TWO PETROGLYPH SITES IN LINCOLN COUNTY, NEVADA

Robert F. Heizer and Thomas R. Hester

Preface

Since this paper was completed one of the present authors (RFH) has been
the target of some rather hard criticism for having been so thoughtless and

inconsiderate of the welfare of prehistoric rock art sites as to include in a
recently published work by R. F. Heizer and C. W. Clewlow (Prehistoric Rock
Art of California.   2 volumes.  Ballena Press, Ramona, California, 92065)

a brief description and location of about 500 sites in California. Although
the number of such sites in this list could have been trebled this kind of

information was reported only for the sites for which Professor Clewlow and I
were offering specific information which had, for the most part, not before

appeared in print, or if so, was less accurate than the information we had in
hand in 1971 when we finished our writing. We were hopeful for a time that

our friend, Dr. E. Anati, Director of the Ceultro Camuno di Studi Preistorici,

Capo di Ponte, Italy would be able to publish the monograph, but his financial
capability to do so was limited and we saw no prospect of securing the rather
large subvention which he required in order to put it in print.    Further, the
only copy of the manuscript was lost in the Italian postal service for eight
months due to one of the nearly continuous postal workers' strikes to which
that country is prone. Finally, after recovering our somewhat battered, but

well rested, manuscript we submitted it for consideration by the University of

California Press. After some months of waiting, which made it appear that this
organization was trying to beat the record of the Italian postal service for
delaying action, we were finally advised that the University of California
Press would publish the work provided we substantially rewrote the text

discussion and paid attention to a series of what seemed to us to be nonsensi-
cal suggestions made by one or the other of the two outside readers who pro-
vided opinions of the work. Neither of the outside readers objected to the

section on site descriptions and locations. Neither Professor Clewlow nor I

can remember whether we were by this time tired of writing on the subject, or
just tired of the subject, but in either case we concluded to withdraw the

manuscript and try to find another publisher. One of us (RFH) had been inter-
mittently involved for about 20 years in the compilation and digestion of the

data in the monograph, and being within a dozen years of retirement, was hoping
to provide, before going on the inactive list, something in print on the sub-
ject as an earnest of his good intentions to supporting organizations within
the University of California, the Wenner Gren Foundation for Anthropological
Research, and the National Science Foundation which had in the past provided
funds to conduct the research. What Professor Clewlow felt about wanting to
see the work in print seems now beyond recall and the chief memory of his
connection with the ill-starred project is similar to having eaten some

tainted food and being invited back to the same place where he had just been
poisoned for a second helping. One of the authors of the present paper (RFH)

who in 1972-73 held appointment jointly as Fellow of the John Simon Guggenheim

Foundation and Fellow of the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences

.                1~~~~~~~~

2

was in a position to have enough free time to try to find some unwary publisher
for the California rock art manuscript. He did succeed, as Mr. O'Neal who runs
the press which published the two volumes only too well knows, since he has
also been the target of criticism directed at him by a number of California
residents.

Now, the two authors of the present article have committed the same act
of including the site locations. But an aroused public, or at least that

fraction of it which feels it has a duty to criticize serious scholars who
study prehistoric petroglyphs and report their findings in a traditional

manner, has made its voice heard, and we are here providing them in the Addendum
to Preface a sample of a report which omits direct and immediate clues to the

location of the two sites we discuss. We are hopeful -that critics of the prac-
tice of archaeologists to inform the reader where the sites are located that

are being discussed did not intend to force us to write our reports to please

their literary sensibilities. The present authors would find it hard to change
their spots on such short notice because we are in some sort of a rut, as is
indicated by the fact that our combined bibliographies comprise a list of

published articles, reviews, books and monographs which runs to nearly 600

items. We are too set in our ways to change our view of what archaeology is
and how it should be reported, but as a one-time experiment we have excised

from a few pages of the finished text as many specific clues or leads which we
can find and which might be used by unscrupulous readers to visit and mutilate
the sites we report. In this emasculated extract certain published references

have been omitted in order to conceal site locations, and the name of one indivi-
dual who aided us has been deleted to avoid the possibility that some determined
site-destroyer might search him out and extract from him information on how to
reach the sites. The result of our experimentation was so interesting that
we wanted to share it not only with our non-professional California critics

who we assume will approve, but also with our professional colleagues who we
trust will not approve of this method of archaeological reporting. We are
sharing the product of our experiment in order to call attention to the
possible results if archaeologists allow themselves to be influenced in

their reporting by uninformed laymen who decide to take up the cudgel and
become vigilantes whose mission is to guard, by suppression of essential

information, sites which are on public lands and which are already protected

by federal and state laws. There has been in last decade much ink spilled by
persons espousing the "new archaeology," and the edited pages are offered as
an example of new archaeology if we view it as a spinoff of what is called
tfpublic archaeology."t There has also been a lot written about the 'ftcrisis
in American archaeology," and in our opinion too few of these writers have
anticipated that this threatens to become also a crisis for archaeologists.

Much concern is being expressed nowadays over the defacement of petro-

glyphs by unappreciative persons, and this practice of disfiguring and mark-
ing up surfaces such as walls of public buildings and historical sites seems

3

to be a part of American culture. The wide publicity in California newspapers
in recent months, while aimed at creating public awareness of the danger in
which unprotected petroglyph sites stand, may not have been altogether wise
since it may have the additional result of advertising to persons otherwise

ignorant of the fact that portable rocks bearing petroglyph designs have become
collectors' items, and that many of the sites are unprotected. What can be

done to instill in the American public a respect for other people's property,
including archaeological sites and historical monuments)we do not know. We
do not condone such despoliation; we are students of the human past and

University teachers, not policemen. Apparently a vogue of collecting petro-
glyph-bearing boulders and installing them in rock gardens,in patio walls or

over fireplaces is becoming common.   Anyone who does this is not only a thief
and a lawbreaker, but also is a person who thereby proves he has no respect
for the history of man. This practice will no doubt continue until federal
and state authorities are goaded into enforcing the federal and state civil
codes which prohibit such activities.

Many petroglyph sites in the West occur in unoccupied and little-visited
desert areas.  Such sites are difficult to protect from vandalism.    Cutting
off access roads is impracticable (and perhaps illegal); fencing sites is

expensive and usually ineffective, and there is no apparently economical and

easy solution to the problem of protection of petroglyph sites on public lands
with free access to four wheel drive motorists. There must be enough of both
ability and funds left in Washington to spare,even after the recent series of
crises,  for the protection and preservation of the rock art aliquot of the

heritage of the American Indians. That heritage which many Americans tend to
assume is theirs, is in fact one minor physical element involved in the pre-

emption of the land and the near-extinction of its original and legal occupants.
Now, having assumed custodianship for the Indians' land, and having passed laws
for its protection, why then does not the federal government enforce the laws
it has promulgated for that purpose? When that question is answered to our
satisfaction we will give consideration to withholding information on site

locations on public lands, but until that time we do not believe that we are
justified in imposing censorship of the spatial dimension of archaeological
data.

While we must all be concerned over the uninterrupted process of site

destruction everywhere in the world it is unlikely that this can be brought
wholly to an end. The best we can hope for is that whatever part of any

citizenry which commits these depredations can be educated to believe that

such acts cannot be morally, and will not be legally,condoned.    The worst we

can look forward to is the continuation of such acts of destruction while the
perpetrators ignore the pleas of conservationists and persist in flouting the
law.

4

Petroglyphs on cliff faces are relatively safe from being carried off,

though they can be defaced by graffiti such as those inscribed by Carl Williams
in 1926 on Panel XI at Locality 2, site NV-Li-9, or by W. E. Hutching in 1911,
Locality 5. Site NV-Li-7 has not been significantly damaged, and it seems to

be adequately watched by the federal people stationed at the nearby Game Refuge
headquarters. Petroglyphs on boulders weighing up to two or three hundred

pounds are portable, and if there actually is a collector's craze for carting

these off, as alleged in recent newspaper articles, then such sites will either
have to be protected to save these rocks, or those persons in authority over

the public land on which the sites are located, should see to it that an accu-

rate map is made, and the catalogued rocks are removed to some storage or study
area where they will be safe. It is much too late to try to protect remote
and unguarded petroglyph sites by hounding the occasional archaeologist.who

publishes drawings or photographs of a site and provides the reader with infor-

mation on its locatio7. The Nevada State Highway Department publishes and sells
a book of road maps-    and on these any number of petroglyph sites are located
and so labelled. This kind of "advertising" will no doubt be decried by site
conservationists, but in fact probably little harm is done by it. There are

few, if any, unknown petroglyph sites--someone has seen each of them, remembers
where they are, and is usually perfectly willing to tell any stranger how to
get there. Our 1958 survey of petroglyph sites in the northern half of Neva-

da was made easy simply by making local inquiries about sites as we moved about.
Trying to conceal site locations is quite impossible, and those who think that
their efforts to protect sites by suppressing free speech, censoring archaeo-

logical publication, or limiting sale, distribution or availability of publica-
tions will be effective has got to be living in a dream world. Archaeological
investigation in this country has been for a very long time essentially a race
between site looters and public and private land disturbers. Petroglyph and

pictograph sites have for a long time been the targets of vacant-minded people
who like to ruin and wreck or destroy whatever they find that is unwatched.

I have seen this scores of times in Nevada where some unguarded cabin or barn
has had the windows knocked out, the sheathing torn off, and every conceivable
kind of damage inflicted which could insult and denigrate that hapless and

unwatched structure.  Why do American citizens commit such acts?    If ,we knew
the answer to this we would probably qualify as experts in some field such as

social psychology, criminal behavior, child-training, or sociology, rather than
merely being students of the Native American past. At the risk of repeating
ourselves, we observe that the only way to save for posterity the record of

/   Nevada Map Atlas.  Produced by Nevada State Highway Department, Planning

Survey Division, Cartographic Section in cooperation with U.S. Depart-
ment of Transportation.    N.d. (ca. 1973).

