I. BIG GAME HUNTERS IN THE GREAT BASIN: A CRITICAL REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE
R. F. Heizer and M. A. Baumhoff
D. R. Tuohy (1968) in a useful review of recently discovered possible
Paleo-Indian sites and artifacts from Western Nevada has touched on one of
the more puzzling aspects of Great Basin Early Man evidence, namely, that
fluted points made in the Clovis tradition, as well as other distinctive
early point forms, are now known in numbers, but these have thus far not
been found in clear association with the skeletons of extinct animals.
Here we wish to comment on Tuohy's remark: "On this point, statements
denying the existence of early man as a hunter of now extinct animals in the
Great Basin (Jennings 1964:151; Heizer 1964:120-121) have served to inhibit
the study of Great Basin culture history and to impair the development of
Great Basin culture theory. The truth has a way of coming out, however, and
Cressman (1966:866), among others, is one archaeologist who has spoken out
against categorical denials of evidence of man in association with extinct
Jaulaa 1n Vthe Gre-at Basia SReizes- and IaUmMoM   V)(05)" .
What Tuohy chooses to interpret as our "statements denying the existence
of early man as a hunter [of extinct fauna]" in the Great Basin are really
not denials, but are conclusions reached by us at the time of writing based
upon lack of good evidence of human-extinct animal association. Baumhoff and
Heizer (1965:699) concluded that "...if uncertain associations of man and
extinct Pleistocene mammals are ignored, evidence is still lacking that man
knew or hunted or ate such animals in the western desert region other than
in Southern Arizona. The simplest conclusion is that the large herbivores
disappeared in the Great Basin before man's entry into the area." This
opinion seems today still supportable. Such opinion does not as Tuohy says,
"deny the existence of early man as a hunter in the Great Basin"; it merely
holds that there is no clear evidence of the hunting of the large Pleistpcene
herbivores. And further, it does not deny that tomorrow a discovery of stone
tools in clear association with an elephant or camel or sloth may be made.
When Tuohy says (Ibid:31) "I believe that the western Great Basin wit-
nessed Paleo-Indian, free roaming, big-game hunting", he is making a state-
ment of faith and not of fact. And for this reason it is scarcely fair of
him to adumbrate this personal belief to the extent that persons who do not
agree with his belief have suppressed "the truth [which] has a way of coming
out."
Let us look at the hard evidence for Big Game hunters freely roaming the
Great Basin. There are numerous finds of extinct Pleistocene animals re-
ported from Nevada (cf. Hay 1927:2, 23, 25, 46, 57, 81, 112, 116, 137-154)
-1-
but thus far none of these finds have been associated with artifacts. So
far as we know post-1927 paleontological discoveries in open stations are in
the same category.' Gypsum Cave was for long held up as proving that man
lived at the same time in the cave and presumably hunted the ground sloth,
Nothrotherium.   Now, on the basis of two radiocarbon age determinations for
artifacts believed by the original excavator and collector to be contempor-
aneous with the sloth, it seems clear that the sloth and man occupied the
cave at different times - the sloth about 8,000 to 11,000 years B.P. and man
only as long ago as about 2,400 to 2,900 years B.P. The newer C14 evidence
for this conclusion is reviewed by Heizer and Berger (this volume). It may
be argued on technical grounds that Gypsum Cave lies outside the Great Basin
(for map of the Great Basin and archaeological sites see Bennyhoff 1958: Map 1),
and this is true, but the Gypsum Cave site is mentioned here to illustrate
the not uncommon situation of a claimed association of extinct animals and
man which was at first accepted but which has later proved to be incorrect.
