THE LAGOMARSINO PETROGLYPH GROUP (SITE 26-St-l)

NEAR VIRGINIA CITY, NEVADA

M. A. Baumhoff, R. F. Heizer and A. B. Elsasser

A report by the University of California
Archaeological Survey provided at the

request of the Curtiss-Wright Corporation.

U. C. A. S. Report No. 43 (Part II)

Contents

Page
Foreword   0  0   a 0  0  a 0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  S  0  0  0 .

Introduction  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  1
Analysis of Efements o m  oet0 o   0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 00 a* . . .. . 0   7
Conclusions.  a   a  0  a 0  0  * a  0  0  0  0  0  *  *  * .   . .  . .  .  .  13
Bibliography  0   0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0 6  0  0  0  0 .   .  *  16
Explanation of Figures and Plates.0 0 0 0 * *   * . * . . . . . .    17

Illustrations and Tables

Following page
Map lo       Lagomarsino . 0  0o   0 o  o   * o  o   * * * a * * * * * .  2
Figso 1-10o  Petroglyph elements0             *   *   * * * * .  . ?  ?   17
Plates 1, 20  Site and petroglyphs o .     a 0 0 0 0 0 0 *   * *  .  .  17
Table 1.     Classificatlon of elements . o 0 0a 0 * * *  * *    0    8

page
Table 2.     Total occurrence of elements . 0 0 0 *  * * * * * , .   10
Table 3.     Calculation of test statistic, . 0 * * * .    . . . 0 0  12

Foreword

In December, 1956 Mr0 William To Matthews of the firm of Breed,

Abbott and Morgan, of New York City, requested the University of California
Archaeological Survey to study, prepare, and publish a report on a petro-

glyph site near Reno, Nevada, on land which the Curtiss-Wright Corporation
was acquiring through the Bureau of Land Management. The suggestion that
this study be made came from Dr. Jesse L. Nusbaum, Archaeologist of the

National Park Service, who visited the site with Mr0 Matthews in October,
1956. Mro JO W. Calhoun, Director of the Nevada State Museum at Carson
City, offered full cooperation in the project.

In February, 19579 following an exchange of correspondence, the Uni-
versity of Californila entered into an agreement with the Curtiss-Wright

Corporation to carry out the project. Thanks are due to Mr. W. H. Kelly,
Jr., and Mr. P. G. Guisti, of the Curtiss-Wright Corporation, and the

Pyramid Construction Company, respectively, for their whole-hearted assist-
ance in providing transportation and directing the Surey to the site,   The
present report is the result of field study and analysis of recorded data.

Although no destruction of the petroglyph site is contemplated, the

increased activity in this remote area may inadvertently lead to vandalism
of the inscriptions0  If such should occur, an adequate record available to
all interested persons will have been made0  Both the Federal government

and the Curtiss-Wright Corporation have fulfilled their obligation to sci-
ence by-making possible adequate recording and publication of the data.

The Archaeological Survey, long accustomed to learning, after the fact, of

irresponsible destruction of archaeological remains by otherwise responsible
firms or agencies, is pleased to offer its appreciation in the name of those
persons interested in the prehistoric past of the United States to the

Curtiss-Wright Corporation.

Introduction

About ten miles northeast of Virginia City, at an altitude of about

5,000 feet in the Virginia Range of Western Nevada, a prominent exposure of
fine-grained basalt marks the location of an extensive area of prehistoric
petroglyphs (P1. la)0 The cliff and talus slope of that part of the basal-

tic exposure where the markings occur face due south.  Down slope from about
the center of this section is a small spring, evidently permanent, which

serves as one of the sources of a creek called locally Lousetown Creek but
sometimes referred to as Long Valley Creek (Map I).

It may be expected that the great number of markings displayed on the
rocks would long ago have attracted the attention of travelers or at least

the reports of local residents might have encouraged numbers of individuals
to visit the site. However, the region is isolated and no well-traveled
trails crossed the mountain range at this point, hence it is assumed that

relatively few persons have vlsited the site in recent years. The designa-
tion "'Lagomarsinol" is taken from the name of a local rancher who is known
in years past to have utllized the area as grazing land for his livestock.
In the files of the Department of Anthropology at the University of Cali-
fornia, Berkeley, the earliest reference to this site seems to be in a

letter from one John A. Reid to Professor J. C. Merriam, dated January 5,

1904. Later photographs of but a small portion of the individual elements
and groups of the petroglyphs were sent to Berkeley by Mr. Reid. All his
data were subsequently included in Steward's (1929) volume on petroglyphs
where the Lagomarsino site was designated as 1"208 Pt Virginia City,

Nevada."1 With the inceptlon of the Universlty of California Archaeologi-

cal Survey in 1948, and the inclusion of Nevada archaeological site records
in the files of that organization, the site has been recorded as t26-St-1."
The prefix "126"1 here refers to the state of Nevada, while the remainder of

the title signifies the order of the recording of the site in Storey County.

Although the site has been formally designated as an archaeological

site, it is true that the petroglyphs there have never been completely re-
corded. Fortunately, however, they are to this day in an excellent state
of preservation, and the almost complete recording in January, 1958 by the
present authors was carried out without any difficulty due to the extreme
weathering of the rock surfaces or alterations by vandals. Preservation
against the latter is attributable mainly to the relative inaccessibility

of the site from population centers, and secondarily, in some small measure,
to public ownership of the region.  The N-evada State Park Commission has for
some years had the slte posted with warnings against defacement of the rock
markings.

1. Actually Steward has two sites included under this number,   Photos
showing the Lagomarsirno site are Steward's Pi. 66b, c; P1. 67,

When the Curtiss-Wright Corporation was engaged in preliminr1y nego-
tiations to acquire the land on which the petroglyphs are located, it

seemed advisable that the petroglyphs , being of importance as an outstand-
ing monument of the aboriginal inhabitants of the region, be treated in

the same manner as any other spot of national historical or archaeological
significance; since the spot could not easily be set aside as an accessible
public attractlon, complete recording should be made of its significant

content, and the permanent record deposited in places available to scholars
or other interested persons0  Accordingly the Consulting Archaeologist of

the U. S. National Park Service, Dr. Jesse Nusbaum, recommended that a qual.
ified archaeologist be assigned to the task of recording the petroglyphsa

When the U. S. Bureau of Land Management released the land to the Curtiss-
Wright Corporation, representatives of the latter organization were in a

position to retain the services of the University of Califomnia Department
of Anthropology to carry out the necessary field work and publication of

results. The Curtiss-Wright Corporation, with the stated purpose of making
an educational contribution, generously supported all aspects of the perti-
nent work by means of a direct grant to the University. The field work of
the project was carrled out as stated above in January, 1958.