5

the rocks in the Far West is: 1), to study them as promptly and completely

as possible before they become so disfigured that they can no longer be recorded;
or, 2), guard those sites on public lands and apply to persons who ignore the
laws protecting them the full force of the punitive sanctions; or, 3), remove

the stones on which the petroglyphs occur to some place of safekeeping. Those,
we think, are the three alternatives open. All of the breast-beating and

declaiming against petroglyph site wreckers will have no real effect--we suspect
that this kind of public concern is always motivated for some aim (usually pecu-
niary) by the boss breast-beaters, and that their call to arms appeals to a

group of faceless followers who are pleased to find a cause to join--provided
that it is safe, high-minded, and inexpensive. Our challenge to the rock art
conservationists is simply this: really do something effective about site

protection, by making enough noise directed at federal and state law enforce-
ment officers so that they are forced to do something about it.

Probably the best practical solution to the problem of vandalism (deface-
ment and removal) of petroglyphs in defiance of laws which were passed by an
indifferent government and its agencies is a crash program of coaizplete and
full recording of all known sites on public lands and the preservation of
these records in some archival collection-where they may outlive the sites
themselves.  Perhaps we must recognize, before it is really too late, that
unprotected sites have a life span analogous to that of living organisms.

The real problem in American archaeology at the moment is the future of the
past.

6

Addendum to Preface

TWO PETROGLYPH SITES IN          COUNTY,        [state]

Robert F. Heizer and Thomas R. Hester

Introduction

We report here our observations at two petroglyph localities in

[portion]        [state] based on fieldwork carried out on March 31, April 1,

and August 4, 1973. We were aided by Michael Heizer and Robert Deiro of CIVA
Corporation who provided shelter, good companionship and a Dodge Power Wagon
for transport. Our petroglyph recording was not planned in advance and spur-
of-the-moment exigencies account, in part at least, for some of the admitted
deficiencies in the present report.

The general area of the sites is the                             (which
extends from              [portion] _    County southward between   the

Range on the west and the                Range on the east) and one small area
of the             Valley which connects with the               Valley north of

and runs north-south between the        Range on the east and              -
___ Range on the west (Fig. 1).    This area is roughly equivalent to         and

's[authors] (19   :97-99) Survey Area No. I, the data they report appa-
rently being based on a 1967 reconaissance by _    _             [person].  Al-

though they refer to "intensive site survey" carried out in               Valley,
our                   Lake site,   Q       in the _

site survey records for        [state]) is not mentioned.   The

Valley canyon or "         t (                            [repository]
site   -  -    [trinomial site designation] ;     _-

[repository] site        [trinomial site designation])
is mentioned, but only a very partial (and inaccurate) record of what we iden-
tify as Locality 2, Panel 1 is presented (         and          [authors] 19

-, Fig. _, A; compare with our Fig. 4).       A small part of our Panel 6 is
shown by        and       [authors] (19   :Fig. 28) erroneously labelled as

"pictographs."_        and        [author] (19  :Fig. 25) have a photo of the

steep-walled "        " canyon at about our Locality 4.     .        's [author]
site         (       [author] 19   :   ) is possibly the first notice of the

Valley petroglyph sites, but we cannot be certain that this is not
a reference to            Canyon which is also mentioned by         and

[authors] (19   :Figs. 27,29).         's[author] site          (        19

) at             ,[place]        County, is not the same locality as __    ,

County.  In March, 1968, Dr.       _          sent the

[institution] at     _    [place] an excellent four-page report

on petroglyph sites in the              Valley and neighboring areas which we

have found in the files, and we mention this to acknowledge Dr.           as the
first serious student to visit these locations.

7

Although the environment is           [descriptive term] (          ,

[plant types] at lower elevations and       -        in the upper mountains),
there is an occasional spring and there exists a good stream which is fed by

Springs which waters the             Valley.   Deer are present, and

mountain sheep survive in numbers in the         Range south of        under the

watchful protection of the personnel of the                              [Federal
agency].   The valley floor elevation inclines from about 4500 feet a.s.l. at

the north end of the        River canyon to about 3000 feet a.s.l. in the lower

Valley.         River is a           which long ago, in
[geological term] times, carried water (        and         19_ 1  -

In the canyon of the              (dry except for cloudburst freshets which
in the spring or summer may course through the narrow raceway) we attempted

during our brief survey to plot petroglyphs by general area ("locality"), and

within localities by "panels"--restricted spatial congregations of inscriptions
which can be geographically separated from each other to the 1xtent that a

casual observer would say that these were separate (Fig.2). -      We believe that
such distinctions may be important since different groups over time (or the
same group at different times) may have resorted to the                Canyon
and recorded their presence in the form of petroglyphs.

(Site __-   _)

Locality 1.   About    miles north of      [place] along the road labelled

[road system designation] one enters the steep-walled gorge or "          "__
of the                River.  Just inside the narrow entrance on the south
cliff wall of the canyon is Panel 1 (Fig. 3a) with a single pecked design

consisting of a long horizontal line with vertical ticking along the top. It

was suggested that this might represent a diversion fence for game drives, and
wherever we found this element at the site the locality also seemed to be a

logical one for diverting moving animals to a location immediately under the

cliff where they could be shot with the bow and arrow. We are far from certain
about this explanation, but such actual drive fences consisting of stone piles
to support juniper (?) posts are known in       _  (         and         [authors]
19   __).  Temporary diversion fences could have been made of piles of grass,

During our recording of sites, sketches, measured drawings, and color
photographs were made.   These are on file in the

[.institution]   d____

[address].

8                                                  60

V/

Fr       3       j/ i3  x

C,                   ~~A

Springs
I,

To-

aK                                     ~~~~~~~~~~Lakce

\  Z                               ~~~~~~LaKe     ;SITE

To

L                 I                           Edited version of Fig. I

ScIe (        )                            showing the              region

of __________[state]

with location of the two sites

discussed in this paper. Spots
numbered 1-6 at site -

are "localities" referred to
in the text.

9
Introduction

We report here our observations at two petroglyph localities in southeast-
ern Nevada based on fieldwork carried out on March 31, April 1 and August 4,
1973. We were aided by Michael Heizer and Robert Deiro of CIVA Corporation

who provided shelter, good companionship and a Dodge Power Wagon for transport.
Our petroglyph recording was not planned in advance and spur-of-the-moment

exigencies account, in part at least, for some of the admitted deficiencies
in the present report.

The general area of the sites is the Lower White River Valley (which ex-
tends from southeastern Nye County southward between the Seaman Range on the

west and the North Pahroc Range on the east) and one small area of the Pahran-
agat Valley which connects with the White River Valley north of Hiko and runs
north-south between the Hiko Range on the east and the East Pahranagat Range

on the west (Fig. 1). This area is roughly equivalent to Fowler and Sharrock's
(1973:97-99) Survey Area No. 1, the data they report apparently being based on
a 1967 reconaissance by R. L. Stephenson. Although they refer to "intensive

site survey" carried out in Pahranagat Valley, our Lower Pahranagat Lake site,
(NV-Li-7 in the Archaeological Research Facility site survey records for Neva-
da) is not mentioned. The Lower White River Valley canyon or "Narrows" Nevada
Archaeological Survey site 26-LN-210; University of California Archaeological
Research Facility site NV-Li-9) is mentioned, but only a very partial (and
inaccurate) record of what we identify as Locality 2, Panel I is presented

(Fowler and Sharrock 1973:101, Fig. A9, A; compare with our Fig. 4). A small
part of our Panel 6 is shiown by Hubbs and Miller (1948:Fig. 28), erroneously
labelled as "pictographs." Hubbs and Miller (1948:Fig. 25) have a photo of

the steep-walled "Narrows" canyon at about our Locality 4. J. Steward's site

PT 225 (Steward 1929:147) is possibly the first notice of the White River Valley
petroglyph sites, but we cannot be certain that this is not a reference to

Arrowhead Canyon which is also mentioned by Hubbs and Miller (1948:Figs. 27,

29). Steward's site PT 228 (Steward 1929:150) at Hiko Springs, Clark County,
is not the same locality as Hiko, Lincoln County. In March, 1968, Dr. John
J. Cawley sent the Department of Anthropology at Berkeley an excellent four-

page report on petroglyph sites in the Pahranagat Valley and neighboring areas

which we have found in the files, and we mention this to acknowledge Dr. Cawley
as the first serious student to visit these locations.

Although the environment is desertic (shadscale, black brush at lower

elevations and pinon-juniper in the upper mountains), there is an occasional
spring and there exists a good stream which is fed by Crystal Springs which

waters the Pahranagat Valley.  Deer are present, and mountain sheep survive in
numbers in the Desert Range south of Alamo under the watchful protection of

the personnel of the Pahranagat Wildlife Refuge. The valley floor elevation

inclines from about 4500 feet a.s.l. at the north end of the White River canyon
to about 3000 feet a.s.l. in the lower Pahranagat Valley. White River is a dry

10

wash which long ago, in Pleistocene times, carried water (Hubbs and Miller
1948:96-98).

In the canyon of the White River (dry except for cloudburst freshets
which in the spring or summer may course through the narrow raceway) we

attempted during our brief survey to plot petroglyphs by general area ("local-
ity"), and within localities by "panels"--restricted spatial congregations of
inscriptions which can be geographically separated from each other to the     2/
extent that a casual observer would say that these were separate (Fig. 2).

We believe that such distinctions may be important since different groups over
time (or the same group at different times) may have resorted to the White
River Canyon and recorded their presence in the form of petroglyphs.