Similarly with the Tule Springs site in the same area. Here was a locality
which was very forcefully argued and accepted by many as proving man's pre-
sence from 24,000 to 28,000 years ago and his contemporaneity there with
camel, bison, horse and mammoth (cf. Simpson 1956: Harrington and Simpson
1961), but careful study of the locality shows that these claims were erron-
eous, that human presence at Tule Springs dates from 10,000 to 11,000 years
ago (Shutler 1968a), and further, that none of the extinct animal remains
are associated with tools or man-induced charcoal from fires (Harrington 1954;
cf. Cook 1964). If nothing else, Gypsum Cave and Tule Springs should serve
as cautionary reminders against too-ready and uncritical acceptance of
claims of man-extinct animal associations. But, we might add, the Tule
Springs investigation does show that man was in the Gypsum Cave area at the
same time as the great herbivorous ground sloth. If he hunted and killed
and ate the ground sloth we do not know; as of this moment the data from
Gypsum Cave and Tule Springs will allow the conclusion only that early man
in southern Nevada was a non-big game hunter.
We know practically nothing about the chronology or causes of Pleistocene
large-animal extinctions in the Great Basin. Martin and Wright (1967) have
edited an important volume of papers on the general subject of Pleistocene
extinctions. Krantz (1970) has recently published a useful discussion of
the subject. But, with reference to when and why the megafauna of the
Great Basin died off, and whether man had a hand in this process, we must
at least know for certain whether man was present in the Great Basin at the
time when the animals were also living there. How can we talk about kill,
much less overkill, unless we can be certain that there were large animals
available to man as quarry, and whether man utilized these for food?
-2-
Wheeler (1942:42-45) found in 1935 in Etna Cave, about 110 miles north
of Las Vegas, Nevada, pieces of animal dung which were identified as horse.
Since Wheeler believed the dung to have occurred in pre-contact layers, he
concluded that the animal was a Pleistocene horse. Nothing in the way of
artifacts from Etna Cave suggests that the culture is very old, and for this
reason the presence of Pleistocene horse seems doubtful. Radiocarbon dating
of the dung would settle the problem of the horse dung age. Occurrence of
a Gypsum Cave type point (Wheeler 1942: Fig. 39a) in the same layer as the
horse dung suggests a dating of ca. 3000 years rather than a Gypsum Cave age
(as dated before recent correction) proposed by Roberts (1944) and accepted
by Jelinek (1957:233, Fig. 2). In view of the obscurities surrounding Etna
Cave it is perhaps best to leave it and its horse dung in the doubtful cate-
gory.
Statements have been made that caves and rockshelters in the Lake Winne-
mucca basin, just north of Pyramid Lake, have yielded artifacts associated
with the shrub ox, Euceratherium (Shutler 1961:518; Shutler 1968b), horse
and camel (Orr 1956). We must wait for the report on the shrub ox occurr-
ence, and merely observe that a lower mandible and portion of the upper jaw
could be explained as loose, portable items brought into a shelter by a
carnivore or a packrat. At least they seem relatively useless parts of a
game animal killed outside the cave and brought there to be eaten by Big
Game hunters. Shutler (1968b:25) assigns the Nevada shrub ox a date of
about 5000 B.C., but if this is based upon the "assumed" date of 7432 B.P.
for the presence of the same animal in Burnet Cave, New Mexico (Shutler
1961a:518) is not made clear by him. At any rate, we must know more about
the find before accepting it as evidence for "free roaming, big-game hunting".
Orr's claim of man's association with horse and camel at Fishbone Cave
in the Winnemucca Lake basin surely leaves something to be desired in the
way of supporting evidence. We read (Orr 1956) that Levels 3 and 4 in the
cave contained "many fragments of camel and horse bones... the majority [of
which] are split for the marrow." The human occupants of Level 3 dug numerous
cache pits into Level 4 (Ibid:6) and there is admitted "the possibility
that some artifacts [and bones?] appearing in Level 3 may actually have origi-
nated from the time Level 4 was laid down (cf. Sears and Roosma 1961:669-670).
