42. RECENT CAVE EXPLORATIONS IN THE LOWER HUMBOLDT VALLEY, NEVADA* Robert F. Heizer The well-known site of Lovelock Cavel lies just above the southern shore of Humboldt Lake or Humboldt Sink, the terminus of the Humboldt River, about 80 miles northeast of Reno, Nevada. The cave is largo, closed, and was filled with a very rich deposit of camp refuse, caches of valued items, and some burials. The initial exploration was carried out by L. L. Loud of the University of California in 1912, and in 1924 ho returned with M. R. Harrington, then attached to the Heye Foundation, and cmpleted the ex- cavation of the cavo. Loud, for various reasons, did not conduct stratigraph- ic excavations, but Harrington made an effort to do this and in one end of the cave found a deep rubbish accumulation in which he carefully dug a strat- iPit in order to discover some clue to the cave' s history which by this time had been largely destroyed by commercial guano mining and pothunting. Harrington concluded that the cave showed three stratigraphic-cultural pe- riods which he named Early, Transitional and Late. The report of the cave, published about 25 years ago, has been much used since it has represented the only detailed major account of prehistoric cave and open-site archae- ology in the central and northern part of Nevada. In 1936 R. F. Heizer and A. D. Krieger excavated the only other known sizeable and undisturbed cave in the Humboldt Sink region. This site, named Hunboldt Cave, was much smaller, but at the same time relatively more rich in artifacts than Lovelock Cave situated some 10 miles to the north on tho same range of hills. Humboldt Cavo measured 49 feet long, 8 feet wide, and the trash deposit averaged about 4 feet in depth. About 1400 cubic feet of deposit was excavated, and from this was recovered a total of 5200 specimens. Scattered throughout the deposit wore 31 cache pits, most of then emptied in antiquity by their owners, but several still intact. Humboldt Cave ap- pears to have been occupied during tho Transitional and Late Lovelock Cave periods. In 1950 the University of California summer field class in archaeolo- gical methods conducted excavations in Loonard Rockshelter, about 6 miles east of Lovelock Cave, carried out site surveys, made large collections of materials from surface sites and excavated several minor shelter and cave sites. The Leonard Rockshelter deposit showed a continuous stratigraphic sequence of bat guano and windblown dust layers spanning the last 11,000 years, and yielded artifact remains of throe culture complexes. The open sites vary both as to cultural materials present and tine, and it has been possible to fit most of these into the local cultural sequence. As regards dating of materials and culture levols in the Humboldt Lake region we are in excellent shape through possession of about a dozen radio- *Read by title. 1For the location of this and other Humboldt Valley sites mentioned in this report, see map following page 58 (Paper No. 43). Lovelock Cave is designated 26-Ch-18; Humboldt Cave is 26-Ch-35 and Leonard Rockshelter 26-Pe-14. - 50 - Pleistocene and Cultures Radiocarbon Leonard Lovelock Humboldt Postglacial Dates Rockcshelter Cave Cave at~ &g C 35 D ate s* _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1950 AD Recent N. Postoccupation Postoccup- Historic Paiute dust, rockfall ation bat Paiute __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ guiano _ _ _ _ _ H to 0 04 l l 1 1 1 11 1 11 1 1 (U .0 4) 0 :R 1000 AD 0 BC/AD 1000 BC l2000 BC- 0h3000 BC b&OOO BC LOVELOCK CULTURE 4) .0 *-p :~ LOVELOCK CULTURE LEONARD CULTURE 268 AD h 2 BC 532 BC O 1218 BC 2500 BC 3786 BC 4054 BC 5088 BC 61o BC Aeolian dust de- posited in Long Drought of Mid- dle Postglacial with Leonard Cul- ture artifacts rL 5WO OCCUPATION DEBRIS BC ci 4) .C GRANITE POINT and Bat guano with Humboldt Cul- ture artifacts b6000 BC Bat guano No occupation by man Lake Lahontan silts HUMBOLtYT 1 7000 BC CULTURES I No occupation by man Lake Lahontan gravels and silts 1 H C-) S 0 C-) 0 0 4) U) *rI 0:t4 0) 4) CU '8000 BC '9000 BC l 921 9 BC a _______ r_____________ a . = R -- - Lake Lahontan gravels and sand _ _ _ __ _ - md >* After Antevs, 1948. Fig. I carbon dates for three sites. The oldest date is from Leonard Rockshelter, 11,199 :L 570 years (9249 B.C.), and refers to the bat guano lying immediate- ly upon the lake gravels loft with the final recession of Pleistocone Lake Lahontan. From this lowest layer came two obsidian flakes, one unmodified and the othor with a retouched edge, which cannot be loss than 10,000 yoars old. The lower bat guano deposit also yielded wooden and fiber artifacts such as atlatl darts (one completo with two tangential feathers), Olivella shell beads and fragnents of netting. Three of the darts woro dated at 7038 j 350 years (5088 B.C.) and bat guano from about the same level ran 8660 + 300 years (6710 B.C.). The lowernost cultural material has boen de- signated as the Humboldt Culture. Resting upon the doep guano layer which is equivalent in time to what Antevs calls the Anathermal Age was a layor of fine windblown sedinents probably the deflation product from the bed of Humboldt Lake which was dry during the Altithormal Ago or the Long Drought of the Middle Postglacial. That mn was presont in this dry period is shown by an infant burial accompanied by a carbonized twined baskot which yielded a radiocarbon date of 5694 + 325 years (3786 B.C.). This material, scanty though it be quantitatively, is distinctly of Altitherral ago, and is assigned the namc of Leonard Culture. The topmost levels of Loonard Rocksheltcr pro- ducod artifacts of the sane typos as from Lovolock and Humboldt Caves. Lovolock Cave's oldest radiocarbon date is 3172 ? 260 years (1218 B.C.). This date was socured by L. S. Crossan' s efforts using mtorial frorm near the bottom of Harrington' s 1924 stratigraphic trench. This date is sone 686 years earlier than tho date which I assumed in 1951 markod the initial occupation of Lovelock Cavo, though at the sane tine recognizing that there should be older materials in the cave dating from nearer tho beginning of the Modithernal age which bogan about 2000 B.C. (Heizer, 1951, p. 97). Another eanple from the 18 to 48 inch level of Harrington' s stratigraphic pit gave a radiocarbon date of 1686 + 220 years (268 A.D.). There aro two dates for the thin layor of pre-occupation bat guano in Lovolock Cave--4448 .# 250 years (2500 B.C.) and 6004 + 250 ycars (4054 B.C.).- Occupation or intermittent use of Lovolock Cave was probably continuous from about 1500 B.C. until its abandonment some centuries before the appoarance of Caucasians toward the middle of the nineteenth century. A sterilo bat guano layer se- veral foot thick capped the occupation deposits of Lovelock Cave and fur- nishes clear ovidonce of its abandonmont some time before 1900 (Loud and Harrington, 1929, pp. 1-3,34). The type of materials from Lovelock Cave deposits have been named the Lovelock Culture, and Harrington' s subdivisions of Early, Transitional and Lato can be usod as, for example, Early Lovelock, Transitional Lovelock or Late Lovelock. Humboldt Cave, was first occupied at a lator tine than Lovelock Cave as evidenced by a radiocarbon date for the carliest cache from Hmboldt Cave which has a radiocarbon date of 1953 * 175 years (2 B.C.). A sharp typologic-stratigraphic subdivision of materials into cultureG phases is not evidenced in Humboldt Cave, and Judging from the Lovolock Cave soquence, Hunboldt Cave was used during the Transitional and Late Lovelock culturo phases, though it is possible that only the Late Lovelock phaso is represented at Humboldt. Tho problem of correlation here is causod by certain types which are Early and Transitional in Lovolock Cave (such as L-shaped scapula awls and horn sicklos) but which occur in tho uppermost levels of Hmboldt Cave. i A distributional analysis of the culture forms present in Humboldt Cave has boen made, and culture connections prove to be minly with California - 51 - to the west, or the Anasazi aroa to the southeast. Thus, duck decoys of tulc and covered with duckskin, large two-pioce fishhooks mado by lashing a barbod bone to a greasowood