
Unit
Depth (cm)
Type
STP 29
50-53
59
Surface
NA
62
Surface
NA
82
Surface
NA
Biface
Utilized
Flake
Utilized
Flake
Uniface
Mass
(g)
77.6
Dimensions
(cm)
8.3 x 5.2 x 2.0
2.9
3.3 x 2.1 x 0.4
24.3
5.2 x 3.8 x 1.4
90.8
7.8 x 5.1 x 2.4
Comments
Stage I, 10% cortex
Biface thinning flake, one
edge modified
Primary flake, one edge
modified
Likely expedient use
Cores
Four cores were recovered from SR-051 (Table 6). Three were from the surface: a possible
bipolar reduction core that was exhausted, and two multidirectional cores. One of these two
(#97) was likely used expediently as a hammer stone and/or as a heavy chopping tool. A single
core was recovered subsurface, at a depth of 60-70 cm in Test Unit 3. It was an exhausted
multi-directional core. Cores at the site, though few in number, do suggest that flakes suitable
for use as tools were being produced at the site along with bifaces.
Table 6. Cores Recovered from SR-051. (All artifacts are rhyolite.)
Artifact
Cat. #
Unit
Depth
(cm)
Mass (g)
Dimensions
(cm)
Comments
53
Surface
NA
89
Surface
NA
Possible Bipolar
Reduction Core
Multidirectional
17.1
2.9 x 2.4 x 2.2
Exhausted core
91.8
5.2 x 5.8 x 3.5
97
Surface
NA
Multidirectional
850
9 x 8.2 x 7.4
98
TU 3
60-70
Multidirectional
39.5
5.5 x 4.4 x 2.1
Type
Possible use as
hammerstone or
chopper
Exhausted core
Interpretation
Although the lithics assemblage from SR-051 is small in numbers and diversity, there are
congruent findings from analysis of the debitage, tools, and cores. The primary activity at the
site was likely the reduction of local rhyolite cobbles from the nearby Fairmont Butte that had
already been significantly assayed with most cortex removed (since the assemblage has few
primary flakes, and most flakes have little observed cortex). Early stage biface production is
suggested by the high percentage of biface thinning flakes and the presence of one possibly
rejected stage I biface tool. In addition, the presence of a significant percentage of secondary
flakes and exhausted cores suggests that production of flakes suitable for expedient tools or
more finished flake tools was another activity practiced at SR-051. There is very limited
evidence of other activities at the site, consisting solely of a few tools for expedient use, one
core, and a small number of tertiary flakes. Though there are no diagnostic artifacts in the
7
assemblage, the two radiocarbon dates offer modest support that the site dates to the Late
Prehistoric and possibly the Mission Periods. This is an important finding that supports earlier
work by Sutton (1982, 1988) and Scharlotta (2010a, 2010b, 2014) that argues that the
Fairmont Butte rhyolite source was not restricted to early temporal periods such as the Pinto
Period. It also could reflect use of this source by ethnographically known populations in the
region during the Late Prehistoric Period and possibly the Mission Period.
Lithics Analysis of SRAS-003 (P19-004640, CA-LAN-4640)
SRAS-003 (P19-004640, CA-LAN-4640) has been identified as a large temporary camp with a
low density of artifacts located on top of a steep hill near Quail Lake. Artifacts were surface
collected and 28 STPs were placed within the site during Extended Phase I investigations in
2015. Nineteen of the STPs yielded artifacts and/or charcoal, with a low density of artifacts to a
maximum depth of approximately 80 cm below the surface. During Phase II testing, two 1x1
meter test units were excavated in 10 cm levels to 1 meter in depth with all removed deposits
screened through 1/8-inch mesh. Artifacts were recovered to a depth of 90-100 cm in both
units.
Recovered Lithic Assemblage
The total lithic assemblage from the investigations of SRAS-003 is presented in Table 7. There
is a total of 165 artifacts, with 23 resulting from the surface collection, 81 from the STPs, and
61 from the test units. A total of 35.2% (58/165) of the assemblage are shatter, 62.4%
(103/165) are flakes, 1.2% (2/165) are cores, and 1.2% (2/165) are lithic tools.
Table 7. Lithics from SRAS-003.
Context
Shatter
Primary
Flakes
Secondary
Flakes
Biface
Thinning
Flakes
Tertiary
Flakes
Cores
Tools
Total
Surface
STPs
6
32
2
4
5
5
8
25
1
12
1
1
0
2
23
81
Test Units
Total
Total %
20
58
35.2
3
9
5.4
10
20
12.1
24
57
34.5
4
17
10.3
0
2
1.9
0
2
1.2
61
165
Material types for the lithic assemblage are diverse with a total of nine different types (Table 8).