LOWER WHITE RIVER VALLEY (Site NV-Li-9)

Locality 1. About 10 miles north of Hiko along the road labelled NEV 38 one
enters the steep-walled gorge or "tNarrows" of the ancient White River. Just
inside the narrow entrance on the south cliff wall of the canyon is Panel I

(Fig. 3a) with a single pecked design consisting of a long horizontal line with
vertical ticking along the top. It was suggested that this might represent a

diversion fence for game drives, and wherever we found this element at the site
the locality also seemed to be a logical one for diverting moving animals to
a location immediately under the cliff where they could be shot with the bow
and arrow. We are far from certain about this explanation, but such actual

drive fences consisting of stone piles to support juniper(?) posts are known
in Nevada (Heizer and Baumhoff 1962:55). Temporary diversion fences could
have been made of piles of grass, brush or tree limbs which would leave no

archaeological traces. Such fences are widely reported from the Great Basin
as used in antelope hunting.

About 40 feet above the floor of the wash a few hundred yards north of

Locality I is a natural open arch about 3 feet high and 5 feet wide which has

a dry-laid boulder wall across the front. Such a spot would have been an ideal
shooting location for animals below.   Whether this spot so served we do not
know.

Locality 2. This is the major petroglyph concentration in the White River
Narrows and it occurs in a great semicircular bay ringed by vertical cliffs

of andesite which rise to 50 or 60 feet above the surface of the wash. Animals

2/ During our recording of sites, sketches, measured drawings, and color

photographs were made. These are on file in the Archaeological Research
Facility, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley.

Ii

moving either north or south in the narrow canyon could have been forced into
this amphitheater and prevented from escaping by a fence or stationed archers
stretched across the opening and would have been at the mercy of the hunters.

The design we tentatively identify as a diversion fence is a prominent feature
of Panel 1 (Fig. 3a) which is the most notable of the several petroglyph panels
occurring around the perimeter of this natural arena. The animals, moving

either north or south, once having entered the opening could have been prevented
from escaping by a brush fence as shown in the accompanying sketch.

0

0
X 0

Sketch of Locality 2, site NV-Li-9. Line of circles shows course of hypothe-
tical diversion fence to hold animals coming north; line of exes shows course
of hypothetical diversion fence to hold animals coming south.

12

The location of petroglyph panels at Locality 2 are shown here and the
glyphs of each panel are shown in Figs. 3-8.

Ca. 300    .

Sketch map of Locality 2, site NV-Li-9 in Lower White River Valley. Roman
numbers (I-XII) refer to panels with petroglyphs.

Panel 1 (Locality 2) is complex (Fig. 4a, b).    Another "drive fence",
a clearly recognizable antlered deer, bighorn sheep, foot or paw prints, a

spiral, dot and circle, human figure, diamond chains, snakes, rakes, ladder,
and other familiar Great Basin petroglyph symbols allow us to class this as

mainly in the Great Basin Representative style. Above, but not superimposed
upon, the pecked petroglyphs below, are three Scratch Style designs (Fig. 7g)

as well as a modern equinophobic graffito which reads, "NO HORSES".      The basal-
tic stone is fairly soft and both grooving and pecking were used to make the
designs at all of the NV-Li-9 localities. The stone is a yellowish tan and
the surface patina is rather darker, ranging to dark brown.

LProceeding clockwise we come to Panels IIA and II which are not elaborate
or very distinctive (Figs. 6d; 5c).

13

Panel III at Locality 2 shows three dancing figures holding hands, two
square-shouldered figures of "Basketmaker" type, and several "vulva" symbols
(Fig. 5a, e, _g). The body areas (not the head) of the two square-shouldered
figures are painted red.

Panel IV, Locality 2 (Fig. 8f) is small and geometric.

Panel V (Fig. 6a) consists of a series of circles connected with lines.
These are rather like the common dumbbells of the Great Basin Curvilinear
Abstract Style.

Panel VI (Fig. 6f) consists of circles connected by lines and a line of
short vertical ticking.

Panel VII (Fig. 8g) is undistinctive, as is Panel VIII (Fig. 8b).

Panel IX (Fig. 8d) is on a boulder which has broken in two, and parts of

the same "star" glyph are to be seen on the separated sections.      Near Panel IX
are the linear elements shown in Fig. 8a.

Panel X (Fig. 8c) has two elements which are components of the Great Basin
Style.

Some minor occurrences of glyphs occur at intervals between what we have
termed "panels"--among these is a geometric series near Panel VII (Fig. 7a),

two "rakes" near Panel VIII (Fig. 7b), a miscellaneous geometric set 75 feet
west of Panel IX (Fig. 7c), and a slightly separated curved "rake" near the

last (Fig. 7d).   On the cliff face, about 30 feet above the floor of the wash
and accessible by a narrow ledge, are the two glyphs shown in Fig. 7e which

occur above Panel IX, and the complicated "rake" shown in Fig. 7f which occurs
between Panels VII and VIII. Near Panel V are the two glyphs shown in Fig. 6c.
and near Panel XI the designs shown in Fig. 5d.

Locality 3 stretches along the lower cliff surface for about 30 feet, and
the glyphs occur in three groups, the southernmost shown in Fig. 8e, the cen-

tral one in Fig. 3d and the northernmost shown in Fig. 3f. The horned figures
(Fig. 3d) are the most unusual of this set.

Locality 4, not far up the wash north of Locality 3, occurs on two faces
of a right-angled fracture block at the base of the cliff. Fig. 3e is the
southern part; Fig. 3h is the northern part.

Loait       is a flat vertical cliff surface which for petroglyph artists
should have been an inviting "canvasf', but it was not much exploited. Curvi-
linear and geometric elements are present (Fig. 3c), and an incised double-

line horizontal zigzag has been covered with red paint (detail shown in Fig. 3g).

14

The element consisting of two circles and a bisecting line with small circles
running parallel to the line between the larger circles is also embellished
with red paint.

Locality 6 was encountered at the end of a long and rather uncomfortable
day. With numbed hands, poor light, and snow squalls we spent about an hour
here trying to make notes and photographs. Figs. 9-12 represent what we can
now salvage from these efforts. The cliff face turns from a north-south

line to run east-west, and Figs. 9 to 12 should be read as proceeding from south
to north and then west along the cliff base. Hubbs and Miller (1948:Fig. 28)
illustrate in a photograph what is recognizably the right half of our Fig. 9
and the left half of our Fig. 10.   This extensive cliff surface is decorated
from ground level to about 6 to 7 feet high for a distance of about 200 feet.
The rhyolite is weathered and fairly soft, and many of the inscriptions are
unclear due to weathering. It would require several days of work to try to

identify and record the individual elements, but such a labor might be reward-
ing in indicating superimpositions. We leave this duty to future researchers
who have more time and better weather conditions than were available to us.

We note at Locality 6, which is as far north in the valley as we proceeded,
that this is the upper end of the narrow canyon. Whether petroglyphs occur
further north we do not know, but from Locality 6 the prospects do not look
promising for the next two or three miles.

What we have tentatively identified as drive fences are abundant at Local-
ity 6, and such a fence built from near the cliff base running northeast could
easily divert moving animals to a favorable position as targets if they were
moving south.

We observed with interest that in several panels an unusual design is re-
peated twice or more times. Examples may be seen in Figs. 3c; 8c, d; 9; 12.
Can we infer from this that one person engraved the two designs on the same

occasion, or perhaps that the same person came back on different occasions to
the same place to leave his "signature" glyph--one he had invented and which
he felt would bring him luck?

We warn the reader to beware of placing significance in the number of dots
or line ticks or bars in a ladder design since the precise numbers of these
in the original are not only often difficult to determine, but also copying

errors can occur. Our figures are as accurate as we could draw them, but their
precision is not guaranteed as absolute.

L0WER PAHRANAGAT LAKE (Site NV-Li-.7)

The lay of the land at this site is one favorable for hunting animals at
close range. Today deer are not common in the vicinity of the site, but big-

15

horn sheep are known to frequent the spot during the coldest winter weather

when both food and water may be difficult to secure in the higher parts of the
Desert Range to the south. Deer might not be attracted to this spot at the

present time because the area is fenced, holds horses, and is near the highway
leading to (or from) Las Vegas on which automobiles careen at top speed either
on their way to (hopefully) or from (disappointedly) the gaming tables. Today
it is not good country for deer.

Figure 13 shows the site area and the five concentrations of pecked petro-
glyphs which are termed "localities."

Locality I glyphs are shown in Figs. 14a, e; 17d. These occur on the ba-
salt cliff face and on talus boulders below the rim and above the flood plain.
The solidly pecked human figure in the lower part of Fig. 14a is associated
with a bighorn sheep. Another solid sheep is shown above and to the right,

but this animal may be associated with the two headless (?) rectangular figures
whose dress is indicated by lines of dots or connected solid circles. Each
figure holds an atlatl. We believe these rectangular figures are, despite
their stylized form, atlatl-bearing hunters.   Also in this locality is the

panel of four solidly pecked south-pointed sheep associated with a disk (Fig.
14e). Fig. 17d shows a series of line-connected solidly pecked circles at
Locality 1.