A fragment of a horse mandible and an awl said to be made from the left
fourth metapod of a Pleistocene horse from Level 3 are taken as evidence that
man knew these animals. While this may be the case, Orr's report of 1956 is
so poorly done that one really cannot judge the quality of the excavation or
the paleontological and archaeological data presented. Sears and Roosma's
report of 1961 on the climatic record in the cave deposits seems impressive,
but it also leaves some basic questions unsettled. Thus, Level 3 in Fishbone
Cave (referred to as F3) "is placed circa 5000 B.P. to correspond with the
humid episode that followed 6000 and is confirmed by samples 9, 8, and 7 GN
[GN refers to nearby Guano Cave] lying about the [C14] dated sample 10 GN
[6250 B.P.]. Although a good argument could be made for placing F3 much
later (cf. 16 GN), the breakdown of its spectrum in Figure 3 as compared
-3-
with that of 9 GN leads us to place it as we have done. Also the presence
of horse and camel bones, even though these may have been    up by man
from a short distance below, seems significant." (Sears and Roosma 1961:676).
The italics in the passage quoted are ours and we have done this in order to
emphasize that what "seems significant" to us as archaeologists is whether
the horse and camel bones were originally present only in Level 4 and may
have been disturbed by the Level 3 occupants so that artifacts were introduced
downward in Level 4 at the same time Level 4 horse and camel bones were being
introduced upward into Level 3. The fact of abundant intrusion of Level 4
in Level 3 times is made quite clear by Orr. We invite any reader of our
expression of doubt to read with care Orr's account (Ibid:pp. 6-9) of his
excavation and findings in Levels 3 and 4 in Fishbone Cave and feel reason-
ably confident that he will conclude that the case of Pleistocene animals
associated with man at that site does not rest on clearcut evidence. The C14
dates from Fishbone Cave have been discussed by Grosscup (1958:20) and Sears
and Roosma (1961). A date on a juniper bark artifact from the lower part of
the lowest occupation layer is 9245 + 250 B.C. (L-245), the upper portion of
the same layer is 5874 + 350 B.C. (L-289KK) which gives this layer a floruit
of about 3400 years. If Level 4 was laid down before occupation of the cave
by man, Level 3 could be very much more recent than Level 4. We are reminded
of the Gypsum Cave situation where the site apparently remained without dis-
turbance after its abandonment by the ground sloth for perhaps 5000 years
until it was occupied by man. Because of "the obviously inadequate descrip-
tion of Fishbone Cave artifacts and the idealized stratigraphy presented",
Grosscup (1958:20) believes that "any decision as to the significance of the
radiocarbon dates from the sites should be withheld." We are in agreement
with this conclusion since we believe the question at hand is too important
to be lightly decided on the basis of such confusing information.
In the southwestern sector of the Great Basin, specifically the desert
region of Southern California, there are many sites which have been claimed
to refer to Early Man. Even though one of us has expressed doubts as to the
nature of the evidence of some of these claims (Heizer 1965: see also Carter
1967; Warren 1967, 1970) it does seem probable that some of the lake terrace-
associated implements (e.g. from Lake Mohave) are indeed ancient. But here
we have up to now no evidence of extinct fauna, even though some of the cul-
tural material may date from as old as 9 to 10,000 year ago.
For the open sites and caves in the lower Humboldt Valley (Lovelock Cave,
Leonard Rockshelter) there is so far no hint of man's knowing the extinct
fauna, since we have no finds of bones of extinct fauna in the lower levels
of occupation sites.   The same is true for the Salt Lake region caves (Danger
Cave, Deadman Cave, Promontory Point Cave, Hogup Mountain Cave). Jennings
(1964:152; 1966:83) notes the lack of evidence in the Great Basin proper of
extinct animals hunted by man, and ascribes this to aridity, noting that the
Great Basin "has had the same environment as obtains today for over 10,000
years."  This view is held by others (Jennings and Norbeck 1955:2; Malde 1964,
126; Baumhoff and Heizer 1965:699).