shank, crude shallow wooden trays, boads made of the nut of the digger pine, style of gooeotric incising on bone; feather- decorated fino-coilod basketry and boads of narine nollusk shell all appear to have beon derived from the trans-Siorran California region through the intermediary of oither the Washo and Maidu or their predecessors in those regions. Sono of these features are clearly derivod by trade since thoy are of Californian manufacture; othors mny be part of an anciont comunity of traits shared by Californian and Great Basin peoples. With the Anasazi Southwest the following Hunboldt Cave traits arc speci- fically shared: tubular stone pipe with birdbone steml, curved grass-cutting sickle of mountain sheep horn, hollow cane firedrill, flat wooden slab trowol, cylindrical openwork twined rush bag, flexible tubl cradle, bark apron and round grass-bundle hairbrush. With Southern Oregon Humboldt Cave shares the distinctive Catlow twined basketry, which is found only in the uppermost levels of the Nevada site, and tulb sandals. A sm11 obtuso-angled two- piece fishhook type and the distinctive Lovolock Wicker baskotry are believed to represent provincial inventions which diffused only locally. Lovelock Wicker is roportod fron the Carson Sink and Pyramid-Winnoeucca Lakcs rogion, and furnishes by its presonce a usoful indication of time synchronism. Hurboldt Cave typos which may be takon as forning part of the generic substratum of far wostern cultures include: deer hoof rattlo, medicine pouch, twined tule matting, scapula grass-cutting tool, perforated horn or antlor arrow wrench, birdbono whistle, cano arrow with hardwood foreshaft, and three radial feathers, woodon-handled flint knife, L-shaped scapula awl, straight scapula awl, digging stick, solid shaft firc drill, woodcn fire hearth, use of caves for shelter, caching of valuables, food and corpses, coiled and twined baskotrics. It will thus be soon that the cave cultures of the Hunboldt Valley ro- gion have boon fairly well outlined, both as regards content and dating. The surface archaeology, first detailed by Loud in 1924, has boen paid addi- tional attention in 1936 and 1950, and.the report on the surface-sito mani- festations of the Lovolock Culture (especially site Ch-15), as woll as on the natorials from a series of earlier sites going back to the Anathormal Ago and contemporaneous with tho Humboldt culture of Leonard Rockshelter in the Hunboldt Valley, is now completed and ready for the press. There renain numorous problcs which futuro work nay solve. Among these is the important question of whether the ancestors of the Northern Paiute lived in Lovolock and Humboldt Cavos. The probability is that the Lovelock Culture is equivalent to Northern Paiute, but certain late archaeological foms such as wicker basketry, large round flat coiled parching trays, sheep horn sickles and L-shapod scapula awls do not form a part of the cultural inventory of the Northern Paiute, and conversely, the shallow subovoid twined winnowing tray and small-mouth twined, pitch-coverod water bottles, and sage- brush sandals known to the historic Northern Paiuto do not occur in the local cave deposits. On the other hand, the feather-covered tulo duck decoys, tubu- lar smoking pipos, openwork twined carrying baskots, and small obtuse-angled fishhooks occur both in late archaeological levels and are part of the ma- terial inventory of the Northern Paluto, and these concurrences may bo inter- pretod as indicating the prehistoric presonce locally of the, Northorn Paiuto. * 52 f Until archaeological investigation in somc late sites is carriod out the probloe of the reconcy or antiquity of occupation by the Northern Paiuto cannot be satisfactorily solvod, and until this is dono the archaeological culture sequonce remains open-ended and not terminated, as it properly should be, with an ethnographic culturo and othnic group. Thu long discussed problem of whether Lovelock Cave is to be viewed as Basket Maker I could be tackled with hope of a clear solution now that the temporal factor is botter under control. Certainly Early