Locality 2 is on the exposed cliff face below the mesa rim. Some designs
occur on fallen boulders on the steep talus slope. Fig. 14b shows a similar
combination of a solidly pecked figure with a projection rising from the top

of the head, a rectangular outlined figure holding an atlatl and bighorn sheep
to that seen in Fig. 14a from Locality 1. The solid figure differs in having

peephole eyes and a right-angled sex organ. The outlined figure is filled with
grid lines, and it holds two (perhaps three) atlatls.    On a talus boulder below
the top of the hill is the figure shown in Fig. 14c which may be compared to

the atlatl-holding humans in Figs. 14a, b, d; 15c, e, and 16d, and to similar
ones which are not holding spearthrowers shown in Figs. 16a, 17a and 18a-c.
Also recorded at Locality 2 is the solid-bodied, spike-top headed unarmed

figure associated with two solid-pecked bighorn sheep shown in Fig. 14f, and
which is similar to the solid-pecked figures of Fig. 15a and c, except that
the latter, which has four arms, is the result of applying a second figure

over an earlier one. Other Locality 2 atlatl-bearing figures, done partly in
lines and partly in solid-pecking are shown in Figs. 15b, d, *and 16d. The
four north-pointed sheep (Fig. 16e),and the lines-of-dots designs shown in

Fig. 17b, e-f, and the unusual branched lines associated with two south-pointo

ing sheep (Fig. 17c) complete the designs we recorded at Locality 2.    Our search
may have been incomplete and there may still be unrecorded glyphs at this
locality.

16

Locality 3 is a fair-sized exposure of vertical rock faces at the south-
ern end of the hill. Here were inscribed the glyphs shown in Figs. 15a, 17a,
and 16a-c.

Locality 4 designs are not illustrated here because we did not have time
to find a way up to them. They are in the form of two 4 foot high costumed

figures but details could not be observed from the ground surface. There may

be additional petroglyphs on the boulders and rock exposures north of Locality
4.

Locality 5 is marked by a single pecked figure holding an atlatl in one
hand and a stick or dart in the other. Once more the specific association
of bighorn sheep occurs.

On the flat top of the little isolated hill at site NV-Li-7 is a series
of about 20 "house rings'" made of boulders piled to a height of from two to
three feet, and 6 to 12 feet in diameter. Recent looters have dug around
and in these and have partially thrown down some of the walls. They can

scarcely have been hunting blinds as such since they are not within atlatl or
bow range of the hill base, and they may represent a small settlement whose

location, however inconvenient to water, provided protection from attack. The
several centuries of Puebloan occupation in this area; may not have been alto-
gether ones of tranquility, and the earlier residents might have resorted at
certain times to living in such defense spots. No potsherds and a very few
flint flakes were observed. We saw no indication that the spot was one of
intensive occupation or industry. Just above the flood plain at the north-

eastern edge of this hill is a slightly curved three-foot high wall of rough
boulders which might have served as a hunting blind. On the other hand it

may have been built for some reason by a recent rancher, though it is apparent-
ly not a section of a stone fence.

A fairly common design at the Lower Pahranagat Lake site (NV-Li-7) is

the figure of a standing human whose body is covered with what is apparently
some kind of garment with a fringed bottom with a spiked top, armholes and

eyeholes and extending to the lower legs. That these are males seems probable,
both because they at times hold atlatls in one hand, and also by reason of the
projection between the legs of the persons shown in Figs. 14b and 15c which

can be interpreted as the male sex organ--despite the obvious remark that this
is not shown in the anatomically correct position and in one instance has a

right-angled bend. The common feature of the projection or spike rising from
the top of the head we interpret as tapering bound wqarp selvage elements of

a woven tent-like garment of bark or rushes manufactured by the coarse twined
matting technique or perhaps of sewed skin.   We see these figures as atatl-
armed men dressed in a portable disguise waiting for the game to approach

sufficiently close to cast the dart. Our reconstruction of such a disguised

17

hunter is shown here. The disguise, we suppose, may have been sufficiently
effective to fool the animals. This suggestion would also be convincing if

we could interpret the projection rising above the top of the head as antlers

or horns, but since it is a single uncurved and unbranched element it does not
appear to be either sheep horns or deer antlers. Incidentally, in the Coso
Range to the west there are clearly depicted armed hunters wearing bighorn

sheep head disguises (Grant, Baird and Pringle 1968:40) but these figures are
not wearing the cover disguise garment. The frequent association of bighorn
sheep with the disguised hunters at NV-Li-7 may be evidence that this was the

animal here being hunted. Such disguise outfits are not reported in the ethno-
graphic literature for Great Basin groups although stationary blinds covered

with grass or rushed were widely employed in waterfowl hunting. It is possible
that when the atlatl was the hunting weapon it may have been important to be

able to launch the projectile at close range, and that when the bow came into

use the disguise was no longer needed because of the greater distance at which
the arrow was effective.

Our reconstruction of an atlatl-armed hunter wearing a disguise garment.

18

OTHER PAHRANAGAT VALLEY SITES

There is a large petroglyph site on the east side of the artificial lake
which lies just below the Hiko postoffice. We did not visit this, but noted

one boulder at the postoffice which had been carried there and which bears what
are probably GB Curvilinear Abstract designs (Fig. 18d).

Near the road about 15 miles south of Alamo is another locality of boulder
petroglyphs. We recorded three examples (Fig. 18e-.) of a larger assortment.

On Mt. Irish, which lies ca. 15 miles west of Hiko is the unusual panel

of four bighorn sheep shown in Fig. 18h. We have not seen this site, but have
made our sketch from the photograph by Townley (1970) and a kodachrome kindly

supplied by Dr. John J. Cawley of Bakersfield. It is quite different in style
from the petroglyphs at NV-Li-7 and NV-Li-9. Townley suggests that the four

sheep represent a "family" arranged so as to create "a feeling of depth." While
this may be the case, it would be wholly unique that true perspective was evi-
denced in Great Basin rock art. An alternative explanation is that the super-

impositions are of different dates and of different dates and if this were true,
both the "family" and perspective elements would be incidental rather than

planned and deliberate. Possibly careful study of the panel would answer this
question.

STYLE CONSIDERATIONS

The several petroglyph localities stretching along the walled course of

the Lower White River Valley (site NV-Li-9) are mostly done in the Great Basin
Representational Style (Heizer and Baumhoff 1962:202). Puebloan influence is
apparent in the horned figures (Fig. 3d) and the square-shouldered figures

(Fig. 5a). Great Basin Curvilinear Abstract Style elements are also present
(Figs. 6b, e, f; 8d) as are designs associated with Great Basin Curvilinear
Abstract Style (Figs. 3b, bird track; 4a-b, dots; 9, rake).

Heizer and Baumhoff (1962:Figs. 30-31) mapped the area in which the White
River Valley lies as within the distribution zone of the Great Basin Curvili-
near Abstract, GB Rectilinear Abstract and GB Representational Styles. The
Great Basin Scratched Style was not then reported for the area, but its pre-

sence at NV-Li-9 is now attested and allows this part of southern Nevada to be
added to the distribution as plotted in 1962.

Turner (1963:Map II) includes the southern part of Nevada in which both

NV-Li-9 and NV-Li-7 occur as lying within the distribution areas of his Styles
3, 4 and 5.

What is needed at this point is for some person to collect as much detailed
information on petroglyphs of southern Nevada as possible, organize this by

19

classifying elements, and make a detailed comparison of these data with the
Glen Canyon styles as defined by Turner, the Utah-Arizona styles defined by

Schaafsma and the Great Basin styles as defined by Heizer and Baumhoff. Through
such a program we can learn whether the overlapping distributions of the sever-
al styles represent distinctive regional substyles of major styles with wide
distributions or whether the latter are unitary styles which spread rapidly

and widely without undergoing significant internal variability. Because the
Great Basin styles are at best only roughly dated and the Glen Canyon styles

have much stricter chronological floruits, the study proposed may be expected

to contribute to a more precise dating of at least the later Great Basin styles.

If students of prehistoric western North American rock art are correct in
believing that there has occurred, over the past several thousand years, a

succession of spreads of petroglyph styles, we can draw a main conclusion from
this that the basic function of this aspect of prehistoric behavior has probab-
ly remained the same.  While we have argued for that main purpose to have been
hunting magic, it is still possible that there were other (i.e. additional or

alternative) purposes of rock pecking. But, regardless of the exact function(s),
it is most probable that we are dealing with several styles, each in their own
time and space frame, with a single behavioral aspect of Great Basin native
culture.

The NV-Li-7 (Lower Pahranagat Lake) petroglyphs are clearly different in

style from_rthose in the White River Valley (NV-Li-9). The two petroglyph sites
differ from each other presumably because they are of different ages, and if
this is the case, then they are also presumably the work of different people.

Our strong impression is that NV-Li-7 is older than NV-Li-9 because the glyphs

at the latter site are much sharper and less eroded. The NV-Li-7 site does not
fit comfortably into any of the several Great Basin or Glen Canyon styles as
presently recognized.

The Scratch Style petroglyphs at NV-Li-9 (Fig. 4c-d, 7b, d-g) are, as

noted at all sites where they occur in the Great Basin, the most recent.    It

may be suggested that they were applied to existing petroglyph-bearing surfaces
by the immediate ancestors of the Shoshonean tribes occupying the area at the
time of white contact, and that they may simply be the last manifestation of
a half-remembered practice whose details and purpose were mostly forgotten.
Why the making of pecked petroglyphs was given up in late prehistoric times
we do not know (for discussion see Heizer and Baumhoff 1962:14, 226 ff.).

Nor do we know whether the old game ambush sites continued to be used after

petroglyphs were no longer made. Our guess would be that the hunt continued
at these spots for as long as the game animals were present, and because

the older petroglyphs occurred at ideal hunting spots the later hunters noted
the frequent association, and perhaps were dimly aware of the point that it
was a no longer used form of hunting magic. Perhaps to "play it safe,"r or

in a spirit of imitation or re-invention, they took to superimposing their own

20

scratch style designs on the older ones. The Scratch Style is so widespread,

and utilizes pretty much the same designs that it too, despite its simplicity,
can also be assumed to have diffused over a large part of Nevada. How wide-

spread the Scratch Style is in the Great Basin remains to be determined since
most earlier observers failed to recognize and record its presence.