-4-
Cressman (1966) has objected to the conclusion reached by Baumhoff and
Heizer (cited supra) that there are no certain occurrences of extinct animals
and man in the Great Basin, and points to Paisley Five-Mile Point Cave No. 3
as a spot where artifacts were found associated with cooking fire ash and
bones of horse, camel, bison, mountain sheep, a large dog (wolf), fox,
bear (?) water birds (pintail, teal, duck), hawk and sagehen (Cressman 1942:
93-94); Cressman 1940a:174-175; 1940b; 1951:300). Cressman concludes that
"The mixture of bones and ash in this small space tells a story of these
hunters bringing a part of their kill to this shelter, where it was cooked
and the refuse thrown back over the rock or against the wall to pile up
midden-like (Cressman 1942:93). These conclusions seem clear, but when one
tries to find out details such as the size of the cave, whether any of the
bones were burned in what are said to be the hunters' cooking fires, how
many bones of the seven mammalian and five avian forms were recovered
(Cressman 1942: Fig. 95 illustrates eight of the mammal bones, Cressman
1940:174 says he removed "a large number of partly fossilized bones of a
number of large animals"),what the relative count of extinct faunal remains
was from layers 6 and 7 (Cressman 1942: Fig. 53), and so on, we cannot do
this because these important details are not provided. This last statement,
we are aware, sounds critical, but we must remind the reader that Cressman
(1966) has recently stated that the Paisley Five-Mile Point Cave No. 3
association of artifacts and extinct animals is a certain and indubitable case.
Regardless of these obscurities in the information, we are inclined to accept
Paisley Five-Mile Point Cave No. 3 as the strongest candidate for contempor-
aneity of man and extinct animals in the Great Basin. We emphasize our
tentative acceptance of this occurrence, however, because we are unable to
assess the full evidence.  In brief, what seemed quite clear to Cressman
when he wrote in 1940, 1942, 1951, and 1966 did not seem as certain to us
when we published our evaluation in 1965 and at the time of writing the
present review. We do not presume to try to interpret the Paisley Five-Mile
Point No. 3 Cave situation, but suggest that it may be similar to the one
which we have proposed for Fishbone Cave. The mammalian bones could have been
introduced to the shelter by carnivores at a time before man appeared in the
area.   The bird bones may also be explained in the same way. At Leonard
Rockshelter in 1950 we recovered from the surface levels where waterfowl
bones were very abundant, several dozen aluminum birdbands dating from 1908-
1915 which we believe were brought there by coyotes or foxes who had carried
to their den the bodies of sick or dead migratory waterfowl they had secured
on Humboldt Lake several miles to the west. Here is a clear case of the
introduction of faunal remains into an archaeological site which was not at
the time being occupied by man. The Leonard Rockshelter example illustrates
the possibility that under certain circumstances one could have such faunal
introductions made where man arrived later and introduced some evidence of
his presence. To those whose reaction to such propositions is that this is
2(Cressman 1951:309 suggests an age of 11,500 B.P. for the lowest layer
containing artifacts and extinct animals).
-5-
grasping at special explanations in order to avoid facing what Tuohy calls
"the truth", we answer first, that we believe that such things are possible
(Harrington's faulty interpretation of Gypsum Cave is one example), and second,
that alternative explanations should always be formulated, weighed, and if
possible decided. If we are unable here to arrive at final decisions that
is in part due to the inadequacies of the information provided in the publish-
ed record. We want to make it clear that we are not questioning the conclus-
ion that both the stone artifacts and animal bones in Paisley Cave No. 3 are
old. What we are not certain about is whether the artifacts are of equal age
as that of the bones they are associated with.
An interesting project for some enterprising archaeologist would be to
excavate several Great Basin rockshelters which were never occupied by man,
and to record in detail the stratigraphy and material content of each layer.
If faunal remains were present we would have available an example of one or
more osseous 'assemblages" whose presence was due to non-human agencies.
