PLATES

Fig. 2. Tie-twined matting technique.

Although none of the Spanish accounts lists the use of matting by the natives of Baja California, archaeological specimens of both the sewed and tie-twined types have been recovered from caves in the central region of the peninsula from Mulegé to Comondú (Massey and Tuohy, MS; Massey, MS 2). The tie-twined matting also occurs in the extreme southof the peninsula (Massey, MS 1). Mats are recorded as part of the household furnishings of most southern Californians. Mats ofJuncussp. are noted for the Mountain and Desert Diegueño. The Yuma do not use mats (Drucker, 1937, p. 21).

The use of tie-twined matting appears to be an old trait in the Desert Area and its cultures. It is known throughout the peninsula, where old traits were retained, and also in archaeological collections from various parts of the Great Basin and Southwest. A sampling of the literature reveals the following occurrences: Lovelock Cave (Loud and Harrington, 1929, pp. 56-60); Humboldt Cave (Heizer and Krieger, 1956, p. 57); Danger Cave (Jenningsetal., 1957, pp. 242-243); Promontory Point (Steward, 1937, p. 29); Hueco Area (Cosgrove, 1947, p. 113; see also p. 114 for various other Southwestern locations); the Guadalupe Mountain area (Ferdon, 1946, pp. 15-16); and portions of Texas (Jackson, 1937, p. 157).

Netting

Hairnets.—Two complete hairnets (139534a and b) and one fragment (139534c) were found on crania in the cave (pl. 16,a,c). All of these were tied with a single-element square-knot technique (fig. 3). Cordage is of the 2-ply Z-twist type with each single S-twisted. The cord is probably of agave fiber.

Fig. 3. Square-knot technique.

The two complete hairnets are begun with a center circle of discrete tied yarn. Ten large loops are cast onto this. In the next round, each of the large loops has three loops tied onto it with the continuous cord, making a total of 30 loops for the circumference of the net (fig. 4). The gauge of the succeeding 15 rows of knots is approximately 2.5 cm.

In order to gather the lower edge of the net for fitting purposes, the cord was doubled and two loops were gathered together and tied with the same square-knot technique (fig. 5).

The third net (c) has eleven loops cast onto the original circle; the technique of tying is the same, but the mesh gauge of 1 to 1.5 cm. is finer.

Fig. 4. Method of beginning hairnets and carrying nets.

Fig. 5. Detail of lower, fitted edge of hairnet.

Fig. 6. Detail of lower, gathered edge of carrying net.

Among the historic tribes the wearing of hairnets, both plain and decorated, was universal among the women of Baja California. Such usage among southern Californians was denied by all of Drucker’s informants (Drucker, 1937, p. 45). There appears to be no mention of them from the adjacent west coast of Mexico, but they are known archaeologically from the Great Basin. Loud and Harrington picture several from Lovelock Cave, but give no description of the knotting technique (1929, pl. 41). However, in their discussion of knots they mention that the “mesh knot” (weaver’s knot) was the most common, and the squareknot was little used (ibid., pp. 83-87). Actually the nets, as they appear in Loud and Harrington’s plate, are very similar to the Baja California specimens in being knotted rather than being made by the more frequently found coil-without-foundation technique.

Hairnets were also worn in ancient Peru. Some hairnets described by Singer from Pachacamac were constructed with square knots, but most of the 29 specimens she describes were made with the sheet-bend (fisherman’s) knot (Singer, 1936).

Hairnets of the square-knot construction from Bahía de Los Angeles pose, at the present time, an unanswerable question of origin and extrapeninsular distribution.

Carrying net.—One fragmentary net (139535a), the original size of which cannot be determined, is similar to the hairnets in construction, but probably was used for carrying. The bag is tied with the same element square knot; the mesh size is approximately 2.4 cm. Both ends of this net, however, are gathered together. The net beginning is a small circular piece of cord. Four loops are cast onto this; the number of working loops is increased to 16 in the next course by the method illustrated infigure 4. The square-knot tying begins with the next course.

At the lower end, the meshes are gathered together with a hitch (fig. 6). This may have been put through the loops at what would have been the top of the bag to hold it shut. This would serve as a supplementary tying cord rather than being part of the structure of the net.