Some designs at Lower Pahranagat Lake are reminiscent of ones occurring
elsewhere. What we take to be disguised hunters with atlatls (Figs. 14a, c,

d; 15a, d, e) are rather like the somewhat more elaborately drawn figures with

rectangular bodies clothed in decorated garments from the Coso Range, California
about 160 miles to the east (cf. Grant, Baird and Pringle 1968:p. 38, figs. b,
c, d, f, j). In the Coso Range figures of men holding what are apparently

weighted atlatls are shown (Grant, Baird and Pringle 1968:p. 54 top). We have
suggested that the headless line-of-dots filled rectangles (e.g. Fig. 14a, d)
are stylized representations of costumed hunters, and these latter are so

similar in many respects to what Grant, Baird and Pringle (1968:36) have labell-
ed "medicine bags" (see also Grant, Baird and Pringle 1968:pp. 74 bottom; 84
bottom) that the latter may also be a highly abstract representation of men.

Further, the costumed human figures at site NV-Li-7 shows features reminiscent
of designs in Glen Canyon (Turner 1963:Fig. 80) and of some as far distant as
west central Wyoming (Gebhard 1962-63:Fig. 3; Gebhard 1969:Pls. 4, 52). From
some unspecified location on nearby Mt. Irish there is a record (Fig. 18h) of
large scale representations of bighorn sheep with cloven hoofs (Townley 1970)
which can be affiliated both with the Coso Range area (Grant, Baird, and

Pringle 1368:20) and the Puebloan area of Utah and Arizona (Schaafsma 1971:
passim; Turner 1963). The so-calley "vulva" design is pretty clearly just

that, as Figs. 5a, e, g shows. This symbol often occurs alone and is noted
elsewhere in Nevada by Heizer and Baumhoff (1962:Figs. 41, 79h, 80b, 94d)

from sites Ch-57 (Allen Spring), La-9 (Hickison Summit), and Ly-l (East Walker
River). The outlined cross design seen in Fig. 12 occurs also about 150 miles

to the south in the Valley of Fire (Schaafsma 1971:Fig. 130), and in New Mexico
(Schaafsma 1972:Figs. 20, 73). The cross with knobbed points but without the
bordering line is noted in Nevada at Lost City, Clark County (Scaafsma 1971:
P1. 53) and site NV-CI-143 (Heizer and Baumhoff 1962:Fig. 78a). Schaafsma

(Op. cit.) says this is an element of the Western Virgin Kayenta style. The
rows of hand-holding figures (dancers?) is not uncommon in southern Nevada

(Heizer and Baumhoff 1962:Figs. 69c, 70a, 76a) and it is also present in the

Santa Barbara painted cave art (Grant 1965:pl. 4). Interestingly enough, the
use of dots to make lines or fill outlined figures which is common at NV-Li-7

is also a notable feature of the Santa Barbara painted cave art (Grant 1965:87).
Turner (1963:Map II) shows Glen Canyon Styles 2 and 4 present in the Santa

Barbara region. The element of horizontal line with pendant wavy lines seen
in Figs. 3b, 4a, 5b, 8g(?), 9, 12 is also noted at AtlatI Rock, Valley of

Fire, Clark County, Nevada (Schaafsma 1971:PI. 55). It thus appears from the
above tha t there are a number of elements which are characteristic specifical-
ly of southern Nevada petroglyphs, and if this list could be expanded it might
become the core of elements of a regional substyle.

21

The excellent review by Rusco (1973) of types of anthropomorphic painted

and pecked figures in the Great Basin does not include reference to any figures
similar to the ones we interpret as disguised hunters at site NV-Li-7.

Site NV-Li-9 (White River Valley) shares many specific elements with Glen

Canyon Style 4 as defined by Turner (1963)--these include ticked lines, parallel
zigzags, watchspring scroll, simple rectilinear meander, fringed line, squiggled
line, lizard men, sheep, footprints, snakes, and bird tracks). The similarities
are great enough to class NV-Li-9 as a site largely done in Glen Canyon Style
4 which is dated at 1050-1250 A. D.   It was during this period (P I-III) when
Puebloan peoples "colonizedt" (to use C. Turner's term) southern and eastern
Nevada north and west of the Colorado River (see Shutler 1961:Pl. I for the

area in question). R. Shutler (1961) defines at Lost City (Pueblo Grande de

Nevada) a Mesa House Phase dating from 1100-1150 A.D. and an earlier Lost City
Phase, 700-1100 A.D. Peoples of both periods are known to have hunted deer,

antelope, bighorn sheep, and elk, and it is possible that the White River Valley
petroglyphs (NV-Li-9) were made by these people.    It is further possible,

though here we operate in a chronological void, that during the Basket Maker

occupation of southern Nevada which Shutler (1961:67) dates at ca. 300 B.C. to
500 A.D. the Lower Pahranagat Lake (NV-Li-7) petroglyphs were made. Since the
atlatl was the Basket M4aker weapon (Shutler and Shutler 1962:15) and because

atlatls are depicted in use at NV-Li-7 this suggestion of authorship may have
some support.

Schaafsma (1971:113, 119, 125) states that Glen Canyon Style 4 is "essen-

tially identical" to the Eastern Virgin Kayenta style of rock art, and that her
Western Virgin Kayenta style is closely connected with Great Basin Rectilinear
and Great Basin Curvilinear styles.   Once more we observe that what is much
needed is a broad survey of the data on which the various petroglyphs styles
from the Great Basin, Glen Canyon, Utah, Arizona and New Mexico areas have

been derived and to try to see a little more clearly than we are now able to
how much duplication there is in the several styles. Until now workers have

had to analyze data from localized regions, but we are now at the point where
the wider relationships, areas of origin and directions of diffusion can be
estimated.

We are still at a loss to fit NV-Li-7 into any so far recognized style.
and while it shares elements with some styles it seems closest to the early

period Coso Range style, though not sufficiently to encourage us to so label

it. Since only the atlatl is represented as a weapon here, we think that this
may be an additional reason to place it earlier in time and of a separate de-
rivation than the nearby White River petroglyph localities.

Beyond this we do not feel justified in going at the present time. Only

two of a much larger number of un.studied sites in the Lincoln and Clark counties
area are reported here, and before too many unsupported theories are advanced

22

we should be in possession of information from more sites in order to speak

with any assurance about regional styles since what seem to us now as unusual
may in fact, with better data, prove to be characteristic.

Most students of petroglyphs of the Far West have concluded that the

various styles differ in age and from some region of origin have diffused, and
each, in the process, have either replaced or incorporated the existing style.

Many of the rock art styles are so widespread that they occur in what are, ethno-
graphically, areas occupied by rather different linguistic groups. If we were
able to plot the geographical limits of each of the several petroglyph styles

and arrange them in their correct time order, these maps might reflect linguis-
tic areas of earlier times. On the other hand if we judge from recent Great
Basin Indians a tendency to be fairly mobile, absence of hard-and-fast terri-
torial borders and the probability of bi-lingual villages or bands along lin-

guistic boundaries would throw doubt on any simple correspondence of petroglyph
style areas and linguistic areas. A good test case might be the Scratch Style
which is clearly the most recent form of Great Basin rock art--perhaps late
enough in time to be attributed to the ancestors of the ethnographic Great

Basin peoples encountered by the Caucasians in the nineteenth century. A tho-
rough analysis of Scratch Style petroglyphs which, offhand, look much alike,

might nevertheless show that there are localized substyles which do correspond
to recent linguistic divisions. Such an effort would&be worth making, but it

would entail careful fieldwork to make more complete and accurate observations
than have to date been accomplished.

One of the things which interests us about the two main petroglyph concen-
trations discussed here is how different they are. They are quite near to each
other (ca. 33 miles) geographically, but they are quite distinct stylistically.
There are several logical explanations for this, among them being that the
two sets of petroglyphs were made by two different social groups ("tribes")
at the same period of time, or at different periods in time. Or, the same

social group ("tribe"), but not the same individuals or division of that social
group ("subtribe" or "band") made the petroglyphs at the same period in time,
or at different periods in time. While we could proceed to list a longer

series of hypothetical social-temporal-geographical situations to account for
the two quite different manifestations of the same expression of pecked de-
signs on vertical rock faces in these two nearby areas, this will probably

bring us no closer to a solution because we lack any other evidence than the

inscribed designs themselves. The two sites we studied are not connected, so

far as we could tell, in any direct way with occupation spots. It is possible
that practitioners of the "new archeology"' might provide us with some inter-
esting answers based on the positivist method of hypothetico-deductive pro-

cedure, but so far they have not shown us how to get at the real explanation
of petroglyphs. Our "fold archaeology"f methods have been able to show that

for many, perhaps the majority, of petroglyph sites in the Great Basin area

their presence can be explained in terms of a magical (or shamanistic?) moti-

23

vation connected with appropriate spots where migrating animals (mainly moun-
tain sheep or deer) were shot in ambush (Heizer and Baumhoff 1959; Heizer and
Baumhoff 1962; von Werlhof 1960, 1965; Grant, Baird and Pringle 1968).

In 1958 when Heizer and Baumhoff, with the help of A. B. Elsasser and E.