As wlll be shown below, the petroglyphs are typical of those occurring
elsewhere in the Great Basino  There is not one indication in the entire

array of markings that the persons who made them had any contact with Euro-
pean-Americans. Such contact would ordinarily be reflected in the markings
identifiable, for example, as horses bearlng riders or men carrying guns.

It is therefore difficult or impossible directly to associate the execution
of even a portion of the markings to any of the ethnographic groups of the
region and thus offer explanations of their significance in the context of
aboriginal cultures which are relatively well-known. Knowledge that the

immediate area seems to have been occupied in historic times by the Northern
Paiute2 (Park and others, 1938, p. 624) does not afford enlightenment as to
the purpose of the markings. No informant among the Northern Paiute or the
neighboring Washo, for that matter, has ever glven any explanation of the

origin of these or any other petroglyphs in Slerran Califomia or in Western
Nevada.

In spite of the lack of definite knowledge as to the origin and meaning
of these petroglyphs, certain clues offered by their physical situation and
other circumstances allow us to make some cogent speculations regarding

these two aspects. Flrst of all, the very magnitude of the group is sugges-
tive of a fairly long span between the time of cutting or pecking of the

first and latest symbols on the rocks.  The markings are closely distributed
in a 400 yard sectlon of vertical cliff-face from twenty to thirty feet high
(Plh 2),  Below the cliff, on a talus slope which extends in a thirty or

forty degree angle down about 150 yards to the spring, is a jumble of boul-
ders which obviously have been detached and have rolled down from the orig-
inal cliff. The larger rocks scattered throughout the jumble have inscrip-

2. The Virginia Range, to the east of Washoe Valley, is taken by Park to
represent the boundary between the Northern Paiute and the Washo.   The
Lag omarsino site 1is located on the eastem  side of this range.

-=2 -

j

N

CONTOUR INTERVAL 60 FEET

L -   .     1/4 m il I          I

0
1

Mtap /. Lagomarsino Petroglypph Site

tions on them which appear similar in style and execution to those found
on the cliff. Although there was no way of determining whether some of

the inscriptions had been lost or obscured by the overturning of the rocks,

the general disposition of the markings on many horizontal or easily access-
ible upright surfaces indicates that any major displacement, presumably from
local diastrophic events, must have occurred before the markings were made.

Both the cliff rock and the talus boulders are covered with "'desert

varnish."' This phenomenon is more pronounced on the boulders than on the

cliff surfaces, but in all cases it is the cutting or pecking action through

the superficial "varnishing"t which allows the petroglyphs to appear so boldly
on the rocks. The color of the rock below the varnished layer is much

lighter than the varnish itself, hence the great majority of the figures are

imnediately and easily discernible.  Even so, many of the latter were chalked
in by us so as to allow clearer photography.

In no case did we observe what could be called well-defined revarnishing
over already executed figures0 This would a priori negate any attribution of
great age to the markings, though it should be noted that the knowledge of

the formation of desert varnish is not complete, and has only reached a point
which allows, and this in a few cases only, extremely rough, relative dating.
(See Laudermilk, 1931; Hunt, 1954.)

The techniques empLoyed in producing the petroglyphs were pecking,

scratching, and rubbing, in that order of importance. An experiment conducted
by us at the site disclosed that pecking with any of the small stones lying

about the present surface of the talus slope would easily break the surface of
the desert varnish and in effect duplicate the results of the aboriginal tech-
nique for the great majority of the figures.  Most of the symbols have been

positively executed; in some, however (see Fig. 5m, 6h), the "tnegative"l method
was followed. There is no doubt that rubbing and scratching were of minor

importance, since only a few examples of each were observed, Rubbing marks

are illustrated here, as background marks, in P1. ld. Scratch marks are shown
in the drawing in Fig. 2o. These are known to occur in association with con-
ventional Great Basin tyFe petroglyphs elsewhere: Schroeder (1952, Fig. 14),
for example, describes and illustrates a specimen from the Lower Colorado

River area which exhibits scratch marks over a previously fashioned petroglyph
of the pecked variety so well represented at the Lagomarsino site. The marks

in Schroeder's specimen cannot be identified, however, as a distinct element,

such as the "cross-hatching" exhibited by some of the scratchings at our site.

Of the approximately 600 separate symbols which occur on the cliff and

the talus boulders, 439 have been collected and analyzed in this report. The
outstanding result of the analysis is the recognition of two distinct art

styles at the site. These have been placed (see below) into an approximate
relative chronology which suggests a long period of seasonal occupation of
the site.

The close association of the petroglyphs with the favorable environmental
features of the surrounding terrain cannot be ouestioned. If the springs of

a 3

Lousetown Creek were running as copiously in aboriginal times as now, and
there is no reason to believe that they were not, this in itself would

explain the attraction of the spot to mammals such as mountain sheep and
deer, hence to human beings as well,  The site is well within the range

of the mule deer Odocoileus hemionus hemionus and the mountain sheep Ovis
canadensis californiana (Hal7W167p7 fl77F638).       Scattered on the sur-
face of a small occupation or camp site centered about the spring are ob-
sidian chips, and occasional projectile polnts may also be found there.
Evidently the site offered other advantages besides being an excellent
place for fashioning petroglyphs.

It is inferred that pine-nuts (P. monophylla) were the most important
seeds used by the aboriginal inhabitWnts of this region.  The altitude (ca,
5,000 feet) at the site and the general aspect of the terrain correspond to
a typical pinon environment: Upper Sonoran Zone, Pinon-Juniper Belt; see

Hall (op. cit., p. 36).  The fact that no pThon trees were seen by us in the
immedife 1Vcinity of the site may easily be attributed to depredations fron
nineteenth century Virginia City, ten miles to the south in the Virginia.