Chalcedony is the most common material (57/165, 34.5%). Chert is the second most common
material (23/165m 13.9%). Basalt, fused shale, jasper, obsidian, quartzite, and rhyolite are
similar in frequency, ranging from 11-17% of the assemblage. Andesite is rare, with only one
artifact.
8
Table 8. Lithic Assemblage by Material Type for SRAS-003.
Material
Shatter
Primary
Flakes
Secondary
Flakes
Biface
Thinning
Flakes
Tertiary
Flakes
Cores
Tools
Total
Total
%
Andesite
Basalt
0
2
0
2
0
3
1
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
11
0.6
6.7
Chalcedony
Chert
Fused
Shale
Jasper
Obsidian
26
8
1
2
5
5
19
4
6
3
0
1
0
0
57
23
34.5
13.9
2
0
0
10
0
0
0
12
7.3
10
2
0
0
0
2
2
5
2
6
0
0
1
1
15
16
9.1
9.7
Quartzite
Rhyolite
Total
Total %
2
6
58
35.1
4
0
9
5.45
4
2
21
12.7
6
5
56
33.9
0
0
17
10.3
1
0
2
1.2
0
0
2
1.2
17
13
165
10.3
7.9
Debitage Analysis
Following the debitage classification system developed by Allen (2013) for archaeological sites
in the western Mojave Desert, the 103 flakes were classified as primary, secondary, biface
thinning, or tertiary. Biface thinning flakes are the most common comprising 54.3% (56/103) of
all flakes and 33.9% of the entire lithic assemblage. They were the most common type of flake
in all three recovery contexts (surface collection, STPs, and test units). Secondary flakes were
the next most common with 20.3% (21/103) of all flakes and representing 12.1% of the entire
lithic assemblage. Primary flakes (8.7% of flakes, 9/103) and tertiary flakes (16.5%, 17/103)
were less frequent.
The material types of flake types show significant differences. Table 9 shows the frequency of
flake types by material type. Shatter is represented mostly by chalcedony, chert, and jasper.
Primary flakes are represented by basalt, chalcedony, and quartzite only. Secondary flakes are
represented by all materials except andesite, fused shale, and jasper, but the majority are
chalcedony, chert, and obsidian. Biface thinning flakes are represented by all nine material
types, with chalcedony and fused shale the most important materials. Tertiary flakes are CCS
and obsidian exclusively.
9
Table 9. Lithic Artifacts by Material Type for SRAS-003.
Material
Shatter
%
Primary
Flakes
%
Secondary
Flakes
%
Biface
Thinning
Flakes %
Tertiary
Flakes %
Cores
%
Tools
%
Andesite
Basalt
0
3.4
0
22.2
0
14.3
1.8
7.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
Chalcedony
Chert
Fused Shale
Jasper
Obsidian
Quartzite
44.8
13.8
3.4
17.2
3.4
3.4
11.1
22.2
0
0
0
44.4
23.8
23.8
0
0
23.8
19
33.9
7.1
17.9
3.6
8.9
10.7
35.3
17.6
0
11.8
35.3
0
0
50
0
0
0
50
0
0
0
50
50
0
Rhyolite
10.3
0
23.8
8.9
0
0
0
The interpretation that the site was an important location for producing or maintaining bifaces
of various lithic materials is supported by calculation of a biface production index based on the
ratio of biface thinning flakes to secondary flakes (57/40 = 1.43 biface thinning/secondary
flakes). But clearly secondary flakes suitable for use as flake tools are also an important part of
lithic production at the site. Pressure flaked tools seem to be confined to CCS and obsidian
materials only.
Lithic Tools
Only two lithic tools were recovered from SRAS-003 (Table 10). Both were recovered at a depth
of 0-20 cm in STPs. One (catalog #32) is a stage II obsidian biface medial fragment. The
second (catalog # 181) is a jasper uniface with one worked edge. A biface exchange index for
the entire assemblage (total number of biface thinning flakes/total number of recovered
bifaces) is 56:1. While the sample size is small, and bifaces could have been removed from
surface contexts by collectors, this is nonetheless suggestive of modest levels of biface
production for use elsewhere or for exchange.
Table 10. Lithic Tools Recovered from SRAS-003.
Artifact
Cat. #
32
181
Unit
STP 1
STP 23
Depth
(cm)
0-20
0-20
Type
Material
Biface
Uniface
Obsidian
Jasper
Mass
(g)
3.0
1.3
10
Dimensions
(cm)
1.9 x 1.7 x 0.9
1.8 x 1.6 x 0.5
Comments
Stage II, medial frag.