This fragmentary net has one notably unique feature. Feathers, presumably decorative, were caught, not in the knots themselves, but between them (fig. 7). The knot used is identical to the “marline spike hitch” described by Graumont and Hensel (1946, p. 69; fig. 101; pl. 29). This type of knot—more properly called a hitch—has not been reported elsewhere among the methods of attaching feathers. As can be seen in the reconstruction, the feather serves to hold the hitch, yet if the cord were to be pulled tightly around it, the feather could be removed only with difficulty. It remains puzzling that the carrying net, rather than the hairnets, should be so decorated.

Fig. 7. Detail showing insertion of feathers in hitches of carrying net.

Turning to other archaeological examples of nets from the peninsula, we learn that specimens of square-knot netting have been found to the south in the central region from Mulegé to Comondú. Caves to the west of Mulegé have yielded two fragments of square-knot netting (Massey, MS 2). Other examples derive from Caguama and Metate caves between Comondú and Loreto. In Metate Cave there was a single complete carrying net (Massey and Tuohy, MS). Elsewhere on the peninsula little is known of them except for the southern Cape Region, where netting was in the distinct technique of lark’s-head knotting (Massey, MS 1).

On the ethnographic level, carrying nets were widely used by Indians of western North America from Canada to Mexico, and again in Central America. As part of this general distribution they were used throughout the peninsula (Driver and Massey, 1957, pp. 274, 276, map 78).

Among the Lower Californians nets were used for carrying suitable gathered products, and also, in the central part of the peninsula at least, for carrying infants. For the latter purpose two portage methods were in vogue: the net was suspended over the shoulders from a tump band across the forehead; or from the end of a pole held by one hand across the shoulder, as a “bindle.”

Feathered “Apron” or “Cape”

Even though this piece (139535b;pl. 17,a) is extremely fragmentary, it is one of the more interesting of the perishable artifacts. At present it measures about 25 cm. by 17.5 cm. Many of the tying cords and feathers have disappeared or are incomplete. The original bundles of bast fiber actually were probably little longer than in this fragment.

The method of making the article has been reconstructed as follows. The heavy “waist belt” cord is a bundle of unspun fibers and spun cord, 1.5 cm. in diameter. The origin of the spun cord is lost in the mass of material; it is probable that the cord itself was held by the wrapping cords from the bark units. The hanging bundles of shredded bark were doubled over this “waist belt” and wrapped with unspun fibers to make a rigid, tightly closed bundle. These fibers hold the feathers, which may once have covered the bundles completely for, on some, the wrapping covers the entire length. The length of these bundles varies from 13 to 17.5 cm. These bundles are held in place on the heavy cord by a wrapping cord of 2-ply Z-twisted agave, which frequently appears to cross the bundles and the heavy cord in a haphazard manner; feathers are wrapped onto the heavy cord by this means. Although now there is considerable rigidity introduced into the fibers by dirt, the mass of ties always prevented this from being a softly hanging piece.

To date no like specimens are known from the archaeology of the peninsula. We know of no similar articles in historic times in Baja California, nor to the north in southern California.

Human Hair “Cape”

The human hair “cape” from the Palmer Collection (139539; also 139538, 139550) is fragmentary, but sufficiently intact to provide complete informationon the technique of its construction and manufacture (pl. 17,b).

The hanks of human hair forming this garment are from 12.7 cm. to 27.5 cm. long with the majority falling in midrange. The hanks are about 6 mm. in diameter. Primarily, each bundle of hanks was held together by a light wrapping of single agave (?) fibers and some such adhesive material as pitch. In addition, these bundles are secondarily secured with fine 2-ply cord, which is 1 mm. in diameter, with a hard Z-twist. This fine cord also serves to tie each bundle to the main cord of suspension.

The bundles of hair were held together by the same tie-twining as in the matting (fig. 2). There is an overhand knot between each of the bundles. The twining cord itself is 2-ply, Z-twisted in a loose twist. This method served to fasten the bundles to the cord, space them, and to hold them closely. This tying consists of a basic cord and a wrapping cord. A third cord, which formed the wrapping of the individual bundles, is carried to the basic cord, wrapped around it, and in turn is wrapped by the whipping cord. This wrapping is not accomplished neatly; the garment—for all of this cord wrapping—is not a very strongly constructed article.