When these assemblages were then compared with those from occupation-refuse
layers in archaeological cave or shelter sites we might secure some direct
hints as to which animal bones were introduced by man and which were brought
there by animals at times when man was not occuping the cave. Caves or
shelters which have been fully excavated in earlier times (for example,
Humboldt Cave which was emptied 35 years ago) might have begun to acquire
such materials. It is well known that wood rats (Neotoma)will collect bones
as nest material (Brooks 1956:112; Heizer and Brooks 1965:160), and we have
already noted the recent introduction of bones of waterfowl, probably by foxes
or coyotes, at Leonard Rockshelter. Lovelock Cave contains abundant evi-
dence of the presence of coyotes, and since it is inconceivable that these
animals were visiting the cavern at the same time man was living there, we
may safely attribute some of the animal bones in the Lovelock Cave refuse
deposits to the agency of coyotes. Loud (1929:33) thought that nearly all
of the unworked animal bone in Lovelock Cave was brought there by animals
and not by man. Thomas (1969:397-398, 400) has recognized the problem of
whether all of the animal bones recovered from three Great Basin caves or
shelters are food remnants introduced by man, or are in part due to natural,
or at least non-human, causes.   While one may be inclined to assume that bones
of small rodents may not be food remains, it is at the same time not im-
possible that quite large bones of big mammals such as mountain sheep,
antelope and deer could be introduced by coyotes into caves, possibly in
quite large numbers. We simply need to know much more about how cave fills
are accumulated than we do at present before we can talk with any assurance
about hunting patterns, butchering patterns, the percent of meat in the pre-
historic diet, etc. etc. Another useful exercise which occurs to us is
suggested for some library archaeologist. This would take the form of
collecting from the published archaeological literature on Great Basin sites,
a body of data on bones which have been identified and which are assumed to
be food remains. Such a corpus of information might provide a useful compari-
son for aggregates of bones such as found in the bottom of Paisley Five-Mile
Point Cave No. 3 or in the lower layers of Fishbone Cave.
-6-
This brief survey has been written not only as a review of evidence, but
also of the nature of evidence which often seems to us to not support con-
clusions derived from that evidence. The questions we raise here are those
which occurred to us in writing our paper in 1965, and we reject Tuohy's in-
terpretation of our conclusion as "categorical denials of evidence for man in
association with extinct fauna in the Great Basin."
Tuohy (1968) seems to be trying to apply a model3 of the past which he
assumes obtained for Paleo-Indians outside of the Great Basin. Meighan (1959)
has discussed alternatives to this model. The model which may come closer to
the actual way of life generally followed in the western Great Basin + 10,000
years ago, however, is that proposed by Davis (1966), Napton (1969), and
Clewlow (1968) which is that the earliest occupants of this region were lake
margin dwellers who were doing considerable waterfowl hunting, and probably
(though there is no hard evidence) also eating fish, seeds and starchy roots
of marsh vegetation. Chipped crescent-form transverse points and concave base
projectile points clearly connected with the Clovis tradition are part of the
culture inventory of these people.
Thus far no buried campsite of these early lakeside hunter-collectors
has been found and excavated, but such sites surely exist, and when one is
examined we will for the first time be in a position to compute its age, note
the kinds of industrial and economic activities the group was engaged in, and
determine what the imperishable material culture inventory comprised. The
economic base may have been quite varied. It may have included some of the
extinct megafauna as well as larger surviving mammals such as antelope, moun-
tain sheep, and deer. At the moment, however, nothing stands against the
possibility that the fluted points thus far found in the western Great Basin
were used to kill anything but "microfauna". It is possible that the "free-
roaming, big-game hunting pattern was followed in the Great Basin, but the
close association of transverse points and early projectile point forms such
as noted by Clewlow (1968), Tuohy (1968) and Shutler and Shutler (1959) with
lake basins seems to hint at a lacustrine rather than a big game hunting
economy in the western Great Basin about ten millennia ago. Warren (1967:
183-184) suggests that between 9,000 and 12,000 years ago Great Basin economy
was based on a "hunting, fishing pattern in which big mammals were of con-
siderable importance, and supplemented by small game, fish and fowl." Refer-
ring once more to "models", we believe that there is little to be gained from
anyone's taking the position that we will remain in limbo on the problem of
what Early Man was doing in the Great Basin until someone uncovers a Pleis-
tocene elephant which was killed with darts, tipped with Clovis, Milnesand
or Lind Coulee points. We believe that there is now pretty good evidence of
where he was and what he was doing. Why do we not simply look at the good
evidence we have and not worry too much if this is not what we have been
taught to expect to find?