Prince, developed the idea that Great Basin petroglyphs occurred on game migra-
tion trails at spots where suitable rock surfaces were present and where the
moving animals could be shot at close range, they tested and proved the pro-
position by determining that petroglyphs often did occur on game migration

trails, and that petroglyphs did not ordinarily occur, despite attractive rock
surfaces and Vtentially ideal ambush spots, in places which are not along

game trails.-    Our hypothesis led to the generalization that in the Great
Basin area most petroglyph sites exist at definite places where seasonally
migrating deer moving from summer to winter range could be shot. In the

western part of Nevada the main movement of deer is out of the eastern slopes
.of the Sierra Nevadas into Nevada mountain ranges; in central and eastern

Nevada these may be from higher to lower elevations, often for long distances
through or across valleys.   Ambush spots most often occur where a migration
trail narrows down, usually in a wash or canyon, where the moving deer have
no alternativs but to pass through a narrow passage where they can be shot

from above. -   Where suitable concealment or cover (e.g. large boulders) is
lacking, a simple hunting blind of rocks piled up to a height of 2 or 3 feet

afforded not only cover for the hunter, but perhaps also some protection from
the wind, not a negligible factor to ill-clad bow-hunter patiently waiting

without a fire and its telltale smoke in the Late fall or early winter. So

far, and without unduly bending this proposition to fit particular cases, we
can explain the occurrence of the majority of Great Basin petroglyph sites.

Petroglyph sites in narrow canyons may stretch out for long distances,
usually concentrating at the best close-range shooting locations. At times
a hunt spot on a game trail would require some slight modification by the
hunters in order to improve it to the point of effectiveness. The hunting

blinds mentioned earlier are one such example of improvement, presumably one
demanded because the natural features did not provide effective concealment
of the waiting hunters. Another modification was the occasional need to

prevent the moving deer, if they became spooked, from exploiting an available
escape route, or forcing them to enter the opening of a wash, along which the

hunters waited, by means of a diversion fence built of piled-up stones or posts,

-   A main exception is the occurrence of petroglyphs at desert springs

where animals may come to find water.

-Deer hunters in Nevada tell us that these animals when on the move do

not look up, and that if a hunter is stationed above the animals they

will simply pass along below. No doubt a downwind location is also im-
portant since deer have good noses.

24

or (as we suppose) of piles of brush. These "fences" were made of natural
materials and while they may have been recognized as man-made by the deer,

they were immobile, inanimate and merely to/be skirted.    We cannot prove the
former presence of such brush-pile fences-5      but, by assuming them to have
been made, some petroglyph sites do fit the whole bill of requirements. We
suppose, further, that petroglyphs as an expression of hunting magic, also

represent an effort on the part of the waiting hunters to attract the deer to
the spot, or to insure a successful kill when the animals did make

their appearance. The alternative that petroglyphs represent some sort of

memorial or record of a hunt that had already been concluded does not strike
us as very probable. We say this because it does not seem consistent with

Great Basin Indian world view insofar as we envisage what this may have been

in earlier times and as seen through the ethnographic records.    We would place
hunting blinds, diversion fences and petroglyphs in a single general category
of the human influencing of a hunting site for the purpose of success in kill-
ing game.

The instances of testable association of deer migration routes and petro-
glyph sites are not as numerous as we might desire for the reason that in the
past century land use, open hunting, barbed-wire fences, roads and the like
have caused great changes in deer migration habits. State and federal wild-
life experts are more concerned with present day management and protection

problems than they are with trying to learn from older local residents (both
whites and surviving Indians) what the migration patterns of deer were in

earlier times before these became disrupted. And for this reason the archaeo-
logist, who is an improbable person to be interested in such matters, often
finds it impossible to now learn whether a particular valley or wash or pass

was formerly on a deer route. Occurrences of deer bones in nearby sites would
prove only that deer were hunted and eaten locally--they could not answer the

question of regular seasonal migrations of that animal along a particular trail
where petroglyphs occur, nor would such deer bones, even in great quantity, be
directly associable with specific petroglyphs.

Now, if the arguments given above are admitted as acceptable hypotheses
(though we actually think they are stronger than that), we might be able to

exploit this by supposing that some of the petroglyph "symbols" or designs can
be interpreted since they were directly derived from the minds and hands of

the living persons who conceived and executed them--the mien who were there and
killing the game.

5/ That is, at petroglyph sites.    They are abundantly attested for antelope

hunting in the ethnographic literature.

25

Most immediately we would assume that the animal being hunted would be

prominently displayed. Better still would be dead animals shown lying on the
ground with weapon shafts protruding from their bodies. Still another possi-
bility is that the hunters themselves would be represented as discharging

arrows or darts at animal targets. More abstractly, depictions of humans or

weapons might indicate the same but we would not argue for this interpretation.
Beyond this one could speculate that some designs, albeit non-representative,

were conventionalized signs for dead animals, live animals, good luck, hunger.
plenty, hunting blinds, diversion fences, weapons, and so forth.

In Great Basin petroglyphs one can, in fact. find instances of some of

these logical pictorial adumbrances of the hunt, but in terms of the totality

of petroglyphs they are only a minor quantitative element. Animals which would
have been worthy targets include sheep and antlered deer (Heizer and Baumhoff
1962:Figs. F-ll, 30; Steward 1929:Fig. 87; Shutler and Shutler 1962:Pls. 15c,
16b; Schaafsma 1971:Figs. 49, 104; Schaafsma 1972:Figs. 14, 164, 165) and

mountain sheep (Grant, Baird and Pringle 1968:132). Whether deer, sheep or
rabbit(?) tracks, and bear paws can be taken as equivalent is impossible to
say. There are also snakes and lizards in considerable numbers, and these

were surely not food staples.   For the reason that we cannot today determine,

in many cases, which animals made seasonal movements and made appearances along
what are presumed to be old migration trails, we cannot be certain that a

petroglyph locality where mountain sheep are represented in numbers was in

fact anciently a mountain sheep hunting site. Grant, Baird. and Pringle (1968)
have argued persuasively that there existed in parts of the Great Basin a

itmountain sheep hunting cult"--an organized ritual with members and a body of
action and belief which is manifested in petroglyphs. It is a possiblity
that once a successful technique for hunting bighorn sheep was devised it

then spread through most of the desert West. Where sheep were not accessible

the technique ("cult") was either not adopted, or the attempt was made to apply
it to another large, seasonally-appearing, animal, the deer. as it moved from

high mountains with the advent of heavy snow to wintering grounds in the desert
ranges.  It is thus possible that petroglyphs at one time were primarily

associated with the hugying of sheep and that subsequently, for reasons which
we do not understand,      the sheep-petroglyph-hunting complex shifted to deer

hunting and that with this shift the representation of the sheep as a petroglyph
symbol was simply carried along and not substituted for by a representational

6/ von Werlhof (1965) has hypothesized that a change in deer migration patterns

may account for the abandonment in late prehistoric times of petroglyph
making in the Inyo-Mono County area. Grant, Baird and Pringle (1968)

theorize that the sheep cult was abandoned due to heavy killing of bighorns
after the introduction of the bow and arrow.

26

glyph of the deer. If in earlier times sheep were much more abundant than
they are known (or suspected) to have been at the opening of the historic

period this animal may h-ave ranked in some areas as a considerably more impor-
tant source of "big game" meat than deer which were also presumably hunted.

But here again we really lack any hard facts on demographic changes in mountain
sheep or deer populations in prehistoric times when Great Basin Indians were

busy making petroglyphs. And while these may seem like pretty wild speculations--
ones for which there is no evidence--we nevertheless believe that they also
rank as hypotheses which might be tested rather than being mere flights of

fanciful thinking. They are hypotheses because their construction is framed

around an attempt to explain, or account for, certain observable facts regard-
ing Great Basin petroglyph sites and the design elements (or "glyphs" or
"symbols") which occur at a substantial number of these sites.

Animals shown with darts or arrows fixed in their bodies also occur, though
rarely (Grant, Baird and Pringle 1968:73; Schaafsma 1971:Fig. 121). This kind
of realism is rare for reasons which we cannot explain. Possibly such stark
representation was considered unnecessary, or for some reason inappropriate.

Possibly also, since the depiction of realistic compositions in-any known kind
of Great Basin parietal art is lacking, it may have simply been beyond the

artistic conceptual abilities of most Great Basin hunters to make such por-

trayals.  In other words, while we might search for such "photographic records"
or "still life" depictions, we should not forecast that they would occur. That
some do occur, but rarely, is of interest to us, but the few example we have

may only be those authored by some individual and innovative petroglyph artist.

When we come to petroglyphs showing armed hunters engaged in their work

we also have some examples. The magnificent Coso Range (Inyo County) "gallery"
described by Grant, Baird and Pringle (1968) has a number of examples of humans
shooting bows or holding (or casting?) atlatls at sheep, and these can scarcely
be taken as anything else than hunters at work (2. cit. p. 54, passim; Ritter
1970:Fig. 201). At the Lower Pahranagat Lake site (NV-Li-7) some of the cos-
tumed human figures hold what appear to be atlatls, and the human either yith
or without a weapon is often associated with one or more bighorn sheep.

Beyond these literal identifications we can scarcely go. Some of the

NV-Li-7 designs which take the form of linear-dotted or line-ruled rectangles
may very well be abstracted or conventionalized and abbreviated portrayals
of the more completely drawn figures, some of which hold atlatls (compare

Figs. 14 and 15 with Figs. 16-18). But the other glyphs do not suggest to
us any clearly identifiable objects or life forms.

7/

-  We have a strong impression but do not try to document this here, that

when archers are shown they are more often associated with antlered deer
than bighorn sheep.

27

Mr. Leon Hill on the staff of the Nevada Desert Game Refuge tells us that
he had never seen or heard of seasonal deer migrations in the Pahranagat and

Lower White River valleys, but that in the coldest part of the winter bighorn
sheep come down out of the higher elevations of the Desert Range to feed, and
presumably, to water. Whether in pre-white times deer moved either north up

or south down the Lower White River-Pahranagat valleys we do not know. Perhaps

bighorn sheep made such seasonal movements in past centuries in search of winter
pasture when the cold was unbearable in the higher mountains where they are
particularly adapted for survival.