In the Palmer Collection there are broken hanks of human hair, undoubtedly parts of this specimen, which are catalogued separately (139538). Among these is a string ofOlivellabeads strung on 2-ply cord, and wrapped in with the tying cord of a hair bundle. Thus shell beads were probably part of the original garment. Other tied hanks of human hair (139550) were undoubtedly parts of the specimen.

There is no single item of native culture of Baja California so diagnostic or characteristic as mantles of human hair used by shamans. Few European chroniclers who had a chance to observe them failed to mention this article. However, none have appeared in any other reported archaeological excavations on the peninsula.

As part of the paraphernalia of the shaman, the cape or mask of human hair was indispensable from the Guaicura north to the Kiliwa and Western Diegueño. In all recorded cases the hair was obtained from relatives mourning the death of a recently deceased member of the family or from the dead themselves. Construction of the garments must have been in the hands of the shamans themselves, so secret were most aspects of the medicine-man’s lore.

Although the cultural and tribal identification of masks or capes of human hair with the shaman is general for the Peninsular Yumans (Cochimí), such capes were found as far south as the Guaicura in historic times (Baegert, 1942, p. 123). Both of the major sources for the historic ethnography of the Yuman-speaking peoples of central Baja California attest to the use of this device by native medicine-men (Venegas, 1944, I:95-96, 100; Clavigero, 1937, p. 114). For the area nearest Bahía de Los Angeles, the best description of the use of these garments is that of the 18th-century Dominican, Father Luis Sales, who speaks of the capes as follows (1794, pp. 76-77):

When all are gathered, ornamented with charcoal and yellow, the old man places himself in the center of the circle. Under his arm he has a doubled mat of rushes in which he hides the rain cape from thefiesta.[5]On another little stick he has the hair of the dead man suspended. He indicates silence, puts on the rain cape of the hair of the dead, and causes as much horror as when a bear appears. He plays a whistle and tells them that the dead man is coming; but, however much they look, they do not see him coming. Nevertheless they believe it. Then he shows them the little stick with the hair of the dead man, and tells them that he is there, that they see him—and they see nothing. However they give cries, they pull their hair, and make other ridiculous actions. Finally, relieved by crying, the old man comforts them. He puts a thousand questions to the head of hair, and he himself answers them to his liking.

This 18th-century description of Indians to the north of Bahía de Los Angeles, on the Frontera, has its exact counterpart in a 20th-century description of the ñiwey (“Talking with the Dead”) Ceremony of the Kiliwa (Meigs, 1939, pp. 50-57).

Tump Band

The tump band (139536) is made with the twining technique used so frequently in such constructions. Fragments of both ends are present, but the intervening central portion is missing so the original length of the specimen is not known. The largest section is 25 cm. long and 7.7 cm. wide (pl. 17,d).

The original warps were three heavy cords which were loosely Z-twisted of two plys of 2-ply cord; each 2-ply single is S-twisted. The fiber is probably of some species of agave. The outer two of the three heavy cords form the selvage cords. The center cord was split into its two component yarns, and forms the beginning of the inner warp threads. Two-ply cords were introduced rapidly to make a maximum of the 27 present at its greatest width. Introduction of the warp elements was accomplished very evenly, producing no distortion of the flat surface. Twining was done with the pitch up-to-the-right. The weft was also of 2-ply agave (?) cord.

The one peculiar feature of this twined band is the form of the selvage, which gives the appearance of a sewing running-stitch along the heavy outer cords.

It is extremely unlikely that this was a sling or belt. The band seems too rigid to have been used for either of these two purposes, and slings are not recorded historically from Baja California.

The only similar specimen know in the archaeology of the peninsula is a fragment of a tump band from the upper or historic level of Metate Cave near Comondú.[6]This fragment is identical with the tump bandfrom Bahía de Los Angeles in weave, selvage, and cordage. Even the count is similar: 9 warps and 15 wefts per inch for the Bahía de Los Angeles example, and 10 by 22 for the Metate Cave specimen. Either of these is much coarser than Basketmaker bands, like those from Segi Canyon with their 24 warps and wefts per inch (Guernsey, 1931, p. 9).

The tump band was used for portage with carrying nets among the historic Indians of central Baja California (see “Carrying Nets”). The modern Kiliwa of the north supported nets on the back by a band which passed across the forehead. At the forehead this band consisted of 20 “parallel cords” (Meigs, 1939, p. 38; twined or simple cords are not stipulated). Woven packstraps were used by all southern California Indians (Drucker, 1937, p. 21). Babies and general burdens were carried in nets supported by the forehead tumpline in the central and northern areas of the peninsula (Clavigero, 1937, p. 106).