Range. De Quille (William Wright) refers (1876, pp. 215, 216) to the denu-
dation of the plnon in the vicinity of Virginia City as follows:  "In the

early days these hills were covered with a sparse growth of nut-pine trees-.
a sort of stunted pine, in s5ize and form of trunk and branches somewhat

resembling an ordinary apple tree--but the denrrand for fuel for the mines,

mills, and domestic uses swept all these away in a very few years, and even
the stumps have been dug up and made into firewood by the Chinese.   e .

And now all the hills and mountains as far as the eye can reach, are brown
and treeless."

If our assumptions about the former environment of the area are cor-
rect, we are able to state that the Lagomarsino site was ideally situated
for a summer or early fall camping spot. Furthermore, the association of

the petroglyphs with the permanent spring leads to the proposal that native
curing-doctors (shamans) may have been responsible for the rock markings,
The motivation for the execution of these petroglyphs may be suggested in
terms of the acquisition of supernatural powers by the shamans and in the
performance of food-increase rites,

The seeking of power by would-be shamans or curing-doctors, often
through dreams, at specific places, such as in mountains, in caves, or

near lakes and springs and the like, has been noted in other parts of the
Great Basin (Steward, 1941, p. 320; Stewart, 1941, p. 413; Whiting, 1950,
p. 29). Although in many cases informants emphasilze that the dreams are
unsought, Whiting (op. cit., pP. 30) states that among the Paiute Itthere

is constant parentaVpressure to dream and to remember the dream, and this

pressure is backed up by the community."  In this light, it is reasonable to
assume that certain spots would eventually become known as particularly

favorable for the reception of visions or the inspiration of the proper kind
of dreaming. Park (1938, P. 16), in his monograph on shamanism in western
North America, records statements of Pavlotso informants which relate that
"the spirit that comes in a dream is the shamangs power,v" and how "lsome

shamans got t>heir power from the water babies, . . . The water babies came

4

to life by their own power. They formed themselves. Some water babies
live in water holes and these holes never dry up. People call these

water babies 'the breath of the water holes.' There is a breeze all the
time in the mountains where they live."

It may be supposed that the presence of a fine spring in an otherwise
relatively dry, mountainous region, near an outcropping of rock particu-
larly amenable to the fashioning of symbolic marks, could offer abundant

inducement for certain of the Indians to attempt to depict the objects of
their dreams or visions on these rocks.

It is not difficult to relate certain of the petroglyph elements to
natural objects, the increase of which would of course be advantageous to
the Indians' economy. The more obvious examples are the mountain sheep

(Fig. 9f) and possibly what may be interpreted as the cones of the pinon
(Figs. 6p, 7c).

While it must be admitted that it is not possible to say with any

precision what the purpose of the Indians was in making petroglyphic in-
scriptions on rocks, one may at the same time make some judgment as to

purposes which were not envisaged by the makers of these pecked designs.
Although a simple type of map-making was widely known in the Great Basin
in the form of "sand maps" (for details see Heizer, 1958), maps showing
topographical features such as watercourses, mountains, valleys, and the

like, drawn or inscribed on a plane surface are not reported for the Great
Basin area. There is a conceptual difference between a scale model show-
ing topography and an abstract geographic plane map. The symbols are

rather different, and the two types of representation clearly are of dif-
ferent orders. For these reasons, it seems improbable that any of the
Nevada petroglyphic designs known to date can be proved to be maps (cf.

Steward, 1929, p. 226). Professor A. L. Kroeber (1958) has recently pub-
lished an account of the Indian sign language of the Great Plains and

surrounding territory, and has discussed the possible relationship of sign
language to prehistoric petroglyphs. We quote here his remarks:

it 0 e . specific resemblances between sign language and pre-Caucasian
American pictography are really very few. The similarities are generic and
only two: both methods appeal to sight, and only to sight. The positive

conventions which are so strong in sign language are lacking in pictography.
I know of no picture writing in which an erect index finger means man, or
the hooked fingers swept down the side of the head mean woman, or 3tEer
signs of similar conventionalization.

"Another obvious difference is that the sign language is actually

communicative in intent, whereas native art was primarily decorative. It
might also serve ceremonial purpose, in which case it worked out certain
symbols.  But the meaning or purpose of these was known beforehand--

somewhat like the words of petitioning prayers or compelling formulas, or

the motions of a dance--so that it was their enactment that counted as con-
trasted with communication. It is quite likely that most communication,

except where actual words were used in ritual, is read into ancient pictog-

GM 5 we

raphy by us rather than having been present by intent. If communicative
purpose had been present, we ought to be able to understand a large pro-
portion of preserved pictographs instead of being so largely baffled by
them,

"Another point of difference is that a pictography able to communi-
cate a wide range of information presupposes an ability of realistic

representation and discrimination that in general was far beyond native

capacities. Such ability generally has to be taught or learned and rests
on a developed tradition, On the other hand, the manual and digital skill
required to make sign language gestures is in no way special. What there
is traditionaL in it is its conventions:  associations of particular ges-
tures with particular meanings. Adequate execution of the gestures would
never require more than several trials and might succeed at the first
attempt.

"Of course, it is also possible for pictography to get along with a
moderate degree of skill in lifelike representation, in proportion as it

succeeds in developing accepted conventions. This is the path followed by
the plcture-writing of southern Mexico, which grew up in a society calen-

drically interested and therefore future-oriented--also elaborately ritual-
ized as well as technologically diversified and expert."

If we accept Kroeber's analysis, and view the Lagomarsino site petro-
glyphs in this light, we must admit that while there are some repetitive
designs, these seem generically rather than specifically similar, i.e.,

many designs are similar but few are identical. Our labeling of a design

element as "tcurvilinear meander" or "gridiron" or "rake", is for convenience
and as a classificatory device and our decision to so lump generally simi-
lar designs is not intended to create the impression that they were each
bel'ieved to represent the same meaning to the individuals who anciently

pecked the designs on the rocks. We do not deny that some, though probably
not all, similar designs were intended to represent the same meaning, but

the wide variability which is displayed is strong presumptive evidence that
we are not dealing with evidence construable as a conventionalized system
of elements intended to serve as a surrogate for spoken communication.