One modified edge
Cores
Two cores were recovered from SRAS-003 (Table 11). One multidirectional quartzite core was
collected on the surface, and a multidirectional chert core was recovered from 0-20 cm in STP
20. Cores at the site, though few, do suggest that flakes suitable for use as tools were being
produced at the site along with bifaces.
Table 11. Cores Recovered from SRAS-003.
Artifact
Cat #
5
148
Unit
Surface
STP 20
Depth
(cm)
NA
0-20
Type
Material
Multidirectional
Multidirectional
Quartzite
Chert
Mass
(g)
92.3
91.8
Dimensions (cm)
7.0 x 4.4 x 3.2
5.2 x 5.8 x 3.5
Interpretation
SRAS-003 has a diverse lithic assemblage by material type, but consisting mostly of debitage. A
wide range of materials including CCS, fine grained volcanic material, obsidian, fused shale, and
quartzite were used to produce or maintain biface cores or tools at the site. Flakes were also
produced at the site, mostly from CCS and obsidian. Pressure flaking was minimal and restricted
to CCS and obsidian only. The lack of diagnostic artifacts or chronometric dates prohibits
assignment of chronological period. The presence of fused shale has the potential to address
research questions involving the use and exchange of this material in the Antelope Valley.
Lithics Analysis of SR-101 (P19-004632, CA-LAN-4632)
SR-101 (P19-004632, CA-LAN-4632) is in the Antelope Valley. It was subjected to surface
collection and six STP units, although lithic artifacts only came from STP 2, 3 and 6. The
greatest recorded depth for any artifact is 30-35 cm in STP 6.
Recovered Lithic Assemblage
The total lithic assemblage from the investigations of SR-101 is presented in Table 12. There is
a total of 53 artifacts, with 48 resulting from the surface collection, and 5 from the STPs. A total
of 28.3% (15/53) of the assemblage are shatter, 56.6% (30/53) are flakes, 11.3% (6/53) are
cores, and 1.9% (1/53) are lithic tools, and there is one unmodified cobble of vitreous basalt
that was collected as a possible artifact (this is not likely, however).
11
Table 12. Total Lithic Assemblage from SR-101.
Context
Shatter
Primary
Flakes
Secondary
Flakes
Biface
Thinning
Flakes
Tertiary
Flakes
Cores
Tools
Unmodified
Cobbles
Total
Surface
STPs
14
1
13
0
12
3
2
0
0
0
5
1
1
0
1
0
48
5
Total
Total
%
15
13
15
2
0
6
1
1
53
28.3
24.5
28.3
3.8
0
11.3
1.9
1.9
The lithic assemblage is comprised of three different material types (Table 13). The most
common material is basalt, with 67.9% (36/53) artifacts. Vesicular basalt makes up 28.3%
(15/53) of the total assemblage. Chalcedony is relatively uncommon, comprising 3.8% (2/53) of
the assemblage.
Table 13. Types of Lithics by Material Type for the SR-101 Assemblage.
Material
Shatter
Primary
Flakes
Secondary
Flakes
Biface
Thinning
Flakes
Tertiary
Flakes
Cores
Unmodified
Cobbles
Tools
Total
Total
%
Basalt
Chalcedony
Vesicular
Basalt
Total
9
0
10
0
12
1
1
0
0
0
3
1
1
0
0
0
36
2
67.9
3.8
6
3
2
1
0
2
0
1
15
28.3
15
13
15
2
0
6
1
1
53
Debitage Analysis
Following the debitage classification system developed by Allen (2013) for archaeological sites
in the western Mojave Desert, the 30 flakes were classified as primary, secondary, biface
thinning, or tertiary. Secondary flakes are the most common comprising 50% (15/30) of all
flakes and 28.3 of the entire lithic assemblage. They were the most common type of flake in
both recovery contexts (surface collection and STPs). Primary flakes were the next most
common with 43.3% (13/30) of all flakes and representing 24.5% of the entire lithic
assemblage. Biface thinning flake are relatively infrequent (6.7%, 2/30) in the assemblage.
Tertiary flakes are not present in the assemblage. This strongly suggests that the lithic
reduction activity at the site was the initial reduction of basalt and vesicular basalt cobbles into
cores or small flakes. A single secondary flake (catalog #47) of chalcedony is in the debitage
assemblage, recovered from STP 2 at a depth of 0-20 cm.
12
Lithic Tools
One lithic tool (catalog # 44) is in the SR-101 lithic assemblage. It was recovered from the
surface and is a basalt primary flake with retouch or modification on two sides. It weighs 49.2 g
and is 61.5 x 4.5 x 2.0 cm in size.