Cotton Cloth

Since woven cotton (Gossypiumsp.) was unknown in aboriginal Baja California at the time of European contact, its provenience must be beyond the peninsula. Presumably this specimen is a piece of pre-Columbian trade goods from the mainland of Mexico, and so belongs in the cultural inventory of the cotton-weaving cultures of the Oasis Area.

The weave of this fragment (139537) is Plain (over-one-under-one) (pl. 17,c). The piece, which measures 25.5 cm. long (warp) by 30 cm. (weft), consists of one loomstring end and neither selvage. The warp is white cotton cord, 1 mm. in diameter, in a loosely twisted 2-ply Z-twist. The weft of the same material has a diameter of 2 mm. of single ply, very loosely Z-twist cord. This weft is about the equivalent of commercial slub with no tensile strength. The thread count of the cloth is virtually square (6 x 5 per cm.), although the greater diameter of the tightly beaten weft makes it the predominant feature of the textile.

The warp ends carry a decorative strengthening feature known to Southwestern textiles, both ancient and modern. Two whipping cords that are like the weft secure the end warp loops. They were structural and were probably inserted while the warp was being set up.

One side of the cloth has a whipped edge holding irregularly broken weft ends. This rough mending was accomplished with the usual native 2-ply cordage. Depth of the stitch into the material varies considerably—an indication of expedience rather than ornamentation.

Since cotton cloth and cotton are absent from the pre-Columbian archaeology and the historic ethnography of the peninsula, this specimen must have been obtained through trans-Gulf trade with mainland Mexico. The Seri of Tiburon Island and Sonora were probably the intermediary traders. These Indians are well aware of the peninsula opposite them to the west (Griffen, 1959).

Although the weave of this specimen is the simplest of all weaving techniques, it is lacking among other textile materials of Baja California, such as basketry and matting. The precise mainland derivation of this specimen must remain in doubt; all the tribes of Sonora—except the Seri—wove cotton (Driver and Massey, 1957, p. 216). Plain cotton cloth was extremely widely distributed in the prehistoric Oasis area, and dates at least from Pueblo I times in the American Southwest (Kent, 1957, p. 491).

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This small collection of archaeological materials has a marked diversity of types, with little duplication. Compared to similar artifacts from habitation caves, the specimens of the Palmer Collection are complete with the exception of the fragile garments and the netting.

There are few household goods of any variety. Most of the specimens are ornamental or have a ceremonial significance. A number of artifacts, specifically the tubular stone pipes, human hair cape, cane whistles, and the probable bull-roarer, were associated with shamans among the historic peoples of the peninsula. It is most likely that one of the burials was a shaman, who had been interred with his paraphernalia in this burial cave.

Most of the material from Bahía de Los Angeles can be duplicated from various sites in the Desert Area; however, a few have been recorded only in the archaeology or ethnography of Baja California. These include the human hair cape and the exclusive square-knot netting.

The majority of the artifacts and traits occur in the archaeological collections from Baja California and are mentioned in the ethnographic accounts for that region and for the north of the peninsula. Only the feathered cape and the specific type of bone awl, or “dagger,” are not recorded. This material bears little resemblance to the collections or ethnographic descriptions from the extreme south of the peninsula.