Groups of design elements occurring together on one rock surface and which
exhibit as a group the identical degree of weathering and technique of

manufacture are believed by us to represent a single suite applied to one
rock surface--say in a single day. Now, if these design groups were in-
tended to communicate to another person or social body a message, or to

transmit speclfic information, one would expect that there would be some
regularity or repetition of elements on different rock surfaces. But

repetition of a precise series of design elements in a sequence arrangement
is scarcely to be found, and if we were to argue that these were messages

it would have to be further assumed that each message was a quite different
one.  In view of the known fact of extreme cultural simplicity of the pre-
historic peoples of the western Great Basin area and their uncomplex and

practical-oriented activity pattern, it is difficult to believe that there
ever existed such a precise mode of written communication or that such a

numerous set of situations could have been present that would require com-
munication by this technique. The apparently haphazard and independently
assorted occurrence of petroglyphic designs is taken by us to indicate

activity by individuals over a period of time0  That these individuals had
some purpose in mind is undoubtedly true, but we see no evidence that that
purpose was to con-vey a message or information. As Professor Kroeber sug-
gests, it was probably the enactment, the act of picking up a pebble and
pecking at the exposed rock surface, which lies behind the custom0 In

addition, if we are to judge by what very limited information is available

from recent Indians, only certain persons (perhaps hunters or curing doctors
as suggested above) at certain specific times (perhaps in the pine-nut gath-
ering season, or the deer hunt or rabbit drive, or when the ceremony during
which the girlse adolescence ritual was being held) performed the ritual of

petroglyph-making. If this was the case, the hundreds of petroglyph designs
at the Lagomarsino site may represent generations of accretion by the hands
of many persons, each with his own designs but also conceiving of these

design elements within some general culturally-patterned frame or style03

The Great Basin style in this sense may be evidence of a genetic (or histor-
ical) custom and limited series of design elements--a theme upon which

variations were played by individuals. That the style probably has some

time depth, and that it endured in essential form for a long period of time,
is further indicated by the existence of two substyles (called by Steward
"rectilinear" and "curvilinear"t) of which the curvilinear is older and the
rectilinear a later variant of the same pattern.

Analysis of Elements

Petroglyphs on the cliff itself and immediately at the base of the

cliff are shown in Figures la-6e. The figures show all the elements includ-
ed in that region and they are in approximately natural sequence from west
to east, ioe., Figure la shows the westernmost petroglyph and Figure 6e

shows the eWsternmost petroglyph. Figures 6f-lOm show the glyphs that are
to be found on the boulders scattered on the slope below the cliff. The

coverage of the petroglyphs on this talus slope is not complete but it in-
cludes a majority of the specimens to be found there. No natural ordering
or sequence is to be associated with the sequence of figures showing the
petroglyphs on the talus slope.

The drawings shown in Figures 1-10 are taken from two series of photo-
graphso One series consists of black and white photos taken by the Univer-
sity of California Archaeological Survey in January, 1958. The drawings

from these photographs are shown in Figures la-6o. The UoCoAoS. photographs
each had a one foot scale included in the picture so the scales shown in
Figures la-6o are accurate.

3. Schapiro (1953t po 287) says:   "For the archaeologist, style is exempli-
fied in the motive or pattern, or in some directly grasped quality of the

work of art, which helps him to localize and date the work and to establish
connecti1ons between groups of works or between cultures.  Style here is a
symptomatl,iic trait , like the nonaesthetic [fonn] features of an artifact."

-7-

The other series of photographs available to us consists of color
slides taken in November, 1957, by Mr. Donald E. Martin of Santa Rosa,

California, who klndly lent them to us for purposes of this study. The
drawings from these color slides appear in Figures 6p-lOm. No scales

are included in Mr. Martin's photographs so that it is not possible to

judge size with complete accuracy0 It is a fact, however, that one can

judge size better from a photograph than from a drawing and it has there-
fore been thought wise to indicate approximate scale in the drawings, as
nearly as can be estimated from the photographs. The scales shown in
Figures 6p-lOm, then, should be taken only as rough estimates, not as
precise measurements,

For descriptive purposes each petroglyph at the Lagomarsino site has
been assigned to one of 29 "felements,"  It is hoped that each of these

elements corresponds to an ideal type in the minds of prehistoric artists.
No doubt this hope is vain, in many cases, but there is evidently no
other way to analyze such a mass of material.

The 29 elements are listed in Table 1 together with references to the
figures thus classlfied,  A verbal description of the elements follows:

l. Plant Form. Some of these, at least, seem to be genuine representa-

tion  o; plants.  The element shown in Figure lb, for example, may repre-
sent the joint pine (Ephedra viridis) which occurs abundantly at the site
and which was medicinZTfTi7portant in aboriginal times (Train, Henrichs,
and Archer, 1941, pp. 68ff.).

2. Human Figure. Examples of these elements are easily identifiable but

1-9

occur in a variety of forms (for example, stick figures as against full-

bodied figures). They may therefore represent different styles.

3. Face. Specimens classified under this element consist of a straight

or curved horizontal line, a straight vertical line intersecting the hori-
zontal line, and a pair of dots or circles, one on either side of the

vertical line and below the horizontal line, These figures seem, indeed,

to represent faces but even if they do not their resemblance to each other
is unmistakable.

4. Snake0 At least some of the figures so identified surely represent

snakes,  All such figures consist of a wavy line with an enlarged tip, as
if representing a head0

3I  Bird0  Only one of the three figures thus classified is certainly a
representation of a bird.

6. Foot. Only one of the two figures in this classification corresponds
<l_early -tvo the "Bear or human tracks" of Steward (1929)o  The other figure
may also represent a track but if so it is in an obviously different style.

7l  Sheep Horn0  Since there is only one of these it may easily be a mis-
lden+ A ?at T n.