Cores
Six cores are in the lithic assemblage from SR-101 (Table 14), comprising 11.3% of the lithic
assemblage. Five multidirectional cores were recovered from the surface, two are basalt, two
are vesicular basalt, and one is chalcedony. One basalt multidirectional core was recovered from
the subsurface in STP 3 at a depth of 0-20 cm. Cores at the site, though few, do suggest that
flakes suitable for use as tools were being produced at the site.
Table 14. Cores from the SR-101 Lithic Assemblage.
Artifact
Cat #
1
22
10
32
35
48
Unit
Surface
Surface
Surface
Surface
Surface
STP 3
Depth
(cm)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0-20
Material
Mass (g)
Vesicular Basalt
Vesicular Basalt
Basalt
Chalcedony
Basalt
Basalt
32.6
327.4
69.0
23.4
66.8
167.0
Dimensions
(cm)
5.7 x 3.8 x 1.7
10.7 x 9.9 x 2.7
4.8 x 3.9 x 3.1
4.0 x 3.5 x 1.5
6.5 x 4.4 x 2.3
7.1 x 5.5 x 3.7
Comments
Unidirectional
Multidirectional
Multidirectional
Multidirectional
Multidirectional
Multidirectional
Interpretation
Although the assemblage of lithics from SR-101 is small in numbers and diversity, it is likely that
the primary activity at the site was the initial reduction of local basalt and vesicular cobbles into
cores and the production of some flakes suitable for use as tools, though at least some
chalcedony flake production was also conducted. There is very limited evidence of other
activities based on this assemblage at least, consisting solely of a single expedient use modified
basalt flake. It is not possible to assign a chronological period for this site based on the lithic
assemblage. Although SR-101 has limited information, it is nonetheless important as one
possible source for basalt tools and debitage found at other sites in the Antelope Valley.
Research Questions
Research Themes 5 (Lithic Technology) and 6 (Lithic Material Sources for Flaked Stone Tools
and other Artifacts) developed for the Antelope Valley Highway 138 project contain a number of
research questions. This section evaluates the significance of the findings from the lithics
analyses for SR-049, SR-051, SRAS-003, and SR-101 for each research question.
13
Theme 5 (Lithic Technology) Research Questions
There are five related questions dealing with specialized production (1A-1E), and one question
on the efficiency of lithic reduction strategies through time.
Question 1A. Was there specialized production of large fine-grained volcanic (rhyolite, basalt)
bifaces during the Lake Mojave and Pinto Periods in the Antelope Valley?
None of the four site assemblages can be dated to the Early or Middle Holocene, and thus none
are as of now pertinent to this research question.
Question 1B. Was there specialized production of cryptocrystalline silicate (chert, chalcedony,
jasper) flake tools for activities such as butchering and plant processing during the Lake Mojave
and Pinto Periods in the Antelope Valley?
None of the four site assemblages can be dated to the Early or Middle Holocene, and thus none
are as of now pertinent to this research question.
Question 1C. Was there specialized production of large cryptocrystalline silicate bifaces,
especially dart points for hunting large and medium mammals, during the Gypsum Period in the
Antelope Valley?
While none of the four site assemblages can be dated with confidence to the Gypsum Period
(and SR-051 is provisionally assigned to the Late Prehistoric or Mission Periods), there is
considerable evidence of biface production at all four sites. SR-049 and SR-051 are both in
proximity to the Fairmont Butte rhyolite source and both reflect production of early stage
bifaces from this material rather than CCS. A limited number of biface fragments and relatively
high frequencies of biface thinning flakes yield biface exchange index values of 37.5:1 and 40:1
for the two sites, which indicates modest levels of production of Stage I bifaces for either
exchange or for further modification and/or use elsewhere. While non-bifacial cores and
secondary flakes at each site indicate that generalized flake tool production took place, the data
do suggest specialized early stage rhyolite biface production. If subsequent investigations can
assign these or similar sites near Fairmont Butte to the Gypsum Period or later, it would suggest
that in the Antelope Valley CCS did not completely replace fine grained volcanic biface
production.
Site SRAS-003 in the western Antelope Valley shows evidence of biface production of a wide
range of material including CCS. Unlike SR-049 and SR-051, final stage biface production with
pressure flaking is present, but only with CCS and obsidian materials. Better chronological
information for the site could make it an important site for showing differences in biface
production through time and by material type.
Site SR-101 does not seem to be a biface production site.
14
Question 1D. Was there a reduction of biface production and an increase in the production of
smaller flakes suitable for use as smaller arrow projectile points during the early Rose Spring
Period?