The main difficulty in trying to make a connection between the hunting of
bighorn sheep and petroglyphs is the severe decrease in recent times of the
sheep population. The pre-white distribution of this animal was obviously

much wider than it is at present, but we know nothing of its population numbers
in prehistoric times. Whether deer in earlier times were as abundant as sheep
we also do not know. If we had some data on these matters we might be in a

better position to understand and explain some aspects of petroglyph hunting
magic insofar as it concentrated on the capture of one or the other animals.
In this regard good faunal collections from dated stratified sites in the

Great Basin might inform us either about temporal fluctuations in the relative
abundance of the two forms or selective hunting practices.

I On balance, since we cannot provide any evidence, we find it impossible
to decide whether the Lower White River Valley and Lower Pahranagat Lake

petroglyph localities were associated with the hunting of deer or mountain
sheep, or possibly both. We simply do not know enough about the earlier

habits of these animals in this area to make a guess. That the two sites are

well suited to shooting game, either with the bow or atlatl, as they passed by,
we think is clear, and we find that the two sites conform agreeably with a good
many other such Great Basin sites. In the case of the Coso Range sites in

Inyo County it is most reasonable to think that petroglyphs were connected with
bighorn sheep hunting--the conclusion which was arrived at by Grant, Baird and
Pringle (1968) and with which we agree. In the several instances of the

association of petroglyphs sites with known deer migration trails in western
Nevada which Heizer and Baumhoff reported in their 1962 publication, we think
the indication is very strong for petroglyph sites to be linked with deer
hunting. Von Werlhof (1965) provides what seems to be good evidence for
Owens Valley petroglyphs as associated with deer hunting.

Not only were Great Basin Indians probably not sufficiently expert in
delineating all of the details which we might expect a trained illustrator
today to provide, but in addition there is no reason to assume that they

were even interested in trying to create pictorial representations which were
exact in the sense a photograph is exact, While the motivation or thought
behinid the design itself may have been very complex, we have no reason to

assume that the Indian who executed the petroglyph was under any requirement
to be so literal in making the design that it could be understood by anyone.

28

If he knew what he was doing, that was enough. In many cases the petroglyph

maker cum hunter was probably operating under a considerable degree of emotion-
al stress. Contributing to this may have been hungry wives and children and
old people waiting at home for something to eat. Many of the seasonal hunts

at petroglyph sites took place in the winter when it must have been uncomfort-
able in the extreme to sit through the day without the comfort of a fire, with
its telltale smoke, and wait for the game. The waiting itself may have been

boring, but the uncertainty over when, or whether, and how many of the migrat-

ing animals would make their appearance, and that when they did that they would
be killed must have loomed large in the hunters' thoughts. We suggest that
it is to some degree a reflex of such stresses that led Great Basin Indians
to invoke the help of magic to alleviate these worries, and that petroglyphs
are the surviving evidence of that practice. We would guess that out of a

larger number of possible uncertainties which the hunters were attempting to
mitigate, the most important ones were: 1), to reduce the period of waiting

for the animals to appear--i.e. to hasten them on their way; and 2), to influ-
ence them to approach closely, constitute good targets, and therefore increase
the probability of a kill. But for whatever reason or reasons Great Basin

Indians anciently came to think that by engraving their hunting hopes on rocks
they might thereby influence the outcome of the hunt, it seems clear that they
did so, and the abundance of rock engravings indicates that they believed such
acts were effective.

Beyond what we have here reported on and speculated about, we admit that

we are still intrigued by the larger problem of what the glyphs meant to their
makers. For a limited number of glyphs at certain sites we can make informed
guesses, but for the majority of signs we cannot. Imaginative efforts at

"translating" petroglyphs such as the proposal by Martineau (1973) we reject

as wholly without support or credibility. But we do not discount the possibi-
lity, or even the probability, that through the application of methods which

may in future be developed a certain proportion of western North American petro-
glyph designs will be "deciphered." We say this because we believe that the
widespread occurrence of many specific design elements can be taken as pre-

sumptive evidence that the meaning of the design was accompanied, as it diffus-
ed, with its form. A form and its meaning need not diffuse together, of course,
but we believe that a specific glyph or sign which is repeated over a wide

territory and which must have been learned by one local group from a neighboring
one would be more likely to be diffused in its particular form if the teacher
said "This design represents the life-essence of the deer, and if you engrave
it correctly it will increase your chances for a kill, f" than if the teacher
said "tThis is a good design for hunting luck.'f It is difficult to believe

that many of the petroglyph designs, whether geometric, curvilinear or repre-

sentational, did not have quite specific meanings.   Specific glyphs (e.g. most
of those named in Heizer and Baumhoff 1962:73, Figs. 16-30) are often widely
distributed in the Great Basin. It is most likely, it seems to us, that as

different styles developed and spread the design elements which comprise each

29

style had a name and meaning.   What the "snake," or "dumbbell" or "grid" or

"rake" design signified in their makers' minds we admit we do not know, but at
the same time we do believe that they probably stood for some specific item,

or idea, or concept. How to now determine what in prehistoric times particular
designs meant we do not know, but if it is admitted that the glyphs are part

of hunting magic the parameters of possible meanings are not infinite, and logic,
ethnographic analogy, the use of controlled imagination, and application of
some existing mathematical techniques for sorting data may lead us to some

understanding of what now seems to be an unorganized jumble or arcane design

elements.  Some stimulating suggestions on how one might go about interpretation
can be found in discussions by Levine (1957) and Vinnicombe (1972).

The question of why the making of petroglyphs went out of vogue in late

prehistoric times generally throughout the Great Basin is one which we cannot
answer. Whatever impelled Indians to abandon the practice must have been im-
portant to them. If we are correct in believing petroglyphs were employed as
an aid in food-getting, then we can conclude that petroglyphs generally were

no longer considered effective as an adjunct to making a living in this diffi-
cult environment. A drastic animal depopulation (through disease or drought

or other climatic alteration) might have made the ambush spots no longer suit-
able for hunting, and if this game scarcity persisted for several human gener-
ations the practice may have been forgotten. Or, a change in hunting methods

which involved other kinds of hunting areas would have made the making of petro-
glyphs unnecessary and the tradition could have been lost and forgotten. Con-
ceivably some change in ritual procedures may have led to an iconoclastic

rejection of petroglyph magic. But whatever the cause, and we have no direct

leads as to what this might have been, the making of petroglyphs seems to have
been given up generally throughout the Great Basin sometime in the late pre-
historic period.

Where do we stand, in 1974, on the matter of understanding petroglyphs
and pictographs of the Far West?   We do know a few things.   One is that in
the Great Basin physiographic province petroglyphs are very commonly linked
with the hunting of large game such as deer, or antelope or mountain sheep.

In broad terms, therefore, it has been shown that the main function of petro-
glyphs was for success in hunting animals--i.e. they served in8 ome way as a
magical element in the procedure of getting something to eat.-      Thus,

petroglyphs are part of the fabric of the ecological relationship syndrome,
and so their study is one which is now respectable in professional terms.

There still appear in print, however. all kinds of strange interpretations of

petroglyph designs which are, in our opinion, quite far from the truth.    Efforts
being made at the moment to see astronomical and calendrical recordings in

- For support of this statement see Heizer and Baumhoff (1959, l962), Heizer

and Clewlow (1973); von Werlhof (1965); Grant, Baird and Pringle (1968).

30

"scratch style" Great Basin petroglyphs, evidence of sophisticated time-

reckoning schemes registered in pecked designs, and representations of super-
novae, "star maps"', and constellations seem to us to be little more than

efforts of semi-informed amateurs to become the f'code-breakerst" of the great
mystery of the designs pecked on the rocks by prehistoric Great Basin Indian
hunters. rESolving the secret of rock writings" probably is part of a larger

public interest in such things as astrology, exorcism, Cryogenics (deep-freez-
ing human corpses for ultimate restoration to life); accepting the proposition
that plants can respond to human speech, emotions and thought (for a corrective
review see Galston 1974); ESP, black magic, the t"Chariots of the Gods" and

visits to earth by "ancient astronauts.'t Any and all unusual remains of anti-
quity are seized upon as evidence of some occult or extraterrestrial visita-
tion, and petroglyphs and pictographs are one element of this "evidence".

Since such crackpot theories are apparently more exciting to accept than ones
advanced by careful scholars, it is probable that we will simply have to live
with them, as we have with earlier crazes such as the "lost continents" of Mu
and Atlantis, and with others no doubt still to come.

We doubt that prehistoric western North American rock scribblings will

ever provide the basis for any major pseudo-scientific hypothesis, but in view
of the vogue which the crackpot theories of Velikowsky have enjoyed, and have
even been recognized, lamentably, by their having been given a hearing at the
AAAS meeting in San Francisco in early 1974 (for a report see Science 183:

1059-1062, 1974) one cannot be certain of this.   On reflection, and in view

of the impressive sales of books by Velikowsky, von Daniken and other charla-
tans who write about the past, one is led to wonder what the real effect of
general education, the promotion of literacy, and the growth of scientific
knowledge since the awakening we call the Renaissance in the middle of the
fifteenth century has really amounted to. Perhaps the best answer is that

there are always two worlds--the real and the imaginary, and that this dual-
ity is for some reason necessary.

31
EXPLANATION OF FIGURES  /

1.   Sketch map of the Lower White River Valley and Upper Pahranagat

Valley showing location of sites referred to in this report.

2.   The "Narrows"f section of the Lower White River Valley (site NV-

Li-9) showing the 6 petroglyph 'localitiestt. This is a rough field
sketch and not accurate as to orientation or distances.

3.   Site NV-Li-9. a, Locality 1, Panel I; b, Locality 2, Panel X; c,

Locality 5; d, Locality 3 (part), no scale; e, Locality 4; f, Local-
ity 3 (part), no scale; g, Locality 5 (detail), stippling indicates
red paint; h, Locality 4.