8-

Table 1

Figures on                     Total

Oc cur-
Elements                     Cliff Face         Talus Boulders       rences

1. Plant Form           lb, 2p, 4a, 5j                8h                 5

2. Human Figure          Ic, ii, Dn, 2j,      7k, 8r, 9b, 9e(?),        17

3f(2)s 5f, 5n        9j, 9k, 9n, iCe,
t          t                   -.loin

3. Face                     lc, 3i (2)            8a, 9s                 S

4. Snake                 le(2), ii, 3i(2)     7e(2), 7f, 8e, 8g,        12

r<                                          9s, lOd

5. Bird                  lf(?), 2p, 3c(?)                                3
6. Feet                         2h                     7h                2

1lag

7. Sheep Horns                  2o                                       1

8. Sun Figure                 5j, $n          tYp,) 7c, 7  7t, Ba,      15

c, 83d, 8g, 8j(2),
Bk, 9c, 9y

9. Hand                                                Bp                I
10. Mountain Sheep                                      9f                1

Table 1 (continued)

Figures on                    Total

___.____________________________.__       Occur-
Elements                   Cliff Face           Talus Boulders      rences

11. Homed Toad                                        9t               1

12. Bird Track          le, lh(2), 3g, 3i,     6h, 7k, 7p, lOa,       16

4g, 4h, 5b, 5f,        lOi
's    '   +         5q(2)

13. Gridiron            lb, ld, le(2), Lsi,    6k, 6o, 6p, 8m,        24

lk, 2a, 2e, 23, 2k,    9a
3a, 3c, 3g, 3J, ha,
fl         h4c, 4h,    5 4na

14. Rake                li, lk, 2a-2f, 3a,     6ga63, 6n, 7f, 7m,     50

3f, 3g, 3i, 3J(2)s     7p, 8b, 8s(2), 9m,
4a, 4c, 4h, hi, 4k,    1Oa(2), lOf-lOh,
4o, 5a, 5c, 5d,        103
5i-5kc, 5n, Sp, 6a,
6b, 6d, 6e,

15. Polliwog            2d, 3c(2), 4f(3),      6h, 6n, 7a, 7d, 7r,    21

6f                     Bh(2), 9m, l0a(2),

lOf, lOg, lOh, 10J

16. Asterisk                                   6g, 7m, 8ee  8r, 8t,   7

or Star                                  9e, 9k

17. Spiral                      h                  83J, 9p             3
18. Labyrinth                2is 3k                                    2

19. Concentric          lk, 2f, 2g, 2p,        6f, 6g, 7e, 7r(2),     18

Circles           3g, 4                  7Is, 7t, 8a, 8i,

8r, 9g, 9p

Table 1 (continued)

Figures on                     Total

Occur-
Elements                   Cliff Face           Talus Boulders      rences

20. Dots                la, lb, 1e, 1J,        6j, 6m, 7m, 7n,        36

lm(2), 2b, 2c,         9h, 9o, 9v, lOes
2m-2o, 3a, 3ff, 3g,    lOk(2)
8j  8.14          3i-3k, 4a(3), 4h,

"'  '5a, 5b,-5e, 5f, 5h

21. Circle              la, lb(2), 1J, 3b,     6g, 6h, 6i(2),          35

3i(2), 3k, hi, 5b,     6p, 7a, 7b, 7q,
53, 5m, 5n, 5o         7t, 8f, 8i, Sm,

8q, 93, 9r(2),
9w, 10a, 10e,
lOf, 1om

22. Connected           le, ld, 2ff, 4         6n, 7b, 7i, 7n,         11

Circles                                  9i, 9s, lOa

23. Dumbbell            lb(2), le(3), 2d,      6f(2), 7i, 7q,          21

3k(3), 3g(2), 4f       8f, 9w, lOa(2),

24. Curvilinear         la, 21, 3b             6o, 7e, 7m, 7r,        13

Meander                                  7s, 8n, 8q, 9m,

9u, iCa

25. Wavy Lines          lg, lj, 2a., 2c,        6g, 6h, 6k, 7a,        51

2e, 23, 2%r 2rn,       Th7, T7, 7n, 7r,
3a, 3d-3k, 4g,         8h, 8m, 8n, 8o,
4h, hk, 4jm, 4o,       8p, 8u, 9h, 9m,
5b, 5ge-5i, 5k, 6a,    9r, 1Qa, 10e,
6e                     1Cc, iCe, lOf

26. Straight            13, 2d, 2ff, 2m,        6i, 63, 6m, 7a,        36

Lines             2n, 2p, 3b, 3m,         7h, 7J, 7n, 7r,

4g, 4o, 5d, 5e,        8h, 8m, 8n, 8o,
Sf, 5J, 5k, 6c         8p, 9h, 9m, 9r,

10a, 1Cc, bCe,
lOf

Table 1 (continued)

Figures On                      Total

Occurs
Elements                    Cliff Face            Talus Boulders       rences

27. Cross                Ic, lg, 1j(2), 2a,      6g, 8h(2), 9c,          25

Hatching           2h, 2o, 3a, 3b,         lOb

3d, 3h1, 4a, 4d,
4e, 4g, hk, 4p,
5a, 5k, So

28, Diamond Cluster               4b                 -9f, lOe             3

ovQoa ?.

29. Ladder                   2a, 5h                  6h, Bm               4

t.f

8. ' Sun Figure. Any circle which has rays extending from it has been in-

cluded in this category. Many of the sun figures on the talus boulders are
elaborated with spirals or other circles included within the circle. Many
others have lobes as well as rays outside the circle.

9. Hando The single specimen of this element may be fortuitous,

10. Mountain Sheep. There is only one example of this element but it is a

fine specimen of this kind of figure, which occurs so abundantly in southern
Nevada,

ll Horned Toad. Only one example of this is present and it may not corres-
pond to Steward's Homned Toad.

12. Bird Track. This group includes all figures having a curved or angular
line intersected by a shorter straight line. These seem to be clearly rep-

resentative of Steward's "Bird Track"t element, but of course there is no real
reason to believe that they were made to represent actual bird tracks.

13, Gridiron0 This category includes all enclosed areas filled with paral-
lel lines Many of these figures are quite similar to some of the cross-
hatched figures (Element 27) and undoubtedly represent variations on the
same theme.

14. Rake. This category includes a wide variety of figures which have in
common a straight horizontal line from which other lines descend. The pen-

dant lines may be either straight or wavy. In Steward's classification some
of these figures would have been classed under "Rain Figure" and some under
" Rake ." t

15 PolliLog. This element includes any circle attached to a wavy line.

16. Asterisk or Star,  It is perhaps doubtful that these two kinds of fig-
ure should be included together.

17. Spiral. These sometimes have circles included in the center.

18. Labyrinth0 This element corresponds to one of Steward's elements but
it must be noted that the two specimens at Lagomarsino are doubtful repre-
sentative s ,

19, Concentric Circles, Concentric circles and concentric semi-circles are
both included here. The semi-circles often take this form because they are
cut off by the edge of a rock.