There is absolutely nothing in this collection and in the affiliation of its artifacts with cultural materials from central Baja California to support the contentions of Malcolm Rogers (1945, p. 191 passim). Without a doubt the Yumans of the peninsula entered long before the advent of pottery-making in the Colorado Desert region. Neither the Palmer Collection nor identical materials from historic levels in the central part of the peninsula can be explained as being due to a post-1450 invasion of Baja California by peoples representing the last phase of the Yuman sequence in southern California.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aveleyra-Arroyo de Anda, L., M. Maldonado-Koerdell, and P. Martínez del Río1956.La Cueva de La Candelaria. Tomo I. Mexico.Baegert, J. (Pedro Hendrichs, trans.)1942.Noticias de la Península Americana de California. Mexico.Clavigero, F. J. (S. E. Lake and A. A. Gray, trans., eds.)1937.The History of Lower California. Stanford.Cosgrove, C. B.1947.Caves of the Upper Gila and Hueco Areas in New Mexico and Texas. Pap. Peabody Mus.Amer. Archaeol. and Ethnol., Vol. XXIV, No. 2, Cambridge, Mass.Di Peso, C. C.1956.The Upper Pima of San Cayetano del Tumacacori.The Amerind Foundation Inc., No. 7. Dragoon, Arizona.1957.A Tubular Stone Pipe from Sonora. Amer. Antiquity, XXII(3):288-290. Salt Lake City.Driver, H. E., and W. C. Massey1957.Comparative Studies of North American Indians. Trans. Amer. Philos. Soc.,47(pt. 2):165-456. Philadelphia.Drucker, P.1937.Culture Element Distributions: V, Southern California. Univ. Calif. Publ. Anthro. Rec.,1(1):1-52. Berkeley.Ferdon, Jr., E. N.1946.An Excavation of Hermit’s Cave, New Mexico. School of American Research.Monograph No. 10. Univ. New Mexico Press. Albuquerque.Gifford, E. W.1940.Californian Bone Artifacts. Univ. Calif. Anthro. Rec., 3(2):153-238. Berkeley.1947.Californian Shell Artifacts. Univ. Calif. Anthro. Rec., 9(1):1-132. Berkeley.Graumont, R., and J. Hensel1946.Encyclopedia of Knots and Fancy Rope Work. New York.Griffen, W. B.1959.Notes on the Seri Indian Culture, Sonora, Mexico. Latin American MonographsSeries, No. 10. Univ. of Florida, Gainesville.Guernsey, S. J.1931.Explorations in Northeastern Arizona. Pap. Peabody Mus. Amer. Archaeol. andEthnol., Vol. XXII, No. 1. Cambridge, Mass.Guernsey, S. J., and A. V. Kidder1921.Basket-Maker Caves of Northeastern Arizona. Pap. Peabody Mus. Amer. Archaeol.and Ethnol., Vol. VIII. Cambridge, Mass.Haury, E.1950.The Stratigraphy and Archaeology of Ventana Cave, Arizona. Universities of Arizonaand New Mexico, Albuquerque.Heizer, R. F., and A. D. Krieger1956.The Archaeology of Humboldt Cave, Churchill County, Nevada. Univ. Calif.Publ. Amer. Arch, and Ethn., 47(1):1-190. Berkeley and Los Angeles.Hough, W.1914.Culture of the Ancient Pueblos of the Upper Gila River Region, New Mexicoand Arizona. U.S. Nat. Mus., Bull. 87. Washington, D.C.Jackson, A. T.1937.Exploration of Certain Sites in Culbertson County, Texas. Bull. Texas Archaeol. andPaleontol. Soc., 9:146-193. Abilene.Jennings, J. D.1957.Danger Cave. Mem. Soc. Amer. Archaeol., No. 14. Salt Lake City.Kent, K. P.1957.The Cultivation and Weaving of Cotton in the Prehistoric Southwestern UnitedStates. Trans. Amer. Philos. Soc., Vol. 47, Pt. 3. Philadelphia.Kidder, A. V., and S. J. Guernsey1919.Archaeological Explorations in Northeastern Arizona. Bur. Amer. Ethnol., Bull.65. Washington.Kissell, M. L.1916.Basketry of the Pima-Papago. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., Anthro. Pap., No. 17,pp. 115-264. New York.Kroeber, A. L.1931.The Seri. Southwest Mus. Pap., No. 6. Los Angeles.Loud, L. L., and M. R. Harrington1929.Lovelock Cave. Univ. Calif. Publ. Amer. Arch. and Ethn., 25:1-183. Berkeley.Martin, P. S., and J. B. Rinaldo, E. Bluhm, H. C. Cutler, R. Granger, Jr.1952.Mogollon Cultural Continuity and Change. The Stratigraphic Analysis of Tularosaand Cordova Caves. Fieldiana: Anthropology, Vol. 40. Chicago Mus. Nat. Hist. Chicago.Massey, W. C.1947.Brief Report on Archaeological Investigations in Baja California. Southwestern Jour.Anthro., 3(4):344-359. Albuquerque.1949.Tribes and Languages of Baja California. Southwestern Jour. Anthro., 5(3):272-307.Albuquerque.1957.The Dart-Thrower in Baja California. Davidson Jour. Anthro., 3(1):55-62. Seattle.MS 1.Culture History in the Cape Region of Baja California, Ph.D. diss. (1955), Univ. Calif.,Berkeley.MS 2.The Castaldí Archaeological Collection, Baja California.Massey, W. C., and D. TuohyMS.Caves of the Sierra de La Giganta.Meigs III, P.1939.The Kiliwa Indians of Lower California. Univ. Calif. Ibero-Americana: 15. Berkeley.Rogers, Malcolm1945.An Outline of Yuman Prehistory. Southwestern Jour. Anthro., 1(2):167-198. Albuquerque.Rogers, Captain Woodes1928.A Cruising Voyage Around the World (1712). New York.Sales, L.1794.Noticias de la Provincia de California. 3 vols. Valencia.Singer, E. W.1936.The Techniques of Certain Peruvian Hairnets. Revista del Museo Nacional, V(1):16-24.Lima, Peru.Steward, J. H.1937.Ancient Caves of the Great Salt Lake Region. Bur. Amer. Ethnol., Bull. 116. Washington,D.C.United States National Museum1889.Annual Report, 1888. Washington. (Cited as Annual Report, 1888.)Venegas, M.1944.Noticia de la California y de su Conquista (1757). 3 vols. Mexico.Wagner, H. R.1925.California Voyages: 1539-1541. San Francisco.