If we read Tuohy correctly, he refers to this as "archaeological theory" -
a term which we doubt he could defend in a debate.
-7-
But above all else, let us have more publication of the results of
archaeological research, and when this concerns such important and little-
known (or little agreed upon) matters such as the association of artifacts
and bones of extinct animals, let us be informed of all of the stratigraphic,
chronologic, typologic and paleontologic data that can be secured. Let us,
in presenting data, try to anticipate the questions which critical readers
may ask, not in the hope of evading criticism as authors, but in the desire
to answer as adequately as possible the questions which are bound to be asked
if the conclusions drawn are not fully supported by the evidence.
-8-
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Baumhoff, M. and R. F. Heizer
1965   Postglacial Climate and Archaeology in the Desert West.      In The
Quaternary of the United States, H. Wright and D. Frey, eds.,
pp. 697-707. Princeton Univ. Press.
Bennyhoff, J. A.
1958   The Desert West: A Trial Correlation of Culture and Chronology.
Univ. Calif. Arch. Survey, Report No. 42:98-112. Berkeley.
Brooks, R. H.
1956   Faunal Remains [From Humboldt Cave].    Univ. Calif. Pubis. in
Amer. Arch. and Ethnol. 47:106-112. Berkeley.
Carter, G. F.
1967   A Cross Check on the Dating of Lake Mojave Artifacts.
Museum Masterkey 41:26-33. Los Angeles.
Southwest
Clewlow, C.
1968
Cook, S. F.
1964
W.
Surface Archaeology in the Black Rock Desert, Nevada. Univ. of
Calif. Arch. Survey, Report No. 73:1-93. Berkeley.
The Nature of Charcoal Excavated at Archaeological Sites.
American Antiquity 29:514-517. Salt Lake City.
Cressman, L. S.
1940a Early Man in the Northern Part of the Great Basin of South-Central
Oregon. Proc. Sixth Pacific Science Congr. 4:169-176.
1940b Studies on Early Man in South Central Oregon. Carnegie Inst. of
Washington Year Book No. 39 (for 1939-40):300-306.
1942   Archaeological Researches in the Northern Great Basin.    Carnegie
Inst. of Washington, Publ. 538.
1951   Western Prehistory in the Light of Carbon 14 Dating.    South-
western Journ. of Anthropology 7:289-313.
1966   Man in Association with Extinct Fauna in the Great Basin.
American Antiquity 31:866-867. Salt Lake City.
Davis, W. A.
1966   Theoretical Problems in Western Prehistory.    In The Current Status
of Anthropological Research in the Great Basin:1964. W. L.
d'Azevedo et al, eds. (pp. 147-166) Desert Research Institute
Technical Report Series S-H, Univ. of Nevada, Reno.
- 9-
Grosscup, G.
1958  Radiocarbon Dates from Nevada of Archaeological Interest. Univ.
Calif. Arch. Survey, Report 44:17-31. Berkeley.
Harrington, M. R. and R. D. Simpson
1961   Tule Springs, Nevada, with Other Evidence of Pleistocene Man in
North America. Southwest Museum Papers No. 18. Los Angeles.
Harrington, M. R.
1954   The Oldest Camp-Fires. Southwest Museum Masterkey 28:233-234.
Hay, 0. P.