20. Dots, Dots are to be found in two sizes at tagomarsino--small ones

made by7one or two blows of the pecking stone and large ones, sometimes an
inch or more in diameter. Dots may be arranged in lines or they may be
scattered, simply filling an otherwise blank area.

9 -

21.  Circle0  Clrcles occur at the site in a variety of circumstances

(for example, they may be part of a sun figure) but they have only been
counted as such when they stand aloneo

22, Connected Circles. These may consist of lines of circles or
clusters of circles.

23, Dumbbell. These figures are simply two circles connected by a line.

24. Curvilinear Meander. In this category are included the curv'ing

lines seeming to have no real form but covering a considerable area.   Fig-
ures of this klnd, amorphous as they are, are difficult to deal with but

they seem to have formed a considerable part of one Great Basin petroglyph
style. At some sites in Nevada, for example, the Grimes petroglyph site
near Fallon, these meanders are found in large numbers and almost always
occur alone,

25. Wavy Lines. Both wavy and zig-zag lines are included in this cate-
gory.  Were several wavy lines occur together they are counted as a
single element,

26. Straight Lines. Where several straight lines occur together they are
counted as a single element.

27. Cross Hatching. Included here are enclosed areas with square or diag-
onal cross hatching, and non-enclosed areas, again with either square or
diagonal cross hatching. It seems clear that some examples of enclosed
cross hatching are related to certain of the gridirons (Element 13) but
they have been separated here for purposes of tabulation,

28. Diamond Cluster. These are ill-defined elements, probably not repre-
sentative of any artistic or cultural reality.

29. Ladder. This category has been included for comparison with Steward
but it is doubtful if the present examples are genuine representatives of
the element.

The total occurrences of each element on the cliff face and on the talus
boulders is given in Table 2.

Table 2

Element

1     2     3     4     5     6      7     8     9     10

Clif f Face       4     8     3      5     3     1     1     2     -
Talus Bo3ulders   1.     9     2     7     -     1     m    13     1

Total       5    17     5    12      3     2     1    15     1      1

10 ?

Table 2 (continued)

Element

11    12    13     14    15    16    17    18     19    20

Cliff Face         -    11    19    32      7     -     1     2     6     26
Talus Boulders     1     5     5    18     14     7     2          12     10

Total        1    16     24    50    21     7     3      2    18    36

Element

21    22    23     24    25    26    2 7   28     29 Total

Cliff Face        14     4    12     3     29    16    20     1      2   232
Talus Boulders    21     7     9    10     22    20     5     2      2   207

Total       35    11     21    13    51    36     25     3     4   439

It would be of interest
ments between cliff face and

to determine whether the
talus boulders is merely

distribution of ele-
random or whether

certain elements tend to occur oftener one place than another. To tes
this question statistically, the following procedure has been adopted.

t

Let X be the number of occurrences of each element on the talus boul-
ders (e.g., X = 1 for Element 1). Then X is a binomial random variable*
with p =-47 (the percentage of total occurrences on the talus boulders)o
The following elements are excluded from consideration because they are

ill-defined and their identification is therefore tenuous--Elements 5, 6,
7, 9, 10, 11, 18, 28, 29. Now observe the number of occurrences on the

talus boulders for each of the elements not excluded, Under the hypothe-
sis (that X is binomial with p = .47) we may associate each observation
with a probability, the probability that such a binomial random variable
will be as large or larger than the observed value. Each of the observa-

tions is now assigned to one of three groups, say G1l G2, or G3, according
to the following rule. We say that the observation x falls into

Gl if the

larger
G2 if the

larger
G3 if the

larger

probability that the random variable is as large
than the observed value is less than or equal to
probability that the random variable is as large
than the observed value is between .33 and .67,

probability that the random variable is as large
than the observed value is greater than or equal

or

.33,
or

or

to p67,

* Note that x is an observation on X.

- 11 -

Or symbolically, we say

x e G1 if
x e G2 if
x G 03 if

Pr(X a x) 4 .33

.33 < Pr(X? x) c D67
Pr(X   x)   o .67

When the observed value of X falls on a boundary value a randomiza-
tion procedure is adopted assigning the observation to Gl, G2P or G3.

Consider, for exampl.e, Element 3. There are 5 occurrences of this element,
of which 2 are found on the talus boulders. Under the null hypothesis we
have

probability that X is greater than
probability that X is greater than

probability that X

or
or
is

equal to 2 = .77
equal to 3 = .44
equal to 2 = .33

In order to make G2 have the proper size we take the .33 probability

(probability that X = 2) and assign 923 to G2 and .10 to Gl. Thus x = 2
falls into G1 with probability .10/.33 = .30. Picking a number from a

table of random numbers we find that it is .31 and therefore the observa-
tion is assigned to G2. The results obtained for all the observations
(excepting the ones excluded) are shown in Table 3.

Table 3

Talus      Cliff

Element     Boulders    Face     Total     Pr(X > x)    G

x

1         1           4        5         o 9211     G3
2         9           8       17         .4008     G0
3         2           3        5         o 7728     G3
4          7          5       12         o 3089     G2
8        13           5       15         a 0018     GL
12         5          11       16         a 93 70    G3
13         5          19       24         ? 9980     G3
14        18          32       50         o9565      G3
15        14           7       21         .0559      G
16          7                   7         o0051      Gi
17         2           1        3         .4551      G2
19        12           6       18         00753     G(
20        10          26       36         ?9943      G3
21        21          14       35         o0851      G
22          7          4       11         o2110      G
23         9          12       21         97239      G3
4          L0          3       13        o.287       G
2         22          29       51         .7552      G3
26        20          16       36         91944      G
27         5          20       25         ?9987      G3

12

Now consider the random variable

Y = no. of times X falls into G2

This is a binomial random variable with p = .34. W-e observe that X falls

into G2 only twice (Elements 4, 17).  The probability that the number should
be as small or smaller than 2 is .019. We may therefore reject the hypothe-
sis at a significance level of .02.