Aveleyra-Arroyo de Anda, L., M. Maldonado-Koerdell, and P. Martínez del Río1956.La Cueva de La Candelaria. Tomo I. Mexico.

Baegert, J. (Pedro Hendrichs, trans.)1942.Noticias de la Península Americana de California. Mexico.

Clavigero, F. J. (S. E. Lake and A. A. Gray, trans., eds.)1937.The History of Lower California. Stanford.

Cosgrove, C. B.1947.Caves of the Upper Gila and Hueco Areas in New Mexico and Texas. Pap. Peabody Mus.Amer. Archaeol. and Ethnol., Vol. XXIV, No. 2, Cambridge, Mass.

Di Peso, C. C.1956.The Upper Pima of San Cayetano del Tumacacori.The Amerind Foundation Inc., No. 7. Dragoon, Arizona.1957.A Tubular Stone Pipe from Sonora. Amer. Antiquity, XXII(3):288-290. Salt Lake City.

Driver, H. E., and W. C. Massey1957.Comparative Studies of North American Indians. Trans. Amer. Philos. Soc.,47(pt. 2):165-456. Philadelphia.

Drucker, P.1937.Culture Element Distributions: V, Southern California. Univ. Calif. Publ. Anthro. Rec.,1(1):1-52. Berkeley.

Ferdon, Jr., E. N.1946.An Excavation of Hermit’s Cave, New Mexico. School of American Research.Monograph No. 10. Univ. New Mexico Press. Albuquerque.

Gifford, E. W.1940.Californian Bone Artifacts. Univ. Calif. Anthro. Rec., 3(2):153-238. Berkeley.1947.Californian Shell Artifacts. Univ. Calif. Anthro. Rec., 9(1):1-132. Berkeley.

Graumont, R., and J. Hensel1946.Encyclopedia of Knots and Fancy Rope Work. New York.

Griffen, W. B.1959.Notes on the Seri Indian Culture, Sonora, Mexico. Latin American MonographsSeries, No. 10. Univ. of Florida, Gainesville.

Guernsey, S. J.1931.Explorations in Northeastern Arizona. Pap. Peabody Mus. Amer. Archaeol. andEthnol., Vol. XXII, No. 1. Cambridge, Mass.

Guernsey, S. J., and A. V. Kidder1921.Basket-Maker Caves of Northeastern Arizona. Pap. Peabody Mus. Amer. Archaeol.and Ethnol., Vol. VIII. Cambridge, Mass.

Haury, E.1950.The Stratigraphy and Archaeology of Ventana Cave, Arizona. Universities of Arizonaand New Mexico, Albuquerque.

Heizer, R. F., and A. D. Krieger1956.The Archaeology of Humboldt Cave, Churchill County, Nevada. Univ. Calif.Publ. Amer. Arch, and Ethn., 47(1):1-190. Berkeley and Los Angeles.