This question requires more secure chronological control than is available for these four lithic
assemblages. Nevertheless, the sites do reveal different levels of biface production and different
source materials. Site SR-051, moreover, has some evidence for dating to after the introduction
of the bow and arrow. If this temporal assignment is correct, the site shows that rhyolite biface
production continued after the technological transition to the bow.
Question 1E. Did projectile point size continue to decrease during the late Rose Spring and Late
Prehistoric Periods due to conservation of high quality materials such as obsidian and/or
changes to hunting smaller mammals?
Since no projectile points were recovered at any of the four sites, this question cannot be
addressed.
Question 2. Do lithic reduction strategies become more efficient over time?
The lack of chronological control for the assemblages means that they cannot be directly
examined to better answer this question.
Theme 6 (Lithic Material Sources for Flaked Stone Tools and other Artifacts) Research Questions
This theme has six research questions.
Question 1. Can the results of Scharlotta’s (2010a, 2010b, 2014) work in the region to source
rhyolite and examine its distribution be confirmed through further application of laser ablationtime of flight-inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry analysis?
Sites SR-049, SR-051, and SRAS-003 all contain rhyolite artifacts. These source of these
materials could be determined by ablation-time of flight-inductively coupled plasma-mass
spectrometry analysis and the resulting data would contribute to the dataset compiled by
Scharlotta (2010a, 2010b).
Question 2. Does the distribution of Antelope Valley rhyolite support Scharlotta’s findings of
“stable populations and trade networks for more than 1,500 years, with possible disruptions
during the Late Prehistoric Period around 300 B P.” (Scharlotta 2014:240)?
This question cannot be answered without chronological control of assemblages. Thus, only
data from SR-051 can potentially address this question. It does seem to indicate continued
production of early stage rhyolite bifaces in the Late Prehistoric or Mission Periods, suggesting
continuity from earlier such sites dated to older time periods.
Question 3. Was rhyolite an important resource that was controlled by ethnic groups during the
Late Prehistoric and perhaps Mission Periods?
Site SR-051 suggests that rhyolite was an important resource for the Antelope Valley into the
Late Prehistoric or Mission Periods. Analysis of the distribution of similar sites could be applied
to this research question.
15
Question 4. Was fused shale an important alternative to obsidian in the Antelope Valley, and if
so what were its sources and when was it used?
Only one of the assemblages, SRAS-003, shows evidence for the use of fused shale (for the
production of bifaces). The site is the only one of the four that is in the western Antelope Valley
nearest to the posited exchange routes for fused shale. Unfortunately, the site cannot be
assigned a temporal context, but the fused shale could nevertheless be assessed by PXRF
analysis to try to determine its source.
Question 5. Did the use of CCS vary significantly through time in the Antelope Valley and to
what extent were variations in its use due to availability of other materials such as obsidian?
The four assemblages are relevant to this research question as they do indicate quite different
frequencies of CCS across the region. Better chronological information would permit this
question to be further explored.
Question 6. In the Antelope Valley was there a peak of obsidian use during the late Gypsum
and early Rose Spring Periods followed by a significant decline?
Site SRAS-003 is the only site with obsidian artifacts (2 shatter, 13 flakes which were mostly
biface thinning and tertiary, and one biface fragment). These artifacts could be sourced by
PXRF and then subjected to hydration rim analysis for an estimate of time period. The
assemblage could then be compared to other obsidian samples across the Antelope Valley to
help reconstruct changing patterns of source, access, and use of obsidian through time.
References Cited
Allen, Mark
2013 Living on the Edge: The Archaeology of Two Western Mojave Desert Landscapes.
Maturango Museum Publication No. 24, Ridgecrest, California.
Mason, Roger and Wendy Blumel
2015 Archaeological Evaluation Report: SR-138 Northwest Corridor Improvement Project,
Antelope Valley, Los Angeles County. Prepared by ECORP Consulting, Inc. for
Caltrans District 7, Los Angeles. On file at the South Central Coastal Information
Center, California State University, Fullerton.
Scharlotta, Ian
2010a Groundmass Microsampling using Laser Ablation Time-of-Flight Inductively Coupled
Plasma Mass Spectrometry (LA-TOF-ICP-MS): Potential for Rhyolite Provenance
Research. Journal of Archaeological Science 37:1929-1941.
2010b LA-TOF-ICP-MS Analysis of Rhyolite Artifacts from Site AP3-132, Kern County,
California. Report on file at the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center,
California State University, Bakersfield.
2014 Trade Routes and Contradictory Spheres of Influence: Movement of Rhyolite
Through the Heart of the Western Mojave Desert. California Archaeology 6(2):219246.
16
Roger D Mason