Rejecting the hypothesis leads us to the conclusion that the distribu-

tion of elements between cliff face and talus boulders is not merely random,
that in fact certain of the elements tend to occur oftener on the cliff face
and certain others tend to occur oftener on the talus boulders.   Picking out
the most radical examples of each we may attempt a preliminary definition of
the two different styles.

Cliff Face Style. Included in this are the following elements--Plant

Form (Element 1), Bird Track (Element 12), Gridiron (Element 13), Rake (Ele-
ment 14), Dots (Element 20), Cross Hatching (Element 27). The most notice-
able feature of this style is its tendency to angularity. The cross hatch-
ing and gridirons are the most striking elements to the observer, both
because of their frequency and because of their size0

Talus Boulder Style. The following elements tend to be most closely
associated with this style.  Sun Figure (Element 8), Polliwog (Element 15),
Asterisk or Star (Element 16), Concentric Circles (Element 19), Circle

(Element 21), Curvilinear Meander (Element 24)o  It will be noted that the
characteristic elements of this style tend to be curvilinear. Among the

more notable features are the curvilinear meanders which occur aimost alone
in certain sites in western Nevada (Site Ch-3 at Fallon, for example).

Conclusions

The petroglyphs found at the Lagomarsino site clearly fall into the

Great Basin geometric style which characterizes Steward's Area A. Steward

(1929, p. 220) was able to distinguish two substyles occurring in the Great
Basino The most widespread of these substyles is generally curvilinear and
corresponds neatly to the style found predominantly on the talus boulders

at the Lagomarsino slte.  The circle, in one context or another, is the most
common elerLent of this style but perhaps a more characteristic element is

the curvilinear meander. These meanders have a vague sort of composition in
that they tend to fill an area defined by the outline of a single boulder.

But aside from two restrictions--curving lines without abrupt discontinuities
and spatial restrictions provided by the area of a single boulder face--there
seems to be no aesthetic discipline imposed on the style. The lack of disci-
pline is no doubt attributable to the nature of the materials.   Petrography
is essentlally a decorative art--an attempt to embellish an object without

reshaping it, But the objects that are decorated, in this case the boulders,
are not themselves made by man and therefore they do not possess any degree

- 13 -

of unlformity to provide a consistent set of restrictions within which the
art might develop. The shapes of the boulders are endlessly and randomly
varied so that no uniform set of artistic principles can be applied to
thelr decoration.

The other substyle defined by Steward, within the Great Basin geomet-
ric style, is characterized by an abundance of rectilinear elements and it
thus corresponds to the style found on the cliff face at the L-agomarsino

slte,  The most common elements of this style are gridirons, cross hatching,
and rakes, This style has only slightly more artistic merit than the curvi-
linear style. The elements themselves have a bit more consistency while the
composition, or relationship between the elements, has a comparable lack of
disclplilne.

We find two general styles, then, at the Lagomarsino site--Great Basin
curvilinear and Great Basin rectilinear.  The curvilinear style is found to
occur throughout a wlde area of Westem North America--through the Great

Basin proper and extending beyond it at least as far as Utah, Arizona, and
Baja Califomia. The distributilon of this style is very much the same as
that of Jennings, "lDesert Culturett (1956, Fig0 la), suggesting that Great
Basin curvilinear petrography formed a part of this culture. The Desert

Culture, however, is a sort of developmental level, representing a typical,
perhaps inevitable, adaptation by a hunting-gathering people to Great Basin
environment, Great Basin curvilinear, on the other hand, is an art style
and as such is hardly subject to environmental control except in the nega-
tive sense that the rigors of such an environment prevent the development
of specialists and thereby restrain artistic virtuosity.

Since Great Basin curvilinear style is not a necessary result of

Desert Culture, there is no reason to attribute to it a comparable age

(beginning ca. 6000 B.C.)0 How old is this curvllinear style, then? There
is really no conclusive answer, but suggestive evidence on the point comes
from the Grimes petroglyph site near Fallon (site Ch-3). At that site is
found a pure form of the Great Sasin curvilinear style (Steward, 1929, Pl.
65b-d), with elements of the style covering boulders over several acres.

At the same site, often on the same boulders, are found elements of another
style, conslsting mostly of long, deeply cut lines, and small, conical pits
1-2 Inches in diameter,  There is no question that this second style is

much older than the elements of Great Basin curvilinear style; the surfaces
of the plts and lines are completely covered with desert varnish and are

indistinguishable from the surface of the boulders, while the elements of

the Great Basin curvilinear style, although showlng some weathering, still
make a marked contrast with the rock surfaces,

Thus we find that there is a third and older style which underlies

Great Basin curvilinear,  Great Basin rectilinlear style, on the other hand,
is probabl y more recent than the curvilinear style.  For one thing, the

rectilinear stylle has a more restricted distribution than the curvilinear

styl.,-I-, being concentrated in the western portions of the Great Basin along
the edge of the Sierra Nevadas, especially in Owens Valley, California.

14

Further evidence that the curvilinear style is older comes from Steward's

(op. cit., p. 72) site 37 at Bishop, California. At this site rectilinear
element are found superimposed on curvrilinear elements, indicating that
here, at least, the curvilinear style is older.

Our sequence of styles is, then, (1) the groove-and-pit style found

completely patinated at the Grimes site, followed by (2) Great Basin curvie
linear style found throughout the Great Basin, and finally (3) Great Basin
rectilinear style found along the western margins of the Basin. The first
style is obviously much older than the second style, suggesting that there
is a long interruption between the two periods. A likely time for such an
interruption would be the Altithermal or dry period of post-glacial times.

Since this period is dated at approximately 5,000 to 2,000 B.C., we propose
that the pit-and-line style was in vogue some time before 7,000 years ago,
that Great Basin curvilinear began since the Altithermal, perhaps 3,000 to
4,000 years ago, and that Great Basin rectilinear began only about 1,000
years ago.

These proposals are only tentative, of course, and will need testing
through observation of the association of the styles with datable cultural
materials,

- 15 -

Bibliography

De Quille, Dan (William Wright)

1876    History of the Big Bonanza.  H. Lo Bancroft & Co.  San

Francisco.
Hall, E. Ro

1946    Man?nals of Nevada. UIniv. of Ca)4if. Press, Berkeley.

Heizer, R. Fo

1958    Aboriginal California and Great Basin Cartography.

UCAS-R No. 41.
Hunt, CO Bo

1954    Desert Vamish.   Science, Vol. 120, p. 183.

Jennings, Jesse D. (Ed.)