1927   The Pleistocene of the Western Region of North America and its
Vertebrated Animals. Carnegie Inst. of Washington, Publ. 322B.
Heizer, R. F.
1964   The Western Coast of North America. In Prehistoric Man in the
New World, J. Jennings and E. Norbeck (eds.) pp. 117-148.
1965   Problems in Dating Lake Mojave Artifacts.  Southwest Museum
Masterkey 39:125-134. Los Angeles.
Heizer, R. F. and R. H. Brooks.
1965 Lewisville - Ancient Campsite or Wood Rat Houses? Southwestern
Journal of Anthropology 21:155-65.
Jelinek, A. J.
1957   Pleistocene Faunas and Early Man. Papers Michigan Acad. Science,
Arts and Letters 42:225-237.
Jennings, J. D.
1964   The Desert West.  In Prehistoric Man in the New World, J. Jennings
and E. Norbeck (eds.), pp. 149-174. Univ. Chicago Press.
1966   Early Man in the Desert West. Quaternaria 8:81-89.
Jennings, J. D. and E. Norbeck
1955   Great Basin Prehistory: a Review. American Antiquity 21:1-11.
Krantz, G. S.
1970   Human Activities and Megafaunal Extinctions. American Scientist
58:164-170.
Malde, H. E.
1964   Environment and Man in Arid America. Science 145:123-129.
Martin, P. S. and H. E. Wright, Jr. 4
1967   Pleistocene Extinctions.
International Assoc. for
Univ. Press, New Haven.
(eds.)
Proc. of the Eighth Congress of the
Quaternary Research, Vol. 6. Yale
- 10-
Meighan, C.
1959
Napton, L. I
1969
Orr, P. C.
1956
Varieties of Prehistoric Cultures in the Great Basin Region.
Southwest Museum Masterkey 33:46-58.
K.
The Lacustrine Subsistence Pattern in the Desert West. Kroel
Anthropological Society, Special Publ. No. 2:28-89.
Pleistocene Man in Fishbone Cave, Pershing County, Nevada.
Nevada State Museum, Dept. of Archaeology,   Bulletin No. 2.
ber
Roberts, F. H. H.
1944   Etna Cave, Nevada.   Scientific Monthly 59:153-155.
Sears, P. B. and A. Roosma
1961   A Climatic Sequence from   Two Nevada Caves.  Amer. Journal of
Science 259:669-678.
Shutler, M. L. and D. Shutler
1959   Clovis-Like Points from Nevada.   Southwest Museum Masterkey 33:
30-32.
Shutler, R.
1961   Correlation of Beach Terraces with Climatic Cycles of Pluvial
Lake Lahontan, Nevada. Annals N.Y. Academy of Sciences 95:513-520.
1968a Tule Springs: Its Implications to Early Man Studies in North
America. Eastern New Mexico Univ., Contrib. in Anthropology 1,
No. 4:19-26.
1968b The Great Basin Archaic. Eastern New Mexico Univ., Contrib.
in Anthropology 1, No. 3:24-26.
Simpson, R. D.
1956   An Introduction to Early Western American Prehistory.    Bull. So.
Calif. Acad. of Sciences 55:61-71.
Thomas, D. H.
1969   Great Basin Hunting Patterns: a Quantitative Method for Treating
Faunal Remains. American Antiquity 34:392-401.
Tuohy, D. R.
1968   Some Early Lithic Sites in Western Nevada.   Eastern New Mexico
Univ., Contrib. to Anthropology 1, No. 4:27-38.
Warren, C. N.
1967   The San Dieguito Complex: a Review and Hypothesis.    American
Antiquity 32:168-185.
-11-
Warren, C. N.
1970   Time and Topography: the Prehistory of the California Deserts.
Southwest Museum Masterkey 44:5-14.
Wheeler, S. M.
1942   Archeology of Etna Cave, Lincoln County, Nevada. Nevada State
Park Commission (mimeographed, 91 pp.)
-1 2-