Hough, W.1914.Culture of the Ancient Pueblos of the Upper Gila River Region, New Mexicoand Arizona. U.S. Nat. Mus., Bull. 87. Washington, D.C.

Jackson, A. T.1937.Exploration of Certain Sites in Culbertson County, Texas. Bull. Texas Archaeol. andPaleontol. Soc., 9:146-193. Abilene.

Jennings, J. D.1957.Danger Cave. Mem. Soc. Amer. Archaeol., No. 14. Salt Lake City.

Kent, K. P.1957.The Cultivation and Weaving of Cotton in the Prehistoric Southwestern UnitedStates. Trans. Amer. Philos. Soc., Vol. 47, Pt. 3. Philadelphia.

Kidder, A. V., and S. J. Guernsey1919.Archaeological Explorations in Northeastern Arizona. Bur. Amer. Ethnol., Bull.65. Washington.

Kissell, M. L.1916.Basketry of the Pima-Papago. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., Anthro. Pap., No. 17,pp. 115-264. New York.

Kroeber, A. L.1931.The Seri. Southwest Mus. Pap., No. 6. Los Angeles.

Loud, L. L., and M. R. Harrington1929.Lovelock Cave. Univ. Calif. Publ. Amer. Arch. and Ethn., 25:1-183. Berkeley.

Martin, P. S., and J. B. Rinaldo, E. Bluhm, H. C. Cutler, R. Granger, Jr.1952.Mogollon Cultural Continuity and Change. The Stratigraphic Analysis of Tularosaand Cordova Caves. Fieldiana: Anthropology, Vol. 40. Chicago Mus. Nat. Hist. Chicago.

Massey, W. C.1947.Brief Report on Archaeological Investigations in Baja California. Southwestern Jour.Anthro., 3(4):344-359. Albuquerque.1949.Tribes and Languages of Baja California. Southwestern Jour. Anthro., 5(3):272-307.Albuquerque.1957.The Dart-Thrower in Baja California. Davidson Jour. Anthro., 3(1):55-62. Seattle.MS 1.Culture History in the Cape Region of Baja California, Ph.D. diss. (1955), Univ. Calif.,Berkeley.MS 2.The Castaldí Archaeological Collection, Baja California.

Massey, W. C., and D. TuohyMS.Caves of the Sierra de La Giganta.

Meigs III, P.1939.The Kiliwa Indians of Lower California. Univ. Calif. Ibero-Americana: 15. Berkeley.

Rogers, Malcolm1945.An Outline of Yuman Prehistory. Southwestern Jour. Anthro., 1(2):167-198. Albuquerque.

Rogers, Captain Woodes1928.A Cruising Voyage Around the World (1712). New York.

Sales, L.1794.Noticias de la Provincia de California. 3 vols. Valencia.

Singer, E. W.1936.The Techniques of Certain Peruvian Hairnets. Revista del Museo Nacional, V(1):16-24.Lima, Peru.

Steward, J. H.1937.Ancient Caves of the Great Salt Lake Region. Bur. Amer. Ethnol., Bull. 116. Washington,D.C.

United States National Museum1889.Annual Report, 1888. Washington. (Cited as Annual Report, 1888.)

Venegas, M.1944.Noticia de la California y de su Conquista (1757). 3 vols. Mexico.

Wagner, H. R.1925.California Voyages: 1539-1541. San Francisco.

EXPLANATION OF PLATES

PLATE 12

a.Bone awl or “dagger” (139589b), 16.5 cm. long, 2.2 cm. maximum width,b.Bone awl (139589a), 13.5 cm. long, 2.6 cm. maximum width.c.Worked pumice piece (139613), 8 cm. x 4 cm.d.Tubular stone pipe (139564), sandstone, 7.7 cm. long, 3.7 cm. diameter.e.Tubular stone pipe (139563), sandstone, 29.8 cm. long, 4.4 cm. diameter.

PLATE 13

a.Abalone (Haliotissp.) ornament (139552), 5.3 cm. long, 4.3 cm. wide.b.Fragmentary abalone (Haliotissp.) ornament (139553), 2.1 cm. present length, 3.9 cm. wide.c.Abalone (Haliotissp.) ornament (139551), 4.6 cm. x 4.8 cm.d.Olivellashell beads (139546), same scale as ornaments, with bases and spires ground.e.Olivellashell beads with only spires ground.f.Fragment of gypsum (139568).