Lovolock seoes Basket Makor-liko, but detailed cultural comparison is necessary to enable authoritative opinion on whothor the shared foatures are identities, and to what extent the total complexes are the same. As now known Early Lovolock is older than Basket Maker, and nay prove to be tho parent of the Basket Maker culture. This idea is, if I understand him correctly, earlier pro- posed by Jennings in his preliminary report on Danger Cave (p. 204). I an sympathetic to Jennings' proposition (Jonnings, 1953; see also the excellent surrary by Jennings and Norbock (1955)) that "there is yet no evidence requiring the establishment of Basin culture aroas," because as noro and nore unprogrwnmed excavations are nade wo may bo faced with a confusing woltor of nazmed cultures, the individual separateness of each being a natter of doubt. At th samo tine, howevor, to follow Jennings' alternative proposal "to lump all the Basin reaains [such as Pronontory, Black Rock, Lovolock, Leonard, Granite Point and Oregon sites] calling it tho Desort culture" does not strike me as nore scientific, since I think there are excellent reasons for believing that we are hore dealing with a series of what archaeologists are accustomed to calling cultures. On the ethnographic levc3l there is a considerable variety in culture patterns within the Great Basin, as the works of Oner Stewart, Julian Steward, Robert Lowic, Ann Gayt= and Willard Park, to nane a few, prove. Such variety is likely, as we know from other instances, to be reflected in prehistoric deposits. The archaeological work in western Utah by Smith, Stoward and Jennings, that in Oregon by Cressman and Krioger, and in the Carson and Humboldt Sink regions of Nevada by Loud, Harrington, Wheeler, Grosscup and myself already furnishos us with throw rather different culture type series. In each in- stance a span of 10 or 11,000 years is represented, and it is difficult for ne to beliove that in either of these three areas the culture continued unchanged for this period of time. The basic unity of what Jonnings calls the Desert culturo, a nanm I prefer to the tor= Bonneville which rofers to only one segment of the Lahontan-Bonnovillo lake systoe, is sonething which derives from the particular limitations imposed by the elevated semidesert environment of the Great Basin. As Steward said 15 yoars ago, "To inter- pret the [Great Basin] area' s cultural history and cultural adaptations it is necessary to examine this onvironment in toems of problems and patterns of human ecology." (Steward, 1940, p. 445) Differing local patterns nust have obtained regionally in the Basin since the earliest times, and these I-believe will be reflected in the archaeological patterns if we inspect the data, deficient though they admittedly be, in the proper manner. I know of no certain mothod of avoiding the error of naming a culture which sub- sequently proves to bo a variant of another complex named earlier. For the lower Hunboldt Valley region I am reasonably confident that the culture series --Loonard, Humboldt and Lovelock--are realities of time and content. De- ficiencios in information and obscurities of various sorts still plague us in attempting to fashion a satisfactorily complete idea of cultural suc- cossion in the lowor Humboldt Valley region, and plans are now nade for m 53 * one more seasont s work here to fill the lacunae in thu data. Publication of the report on Hunboldt Cave (Heizer and Kriegor n.d.) will occur early in 1956, and a volume of briof reports on surface and cave sites studied in 1950 is nearly comploted. Wo are still in the data-gathering phase, and wider interpretations will be put off until field and laboratory studios are further along. BIBLIOGRAPHY Heizor, R. F. 1951 Prelininary Roport on the Loonard Rocksholtor Sitc, Pershing County, Novada. American Antiquity, Vol. 17, No. 2. Hoizor, R. F., and A. D. Krieger n.d. The Archaeology of Humboldt Cave, Churchill County., Nevada. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 47, No. 1. Berkeloy. (In pross--to appear in 1956.) Jennings, J. D. 1953 Dangor Cavo: A Progress Sumry. El Palacio, Vol. 60, pp. 179-213. Jennings, J. D., and E. Norbeck 1955 Great Basin Prehistory: a Review. American Antiquity, Vol. 21, pp. 1-11. Loud, L. L., and M. Harrington 1929 Lovelock Cave. Univeorsity of California Publications in Amorican Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 25, No. I, Berkoloy. Steward, J. H. Native Cultures of the Intomontanc (Groat Basin) Area. Smithsonian Institution, Miscollanoous Colloctions, Vol. 100, pp. 445-502, Washington. ADDENDUM W. F. Libby published in Science (Vol. 120, pp. 733-742, 1954) the most recently run radiocarbon datesTfoLvelock Cave. These dates are based on samples, now in the Heye Foundation, recovered by Me R. Harrington in 1924 from the stratigraphic pit at the west end of the cave. L. S. Cressman was instrumental in securing these samples for dating, and has discussed these dates in American Antiquity, Vol. 21, pp. 311-312, 1956. For the record, there is presented here a plan of Lovelock Cave taken from Loud and Harrington's report of 1929* showing the location of the samples secured by me (Nos. C-276, C-o277, C-278) and the samples dated through Cressman' s efforts (Nos. C-728, 0-729, C0730, C-735). Samples C-276, C-277, C-278 were collected from beneath a large rock lying, apparently undisturbed, against the south wall of the cave. A confusion of samples sent by me to Libby has led to certain difficulties and errors in interpretation. This confusion is complicated and it is unnecessary to review the details but it is believed the following remarks will be useful. With reference to samples C-276, C-277, 0-278 alone, it can now be said: 1. Sample 0-276 should have been listed in Libby's published list as (LC3) and not (LCB). This sample, consisting of unburned vegetal occupation refuse, came from the inner part of the cave (not from near the entrance) against the rear (i.e. south) wall, and lay directly upon an 8 inch thick layer of bat guano which had caught fire and burned up to within about 18 inches of the wall. 2. Samples C-277 and C-278 are from the pre-occupation guano stratum. 0-277 is from the burned part of this stratum; C-278 is from the unburned part near the wall. My statement in Radiocarbon Dating (memoir No, 8, Soc. for Amer. Arch., 1951, p. 24) attributing7te age differences of the two samples "as random sampling range in materials which were accumulated over a long period of time", was intended to point out the probability that the 8 inch thick bat guano layer might cover several thousand years of deposition by bats in Lovelock Cave. In theory burned and unburned guano from a single stratum should have similar ages. Unless we question the accuracy of the radiocarbon of either sample C-277 or b-278 my explanation seems to be the only adequate one. The burning of the thin guano layer which lies on top of the silt deposits left by former Lake Lahontan was probably due to the agency of man, and this burning may have occurred when the first fires were built by man on the pre-occupation guano layer. 3. As Cressman (op. cit. 1956) correctly points out, still older dates may be anticipated when the samples from the lowest levels of the 1924 stratigraphic pit are subjected to radiocarbon analysis. MY own earlier statements of the earliest occupation of Lovelock Cave as occurring about 500 B.C. were in error, and are now corrected by the dates for the lower levels of the stratigraphic pit, * See Bibliography preceding. to 0 m The following profile will illustrate the placement of samples 0-276, 0-277,e 0-278 Occupation refuse excavated in 1924 \south - Scalel Fig. ~~ 1.Lcto\fSmls026 -1;028 lynguner rock; Bbreba gao; C277 (i uCn2d78 bat gua Lake Lahontanl silts\ Scale 2 12 inches Fig. 1, Location of Samples C-276, C-277j C-278i A , remnant of occupation refuse deposit lying under rock; B j, burned bat guano; C,. unburned bat guano* - 56 - N t~ / c P H a]0 cri tr" - ~ .O.10 z rts 4Jci H O~c "I, c\ o 0 Cd 0 Pci) ct 0 o .H d 0 c o 00 (D H H ctS 0c1o oCIH - hd 00 H 0 C1) V) p0 O 0 CO CQ 0H 9 l)i 4J 40 C) ?) 0, cl Q2 CQ CQ AI I 0 0 U C) 0 I r) 0 LO V~ c\ tt) n 00 57 4