4.   Site NV-Li-9.  a, Locality 2, Panel I; b, slight enlargement of part

of a based on a separate photograph; c, Scratch Style glyph above
and to the right of Locality 2, Panel XI; d, Scratch Style glyphs
above Locality 2, Panel XII pecked petroglyphs.

5.   Site NV-Li-9.  a  Locality 2. Panel III; b, Locality 2, Panel XI;

c, Locality 2, Panel II; d, Locality 2, near Panel XI; en Locality
2, Panel XII; f, Locality 2, near Panel XII; g. Locality 2, Panel
XII (detail).

6.   Site NV-Li-9.  a. Locality 2, 20 feet east of Panel V; b,Locality 2,

Panel V; c, Locality 2, near Panel V; d, Locality 2, Panel IIA; e!
Locality 2, near Panel I; f, Locality 2, Panel VI.

7.   Site NV-Li-9.  a  Locality 2, near Panel VII; b, Locality 2, near

Panel VIII; c, Locality 2, 75 feet west of Panel IX; d, Locality 2,
75 feet west of Panel IX; e, Locality 2, 50 feet above Panel IX;

f, Locality 2, between Panels VII and VIII; g, Locality 2, Scratch
Style markings above Panel I.

8.   Site NV-Li-9.  a, Locality 2, 75 feet west of Panel IX; b., Locality

2, Panel VIII; c. Locality 2, near Panel X; d, Locality 2, Panel IX;
e, Locality 3, southern part; f, Locality 2, Panel IV; L, Locality
2, Panel VII.

9.   Site NV-Li-9. Locality 6, part.

-/Scale in drawings is one foot unless otherwise specified.

32

10.   Site NV-Li-9.   Locality 6, part.
II.   Site NV-Li-9.   Locality 6, part.
12.   Site NV-Li-9.   Locality 6, part.

13.   Lower Pahranagat Lake petroglyph site NV-Li-7.    Scale is approximate;

contour lines suggested to show general topography. Numbers I to 5
refer to rrlocalities'l at this site.

14.   Site NV-Li-7.   a, Loclaity 1; b, Locality 2; c, Locality 2; d, Local-

ity 5; e, Locality 1; f, Locality 2.

15.   Site NV-Li-7.   a, Locality 3; b, Locality 2; c, Locality 2; d, Local-

ity 2; e. Locality 2.

16.   Site NV-Li-7.  a, Locality 3; b, Locality 3; c, Locality 3; d, Local-

ity 2; e, Locality 2.

17.  Site NV-Li-7.   a. Locality 3.  These glyphs resemble closely in many

details the costumed (?) atlatl-equipped men such as shown in Figs.

14a, c and 15d, and although they do not carry weapons these we think
represent humans. b, Locality 2; c, Locality 2; d, Locality 2; e,
Locality 2; possibly another highly stylized representation of a
hunter holding a weapon; f, Locality 2.

18.   Various petroglyph sites. Lincoln County, Nevada.    a, site NV-Li-7,

Locality 2; b, site NV-Li-7, Locality 2; c, site NV-Li-7. Locality
2; d, from unvisited site near Hiko Postoffice; e, site 15 miles

south of Alamo, Lincoln County; f-, like e; h, large boulder     with
four mountain sheep depicted. This sketch is based on photo in

Townley (1970) and a kodachrome made by Dr. J. J. Cawley in 1968.
Body areas are solidly pecked. Legs of large animal at right not
apparent in the photographs.

33
Loc.6 .

* Loc.5
Loc.'4  Loc.3
Loc.2  *    /  J-611

Loc. I*A

/A                                 * Ash Springs
To Coal Valley

Zz               1^3D9

t <        /# ~~Hiko                  To Caliente                 Alm
Z         | . ~~P5ettroglyph

Springs                                                     Upper

e r                              ~~~~~~~~~~~Pahran-agat

Crysfal                                                   Lake    l
Springs\

@                         ~~~~~~~Lower  \
L9$                                   Pahranagat

,<                        ~~~~   ~   ~~~Lake  \SITE

9 X  =+Ash Springs                                         \VL-

\                                    ~~~~~~~~~~~~To Las Vegas

.~~~~~~~~~~A

0     i

0~~~~~~~~~0
cc ~ ~ ~   ~  ~~       -

34

Loc, 68

Lot.S

Loc. i

Loc. 3

Lot.I

Kb          p~~~~a

I u fe (approx.)

Fig. 2

35

in. hl,uhuiiUI Ilgpg I,lUhfllIlhIfII 1  llt I i

JL

<~~~~ vE t'6'^                                              A*b

I

C-.

*4$0*

I                                             V

g          ~~~Fig. 3       h

36

IV~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0

Seale

iLL t                                N

C           Fig.4       _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

37

,le Of Cliff fce  ,

I v          I        fE X
A'~~~~~~~~g

CL

Fig. 5

38

b     I   c

41~~       4"r     t

f

lmmm

i~ ~~~~~~~~Fg

.39

ON01-   1E,,     v             X

a  -  -

d.~~~~ .

-~~            ~~~~~~~~~~~~  I

IJ      ~   ~L           b ,

|  l  l  l  l  l  l ~ I   It F ig 7

a    --.is|                f  -

e~~~~~~~~~~

)I   I  I '1    Fig.I

40

UU~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'

EAges of

bH't boulder

Ir    -A

if~~c

L               * _.v1~

e~~~~~~~

f.          Fig. 8

a             4'

0  -,w

0~~~~

42

Oft~~~~~~~~~~~~~b

mm~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*-

43

4&_

L~~~~~~~~
,c
V,

]   ,          1bO-4

I           ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r-4

qE v~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~b

- -  - .A   1                   .,4~

44

AkA

(1~~~10

1/       5~~~~~~~~~~

SL
- Mt%~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

p_        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~04

45

t

C

VI~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -

>.  1Fi.  1

v~~~  (AP.v

46

-

I, ~   ,

e ~ ~~~ ~~~ Fig  14

0  boulder~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

outline. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ *  U **

47

*a1.

I     A

CL~

i    i~~~~~~~~~~

L~~~~~~

48

4 inches.                       -

c                                di

e

Fig. 16

I..                   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~49

*000~~~~~0

.00~~~~~~~

.0000~~~~~~~00

* .0600 * ~ ~ ~ ~~0.  00
* .000.00 ~ ~ ~ ~~~0  s

I * i.,b.,l,er

* ~ig  17  |             |*  .0
*  S *oe5 e  ____________

50

* ..e.0_0   .           '.

Fi .  18*

* *..O*1 S  U         0

o '
h a *eg

egg *ee*e*      S        0*

51
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Fowler, D. D. and F. W. Sharrock

1973     Survey and Test Excavations.   Appendix A (pp. 97-136) of Desert

Research Institute Publications in the Social Sciences No. 7.
University of Nevada, Reno and Las Vegas.

Galston, A. W.

1974     The Unscientific Method.   Natural History 83(3):18-24.

Gebhard, D.

1962-63 Rock Drawings in the Western United States. IPEK 20:46-54.

1969     The Rock Art of Dinwoody, Wyoming.   Art Galleries, University

of California at Santa Barbara.

Grant, C.

1965     The Rock Paintings of the Chumash.   University of California

Press.

Grant, C., J. W. Baird and J. K. Pringle

1968     Rock Drawings of the Coso Range.   Maturango Museum Publications

No. 4, China Lake, California.

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

1959     Great Basin Petroglyphs and Prehistoric Game Trails.    Science

129:904-905.

1962     Prehistoric Rock Art of Nevada and Eastern California.    Univer-

sity of California Press.
Heizer, R. F. and C. W. Clewlow

1973     Prehistoric Rock Art of California.    2 vols.  Ballena Press,

Ramona, California.

Hubbs, C. and R. Miller

1948     The Zoological Evidence.   Bulletin of the University of Utah,

Vol. 38, No. 20, pp. 17-166. Salt Lake City.

Levine, M. H.

1957     Prehistoric Art and Ideology.   American Anthropologist 59:949-

964.

52

Martineau, LaVan

1973     The Rocks Begin to Speak.   KC Publications, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Ritter, D. W.

1970     Sympathetic Magic of the Hunt as Suggested by Petroglyphs and

Pictographs of the Western United States. Valcamonica Symposium,
pp. 397-421. Capo di Ponte, Italy.
Rusco, M.

1973     Types of Anthropomorphic Figures in Great Basin Art.   Nevada

Archaeological Survey Reporter 7(2):4-17.

Schaafsma, P.

1971     The Rock Art of Utah.   Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeo-

logy and Ethnology, Vol. 65. Harvard University.

1972     Rock Art in New Mexico.   State Planning Office, Santa Fe.
Shutler, R.

1961     Lost City:Pueblo Grande de Nevada.   Nevada State Museum Papers

No. 5.

Shutler, R. and M. E. Shutler

1962     Archaeological Survey in Southern Nevada.   Nevada State Museum

Paper No. 7.

Townley, J.

1970     A Petroglyph Panel with Three Dimensions.   Nevada Archaeological

Survey Reporter 4:5-7.

Turner, C.

1963     Petrographs of the Glen Canyon Region.   Museum of Northern

Arizona, Bull. 38. Flagstaff.
Vinnicombe, P.

1972     Motivation in African Rock Art.   Antiquity 46:124-132.

von Werlhof, J. C.

1960     Petroglyph and Pictograph Sites in eastern California and south-

ern Nevada. Yearbook of the American Philosophical Society 1960:
575-579.

1965     Rock Art of Owens Valley, California.   University of California

Archaeological Survey, Report No. 65.   Berkeley.