PLATE 14

a.Spines ofViznagacactus (Echinocactuswislizeni) (139547), which have been straightened.b.Bone flaker (139556), over-all length, 12 cm.; wood, 11.2 cm. long; bone, 3.4 cm. long.c.Bone flaker (139557), over-all length, 13.1 cm.; wood, 11.5 cm. long; bone, 5.6 cm. long.d.Cord-wrapped stick (139558c), 17.3 cm. long.e.Cord-wrapped stick (139558b), 15.8 cm. long.f.Cord-wrapped cane (139558d), 10.3 cm. and 5.4 cm. long.g.Cord-wrapped hide (139548).

PLATE 15

a.Cane arrow or dart with sting-ray spine point (139587), total length of two pieces 92.5 cm.b.Two wooden fragments (139586), round in cross section; lengths 58 cm. and 56.5 cm.c.Two sticks lashed together (139585a), total length 50 cm.d.Cord-wrapped stick (139558a), length 22 cm.e.Wooden piece (139559), length 30.5 cm., diameter 8 mm.f.Tapered wooden piece (139560), length 38 cm.g.Cane whistle (139588b), length 13.5 cm., maximum diameter 1.3 cm.h.Cane whistle (139588a), length 22 cm., maximum diameter 1.7 cm.i.Bull-roarer (?) (139565), length 23.5 cm., diameter 5.1 cm., thickness 6 mm.

PLATE 16

a.Side view of hairnet (139534a).b.Cord wrapping on piece of accordion-pleated skin (139555).c.Top view of hairnet (139534a).d.Fragment of sewed rush matting (139544), about 50 cm. x 21 cm.

PLATE 17

a.Feathered “apron” or “cape” (139535b), 25 cm. x 17.5 cm.b.Human hair “cape” (139539), hanks of hair about 6 mm. in diameter, lengths varying from 12.7 cm. to 27.5 cm.c.Cotton cloth (139537), warp 25.5 cm., weft 30 cm.d.Tump band (139536), largest section 25 cm. long, 7.7 cm. wide.

PLATE 18

a.Rim sherd (139614b).b.Reconstruction of pot, diameter 27 cm., height 17 cm., thickness about 9 mm.

PLATE 12. STONE AND BONE ARTIFACTS

PLATE 13. SHELL AND STONE ARTIFACTS

PLATE 14. VEGETABLE AND BONE ARTIFACTS

PLATE 15. WOODEN ARTIFACTS

PLATE 16. NETTING, CORDAGE, AND MATTING

PLATE 17. FEATHERED APRON; HUMAN HAIR CAPE;COTTON CLOTH; TUMP BAND

PLATE 18. MIDDEN POTSHERD ARTIFACTS

FOOTNOTES:[1]Numbers throughout this paper refer to catalogue numbers of the United States National Museum unless otherwise specified.[2]This specimen (3-10308) is in the University of California Robert H. Lowie Museum of Anthropology, Berkeley. Location is from field notes, Massey, 1946.[3]Identifications were made by Dr. Herbert Mason and Miss Annetta Carter, University of California Herbarium.[4]He lists Tularosa Cave (Hough, 1914, p. 87, fig. 178) and Segi Canyon (Guernsey, 1931, pl. 58a).[5]Sales, 1794. p. 69. In this, his first reference to the cape of human hair in use at another ceremony, Sales says, “The old man makes something like a rain cape from the hair of the dead.”[6]University of California. Robert H. Lowie Museum of Anthropology, specimen 3-13586.

[1]Numbers throughout this paper refer to catalogue numbers of the United States National Museum unless otherwise specified.

[2]This specimen (3-10308) is in the University of California Robert H. Lowie Museum of Anthropology, Berkeley. Location is from field notes, Massey, 1946.

[3]Identifications were made by Dr. Herbert Mason and Miss Annetta Carter, University of California Herbarium.

[4]He lists Tularosa Cave (Hough, 1914, p. 87, fig. 178) and Segi Canyon (Guernsey, 1931, pl. 58a).

[5]Sales, 1794. p. 69. In this, his first reference to the cape of human hair in use at another ceremony, Sales says, “The old man makes something like a rain cape from the hair of the dead.”

[6]University of California. Robert H. Lowie Museum of Anthropology, specimen 3-13586.

Back to Index Next