1956    The American Southwest: A Problem in Cultural Isolation.

Soc. Amer. Arch., Mem. No. 11, pp. 59-127.

Kroeber, A. Lo

1958    Sign Language Inquiry.  International Journal American

Linguistics.  Vol. XXIV, pp. 1-190

Laudermilk, J. De

1931    On the Origin of Desert Varnish. American Journal

Science, 5th ser., Vol. 21, No. 121.

Park, W. Z.

1938    Shamanism in Western North America: A Study in Cultural

Relationshipso Northwestern University Studies in the
Social Sciences, No. 2.

Park, W. ZO, and others

1938    Tribal Distribution in the Great Basin. Amer. Anthropolo.

gist, nos.o Vol. 40, pp. 622-638.
Schapiro, M.

1953    Style.  In Anthropology Today, A. L. Kroeber (ed.).  Univ.

Chicago Press, pp. 287-312.
Schroeder, A. H.

1952    A Brief Survey of the Lower Colorado River from Davis Dam

to the International Border.  Bureau of Reclamation,
Boulder City, Nevada.

Steward, Julian H.

1929    Petroglyphs of California and Adjoining States.  Univ. of

Calif. Publ. in Amer. Archo and Ethnol., Vol. 24, No. 2.

- 16

1941    Culture Element Distributions:  XIII, Nevada Shoshone.

Univ. of Calif. Anthrop. Records, Vol. 4, pp. 209-259o

Stewart, 0. C.

1941    Culture Element Distributions: XIV, Northern Paiute. Univ.

of Calif. Anthrop. Records, Vol. 4, pp. 361-446.

Train, P., J. R. Henrichs and W. A. Archer

1941    Medicinal Uses of Plants by Indian Tribes of Nevada.

U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, Bur. Plant Industry,X
Contributions Toward a Flora of Nevada, No. 33.

Whiting, B. B

1950    Paiute Sorcery.  Viking Fund Publ. in Anthropology, No. 15l

Explanation of Figures and Plates

Figures 1-10. Lagomarsino Site Petroglyphs. The thinnest lines shown are

edges of rocks or cracks in rocks. The following exceptional cir-
cumstances are to be noted for certain of the figures:

Fig. lk. The heavy gridiron overlies the rake.

Fig. 2o. The crosshatching here is made by thin line scratching.

Fig. 3g. This figure is a continuation of Filg.'3f. The human

figure in the upper left hand comer of Fig. 3g is
the same as that shown on the right in Fig. 3fo

Fig. 3j.  This is a continuation of Fig. 3i.  It will be seen that

two of the elements are repeated.

Fig. 50o  The horned circle at the bottom is made with a series of

minute scratches.

Fig. 6m. The thin line inside the heavy triangular figure indicates

a chip taken out of the rock.

Fig. 8n. The heavy black lines overlie the thick greyish lines.

The heavy black lines are accomplished by pecking, the
thick greyish lines by scratching.

Plate 1 (a):      General view of site, to north.

(bed):    Petroglyph groups on cliff walls.

Plate 2 (a-d):    Petroglyph groups on cliff walls.

(e-f):    Petroglyph groups on talus boulders.

- 17 -

I)

i o.

?)Vl
-- I

'A

I

I
I

-7?

1

L 4

b

C

4'0

*t (::)

a         r -1

%       a
'O

4P
0
v

e

f

i

k

Fig I. Lagomorsino S/te Petrog/lvphs (scales indicate / footh

K

I

0   .    t

iI     I    1

4 4     a c -1
,p, I - - ,

: - ., - -I .a ,         I

.      .... ..    ...

i

I
I

i?--

e S

? -T- T-7-

I I

"I

--' -
........ 11--?,---

L 1

v.II ,

- ~    -

.- ~ . --z

.1,  -Wrrp  V#I. .

~. ----

0

/1

/1

/

k       ..n                                 8-'

fig- 2. ? agomars/no Site Petrog/y/phs (scales indicate / foot).

i ---- -- ___j

i   I                               _  _k  I   -

Fig. 3. Lagomarsino S/te Petrcg/yphs (scales indicate / foot).

N      /

k}                       A -I

Ligk                                                _ g  S

Fig. 4. Lagomorsino Site Petrog/yphs (scales indicate / foot,).

;* : :.''.Est:v;e*I @ e IW) *

*   S. @  # . *'  O*

*  *  e  ?U

o         e

I                                     I

1n

-C f   /  | n

C~ 9 - - ,c
0 -f \07 ill?9

Ii(r7  f;'('"i-

7  .  ..............

_  __     pJi t '; t,

e L4   >'0       :'

Fig. 6. ? agomarsino Site Petrog/yphs (scales indicate / foot).

f                  -_._   __ __ __ __ _

A-'? .

Fi_. 7 Lagomarsino Site    Pelrog/yphs  (scales indicate / foot).

1-- -

i
I

I

i

I

6

tZR

VS- I I -

",,

7>

C

y

10

6c d'fr

Logomarsino Site Petrog/yphs

(

/

/

i

4.0

.0

a

I                    I

0p 0 T

',jlf

C  ). ?/

-I

q

s

I

I1

t'l-
t

I   - .

a                 b
f        ?         h

-.:i."'"

,..          0

Fig. /0. L agomorsino Site Petrog/yphs (scales indicate / foo/.

MR

a  n 4                 . Z0  ' '-

17-

3t

it t

.N ,

'm ft??,

imL

4

;K? I

?           -

i:
:
.s

a

? X q * - ik r- ? > 1. :?'?b S

r -,-Nwo A ;;if

- ito

r< -- . r T , s St W

!5L < ;s \Ea- )1 V s

:E I / ,- , > :%

if ( W4t}

S t 'L'? 1>. \X

Q--

.d

WI     I

t g"-- I                   I

I -    I  I

'N                   -     t

,4o-                     4.

11  I -                   Al"     ., 7
,    X  k'I

11i

.I

--3A

J

ij +.v

C

d

OR I'

Ilow

,p + %  4

1%

e

f

P/ate 2. L agomarsino Petroglyph Site