Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-v5vhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-05T05:36:11.326Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A Re-Examination of the Dating Evidence for the Lake Mohave Artifact Assemblage

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2017

George W. Brainerd*
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles

Extract

The dating of the Lake Mohave artifact assemblage relative to the fossil beaches on which the material was found has been in dispute since Malcolm Rogers (1939) published a monograph disagreeing with several findings given in the original report (Campbells, Antevs, Amsden and Bode, 1937). Mr. Rogers' critique was never answered by the original authors, and his findings have been accepted consequently by most authors who have attempted summaries of the material (Martin, Quimby and Collier 1947, p. 437 and Fig. 122; Wormington 1949, pp. 84-87; Roberts 1951, p. 126). Rogers agreed with the Campbells that the great majority of the artifacts found (Rogers, p. 42, puts it at 95 per cent) are restricted to the surfaces of the fossil beaches. Rogers questioned, however, the Campbells' conclusion that human occupation was contemporaneous with times when the lake stood at the overflow level, which is that of the beaches. Rogers' most crucial evidence was given as follows: “There is splendid evidence that this condition did not prevail, because of the presence of a large encampment on the 937'-940' bay bar which extends directly across the outlet channel. Man could not have camped in this section during any period of overflow.” (Rogers 1939, p. 43). This “beach bar site” was previously reported by the Campbells. Rogers' statement, in contrast to Bode's original determination (Campbells et al., p. 108), implies that the bar actually blocks the old outlet, and thus that it, and its occupational evidence, must postdate the period during which the lake overflowed.

Type
Facts and Comments
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1953

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Antevs, Ernst 1952. Climatic History and the Antiquity of Man in California. In ℌSymposium of the Antiquity of Man in California.” University of California Archaeological Survey Report No. 16, pp. 2331. Berkeley.Google Scholar
Campbell, E. W., Campbell, W. H., Antevs, Ernst, Amsden, C. A., Barbieri, J. A. and Bode, F. D. 1937. The Archaeology of Pleistocene Lake Mohave. Southwest Museum Paper, No. 11. Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Martin, Paul S., Quimby, George I. and Collier, Donald 1947. Indians before Columbus. University of Chicago Press. Chicago.Google Scholar
Roberts, F. H. H. Jr. 1951. Early Man in California. In “The California Indians,”; Heizer, R. F. and Whipple, M. A., pp. 123129. University of California Press. Berkeley.Google Scholar
Rogers, Malcolm J. 1939. Early Lithic Industries of the Lower Basin of the Colorado River and Adjacent Desert Areas. San Diego Museum Paper, No. 3. San Diego.Google Scholar
Wormington, H. M. 1948. Ancient Man in North America. Denver Museum of Natural History, Popular Series No. 4. Denver.Google Scholar